Suchergebnisse

WHILE STRUGGLING TO WORK OUT THE TENSIONS THAT ARE EVIDENT IN THE INTERPLAY OF DIVERGENT IDEAS ON WORLD SYSTEM, THE AUTHOR VENTURES A PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE WORLD SYSTEM IN TERMS OF "INTERSTRUCTURAL DYNAMICS", A CONCEPTUALIZATION WHICH CAN SERVE AS A CATALYST TO THEORY SYNTHESIS.

Though Immanuel Wallerstein has been given much of the credit for developing the thinking behind the world-system approach, it must be remembered that Oliver Cox was the first person to theorize about a world-system perspective. In fact, he is responsible for the development of a descriptive framework for capitalism nearly 20 years prior to Wallerstein's own work on the same subject. Despite Cox's pioneering role, his contributions have been largely disregarded, while Wallerstein has been elevated to elite academic status. The stark contrast that continues to exist between Cox's & Wallerstein's standing can be attributed to the social & intellectual climate of their time. During the 1950s, when Cox was developing his theories, his Marxist-inspired analysis was not well received. By 1974, when Wallerstein's world-system work was published, the intellectual community was ready to embrace the concept. 36 References. K. A. Larsen

World system theory comprises two distinct lines of inquiry: macro-social studies of historical world-systems and ideological critique. World system theorists often shun ideological critique, but for two reasons I argue it must be foremost. First, without explicit attention to its philosophical foundations, world system theory rests upon several unexamined, uncomplementary, liberal premises. These premises pose conceptual puzzles. World system theorists frequently cast such puzzles as methodological, empirical, or theoretical problems, rather than as symptoms of ideological confusions requiring critique. Second, through explicit critique, theorists may transform implicit philosophical foundations into explicit ontological and epistemological groundings. Such groundings will enable world system theorists to better realize their critical, emancipatory goals and to resolve theoretical puzzles. One such puzzle -- the conceptual distinction between politics and economics -- recurs often, arising in the debates on the relation(s) between the state system and capitalism and thwarting efforts to demonstrate the unity of the world system. I suggest that world system theorists engage in explicit ideological critique to lay equally explicit ideologicalfoundations for their histories. I suggest a critical, conceptually historicist, "constructivist" approach that builds upon postpositivist critiques and introduces constitutive principles. I illustrate the virtue of this approach by demonstrating the unity of the modern world system.