Two faces of the future of the world-system

Dear Network,

Boris' essay (Re: Reflections) discloses an important issue about how we
discuss the question of the future of the world-system, namely that there
are two standpoints from which the matter must be considered.

The first is to explore what direction the world-system might take by
analyzing its historical patterns of development in terms of its structural
constants, cyclical processes, and secular trends. The various issues
surrounding the idea of East Asia as the rising hegemon, as Boris discussed
vis-a-vis Giovanni Arrighi's paper, fit into this category. 

The second is to respond to the challenge that Immanuel Wallerstein poses
in "Utopistics" by grappling with the questions, "what kind of world do we
in fact want; and by what means, or paths, are we most likely to get
there?"[p.65]. This is the contemporary agency issue - the "what is to be
done?" question for our generation. Ideas such as building a movement for
global democracy, establishing a World Party, promoting market socialism,
etc., as espoused by Wagar, Boswell, Chase-Dunn, and others, fall into this
sphere.

Of course these two points of view are closely related, and whatever
strategies and courses of action are proposed must take into account the
analysis of the direction the world-system is heading. I think this is the
process referred to in Utopistics by, "the serious assessment of historical
alternatives, the exercise of our judgement regarding the substantive
rationality of possible alternative historical systems."

World-system analysis has focused most of its attention on the first of
these viewpoints over the past 25 years, and for good reason: The
groundwork for understanding how the system works had to be laid before any
serious attention could be given to making plans for changing it. But the
past 25 years has produced a good foundation of knowledge.  Therefore, if
we are indeed entering a period of systemic chaos, leading to bifurcation,
and if the instability of the world-system is becoming such that relatively
small perturbations can have an inordinate impact on the system's ability
to return to equilibrium (i.e., that organized actions by people can have
more of an impact on the system than ever), as Wallerstein contends, then
it seems to me that we have an historical imperative to analyze the
world-system from both of these perspectives.

-Pat