First, let me too endorse attending the session on ReOrient at ISA--this
will be lively, and informative. Also I want to underscore Gunder's
contribution in forcing attention that the "center of gravity" of the
Afroeurasian world-system was clearly in the east until very late, and
that the transformation/evoution/continuous change at the west end of
Afroeurasia was an attempt to "get in on the action." In Roman times
emperors complained that the empire was being drained of silver by nobles
squander their wealth on silk for their wives and mistresses [aside: here
we see the ugly head of patriarchy, blaming women from men's failings].
But I do want to put in a word for the transformationist camp. The
first, and to me more important point, is that in asking 500 or 5000
years of a world-system the question is already improperly framed. If
one begins study with states already on the scene, one has missed
probably the largest and most dramatic transformation that has occurred
in social history. [I say probably because social life before 12,000
years ago (+/- couple 1000s) is so scantily understood that there may
well have been more dramatic transformations before then, but we have not
dug up (literally) the evidence--if it exists--yet].
Ekhom and Frieman admit to this in several places, Chase-Dunn and I argue
several places; Sanderson argues this in Social Transformations, and
Michael Mann aruges it from a Weberian perspective in his chapter "how
prehistoric peoples evaded power" in ch 2 of sources of social power.
Once states are on the scene--a result of passing a dramatic bifurcation
point-there is a new game, and one that has more continuity than what
went before.
So there may be a modus vivendi here on the camps, there is some
continuity in state based systems from 5000 yrs ago forward.
However, we argue that within that continuity that has been a major
transformation, another passage through a bifurcation point, that becomes
clearly visible [although admittedly have very deep germinal roots] in
17th low countries when production for exchange begins to dominate the
organization of first an entire state, then the rump end of a
world-system, and then procedes to transform that entire world-system,
and finally globalize it in the 20th century.
If I read Prigogine et al correctly [probably a dubious claim at this
point generically, but I think correct on this one point], when a system
reorganizes, that is passes through a bifurcation point, what emerges is
NOT entirely new, but rather a literal RE-organization utilizing the
materials of the old organization and creating new ones, typically at a
higher hierarchical level. So that there are very deep "germinal roots"
of capitalism/industrialism/modernity is no surprise. Thus, there MUST
be some degree of continuity. But that does not vitiate that the world
works signficantly differently by the 1800s than it did as late as the
1400s. These processes take place through time and space.
Some of the shifting going on canNOT be seen [or at least not clearly] by
focusing too tightly on the last few centuries. This is the driving
force for many of us to look at ancient world-systems.
I argue further [and since Chris & I have not discussed this in detail, I
am only making this claim for myself] that the result of the bifurcation,
the emergence of the capitalist world-system is still not complete. This
is why I reject post-modernism and post-industrialism as concepts. The
entire world-system has not full industrialized or modernized. What
people call post modernism and / or post industrialism mistakes
characteristic of core regions for characteristics of the entire
world-system. It like the famous cartoon, New Yorker's map of the world.
That said, this is, for me, one of the most fascinating and insightful
aspects of Gunder's Re-Orient: He in describing how the world-system is
continuing thrrough the bifurcation, continugint to industrialize and
modernize, and how the center of gravity of the system may, ironically
--at least to the Europe is unique crowd-- shifting back to its old
location at the eastern end of Afroeurasia. Such a shift is also
conguent with another pattern in world-system cycles and changes, namely
that changes often come to the center from the semiperiphery [this
argument has been made several time by Chase-Dunn] and detailed in chap.
5 of Rise & Demise].
So, transformationist or continuationist? Maybe regarding
capitalism/industrialism/modernism may be as the old song goes: Gunder
says, Tah-mah-taa; we say Toe-May-Toe, but we're still discussing the
same thing.
Two final points: 1) Gunder's critique of the critiques I think focuses
on why sorting this out is so imporant. Only if we can understand what
happened and why, can we have information to know how to push, or better,
perturb the system, so that what comes out of the next bifurcation [or
the end of this one if one perfers] something better for more people than
capitalism/industrialism/modernism has been. That is something vaguely
along the lines Warren Wagar has suggested in Short History of the Future.
2) Most of what I have said here--inflicted on overextened readers of
wsn--is not new for me, but for me [at least] is clearer and better
organized than it has been as result of Gunder's provocative statements
[and in Re-Orient, as I noted the other day]. In such provocations,
Gunder does us all a great service.
tom
Thomas D. [tom] Hall
thall@depauw.edu
Department of Sociology
DePauw University
100 Center Street
Greencastle, IN 46135
765-658-4519
HOME PAGE:
http://www.depauw.edu/~thall/hp1.htm