In the recent debates, two definitions "system" are floating around
that I think are leading people to talk past one another. One is a
"strong" definition of system, in which actors form a system if they
have an interdependent division of labor that includes the basic
necessities for life among the majority of the system's population.
A "weak" definition is a system is simply any group of actors that
regularly interact in meaningful ways.
Both definitions are appropriate, and some of the disagreement
(perhaps unknowingly) is over which definition people are using and
at what time. Both can be "world" rather than societal in scope, in
the sense that the system comprises a 'world' if the actors are
multiple cultures, states, and societies. One, admittedly awkard way
to distinguish the defintions is a world-system (with hyphen) meaning
the strong sense of the term and a world system (without hyphen)
meaning the weak definition. By a "weak" definition, I do not mean
inconsequential. Sometimes weak ties are more important than strong
ones (as in predicting employment patterns). The international state
system is a set of "weak" ties (i.e., it is not a state-system or an
empire). But, the interaction of states has led to devastaing wars.
Perhaps he will again disagree, but my impression is that what
Gunder is describing prior to 1500 is a world system, not a
world-system. The way I see it is that prior to 1500 we had a
variety of world-systems, some of which were connected by a
Afroeurasian world system (and others in the Americas and parts of
Oceania and central Africa that were left out). By 1650, the
European centered capitalist world-system had incorporated most of
the Afroeurasian world system, along with several of the world-systems
in the Americas, the west coast of Africa, and the East Indies. In
some ways, the incorporation was not fully complete until the
conquest of central Africa in the 1880s, but most of it was done by
1820. There is an old debate on whether to use 1820 or 1650 as the
point of qualitative change in the system, that seems to be mixed in
with the current discussion as well. For Europe, the Americas, the
west coast of Africa, and the East Indies, the qualitative difference
between 1500 and 1650 is, I think, obvious.
Another question is Al Bergesen's search for a new paradigm. I will
respond to that in a different post.
Thanks for reading,
TB
Terry Boswell
Department of Sociology
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322