Another response memo on Wallerstein

Dear all,

For now, I'll use memo-writers' initials to preserve some degree of anonymity. We can discuss whether we should use full names or not in class this week. I don't want to violate anyone's privacy, but on the other hand, for purposes of class discussion it's good to know whose opinion is whose.

GI

S K

Spring 2008

Response Paper 1

The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis

The first and foremost question that needs to be asked in the context of globalization is application of Immanuel Wallerstein’s theory of world-systems. Reflecting on the assigned readings I believe Wallerstein is complex and difficult to analyze. Background research did guide me to a more simplified understanding of the premises of his theory. In the 1970s Wallerstein made efforts to extend classical Marxist thinking to the present contemporary form of capitalist society. Wallerstein offers a critique of capitalist exploitation within relations of production by declaring it as a mode of externalizing costs of production onto the periphery. In order to understand Wallerstein’s arguments I believe he revises not just Marx but Fernand Braudel’s framework. Appropriating a societal analysis within his theory he discusses totalities of world–systems. He weaves in economic development and changes in social organization that took place in world development.

As indicated in the article Marx’s influence on Wallerstein is evident. Marx was reductionistic in his theorizing. Whereas Wallerstein broadly sets out to theorize of capitalist world-systems. As he begins to discuss concentration of core countries of the capitalist world-economy he reverts to history to analyze sources, causes, and conditions that occurred in patterns and structures of society. Wallerstein refers to the approach of critical schools in revising the Marxian models. Wallerstein argues capitalism has a specific history. And that history had real effects that have crucially determined capitalism’s global culture.

Premising his theory as stages of development in social structure he addresses shifts or transition from the feudal economy to a capitalist economy. Central to his theory is his idea of stages of social system i.e. of totalities. Tracing origin of totalities in existing historical systems Wallerstein refers to mini-systems and world-systems. He does go back to the 16 th century world-empires or economies as he comments on the existence of one world-system, the capitalist world-economy. Going back to Marx he addresses the concept of division of labor as a characteristic of a social system. The mini-system includes within it a complete division of labor and a single cultural framework. Example of a mini-cultural system includes simple agricultural or hunting or gathering societies. These do not exist as they have become incorporated into other systems.

Wallerstein then discusses world-systems in his theory and designates them as world-empires and world-economies. Tracing origin of the world-economy in 16 ^th century Western Europe, the concept of a capitalist world-economy emerges. Wallerstein in his theory of world systems analyzes 3 structural positions in the world economy: core, periphery, and semi-periphery viz. hierarchies of production and exchange.Capitalism is defined more broadly. For it involves not only appropriation of the surplus-value by an owner from a laborer but an appropriation of the surplus of the whole world-economy by core areas. I believe this is the crux of his world-systems theory.

I believe as Wallerstein sets out to bring an economic analysis to his theory he is calling attention to unequal exchange that has occurred over time due to scarcity of production processes or the transfer of total profit or surplus that occurred between the periphery and core Part of his theory brings to light the fact that unequal exchanges is an outcome of differing wage levels in distinct parts of the world-economy where a peripheral worker needed to work many hours at a given level of productivity to obtain a product obtained by a worker in a core country in on hour. This explanation helps me understand how producers in core zones gain competitive advantages over existing products through mechanization. Wallerstein states capital has historically been a manipulable tool by capitalists located in states which are at one level below high point of strength in the system for eg. the case of U.K versus the Netherlands in 1660-1715 and U.S.S.R vis-à-vis the U.S. in the twentieth century. Wallerstein analyzes how political demands by a class of capitalists sought to maximize profits in the existing economic market particularly in the world-economy.

Interestingly Wallerstein sets out to question the role of the semi-peripheral areas in concepts of core and periphery. He maintains the presence of semi-peripheral areas are essential to allow for a favorable allocation of the surplus of the world-economy. As he concludes his article by discussing the contradictions in the working of the capitalist world-system, he states that today there is only one world-system which is a world-economy which is capitalist in its form. I believe he is in favor of his model of the world systems. Last but not least Wallerstein touches on the issue of a how a third-world socialist economy like China can become integrated into a global economic system in spite of its efforts to retain its ideological and political self-identity. Overall, Wallerstein was difficult to understand. I believe his theory is grounded in economics and macro-sociology. But it is meant for an audience at Harvard. I believe the future of the world-capitalist system appears to be of value for Wallerstein.     

5260/6500 Responses for Week 1

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

1. In the modern world-system, the social factors that allow for one or more nation to move horizontally are missing.
2. What is the role of the IMF, World Bank, etc. in sustaining the world system?
3. What other measures could serve as improvements to the current empirical work to determine the placement of states in the core/periphery hierarchy?
4. 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.

5260/6500 Globalization Seminar presentation schedule

Week 2 (January 29)

Shilpa, Anthony, and Wendy

Sociology of Globalization Week 3 (February 5)

Rodney and Spencer

III. Economic Globalization Week 4 (February 12)

David, Diane, Brett

IV. Global Cities Week 5 (February 19)

Spencer, Sebahat

V.  Political Globalization Week 6 (February 26)

John, Wendy

Political Globalization II Week 7 (March 5)

Anthony, Kavitha, Callie

VII. Cultural Globalization Week 8 (March 12)

 Susan, Allan, Brett

VIII. Women and Women’s Rights Week 9 (March 26)

Callie, Autumn, John

IX. Immigration and Citizenship Week 10 (April 2)

Kavitha, Shilpa, Sebahat (Saba), Alan

X. Fundamentalisms and Other Reactions to Globalization Week 11 (April 9)

Diane, Rodney, David

XI. Food Week 12 (April 16)

Susan, Autumn

SOC 4260: Multiple Passports article in today's NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/business/20dual.html?_r=1&em

SOC 4260: I was wrong: 21% of Americans have passports

But we have far fewer than in other developed countries, and we're travelling less and studying fewer foreign languages:

Americans are Tuning Out the World

When the world comes to their shore, US citizens are increasingly less interested in foreign affairs

There seems to have been a big increase in passports being issued, due to new requirements for travelling back from Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean

Happy New Year!

If you're in SOC 4000: Intro Theory, check here

For SOC 4260: Global Society, check here

For SOC 5260/6500: Globalization Seminar, try here


And if you're an undergraduate who wants to do well in one of my courses, try here

See you all in a few weeks!

Gabe Ignatow
(ignatow@unt.edu)