it seems that each of us intuitevily knows what is it "a world
center", but E.Durkheim in his classical "Rules of sociol.method"
appealed to avoid such amorphous intuitions and to start from
clear, explicit, operational, "material" definitions of phenomena.
my question is is there in modern WS approach (30 years after
Braudelian books) if not strict definition but at least some
constructive ideas for elaboration such clear concept
f.e. according to IW and Chase-Dunn world center can be interpreted
as a hegemon of the core of current global world-economy; a hegemony
can be defined as obtaining of maximal control of a)economic, b)
military-political, and mayby also
c)cultural-ideological-informational resources.
In this case if we get procedures for comparative
evaluation of the control level, we can come to some not intuitive
but real results concerning existance and address(es) of world
centers today and in past epochs. A method of this kind may occur
erroneous but already now you can start to criticise it
best
Nikolai
On 11 Mar 98 Gernot Kohler <gernot.kohler@sheridanc.on.ca> wrote:
> (a) Frankian -- i.e., *one* global center shifting from the "West"
> to the "Orient" (where it used to be some time prior)? or,
>
> (b) Aminian -- i.e., a world with one global center ("West") is
> evolving into a world with several centers ("polycentric")?
******************************************************
Nikolai S. Rozov, PhD, Dr.Sc. Professor of Philosophy
E-MAIL: rozov@nsu.ru FAX: 7-3832-397101
ADDRESS: Philosophy Dept. Novosibirsk State University
630090, Novosibirsk, Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI (PHILosophy OF HIstory and
theoretical history). URL=
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe/philofhi.htm
*********************************************************************