World system theory, civility and relevance

As a frequent contributor to this list I do feel myself a bit obliged to say
a few things, although on the Kossovo question my opinion is probably as
good as that of any other citizen, and probably worse since - as I
complained elsewhere - we don't even have CNN since broadcasting was
privatized in Amsterdam "to foster a broader offer of programs on the
cable".

So, let me comment on something else - is World System Theory irrelevant to
political action?

Obviously - AND it HAS to be - the essence of academic freedom is that you
do n't study events in the light of something you WANT to happen in the
future, or guided by this or that political or religious tendency existing
at the moment. -

I could go back all the way to Kant and the difference between `sein' (how
things are) and `sollen' (how we want things to be) or - fully aware that he
was a reactionary - to Max Weber's "Wissenschaft als Beruf". Where Weber -
as most of you are undoubtebly aware - said that an academic may have
political opinions just like any other citizen (whether they be plumbers or
prostitutes) but that his political opinion is not worth more than that of
forementioned plumber or prostitute and that if he seeks to cloth his
political opinion as `academic theory' he is doing something very dangerous.

So - academic research is an ivory tower - and MUST be an ivory tower - For
to say it must provide guidelines to immediate political action will put you
back into, say, Nazi or Soviet `scholarly research' of the 1930's where
publications on, say, Babylon from 1500 to 1000 B.C always started with the
statement that this research, of course, confirms the position taken by our
very wise leader, Stalin, at the latest party-conference and contradicts the
fasifications of bourgeoise scholarship. Or - worse - it will put you into a
position where your research has to be in the `racial interest of the
state'.

Now, all this may seem far fetched to my dear American colleagues - whether
they be professors, activists, or students - but having talked with a couple
of academicians from Aligarh Muslim University (India) recently where many
academicians now have to wear guns to withstand attacks from Islamic
fundamentalist groups, demanding that teaching be `Islamic' and teachers
with views contrary to Islam be expulsed or shot, I can pretty much tell
this is an issue of daily struggle outside of the US.

And US-citizens on this list please ponder for a moment. Were universities
to conduct research and discussions of "direct political significance
conforming to the broad view of the US-population", you would have, I can
pretty much predict, Darwinism outlawed on American University and prayers
and obligatory hymns to the flag instituted at the beginning of every
lecture. It may be difficult to realize from Greenwich-village or
Binghampton campus but the US is still a very Christian and a very
nationalist country. And I'm very afraid the view of the average US-voter
and average US-worker confirm pretty much to those of Archie Bunker.
("America love it or leave it".)

The "Hula-postings" sadly reflect the view of the average American worker
and Congresman - and if you don't want the funds of universities
(particularly for social sciences) cut and religious and `patriotic'
teaching made obligatory by law you better look out - only fortunate this
discussion doesn't reach beyond this list ! -

2.) Also, I find the `students romanticism' of some of the postings frankly
very strange - not only does the bulk of the American students hold at best
`liberal views' - but, please my American colleagues - remember that
studying in the US is very expensive and that if I - I'm of very poor
working class - background - would have been a US-citizen my parents surely
would have been unable to pay my study. American students are overwhelmingly
of middle class and upper-middle class background - so, please, do not argue
as if they are a disadvantaged group as opposed to their professors because
they are not.  Nor are they likely ever to be a revolutionary group - for
the simple reason that - as deriving from priviliged groups - they profit
far too much from the system to have it abolished.

3.) The posting of our dear Portuguese colleague also contains a very
dangerous word that's the word "WE Marxists". Now - apart from the fact that
Marx himself was not `Marxist' but a Social-Democrat or Communist - who's
that `WE' going to be if there's serious disagreement on the line to be
followed ? Who is going to speak on behalf of US ? In the Communist Parties
the `WE' is generally the "Party-Line". Thus, in the Communist Party you had
`discussion and schooling' which generally meant in the Dutch Communist
Party in the 50's somebody first read "our position" to the comrades from
our daily "De Waarheid" and then eludicated "our position" without further
discussion. Now, that's perfectly OK for a political movement - you can not
effectively sell the "Waarheid" at the factory gate if half the comrades
disagrees with or does not understand its lead-article -but it utterly kills
academic freedom and discussion.

4.) So, though I perfectly sympathise with those of you who say that
"academic research should reflect the daily struggle of the working people"
and "tell us what to do" and I can well understand your irritation, I would
say this is NOT the place to complain about that.

If you don't want us to all sing the glory of the stars and stripes - or
advocate a separate black motherland for black academics - you will have to
resign yourself to `irrelevant discussions' - and to say that we should all
be following the example of "Marxists like Lenin" in advocating concrete
solutions to concrete problems - may I please remind you that those who did
not agree with Lenin were imprisoned or shot ? It's not that I don't agree
with Lenin's analysis but the initial point of his position was that in
class-war violence is necessary and allowed - thus the violence of Marxist
polemics is immediately linked to war against the class-enemies.

Now, sadly, American academics, be realistic: since the US-universities are
already on the left of the US-political spectrum and the liberal views there
are more or less tolerated by the US-elites for being irrelevant a very
politicized discourse there would not lead to a revolution in the US - as
professor Wallerstein seems to think with his talk about
`counter-movements' -  but would lead to a Mac Carthyist backlash where
students and professors are henceforth vetted by the FBI and CIA for
`communist sympathies'.

So, please join the Trotskist Party, protest in front of the white house,
or, better still, go to the Bronx to organize black workers or mothers of
single child families (who I can pretty much predict will be utterly
disinterested in what's happening in Kossovo - where 's that ? ... ? -).

For, I am loath to say, being able to discuss foreign politics (let alone on
an e-mail list) already indicates you're in a priviliged position and,
therefore, the real poor will immediately distrust you as a well-doer from
the outside. I can pretty much tell you the average black single mother with
five childeren living in a ramshackle flat in the Bronx (or an unemployed
mother of two in the slums of Argos-Town - Jamaica - as I know by personal
experience) has more urgent concerns than what's happening in Kosovo - or
any foreign country for that matter -while I can also pretty much predict
she will be an avid church-goer with a strong dislike for academic atheists.

For this reason I'm frankly not very optimistic too about the whole idea of
`global grassroot counter-movements' overthrowing the yoke of the
World-System somewhere in the next century (not that I wouldn't like it -
there's a difference between what you would LIKE to happen and what you
think WILL happen).

The real grassroot movement among the poor in the Third World on the moment
is sadly not the environmental movement, unions and what kind of progressive
movements have you, it's the protestant church (in Latin America and the
Carribean), the Catholic and Protestant church (in Africa), Hindutva (in
India) and `grassroot', 'fundamentalist' Islam throughout the world.

Once again, it's not that I wouldn't LIKE broad progressive
counter-movements to exist among the poor in the US or the Third World -
it's not that I wouldn't LIKE a more equal world order I'm only stating what
the situation IS - . The danger is that what we would LIKE to happen may
well obscure our view of what's really happening and this social science
list much suffers from this. It appears to be a special problem with social
scientists rather than with historians who always have to resign to the idea
that you can't chance the past - whereas sociologists and economists are
always busy explaining the present by their knowledge of what they would
like to happen in the future

Best wishes
R.J. Barendse
Amsterdam - The Netherlands

P.S. Compliments to Derlugian for his briliant analysis of the
Kosovo-confict to which I don't have much to add -.