< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: Frank as a world-systemist? by Boris Stremlin 20 March 2002 05:32 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Elson Boles wrote: > > It is identical except for the one (key) thing - the Weltanschauung of the > > "endless accumulation of capital". For Frank, this represents a mere > > ideological byproduct of the system's functioning. For Wallerstein (as > > Frank astutely points out), it represents the crucial element of the > > social construction which allows the system to function. That amounts to > > a huge difference, and one which is impossible to get at simply by > > applying an "empirical" measurement of "significance", because the > > significance is itself socially constructed. > > I agree with the assessment, but not the conclusion. If the spread of an > ideology (e.g. national developmentalism) is part and parcel of a common > socially constructed context (e.g. an interstate system) then it is > empirical, because it is observed, and it is significant because it explains > common behaviors and processes. As to what I mean by "significant," see my > response to your comments below. Of course it's empirical. All I'm saying is that the empirical work of locating, measuring, comparing, etc. is impossible without/always goes along with theoretical work of specifying the criteria which we use in our judgments, and any significance is always such in light of theoretical construction. > > To put > > it in other words, the crux of the issue is the "naturalization" of our > > units of analysis - the assumption that the TimeSpace created is identical > > in every instance with a physico-geographic TimeSpace. This is the > > assumption Frank makes with respect to the 5,000 year system, and, as you > > note in your paper, Wallerstein in effect makes with his 500-year one. > > Not everything "within" the system in the physico-geographic sense is > > explicable in terms of the proposed unit of analysis. > > I think I agree, but more clarity is in order. What is the difference > between a naturalized TimeSpace and a physicio-geographic TimeSpace? Are > not both social constructs? And if so, how do you tell them apart? What > makes one more "valid" (convincing) than the other? It's not a difference in kind. What I called a "naturalized" TimeSpace is not another timespace like a physico-geographic one (e.g.); it is simply any TimeSpace which is assumed to exist objectively, without theoretical construction. [SNIP] > > Moreover, its > > significance is also underlined in the amount of fruitful research it has > > generated over the last decade on interlinkage and interdependence of > > (Afro-)Eurasia. If it had been deemed insignificant from the start, it > > would have never been done, and we would not have the benefit of even > > arguing about it. > > I never used the term "insignificant" which has different connotations. > Also, you're equivocating on the meaning of "significance" i.e. as important > (for whatever personal reason) vs. as decisive in explanation of change and > open to debate I don't think so. If some kinds of connections are said not to be decisive, why bother studying them? And unless you study them, they will never become decisive. > > Not only do I not agree with this, but it seems to me your own paper > > militates against such a judgment as well. If every system is open, then > > every system also breaks down somewhere, in some socially constructed > > TimeSpace. Where what are usually referred to as antisystemic movements > > succeed in articulating some sort of alternative, the system has broken > > down, perhaps not for ever (usually not, in fact), but at least for a > > time. > > I think you're conflating systemic chaos with my conception that > developments are significantly related within the same overarching or > inclusive process(es). No, I'm just trying to not to naturalize the system and it's functioning with respect to TimeSpaces where it seems (empirically) to not be significant enough. > > > Regarding Frank's unit, he of course says yes, the developments are > > > interconnected, while Wallerstein says no they're not. > > > > Actually, Wallerstein says that he accepts Frank's explanation as "a > > fairly initial and partial outline of what had been happening in the world > > between 8000 BC (or so) up to 1500 AD" and he even tentatively accepts the > > existence of common economic rhythms within the entity which Frank calls a > > system (pp.293-4 in _The World System: 500 years or 5000?_, ed. Frank and > > Gills, 1993, Routledge). If you say something has common rhythms, it > > certainly sounds like you accept the fact that it's interconnected. He > > does not call it a system because he, like you, naturalizes the criteria > > of systematicity, and accepts their validity as given for all Timespaces. > > First, you misread/misinterpret me. Second, in my reading, Wallerstein is > saying is that some (not all) world-economies may have had common rhythms if > because they were linked to each other or commonly affected by a > world-empire(s). That reading is open to question, and so we might ask > Wallerstein himself, if it's an issue worth bothering him with. OK. > > > > What are the criteria of systematicity you use to make this judgment? Do > > they apply to all systems? > > It is not a criteria but a judgment. Criteria, as I use it, refers to > binding and bounding processes. The judgment is whether one can demonstrate > that developments here and there are caused by their mutual interaction. > Example, in "Three Paths of National Development in 16th Century Europe" > Wallerstein summarizes some of his findings in M W-S, and tersely explains > how developments defined, and were the outcome of the integration of, > Southern, Western, and Eastern Europe. I think he demonstrates significant > mutual causality. The criteria he uses to make that demonstration is his > analysis of a division of labor. I strongly suspect that this criteria will > not be applicable to all historical social systems, though I of course > cannot demonstrate this presumption. However, I would agree that certainly > not everything in Europe can be explained by the process of their mutual > interaction. There are no doubt developments in and outside the "external > arena" that explain *some* developments in Europe. By definition, such > processes do not explain most of what happens within the system most of the > time. There may be decisive, momentary, "one-way" impacts from "outside." > But these are not systemic. If they were, then they should be considered as > part of the system. That sounds tautological to me. Any attempt to come up with a system which explains everything (even qualified as "as much as possible over the long term" or "the decisively important things") generally succeeds only in foreclosing debate, ruling things out a priori, and in eventually having to settle for reincorporating contingency. I have no problem in accepting world-systems as governing systems, decisive in determining a great many (more than any other system, perhaps) important or crucial factors over the period of its existence, but with the proviso that like any form of rule, a governing logic is not absolute. It is not decisive in all respects, because if it were, any sort of counter-systemic (or whatever you want to call it) effort whould be futile from the beginning. World-systems may be decisive in ensuring the reproduction of the core-periphery hierarchy, but they are not decisive in determining who ends up where, and why one peripheral state is so different from another one. I have a hard time accepting these issues as non-decisive for the purposes of ALL questions, because this would mean the naturalization of the world-system (and the absolutization of its own inside-outside calculus). Arrighi's overlapping S-curves, Abu-Lughod's intersecting systems - all these serve as testament to the conditionality of systemic significance. > In this way, we realize the limits of the systemic > processes in fully explaining the development (and contingencies) of a > systems transformation, and leave the historical door open to such > explanations. This sounds to me like the abandonment of the whole project of historical social science - when systematicity is insufficient, we resort to good old idiographic explanations - wie sie eigentlich gewesen. It seems to me that if something is worthwhile narrating, it is worthwhile/significant enough to systematize. Ultimately, it was for the sake of the construction of a historical social science that the study of world-systems was initiated to begin with. [SNIP] > > Some systems are > > in fact better interconnected than others - at certain points in time and > > space - although the proponents of governing systems (which is what > > Wallerstein wants to investigate) always argue that their dominance is > > a product of some innate, ahistorical virtue. > > I agree. In this sense, I think that the regularity of the trade networks > did constitute a "system of trade" -- a network. I don't think it > constituted a WORLD-system. It did not make all the areas of the Eurasian > land mass into a single historical system with an overarching logic(s) of > transformation by any criteria. The Eurasian extent of the network is an open question (and it depends on what time period you are dealing with). As to whether it constituted a WORLD-system or not - again, depends, but this eventuality should not be rejected out of hand. My reading of world-system is as a governing system; governance comes in many flavors, and is never absolute (despite any claims made on its behalf). That is why I'm not in favor of distinguishing world-systems and e.g. trade-systems as types. [SNIP] -- Boris Stremlin bstremli@binghamton.edu
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |