In reply to Michael Pearson's piece ("Gunder Frank and World Systems") I'd
like to address the issue of the "system"-ness of world-systems. I think
that seminal world-systems theorists like Frank and Wallerstein have
mainly been *discoverers*: they have recognized patterns in human
existence that nobody else particualrly noticed before. They have pointed
out the existence of systemic sets of relationships among people and
peoples throughout history. Their discoveries are, of course, *true*:
they are actually existing patterns in the historical data. There have
been world systems existing on either end of the Central Asian steppes
which have been synchonously impacted by the activities of the nomads
(Frank); there have been both world-systemic and world-imperial divisions
of labor (Wallerstein). These are now-revealed facts, not speculative
hypotheses. We owe these two monumental thinkers (and workers!) an
enormous round of applause for bringing these facts to light.
On the other hand, there is even more still to do. One largely
unaddressed issue is this: what makes a world-system a SYSTEM? Answering
this question is the key to dealing with the issues raised in Pearson's
posting. So long as we have only a world-systems *account* of history,
and not a world-systems *theory* of history, world-systems thinking is
easy prey to the charge of historicism. (It may be ironic that Pearson,
an historian, is the one effectively making the charge of historicism, but
personally I think that it is refreshing.) OF COURSE Wallerstein is right
that the roots of 19th century European capitalism can be traced back to
18th century British "capitalism" can be traced back to seventeenth
century Dutch money-grubbing can be traced back to sixteenth century
Genoese loan-sharking can be traced back . . . can be traced back to the
Roman Equites, etc. OF COURSE Frank is right that there were copper age
world-systems, Modelsky and Thompson are right that there were 14th
century Chinese world-systems, and Chase-Dunn is right that there were
pre-Columbian Native American world-systems. After all, there were
worlds, and there were systematic human relationships, and there always
will be.
Pearson's charge in the end comes down to the charge of historicism
because he raises the critical question of change. But to understand how
a system changes, we have to know what a system IS. If a world-system is
defined as being a certain geographical area "the Chinese world-system",
etc.), then the question of what makes a system a system IS being answered
-- trivially. Wallerstein defines a world-system in terms of the division
of labor, which is a good start, but Wallerstein's definition contains the
all-too-often-forgotten implication that a world-empire is NOT a
world-system, and thus we must talk not of the many world-systems in
history, but of THE world-system, the "Modern World-System". Change --
really significant sociological change -- only begins in the
Wallersteinian system with the inception of the Modern World-System.
I suggest instead that world-systems be thought of in network terms.
Imagine block-modelling all of the relations between all of the people in
the world. The world would fall out into a few large blocks of people who
had dense relations and a whole lot of small blocks of people who were
relatively isolated from other blocks. Take the fifteenth century world:
a few large blocks (Europe, Islam, China, Polynesia?, Inca, Aztec, African
empires -- please excuse the lacunae in my historical knowledge -- etc.)
and an enormous number of small blocks consisting of sets of villages
(Chase-Dunn's California natives, etc.). Over time, network ties change
-- and thus the "systems" of interactions that make up the world's
world-systems change. CHANGE OCCURS AT THE MICRO LEVEL. Cortes et al.
land in Mexico; the "European world-system" does not "expand" into
America. Change at the macro level is epi-phenomenal. REAL, but
epi-phenomenal.
(A planet is REAL, but a planet is epi-phenemenal. The actual phenomena
to be observed are protons, electrons, etc.; the planet is just a set of
relationships. Nonetheless, a very important set of relationships.)
Capitalism is a mammoth change precisely because it changes so much of
what goes on at the micro level. Europe in 1850 is recognizably the same
map as Europe in 1650, but the social relations that make up Europe are
vastly different. Europe is at both points in time a "system" (a "block"
in network terms), but it is a very different system after the rise of
capitalism. Macro-continuity is coupled with micro-discontinuity. The
system has the same name, but the system is of an entirely different
nature.
To sum: I don't dispute the account of history as told by Wallerstein,
Frank, Chase-Dunn, Modelski, Thompson. On the contrary, I'm thrilled that
they've done so much of the spadework. Besides being great thinkers, they
have been dedicated laborers. I just think that it's time to formalize
what they've done and integrate it into a theoretical whole.
Salvatore J. Babones
Johns Hopkins University