Hall, Thomas D., Christopher
Chase-Dunn, and Hiroko Inoue. 2013. “Wallerstein, Immanuel.” Pp.
909-012 in Theory in Social and Cultural Anthropology,Vol. 2,
edited by McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms.Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage
Publications.
Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice (1930- )
Immanuel Wallerstein is one of most influential social theorists in recent decades. Wallerstein’s approach to world history, which he calls the “world-system perspective,” has had a wide and deep impact throughout the social sciences and humanities.
Intellectual
Development
Wallerstein was born in New York City
on September 28, 1930. He earned his
B.A. (1951), M.A. (1954), and Ph.D. (1959) at Columbia University, where he
taught until 1971. Columbia housed outstanding intellectuals such as Karl
Polanyi, Lionel Trilling, Richard Hofstadter and C. Wright Mills. Later, Wallerstein’s
intellectual development reached from New York City, to Paris, Ghana, and the
Ivory Coast. While in Paris he became familiar with the work of the Annales
School, a legacy of Fernand Braudel. He also worked with Georges Balandier, a French sociologist,
anthropologist
and ethnologist
who focused on African colonialism.
As an undergraduate at
Columbia Wallerstein took classes from C. Wright Mills during the period in
which he (Mills) was writing The Power
Elite. Mills was disaffected with the predominant theoretical and
methodological approaches in sociology (abstracted empiricism and grand theory).
Wallerstein, like Mills, was disaffected, helped create a new way of looking at
society, and hoped to renew the possibility of achieving human freedom.
For his dissertation, later
published as The Road to Independence:
Ghana and the Ivory Coast (1964) Wallerstein conducted research on the
voluntary associations that led the West African independence movements. The work was based on interviews and surveys
that Wallerstein conducted in the Gold Coast (later Ghana) and the Ivory Coast.
His studies of the rise and demise of colonial regimes in Africa led him to
conclude that one could not understand African history and social change
without comprehending the historical and contemporary interactions among
Africa, Europe and the Americas.
Wallerstein was on the faculty
at Columbia during the 1960’s, an era of international student revolt including
the Civil Rights movement in the United States,
the anti-war movement stimulated by the war in Vietnam, and a
counter-cultural rebellion that made alliances with radical workers in France
and Italy. Later he called these sometimes connected, sometime independent
collection of movements “the world revolution of 1968.” In 1971 he moved to
McGill University for five years, then on to Binghamton University. There, along
with Terence Hopkins, he founded the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of
Economies, Historical Systems and Civilization. In the early 1990s Wallerstein
chaired the international Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the
Social Sciences. In 2000 he became a senior research scholar at Yale. He is a past
president of the International Sociological Association and has published more
than 30 books and over 200 articles and book chapters.
At Columbia Wallerstein came
to see intellectual and political projects as two sides of the same coin. He
became interested in Dependency Theory, the idea that there is an international
hierarchy that underdevelops the Global South. Dependency theory had emerged
primarily among Latin American scholars such as Raul Prebisch, Teotonio Dos Santos,
and Fernando Henrique Cardozo. It was popularized in the Global North by Andre
Gunder Frank. Over the ensuing years Wallerstein, along with Giovanni Arrighi
and Samir Amin, used the concept of an evolving hierarchical global division of
labor to analyze African development. Fruitful collaboration and debate among
Frank, Amin, Arrighi, and Wallerstein continued throughout their lives.
Formulation of the World-System
Perspective
Wallerstein and the dependency theorists [tdh1]argued
that core -periphery relations went far beyond formal colonialism. He perceived
that similar colonial-like relations had occurred between Poland and Western
Europe during sixteenth century. He discussed this in detail in the first
volume of The Modern World-System published
in 1974. The world-system perspective explains institutional changes from a
focus on entire interpolity systems in contrast to the usual social science
focus on single national societies. Wallerstein argued that societies have
always existed within larger interaction networks that shaped their histories.
Long before globalization became a catch word, the world-systems perspective
examined the nature of a world economy that linked a system of interacting
polities. Wallerstein defined three kinds of systems: minisystems based on
reciprocity, world-empires based on redistribution, and world-economies in
which a number of states ally and compete with one another. World-systems are
composed of three components: 1) the core, which contains the most developed
societies; 2) the periphery, which composed of the least developed societies;
and 3) the semiperiphery, which is composed of societies intermediate between
core and peripheral societies. The relation of core societies to semiperipheral
societies and of semiperipheral societies to peripheral societies is similar to
the relations between colonizing and colonized states. A key difference is all
three are part one overall system. The word “world” means largely
self-contained. Only in recent centuries has a single world-system become
planetary (Earth-wide). In short, it is a world. It is the semiperiphery that
helps stabilized the overall system. Often semipheripheral societies are former
core states that have been passed by more developed states, or peripherally societies
beginning to develop more rapidly. While the core - periphery – semiperiphery structure is more
or less constant, the positions of individual societies or states shift
positions over time.
The world-systems perspective
has come to encompass a number of bodies of research, historical narratives,
and theories, that seek explain world historical social change. In short, it is
a knowledge paradigm that contains many competing theories. The key insight of
the perspective is that interaction networks (trade, information, and political
interactions) have woven polities and cultures together for centuries. Thus,
the entire interpolity system, or world-system, is the central unit of social
evolution. In this approach what is commonly called globalization is only the
latest manifestation of these processes of change.
A world-system is a vitally
connected interaction network, not merely international relations. The modern
world-system is a nested stratification system in which core polities (that compete
with one another) dominate and exploit dependent peripheral and semiperipheral
peoples. A few polities have been upwardly or downwardly mobile within the
larger hierarchy, but most stay in the same position.
The evolution of the modern
world-system has been driven mainly by capitalist accumulation, the struggles
among classes, and resistance from peripheral and semiperipheral peoples. The current semiperiphery includes large
countries in the Global South (e.g. Mexico, India, Brazil, China, Indonesia) as
well as smaller countries that have intermediate levels of economic development
(e.g. South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, South Africa). Institutional change has been
shaped by both the winners and the struggle of those who resist them. The
modern core-periphery hierarchy is an asymmetrical division of labor between
core producers of highly profitable commodities and controllers of finance
capital and peripheral producers of much less profitable goods. The
semiperiphery is an intermediate zone. Wallerstein’s key point is that national
development can only be understood and explained by comprehending this
core-periphery hierarchy.
Wallerstein argued that the
modern world-system emerged in the long sixteenth century (1560-1640) when
Europeans first circumnavigated the globe and began colonizing and exploiting
other continents. He contends that the Dutch hegemony peaked during the
economic and demographic crisis of the seventeenth century. Then Great Britain
and France contended for hegemony in the eighteenth century. Britain eventually
came to dominate the system in the nineteenth century. The United States rose
to hegemony in the twentieth century and is now in a phase of hegemonic
decline.
So, for Wallerstein capitalism
became predominant in the regional (European) world-system in the 16th century.
This system then grew larger in a series of cycles and upward trends and is now
approaching upper limits (asymptotes): 1.
the long-term rise of real wages; 2. the long-term
costs of material inputs; and 3. taxes. These long-term (meaning centuries)
trends lead to a fall in the average rate of profits. Strategies combating
these trends -- automation, capital flight, acceptance of reduced wages in
order to remain employed, attacks on the welfare state, and on unions slow down
but do not eliminate the contradictions of capitalism. This will lead to an
irreconcilable structural crisis during the next 50 years that will lead the
emergence of some other system after the “Age of Transition.” The results of this transition are far from
clear or fixed. Possibilities range from a global fascist state to some form of
collectively rational egalitarian and democratic global governance.
Critiques of the world-system perspective
The have been major critiques of Wallerstein’s approach to world-systems
analysis:
1. It ignores the particularities of different
kinds of capitalism and discounts internal processes in national societies.
2. It neglects class relations and
overemphasizes exchange relations.
3. It is too “economistic”
and neglects politics and culture.
4. It fails to see a new global
stage of capitalism.
5. It neglects the evolution
of world-systems before the emergence of the modern system.
Wallerstein has answered these criticisms in the Prologue to the most recent edition
of The Modern World-System, Volume 1
(Wallerstein 2011).
Later Developments of the World-Systems
Perspective
Several groups of scholars have attempted to modify and extend the analysis of
the modern world-system to precapitalist settings. They have sought to explain how and why the
modern system emerged where and when it did in comparative world historical
perspective and to understand earlier evolutionary transformations. Initially
Wallerstein was skeptical of such extensions, but more recently he has come to
see their value. Andre Gunder Frank and Barry Gills claimed that the modern
capital-imperialist system emerged 5000 years ago when states and cities came
into being in Mesopotamia. Christopher Chase-Dunn and Thomas Hall proposed a
comparative and evolutionary world-systems perspective that contends that
earlier regional world-systems were usually multicultural networks of competing
and allying polities. They also contend that long- prestige goods exchanges
sometimes played an important role in the reproduction of local hierarchies
within regional systems. And they also
examine the role of political – military interactions, and the influences of
information exchanges, including ideologies.
These extensions have sparked considerable interest in, and new
critiques of, world-systems analysis among archaeologists, anthropologists,
world historians and political scientists.
One obstacle to comprehending
Wallerstein’s argument is time horizon, which for most people is far less than
50 years. Wallerstein is intentionally vague about what might replace
capitalism. He argues that the declining hegemony of the United States and the
crisis of neoliberal global capitalism are signs that capitalism can no longer
adjust to its internal contradictions. Thus, the world is in a period of
chaotic and unpredictable historical transformation. The new system might be an
authoritarian global state that preserves the privileges of global elite or an
egalitarian system in which non-profit institutions serve communities.
Wallerstein agrees with those who argue that taking state power will not work, as
happened in the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the decolonization movements.
Wallerstein has become one of the leaders of in the global justice “movement of
movements” that has emerged around the World Social Forum.
Though there have been many
other contributors, Immanuel Wallerstein has been the major founder of the
world-systems perspective. Wallerstein’s outstanding work as a historical
sociologist and a public intellectual demonstrate that social theory is not
only for academics.
Thomas D. Hall, Christopher Chase-Dunn,
& Hiroko Inoue
Cross-References:
dependency theory, economic
anthropology, political economy, world-systems theory, Karl Polanyi
Further
Readings
Arrighi, G. & Goldfrank W. L. (Eds.) (2000). Festschrift for Immanuel Wallerstein. Journal of World-Systems Research, VI, 150-945.
Babones, S. & Chase-Dunn, C (Eds.) (2012). Routledge Handbook of World-Systems Analysis. London: Routledge.
Chase-Dunn, C. & Inoue, H. (2011). “Immanuel Wallerstein.” Pp 395-410 in New Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists, Edited by George Ritzer and Jeffrey Stepinsky. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Wallerstein, I. (Ed.) (2000). The Essential Wallerstein. New York: New Press.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Wallerstein, I. (2011). The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, with a new Prologue. Berkeley: University of California Press (reprint of 1974 original).
Wallerstein, I. (2011). The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750, with a new Prologue. Berkeley: University of California Press (reprint of 1980 original).
Wallerstein, I. (2011). The Modern World-System III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730-1840s, with a new Prologue. Berkeley: University of California Press (reprint of 1989 original).
Wallerstein, I. (2011).
The Modern World-System IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789–1914. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
[tdh1]no