Anthony J. Guerrero-Soto January 27, 2009
What Makes the World Go?
Chase-Dunn and Grimes outline the world-system perspective and offer a useful framework to understand earlier and modern world-systems. Their outline incorporates different definitions of world-systems, thus providing a historical context to the modern world-system. The modern world-system is defined as a power hierarchy between core, semi-periphery, and periphery nations.
Several questions remain unexplored. It is unclear how (e.g. under what conditions) states enter into the modern world system. For example, the Ottoman Empire and Mughal India were “forcibly incorporated into the periphery of the modern world-system as producers of low-wage commodities for export to the core;” to what extent do nation-states have a choice in history (pg. 390)? Given the fact the core is predominately Western-European centered, have states both historically and in recent times been able to (as Huntington outlines) either pursue a course of isolation, “band-wagon,” enter into the world system as a semi-peripheral nation?
If culture is the primary source of conflict as articulated by Huntington, the role of culture in modern world-systems is unaddressed. In fact, Chase-Dunn & Grimes are deterministic about the role of the economic factors in their world-systems framework. Although they are inclusive of many social variables in world-systems, there is no attempt to describe the fluidity of cultural identities and its role in shaping global economic relationships.
In other words, while nation-states might control its citizens and economy, it is not a unidirectional relationship. Citizens are dynamic, having the capability shape nation-states too. For example, the revival of a religion movement holds promise to transform identity (religion might serve as the basis for identity) and transcend national boundaries. Moreover, common culture facilities economic regionalism and holds promise to change a nation’s or group of nations position in the world-system.
In short, the world-systems model appears too simplistic. The current global economy is complex, perhaps disjunctive in nature that requires more than a neo-Marxist approach. For me, the Huntington article just begins to address the complexity of disjunctures between the economy, culture, and politics.
Other Questions/Comments
- In the modern world-system, the social factors that allow for one or more nation to move horizontally are missing.
- What is the role of the IMF, World Bank, etc. in sustaining the world system?
- What other measures could serve as improvements to the current empirical work to determine the placement of states in the core/periphery hierarchy?
- Pg. 400 states that ascendance from the periphery encourages population growth. One partial reason is because the people live longer in core nations. The formula for population growth takes into account death rate.
Wendy Gottlich
Dr. Ignatow
Globalization 5260
January 27, 2009
Globalization Week 1: Response Paper
The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System (written by Wallerstein) opened the door for a more structured, empirical analysis of the world system as a whole. Although it left many questions unanswered and the structure used left something to be desired, the work of Wallerstein was a fundamental beginning capable of allowing room for improvement. Not unlike many other theories and or objective rationale in it’s stages of infancy the work of Wallerstein is not only significantly influential to the further research of globalization as a whole. It is also easily disputed to encourage greater debate and research concerning the topic of a great world system.
Among the significant concepts presented in the work of Wallerstein is a general idea of stages developed “posteriori”, as well as a differentiation between world-economies and world empires, and a categorization of states as core states, peripheral states, and semi-peripheral states. Using examples such as the U.S.S.R, and the debate between Liu Shao-Chi and Mao Tse-Tung concerning whether China was a socialist state, Wallerstein provides examples of various nations and how they relate to the world system as a whole.
The most significant critique of Wallerstein’s work is the lack of a formed theory and easily tangible concepts, as well as generalizations without fundamental evidence or explanation. Other theories conclude (opposed to the view of Wallerstein that capitalism is the driving force behind the development of a world system) that the world system itself is the driving force behind the evolution of capitalism.
Also debated is the relationship between the core and periphery states, as well as the purpose of the semi-peripheral states within the world system. Evidence based research using, among other things, GNP and foreign investment have been used to determine the validity of various arguments or support theories proposed by Wallerstein.
I think all of the authors have significant influence on the topic of globalization. I also think that the contribution by Wallerstein, no matter how vague it may seem to be to his peers, is still vital to the further research and development of a more conclusive understanding of globalization as a sociological entity. One can only build upon a previously laid foundation. Wallerstein had little, or so it seems, to build upon. I think the Chase-Dunn article presented a better understanding for me as to what globalization is in general.
In my own research, I am becoming more interested in finding out if there is a significant generalized view of death and dying developing due to the increased global view of the world. With the more readily available interaction of various cultures I wonder if there is a shift in the view of death as a whole world-wide. I see (in the hospital where I work) changes in how we treat various cultures with similar all encompassing standards when it comes to matters of death and dying. I wonder if this type of generalized view is evolving elsewhere as well. The articles encourage me to question further how far the impact of globalization reaches and does it reach to even the end stages, and final stage of life.
ALSO, TWO (ANONYMOUS) MEMOS ON SAMUEL HUNTINGTON
My understanding clash of civilizations; civilizations make our identity for us, simply national simply economical conflict. When I read Professor Huntington the idea, question comes to me. He speaks, as civilizations is something new. As something just come here last 20 th century. We are never had civilization act this level that we have it now. Civilization is not new. People have begun to take them off one by one if we look at it historically and globally. I wonder what is the new about this from Professor Huntington perspective. Clash always is not the possibility
The “Clash of Civilizations” theory with the clash between the West and Islam at the center, which was first put forward by Bernard Lewis and later publicized by Samuel Huntington, is a theory which is misleading, which distorts reality and which at the same time is quite dangerous
Huntington literature and popular mass media show that Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” idea actually has very little value in understanding the current global political context. The central assumption of Huntington’s view, that cultural kinship ties influence loyalties and agreements on a global scale, has little to do with the daily lives of American citizens and little to do with the decisions made by the current presidential administration. The most important “kinship” ties are not religious or cultural, but economic.
The highest cultural groupings of people—are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. In the resulting era of cultural conflict that is emerging, the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. In Huntington's final analysis, the West must be accommodating if possible and confrontational if necessary; moreover, all civilizations will have to learn to tolerate each other. This collection includes a series of responses to Huntington's original essay by eminent writers in the field
Somewhat, Huntington's view is more a political paper than a scholarly statement; he has specified and written it to give advice the US government. Whatever he advises the government to do has already been undertaken by the US government: such as strengthening US-Europe relations; integrating Eastern Europe and Latin America into the west maintaining relationship with Japan and Russia.
On p. 40, Huntington writes that “civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and…religion.” While these structures are indeed important in the demarcation of one civilization with another, there are two additional characteristics the author failed to mention that are equally important: 1) knowledge, and 2) technology. These two characteristics are part and parcel of each other in many ways—new knowledge leads to increases in technology, and new technologies lead to increases in knowledge—and provide another dimension of distinction between civilizations. For example, the knowledge and technology attained by the antiquarian Romans toward the creation of roads and aqueducts was an aspect which separated them from myriad other civilizations and tribes simultaneously existing at the time. In this way, knowledge and technology can be seen as an extension of those other characteristics mentioned by Huntington which provide distinction between civilizations.
On p. 42, Huntington suggests that “as people define their identity in ethnic and religious terms, they are likely to see an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ relation…” This statement is sensible and reasonable, but is nothing new or unique to modern history and the contemporary world. The ‘us versus them’ mentality has existed since the dawn of humankind; indeed, the ‘us versus them’ idea is fundamentally the way in which groups of people throughout history have defined the limits and boundaries of what makes ‘us’ different from ‘them’. In a way, this argument is based in the traditionalist perspective—one of three perspectives proposed by David Held—because it is saying, like globalization, there is nothing new about the ‘us versus them’ phenomenon; that ‘us versus them’ distinctions have always existed in the development of human groups and civilizations.
The phrase ‘world community’ comes up on p. 45. Huntington tells us that “through the IMF and other international economic institutions, the West promotes its economic interests and imposes on other nations the economic policies it thinks appropriate”. But, what is wrong with this if the West is supposed to be the economic leader of the world community? A leader should promote itself and be steadfast in its imposition of advantageous economic practices if it is to maintain its position as leader. This is not to say that the Westshould be the world’s economic leader by mere virtue that it is the West (that is a separate argument altogether), but rather that if the West is to be the economic leader of the world community then using the IMF and other international government organizations at their disposal is an effective way to keep economic authority over world markets.
Later on p. 45, Huntington writes that “at a superficial level much of Western culture has indeed permeated the rest of the world” and that “at a more basic level, however, Western concepts differ fundamentally from those prevalent in other civilizations”. A personal example illustrating this is my time spent vacationing in Egypt. There were numerous times when watching Egyptian television that I would see Western movies and music videos playing rather than authentic Egyptian programming. Nonetheless, we know that the Egyptian ways of life and belief systems are quite disparate from those of the West. This is a perfect example of Huntington’s point that while there are great instances of Western influence in non-Western cultures, essentially these cultures hold on to their roots.
