- Email: [email protected]
The End of the World as We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century
Political Geography 19 (2000) 927–941 www.elsevier.com/locate/polgeo
Book reviews The End of the World as We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century Immanuel Wallerstein; University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1999, pp. ix+277, hardbound, Price $29.95, ISBN 0-8166-3397-5 With the fall of communism and the proliferation of a new wave of democracy, there have been a number of predictive tracts that have attempted to describe the future of global politics and economics. Immanuel Wallerstein’s work, The End of the World as We Know It, takes an academic approach to these transformations— the need to change the philosophy, methodologies, and procedures used in the social sciences. Unlike others, who saw the collapse of communism in 1989 as the triumph of liberalism, Wallerstein believes that the demise of that hegemony has led to the collapse of liberalism as the defining geoculture of the world-system. Well known for his writings on the modern world-system, the author presents a persuasive argument for the need to change the disciplines of the social sciences, such as anthropology, political science, history, and sociology. It is his argument, that by using traditional methodologies, scholars will not be able to effectively address transforming global issues such as political sovereignty, the world economy, and culturalism. Instead of global peace, he sees a world made up of regional turmoil, sparked by ethnic and religious differences, that will spread to the wealthier capitalistic (western) centers of the world. The End of the World as We Know It is a compilation of fifteen articles written by Wallerstein to support his thesis. Unfortunately, when one compiles a series of articles written by a single author, there are occasions of redundancy, as well as a lack of a smooth line of thought. This is not to say that the book is not well written and organized—quite the contrary. For he has assembled an interesting collection of works to buttress his argument that there are three philosophical conditions that exist and are not accounted for in the social sciences. The first, is that progress, unlike enlightenment, is not inevitable; second, belief in absolutes or certainties is often blinding and crippling; and finally, that the struggle for a “good society” is continuous and are most difficult to analyze because of their complexity. The book is divided into two parts, which are entitled “The World of Capitalism” and “The
* Tel.: (901) 678-2386; fax: (901) 755-2589.
928
Book reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 927–941
World of Knowledge.” Of the two, the first is perhaps the best organized and presented, while the second tends to be a bit more repetitive in content. Wallerstein argues that change is always occurring, and nothing should be taken as a constant, especially when discussing human social systems. When viewing the totality of historical analysis, “world” communism was nothing more than a brief interlude that grew out of the natural evolvement of political change. One of the most important concepts to emerge, however, was not a particular type of governmental organization, but the phenomena of national sovereignty that is based upon the concept of the “people.” Though national “sovereignty” has been brushed aside by many world-system scholars, Wallerstein believes that it will continue to play a significant role in the development of our future geoculture. The end of the Cold War has created conditions that are much more dangerous to the peaceful stability of the world, with the US facing multi-frontal threats that are created by the escalation of regionalized violence (e.g. Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq). These conditions are made even more threatening by the fact that the North–South economic polarization of the world-system is becoming more pronounced with the passage of time. Unlike many researchers who see democracy and capitalism as being inextricably combined, Wallerstein is of the opinion that capitalism and democracy are actually contradictions because surplus-value is always divided between those possessing capital and those who perform the labor. For capitalism to succeed, established monopolies are preferred to maximize profits. National liberation movements are generally viewed as being in conflict with capitalism, but are tolerated by capitalists as long as profits can be realized. Wallerstein, however, argues that today’s liberation movements no longer work for capitalists and create conditions conducive to global disorder. One of the more persuasive arguments made by Wallerstein is the role that states and sovereignty will play in the development of world capitalism. For all the talk about world-systems, the state should not be considered an unimportant entity. In this book, the modern state is defined as a function of an interstate system. By claiming sovereignty, states will have the tendency to look inward, and make those decisions that are best for them. Beyond its borders, the sovereignty of a state is respected whereby no other state can exercise authority within the boundaries of another state. What is important here, is the fact that states will act independently to preserve their capitalistic advantages (i.e. the minimization of free trade). Hence, it was concluded that maximum profits can only be attained by the establishment of relative monopolies, which are antithetic to democratic principles. The author concludes, that the sovereignty of states is the fundamental pillar upon which the capitalistic world-economy is based. Capitalism is not seen as an “all good” enterprise, as described in The End of the World as We Know It. There are two major concerns facing a capitalistic worldsystem. Historically, capitalism has exploited the natural resources of the world, and by continually seeking to expand its geographical influences, capitalistic states have asserted their “right to conquer nature.” The time is coming, however, when the
Book reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 927–941
929
ecological bill will be due. Perhaps the most logical way to solve the threat to our ecological existence is through the application of a “substantive rationality,” where different groups can unite in agreeing upon a common set of standards and values. Another concern to Wallerstein are the problems that inexpensive and free travel cause: inter- and intrastate migration. The main concern here, is that the concept of “citizenship” will be challenged by multiculturalists. States facing significant immigration have to combat groups declaring a validity to their cultural identity over national citizenship. When this is allowed to happen, segregation becomes established, preventing full integration into the state. A related problem, is how cultural groups are defined, since all groups are also made up of subgroups and crosscutting groups. What is recommended, is the need to go beyond the concept of “state citizenship,” which is a function of a modern world-system. Part II of The End of the World as We Know It, is perhaps the most interesting presentation made by the author. For it is within this section that he makes recommendations to the social science scholar as to how the field must change to maintain its status and respectability. Current world conditions have been shaped by the capitalistic world-economy, and as such social scientists must realize that modernity is based upon materialism and the collectivist mentality of the accumulation of possessions. Based upon this observation, Wallerstein believes that capitalism is the antecedent of technological innovation. The most fundamental challenge to the profession, however, is the need to question the validity of Baconian–Newtonian concepts of inquiry—a tradition established upon linear modalities of inference. An individual identified as being one of the proponents of an alternate paradigm of inquiry, identified as the “science of complexity,” is Ilya Prigogine. According to Prigogine, complexity is based upon two factors. The first, is that science is not deterministic, and is the source of hope for a better future. Secondly, science is never simple, but is based upon the assumption that nature is made up of instability, evolution, and fluctuation. Accordingly, scholars need to move away from a universe that is geometric in nature to one that is more “narrative.” To be considered a “science” the social sciences must reconstruct the way in which they look at the world—where nomothetic and idiographic views are no longer sufficient. What Wallerstein appears to be describing, is the chaotic (quantum) nature of social science, where it is impossible to predict human activity and their outcomes. A questionable point here, is the complete negation of linearity. Without doubt, statistical modeling often requires a multidimensional approach, but there are also times when the best descriptors are simple linear models. What Wallerstein appears to be saying, is that the profession must move away from these simpler approaches of inference to more complex ones. But, is complexity always the best method? Wallerstein believes that traditional social science scholarship has been biased and inaccurate. Not for the way they have conducted their research and studies, but the way in which they view the world. One of the major factors effecting objectivity is an Eurocentric mentality. Simply, everything is compared against a standard of European, or Western, culture which has a tendency to bias results. Eurocentrism has been exhibited in five areas: historiography, parochialism, assumptions about the
930
Book reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 927–941
superiority of Western civilization, Orientalism (mystique), and an attempt to “impose” a Western standard to what progress should be. Accordingly, a myopic Eurocentric viewpoint has influenced the techniques used in world-system analysis, which is characterized as being an “unthinking social science.” It is for this reason, that he resists the use of any reference to a “world-systems theory.” A rationale, based upon the fact that the sovereignty of non-Western states, will remain an important entity in the maintenance of regional culture. Hence, at the individual level, non-Western perspectives must be understood and accepted as a means by which citizens can improve their quality of life. Unfortunately, fields such as economics continue to base their thought-system upon a capitalistic world-economy which does not provide an adequate methodology to address the complexity of a “social humanity.” Wallerstein does not leave us in a lurch, but provides some insightful recommendations. The most important of which is the need to bring like-minded social scientists together who believe in the science of complexity. He even suggests that we rename “social science” as the “sociology of development,” “political economy,” or “global sociology.” Another problem facing the profession is how to conduct research in the quest for a just society when the field is broken down into opposing camps: micro/macro, global/local, and structure/agency. Wallerstein admits that it is not possible to identify which approach is better, only to say that such dichotomies are based upon a nineteenth century mentality—a nomothetic approach led by economics, political science, and sociology. What will be required for the future, is the need to bring various disciplines together by using valid and quantifiable data that is subject to methods of replicability. To accomplish this, social scientists must rely upon methodologies established by natural scientists—the search for, and identification and description of patterns. These patterns will take one of two forms: formal interpretative and substantive interpretative patterns. The End of the World as We Know It concludes that the social sciences have been under theoretical threat by a “culture of sociology” that resists a new paradigm. Though the social sciences are based upon an impressive heritage, it is at the watershed period, where changes must be implemented to keep pace with an ever changing, and unpredictable world. Such changes can be attained only by a conscious effort to modify its research and academic content.
*
John D. Bies Geography Department, University of Memphis, 107 Johnson Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA E-mail address: [email protected]
PII: S 0 9 6 2 - 6 2 9 8 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 7 - 2
Book reviews The End of the World as We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century Immanuel Wallerstein; University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1999, pp. ix+277, hardbound, Price $29.95, ISBN 0-8166-3397-5 With the fall of communism and the proliferation of a new wave of democracy, there have been a number of predictive tracts that have attempted to describe the future of global politics and economics. Immanuel Wallerstein’s work, The End of the World as We Know It, takes an academic approach to these transformations— the need to change the philosophy, methodologies, and procedures used in the social sciences. Unlike others, who saw the collapse of communism in 1989 as the triumph of liberalism, Wallerstein believes that the demise of that hegemony has led to the collapse of liberalism as the defining geoculture of the world-system. Well known for his writings on the modern world-system, the author presents a persuasive argument for the need to change the disciplines of the social sciences, such as anthropology, political science, history, and sociology. It is his argument, that by using traditional methodologies, scholars will not be able to effectively address transforming global issues such as political sovereignty, the world economy, and culturalism. Instead of global peace, he sees a world made up of regional turmoil, sparked by ethnic and religious differences, that will spread to the wealthier capitalistic (western) centers of the world. The End of the World as We Know It is a compilation of fifteen articles written by Wallerstein to support his thesis. Unfortunately, when one compiles a series of articles written by a single author, there are occasions of redundancy, as well as a lack of a smooth line of thought. This is not to say that the book is not well written and organized—quite the contrary. For he has assembled an interesting collection of works to buttress his argument that there are three philosophical conditions that exist and are not accounted for in the social sciences. The first, is that progress, unlike enlightenment, is not inevitable; second, belief in absolutes or certainties is often blinding and crippling; and finally, that the struggle for a “good society” is continuous and are most difficult to analyze because of their complexity. The book is divided into two parts, which are entitled “The World of Capitalism” and “The
* Tel.: (901) 678-2386; fax: (901) 755-2589.
928
Book reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 927–941
World of Knowledge.” Of the two, the first is perhaps the best organized and presented, while the second tends to be a bit more repetitive in content. Wallerstein argues that change is always occurring, and nothing should be taken as a constant, especially when discussing human social systems. When viewing the totality of historical analysis, “world” communism was nothing more than a brief interlude that grew out of the natural evolvement of political change. One of the most important concepts to emerge, however, was not a particular type of governmental organization, but the phenomena of national sovereignty that is based upon the concept of the “people.” Though national “sovereignty” has been brushed aside by many world-system scholars, Wallerstein believes that it will continue to play a significant role in the development of our future geoculture. The end of the Cold War has created conditions that are much more dangerous to the peaceful stability of the world, with the US facing multi-frontal threats that are created by the escalation of regionalized violence (e.g. Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq). These conditions are made even more threatening by the fact that the North–South economic polarization of the world-system is becoming more pronounced with the passage of time. Unlike many researchers who see democracy and capitalism as being inextricably combined, Wallerstein is of the opinion that capitalism and democracy are actually contradictions because surplus-value is always divided between those possessing capital and those who perform the labor. For capitalism to succeed, established monopolies are preferred to maximize profits. National liberation movements are generally viewed as being in conflict with capitalism, but are tolerated by capitalists as long as profits can be realized. Wallerstein, however, argues that today’s liberation movements no longer work for capitalists and create conditions conducive to global disorder. One of the more persuasive arguments made by Wallerstein is the role that states and sovereignty will play in the development of world capitalism. For all the talk about world-systems, the state should not be considered an unimportant entity. In this book, the modern state is defined as a function of an interstate system. By claiming sovereignty, states will have the tendency to look inward, and make those decisions that are best for them. Beyond its borders, the sovereignty of a state is respected whereby no other state can exercise authority within the boundaries of another state. What is important here, is the fact that states will act independently to preserve their capitalistic advantages (i.e. the minimization of free trade). Hence, it was concluded that maximum profits can only be attained by the establishment of relative monopolies, which are antithetic to democratic principles. The author concludes, that the sovereignty of states is the fundamental pillar upon which the capitalistic world-economy is based. Capitalism is not seen as an “all good” enterprise, as described in The End of the World as We Know It. There are two major concerns facing a capitalistic worldsystem. Historically, capitalism has exploited the natural resources of the world, and by continually seeking to expand its geographical influences, capitalistic states have asserted their “right to conquer nature.” The time is coming, however, when the
Book reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 927–941
929
ecological bill will be due. Perhaps the most logical way to solve the threat to our ecological existence is through the application of a “substantive rationality,” where different groups can unite in agreeing upon a common set of standards and values. Another concern to Wallerstein are the problems that inexpensive and free travel cause: inter- and intrastate migration. The main concern here, is that the concept of “citizenship” will be challenged by multiculturalists. States facing significant immigration have to combat groups declaring a validity to their cultural identity over national citizenship. When this is allowed to happen, segregation becomes established, preventing full integration into the state. A related problem, is how cultural groups are defined, since all groups are also made up of subgroups and crosscutting groups. What is recommended, is the need to go beyond the concept of “state citizenship,” which is a function of a modern world-system. Part II of The End of the World as We Know It, is perhaps the most interesting presentation made by the author. For it is within this section that he makes recommendations to the social science scholar as to how the field must change to maintain its status and respectability. Current world conditions have been shaped by the capitalistic world-economy, and as such social scientists must realize that modernity is based upon materialism and the collectivist mentality of the accumulation of possessions. Based upon this observation, Wallerstein believes that capitalism is the antecedent of technological innovation. The most fundamental challenge to the profession, however, is the need to question the validity of Baconian–Newtonian concepts of inquiry—a tradition established upon linear modalities of inference. An individual identified as being one of the proponents of an alternate paradigm of inquiry, identified as the “science of complexity,” is Ilya Prigogine. According to Prigogine, complexity is based upon two factors. The first, is that science is not deterministic, and is the source of hope for a better future. Secondly, science is never simple, but is based upon the assumption that nature is made up of instability, evolution, and fluctuation. Accordingly, scholars need to move away from a universe that is geometric in nature to one that is more “narrative.” To be considered a “science” the social sciences must reconstruct the way in which they look at the world—where nomothetic and idiographic views are no longer sufficient. What Wallerstein appears to be describing, is the chaotic (quantum) nature of social science, where it is impossible to predict human activity and their outcomes. A questionable point here, is the complete negation of linearity. Without doubt, statistical modeling often requires a multidimensional approach, but there are also times when the best descriptors are simple linear models. What Wallerstein appears to be saying, is that the profession must move away from these simpler approaches of inference to more complex ones. But, is complexity always the best method? Wallerstein believes that traditional social science scholarship has been biased and inaccurate. Not for the way they have conducted their research and studies, but the way in which they view the world. One of the major factors effecting objectivity is an Eurocentric mentality. Simply, everything is compared against a standard of European, or Western, culture which has a tendency to bias results. Eurocentrism has been exhibited in five areas: historiography, parochialism, assumptions about the
930
Book reviews / Political Geography 19 (2000) 927–941
superiority of Western civilization, Orientalism (mystique), and an attempt to “impose” a Western standard to what progress should be. Accordingly, a myopic Eurocentric viewpoint has influenced the techniques used in world-system analysis, which is characterized as being an “unthinking social science.” It is for this reason, that he resists the use of any reference to a “world-systems theory.” A rationale, based upon the fact that the sovereignty of non-Western states, will remain an important entity in the maintenance of regional culture. Hence, at the individual level, non-Western perspectives must be understood and accepted as a means by which citizens can improve their quality of life. Unfortunately, fields such as economics continue to base their thought-system upon a capitalistic world-economy which does not provide an adequate methodology to address the complexity of a “social humanity.” Wallerstein does not leave us in a lurch, but provides some insightful recommendations. The most important of which is the need to bring like-minded social scientists together who believe in the science of complexity. He even suggests that we rename “social science” as the “sociology of development,” “political economy,” or “global sociology.” Another problem facing the profession is how to conduct research in the quest for a just society when the field is broken down into opposing camps: micro/macro, global/local, and structure/agency. Wallerstein admits that it is not possible to identify which approach is better, only to say that such dichotomies are based upon a nineteenth century mentality—a nomothetic approach led by economics, political science, and sociology. What will be required for the future, is the need to bring various disciplines together by using valid and quantifiable data that is subject to methods of replicability. To accomplish this, social scientists must rely upon methodologies established by natural scientists—the search for, and identification and description of patterns. These patterns will take one of two forms: formal interpretative and substantive interpretative patterns. The End of the World as We Know It concludes that the social sciences have been under theoretical threat by a “culture of sociology” that resists a new paradigm. Though the social sciences are based upon an impressive heritage, it is at the watershed period, where changes must be implemented to keep pace with an ever changing, and unpredictable world. Such changes can be attained only by a conscious effort to modify its research and academic content.
*
John D. Bies Geography Department, University of Memphis, 107 Johnson Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA E-mail address: [email protected]
PII: S 0 9 6 2 - 6 2 9 8 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 7 - 2