The following is an edited version of a message I sent to J. Timmons
Roberts. He mentioned that he would have to miss the PEWS executive
council meeting next Friday and asked my opinion on plans for the future
directions for PEWS, including whether we should think about retitling
the section:
*********************
Dear Timmons:
Just a thought on PEWS stuff. First, sorry you can't be there at
the 4 am (Pacific Time) meeting on Friday!
On the whole issue of
revitalizing PEWS/name change: I don't have any rigid position on any of
it. But I think that Tom Hall's posting on WSN yesterday was VERY
constructive. It seems to me that we need various efforts to extend
outreach and make "outsiders" feel more welcome. He also calls on the
section to make a real effort to get folks (from "inside" and "outside") to
debate what the world-system perspective is about, and why it is or is not
valuable. Personally, I think that these sort of substantive, somewhat
"action-oriented" suggestions are things that the leadership and
membership should try to move on as we plan for future meetings,
conferences, etc. They are much MORE constructive, I think, than staking
the future of the section on a new name. On the one hand, removing the
"world-system" from PEWS definitely WILL alienate a number of people.
On the other, changing the title wouldn't necessarily deal with
any of the potentially creative tension that the various sides
of this debate have generated.
My own view of what "the political economy of the world-system" is resonates
with some comments that Giovanni Arrighi made in response to persistent
questions about whether his LONG TWENTIETH CENTURY was "really" a
"world-system" work or not. Paraphrasing him roughly, he argued
that his view was that there was a "world-system PERSPECTIVE" that
sensitize researchers to certain things about how events and structures
are linked to global political economy -- so, sure, his book reflected a
"world-system" orientation. But it did not rigidly hone to some more
specific "world-system THEORY," supposedly embodied in Immanuel
Wallerstein's collected works. One of the great ironies in all this, I
think, is that (ala Karl's disavowal of "Marxism") it is not at
all clear to me that IW himself believes in any "world-system THEORY"
either! This idea of PEWS embodying some parochial theory is one that
has been pinned on us by critics (most of whom would dismiss anyone
who considers global capitalism to be problematic). In my view, various
attempts to understand the capitalist world economy (whether they
self-identify with NIDL or post-Fordism or "flexible accumulation")
SHOULD fit in the "big tent" of PEWS. I'd like to use this debate about
revitalizing PEWS to reaffirm this view -- though, I wouldn't rule out an
adjustment of the name, that strikes me as much less important than
getting folks thinking and talking about the issues.
There is another aspect to the recent debate about the section that is
less about concepts and more about networks and cliques. I think there
is a perception that there is an "inner circle" of PEWS that "controls"
decisions. From my limited time on the council in the last couple of
years my guess is that much of this has to do with who's willing to
volunteer and put time and energy into organizing sessions, writing
newsletter pieces, etc, rather than something truly conspiratorial. But
there is also a problem with the section attracting folks who
identify themselves with the substantive problems they work on, rather
than the global perspective they use. So people who study race or gender
or technology or environment or whatever, belong to those sections and
think of PEWS as "something else." One important issue here is making
sure that the nominating committee is very intentional about who they
put up for council and offices -- among other things the section really
NEEDS to get women and minorities, as well as folks who do different
substantive research, to ACTIVELY participate. Your (Roberts')
suggestion in the newsletter to incorporate "development" into the title
would address the specificity issue head-on -- but it would also "cut out"
folks who do other things but still see themselves as interested in global
political economy/world-system analysis. Again, I think that Tom's
suggestions might be useful here, with the key being more outreach, co-
sponsorship with other sections, and sessions that focus on problems that are
"non-traditional" for PEWS. (And, in this regard, it really is too bad
that the Bergesen session on environment had to be cancelled -- that
type of thing, or the one that I am co-chairing with the Science and
Technology folks, is just the type of panel we need).
There are probably some other issues that could be discussed here too --
but I've gone on long enough. This really is just a "stream of
consciousness" rambling that I've sat down and written over the last few
minutes and not a concise, logically thought-out, essay. But perhaps
some of the issues that are I raise might provoke some response from
the rest of the WSNers -- and particularly those who will be involved
with PEWS meetings and panels at the upcoming DC meeting.
dave smith
uci, sociology
pews section council member