Re: questions of theory, history and episteme

In response: firstly the question of 'epistemological retreat' w.r.t. to 
Wallerstein.  I think Wallerstein's contributions have less to do with 
'retreat', epistemological or otherwise, and more with opening up 
controversial spaces - unthinking social sciences is surely one of 
those spaces, critiquing sharply,in short, the bizarre nature of the 
disciplinary boundaries, and in the process allowing social 
scientists more space to problematize and circumvent such 
disciplinary restrictions.  So epistemological innovations rather 
than epistemologica retreat!

Regarding your comment on 'theories', here is my quick response. 
A theory is a means of explanation, if it is a 'good' theory some of 
the questions it will raise in the course of the explanation it offers 
will be interesting and provocative ones.  Theories are not frozen 
constructs produced by an abstraction of the mind: I am thinking 
here also of the introduction in Marx's Grundrisse, the discussion 
there of the relation between the abstract and the concrete.  'The 
concrete is the concrete because it is the concentration of many 
determinations, unity of the diverse'. And one would like to start 
from there, the concrete in all its overdetermined present-ness.   
But in the method that Marx advocates, one's journey is surely two-
fold: from concrete to abstract and then a return journey, from 
abstract to concrete.  Theory is embedded in this method of 
approach (in my understanding).  And theory in so far as it takes 
its raw material from history, is also historical. But theory also 
serves to predict: and surely there are predictions about the future 
trajectory of the world system in the different works of Arrighi/Silver, 
Amin, Frank and Wallerstein (and Chase Dunn), and it is these 
predictions, based upon historical studies of the past five hundred 
or five thousand years, that are of interest.  And one of the 
predictions of interest, for me, is the rise of East Asia (Arrighi).  
What is more of interest - for me - are the consequences of this 
'rise' for the poor and the marginal peoples in that region and in 
South Asia, as well as the contemporary effects of the 'cultural 
turn' in so far as it renders less visible the workings of the market.  

My question: how may theory come to terms with the effects of the 
radical destitution that capitalism in its 'globalized' form is 
circulating in the periphery (and this applies to the peoples of China 
as well) with a determination and purpose that is radically 
unsettling?  Theory is empty in so far as it merely comprehends.

Trichur K. Ganesh.


Date sent:              Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:18:26 -0700 (MST)
From:                   Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
To:                     Boris Stremlin <bc70219@binghamton.edu>
Copies to:              world system network <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject:                Re: "rise of china" and wst

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Boris Stremlin wrote:

> The bigger issue, however, is (as always) the (mis)conceptualization of
> WST as a positivist theory.  Of course, the Owl of Minerva business
> applies to it as much as to any other theoretical framework.  In this
> case, however, we have Wallerstein's explicit statement that we are in a
> period of systemic transition, when traditional rules no longer apply, and
> free choice dominates over established structures (he makes this point
> repeatedly, e.g. in  _Utopistics_).  This means that past precedents of
> hegemonic transitions may be largely useless in elucidating (much less
> predicting) the outcome of the current transition (though Wallerstein
> himself sometimes forgets this in practice).


Personally I find the recent work of Chase-Dunn and his various
collaborators much more useful than Wallerstein's epistemological retreat
(ie, "rethinking everything" and in the meantime not knowing anything,
turning to Prigogene's "dissipative structures," etc).

Of course it goes without saying that we should be pursuing an
understanding of reality, not just dogmatically following the thinking of
any particular individual.

And, relevant to Warren's comments as well, if theories don't help us
understand likely future trajectories, but are only good for post hoc
explanations (interpretations?), then I'm not interested in them.

RH