Whitelaw FAQ World Systems Theory
-
Upload
haley-whitelaw -
Category
Documents
-
view
47 -
download
2
Transcript of Whitelaw FAQ World Systems Theory
Running head: FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY 1
FAQ: World Systems Theory
Haley Whitelaw
Royal Roads University
INDS 500: Dr. Wendy Schissel
26 March 2016
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
Question 1: Immanuel Wallerstein's world systems theory (WST) is built on the
assumption that the system is held together by exploitation, resulting in polarizing
the nations of the earth. The world is divided into three main zones: core, periphery,
and semi-periphery. Can you elaborate on how this hierarchy can be understood in
terms of the strength or weakness of each nation's political unit, including cultural
integration, as I made the assumption then that those nations who are stronger and
have more cultural integration in their societies will form the core while those
nations weaker to less integration move towards the periphery? Could it also be
assumed that the blending of cultures makes a nation stronger?
There is no consensus on the rationale for the division of the world-system, but
Wallerstein does describe a structuring mechanism that is more definitional than
theoretical, and political rather than economic. When describing the initial polarization
that leads up to the current world-economy, Wallerstein states that advantage is
cumulative and a point could be reached where strength creates more strength: "crucial to
the ability of a nation to take advantage of any edge created in the marketplace, and to
begin an upward spiral from strength to strength, was the nature of its internal class
structure" (Simpson, 1990, p.74). If the class structure allowed the development of a
strong state, then the state could act on the behalf of its dominant economic groups in the
world market to reinforce the nation's advantage. Therefore the creation of strong state
machinery coupled with a national culture enabled core nations to protect the disparities
that had arisen in the world-system. They were able to do this either through diplomacy,
war, or subversion. Weakness from peripheral states stems not only from a lack of
resources but also an inability to unite internal interests (Wallerstein, 1982). Babones
2
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
(2015) suggests that "individuals participate in 'core-type' or 'peripheral-type' activities
because of the systemic positions of the countries in which they live, not the other way
around" (p.8).
You ask if it can be assumed that the blending of cultures makes a nation
stronger; from a world-systems socio-political viewpoint, state strength is described in
terms of having greater control over internal fragmentation. Nations that integrate
women, ethnic/racial/religious minorities, indigenous population, persons of non-
heterosexual sexual orientations, as well as those concerned with ecological or peace
issues, as prime actors on an equal level with the historical subjects assert themselves
more effectively than more fragmented nations (Wallerstein, 2011).
Question 2: Looking at the map of the core, semi-periphery and periphery nations
of the world, and the premise that nations developed as they did because of their
position in this world system ... how can two nations that both experienced
colonization by European powers (say, Canada, and Nigeria) have such
dramatically different places in the economic importance of the world? Does world
systems theory address why the end results of broadly similar colonial experiences
might be so different?
In my response to Question 1 I elaborated that the core-periphery hierarchy can be
understood in terms of a nation's political unit which either has strong or weak state
machinery; the core of the world-system is characterized by 'strong' nation-states that
exhibit relatively low levels of control of the market (a core country such as Canada may
have high taxes, strong government regulation, and large state-owned enterprises, but
3
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
political control of the market sphere is at arm's length). A periphery country such as
Nigeria is characterized by its 'weakness' in that it has potentially low levels of cultural
integration and is not sufficiently powerful to effectively meddle in the market (Babones,
2015).
The political basis of the world-systems categorization of nations has implications
on their economic status, however, it is important to remember that WST looks outside of
each nation's internal politics and focuses on the exploitative properties of the
relationships between the nations of each category. Although both Canada and Nigeria
experienced colonization, a distinguishing feature of incorporation of a periphery into the
world-system is not the importance of that periphery to the division of labour of the core
but the impact on the periphery of events in the core: "Africa is a periphery of Europe not
because Europe needs Africa to feed itself but because relatively minor changes in
European policies (e.g. the rules for granting of offset credits in the European carbon
market) can have outsized impacts on African countries. Europe does not consider
African needs in settling its internal affairs, but Europe's internal affairs can profoundly
impact African economics, politics, and culture. Africa is no less incorporated for its lack
of influence on Europe" (Babones, 2015, p.10).
I think it is also interesting to note that Wallerstein's sociological interest was
initially politics, and his main scholarly pursuit in graduate school in the 1950s was a
study of contemporary social change in Africa. In the 1960s these contemporary issues
included that of post independence difficulties, and he performed fieldwork on the
movement for African unity at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria (among other African
universities). Wallerstein experimented with comparative analysis but never published his
4
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
work because of his dissatisfaction with the methodology, and this is what turned him
towards world-systems analysis (Wallerstein, 2002). "His work as an Africanist in the
period of decolonization convinced him that in order to make sense of what was
happening before his eyes, he could not continue to look only at Africa" (Palumbo-Liu et
al., 2011, p. 2). In the 1980s, challenges to his work arose from what he describes as "the
broad current [of] cultural studies" (within which he includes postmodernism and 'post-
other things'). Their criticism was that WST had far too many disprovable hypotheses,
and was committing the fatal sin of ignoring culture (Wallerstein, 2002).
Question 3: Why does the unit of analysis have to be the world rather than a tribe,
class or nation? Is there any research as to why that is? Is WST theory scalable; is
it possible for it to be applied on a smaller scale?
As for the ‘world scale’ analysis; in the first volume of his trilogy, The Modern
World System (1974), Wallerstein says that he chose the world as the appropriate unit
because it was only at this scale that he could ‘see’ the system. The Marxist influence on
his work would suggest the belief that the truth is always the whole. Throughout his
writings, Wallerstein makes the case that the modern world-system is a capitalist world-
economy, that capitalism can only exist within the framework of a world-economy, and
that a world-economy can only operate on capitalist principles (Wallerstein, 2002).
Palumbo-Liu et al. (2011) mention Wallerstein’s analogy of WST with astronomy – the
physical laws determining the orbits of the planets around the sun. He was using formal
coherence as criteria, and hints at a hierarchical social content (sun and planets, core and
periphery). This coherence is crucial to the assumption that the world forms a system and
5
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
that the historical framework of the system explains all major events within it by asking
what it is about the system that produces phenomena (Auschwitz, Gulags, ethnic
purification for example) and allows them to flourish in ways that hadn’t occurred before.
The article Immanuel Wallerstein and the problem of the world: System, scale,
culture argues that it makes sense to think of Wallerstein’s choice for the world scale unit
of analysis as existential: “… as a judgment summing up the state of the world at a given
time and shaping the analytic perspective that seemed best suited to deal with it. This is
not to say that the inclination of the world scale was merely personal or innocently
spontaneous” (Palumbo-Liu et al., 2011, p. 3). They state that any alternative
methodology, any smaller unit of analysis that tried to displace it without coming to
terms in some equally visceral way with global inequality would risk looking trivial.
If world systems theory was ‘scalable’ it would go against Wallerstein’s stance
against disciplinary specialization. The aim of WST is “to understand how the core
subjugates the periphery, and not to study the reactions of the micro-populations
habitually investigated by the anthropologists… [Wallerstein] wants to think
simultaneously on the level of the encompassing system and on the micro-level” (Eric
Wolf, as quoted by Palumbo-Liu et al., 2011, p. 8).
Question 4: A criticism of world systems theory is that it misinterprets historical
evidence; can you elaborate on the context of this criticism?
This point of criticism comes from Simpson (1990) who was writing in the
context of a critical examination of the Cook Islands and WST as a general theory of
(under)development. I think it is important to remember that Wallerstein is a critic of
6
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
specialization, and while he stresses the importance of historical factors in development,
one of the reasons WST is resilient is because of its simplicity. Yes, the WST model is
economically deterministic, and Simpson maintains that the history of the Cook Islands
since European contact contains elements that both support and undermine this. For
example, Indigenous control of shipping prior to 1901, affected by policy measures by
the New Zealand administration, followed by loss of control to European merchants by
the end of World War I would lead to the expectation that the relationship between the
Cook Islands (peripheral nation), New Zealand (semi-peripheral), and Britain (core) to be
primarily characterized by economic exploitation. Simpson makes the assertion that
annexation of the Cook Islands included other important factors such as welfare and
strategic reasons; the islands comprising the group are small, have limited resources, and
lack a significant skilled work force: "exploitation is not the only possible explanation of
the lopsided nature of the Cook Islands' economy" (Simpson, 1990).
Question 5: History is (re-)written by the victors; and in the context of world
systems theory, the economically dominant. Can you comment on WST's focus on
world history within Wallerstein's mode of analysis, and the value of the theory
from other perspectives (humanist, colonial)?
The focus on history seems to be a point of contention for this 'theory'
(Wallerstein classifies his framework as world systems analysis - however I am referring
to it as world systems theory for the sake of continuity). I don't think that the two
paradigms of colonial theory and WST would merge because Wallerstein believes his
mode of analysis is primarily a protest against the ways in which social science (and
7
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
'theorizing') is done. The key issue being; how to overcome the distinction of three social
arenas: economic, political, and sociocultural. Wallerstein (2002) called for sociologists
to move forward to the construction of a new and reunified discipline he calls "historical
social science" (p. 372).
One of my sources is a collection of essays written by a variety of humanists; and
it is noted in the introduction that "[Euro-American cultural critics] tell ourselves ... that
we have committed an ethical and political injustice in excluding so much of the rest of
the world from ... the setting up and interpreting of canons, the choice of categories we
apply which we compare cultural forms and social realities, and so on" (Palumbo-Liu et
al., 2011, p. 4). I'm sure this is why I'm drawn to world-systems theory as an
interdisciplinary topic, as disciplinary visions of planetarity compete and confuse
(anthropology, ethnic studies, etc); history must be written beyond the scale of the nation.
WST is therefore especially good for humanists to reflect on, precisely because it is
somewhat unfriendly to the humanities (Palumbo-Liu et al., 2011).
Question 6: A criticism of world systems theory is the lack of attention to agency.
How does Wallerstein view periphery regions that are actively choosing to build
greater agency by developing goods and services? Does World Systems Theory
make a value judgment about motivation?
Wallerstein emphatically maintains that the positions of core, semi-periphery and
periphery pre-date the emergence of the modern world-economy and identifies their
existence in pre-modern world-empires. Therefore, I don't believe WST pays much
attention to agency, whether in attempts for economic growth or the motivations of
8
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
peripheral regions. The large scale of WST is the reason that it works; there can't be
further categorizations within periphery, for example: the point is not to jump from one
scale (the world) to another (the inner motivations and agency of each nation) or all of the
theoretical, epistemological, and political commitments cannot be expected to line up
perfectly with each other; "the topic of scale demands that you put your ultimate
commitments in play, and leave them there" (Palumbo-Liu et al., 2011, p. 8).
The criticism that you referred to comes from a humanist perspective of positive
values (motivation, agency) and objects of knowledge (culture, subjectivity). World-
systems theory is an inspiring narrative for the social scientist but leaves nothing valuable
for the traditional humanist... it has very little deference to cultural particularity besides
its broad defining premise of unequal exchange across the international division of labour
(Palumbo-Liu et al., 2011). This slight does attest to the validity of Palumbo-Liu's
criticism (2011) that what Wallerstein offers is not a theory of global capitalism or a
system, but rather a history; and that his system is much more open to contingency than
he tends to recognize.
Question 7: I am wondering in your research, did anyone suggest how and why
change might take place? I can see the countries on the periphery would certainly
want change and to put an end to exploitation but when one of the main drivers of
our society is the economy and wealth what do you see as a force for change for
countries at the core?
World systems theory dictates that the current capitalist world economy is not
sustainable and so 'why' change might take place is because change is inevitable. The
9
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
way that I interpret 'how' is that the force for change comes from the top down (core
countries holding the power of the economy), and I will elaborate. Wallerstein writes
from a leftist perspective and in his 2008 article for Monthly Review: An Independent
Socialist Magazine, he describes the crisis facing the world system and how the current
capitalist system will not survive. Wallerstein states that the world is currently in
transition, and the outcome of the struggle is dependent on the totality of the actions of
everyone on all sides. Speculations about the successor world-system to the current
capitalist world economy range from a socialist world-government to an American
world-empire.
WHY change will take place: a systemic crisis occurs only once in the life of a
historical system. It occurs when the mechanisms that exist to bring the system back to
some kind of equilibrium no longer function adequately, and the system can be seen to be
moving far from equilibrium, thereby becoming “chaotic” (Wallerstein, 2008).
HOW will change occur: in Wallerstein's opinion, it is only with the creation of
the World Social Forum (WSF) in 2001 that there has come into existence a structure
within which an alternative strategy may possibly be developed. The argument is that the
major national and international organizations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
were all "vertical" in that they were hierarchical structures, with bureaucracies and
officers, with official statements of political position, and with members; they all were
political organizations dedicated to some kind of action in the political arena. As opposed
to this mode of organization, the WSF as a "horizontal" structure is constructed as an
open forum. That is, it is a structure without officers, without (or with only a skeleton)
bureaucracy, with no public proclamation of political positions, and with open and
10
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
constant debate. The WSF has become an organizational model for replication at other
levels: continental, regional, national, and local social forums, as well as so-called
thematic forums. The worldwide WSF has been continually improving to increase
transparency of how the inevitable organizational decisions are being made, and the
creation of explicit spaces for 'networks' of organizations to meet and to organize joint
activities (Wallerstein, 2008).
Wallerstein also notes that "there is no precise idea of appropriate structures for
the better world-system we want to construct. That was one of the great historic virtues of
Marx. He never claimed he could design what the 'communist' world would actually look
like in institutional terms … work in the short run is primarily defensive. It is to keep
things from getting worse. It is to preserve gains already achieved" (2008).
Question 8: World systems theory is anticipatory, and seeks to undo global
inequities. Could you provide an example of the kind of strategy for equitable
development that world systems theory would propose?
In his essay based on a talk that Wallerstein delivered at the conference, "Global
Crisis: Rethinking Economy and Society" at the University of Chicago in 2010, he
outlines a medley of tactics that serve as strategy to mobilize support for equitable
development towards a better world-system that is relatively democratic and relatively
egalitarian.
1. Place great emphasis on serious intellectual analysis; not in a discussion merely
by intellectuals, but throughout the populations of the world. Wallerstein notes we
have never really had this in the past, and without it we cannot hope to proceed.
11
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
2. Categorically reject the goal of economic growth and replace it with the goal of
maximum decommodification- what the movements of indigenous nations in the
Americas are calling buen vivir.
Wallerstein admits that 'how' this is done is not immediately obvious, and must be
experimented widely with.
3. Create local and regional self-sufficiencies, especially in the basic elements of
life such as food and shelter. Wallerstein notes that the globalization we want is
not a single totally integrated division of labour but an 'afterglobalization' of
multiple autonomies that interconnect.
4. End the existence of foreign military bases, by anyone, anywhere, for any
reason. The United States has the widest collection of bases but as we know, it is
not the only state to have such bases. (Reduction of bases will also reduce the
amount of world resources spent on military machines, equipment, personnel, and
permit allocation of these resources for better uses).
5. Aggressive pursuit of ending the fundamental social inequalities of gender,
race, ethnicity, religion, sexualities, etc.
Wallerstein (2011) notes that we cannot expect a better world-system circa 2050
if, in the interim, any of the three pending supercalamities occurs: irrevocable climate
change, vast pandemics, and nuclear war.
In the Journal of World-Systems Research, Teivo Teivainen wrote the article,
'Towards a Democratic Theory of the World-System: Democracy, Territoriality, and
Transnationalization' (2015) from a viewpoint that assumes the need to search for
12
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
democratic alternatives to the capitalist world-system, arguing that we need to move
beyond exclusively territorialist accounts of social space and focus on the political
multidimensionality of the world-system, and the importance of imagining institutional
features of transnational futures.
Question 9: When discussing the tourism applications of the theory, you shared the
concern: Exploitation of local economy: Resort Properties owned by international
companies (Belk & Costa, 1995). This for any responsible tourism ministry within
government, would be of great concern, or so we would hope. My question is, do you
feel that the World Systems Theory has a role to play in the opening of the Cuban
Tourism Market to the United States of America and its potential “investment” in
Cuba?
I do feel that WST has a role to play. The optimistic assumption that opening the
tourism market will be a primary means for the development of Cuba obviously comes
with a number of problems including financial & social exploitation, erosion of culture,
and expansion of gaps between the haves and have-nots. There are clearly different
effects of tourism in developed (core) areas of the world versus less-developed
(periphery) areas. Belk & Costa (1995) state that the cultural effects of touristic contact
between members of quite distinct cultures (and in the case of Cuba and the U.S.; citizens
of countries with a tumultuous political relationship) must be considered. Culture and
economy are interrelated and tourism tends to affect one by affecting the other.
As Belk & Costa (1995) observe, if cultures (as tourists experience them) lose
their uniqueness, they also lose much of their touristic appeal. And if cultural differences
13
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
are stylized, the tourist receives a commodified and simplified version of otherness. I
assume the preponderance of U.S. tourists would be visiting on an all inclusive style
package, cruise, or tour, generally seen as a low contact, brief, and shallow experience
that involves a desire to experience a foreign culture safely and comfortably without
having to alter customary living patterns. What the majority of people are looking for is a
'cheap' destination to relax and unwind - and I don't blame them, who wouldn't want to
get the 'most' out of their vacation budget? The number one way that travellers can
support local communities (both economically and culturally) is by avoiding these types
of vacations. In other Caribbean destinations, the majority of hotels & resorts are owned
by companies from core countries such as Spain, and a very miniscule percentage of the
tourist dollar actually stays in the country. Cuba must be a little different as although
many properties are managed by or contracted to international companies, I believe all
real estate is state-owned.
There are many positives to look forward to because of the trade embargo being
lifted. I think of the crumbling architecture of Havana in dire need of restoration;
medications & supplies that Canada would have been happy to provide had the embargo
restrictions not affected our trade as well; access to information and communication via
satellite and internet; increased cultural understanding and exchange. But I fear the
contrast between tourist perception vs. reality, as "tourism becomes a form of
imperialism in which the tourist derives satisfaction from exercising power over the host
and service providers" (Belk & Costa, 1995, p.36). What are the expectations going to be
from tourists who will be comparing their Cuban accommodations to North American
and other Caribbean standards? How many tourists will actually have meaningful contact
14
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
with Cuban citizens and gain insight into their reality; will they even care to understand
the effect the trade embargo had? World Systems Theory has a role to play as this
framework urges more cautious, balanced, and sensitive research, responsible marketing,
and decision making in place of a headlong rush into the development of tourism.
15
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
References
Babones, S. (2015). What is world-systems analysis? Distinguishing theory from
perspective. Thesis Eleven, 127(1), 3-20. doi:10.1177/0725513615575324
Belk, R., & Costa, J. (1995). International tourism: An assessment and overview. Journal
of Macromarketing, 15(2), 33-49. doi:10.1177/027614679501500204
Cochrane, J. (2010). The sphere of tourism resilience. Tourism Recreation Research,
35(2), 173-185. doi:10.1080/02508281.2010.11081632
Palumbo-Liu, D., Robbins, B., Tanoukhi, N. (2011). Immanuel Wallerstein and the
problem of the world: System, scale, culture. Durham: Duke University Press.
Schouten, P. (2008). Theory Talk #13: Immanuel Wallerstein on World-Systems, the
Imminent End of Capitalism and Unifying Social Science. Theory Talks Forum.
Simpson, G. (1990). Wallerstein's world-systems theory and the Cook Islands: A critical
examination. Pacific Studies,14, 73-94.
Teivainen, T. (2000). Towards a democratic theory of the world-system: Democracy,
territoriality, and transnationalization. Journal of World-Systems Research, 6(3),
706-725.
Wallerstein, I. (2002). The itinerary of world-systems analysis; or, how to resist
becoming a theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), New Directions in
Contemporary Sociological Theory (358-376). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-System Analysis: An Introduction. Durham: Duke
University Press.
16
FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY
Wallerstein, I. (2008). Remembering Andre Gunder Frank while thinking about the
future. Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 60(2), 50-61.
Wallerstein, I. (2011). Structural crisis in the world system: Where do we go from here?
Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 62 (10), 31-39.
17