Re: Ethnic Hegemony and World-System

        On the subject of the "advancement of the human agenda,"
Wallerstein is very clearly in favor of such advancement, which he has
done much to define, but you're missing the distinction between the
radical and liberal images of that agenda.  Liberals promote education and
some of the basic civil liberties in order to have a working class capable
of maximum productivity in the world-economy.  More to the point, they are
the children of the Enlightenment who have by and large run the Western
world for the past couple of centuries.  Radicals have won power only
briefly, if at all, and only here and there.  Liberals have articulated an
ideological defense of capitalism, and are entirely beholden to it.  They
have most of the bucks and most of the battalions.  

        So I strongly object to the notion that the "human agenda" has
been captured by or is a creature of the liberal intelligentsia or the
capitalist power elite.  To my mind, they do not speak for humanity, but
rather for a self-aggrandizing bourgeoisie that, in its struggle with
landed aristocrats and royal dynasties, made use of some of the key values
of the Enlightenment to depose their predecessors and justify their grab
of power.  In my view, the Enlightenment of the Right was a perversion of
the fundamental insights of the Enlightenment, most particularly in regard
to the principle of freedom of enterprise.  That principle is fine with
me, so long as it means what it says and does not result in the negation
of the freedom of enterprise of others.  A small business of three or four
working proprietors, a working man's right to contract with others to form
a producers' co-op, and the like, none of this turns me off.  In any 
event, the doctrine of the unlimited right of entrepreneurs to accumulate
capital contradicts virtually every other principle of the Enlightenment.

        Warren

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, [iso-8859-1] Daniel Pinéu wrote:

> The question of ethnic hegemony in the world-system is a very interesting 
>one, and, as warren wagar puts it, a multilayered one as well.
> 
> One interesting look into this issue can be found in Wallerstein's book 
>"Unthinking Social Sciences" (1991), chap. 6 "The Myrdal Legacy: Racism and 
>Underdevelopment as Dilemmas" [pp. 80-103].
> 
> Wallerstein analyses how racism (as distinct from xenophobia) is but  a 
>manifestation of "ethnic hegemony", which in turn helps to perpetuate the 
>underdevelopment of peripheral areas and human groups. Unlike Myrdal, who saw 
>these two as (interconnected) solvable dillemas withing the political economy 
>of the world system, W. asserts that they are, on the contrary, structural 
>features and defining characteristics of the modern world system.
> 
> He goes on to show that these roles vary greatly according to hegemonic 
>shifts, that whole groups of people are either "turned on" or "turned off" by 
>the dominant (hegemoic) group in the world economy, and that socialization 
>helps maintain these roles and their subsequent levels of (under)development - 
>what he calls the class-ethnic understrata.
> 
> As I see it, it is a very interesting analysis - though not one without 
>problems of detail. Wallerstein has pretty much come up with a theory of the 
>circulation of elites (on the lines of Pareto), but based on ethnicity 
>worldwide, rather than class/status within national units. Or, as he puts it, 
>a way to keep people in ]the world economy] while keeping them out [of core 
>position].
> 
> So, to answer Gernot Kohler on the light of this theory, polarization of 
>income and capital accumulation does occur mainly along "ethnic" lines. As for 
>your propostion of historical empires and world systems possesing "ethnic 
>hegemony" but not capitalism... Well, on the one hand, that's going back to 
>the Wallerstein-Frank&Gills debate on the origins of capitalism. On the other 
>hand, if we accept Amin's typification of those historical systems as 
>tributary, it follows that those paying (the heavier) tribute were primarily 
>of "non-core ethnicities".
> 
> Warren, as to the advancement of the human agenda, Wallerstein clearly treats 
>it as a very useful and effective way of controlling elite circulation within 
>the world economy. That is, by advocating education today, we pstpone 
>development for tomorrow. This is not to say that there are no benefits for 
>the understrata to be derived from the furthering of the human agenda. It just 
>states that the human agenda very rarely results in effectively raising levels 
>of income/accumulation per capita in the ethnic understrata. They are equal, 
>democratic, respected, educated and developing. But never developed. They are 
>kept out of the core...
> 
> Well, I hope this has helped shed some light on the issue. I hope those 
>interested on the issue will refer to Wallerstein's book, and I hope the issue 
>will continue to be debated over the list.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Daniel Pinéu
> danielfrp@hotmail.com
> 
> undergrad Pol Sci & International Relations
> Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
>