I would like to respond to some of the points made by Andre Kortaev despite
the fact that i have missed the earlier contributions to this string and
have not had time to read the wsn archive.
In general I would say that the comparative world-systems approach that Tom
Hall and I have formulated solves the important problems raised by Kortaev.
Hall and I make core/periphery structures an empirical question in each
case, not a defining feature of all world-systems. This allows for systems
based on equal exchange, and indeed there have been such systems. Systemness
is defined in terms of regularized interaction. Only after the interaction nets
have been mapped is the question of core/periphery relations raised.
Groups that are not
interacting are not in the same system and so cannot be in a core/periphery
relationship.
We also distinguish between two aspects of core/periphery
relations. The first we call core/periphery differentiation. This refers to
two interacting groups in which one has greater population density than the
other. The second (termed core/periphery hierarchy) refers to a relationship
of exploitation or domination
between groups. These two aspects often go together because groups
with greater
population density frequently have more power than less dense groups. But
there have been important instances where less dense groups exploit
more dense
groups. The pastoral nomads of the Central Asian steppes cyclically formed
states that allowed them to extract resources from more dense agrarian
societies. Our conceptual approach allows for a comparative study of the
formation of core/periphery relations that can produce an understanding of
why core/periphery exploitation emerges in some cases but not in others. All
this is made opaque by the inclusion of core/periphery relations as a
defining feature of world-systems.
We also have found whole systems in which there was very little in the
way of intergroup exploitation or domination. In prehistoric Northern
California there was a very small world-system composed of sedentary
foragers. Despite some core/periphery differentiation there was very little
core/periphery hierarchy. This case is detailed in my forthcoming _The
Wintu and Their Neighbors_.
Regarding the suggestion to define world-systems in terms of cybernetic
systems of conscious awareness, I would say this. Conscious awareness, what
we call cosmography, is partial and misrepresents the real material
interactions that are present in all the world-systems we have examined.
Generally the spatial scope of conscious awareness of interactions is
smaller than the scope of the real material indirect interactions. Thus it
would be a mistake to make consciousness a central defining characteristic
of systemness. But Hall and I do think that information networks are
important sources of stability and change in world-systems. We indicate this
by designating Information Networks as one of our types of interaction,
along with Bulk Goods Nets, Political-Military Nets, and Prestige Goods
Nets.
All this is explained more fully in our forthcoming _Rise and Demise:
Comparing World-Systems_ (Westview Press 1996)
chris
Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn
Department of Sociology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA
tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu