Re: query on Wallertein and ideologies

He has written in detail about how ideology has been defined
historically, and how he uses it.  See _After Liberalism_, chapter four,
"Three Ideologies or one? The pseudobattle of modernity." 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu 
> [mailto:wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Boris Stremlin
> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:56 AM
> To: Threehegemons@aol.com
> Cc: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: query
> 
> 
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > In a message dated 1/31/2003 6:22:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> > kohlerg@3web.net writes:
> >
> > > The query is: Does Wallerstein have a concept like "ideology of 
> > > (the) (a) world-system" (or of a phase of (the) (a) 
> world-system)? 
> > > (I mean the ideology used by the dominant powers/classes of the 
> > > world-system in order to maintain  the world-system and/or their 
> > > dominance within it.) Not being a Wallerstein expert, but having 
> > > read various of his pieces, I am not sure whether he has and uses 
> > > such a concept. Can someone please comment?  Gernot Kohler
> >
> > He says that 'liberalism' is the dominant ideology of the system.  
> > I've never seen him define the term completely clearly, but I think 
> > the idea of guided, steady change in the direction of 
> 'progress' might 
> > be a useful way of thinking about it.  He argues that radicals and 
> > conservatives have tended to get pulled toward liberalism 
> until 1968 
> > began to undo the hold of this ideology (which has only been around 
> > since the French revolution).  He also claims the division between 
> > 'two cultures'--science and the humanities, or the seperation of 
> > knowledge and the pursuit of the good--is a key aspect of 
> the ideology 
> > of the modern world system.
> 
> I don't believe that he's ever defined "ideology", but he has 
> characterized all the things Steve mentions above as a the 
> "geoculture" of the modern world-system:  "[s]ome describe 
> the geoculture as the superstructure of this world-economy.  
> I prefer to think of it as its underside, the part that is 
> more hidden from view and therefore more difficult to assess, 
> but the part without which the rest would not be nourished... 
> it represents the cultural framework within which the 
> world-system operates" (_Geopolitics and Geoculture_, Cambridge:1991).
> 
> As this geoculture came into being with the French 
> Revolution, it is an entirely open question whether the 
> modern world-system lacked a cultural framework until that 
> time.  It is also not clear if other world-systems have 
> geocultures or not.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Boris Stremlin
> bstremli@binghamton.edu
> 
>