From: Jack Owens <owenjack@isu.edu>
Continuing with comments on the 25 January message of Nikolai Rozov,
"Constructive Typology of Societal Systems." [part 2]
Typology of s-systems is not a new task. We can remember
many taxonomies since Plato's and Aristotle's descriptions
of state political forms. All traditional taxonomies (which I
know) begin from the apriori existence of s-systems ("polices,"
states, empires, nations, societies, cultures, civilizations,
etc.) The w-s paradigm deviated from this tradition.
I. Wallerstein (from my viewpoint) deals with w-ss
(w-empires and especially w-economies) not as with empirically
presented phenomena but as with theoretically reconstructed
essences. In his analysis of "basic logic" he focused on the
economical and political c o n n e c t i o n s between parts
of w-ss.
This line was developed in the prospective idea of nested
networks by C.Chase-Dunn & T.Hall, 1993 (it's a pity I have
only the brief outline of this idea in Chris C-D and Peter
Grimes's post to wsn).
My suggestion is to make this approach more clear and
systematic for myself (surely it's only my responsibility for
all mistakes).
The idea is to begin from "parts" or "loci" and then
varying the sorts of connections to c o n s t r u c t
conceptually the ideal types (M.Weber) of different s-systems
(including w-systems, oicumenas, civilizations and societies).
Jack: Nikolai, are you suggesting here that the "theoretically
reconstructed essences" of Wallerstein and Chase-Dunn & Hall are
Weberian ideal types? Your ideal types are heuristic devices, no?
Over time, one would expect a good bit of behavioral oscillation,
especially when communities are linked by exchange networks.
A minor w-s observation: Here in the U.S., we use the
latinate form "oecumena" from "oecumenicus," but Nikolai has
adapted to English the Greek form from "oikoumenikos" (from "oikein",
to inhabit). Of course, the Greek is the origin of the Latin word.
Could it be that there are even more significant influences on the
shape of our discourses left over from the great division between
Greek-Rite and Latin-Rite Christianity? :-) (I put this in for those
who like to talk about civilizations.)
*************
The typology using approach of this kind I name
constructive typology.
I expect the most probable question: "You reject taking
apriori societies and w-ss, but why on Earth do you take
apriori your loci?"
I agree that "locus" is not less theoretical abstraction
than "society,""w-s," "civilization" or any other s-system.
Nevertheless I have at least two arguments for beginning
namely from loci to s-systems.
First, loci are more close to empirical (historical,
archeological, economical, cultural) analysis. Two researchers
using empirical data can gain consensus according features and
connections of one province much sooner than in discussion of
the features, borders and connections of the whole
encompassing s-system (society, civilization, w-system).
Second, "locus" is an artificial construct which can be
used as an "elastic concept": in various research situations
one can change flexibly the meaning, volume, borders of his
"loci" (surely announcing it explicitly).
Jack: Are you suggesting that somehow "locus" is a more "elastic
concept" than "society," "civilization," or "w-system"? This is not
clear.
**************