What I sent to Fred & Dale re PEWS, tdh

Tue, 08 Aug 1995 15:44:41 -0500 (EST)
Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU (THALL@DEPAUW.EDU")

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: PEWS gang
FROM: Thomas D. Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU 317-658-4519
RE: Ideas for regenerating PEWS
DATE: August 8, 1995

Here, hot off the old word processor, is the "conclusion" to my
PEWS roundtable presentation, "Analysis of Local Processes in a
World-System Perspective" for the World-Systems and Local
Processes Roundtable. I decided to use my discussion of local
analyses to as vehicle to get at some of the issues raised in
recent issues of PEWSNEWS. Following the email request I am
posting these.

I will have a handful of copies of the entire paper at ASA, and
will post it somewhere on WSN afterwards.

Anyway here are some of my ideas.
tom hall

FROM: "Analysis of Local Processes in a World-System
Perspective"

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
This exposition has been sufficiently long-winded, that I will
close with a few brief suggestions both about furthering local
analyses within a world-system perspective and about ways PEWS
might begin to regenerate itself.
(1) As my colleague, coauthor, a partner in far too many
"crimes" to list, we must "push the cookie!" That is, sell the
product. Those of us who regularly teach easily distracted
undergraduates, know about this. Make the world-system
theorizing relevant and accessible, but not only to
undergraduates but to colleagues in other disciplines.
(2) Continue to do, read, cite interesting new work on local
analyses, and world-system work in general. The initiation of a
dissertation prize is one way to do this. We might add an award
for best article, along with best book. We may want to give
thought to whether we should restrict this to pre-tenure authors
only, or have two prizes--after all plaques are cheap, and to
steal a line from Theda Skocpol (made in context of a similar
discussion at Comparative Historical section), social honor is
infinitely divisible.
(3) We might impose a tax on ourselves or reallocate
existing funds to pay registration costs for one to as many as
four scholars who are not sociologists and/or not U.S. residents.
Geography used to do this, and some of their specialty groups
(equivalent of our sections) still do. This would help gain
participation from interested outsiders. We probably cannot
afford to subsidize travel, but presenting at ASA carries certain
prestige for non sociologists, but why make them join ASA? We
can not get ASA to change its rules, so we can just pay the costs
ourselves.
(4) Following on (3) we might want to have a session/panel
either devoted to cognate disciplines uses/approaches to world-
system theory, or try to recruit papers or discussants from
outside sociology. We might even have a session on something
like: "What I wish world-system theory did, but does not do," or
"Why I do not use world-system-theory." These title stink, but I
think the idea is good. Get some outsiders in.
(5) Another way to get our ideas around is to serve as a
discussant for panels that are either multidisciplinary or in
other disciplines where papers that discuss world-system related
topics are being presented. I have done this at anthropology,
archaeology, civilizationist, social science history meetings, as
have others. This role can be especially useful when we push two
themes: (a) what world-system theory can help you understand,
solve, explain, etc.; and (b) how what you are describing,
discussing, analyzing, etc., adds to world-system theory.
(6) Since we already have WSN, and have gopher capability,
and web capacity is just around the corner, we should maintain an
several archives of world-system work. Recent postings of
Review's table of contents are useful. We should have available
the text of the PEWS Prize awards (not necessary the books, the
descriptions of why they receive the prize). With WWW capability
we could even have graphics of covers. Indeed, this need not be
restricted to prize winners, but could be for any world-system
book. Similarly we could at least note where reviews are
published of the works. Similarly we could post sessions at any
meeting where world-system topics are discussed. As more and
more scholars have internet access this is much more efficient
than massive hardcopy mailings, or even email broadsides.
I'm sure there are lots of other ideas out there. These are
meant to spark discussion, not to be definitive.
To end on my "upbeat" note. There is a lot of good work
being done--so much that many of us cannot keep up with it all
and do our own work. That, indeed, is good news. With respect
to analysis of local processes and dynamics (as with
race/ethnicity, gender, households, culture, ecology, etc.) we
should listen to our critics. When we here complaints that
"world-system theory does not do X," point out where it has, and
if it has not done enough, do some more!