"Power/Influence" & the Matter of Agency in History

This message is in response to Francesco Ranci’s post, but it also touches on the previous posting by Khaled Odetalah as well as ongoing discussions involving world-systems, history, and the Eonic Effect.  I welcome people’s input.  Thanks.

**********

Francesco Ranci wrote:

I quote Immanuel Wallerstein:

“In 1989, I gave a talk on "World-Systems Analysis: The Second Phase." In that article, I outlined a number of tasks unfinished. I said that the key issue, and "the hardest nut to crack" was how to overcome the distinction of three social arenas: the economic, the political, and the socio-cultural.”

I agree. The three social arenas are functional to the main values of our society: money & power (sex and food are private matters), the rest can be funny or useful to know, or just go to hell.  Such distinctions can be overcome by changing one's values, I would like to say.

But of course, there is a history of speculations and a language that based on them. And, of course, if people want money first, economics will work best as a science (as Maw Weber said in 1918, he actually said referred to the "businessman attitude").

But I think there is a way out: money is a form of power, power is a way of convincing others (honestly or not, with guns, words or money) to do what you want them to do - which can take many cultural forms.

Luke Rondinaro responds:

I find these points very interesting regarding (the three social areas of) economic, political, and socio-cultural; and I’m quite intrigued by their interconnections. 

But in relation to such points, I can’t help but think (however) that there’s really an inter-play of (power/influence) in human affairs that operates together with modes of free action (individually and socially), in the short term of history.  And, it is this interactive dynamic that makes the matter of “agency” so very fascinating [if not, also, somewhat wispy] at times as we comb through the world historical evidence that’s available to us. 

If there is such an interrelation between “power/influence” and “free action” (per the Eonic Effect), then this means that [free] human agency is itself roughly shaped by dynamics of influence.  The pattern of chaos and complexity we’d witness in history, (via “free action”) in the longer term and larger scale of complex societies and world-systemic units, would itself be additionally formed through such patterns of socio-political-economic influence.

Now this is most interesting (if not somewhat paradoxical or contradictory); for such an idea begs the question: “how free is free action in both the shorter and longer term of history?” … Any thoughts?

---

Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now