TO: WSN
FROM: Thomas D. Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU
RE: Terry's Statement
DATE: October 27, 1996
I must begin with two "oops's":
1) I had misfiled Terry's statement and had not read it at my
last post
2) Though I recognized that Gunder had composed his comment
before seeing Al's, I may not have made clear enough, that I
wanted to bring various off-line debates on line.
Anyway, some further thoughts on Terry's post.
I think it is important not to use perspective/paradigm
interchangeably with theory. Perspective or analysis or paradigm
[in the Kuhnian sense] can refer to many competing theories which
share some broad approaches differ on others.
Some of the debate commented on by Al, Gunder, Bill [Thompson],
Terry, and myself hinges on this. The conventional world-system
theory of which Terry writes is one [or possibly more than one]
theory that has been tested with international comparative data,
and indeed, does explain much about the modern, global capitalist
system, how it functions and sorts out several different types of
routine changes IN the system. It, however, says little about
change OF the system, other than the demurrers that socialism
NEVER constituted an alternative system, but was a form of state-
sponsored capitalism embedded in a capitalist world-economy.
Frank, Chase-Dunn & Hall, Thompson & Modelski share different
theories that see the modern, capitalist, Europe-centered world-
system as far less unique than is claimed. Each, however, posit
different theoretical approaches. Frank concentrates on the
continuous evolution of one world system over 5,000 years.
Thompson takes a somewhat shorter view and places more emphasis
on technology and political relations [Bill, correct or elaborate
as needed]. Sanderson (especially in Social Transformations,
but elsewhere as well) sees considerable utility in world-system
theory, or world-system-like propositions for understanding long-
term social change. Chase-Dunn & Hall emphasize systemic
transformations. We, too, are concerned with long-term social
change, and go so far as to argue that one of the fundamental
units of social change have been world-systems, or put
differently that intersocietal interaction networks have for at
least 12000 years played a crucial contextual role in all sorts
of social [which includes economic, political, and cultural]
change. Many of the failures of theories of long-term social
change derive from inattention to intersocietal interactions.
We take the latter approach because we find it more congruent
with our reading of history; because we argue that if Frank is
right, research using our approach should demonstrate this; and
because we want to be able to use the study of past
transformation to assess the possibilities and probabilities of
future transformations, with an eye to developing some ideas of
how to act in order to promote those futures that stress
collective rationality within a framework of individual freedom
[democratic socialism] on a global scale.
These latter concerns spawned a panel at ASA on Warren Wagar's
book, and the follow up discussions in Volume 2 of Journal of
World-System Research.
Back to Terry's initial discussion. PEWS and world-system
"theory" is much larger than Wallerstein's approach to it. Many
other social science disciplines have found at least some
'resonance' in WST. There is some discussion in Journal of World
History [Benton's article in v7:2(Fall)], although it has minimal
acquaintance with more recent precapitalist arguments.
Archaeologists have found considerable utility, if with
considerable criticism, of wst-like approaches to interregional
interaction [a good review of these will be found Sociological
Inquiry 66:4(November, 1996) in Peter Peregrine's article there,
and also his introductory essay to his book with Gary Feinman,
Pre-Columbian World-Systems 1996]. Also in the same issue of
Sociological Inquiry is an article by Colin Flint & Fred Shelley
reviewing geographical approaches to world-system theory [I'll
post at Table of Contents when the issue appears].
One problem, which has been mentioned recently is that PEWS at
ASA is seen as "men's room" for Wallerstein & Wallersteinians.
Terry's point, which I heartily endorse, is that this is an
overly narrow view of what PEWS and WST theory is about. I've
made this point at length in both the JWSR issue cited above, and
the forthcoming issue of Soc Inq.
We need to do a better job of getting out the word that PEWS and
WST theory is more than Wallerstein's 1974 publications. It is,
and many scholars in many disciplines are already using it for, a
vehicle to transcend disciplinary and regional specialties to
talk across the various academic boundaries that have grown up
with the modern world-system. Dassbach's comments
notwithstanding, WST or better perspective, is a very useful way
transcend those limits. The extension of WST into precapitalist
settings grew out of several different dissatisfactions with its
accounts of the origins of the MWS. That, for me, is why it
remains useful and interesting, and I must say fun.
tom hall