Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 16:21:53 -0700
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
From: esommer@direct.ca (eric steven sommer)
Subject: ADDENDA to: wallerstein, Chris
Hi Chris,
I was struck by your argument below, particularly your point that social
actors mental models generally underestimate the quantity of indirect
interaction between their own system(s) and the system(s) of others. I
personally find it difficult to imagine all the interactions which lead to a
sandwhich being put in front of me in a restaurant, let alone the detailed
commodity and other interactions in the current world system.
Incidentally, can you unpack slightly the meaning of your statement below
regarding "Information Networks...Bulk Goods Nets, Political-Military Nets,
and Prestige Goods Nets"? By `networks', do you mean simply networks of
interactions related to particular social dimensions - economic, military,
and so forth; or by `networks', do you mean the infrastructures which allow
for these interactions (highway networks to transport troops or goods,
mail-services or telecommunications grids to carry inforamtion; etc.)
Thanks for your help with this,
Eric.
>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
>
>