Re: w-s critique of po-mo

Tue, 11 Mar 1997 10:17:28 -0500 (EST)
A. Gunder Frank (

Yes Nicolai, but surely the virus has reached Moscow too, if not
Novosibirsk. I dont remember if in my anguish, I mentioned that one of
the main frustrations was/is that it was/is no longer possible to
carry any analysis or argument from A to C via B; because, if not
already at A itself, at B it gets derailed into the wild blue

\n Tue,
11 Mar 1997, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:

> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:01:30 -0600 (NSK)
> From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" <>
> Subject: Re: w-s critique of po-mo
> i agree with distinction between world-system theory (wst) and
> postmodernism (po-mo) by Peter Grimes and strongly
> support Gunder in his anger and conclusions. i use to name post-modernism
> this serious blame is based
> on one simple observation: those who rush into po-mo very soon become unable
> for any on-going, systematic, responsible, logically constrained intellectual
> work. to involve into po-mo is to buy INDULGENCE FOR NON-THINKING, (take any
> po-mo journal and you'll see that thinking is not necessary for any of
> these free- style irresponsible essays)
> degradation comes rather soon. i was told that most famous anthropological
> schools in UK and US are already almost destroyed by po-mo, now the turn of
> history and sociology comes
> each epidemy has some interior strenth which is the reason of its power
> and i am ready to recognize value of original works of Foucalt concerning
> knowledge, power, language, etc, but most latter waves seem to be totally
> muddy, i would be grateful if somebody presents any really new,
> clear, productive and testable idea of last years in this tradition
> at the same time, just as each new epidemy is a challenge for medicine,
> each new wave of irrationalism is a challenge for rationalism, and here i
> must agree with Robert Denemark (see below) that rational wst has no
> sufficient and persuadive arguments.
> but i don't agree with Robert when he sees the problem in:
> >. Different
> >scholars offer similar predictions based on dissimilar arguments.
> i think that Robert here kept in mind explanations of the past , not
> predictions of the future.
> the real problem is that in social sciences now ALMOST NOBODY DARES TO
> PREDICT, everybody are afraid of theirs renome' (i know the only positive and
> bright example of prediction: Randall Collins by means of his
> geopolitical theory predicted USSR collapse).
> The well- reasoned carefulness (not to say cowardice) turns into total
> intellectual impotence of rational social sciences (including wst),
> why then to wonder that new generations of students see no prospect in
> systematic work and prefer po-mo, where non-work leads to non-worse results!
> i use to take that the breaking-point between OLD AGE of witch processes
> and NEW AGE of Enlightment's rationalism (which i don't idealize, of course)
> was the bright prediction of Galey's comet coming by means of sky-mechanics
> theory
> what we need now for defense and prosper of rational social thinking is
> predictive theories and braveness to make predictions
> Nikolai
> P.S. dear Bob, i am interested in your paper, the address below
> > for their work. Fearing the rational choice cul-de-sac I suppose, all
> > suggestions that agency ought be taken seriously elicit a negative
> > response. The problem we face is that structural analyses of the world
> > system sort suffer from indeterminancy. Different scholars offer similar
> > predictions based on dissimilar arguments. It is difficult to evaluate
> > which arguments are the best. One solution would be to trace the various
> > logics down through the effects they have on individuals. If one argument
> > has the capacity to predict the specific individual responses we
> > subsequently see, while others do not, that logic would appear more
> > complete. Hence a 'microfoundational' analysis would serve the cause.
> >
> > Best, Bob Denemark
> ***********************************************************
> Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy
> Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University
> # 630090, Novosibirsk
> Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
> Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
> (PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
> /philofhi.html
> ************************************************************