1.1.2
1.1.2
1.1.2
WorldWorldWorldWorld----Systems Analysis as a lens: a call for creativitySystems Analysis as a lens: a call for creativitySystems Analysis as a lens: a call for creativity Systems Analysis as a lens: a call for creativity
The idea of a world-system emerged from the feeling that a cycle came to its end and found fertile soil in the dissatisfaction with existing models to explain the structural character of that cycle. The above presented outlines of a new model and their embodiment in “The Modern World-System” volumes of founding father Immanuel Wallerstein constitute just one source of nutrition in the development of paradigm of World-Systems Analysis.10 Out of the dialogue with a diverse group of scholars, further insightful refinements and thought-provoking critiques this became a dynamic and essentially interdisciplinary field.11 As a basic condition for this paradigm to be of any relevance, it must be approached as a lens, that is, a tool that must “be used” and cannot “speak for itself”. More specifically, it concerns a lens that allows for a global, historical, holistic and unidisciplinary approach; it has a spatial scope which is wide and multi- scaled, a time frame which is long and multi-layered, thematic foci which enter in dialogue, and a methodological perspective which crosses assumed disciplinary boundaries. Let us thus briefly discuss the four constitutive elements of that lens’ guidelines.
First of all, “global” refers to the spatial radius of historical capitalism, which is defined by the boundaries of a world; a specific geographical zone that does not necessarily equal the globe. This world forms a coherent and structured unit that develops according to systemic rules; it is a system. The hyphen, then, is placed by Wallerstein in order to indicate that historical capitalism embodies “not the system of the
10
Some critics define this development as the transition from World-Systems Theory to World-Systems Analysis, the latter having emerged as a multi-disciplinary paradigm in response to the detection of the macro and long-term bias of the former (Galaty 2011, 4; see also Schneider 1977 and Kardulias 1999).
11 Among these contributions, there is the work of Terence Hopkins (with Wallerstein, 1982 and 1987), Samir
Amin (1974), Giovanni Arrighi (1994), Andre Gunder Frank (1993, 1998 ), Christopher Chase-Dunn (with Hall 1993, with Babones 2006), Janet Abu Lughod (1989 ), Thomas D. Hall (1986, 1989, 2000, 2001, 2009 , 2012, 2013), Jason W. Moore (2003, 2008, 2010a, 2010c), Philip McMichael (1990), Wilma Dunaway (1994, 1996, 2003), Peter Taylor (1988, 1991, 1992; with Knox 1995 ), to name just a few. The Fernand Braudel Center (Binghamton University, since 1976) and its journal, Review, as well as the Journal of World-Systems Research have provided these authors with a vital platform for the diffusion and fostering of their thoughts and debates, of which most recently crystalized in the Routledge Handbook of World-Systems Analysis (Babones and Chase- Dunn 2012).
world, but a system that is a world” (Wallerstein 1987) in contrast to singular world systems
(Frank and Gills 1993, 292-6). Departing from the assumption that capitalism, its origins and development can only be studied within the framework of a system, the system is taken as the paradigm or unit (not the object) of analysis. However, this systemic level is indivisibly interlocked and interdependent with other, micro to macro scales (Vanhaute 2009, 25; Galaty 2011). Correspondingly, households, classes, nations, or other “institutions” operating in the world-system acquire analytical meaning in their interaction. Moreover, such an approach opens options for applying World-Systems Analysis from the very local to scales that transcend human interaction, without necessarily challenging what is often perceived as Wallerstein’s “prescriptions” of what can and cannot be perceived as a world-system.
Second, world-systems are “historical” in that they have a start, an evolution and an end. This implies the acceptance that globalization is neither a new nor a teleological process but develops in phases of acceleration and contraction without leading to an inevitable outcome to which “there is no alternative.” If only one thing is inevitable in World-Systems Analysis, it is that all world-systems at one point will collide with their own limits. These limits are only detectable when recognizing a plurality of time that combines long-term trajectories with cyclical and secular movements. In line with Braudel, Wallerstein starts with the structural level, where he detects longue durées of capitalist production, of the inter-state system and of the core-periphery hierarchy which constantly reproduce the features that underpin a specific system. In the medium-run, cycles and secular trends deliver a simultaneous dynamic input in the structural time, resulting in a spiral movement as this input never reappears identically nor has much potential for reversal.
Third, Braudel’s économie-monde may have influenced the world-system’s delineation by economic processes and structures, but the inter-state system, social movements and power-laden discourses and structures of knowledge are essential pillars as well. Hence, World-Systems Analysis is not an exclusively economistic model, but presents a holistic scope. Not one thematic pillar, but the interaction between economic, political, social and cultural processes delivers the most essential motive for analysis (Hall 2000; Hornborg, McNeill and Martínez-Allier 2007; Babones and Chase-Dunn 2012).
Finally, World-Systems Analysis entails a critique to the premises and the exaggerated subdivision of the scholarly disciplines as we know them (Wallerstein 1991, 1996). It does not simply claim a multi- or inter-disciplinary approach, but contains the aspirations of a truly unidisciplinary historical social science (see for instance Hall, Kardulias, and Chase-Dunn 2011; Hall and Turchin 2007).
These four aspects must be understood as the mere start rather than the final point to the line of world-systems theorizing. In that respect, resolute relegations of the proposed paradigm to the dustbin of master narratives are usually an indication of the failure to recognize the multiplicity of applications and interpretations within the field
of World-Systems Analysis. On the contrary, a range of scholars continues to approach it as a relevant source of inspiration for further theorization and empirical testing. Broadly accepting the lines set out by Wallerstein, they are determined to make those lines “more workable”, in some way or another appealed by one of Wallerstein’s most valid claims, namely that he does not present a theory for the construction of a new grand narrative. As will be further discussed, World-Systems Analysis inherent call for creativity has produced fruitful insights, which takes us from dependency over de- coloniality to the multi-dimensional idea of frontiers.