Download Making an Analytical Framework to Apply to Com

P17∼25
P5∼20
Making an Analytical Framework to Apply to Comparative Historical Studies
∗
YongSoo Jang*
Abstract
This study investigates an analytical framework to further comparative historical
studies. Wallerstein’s exclusive world-system theory is difficult to apply to long-range
historical development in case studies; therefore, Chase-Dunn and Hall’s inclusive
world-systems perspective is more useful. Their emphasis on differential rather than
hierarchical relations between core and peripheral countries, as well as their expansion
of the world-systems perspective to include precapitalist societies, makes it possible to
apply the inclusive world-systems perspective to historical case studies. In fact, the inclusive world-systems perspective and the long-range historical development of historical cases are well matched. The inclusive world-systems perspective directs our attention to the external as well as internal factors for the transformation of relations between countries, and provides a basic theoretical scheme for case study. Modification is
necessary to apply the concepts used in Wallerstein’s world-system theory to historical
cases. This study reviews world-system theorists such as Wallerstein, Moulder, Schneider, Tilly, Wilkinson, Chase-Dunn and Hall. Eric Wolf’s “world connectedness” and
Michael Mann’s “four sources of social power” are also reviewed in order to make the
world-systems model one for further historical study and applying the modified model
to the East Asian case.
Keywords: World-System Theory, Wallerstein, Comparative Historical Study, Analytical
Framework, Mode of Interaction, Core, Periphery
I. Introduction
In this study I intend to make an analytical framework to apply to comparative historical studies. As Carmack (1972) observed, anthropologists and historians have increasingly overlapping interests. An increasing number of anthropologists have begun to use
historical materials within an anthropological framework. While anthropological theories
are useful for analytical frameworks to examine historical sources, historical case studies
* Lecturer in Anthropology and History, Ph D at University of Albany, State University of New York
18 • Korea Review of International Studies
also contribute to the improvement of anthropological theories. Eric Wolf (1982: 21) provides us with a way to study historical anthropology, stressing the inseparable tie of “theoretically informed history and historically informed theory.” For historical case studies, a
world-systems perspective will be a major theoretical framework. Historical case studies
can also contribute to the goal of improving the world-systems perspective.
World-system theory provides us with a new analytical device to examine the interactions among economic, political, military, and cultural factors. Rejecting the study
of individual societies in isolation, world-system theory contributes by expanding our
analytical scale to the global scale.1 In addition, world-system theory emphasizes the
importance of long-term historical approaches to social change. For instance, worldsystem theory requires a long-term, large-scale, and holistic approach to examine social
phenomena, including both present events as well as past social changes.
II. Wallerstein’s World-Systems Perspective
Immanuel Wallerstein (1974a: 349), the leading scholar of world-system theory2,
defines a world-system as “one in which there is extensive division of labor. The division is not merely functional-that is, occupational-but geographical.”3 World-empires
and world-economies are sub-types of his world-system. Wallerstein argues that in the
last 500 years there is but a single world economy, the capitalist world economy, which
has been expanding from northwestern Europe to the other parts of the globe.4 Wallerstein also focuses on trade of bulk goods, downplaying the importance of “preciosity”
exchange.
1
2
3
4
As Carmack (1996: 8) mentioned, “WS theory was formulated in the 1970s as a useful alternative to evolutionary and functionalist theories that stressed internal processes of organization and change.”
According to Carmack (1996: 8), “The theory as formulated by Immanuel Wallerstein-who, as is well
known, was deeply influenced by Dependency Theory-posits that for several thousand years most human
societies have been embedded in intersocietal exchange networks or systems, ‘World Economies,’ and that
these systems have been profoundly significant for developments through time within the social units of
the system.”
Wallerstein (1974: 347) also describes the characteristics of a world-system as follows: “A world-system is
a social system, one that has boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimization, and coherence.
Its life is made up of conflicting forces that hold it together by tension, and tear it apart as each group
seeks eternally to remold it to its advantage. It has the characteristics of an organism, in that it has a lifespan over which its characteristics change in some respects and remain stable in others. One can define its
structures as being at different times strong or weak in terms of the internal logic of its functioning.”
According to Carmack (1996: 8), “Wallerstein argues that participation in social exchange systems can
lead to: (1) exchanges that are unequal and therefore create regional division of labor and stratification
(i.e., core/periphery relations); (2) alternation in the productive and political institutions of the social units
of the system, such as core societies employing less coercive forms of labor organization, peripheral societies more coercive; and (3) cultural systems that are built up around these various levels of relationships, especially “national” systems in the context of the individual societies constituting the wider networks ⋯ There is much more to Wallerstein’s theory, such as the importance of mediating or semiperipheral units and their innovative capacities; competition between core units and the impetus this exerts
for economic and political development; social mobility from one level to another of the WS by individual
social units, despite fundamental overall structural continuity of the system; attempts to opt out of the system by peripheral units, as in case of the “socialist” societies in modern times; etc., etc.”
Making an Analytical Framework to Apply to Comparative Historical Studies • 19
Wallerstein’s emphasis on long-term and large-scale explanations has contributed
to increasing our understanding of social change. However, his limited scope, such as
his Eurocentric view and his economically oriented analysis, has been criticized by
many scholars, especially anthropologists. We will see the critiques of other worldsystems theorists after introducing Moulder’s application of Wallerstein’s perspective to
the East Asian case.
In his comparative study between China and Japan, Moulder (1977) applies
Wallerstein’s world-system perspective to examine Japan’s development and China’s underdevelopment during the nineteenth-century. Unlike “traditional society theorists”, who
focus on tradition and preconditions of society for “development”, he, using “world economy theories”, emphasizes external factors. He (1977: 92) argues that “Japan was one of
the areas that remained relatively free from economic and political incorporation as a satellite in the world economy during the nineteenth century. China, in contrast, was intensively and continuously incorporated.” These were major factors explaining the different
paths of China and Japan in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Moulder divides the nineteenth and the early twentieth century into two phases:
“imperialism of free trade”, which lasted until the 1880s, and “new imperialism”, which
began in the 1880s. Before the 1880s, Western power interests in Japan were not strong,
and these powers devoted themselves entirely to exploit other Asian countries, such as
China and India. Therefore, Japan had “breathing space”,5 developing its own economic, political and military capacity. From the 1880s onward, competition among the
Western powers increased and Japan could have been a target of Western economic and
political encroachment. By then, however, the Meiji government could control domestic
riots and successfully increase the centralization of the Japanese “state.” Moreover, as
Moulder (1977: 93) noted, “Japan’s new army and navy, though probably not formidable enough to withstand a serious European effort at conquest, were strong enough to
make such an effort relatively costly and therefore deter it.”
Moulder (1977: 94), like a Wallerstein, emphasizes trade of bulk goods, rather
than luxury items: “Staples are distinct from preciosities, luxury items that are of less
significance in the function of the economies of the Western nations. It is the exchange
of staples, rather than preciosities, which has formed the foundation of the world division of labor and the basis for imperialist efforts to subordinate satellite nations politically.” Even though he mentions political and missionary encroachments by the West,
Moulder focuses mainly on the economic aspect of Western encroachment.6
III. Revisions of the World-Systems Perspective
Wallerstein’s world-system theory has been criticized and improved over the
5
6
According to Moulder (1977: 129), another reason for Japan’s acquisition of “breathing space” was the
belief among Western powers that “the effort of opening Japan would not be worth the cost because Japan
had few articles of interest to trade in the West and no demand for Western manufactures.”
Moulder divides economics into trade, i.e. exchange of commodities, and investment, such as foreign
loans and banking.
20 • Korea Review of International Studies
years by many social scientists and historians, such as Schneider, Tilly, Wilkinson, AbuLughod, Chase-Dunn and Hall (see below for citations). World-system theorists, who
have revised and challenged Wallerstein’s version of the world-system, generally expand the limited scope of Wallerstein’s world-system in terms of time and space. In the
case of time, they expand the boundary of the world-system to include precapitalist societies and not limit it to the modern period. In the case of space, many of them attempt
to escape Eurocentric versions of Wallerstein’s world system by paying attention to
various aspects of interaction with differing spatial boundaries, such as military, political, cultural and informational in addition to economic interaction.
Jane Schneider (1977), for example, does not agree with Wallerstein’s exclusive attitude about the exchange of prestige goods, which she contrasts with bulk goods. For her,
prestige goods play a very important role in the reproduction of the power structure. For
example, imported bullion is used to sustain royal armies and pay mercenaries, and is thus
important in maintaining and changing state structure. Therefore, the exchange of prestige
goods, in addition to that of bulk goods, is an important factor to draw boundaries of
world-systems, mostly by expanding the boundaries in terms of both time and space.
Charles Tilly (1984) and David Wilkinson (1991) focus on political and military
interactions rather than trade. Tilly focuses on intentional political authority. Wilkinson
pays attention to conflict, especially military competition. Accordingly, Wilkinson (1991:
161) defines “world systems” as being “militarily closed social-transactional networks
with an autonomous political history”, thereby delineating civilizations or worldsystems by the criterion of military interaction. Thus, two empires that regularly engage
each other in military confrontations are part of the same system. Wilkinson’s main contribution is his emphasis on cultural connectedness rather than on cultural homogeneity
in defining civilizations.
World-system theory is useful to understand long-term historical change. Despite
Wallerstein’s focus on the economic aspect in core/periphery relations, subsequent
scholars pursuing world-system theory have expanded their attention to include political,
military, social, cultural and even informational interaction. The world-systems perspective on social change has improved our understanding of the incorporation of the other
regions into the capitalist world economy. By noting the importance of external factors,
it has made the study of social transformation more sophisticated. Many scholars of
social change have considered a state or a limited region as the analytical unit, and focus
on its internal factors. Rejecting this limited scope, the world-systems perspective forces
us to consider the possibility that “the larger system which is composed of societies is
itself an important unit of analysis.”7
IV. Modified Versions of the World-Systems Perspective
1. Chase-Dunn and Hall’s Expanded World-Systems Perspective
Chase-Dunn and Hall (1991: 7) define world-systems as “intersocietal networks
7
Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991: 1.
Making an Analytical Framework to Apply to Comparative Historical Studies • 21
in which the interaction (trade, warfare, intermarriage, etc.) is an important condition of
the reproduction of the internal structures of the composite units and importantly affects
changes which occur in these local structures.” Chase-Dunn and Hall observe four levels of interaction: bulk goods, military/political interaction, luxury goods, and information. They also explain that relations between core and periphery may be differential as
well as hierarchical. In other words, they allow for the possibility of not only exploitation of the periphery by the core, but also exploitation of the core by the periphery. For
that, they suggest the use of the term “differentiation”, as well as hierarchy for the
core/periphery relations. They also recommend comparative studies in order to seek
more sophisticated core/periphery relations.
2. Wolf’s World Connectedness
Eric Wolf, opining that “Wallerstein’s theory gives too much causal weight to
exchange in market, and not enough to production”8, uses the concept of modes of production (kin-ordered, tributary, and capitalist) as his main analytical tool. He also states
that Wallerstein’s model does not reflect active responses and developments of peripheries and “how peripheries affect the core.” Wolf tries to “reconceptualize the relationships between core and peripheral societies so as to study their dynamic interactions
rather than mechanical, one-sided processes.”9 By this attempt, he wants to provide a
history to people to whom history is denied.
Wolf’s book, Europe and the People without History (1982), demonstrates the
importance of interconnectedness for historical studies. For instance, he uses Chinese
tea as a key product to demonstrate the interconnectedness of the world:
“The Portuguese pioneered the sea route into Asian waters, and Dutch, English, and French companies and private traders soon followed in their wake.
Unable to penetrate the mainland directly, the Europeans consolidated points
of entry along the Asian coasts and proceeded to envelop the littoral of the
continent in a web of long-distance traffic and commerce. To feed the burgeoning trade, various regions along the sea routes began to specialize in the
production of commodities to exchange for other commodities. Some products, above all Chinese tea, generated an especially intense demand. To pay
for tea, otter skins from the Northwest Coast of North America, sea cucumbers and sandalwood from the Pacific, silver from America, and Indian raw
cotton and opium all began to flow toward China in a gigantic escalation of
mercantile activity.”10
He argues that understanding concepts like the nation and society as “bundles of
8
9
10
Carmack 1996: 9.
Carmack 1996: 9.
Wolf 1982: 259-260.
22 • Korea Review of International Studies
relationships” increases our overall knowledge of social phenomena.11 For him, words
like contact, connections, linkages, and interrelationships are useful to increase our understanding of the world of humankind. He also considers economics, politics, and ideology as the content of social relations and “possible sources of social disorder.” Influenced by Marx, his studies focus on the growth of the world market and the course of
capitalist development. He also considers development and underdevelopment as indivisible facts.
3. Mann’s “Four Sources of Social Power”
Michael Mann (1986: 11-17), in his book The Source of Social Power, begins
with a severe critique of the nation-state model because it leads us to think that there is
“a single social totality.” For him, a society is “a network of social interaction at the
boundaries of which is a certain level of interaction cleavage between it and its environment.”12
Mann uses ideological, economic, military, and political relationships (four sources
of social change) as the main analytical tools. According to him, economic power derives from “the satisfaction of subsistence needs through the social organization of the
extraction, transformation, distribution, and consumption of the objects of nature.”13
Military power derives from “the necessity of organized physical defense and its usefulness for aggression.”14 He (1986: 26) points out that military striking range is generally
greater than that of “either state control or economic-production relations”, but military
power of control is minimal. Political power, for him, “derives from the usefulness of
centralized, institutionalized, territorialized regulation of many aspects of social relations.”15 Importantly, he acknowledges geopolitical diplomacy as an important aspect
of “political-power organization.” He elaborates his analytical tools by separating military power, such as physical or military force, from the political one, such as the central
polity, including state apparatus and political parties.
V. A New World-Systems Model as Modified for Historical Studies
In order to apply the world-systems perspective to historical cases, modified ver11
12
13
14
15
Eric Wolf’s (1982: 82-83) definition of civilization is suggestive: “The larger social fields constituted by
the political and commercial interaction of tributary societies had their cultural counterparts in “civilizations”-cultural interaction zones pivoted upon a hegemonic tributary society central to each zone. Such
hegemony usually involves the development of an ideological model by a successful centralizing elite of
surplus takers, which is replicated by other elites within the wider political-economic orbit of interaction.
Although one model may become dominant within a given orbit, as did the Confucian model carried by
the Chinese scholar-gentry, the civilizational orbit is also an arena in which a number of models coexist or
compete within a multiple array of symbols, which find their differential referents in the shifting relationships among the tributary societies comprising the orbit.”
Mann 1986: 13.
Mann 1986: 24.
Mann 1986: 25.
Mann 1986: 26.
Making an Analytical Framework to Apply to Comparative Historical Studies • 23
sions of world-systems perspective are useful, especially that of Chase-Dunn and Hall.
In fact, I will use a new modified model, mainly influenced by Chase-Dunn and Hall’s
expanded version of world-systems perspective and Mann’s “four sources of social
power.”
1. Four Modes of Interaction
Relations between countries should be studies in terms of four areas: economic,
political, military and cultural modes of interaction. The economic mode of interaction
refers to the significance of change of economic relations between the countries. The
economic mode of interaction is mostly related to the commercial activities between
countries, that is, commodity trade, official (mostly legal) trade, private (sometimes
illegal) trade, prestige-goods trade and bulk-goods trade. It also refers to the organization of economic exchange. The political mode of interaction refers to political relations
between the countries, mostly relations of governments, political parties, central polities,
dynasties and imperial courts and geopolitical diplomacy.16 The military mode of interaction refers to conflicts and alliances between countries, as well as war, plundering,
invasion, violence, territorial expansion and contraction and use of “physical or military
force.”17 In addition, potential military activity (planned, but not realized) of one country against another also has an important affect on the relations between countries. The
cultural mode of interaction (similar to informational as used by Chase-Dunn and Hall,
and ideological by Mann) refers to cultural relations between the countries, especially
cultural influence. These four modes of interaction, in practice, form overlapping networks of interactions while my study separates them for analytical usefulness. However,
the relative significance of each of the four modes of interaction has changed.
2. The Nature of Relations between Historical Cases
In order to determine the nature of relationships between historical cases, I will
use modified concepts of the world-systems perspective as follows: hierarchical, differentiated (D) and reciprocal (R) on the one hand; and core (C), mediating (M) and peripheral (P) on the other.
Modification is necessary to apply the concepts used in Wallerstein’s worldsystem theory to historical cases because, as Chase-Dunn and Hall argue, Wallerstein
assumes hierarchical relationships between the core and periphery, such as domination
and exploitation. However, differentiated or reciprocal relationships, rather than hierarchical, are more applicable to many East Asian cases, especially during the traditional
period. Wallerstein also uses the terms of core, periphery, and semiperiphery (a “threelayered structure”) to determine the nature of units of a world-system. This study will
use Wallerstein’s concepts of core and peripheral without modification. However, instead of semiperipheral, I will adopt the term “mediating”, which is more properly in16
17
Mann 1986: 26-27.
Mann 1986: 25-26.
24 • Korea Review of International Studies
dicative of intermediary functions and thus more useful.
The hierarchical form of relationships between countries implies domination and
exploitation of one country by another. Reciprocal relationships imply beneficial relations between countries. Differentiated relationships are remote relations between countries. Reciprocal and differentiated relationships imply minimal exploitation and domination, or non-existence of exploitation and domination. Therefore, the core, mediating,
and peripheral nature of relationship are subcategories of hierarchical, while differentiated and reciprocal are independent types.
These diverse relations might give different results depending on which of the
four modes of interaction are being investigated. For instance, the peripheral nature of
relations in the military mode of interaction does not guarantee the same type of relation
as some other mode of interaction. The following table illustrates the nature of relations
between China, Japan, Korea, and the West around the beginning of the Christian era.
Table 1: Models of Interaction between China, Japan, and Korea, ca. A.D. 1
Modes of Interaction
Units
China/Korea
Economic
Political
Military
Cultural
C/M
C/P
C/P
C/M
China/Japan
C/P
C/P
D
C/P
Korea/Japan
M/P
M/P
D
M/P
(In this table D for differentiated, C for core, M for mediating, P for peripheral).
VI. Conclusion
This study is not a direct historical study, but an attempt to form an analytical
framework for further comparative historical studies. This study reviews world-system
theorists, such as Wallerstein, Moulder, Schneider, Tilly, Wilkinson, Chase-Dunn and
Hall. Eric Wolf’s “world connectedness” and Michael Mann’s “four sources of social
power” are also reviewed in order to modify the world-systems model for further historical study and application of the modified model to the East Asian case. This analytical framework gives us a holistic perspective to understand historical cases. I hope this
new analytical framework, which is modified with a world-systems perspective, will be
useful for many comparative historical studies.
References
Abu-Lughod, Janet L. Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Baran, Paul A. The Political Economy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review Press,
1957.
Carmack, Robert M. “Ethnohistory: A review of its development, definitions, meth-
Making an Analytical Framework to Apply to Comparative Historical Studies • 25
ods, and aims” in Annual Review of Anthropology 1. ed. Siegel, B. J. Palo Alto,
California: Annual Reviews Inc. 1972.
Carmack, Robert M. “Applying World-System Theory to Mesoamerica” Paper, American Anthropological Meetings, San Francisco, 1996.
Chase-Dunn C. and Hall T.D. Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Oxford: Westview Press, 1991.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher. “The Comparative Study of World-Systems,” Review 15
(3), summer 1992: 313-333.
Chase-Dunn C. and Hall T.D. Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems. Oxford:
Westview Press, 1997.
Frank, G. “A theoretical introduction to 5,000 years of world system history” in Review 13, 1990.
Mann, Michael. The Sources of Social Power 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986.
Moulder, Frances V. Japan, China, and the Modern World Economy: Toward A Reinterpretation of East Asian Development ca. 1600 to ca. 1918, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Schneider, Jane. “Was there a pre-capitalist world-system?” Peasant Studies 6(1),
1977: 20-29.
Tilly, Charles. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, New York: Russell
Sage, 1984.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-System, New York: Academic Press, 1974a.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis,” in Comparative Studies in Society
and History 16(4), Sep., 1974b: 387-415.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Capitalist World-Economy, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. “World-Systems Analysis: The Second Phase,” Review 13(2),
Spring 1990: 287-293.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the changing worldsystem, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Wilkinson, David. “Cores, Peripheries, and Civilizations,” in Core/Periphery Relations
in Precapitalist Worlds, ed. Chase-Dunn and Hall Oxford: Westview Press,
1991.
Wolf, R. Eric. Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century, New York: Harper and Row,
1969.
Wolf, R. Eric. Europe and the People Without History, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.
Wolf, R. Eric. Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.