Re: Do Systems = Structures?

From my point of view, the “empirical” status of
anything depends upon referring it to a paradigm. It
is probably true that for an Eskimo there are kinds of
“snow” that we do not see (unless we are taught to).
The idea of a “process”, is more akin to the meaning
of “system” then of “structure”,  allowing us to use a
word like “systematic”. When finding “recurring and
integrated processes”, you can maybe label them as
“systematic processes”, or “systemic characteristics”
or “structural features”, according to how stable such
patterns are. Processes that do not fit well, remain
to be explained. It took a while before all planets
(but one, actually) fit in Newton’s theory. Darwin’s
theory is still under discussion in its basic concepts
and it shows many anomalies anyway. Social science is
much more difficoult to develop, no doubts about it
even though Weber seems to think otherwise. I disagree
with Hegel and Marx’s concept of contradiction as the
“engine” (so to speak) of historical change. I rather
see that “engine” in new combinations of old ideas.
Einstein’s concept of “Time Space” is another name for
the philosophical “Reality”, that we have no way to
“know” because it is already assumed that the way “it
is” has nothing to do with the way “we see it”.


--- Elson Boles <boles@svsu.edu> wrote:
> I think "systemic," analysis, as opposed to
> "systematic," is the more
> accurate term to describe "world-systems" or
> "historical systems"
> analysis.  (Systematic analysis may or may not make
> for good analysis of
> systemic processes!)
> 
> The conception of "structures" in Wallerstein's work
> is another way of
> referring to the processes of a "system" which are
> what define any
> system as "systemic."  
> 
> Systems are formed of structures (structural
> processes): patterns,
> cycles, trends and historical developments that have
> empirically
> measurable regularity.  Structures are thus the
> recurring and integrated
> processes that define a "system" as such.  But
> systems are also
> historical, in part, because the regularities change
> over time and place
> (TimeSpace) due to the contradictions among the
> systemic processes
> (among the regularities).  Consequently systems have
> an eventual end or
> demise in TimeSpace.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu
> > [mailto:wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of
> francesco ranci
> > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 5:50 AM
> > To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
> > Subject: Re: Do Systems = Structures?
> > 
> > 
> > Just a semantic and methodological note. Both
> “system”
> > and “structure” stand for mental activities that
> we
> > can perform on anything. In the same way, I can
> see my
> > own skin as the “beginning” or as the “end” of my
> body
> > - or possibly as neither one of them. If I take my
> > skin as a “system”, I am driven to deal with its
> > overall functions, while if I consider it as a
> > “structure” I’m rather driven to deal with its
> > components and their own functions. From a
> > methodological point of view, it seems more useful
> to
> > investigate “systems” before getting into
> “structures”; i.e. 
> > to consider societies as systems before
> considering them as 
> > structures. Even though, most likely, every time
> one finds 
> > out something interesting, using one or the other
> word, it 
> > will be useful to look for some related findings
> coming in 
> > from the use of the other. Hence, it does look
> right to me 
> > that some of followers of Wallerstein’s systematic
> analysis 
> > are getting into “structures”, while the opposite
> change that 
> > happened between Braudel and Wallerstein looks to
> me more 
> > like a paradigm shift, so to speak. The
> “systematic” stage 
> > prior to Braudel and the Annales school would then
> be the 
> > traditional historian or historians. And, as a
> consequence, I 
> > have to end up saying that the Annales school’s
> was not a 
> > paradigm shift, or not as much as Wallersteins’s
> was. At 
> > least from the point of view suggested by their
> use of the 
> > such terms as “system” and “structure”. In the
> very broad 
> > terms of general phylosophical trends, we could
> have had 
> > system theory roaring in the ‘50s and
> structuralism booming 
> > in the ‘60s, AI in the ’70s and connectionism in
> the ‘80s, 
> > cognitive science’s explosion in the ’90s and,
> now, the embodied mind.
> > 
> > Francesco Ranci
> > 
> > --- Boris Stremlin <bstremli@binghamton.edu>
> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Milo Jones wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > Could someone please hazard for me an
> explanation
> > > of whether the
> > > > "Systems" within WST are "Structures" as the
> term
> > > is understood by
> > > > Structuralists?
> > > 
> > > Not exactly.  For Wallerstein, (historical)
> systems
> > > are entities which are
> > > durable, but which are nevertheless finite,
> having discernible
> > > beginnings and ends.  This notion of
> systematicity draws upon
> > > Braudel's concepts of
> > > "histoire structurelle" and "longue duree",
> which
> > > are counterposed to the
> > > trans-historical "very long term", "sheltered
> from
> > > accidents, conjunctures
> > > and breakdowns, the time of qualitative
> mathematics
> > > and of Claude
> > > Levi-Strauss" (see Wallerstein, _The Capitalist
> > > World Economy_, p.270;
> > > Braudel, _History and the Social Sciences_). 
> > > Wallerstein also speaks of
> > > structures (e.g. the "structures of knowledge"),
> but
> > > they are structural
> > > in the Braudelian, not the Levi-Straussian
> sense.
> > > 
> > > Having said that, it should be noted that
> > > Wallerstein eschews all talk of
> > > a world-systems theory (WST), but many others
> who
> > > use the concept do not
> > > (e.g. Chase-Dunn, but also to some extent Gunder
> > > Frank and Arrighi).  Some
> > > of the latter explicitly associate their notions
> of
> > systematicity with
> > > the "very long term", which would make it closer
> to the "structures"
> 
> > > of structuralists.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Boris Stremlin
> > > bstremli@binghamton.edu
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now. 
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> > 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com