>. 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.
As far as I remember (here in Lima, I do not have the books nearby,
so correct me if I am wrong), the Wallersteinian scheme does indeed
define a world-system in terms of a division of labor, but by no
means implies that a world-empire would not be a world-system. Quite
the opposite: a world-empire is a world-system with a unified
political structure. Thereby (and for other reasons as well),
Wallersteinians should be able to talk of many world-systems and
systemic changes in history even before the inception of the MWS.
Cheers and best of luck,
teivo
Teivo Teivainen
DESCO (Centro de Estudios y Promocion del Desarrollo)
Leon de la Fuente 110
Lima 17, Peru
fax: (51-1-) 264-0128
tel: (51-1-) 264-1316 (oficina)
tel: (51-1-) 440-0354 (domicilio)
email: teivo@desco.org.pe