< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: Armchair theorizing and scholarship on wsn by Daniel Pineu 12 March 2002 15:53 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
Just a quick reaction to the thread about "the Islamic State" and the turn it just took. First of all, I must state that throughout my (short) life and education, I've always realized the importance of "knowing by living/doing", as a necessary complement to learning tools such as books. And that perception has deepened since I started to travel extensively. Galileo called it learning directly "from the great book of the universe". That said, my two cents on this: World-systems theory is, as its name plainly indicates, a THEORY. I don't want to bog this down into what theories are and how they are perceived (although it could prove useful, especially the explaining/understanding distinction), but it would be well to remember that WS is an intellectual construct of scholars. Based on a vision and an experience of reality by the "founding fathers" such as Wallerstein, Gunder-Frank and Arrighi, and aiming at societal development, but a theoretical construct nonetheless. And this list, as far as I see it, is a place for intellectual exchange on thath THEORY. Now critiques have surfaced that this forum is too academic, and that academics somehow are less in touch with the realities they study than non-academics. I'd say that is pretty debatable. Who can make such assumptions, and do they have any general validity? Let's say I post about Bolivia's paradigmatic position as a peripheral country. Taking the aforementioned oppinion into account, some could then ask what does a Pol Sci/IR graduate from Lisbon know about that. Could those people know that he has travelled the country extensively? That he has friends there? That he has lived there for almost two months? That he is fluent in Spanish? That he has experienced first-hand the inequality of the second poorest country of South America? Could we really (and realistically) expect them to? And, more importantly, why would that confer me any more authority than a Chinese scholar that has been on the subject for 20 years but has never left his country? This whole "academia vs the street-wise" debate feels rather pointless and immature to me... (and yes, this is a non-academic statement) Adam Starr apparently does not understand that transformation of social realities is achieved no less effectively (or with less merit) through analysis, and education than it is by direct action "on the field" - althought it takes much longer. Fighting inequality is not done exclusively (or better) by standing besides the world's poorest. Changing the research agenda, raising public awareness of the problem, changing young people's perceptions through education and changing decision-makers perspectives through publication are equally essential to fighting poverty/inequality/development (or AIDS, deforestation, whale-hunting, etc). IF that is your goal. But I think the current discussion points to something deeper... I feel it is symptomatic that a paper such as the one posted recently by Elson Boles, one that deals with the very core, with the ontology and epistemology of WS was left virtually untouched by the listers, while a discussion of the Israelo-Palestinian question in more or less bright ideological shades has been kept lively at all times. I feel it is very symptomatic that this list has seen a huge ammount of non-scholarly, non-academic surge of opinions about Sep. 11th, but for the past 6 months, hardly a single discussion of an article from the Journal os World-Systems Research. As Jane Shahi says, the most interesting stuff on this list is quite literally what is left unsaid. I have already complained, in the past, about the seemingly unclear nature of the list. Is this a primarily scholarly, or a non-scholarly list? Is this list about world-systems theory, or about comparative historical sociology, more generally? Is it a place for informed discussion of world-systems theory, or a rally point for the ideologically-coloured discussion of current affairs? Why are we seemingly more interested in discussing who is right in a conflict where everybody is wrong, rather than to what extent WST applies to the analysis of that conflict? Why have we not witnessed, for so long, a single discussion about possible upcoming changes in the structure of the core and of the periphery? About the changing nature of the hegemon at the core? Has anyone ever wondered why are contributions by Gunder Frank, Chase-Dunn, Wallerstein, Arrighi so incredibly sparse and "thin" on this list, supposedly a forum about their brain-child? Humour, anedoctes, personal experience, hard data, news, current affairs, calls to arms and even some occasional rambling CAN be constructive, and can be a useful complement to WST. I just wouldn't like to watch it become - and that appears to be the trend - the BULK of this listserv's content. Am I the only one to think that way? Best, Daniel Pinéu danielfrp@hotmail.com BA (Hons.) Political Science & International Relations Universidade Nova de Lisboa
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |