Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
hello everyone and welcome to history 107
world history introductory lecture on Wallerstein's
world system approach. History is the study
past events and human affairs. Often it is considered a continuous, chronological
record of
important or public events a particular trend or institution.
Formulating a world civilization course lends itself to creating lectures that
merely list dates and names that do not lend themselves to a relevant,
interconnected theme. Finding a methodological approach that
incorporates all aspects of world history
has been debated by historians over the decades.
Looking at the time period covered in the second half of a world civilizations
course,
roughly 1650 and beyond, the amount of history is unapologetically eurocentric
and essentially a history of the rise of the West.
Finding a way to organize subject matter
of a world civilization course lends itself to many problems.
First, how is the subject matter to be organized?
One way would be to merely list it chronologically. But how is one to
incorporate
all of the world into a specific lecture on a specific time period?
Second, what kind of themes should be discussed?
Are the overarching themes that can be applied to all lectures,
worldwide? Obviously this would be difficult,
as it may require the scholar to stereotype cultures
and leave others. Lastly, if one is a product of the West,
how are they to create a course without emphasizing the West?
Although this may be a problem when creating a world history course prior to 1500,
history following this stage is predominately
Weston. After the discovery of the New World
the developments caused by the 16th century maritime revolution,
Europe dominated the world stage. It is this dominance that led to Immanuel
Wallerstein's
world-system approach which I feel creates clear and coherent explanations
for globalization that occurred in the 21st century.
Before discussing the world-systems approach, however, it is necessary to
understand
why it was developed. A precursor to this world-systems approach
can be seen in the development
of Marxist theory. One of the predominant features of Marxist theory is
the dialectical
and materialists concept of history. According to Marxist thought
humankind's
history is fundamentally that of the struggle between social classes,
particularly the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Economically speaking,
the productive capacity of society is the foundation of society,
and as the capacity increases over time
the social relations and production in class relations
evolve through this struggle of the classes and pass to definitive stages:
primitive communism, slavery, feudalism,
and eventually capitalism. As the economy grows,
legal, political, and ideological aspects of society
are derived from these production relations
as is the consciousness of the individuals of which the society
is composed. For Marx, there is and always has been this dialectic between classes,
and was made most apparent with the revolutions in France
beginning in 1789. Aside from this dialectic and materialist concept of
history,
Marxism is also a critique of capitalism. According to Marx,
in a capitalist society, an economic minority
dominates and exploits the working class.
Marx uncovered the inter-workings of capitalist
exploitation, particularly the way in which unpaid labor was extracted from
the working class.
Although the work done by the working class appeared socialized, ownership
remain in the hands
of the bourgeoisie. According to Marx,
without the elimination of rival ownership, human society is unable to achieve
further development. Marx takes his theory one step
one final step and advocates for a proletarian revolution,
which we will discuss later in the course. In order to overcome the unfairness
created by private ownership,
the working class must seize political power
internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes
around the world and replace them with collective ownership.
Upon this, material foundation
classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of
inequality
between humankind would dissolve. These features of Marxist thought would later
lead to the foundations of socialism
and communism, two economic and political structures
that made her debut in the 19th and 20th centuries
respectively. Marxism created a new lens to analyze history.
Historians were able to look back in time recognize class struggle.
However, this also caused them to project their 19th century,
presentist ideals on the past.
Marxists also looked at history in a very particular way.
They believe that history should be used as a tool to foment and foster
revolutions.
Only by understanding historical classes
or class struggle would societies recognized their need to revolt.
Contrary to Marxists thought another school historians began to
develop in the 40s. The Annalistes wanted to produce an approach
which rejected politics, diplomacy, war
and economics that had dominated the French scholarship influenced by Marxist theory.
Instead, they pioneered an approach to a study of long-term historical structures
over events and political transformations.
Geography, material culture, and what later Annalistes would call
"mentalities," were also were also characteristic
areas of study. The Annalistes advocated a
"histoire total" or "histoire tout court,"
a complete study of a historic problem.
A leading Annaliste was Fernand Braudel.
Braudel used the long duree approach pioneered by the Annalistes
to stress slow, and often imperceptible effects of
space, climate and technology on the actions of human beings
in the past. Braudel, after living through two world wars and incredible
(excuse me) incredible political upheavals in France,
was deeply uncomfortable with the notion that multiple ruptures
and discontinuities created history, as Marxists believed.
Instead Braudel and his fellow Annalistes
preferred to stress inertia and long duree.
Special attention was paid to geography,
climate, and demography is long-term
factors. Annalistes in turn believed
the continuities of the deepest structures were central to history
and rejected the aforementioned idea that history should be used as a tool
to foment revolutions.
It is this school of history coupled with Marxism and the newly emerging
post-colonial nation-states that
gave rise to Immanuel Wallerstein's world- systems approach.
While Marxists claimed that imperialism of "the highest stage of capitalism"
led to a set of mechanisms which redistributes resources
from the periphery to the core. In his
terminology, the core is the developed,
industrialized, democratic parts of the world,
and the periphery is the underdeveloped, raw materials-
exporting, poor parts of the world.
World-systems analysis argues
that capitalism, as a historical social system,
has always integrated a variety of labor forms
within a functioning division labor.
Countries do not have economies, but are part of the world economy.
According to Wallerstein, there have only been three periods in which a core nation has
dominated
in the world-system. The first began around 1450
when Spain and Portugal took the lead in establishing overseas colonies.
When the Spanish and Portuguese became overextended in their empire
in the empire building they were replaced by the economic
dominance of the Netherlands in the 17th century.
Dutch financial investment helped England gain productivity and trade
dominance,
and Dutch military support helped England to defeat the French,
the other country competing for dominance at the time.
As a result of this new British dominance, the world-system became
relatively stable again
during the 1800s. The final
country that dominated the world-system was the United States which
took to place of England after the First World War.
Although a world-systems approach can lend itself to exceptionalism,
it is evident that after the 16th century certain countries were dominant
on the world stage.
This course will begin with the rise European nations such as
England, France, Austria, and Russian
and the rise of imperialism. As we look at these core nations
we can then look at the nations that could be considered the periphery.
This does not necessarily relegate these countries to substandard regions,
but in turn shows their importance and the rise of
the imperial powers. It is, therefore,
the world-systems approach that allows for the complete analysis
of world history after 1650.