Perhaps I should toss my two liras in, and comment on some of the issues
that have been raised thus far in the discussion of _The Long Twentieth
Century_(LTC).
1) On the world-systems perspective:
The world-systems perspective, as I understand it, is a holistic mode of
analysis that underscores the spatial and temporal interconnectedness of
processes of social change in the modern world. The LTC aims, among
other things, at demonstrating the usefulness of this perspective for
analyzing the rise, expansion and eventual demise of capitalism. I am
therefore surprised that questions have been raised as to whether the LTC
adopts a world-systems perspective.
Nevertheless, I do not think that there is only one world-systems THEORY.
The fact that many of us look at the forest rather than the trees of
historical-capitalism does not mean that we all see the forest in the same
way. What we see, and how we interpret it, depends on the particular
angle of vision from which we look and on the particular theoretical
repertoire from which we draw. Hence, there is no contradiction between
the fact that the LTC poses a challenge to most people's understanding of
the modern world system, as Wallerstein points out in his review, and the
fact that it is a contribution to the development of the world-systems
perspective.
2) On continuous and discontinuous change in the development/evolution
the capitalist world system:
World-systemists have never ruled out development/evolution. As Stephen
Sanderson notes, they have maintained that it is the system as a whole,
rather than its national components, that develops/evolves. It is
nevertheless true--as Carl Dassbach maintains and Chris Chase-Dunn
acknowledges--that the dominant view of the development/evolution of the
capitalist world system has emphasized continuous change. That is, the
system expands but its organizational structures remain basically the
same. It has always been a mystery to me how the capitalist world system
could expand as rapidly and extensively as it did over the last 500 years
without fundamental organizational change. And sure enough, once I
started investigating the historical details of that expansion, I found
plenty of evidence that each burst of expansion was based on a major
reorganization of the system.
The result is an evolutionary theory of the capitalist world-economy that
is neither teleological nor progressivist. Sanderson seems to agree with
this assessment. Bruce McFarling says that he has not yet settled to his
satisfaction whether the LTC meets the criteria of a non-teleological
evolutionary theory. I would be interested to know what particular aspect
of the LTC appears teleological to him.
3) On the research agenda of the book:
Chase-Dunn writes: "The examination of the relationship between K-waves
(and shorter business cycles) and systemic cycles of accumulation is
necessary for understanding the past...the present, and the future. Also,
cycles of war intensity and severity and debt cycles need to be brought
into Arrighi's model and investigated empirically." I couldn't agree
more. As Wallerstein suggests, however, there is much more that needs to
be brought back into the analysis and investigated empirically in relation
to systemic cycles of accumulation: e.g., core/periphery relations, social
conflict, sexism, racism.
If I did not focus on these issues in the LTC, it is not because I think
they are unimportant; nor is it because they did not "fit" the model; nor
is it out of a love of elegance-although I like elegance. Rather it is
because my re-reading of Braudel in the light of the present financial
expansion convinced me that a radical reconceptualization of historical
capitalism was absolutely necessary in order to understand where we might
be headed in the future. Once I started to work with the hypothesis that
the true specificity of historical capitalism is the alternation of
comparatively short periods of material expansion followed by longer
periods of financial expansion, I realized that just getting the systemic
cycles of acccumulation right was biting off more than I could chew.
Thus, in writing the book, many tempting morsels had to be foresaken. My
hope is that others will step in and bite.
Giovanni Arrighi
**************************************
Giovanni Arrighi *
arrighi@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu *
Department of Sociology *
Binghamton University *
Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 *
607-777-6840 (office) *
607-777-2216 (department) *
607-777-4197 (fax) *
**************************************