< < <
Date Index > > > |
Fw: Armchair theorizing and scholarship on wsn by Daniel Pinéu 13 March 2002 15:28 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
Fellow listers,
this was supposed to have been sent last night to the list, as
well as to Adam Starr. I'm forwarding it now.
Cheers
From: Daniel Pinéu
To: Adam Starr
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: Armchair theorizing and scholarship on wsn > I'm glad to see that you some of you are
passionate to
> defend your position in acadedmia. I knew as i sat > down at my computer today, i was about to be blasted. > The debate is refreshing, although I think some you > took my comments a little too personally and have > apparently been insulted by my suggestion that > academia is out of touch with the world. May I say > that your comments are a credit to World Systems > Theory. Perhaps you should also realize that your > responses may actually alter the debate of this forum > providing more focuss to the question at hand, "What > is World Systems Theory?" Finally, some discussion of substance on WS
theory. I am most thankful to Adam for his comments, both privately and on the
list, and the opportunity that they give us all for a constructive dialogue on
these topics. First of all, I'd like to state that I currently hold no academic
position. I am no more than a lowly graduate - hopefully on his way to be
accepted at Aberystwyth for a Masters though. So, I must say I didn't take any
of the comments personally (and why should I, or for that matter any of the
listers, since there was no ad hominem). But I do have a problem with
the assumption that "academia [generally] is out of touch with the world". Some
of it is, and irretrieveably so, but on this case, like in most others, the
world is not black & white, but rather a complex grayscale.
> 1.) We have all come to this forum because
we believe
> that to some degree there is a World System of > society that may be studied through out history. > Sociology, history, political science, economics and > geography may be placed under one umbrella if our > assumptions of this system are correct. I would tend to agree with the first assumption,
and show some more skepticism on the second. Wallerstein, on his clever and
provocative "Unthinking Social Science", does indeed advance the idea that the
social sciences are 19th centuries artificially created intellectual
"categories", according to the bourgeois' needs of representation of the wolrd,
and of knowledge about it. In that work and elsewhere, he has been arguing for
some sort of more unified macro-sociologico-historical discipline. Personally, I
am not such a big fan of the idea. While I do advocate - and have always sought
- a theoretically rich and multi-disciplinary approach to any given social
phenomenum, some degree of functional separation and specialization seems
necessary, no matter how artificial it is. Obviously, the lines are blurry when
it comes to clear-cut frontier lines between the different social sciences,
precisely because such faultlines are only the product of the human mind. Yes,
but so is everything else. We should not fall into a fragmentary epistemological
abyss that focuses ous more and more on the trees (and the branches, and the
leaves) but less on the forest, but I would also advise caution regarding the
opposite danger, some sort of pan-wholism. At the risk of social science
becoming an incommensurable blur.
> 2.) As Gunder Frank has pointed out (in
numerous
> books), that neo-liberalism has contributed to the > "development of underdevelopment" through out the > poorest nations of the world. The capitalist system > that we engage in today has its origins of some five > thousand years ago. That remains a fundamental rift within
World(-)Systems Theory (aaah, the simplifying beauty of using just WS to
outskirt this discussion!). While AG Frank's position on the "development of
underdevelopment" remains largely a consensual topic, his definition of a World
(no hyffen) System dating back at least 5000 years frontally clashes with
Wallerstein's original and prior hypothesis (more Braudelian, perhaps?) of
World-Systems. I must admit I find the discussion quite engaging intellectually
- even if, as Elson Boles posited recently, it might well be the seed for the
unraveling of WS Theory (then again, it may not... my own field, International
Relations, has no shortage of "incommensurable paradigms", and it still manages
to survive) - although I think that Frank & Gill's work largely moves
discussion onto a whole new board, by their different (and broader) definition
of "capital" and of accumulation of the same as a central feature. So, again yes
and no, Adam.
> 3.) The current international capitalist
mode of
> production is non-sustainable. There is undisputable > evidence of this provided by environmental agencies > and research centres through out the world. Even the > evironmental report created by NAFTA state this. Hmmm... While I would easily agree with you on
this, there is this nagging question at the back of my mind that somehow slipped
down to my fingers and made its way to this email. The zillion dollar question:
and the "current international capitalist mode of production" is ...? Is current
what Marx defined as the "current capitalist mode of production" (19th cent.)?
Is it really international, or global (and no, I don't think this is purely
semantics)? Anybody, humour me on this one?
> 4.) Wallerstein himself acknowledges that
there are
> critics of World Systems Theory as it may be too broad > and extensive. How can one theory explain the history > of the world? BINGO! Maybe we should send this to some of the
guys doing super-string theory... THEY are claiming to have "the big answer". On
the lighter side of this, I can never forget that chapter on the Hitchhyker's
Guide to the Galaxy, where two beings plug a question into the super-dupper
computer. In the end, the amswer to everything, to all the mysteries of the
Universe was... 42 [doing this from memory, so it could be any other 2-digit
number]. The more general and sweeping a theory is is, the more it purports to
explain, the more it will have to generalize, to simplify. You _can_ explain the
entire Industrial Revolution in one book... But chances are you have left too
much behind for it to be more than simply a grain of sand on a large
intellectual beach. WS Theory is great at maro-historical and macro-social
trends... But it only goes SO FAR, it's not an infallible matrix, and treating
it like such would not make justice to the intellect of its creators (or to the
wonderful complexity of this world we live in). Good point there
Adam.
> Based on the above, may I suggest opening
the door
> between 'theory' and 'world'. (...) > I say, what is the point to all this theory
if we
> can't at least attempt to apply what we know. We have > the facts, we have the ideology, and I know we have > the brains. I say let us consider practical options > and policies such as a Marshall Plan for Africa > suggested several weeks ago or "Integral Ecology" as > coined by Ken Wilbur. Lets get off the armchair and > challenge our selves. The door between "theory" and the world has
never been closed, and it never could be. Theory, ultimately, either reflects a
vision of the surrounding world (either trying to understand it, or to explain
it), or it seeks to change to world into that vision. Or both. What may happen
is that different theories (and theorists) may overlap differently with the
world around them. I'm all for deriving creative, policy-sound outcomes from
theoretical, scholarly production. But Adam, we DON'T have the facts... At least
not all of them. (As for the brains, I hope the rest of the world is better
endowed than me, as you can derive from my ramblings on this list). Practical
options are good, indeed essential. But i still feel that scholars shouldn't be
the ones to formulate them, they should rather inform the policy-makers through
their intellectual production. Let's NOT get off the armchair and challenge
OTHERS: through education, let's challenge tomorrow's scholars, tomorrows
policy-makers, tomorrow's policy-receivers; through publications and public
engagement, let's challenge today's decision-makers. Heck, let's get off the
armcahir alright and take long walks together. Maybe it works
better than have everybody crowding everybody else's turf.
> I joined this
discussion group because I specifically
> wanted to read the insights Gunder Frank and > Wallerstein. Do you not think these men have a > creative vision of the world; where they would like to > see humanity ascend to? If my comments continue to > upset some of you, then I guess I'm in the wrong > forum. Does anyone know where I should go? Perhaps Dr. > David Smith or Daniel Pineu might have a suggestion. Well, if you came for Wallerstein or Frank's
insights, you will have some trouble finding them here. Which is something that
somehow keeps bothering me, and making me wonder about the sate of affairs on
the list, as I have said earlier. (Same goes for Chase-Dunn, Arrighi, et alia).
As for humanity "ascending"... I am not not sure we are "ascending" or
"descending" anywhere, and I'm not sure we are supposed to. The Enlightenment
notion that history (as Hegel understood it) progresses or
goes somewhere has always bothered me. History is a collection
of facts. We get faint traces of (some of) those fact. And WE "identify"
(construct?) the trends. It's called... tah dah... social science. But that is a
whole different story, and I'm afraid I have bothered the listers too much at
this point. Not to mention I need at least a cople of hours' sleep. Sorry for
the fragmentary and probably cryptic nature of my comments. Adam, speaking for
myself, your comments are more than welcome, especially if they are always as
interesting as these. As for being in the wrong forum... hmm... I once had that
feeling. I have no suggestions on where to go but OUT (although I wouldn't
advise it), but I have found out that generous usage of the DEL button is
quite effective in most lists.
Hope to hear more on this from the
rest.
Cheers from a rainy Lisbon,
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 > > > |