Re: What really is Andre Gunder Frank's position on worlds?

In a message dated 8/13/2003 1:10:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, boles@svsu.edu 
writes:

> > And, incidentally, I guess that "approach" is really no different that 
>Wallerstein's, since you both essentially use divisions of labor as criteria, 
>or whatever empirical evidence is available to suggest systemacity.  The 
>theory and outcome or interpretation of the data is different, not the 
>approach (or is the same until Wallerstein began his shift to focus on meaning 
>systems as the underlying binding glue of systems 
> in the 1990s or so).

I'm pretty sure Wallerstein continues to argue that what defines his unit of 
analysis is the containment of the division of labor.  These days, he usually 
says(as he always has) the modern world system dates back to 1500 but that it's 
elite did not possess a unified culture until circa 1800.

Steven Sherman