Micro-Factors in World [Systemic] Macrohistory: Elusive Needles in an Ev

Micro-Factors in World [Systemic] Macrohistory: Elusive Needles in an Ever-Elusive Haystack

Complex systematic world history has always been fascinating to me.  There’s an endless host of detailed micro-social factors framed continually in a sea of macro-historical dynamics.  At the top of this vast complex we see the Eonic effect and many of the large-scale interlocking themes dealt with in David Christian’s “Big History.”  Volume after volume could be done in commentary into these models and their corresponding phenomena/dynamics alone.  Still, there’s more than even this to world history … much more than the heights and depths of Macrohistory to pique our analytical social science interests.

The picture gets even more complex, more fascinating as we choose to magnify our analytical focus and "zoom" inward to economic histories and the social psychologies of a given period in human events and then outward again to the “bigger picture” of either the natural world or our social environment/world historical setting.

At one point we’re discussing social and economic history, the “rise of capitalism” for instance (in Europe) during early modern times [or if one wishes to go another route, one discusses the Asian-based Global Economy and World System, per AGF]; but depending on how we wish to do our “zoom” and what factors we choose to explore, our world historical stories change and exhibit a different character based on the kinds of content we talk about and the connections we draw.  We see the difference in world-systems versus the World System.  Both models may talk about much the same dynamic in world history, but they go at it from different angles and ultimately end up discussing different subjects with rather different kinds of content because the setting in which they frame their sociologic-economic analyses is different; capitalist exploitation, the material object of one model of world-systems thought is worlds apart from a discussion and model of an early modern Global Economy/World System and how “money goes around the world” and makes “the world go round.” (AGF, ReOrient).  Such models aren’t really the same as each other.  Because of the purpose used in deriving them, the kind of content used, and the principles, concepts, & idea-structures brought to bear on these models, they are bound to be different.  My observation here is nothing earthshaking or ground breaking new; others have done it before & compared the differences between AGF’s World System model and Wallerstein’s Modern World-System; but I believe it’s good to keep such facts in mind when we get into intellectual debates over “Is” and “ought” as we sometimes do on this list and elsewhere.  It’s useless to debate an issue when even the issue-at-hand (world-systems/The World System) is disagreed upon among the parties involved.  The real debate isn’t about the real world System/systems as such in WST; the difference is about the models and which is more apt, which ideas are better, & which finally is more fitting of the term world system itself.  It ultimately comes down to, I believe, a contest of intellectual hegemony – which model, which mode of World Systems thought will win out.  Personally I see both models as having their own distinct advantages.  But they are different; not just in degree but also in substance.

The common ground (of a sort) in World Systems Theory comes from our study of such themes as CORE/PERIPHERY, HEGEMONY/RIVALRY, LONG CYCLES, etc.  But too often, I think, we tend to leave our World-Systemic, World Historical explorations at that without going further.  The problem is … there is this “further” as Landon’s Eonic, Model, David Christian’s “Big History”, Psychohistory (via Lloyd DeMause, et al), and a host of other disciplines – sciences, social sciences, and humanities/letters - show us.  I remember the debate a few months ago here on WSN as to whether “capitalism” was part of human nature and the long view of history or if it even existed.  Well, even if capitalism is a matter of learning and socialization into a particular society’s culture or system of meaning, in this case early modern European society, the issue still should raise questions in our minds.  What is the social psychology and psychohistory associated with [natural] human economic activity & behaviors, such that “capitalism” was born out of it?  Does such economic activity act alone and exclusively in world system history or in concert/interactively with the dynamics of idea-informational-communicative exchanges?  And, what is the connection of memes/memetics to such patterns of economic/world systemic activity in world history?  If we don’t ask these questions and/or others about ecology, sociobiology, physics, etc. as they impinge on our human activity over the ages, we are left with a theory or analysis that can do nothing more than deal with the sociopolitical aspects of economic behavior in world history.  All it can show is “who – in a particular time and place – was on top and who wasn’t, etc.” in the world economy of a given historical period.  All it can do is show us what people did so we can do things differently.  And, if that’s what people want to do with their social science and history that is certainly fine.  But there’s more to world history than just that.  Much more.  Ultimately we study this discipline as others “to understand” … to understand the workings of human behavior (both generally and specifically)(for practical reasons – ‘helping people’ in a sociologic, political, or economic way - or not so pragmatic ones – like knowledge for its own sake and the fostering of wisdom) and at some point to better understand ourselves as we come to understand others.  Our reality [social & physical] itself transcends the bounds of the soley socio-political; our social science should as well.  We should keep this in mind as we undertake our studies.  There is indeed a Core-Periphery structure that we ought to be mindful of in WST, but that structure doesn’t exist in a vacuum or as a monolith.  Just as it is part of a larger interlocking, interactive system, it too is systematic structured and related to other phenomena (i.e, physical enviroment, social psychology, memetics and much more).

Any ideas on what these added dimensions to World Systems Theory reveal?  Anybody else looking into such angles in their research?  I’d love to hear from you.

Wishing you all the best!

Luke R.

---

Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!