Friends, 1/16/95
I am very grateful to Al Bergeson for initiating what I hope
will be a important and useful discussion. It has been long
enough since PEWS was founded that we need to re-assess and re-
define our area in the light of a world that is very different
from the world within which PEWS was formed. Many issues have
been raised, but here I would like to address just a few.
As one of those who had prepared a paper for presentation at
Al's session on World-Systemic analyses of the global
environment, I was disappointed when the announcement came that
the session had been canceled. My immediate questions were about
PROCESS--what criteria were employed in guiding the decision, and
who made it? It came to me as a complete surprise. My first
thought was that there should be a one-year time-lag between the
membership falling below the threshold value and the sections
being cut. That way the present situation could be avoided--
presenters working hard on and investing in papers that are
suddenly cut off. Second, I think that decisions about section
topics and their priority should be made by involving as many
interested people as possible: right now, I do not know who made
the decision, nor do I know why. There seems to be no procedure,
and no transparency of decision-making. Also no appeal
mechanism. These are elementary bureaucratic issues that should
have been worked out long ago.
A second major area of concern is the question of
substantive issues and declining membership. Al originally
proposed that there may be a linkage between declining enrollment
in PEWS and the topics it has recently chosen to focus on. (I
would also call attention to another variable--the fact that in
an era of budget cuts and declining real wages, increasing
numbers of us cannot *AFFORD* to be members of ASA, let alone
additional sub-sections.) This may be the case, although we
cannot know for sure. But if it is, it seems to me that it is
because PEWS has finished the first stage of growth of a new
paradigm, and now needs to move on.
The first task of any new paradigm is to declare its
independence from its predecessors and competitors, while
attracting new adherents--this PEWS did in the late '70's & early
'80's. It set itself up in clear opposition to Modernization and
Dependency theories, and pursued a program of reconstructing our
understanding of history from the new perspective. In this
period, it was necessarily self-absorbed, and the title
"Political Economy of the World-System" was reflective of that
narcissism.
Now, however, the initial phase of narrow self-definition is
past. Research has exploded into a myriad of specific areas
scattered across disciplines. Put simply, World-System Theory
has been moving from being itself the SUBJECT of research to
being a TOOL of research. In the latter capacity, ALL subjects
become fair game. Our task in these discussions here is to
retain our common interest in W-S theory and Political Economy as
a tool, while simultaneously opening the doors to all subject
matters.
Timmons suggests that we return to our roots in issues of
"Development" &/or "Macrosociology". My own personal interests
lean towards global development, evolution, and the prospects for
our species. I'm sure each of us has individual preferences.
The point is to allow the space for these differences (and future
expansion) while remaining grounded within a shared paradigm.
Within this context, I agree with Nikolai that both the
"real" world AND speculation about possible future worlds have
merit as topics for investigation. "Futurology" need not be mere
self-indulgent utopianism. Forecasts about the future can serve
as a good intellectual enterprise, insofar as they force us to
clarify, stream-line and verbalize explicitly to others our
internal models of how the world really works. But these
explorations must always be based upon and grounded in the real
world of today.
There is no doubt that our current global "civilization" (if
we can dignify it with that label) is sinking into an
interrelated set of crises that could destroy it. These crises
are manifested simultaneously in many different ways on a global
scale: environmentally, politically, and financially. Against
this background we are struggling to give birth via the Internet
to an historically unprecedented PLANETARY intelligentsia that
might actually offer some solutions. It is precisely in these
times that world-system theory should be the most popular,
because it organizes history in a special way that allows us to
forecast the future with a precision unavailable to others. Now-
-more than ever before--it is our unique responsibility and duty
to teach others about how we have gotten ourselves into this
political-environmental mess, and which steps could lead us out
of it. PEWS within the ASA is being presented with an historic
opportunity, because W-S Theory can uniquely provide the
framework for a new understanding. But if we allow ourselves to
be diverted into scholastic debates about arcane esoterica, we
will continue to lose membership and will earn the status of
being ignored.
Peter Grimes
Johns Hopkins
p34d3611@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu