more on emancipatory research

Tue, 09 Apr 1996 14:26:54 -0600 (CST)
chris chase-dunn (chriscd@jhu.edu)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:28:17 PST
From: "Denis O'Hearn" <D.Ohearn@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: emancipatory research
To: SOCTB%EMUVM1.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU

On Thu, 04 Apr 1996 07:07:59 +0000
SOCTB%EMUVM1.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU wrote:

> Carl Dassbach recently suggested that world-system research has lost the
> critical and emancipatory character of its origins. Instead, he is
> disappointed to find a plethora of "normal science" research using what were
> once insurgent concepts. My impressions run in exactly the opposite direction.
> I maintain a stronger allegiance to world-system perspectives than perhaps
> any other precisely because of what I see as a strong critical and
> emancipatory tone in much of the research. Rather than disappointed, I also
> see the "normal science" research as both validation of the theory and
> extension of the perspective.

There is perhaps some truth in both Carl Dassbach's and Terry Boswell's
observations. I think Carl is right that many world-systems concepts have been
hijacked for other uses, but his target may be somewhat misplaced. Rather than
those who use world-systems concepts for "normal science" purposes I am more
concerned about those who use them for intrinsically conservative political
purposes. An example is the way European Union policymakers and pundits have
taken the concept of "periphery", robbed it of its logical meaning in terms of
exploitation and economic oppression, and redefined it simply in geographical
terms for their own purposes. EU "peripherality" policies now give measly
handouts to Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain etc. to improve their physical
infrastructures (thus probably increasing their peripherality in w-s terms) in return
for these states' support for Euro-core-interested policies like the single market,
maastricht, etc. Where w-s concepts have become mainstream and respectable
perhaps there IS need to worry.
On the other hand, understanding space and transport in the
world-system is not "normal" science but an important step in understanding how
economic oppression is established and reproduced. As Terry says, it's validation
and extension. How can we analyze British or US hegemony (hopefully to
transcend them), for instance, without understanding how they controlled spatial
distribution and transport networks through the Navigation Acts, wars, threats of
wars, interstate economic regulation, and so on. Space and transport are a big part
of imperialism and we can't get very emancipatory without understanding them.

> Just as a sociological perspective frees its adherents from the blinders of
> idiosyncratic personal experience, a world-system perspective frees one from
> the narrow focus of societal processes and dynamics. But perhaps others see it
> differently, that the theory is neutral with no inherent qualities and thus
> applications are only liberating by deliberate design.

While w-s has the potential to free one from these narrow focuses, there is nothing
inherently liberating about moving our focus from national societies to global
systems (maybe I misunderstand Terry's point here). It seems quite possible to
construct a very conservative form of "world-system" analysis (is this not in a
sense what the Council on Foreign Relations has been up to in much of their stuff
through the years on grand areas, hegemonies and bigemonies, etc?).