Dear collegues:
Unfortunately, I lost the "state" discussion from before March 11, 1995
and from March 12 - to March 21, 1995. Could anyone help me out and
forward them to me. Thanks a lot.
J.
The following from J B. Owens is the first/last message I have received
so far.
On Sat, 11 Mar 1995, J B Owens wrote:
> From: Jack Owens <owenjack@isu.edu>
>
> Tom Hall recently (2 March) republished on H-WORLD his review
> of Frank and Gills (eds.), *The World System* (1993), from the
> *Journal of World-Systems Research*. Rereading the review
> reminded me that I need help with the application of the
> concept of State, especially in its application to Hall's
> "precapitalist world-systems". I admit to considerable
> confusion about this issue and hope that this query is at
> least somewhat clear about the sources of my confusion.
>
> The concept "State" appears to embody a nineteenth-century
> deductive theory that we apply to empirically-discovered
> phenomena. Once defined, "State" is then often reified so
> that we speak about the "State" doing things or having things
> done to it. The danger of the uncritical application of
> familiar deductive theories is that we may thereby obscure
> aspects of the human situation studied whose examination is
> fundamental for our understanding. Perhaps if we are
> discussing some of the highly-centralized, bureaucratic, and
> militarily-dominant (over the local population at least)
> regimes of recent centuries, such reification does little harm
> to the world-systems approach. However, as one moves the
> research focus to periods prior to about 1750, defining what
> one means by "State" becomes more problematic.
>
> The issue strikes me as particularly important for the work of
> Hall and Christopher Chase-Dunn because they attempt to define
> world-systems on the basis of interaction networks. What I
> often see in works of a macrosociological bent is the lumping
> together under the rubric "State" of interaction networks
> whose nature may be a crucial empirical element in the
> development of world-systems theory. One will not get the
> necessary empirical data to achieve clarity of definition in
> the development of this theoretical approach if the essential
> research subject is obscured by the use of a particular
> conceptual vocabulary.
>
> Is there a conceptual content to the term "State" that makes
> it worth using in talking about the last 5,000 years or so?
> If so, where is the State in, for example, the Kingdom of
> Castile during the reign of Philip II of Habsburg? or in the
> Spanish Monarchy during the period 1580-1640?
>
> Any help will be most appreciated.
> Jack
>
> J. B. "Jack" Owens
> Department of History
> Idaho State University
> Pocatello, ID 83209 USA
> Voice: (208) 233-8589
> e-mail: owenjack@isu.edu
> www: http://isuux.isu.edu/~owenjack
>
>