From dassbach@mtu.edu Mon Jul 3 07:58:46 1995 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 1995 10:01:49 -0400 To: WSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU From: dassbach@mtu.edu (Carl H.A. Dassbach) Subject: Call For Papers >From: Mike Sosteric >Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 01:00:02 -0600 >Subject: Call For Papers >Apparently-To: electronic-sociology-l@postbox.anu.edu.au >Sender: owner-electronic-sociology-l@coombs.anu.edu.au >Precedence: bulk > >_CALL FOR PAPERS_ > > >THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, (EJS), a new electronic journal, >invites the submission of papers. We publish papers in two forms: A >HYPERTEXT version accessible via WWW browsers such as Mosaic or Netscape, >and an ASCII version which can be retrieved and read using almost any text >processor. We are particularly interested in papers which deal with either >the INTERNET, electronic communication and electronic communities or which >combine images, sounds and text. Style requirements and other pertinent >information about the EJS can be found on our home page at >http://gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca:8010 > >Submissions can be sent to Mike Sosteric at msosteri@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca >or to the journal account at socjourn@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca. > >Also, the EJS continues to seek qualified professionals to conduct peer >review of submissions. If you would like to contribute in this manner, >please contact Mike Sosteric at the above address. > >Sincerly, > > >Mike Sosteric > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: DASSBACH@MTU.EDU Dept. of Social Sciences Phone: (906)487-2115 Michigan Technological University Fax: (906)487-2468 Houghton, MI 49931 USA From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Mon Jul 3 12:04:39 1995 id <01HSFP9B8ZPW8WX0RI@grove.iup.edu>; Mon, 03 Jul 1995 14:02:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 1995 14:02:35 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania Carl Dassbach asks why we should continue to use the term evolution given the misunderstandings and miusages of the concept that abound. My answer is because it is one of the most magnificent concepts that has ever been formulated. Look at what it's done for the biological sciences and for a large part of anthropology. It has fantastic explanatory power and a tremendous capacity to unify. It can do much the same for the social sciences, so let's not discard it. I might just note that in its original usage the term evolution derives from the Latin "evolutis," meaning "an unrolling." This is certainly teleological in implication, no denying that. But virtually no evolutionary biologist that I know of today wants to think of evolution as a teleological process. If the biologists can discard this original meaning but continue to use the term, then social scientists can (and should) too. For more details, see my Social Evolutionism book. Stephen Sanderson From deibert@unixg.ubc.ca Mon Jul 3 12:31:44 1995 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 11:34:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Ronald Deibert To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <01HSFP9B8ZPY8WX0RI@grove.iup.edu> I would just like to second what Sanderson said about evolutionary paradigms in the social sciences, particularly the embrace of contingency and open-endedness. I think that a great deal of creative work is going on -- particularly in terms of the type of large-scale "big history" that Sanderson favours -- that employs such a perspective. Theorists in the social sciences who now make use of evolutionary paradigms seem to draw not on the old discredited Spencerian uses of the concept, but draw from people like Gould, Dawkins, and Dennett -- even Richard Rorty -- in returning to a view of history as a "decent with modification." I believe that part of this is driven by attempts to get away from mono-causal "master narratives" -- either in the guise of successive modes of production or technologies of destruction. Ron Ronald J. Deibert Institute of International Relations University of British Columbia (604) 822-5480 From chriscd@jhu.edu Mon Jul 3 16:21:34 1995 id <01HSFY879UYOIDR43A@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Mon, 03 Jul 1995 18:14:32 -0400 (EDT) id <01HSBN8CEYCGI8Z42Y@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 15:03:59 -0400 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: Fw: [82] INTERNET SPREADS GLOBAL HOPES OF DEMOCRACY AND PROSPERITY (fwd) Sender: chriscd@jhu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu X-NUPop-Charset: English ------------------------------ From: Molly Molloy Subject: [82] INTERNET SPREADS GLOBAL HOPES OF DEMOCRACY AND PROSPERITY (fwd) Here's an interesting story about the spread (or lack of it) of the internet into the (so-called) third world. Some interesting comments from Mexico. Molly Molloy mmolloy@lib.nmsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Internet Spreads Global Hopes of Democracy and Prosperity By David Bank, San Jose Mercury News, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News HONOLULU--Jun. 29--The Internet is spreading rapidly around the world, carrying with it a heavy burden of expectations that getting connected to the global network will foster both economic development and democracy. The annual meeting of the Internet Society, under way here, has become a major training ground for engineers, academics and activists who in many cases are bootstrapping the first primitive Internet connections for their countries and tackling the challenges of providing broader access. The participants were unanimous that the Internet was the key to bringing the benefits of the information revolution to their countries. ``We don't have the Internet,'' said Pedro Teta, chairman of the telecommunications department at Agostino Neto University in Luanda, Angola. Neto attended a week-long training camp that preceded the conference for representatives of developing countries. ``It's very, very important.'' He said Angola's long civil war had hampered the development of communication links, but that the government is now committed to establishing a satellite link to the Internet as well as an overland line to South Africa. He predicted that Angola would be ``on the Internet'' within a year. In general, Africa remains the biggest gap in the Net's global reach. For years, Larry Landweber, a professor of computer science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has maintained a map of countries' levels of connectivity. The areas shaded in purple, indicating full Internet connections, are growing. In addition to Africa, the Middle East and southwest Asia remain the most underserved. There were 180 people from 80 countries at the Internet Society's training session for representatives of developing countries. Not, coincidentally, those least connected countries also represent many of the world's poorest nations, struggling to provide basic needs to the populace. And in many cases, those attending this week's event are looking at the Internet to help link themselves into other nations and companies that might help them pull out of poverty. But even among connected countries, there are huge differences in the speed of the connections, the availability of access outside of major university campuses and the development of local information services, such as government documents, on-line libraries and discussion groups in local languages. Tunisia, for example, is connected to the Internet through a leased line to France that runs at the speed of 19,200 bits per second. That means all the users in that country, about 1,000 people, share the capacity that's enjoyed by the user of a single computer modem in this country. Algeria's connection, through Italy, runs at 9,600 bits per second. In the U.S., individual home users typically have modems that send information at least 14,400 bits per second and sometimes at speeds far greater than that. So far, the evidence is mostly anecdotal that the Internet, or any communications technology, has had a direct impact on democratization. The oft-told tales include the international fax network that sustained Chinese student demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and the electronic mail dispatches from those standing vigil outside the Russian ``White House'' during the failed coup of August 1991. Moreover, the question of cause and effect is not clear. Do connected countries become more democratic, or are democratic countries already better connected? Nonetheless, Christopher Kedzie, a researcher at RAND Corp. in Santa Monica, has found, statistically, that interconnectivity is the single most powerful predictor of democracy. As a result, Kedzie argues that the U.S. government should juggle its foreign aid priorities and make support for international communication projects at least as important as foreign economic development and perhaps as important as national security programs. In Russia, a $10 million project to create regional information networks is based on the belief that the spread of communications technologies can help prevent a return to authoritarian rule. In Yaroslavl, a provincial city of 750,000 people about 150 miles northeast of Moscow, the International Science Foundation is spearheading a project to link 140 high schools, libraries, City Hall and even private homes to the Internet. For many Internet boosters, the spread of the technology can't come fast enough. ``We are not taking advantage of our geographical position close to the United States,'' said Jeffry Fernandez, director of information systems at the University of Guadalajara in Mexico. ``We need somebody like (Vice President) Al Gore in Mexico, a high-level authority realizing how important it is to have a good information infrastructure in Mexico.'' But Mexicans themselves are pushing the development of Internet-based services. The Internet seized the public imagination when leaders of the Zapatista uprising in the southern state of Chiapas, who had strong connections to university students in Mexico City, made a splash by sending communiques by e-mail. A supporter in the United States established a World Wide Web site for the rebels. ``This kind of political motivation was driving people to get onto the Internet,'' said Fernandez. ``They realized something was happening with the Zapatistas on the Internet.'' Similarly, Mexican newspapers have literally been dragged on-line. After readers of La Jornada, a left-leaning newspaper in Mexico City began re- posting articles to the Internet, a supporter in the United States created a Web site, without permission of the newspaper. When the paper's directors realized how popular the site had become, they agreed to cooperate with the project, Fernandez said. Countries with advanced telecommunications systems in place are wrestling with the implications of the Internet's rapid spread. Singapore, with a long tradition of media censorship, has found that the Internet poses special challenges. Recently, accounts of one Singapore service provider were scanned for graphic images, reportedly because of a misinterpretation of an official request. Of 80,000 files scanned, five pornographic images were found and users were given warnings. ``You can't ignore the Internet - there's too much value there,'' said Barry Greene, an American who works as project manager of SingNet, the Internet service of Singapore Telecom. ``But a country can't just throw out its own values and adopt Internet values.'' END!R3?SJ-INTERNET AP-NY-06-29-95 0008EDT This material is copyrighted and may not be republished without permission of the originating newspaper or wire service. NewsHound is a service of the San Jose Mercury News. For more information call 1-800-818-NEWS. Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu From mschetti@colmex.mx Mon Jul 3 16:42:42 1995 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 16:38:52 -0900 (PDT) From: M Schettino To: chris chase-dunn Subject: Re: Fw: [82] INTERNET SPREADS GLOBAL HOPES OF DEMOCRACY AND PROSPERITY (fwd) In-Reply-To: <54239.chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> Is really democracy correlated with Internet users? Too many spurious correlation already, why adding another? Macario From BAMYEHM@aspen.uml.edu Mon Jul 3 21:37:35 1995 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 1995 23:40:02 EDT From: BAMYEHM@aspen.uml.edu To: WSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU Subject: who is still evolving? I missed some of the discussion on the use of "evolution" as an explanatory sort of meta-concept, but I have not seen any reference to Joannes Fabian's important book in this regard, 'Time and the Other.' It is written as a critique fro an anthropological perspective of the kinds of thinking attendant to presumptions of evolution. I myself tend to think that the term is still problematic, EVEN when it is stripped of its originally teleological, Spencerian package. The fact that a term has a great "explanatory power" does not necessarily mean that it is intrinsically meaningful. In other words, using a concept to show that a logical or rational (both terms presumed to be universal) path is followed/averted goes around the more fundamental problem, which consists in demonstrating a certain kind of systematicity , which would then call for the introduction of appropriate concepts. In much of the literature using the term--although there might be exceptions-- the comparability of different things (epochs, regions, 'civilzations,' etc.) and their meaningful totality and systematicity is more often presumed than established. (In the otherwise important books of S. N. Eisenstadt on empires or urbanity, the least interesting parts are by far the conclusions, rather than the more sharply focused expositions). This is not to say that we can never do macro- and comparative types of analysis (I myself do it all the time with a great deal of pleasure). there are alternatives to the term in macro-level analysis, which I don't think stands and falls with evolution. It seems to me that much of the appeal of the term has to do with its scientific origins (explicitly referred to by some of the participnts), which I think is part of a larger problem regarding some (influential) sociologists' proclivity to model the discipline after the natural sciences (and often, such as in our case, simply to toss biology in as one field where the concept worked, as if we all readily agree that sociology and biology are so comparable). These are just some wandering thoughts on the issue. Mohammed A. Bamyeh Sociology Univ. of Massachusetts Lowell, MA 01854 bamyehm@woods.uml.edu From teivaine@cc.helsinki.fi Tue Jul 4 05:17:02 1995 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 14:19:55 +0300 (EET DST) From: Teivo Teivainen To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: GA on world empire/world-economy? Dear WSNetters, Since I got Giovanni Arrighi's book quite recently and there have been all kinds of traditional Midsummer festivities "out here" (in Finland), I haven't been able to participate in the book debate so far. In any case, I hope the debate will still go on, because the book certainly is impressive. At this point, I would like to pay attention to one possible difference between traditional (Wallersteinian) w-s analysis and Arrighi's interpretation. As far as I've understood it, the one economy/many polities dichotomy has been one of the main characteristics of the Wallersteinian view on the modern world-system. This dichotomy constitutes the basic difference between a world-economy and a world-empire, and the modern world-system has been characterized as a world-economy. Arrighi, however, says (p. 58) that "the capitalist world-economy as reconstituted under British hegemony in the nineteenth century was as much a 'world empire' as it was a 'world-economy'...". The famous hyphen has been left out of the former term, so it is hard to tell to what extent Arrighi wants to challenge the Wallersteinian categorical view on the modern world-system not being a world-empire. In any case, it is a theoretically relevant provocation on which I would like to hear comments. More generally, I think there could be more discussion on the usage of terms "economy" and "polity" within the w-s tradition. On the one hand, we are probably all familiar with Wallerstein's invitation to "unthink" the division to economic/political/socio-cultural categories in social analysis. On the other hand, the many political units/ one economic unit dichotomy has, as far as I have noticed, not been really challenged. Not even by Wallerstein, perhaps because the challenge would imply an "unthinking" of some of the basic premises of the traditional w-s analysis. Any commets? Virtually Yours, Teivo Teivainen Iberoamerican Research Center PO Box 4, 00014 University of Helsinki fax: 358-0-1917940 e-mail: teivo.teivainen@helsinki.fi phone: 358-0-7734254 From pericles@astro.ocis.temple.edu Tue Jul 4 06:44:45 1995 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 08:47:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "Daniel P. Tompkins" To: wsn Subject: Temple UP Temple University is cutting its budget, and the University Press is under some pressure. It's threatened not with closure but with severe reductions and privatization or outsourcing of some services. As a faculty member who will be trying to influence folks, I would be interested in hearing from anyone on good books they've used from Temple. Dan Tompkins Pericles@astro.ocis.temple.edu From wxhst3+@pitt.edu Tue Jul 4 08:49:12 1995 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 10:50:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Haller Subject: Re: who is still evolving? To: BAMYEHM@aspen.uml.edu In-Reply-To: <00992D26.C8297E20.6140@woods.uml.edu> Hi folks, I have a thought to share about what I've been reading on evolution. It seems to me that sociologists and world-system analysts should be very interested in the concept of evolution because it's necessary for understanding emergent phenomena. I believe that Steve Sanderson used the example of the biological sciences because, as I only vaguely understand the matter, the dramatic advancements in the biological sciences in recent years have come about because of explicit attention to the specific problems of various particular emergent phenomena in biology. This is not at all the same as the time-worn and intrinsically conservative biological analogies used by functionalists to explain differentiation and inequality in social systems. Is not the historically specific emergence and generalized patterns of evolution of the modern world-system the very problem to which Wallerstein devoted his life's work? We know from long experience that the concept of evolution can be easily abused, but that's not a good reason to discard its use offhandedly -- the history of such abuse in the social sciences does, however, demand that its use be scrutinized very critically (and, of course, teleology is OUT). Bill Haller ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bill Haller \/ University Center for Social Department of Sociology /\ and Urban Research (UCSUR) University of Pittsburgh \/ 121 University Place, 6th floor email: wxhst3+@pitt.edu /\ Pittsburgh, PA 15213-9972 ------------------------------------------------------------------- From brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu Tue Jul 4 09:28:02 1995 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 11:31:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce McFarling To: BAMYEHM@aspen.uml.edu Subject: Re: who is still evolving? In-Reply-To: <00992D26.C8297E20.6140@woods.uml.edu> content-length: 4258 On Mon, 3 Jul 1995 BAMYEHM@aspen.uml.edu wrote: > I missed some of the discussion on the use of "evolution" as an > explanatory sort of meta-concept, but I have not seen any > reference to Joannes Fabian's important book in this regard, 'Time > and the Other.' It is written as a critique fro an anthropological > perspective of the kinds of thinking attendant to presumptions > of evolution. I myself tend to think that the term is still > problematic, EVEN when it is stripped of its originally > teleological, Spencerian package. The fact that a term has a > great "explanatory power" does not necessarily mean that it is > intrinsically meaningful. In other words, using a concept to > show that a logical or rational (both terms presumed to be > universal) path is followed/averted goes around the more > fundamental problem, which consists in demonstrating a > certain kind of systematicity , which would then call for > the introduction of appropriate concepts. I believe that I had mentioned that point, but it can be made clearer with the language used following my post. The concept of evolution which has proved useful is descent with variation. This requires that there is a system that is propogated by reproduction, that the reproduction is variable, and that there is selection among the various descendents of a system. If the theory of selection is poorly worked out or left implicit, it is here that you can fall into a trap of teleology, for which there is a simple solution: theories of selection must be examined, and teleological theories of selection are discarded. If the term evolution is used, without establishing explicitly that there is a system, propogated by variable reproduction with selection among the various descendents, then it *is* an open question whether the explanatory power of 'descent with variationism' can be brought to bear on the case at hand. If not, I would argue that term is being used to borrow from the status of successful theories of evolution, without undertaking the work required to actually employ the theory. Thus the following is a crucial point: > In much of the literature using the term--although there might be > exceptions-- the comparability of different things (epochs, regions, > 'civilzations,' etc.) and their meaningful totality and systematicity > is more often presumed than established. ... > This is not to say that we can never do macro- and comparative > types of analysis. ... There are alternatives to the term in > macro-level analysis, which I don't think stands and falls > with evolution. It seems to me that much of the appeal of the > term has to do with its scientific origins ... which I think > is part of a larger problem regarding some (influential) > sociologists' proclivity to model the discipline after > the natural sciences. ... To bring the point even more directly to bear on the topic at hand, it is possible that societies evolve, without evolution of the world-system in which they are found. Or, in other words, there may be evolution in the world-system without evolution of the world-system. If a world-system is generated by interaction of persistent characeristics of societies (not *all* characteristics need change in social evolution) then the decline of one world system may be followed by the rise of another, without an ancester-descendent relationship between the two. If the later world-system is not a descendent of a former world-system, it is best to avoid referring to the 'evolution' of the world-systems, however much evolution proceeds within the world-systems. I take it that in this forum, the entity of world-systems can be taken as a given. So the next question is whether they are systems that reproduce. If so in _The Long 20th C_, the use of the term evolutionary is well-justified. If not in most world-system theory, the attention that his use of the term has recieved is also well-justified, as this is an important difference. So, (1) do the world-systems of TL20C reproduce? (2) does that agree with or differ from most WS theory and (3) if this represents an innovation, what are its promises and perils for WS theory? Virtually, Bruce McFarling, Knoxville brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu From mschetti@colmex.mx Tue Jul 4 09:44:48 1995 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 09:38:49 -0900 (PDT) From: M Schettino To: Teivo Teivainen Subject: Re: GA on world empire/world-economy? In-Reply-To: There has been some discussion about evolution and more recently about the unthinking of politics/social/economic realms of thought. I would like to post some ideas about evolution, in the way I think institutions (as the rules of the game) evolve. Evolution doesn't have to be teleological, except for the attempt to surviving. A certain group evolves not to become something "better" but to remain. Evolution is not the result of the willing of the group but of the combination of the group and its environment. If the environment changes, the probabilities of surviving for each member of the group also change. Evolution, thus, is the result of the environmental changes and the natural diversity of the group. If we think of institutions as the mentioned group, evolution becomes a very useful concept. Any rule (or set of rules) is confronted with the environment of the group that defined it (let aside the creation of institutions for a moment). As the environment changes, the rule "evolves" since individual and group interpretations of the rule also change. What we have is a rule that resembles the original one, but has changed enough to be considered as different. Now, if we introduce this concept of institutions as the rules of the game, that once created evolve independently of the will of the social group that created it, it is quite easier to unthink the pol-eco-soc separation... Comments? Macario From wilsond9@student.msu.edu Tue Jul 4 13:28:38 1995 Subject: Re: evolution of institutions - signed To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 15:31:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Douglas C Wilson" > Applying the concept of evolution to institutions is something that I have > been thinking about - it has some strenghts, but also weaknesses and dangers. > Society is not a biological, transfered concepts are metaphors to be treated > very cautiously. To me the concept of evolution depends > on having an identifyable thing which changes incrementally by virtue of some > mechanism. This mechanism reponds to changes in the enviroment be selecting > among potential charateristics of the thing which evolves. Biological > evolution consists of a thing called a species making incremental changes by > virtue of natural selection. It is this theory that has proven so powerful in > the life sciences, not a more generic notion of evolution as changes in a > system responding to changes in its environment. > To apply this to institutions is difficult. First, what is evolving? A > specific rule? Then how is it that the new rule is an evolved version of the > earlier rule rather than just another rule? If the evolving thing is a larger > unit such as an organization or a geographical unit then we are on firmer > ground because we can identify the evolving thing. But that thing is now much > more than just institutions. It selects its institutions according to some > rule making mechanism but these rule making mechansisms are not limited to a > particular logic of rule making in the same way that natural selection must > select among available genetic choices. > However, there may be a social scientific logic that governs this rule > selection. Douglass North offers us the logic of path dependence and minimizin g > transaction costs. Path dependence limits the selection of new institutions > while transaction costs play the role of selecting mechanism. Path dependence > is essentially the conservatism that is built in to the changing process by th e > way that the existing institutions have governed learning and the interests of > actors. This is the strongest version of evolving institutions that I know > of. But there is a lot about it I don't like, particularly in the understandin g > of the role of transaction costs. But it is a helpful theory. > One cost we pay for the application of evolution to institutions is that i t > can only describe incremental social change and not rapid social change. Path > dependence does its inhibiting work in most situations, but there are some in > which it fails. Evolution in the life sciences describes change in general, > applied to social science it describes only particular, albeit common > situations. This is a danger because we are used to using the concept as a > general one. Viewing Russia as an evolved Soviet Union seems to me stretching > a point, it is possible but other approaches would be stronger. > Another difficulty is that it is the organizations or geographical > units that are competing and changing, not the institutions themselves. > Changing institutions is just one mechanism that is available to these groups > in competition. Thus the analysis of the evolution of institutions becomes > somewhat befuddled. > A third problem I have, particularly at the world-system level, is that > the use of concepts like evolution, competition and selection takes on an > almost euphemistic air. Captialism did not outcompete other systems because o f > its more evolved institutions - people from capitalist societies conquered > people from non-capitalist societies and forced them to change their rules. > On the whole I think evolution can be made to describe social phenomenon. > But biological metaphors have their limits and conceptual traps and we might b e > better off in social science using language of our own specific to what we > study. > > - Doug Wilson wilsond9@student.msu.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There has been some discussion about evolution and more recently about > > the unthinking of politics/social/economic realms of thought. I would > > like to post some ideas about evolution, in the way I think > > institutions (as the rules of the game) evolve. > > > > Evolution doesn't have to be teleological, except for the attempt to > > surviving. A certain group evolves not to become something "better" > > but to remain. Evolution is not the result of the willing of the group > > but of the combination of the group and its environment. If the > > environment changes, the probabilities of surviving for each member of > > the group also change. Evolution, thus, is the result of the > > environmental changes and the natural diversity of the group. > > > > If we think of institutions as the mentioned group, evolution becomes > > a very useful concept. Any rule (or set of rules) is confronted with > > the environment of the group that defined it (let aside the creation > > of institutions for a moment). As the environment changes, the rule > > "evolves" since individual and group interpretations of the rule also > > change. What we have is a rule that resembles the original one, but > > has changed enough to be considered as different. > > > > Now, if we introduce this concept of institutions as the rules of the > > game, that once created evolve independently of the will of the > > social group that created it, it is quite easier to unthink the > > pol-eco-soc separation... > > > > Comments? > > > > Macario > > > > From arrighi@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Wed Jul 5 01:04:27 1995 From: arrighi@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 03:02:06 -0400 (EDT) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: The Long Twentieth Century Perhaps I should toss my two liras in, and comment on some of the issues that have been raised thus far in the discussion of _The Long Twentieth Century_(LTC). 1) On the world-systems perspective: The world-systems perspective, as I understand it, is a holistic mode of analysis that underscores the spatial and temporal interconnectedness of processes of social change in the modern world. The LTC aims, among other things, at demonstrating the usefulness of this perspective for analyzing the rise, expansion and eventual demise of capitalism. I am therefore surprised that questions have been raised as to whether the LTC adopts a world-systems perspective. Nevertheless, I do not think that there is only one world-systems THEORY. The fact that many of us look at the forest rather than the trees of historical-capitalism does not mean that we all see the forest in the same way. What we see, and how we interpret it, depends on the particular angle of vision from which we look and on the particular theoretical repertoire from which we draw. Hence, there is no contradiction between the fact that the LTC poses a challenge to most people's understanding of the modern world system, as Wallerstein points out in his review, and the fact that it is a contribution to the development of the world-systems perspective. 2) On continuous and discontinuous change in the development/evolution the capitalist world system: World-systemists have never ruled out development/evolution. As Stephen Sanderson notes, they have maintained that it is the system as a whole, rather than its national components, that develops/evolves. It is nevertheless true--as Carl Dassbach maintains and Chris Chase-Dunn acknowledges--that the dominant view of the development/evolution of the capitalist world system has emphasized continuous change. That is, the system expands but its organizational structures remain basically the same. It has always been a mystery to me how the capitalist world system could expand as rapidly and extensively as it did over the last 500 years without fundamental organizational change. And sure enough, once I started investigating the historical details of that expansion, I found plenty of evidence that each burst of expansion was based on a major reorganization of the system. The result is an evolutionary theory of the capitalist world-economy that is neither teleological nor progressivist. Sanderson seems to agree with this assessment. Bruce McFarling says that he has not yet settled to his satisfaction whether the LTC meets the criteria of a non-teleological evolutionary theory. I would be interested to know what particular aspect of the LTC appears teleological to him. 3) On the research agenda of the book: Chase-Dunn writes: "The examination of the relationship between K-waves (and shorter business cycles) and systemic cycles of accumulation is necessary for understanding the past...the present, and the future. Also, cycles of war intensity and severity and debt cycles need to be brought into Arrighi's model and investigated empirically." I couldn't agree more. As Wallerstein suggests, however, there is much more that needs to be brought back into the analysis and investigated empirically in relation to systemic cycles of accumulation: e.g., core/periphery relations, social conflict, sexism, racism. If I did not focus on these issues in the LTC, it is not because I think they are unimportant; nor is it because they did not "fit" the model; nor is it out of a love of elegance-although I like elegance. Rather it is because my re-reading of Braudel in the light of the present financial expansion convinced me that a radical reconceptualization of historical capitalism was absolutely necessary in order to understand where we might be headed in the future. Once I started to work with the hypothesis that the true specificity of historical capitalism is the alternation of comparatively short periods of material expansion followed by longer periods of financial expansion, I realized that just getting the systemic cycles of acccumulation right was biting off more than I could chew. Thus, in writing the book, many tempting morsels had to be foresaken. My hope is that others will step in and bite. Giovanni Arrighi ************************************** Giovanni Arrighi * arrighi@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu * Department of Sociology * Binghamton University * Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 * 607-777-6840 (office) * 607-777-2216 (department) * 607-777-4197 (fax) * ************************************** From brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu Wed Jul 5 02:54:57 1995 Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 04:58:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce McFarling To: arrighi@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Subject: Re: The Long Twentieth Century In-Reply-To: content-length: 2447 On Wed, 5 Jul 1995 Giovanni Arrighi wrote a thoughtful commentary on the discussion to date, including this small bit addressed to myself: > The result is an evolutionary theory of the capitalist world-economy that > is neither teleological nor progressivist. Sanderson seems to agree with > this assessment. Bruce McFarling says that he has not yet settled to his > satisfaction whether the LTC meets the criteria of a non-teleological > evolutionary theory. I would be interested to know what particular aspect > of the LTC appears teleological to him. This is not the dichotomy I set up, since I wasn't attempting to set a dichotomy at all. There are three, not two, possibilities: it is an evolutionary theory, in the precise sense of descent with modification, and avoids teleology; it is an evolutionary theory in this sense, but falls into the trap of teleology; or it is not an evolutionary theory at all, at least not in this precise sense. Had I been clearer, I would have laid these out, so that I could say I have not settled to my own satisfaction whether it is or is not an evolutionary theory in the precise sense of descent with modification -- that it is non-teleological is granted. The source of the confusion is of course with my post, where I say something to the effect of being being able to say to my own satisfaction whether it is or is not evolutionary 'in *this* non-teleological sense' (emphasis added); it could be read as saying 'in this *non*-teleological sense' (unintended emphasis). As I've said remarked more recently, even if there is a coherent entity (which in remarks in the same post Giovanni Arrighi clearly maintains; and if selection principles avoid a teleological fallacy, which I grant for LTC, there still has to be reproduction of systems to have descent with variation. Three possibilities, for example, are (1) that a system persists, (2) that is reproduces, or (3) that the system is regenerated by the interactions of its member population. By this time, and especially with the help of Giovanni Arrighi's remarks, (1) has been pinned down as a common WS perspective, but not the perspective of LTC. I still must satisfy myself as to (2) vs (3) ... not only in LTC but probably with greater difficulty for myself, so even when I get LTC pinned down, I'll still have to figure out if I agree or not ;) Virtually, Bruce McFarling, Knoxville brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Wed Jul 5 12:26:52 1995 id <01HSIISEQWF48WW6W7@grove.iup.edu>; Wed, 05 Jul 1995 14:28:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 1995 14:28:04 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania I appreciate Ron Deibert's seconding what I had to say about social evolution. However, let's be careful. "Descent with modification" is certainly an appropriate way to think about many aspects of social evolution. Yet not many social scientists that I know of try to link social evolution to biological usages of the concept. Those who do think of social evolution in bioevolutionary terms tend to be biologists, evolutionary ecologists, or something like that. A good example would be Boyd and Richerson. In my opinion, their ideas are of limited use. As I try to show in Chapter 8 of my Social Evolutionism, social evolutionists have their own agenda and need not try to copy bioevolutionary theory. I had a running e-mail debate with Richerson a couple of years ago and we didn't agree on much. Stephen Sanderson From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Wed Jul 5 12:56:22 1995 id <01HSIJC4KG308WW6W7@grove.iup.edu>; Wed, 05 Jul 1995 14:40:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 1995 14:40:26 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Organization: Indiana University of Pennsylvania Thanks to Bill Haller for his message. Yes, understanding the general pattern of the evolution of the capitalist world-economy is exactly the problem which has since the early 1970s been the focus of Wallerstein's life work. W has been mapping out the directional trends of this system and trying to show where they are leading us. Stephen Sanderson From deibert@unixg.ubc.ca Wed Jul 5 13:17:40 1995 Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 12:20:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Ronald Deibert To: s_sanderson Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <01HSIISER62A8WW6W7@grove.iup.edu> On Sanderson's comments re: sociobiology. I too have problems with those who attempt a unified explanation of social phenomena based on biological theories. When I said that evolutionary theories of the non-teleogical sort were becoming more popular among social scientists studying "big history", I meant that they were employing ideas such as path-dependency and contingency to illuminate social processes, and in particular, as a means to rectify the predominance of master or grand narratives, such as progressive stages of development through which all societies are assumed to pass, or "logics" of successive modes of production. In International Relations theory, for example, I think John Ruggie's creative use of such metaphors in explaining the medieval-to-modern world order transformation is a case in point. But an interesting epistemological question is raised by the metaphoric use of such concepts in the social sciences. Are Darwinist metaphors (and here I mean to exclude Spencerian Social Darwinist ideas) useful merely because there are an interesting "way to look at" the world around us? I realize this topic is sort of off the LTC, but perhaps a second thread should be opened up? Ron Ronald J. Deibert Institute of International Relations University of British Columbia (604) 822-5480 From brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu Wed Jul 5 16:20:02 1995 Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 18:10:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce McFarling To: Ronald Deibert Subject: Re: social evolution In-Reply-To: content-length: 2459 On Wed, 5 Jul 1995, Ronald Deibert wrote: > On Sanderson's comments re: sociobiology. > > I too have problems with those who attempt a unified explanation of > social phenomena based on biological theories. When I said that > evolutionary theories of the non-teleogical sort were becoming > more popular among social scientists studying "big history", I meant > that they were employing ideas such as path-dependency and contingency > to illuminate social processes, and in particular, as a means to rectify > the predominance of master or grand narratives, such as progressive > stages of development through which all societies are assumed to pass, > or "logics" of successive modes of production. Whether coincidentally or not, one of the early fights of theories of biological evolution was against the Lamarckian ladder of life, which was a progressive chain of development through which all species were assumed to pass. But, of course, reproduction of social institutions through enculturation in childhood is Lamarckian in the sense that modifications in individual behavior may be passed on; and even further removed from biological evolution are reproduction of institutions through emulation and assimilation. So in regards the question, > But an interesting epistemological question is raised by the metaphoric > use of such concepts in the social sciences. Are Darwinist > metaphors (and here I mean to exclude Spencerian Social Darwinist > ideas) useful merely because there are an interesting > "way to look at" the world around us? an explicitly evolutionary approach to the study of social change should be wary of ocer-reliance on Darwinist metaphors, and in particular a trying to integrate theories of biological and social evolution before the latter is well developed is putting the cart before the horse. In fact, given biology's fight to maintain that biology cannot be reduced to chemistry, efforts to reduce the study of society to biology are not on the soundest of foundations. Use of Darwinian metaphors, or reductionist appeals directly to biological evolutionary theory, merely shy away from the harder task of understanding social evolution and other forms of social change in their own right. A task that, BTW, LTC does not shy away from. So I guess that's a cut back to the regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress. Virtually, Bruce McFarling, Knoxville brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu From deibert@unixg.ubc.ca Wed Jul 5 22:46:01 1995 Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 21:49:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Ronald Deibert To: Bruce McFarling Subject: Re: social evolution In-Reply-To: On Wed, 5 Jul 1995, Bruce McFarling wrote: > Whether coincidentally or not, one of the early fights of > theories of biological evolution was against the Lamarckian ladder of > life, which was a progressive chain of development through which all > species were assumed to pass. But, of course, reproduction of social > institutions through enculturation in childhood is Lamarckian in the > sense that modifications in individual behavior may be passed on; and > even further removed from biological evolution are reproduction of > institutions through emulation and assimilation. So in regards the > question, I am not so sure that reproduction of social institutions can be *wholly* characterized as Larmarkian insofar as contingency or chance also plays a role in the evolution of memes, ideas, the prevailing mentalites collectives, and so forth. Take, for example, individualism as a moral idea and symbolic form. Elements of this idea can be traced back into the late Middle Ages and beyond. It certainly has its roots in the Christian religion. But it is only in early modern Europe that individualism is exalted as a predominant moral idea -- an idea that resonated throughout various social spheres, and was reflected in the atomism of the age. But why did it resonate at this particular historical juncture as opposed to another prior period? My guess is that it flourished because of a multiplicity of mutually-reinforcing material and ideal factors that happened to converge at a specific time and which together provided a propitious environment where such an idea could find a "niche". There was nothing inevitable or teleological about the rise of individualism. On one level, I certainly agree with you that ideas and modifications can be passed on, and thus the evolution of social institutions can be characterized as Lamarkian, but from a much larger perspective, involving a much longer time frame (la langue duree?) I am not so sure this is the case. The unintended consequences of peoples' actions loom large in the course of history and chance plays an important part in the "survival" of the broad symbolic forms and intersubjective ideas of an epoch. > chemistry, efforts to reduce the study of society to biology are not on > the soundest of foundations. Use of Darwinian metaphors, or reductionist > appeals directly to biological evolutionary theory, merely shy away from > the harder task of understanding social evolution and other forms of > social change in their own right. I agree that we shouldn't reduce social science to biology, but on Darwinian metaphors, I am not so sure I agree that we should bypass them and try to understand social evolution "in its own right." This assumes that there is one correct representation of reality to which all descriptions ultimately converge, something I am not so sure about. It also seems to suggest that social evolution is bound to one "true" description and none else. I see nothing wrong with the use of evolutionary metaphors in the social sciences if they help free us from our current conceptual and theoretical blinders that are holding us captive and getting in the way. Cheers, Ron Deibert Institue of International Relations University of British Columbia From brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu Thu Jul 6 01:36:51 1995 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 03:39:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce McFarling To: Ronald Deibert Subject: Re: social evolution In-Reply-To: content-length: 2392 On Wed, 5 Jul 1995, Ronald Deibert wrote: .... > I am not so sure that reproduction of social institutions can > be *wholly* characterized as Larmarkian insofar as contingency > or chance also plays a role in the evolution of memes, ideas, the > prevailing mentalites collectives, and so forth. Lamark's theory of biological evolution was teleological (L1), Darwins was not (D1). Also, in Lamrk's theory, change in the phenome is passed on (L2) (i.e., animals stretching their necks to reach higher leaves leads to giraffes), while in Darwinian theories of biological evolution, it is only changes in the genome that are passed on (D2), with phenome characteristics only affecting (through natural selection, sexual selection, etc.) the proportion of the next generation descended from a genome. There is no necessary connection between D1 and D2, or between L1 and L2. Since a Lamarkian theory in the L1 & L2 sense falls into teleological fallacies, it is only of serious interest as a topic on the history of thought; references to the 'Lamarkian' character of social evolution almost always refer to the possibility of passing on aquired characteristics, and not to Lamark's complete theory with its teleological Ladder of Life. The salient comparison is between a pseudo Darwinian theory of social evolution that does not recognize transmission of aquired characteristics and a kind of vaguely Lamarkian theory that recognizes transmission of aquired characteristics. Either provide scope for contingency and chance in such a theory, either is compatible with non-teleological reasoning regarding social change. While non- reproduction of aquired characteristics has substantial supporting evidence in biology (which surprised many as the evidence was collected), I doubt that it is appropriate to social evolution. But *even if* it is accepted that institutions and/or societies evolve in some sense of reproduction with variation (whether reproduction is genetic or inrinsic is an auxilliary issue here, not a primary issue), that does not imply that world-system are evolving entities. Rather than continue talking in generalities, I am going to try to pinpoint a particular transition in TLC and try to get feedback on whether that particular episode represents system reproduction or system regeneration. Virtually, Bruce McFarling, Knoxville brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu From wilsond9@student.msu.edu Thu Jul 6 06:06:32 1995 Subject: Re: social evolution To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 08:09:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Douglas C Wilson" Ron Diebert wrote. > Take, for example, individualism as a moral idea and symbolic form. > Elements of this idea can be traced back into the late Middle Ages > and beyond. It certainly has its roots in the Christian religion. > But it is only in early modern Europe that individualism is exalted > as a predominant moral idea -- an idea that resonated throughout > various social spheres, and was reflected in the atomism of the age. > But why did it resonate at this particular historical juncture > as opposed to another prior period? My guess is that it flourished > because of a multiplicity of mutually-reinforcing material and ideal > factors that happened to converge at a specific time and which together > provided a propitious environment where such an idea could find > a "niche". There was nothing inevitable or teleological about the > rise of individualism..... > I see nothing wrong with the use of evolutionary metaphors in > the social sciences if they help free us from our current conceptual > and theoretical blinders that are holding us captive and getting in > the way. > > The question for me is what will be gained from borrowing words from the life sciences, changing their meanings here and there and then trying to apply them to society? The example offered on individualism here is a traditional historicist analysis with the word "niche" tacked on at the end. 1) I don't see that the niche concept adds anything concrete. 2) The logic of evolutionary thinking is closely related to historicism and hence is open to the same sorts of criticism. The reason it ends up looking like historicism is because on the way from biology to sociology it has to drop the concrete mechansim - i.e. natural selection through reproduction - than gives it its power in biology. 3) I would question how much it would be able to free us from our current blinders in light of the fact that evolution, adaptation, and selection is among the oldest and most frequently used set of concepts in sociology. Doug Wilson From deibert@unixg.ubc.ca Thu Jul 6 09:44:51 1995 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Ronald Deibert To: Douglas C Wilson Subject: Re: social evolution On Thu, 6 Jul 1995, Douglas C Wilson wrote: > > The question for me is what will be gained from borrowing words from the > life sciences, changing their meanings here and there and then trying to apply > them to society? The example offered on individualism here is a traditional > historicist analysis with the word "niche" tacked on at the end. 1) I don't see > that the niche concept adds anything concrete. To the contrary, I think that much more is gained than you portray here. The idea that history has a purpose or a telos runs strong in the social sciences even today, as does the idea of grounding theories in fundamental presuppositions which are universal (ie., timeless, contextless) and which escape history -- notions of rationality, of the unfolding logic of successive modes of production, etc. 2) The logic of evolutionary > thinking is closely related to historicism and hence is open to the same sorts > of criticism. The reason it ends up looking like historicism is because on > the way from biology to sociology it has to drop the concrete mechansim - i.e. > natural selection through reproduction - than gives it its power in biology. I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by employing Darwinian metaphors and evolutionary thinking. Here you are equating evolutionary thinking with historicism. While i realize that there is a great deal of this kind of baggage associated with evolutionary thinking in the social sciences, I was suggesting quite the opposite: that ideas such as "path dependency" and "contingency" and "fitness" might illuminate the way in which institutions evolve over the course of time, in particular as a way to *counter* historicism. 3) > I would question how much it would be able to free us from our current blinders > in light of the fact that evolution, adaptation, and selection is among the > oldest and most frequently used set of concepts in sociology. > My belief is that static, mechanistic Newtonian metaphors predominate in the social sciences today. Moreover, the evolutionary concepts that have long been employed in the social sciences as you correctly point out, are, I am suggesting, misinterpretations, borrowed from Spencerian views of Darwin and evolution. But you may be right that because of this baggage, it might not be a useful metaphor. In any case, others are probably getting tired of this side-track, and I initially opened up the discussion merely to second Sanderson that evolutionary thinking still has some utility in the social sciences. > Doug Wilson > > > > From mschetti@colmex.mx Thu Jul 6 10:27:06 1995 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 10:23:13 -0900 (PDT) From: M Schettino To: Ronald Deibert Subject: Re: social evolution In-Reply-To: Words have their own power. Interpretation of them requires context. There is no significance without contextualization. Most social sciences started trying to look like sciences, so "scientific" words were used since then. Take equilibrium, elasticity, system, as examples. They have been useful, they have been misunderstood. Anyway, there is no reason to forbid the use of words, and concepts, from other sciences, as long as they are useful in the new context. Evolution is one more case. Evolution, understood as "descent with variation" or as "adaptation to new environment" includes path dependence and change. It helps in describing the way institutions adapt by themselves and, in some way, restrict opportunities. It also helps to understand why organizations and individuals have to create and develop new institutions. Finally, it helps to understand why Russia is not very different from the Soviet Union, despite external appearence. Interpretation is, in fact, the key to variation in institutions. Rules of the game change because they are interpreted in different ways. That is why we create written rules (read formal institutions) in order to avoid interpretation. Moreover, organizations are developed to avoid "incorrect" interpretations. Rules may be interpreted in a variety of ways, some survive, some not. There is evolution in rules. Interpretation reproduces, organizations and individuals are the environment which kills or enforces the breeding. Is it true that some are getting tired of this exchange? Macario From deibert@unixg.ubc.ca Thu Jul 6 10:49:20 1995 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Ronald Deibert To: M Schettino Subject: Re: social evolution In-Reply-To: Macario: I completely agree with your characterization of the potential utility of evolutionary metaphors and thinking in the social sciences, and that "scientific" metaphors have long been employed anyway -- some with utility, some not. We cannot escape metaphors in our descriptions and explanations, but using some as opposed to others might open up new and interesting ways of thinking about the world around us -- particularly at a time when it seems to me anyway that metaphors drawn from newtonian physics dominate and have become stale. I also believe that there is still elements of the "great chain of being" latent in modern, scientific thinking -- a metaphysical bias that is hard to shake. In any case, I understand that this was meant to be a discussion of TLTC and not the relative utility of evolutionary thinking in the social sciences, and do not want to unduly fill others mail boxes with tangential issues. That is why I speculated that others might be tiring of the discussion. Ron Ronald J. Deibert Institute of International Relations University of British Columbia (604) 822-5480 From wxhst3+@pitt.edu Thu Jul 6 11:20:51 1995 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 13:14:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Haller Subject: Re: interest soc. ev. side discussion To: M Schettino In-Reply-To: I, for one, believe this has been a very interesting exchange in a fascinating context for the very reason that one of the original primary objectives of WST was to refute the rather crude (and certainly teleological) concepts of national societal evolution which pervaded the modernization and development paradigm. Bill Haller ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bill Haller \/ University Center for Social Department of Sociology /\ and Urban Research (UCSUR) University of Pittsburgh \/ 121 University Place, 6th floor email: wxhst3+@pitt.edu /\ Pittsburgh, PA 15213-9972 ------------------------------------------------------------------- From wilsond9@student.msu.edu Thu Jul 6 18:20:30 1995 Subject: social evolution To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 20:23:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Douglas C Wilson" I don't want to push a topic if others really aren't interested. But this question of the use of concepts from biology is one of the things that will "keep me up at night" sometimes. So I am thrilled to be forced to articulate what I have been thinking and get thoughtful responses. The subject line is clear enough and it doesn't detract from the discussion LTC. However, I will drop it if others are tired of it. - Doug Wilson From deibert@unixg.ubc.ca Thu Jul 6 22:58:48 1995 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 21:58:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Ronald Deibert To: Douglas C Wilson Subject: Re: social evolution On Thu, 6 Jul 1995, Douglas C Wilson wrote: > I don't want to push a topic if others really aren't interested. But this > question of the use of concepts from biology is one of the things that will > "keep me up at night" sometimes. So I am thrilled to be forced to articulate > what I have been thinking and get thoughtful responses. The subject line is > clear enough and it doesn't detract from the discussion LTC. However, I will > drop it if others are tired of it. - Doug Wilson > Actually, I suggested that others might be pissed off that this tangential thread was rising to the surface, but I guess not, so let's not worry about it. Cheers, Ron Deibert Institute of International Relations University of British Columbia From Ronald.Tuschl@uibk.ac.at Fri Jul 7 02:10:59 1995 From: "Ronald Tuschl" Organization: University of Innsbruck, Austria To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 10:13:48 +0200 Subject: literature wanted !!! Hi, my name is Ronald Tuschl and I'm a student at the universtity of Innsbruck/Austria. My current interest is peace- and conflict-research in Europe, especially the common security system of the NATO, WEU and OSCE. I'm currently searching for literature on european security politics and political hegemony in a framement of the modern capitalist world-system theory. I'm familiar with I.Wallerstein, A.G.Frank and S.Amin. I hope you can help me.. Greetings from the heart of Europe! Ronald Tuschl e-mail: ronald.tuschl@uibk.ac.at From MACLEANS@ac.dal.ca Fri Jul 7 09:49:17 1995 From: MACLEANS@ac.dal.ca Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 12:51:36 -0300 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Please unsubscribe. From dasmith@orion.oac.uci.edu Fri Jul 7 13:19:01 1995 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:22:13 -0700 (PDT) From: David Smith To: world-system network Subject: Fw: A NEW WORLD ORDER? book now available (fwd) CORRECTION!!!!!!! There was an error in the telephone numbers given previously to order the recently released edited volumen, A NEW WORLD ORDER? The correct numbers for Greenwood Press are: phone: 203-226-3571 fax: 203-2221502 Sorry for the confusion... dave smith BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT: A NEW WORLD ORDER? GLOBAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY edited by David A. Smith and Jozsef Borocz. (Contributions in Economics and Economic History, Number 164, ISSN 0084-9235) Greenwood Press: Westport, Connecticut. 275 pages. LC 94-47418. Hardcover edition (a MUST for libraries!): ISBN 0-313-29573-5. GM9573, $59.95; Attractive paperback edition: ISBN 0-275-95122-7, $19.95 Telephone orders: 203-226-3571; FAX Orders: 203-222-1502 (These are the CORRECTED phone numbers!) This volume is a compilation of the best papers from the Political Economy of the World-System (PEWS) XVIII, April 1994 in Irvine, CA. We are pleased that we managed to get the volume out in near record time -- but without compromising to quality of the contents! The collection should be of interest to scholars in several disciplines that relate to issues of global political economy. It provides a useful integrated set of readings for graduate seminars and upper-level undergraduate classes. The closing years of the twentieth century will be remembered as a time of tumultuous change. The various essays are attempts to understand the changes and ground them in the context of the logic of the contemporary world-system. The essays are divided into two main themes: 1) structural transformations and regional ramifications, and 2) "new social movements" and the possibilities for resistance. East and South Asia, the Pacific Rim, the European periphery, and the Middle East are all areas that come under special scrutiny. CONTENTS Chapter 1 "Late Twentieth Century Challenges for World-System Analysis" by Jozsef Borocz and David Smith Chapter 2 "The Theory of Global Capitalism: State Theory and Variants of Capitalism on a World Scale" by Robert J.S. Ross Chapter 3 "The New Colonialism: Global Regulation and the Restructuring of the Interstate System" by Phillip McMichael Chapter 4 "Lessons from the Gulf Wars: Hegemonic Decline, Semi-Peripheral Turbulence, and the Role of the Rentier State" by Cynthia Siemsen Maki and Walter L. Goldfrank Chapter 5 "Global Restructuring, TNCs and the "European Periphery": What Has Changed?" by Denis O'Hearn Chapter 6 "Product Cycles and International Divisions of Labor: Contrasts between the United States and Japan" by Richard Child Hill and Kuniko Fujita Chapter 7 "Restructuring Space, Time, and Competitive Advantage in the World-Economy: Japan and Raw Materials Transport after World War II" by Stephen G. Bunker and Paul Ciccantell Chapter 8 "Capital, Labor, and the State in Thai Industrial Restructuring: The Impact of Global Economic Transformations" by Frederic C. Deyo Chapter 9 "Globalization, India, and the Struggle for Justice" by Timothy J. Scrase Chapter 10 "Global Manufacturing, Liberalization, and Indian Leather Workers" by Ruchira Ganguly-Scrase Chapter 11 "Globalization, Hegemony, and Political Conflict: The Case of Local Politics in Zurich, Switzerland" by Stefan Kipfer Chapter 12 "Environmental Transformations: Accumulation, Ecological Crisis, and Social Movements" by Sing Chew Chapter 13 "Left Internationalism and the Politics of Resistance in the New World Order" by Andre Drainville See order information above: get yours in today while copies last!!! dave smith sociology, uci irvine, ca 92715 714-824-7292 Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu From mcanuto@sas.upenn.edu Sat Jul 8 11:05:12 1995 From: mcanuto@sas.upenn.edu (Marcello Canuto) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 13:08:26 -0400 (EDT) please unsubscribe -- Marcello-Andrea Canuto (mcanuto@mail.sas.upenn.edu) Department of Anthropology 325 University Museum University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 From gonick@csf.Colorado.EDU Sat Jul 8 12:32:36 1995 Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 12:32:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Lev Gonick To: CMurphy@WELLESLEY.EDU, ehoshino@ll.u-ryukyu.ac.jp, Tom Volgy , "R. Walker" , "Sarah J. Tisch" , Ralph Pettman , Peter Eglin , Spike_Peterson , Michael Shuman , gunderfrank , nelda pearson , Mary Ann Steger , Kate Manzo , Sheryl Lutjens , saul landau , Alan Fenna , Jana Everett , Gene Ellis , Don Roper , Anne Derges , david barkin , Cy Gonick , Carol Thompson , "Robert J.S. Ross: Bob" , "a.s. runyan" , ipe , casenet@csf.Colorado.EDU, femisa , pew , wsn@csf.Colorado.EDU, dblack@mach1.wlu.ca, psn@csf.Colorado.EDU, rob_borland@esanet.zw, rob_davies@esanet.zw, sapes@mango.apc.org, ids@esanet.zw Subject: Call - Virtual Seminar in GPE: Global Cities and Social Movements: An Exploration of Theories and Cases Please feel free to x-post ****************************************************************** Virtual Seminar in GPE: Global Cities and Social Movements: An Exploration of Theories and Cases (September - December 1995) ****************************************************************** This Call is Directed, in the First Instance, to Faculty Colleagues. A subsequent call for student and faculty participation will be forthcoming.... In its fifth offering, The Virtual Seminar in Global Political Economy (GPE) is an experiment in research and education, mediated through computer networks, electronic mail, & electronic archiving of materials (http://csf.colorado.edu/gpe). It seeks to create an international dialogue among students and scholars in various countries on several continents, creating for students a global forum in which they may and are expected to participate on an equal basis. In the process, discussions and an exchange of ideas on the course theme and topics among scholars and students from other cultures and societies will vastly enrich the learning experience. I am proposing that the theme of the 5th Virtual Seminar in Global Political Economy be: Global Cities and Social Movements: An Exploration of Theories and Cases. I have set up a listserv discussion group (gpecafe) for faculty and other interest parties to discuss the details of the virtual seminar. I propose this discussion be open to all. To subscribe simply the note: sub gpecafe yourfirstname yourlastname send the note to listproc@csf.colorado.edu Subject to change and modification I am proposing some possible topics: Historical Context Identity - Individual, Neigborhoods, Communities The Global City and the New International Divisions of Labour The Economies of the Global City Urbanization and Postmodern Alientation The Marginals in the Global City (Urban Squaters, Gay Communities, Ethnic Communities, Mentally and Physically Disabled Communities) Peasant Societies and the Global City Women and the Global City in the South Diversity and Cultures in the Global City Information Age and the Anatomy of the Global City 3-5 Cases Proposed Format: * As many real-time seminars complement the virtual seminar. * Individual students should seek independent credit with a faculty colleague on her/his university campus * Following David Barkin's (Mexico) suggestion from the 3rd offering of the GPE, Virtual GPE Faculty Participants will be invited to become Virtual Tutors with a small, say 4-5 persons from different parts of the world (to encourage faculty participation) * Common Reading list will be established (see virtual reading room) * Faculty will be asked to frame questions each week and make regular contributions * Following suggestions made by students in the 4th offering of the GPE, students will be asked to work in pairs or threes and each group of students will be asked to provide a structured (& edited) contribution each week along with a more free flowing set of exchanges to follow * All final term papers will be collaborative efforts by student participants in the virtual seminar (with a call for faculty input). The proposed form of the final paper is a case study of a Global City/Social Movement. These and other issues can be raised at the gpecafe. Hope to see you there ... Lev Gonick GPE Seminar Coordinator From chriscd@jhu.edu Mon Jul 10 07:18:31 1995 id <01HSP7PLS0CGIDRARU@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:21:02 -0400 (EDT) id <01HSP7PJI3FKIBBI9J@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 08:10:31 -0400 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: Fw: IPE Yearbook contributions Sender: chriscd@jhu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu X-NUPop-Charset: English ------------------------------ From: Richard Kurt Burch To: INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY Subject: IPE Yearbook contributions CALL FOR PAPERS (please forward to interested colleagues) The editors of the IPE Yearbook -- published by Lynne Rienner Publishers under the auspices of the ISA -- are soliciting potential contributors to a planned volume on "the constitution of IPE". The volume asks what is the character of the international political economy and how did it come to be? We ask contributors to explore how IPE as a discipline and ipe as global practices and circumstances were "constituted" by specific social activities. In so doing, we also intend the volume to explore the approach called "social construction" or "social constitution". (A fuller description appears below). We plan to compile a complete set of full drafts at the April 1996 ISA convention in San Diego (panels formed), receive revisions by August 1, 1996, then submit the manuscripts to the publisher in Fall 1996. ABSTRACT AND ADDRESS For consideration, please send a 2-page abstract by Aug 15, 1996 to: Editors, IPE Yearbook c/o Kurt Burch Dept of Political Science and International Relations University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Two conditions raise questions about the constitution of the ipe. Dramatic national, regional, and global events beg questions about social change and the construction/reconstruction of societies. At the same time neorealist arguments subsume the significance of social change to enduring continuities and social structures. Skeptical scholars responded with critiques of the development and reproduction of such continuities. "Social construction" represents one form of critique and a unique approach to social science analysis. For IPE scholars, at issue are characterizations of the ipe and its construction. The "anarchy problematique" sets a point of reference and fixes the context of problem-solving theory and policy making. Yet questions of instrumental policy and practice follow constitutive questions. A critical exploration of the ontological or constitutive character of the ipe is both overdue and necessary for deriving apt policy and theoretical explanations. To ask "what is the constitution of the ipe?" is to ask about the philosophical foundations, theoretical understandings, conceptual frameworks, and normative assumptions of investigating scholars. It is also to ask about the premises and choices of individual key actors. Moreover, as "ipe" is less a definite object of study than an eclectic, ever-changing assortment of ideas and beliefs, the posed question has no answer since attempts to answer it change what both IPE (discipline) and ipe (activities and conditions) are. As editors, our purpose, then, is to embrace many "constructivist" approaches to explore their contributions and limitations as an approach. By the effort we investigate the claimed insights and examine the consequences of social constition for actors' behaviors and for constructing the field of IPE. We plan to significant contributions. First, the volume will survey late modern alternatives (e.g., Wendt, 1987; Onuf, 1989; Walker, 1992) to modernist accounts of anarchy (e.g., Waltz, 1979) and the postmodern response (e.g., DerDerian and Shapiro, eds., 1989). More specifically, the second contribution is to collect for the first time the diverse and widely scattered strands of constructivist scholarship for comparison, contrast, and elaboration. On behalf of my fellow editors B. Denemark, M. Tetreault, and K. Thomas, thanks for your attention. Kurt Burch Univ of Delaware Dept of Poli Sci and IR email: kurt@bach.udel.edu tele: 302-831-1936 Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu From chriscd@jhu.edu Mon Jul 10 07:28:31 1995 id <01HSP82CWTEOIDRALN@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:30:33 -0400 (EDT) id <01HSP8268SCGIBBIGN@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 08:19:58 -0400 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: Fw: Call - Virtual Seminar in GPE: Global Cities and Social Movements: An Exploration of Theories and Cases Sender: chriscd@jhu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu X-NUPop-Charset: English ------------------------------ From: Lev Gonick To: INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY Subject: Call - Virtual Seminar in GPE: Global Cities and Social Movements: An Exploration of Theories and Cases Please feel free to x-post ****************************************************************** Virtual Seminar in GPE: Global Cities and Social Movements: An Exploration of Theories and Cases (September - December 1995) ****************************************************************** This Call is Directed, in the First Instance, to Faculty Colleagues. A subsequent call for student and faculty participation will be forthcoming.... In its fifth offering, The Virtual Seminar in Global Political Economy (GPE) is an experiment in research and education, mediated through computer networks, electronic mail, & electronic archiving of materials (http://csf.colorado.edu/gpe). It seeks to create an international dialogue among students and scholars in various countries on several continents, creating for students a global forum in which they may and are expected to participate on an equal basis. In the process, discussions and an exchange of ideas on the course theme and topics among scholars and students from other cultures and societies will vastly enrich the learning experience. I am proposing that the theme of the 5th Virtual Seminar in Global Political Economy be: Global Cities and Social Movements: An Exploration of Theories and Cases. I have set up a listserv discussion group (gpecafe) for faculty and other interest parties to discuss the details of the virtual seminar. I propose this discussion be open to all. To subscribe simply the note: sub gpecafe yourfirstname yourlastname send the note to listproc@csf.colorado.edu Subject to change and modification I am proposing some possible topics: Historical Context Identity - Individual, Neigborhoods, Communities The Global City and the New International Divisions of Labour The Economies of the Global City Urbanization and Postmodern Alientation The Marginals in the Global City (Urban Squaters, Gay Communities, Ethnic Communities, Mentally and Physically Disabled Communities) Peasant Societies and the Global City Women and the Global City in the South Diversity and Cultures in the Global City Information Age and the Anatomy of the Global City 3-5 Cases Proposed Format: * As many real-time seminars complement the virtual seminar. * Individual students should seek independent credit with a faculty colleague on her/his university campus * Following David Barkin's (Mexico) suggestion from the 3rd offering of the GPE, Virtual GPE Faculty Participants will be invited to become Virtual Tutors with a small, say 4-5 persons from different parts of the world (to encourage faculty participation) * Common Reading list will be established (see virtual reading room) * Faculty will be asked to frame questions each week and make regular contributions * Following suggestions made by students in the 4th offering of the GPE, students will be asked to work in pairs or threes and each group of students will be asked to provide a structured (& edited) contribution each week along with a more free flowing set of exchanges to follow * All final term papers will be collaborative efforts by student participants in the virtual seminar (with a call for faculty input). The proposed form of the final paper is a case study of a Global City/Social Movement. These and other issues can be raised at the gpecafe. Hope to see you there ... Lev Gonick GPE Seminar Coordinator Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu From dassbach@mtu.edu Mon Jul 10 08:56:37 1995 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 10:59:52 -0400 To: WSN@CSF.COLORADO.EDU From: dassbach@mtu.edu (Carl H.A. Dassbach) Subject: ASA Session on the Internet A few months ago, I suggested that at least one session on the Internet etc. be included in the program for next years ASA meeting. Today, I received a reply that a session was inappropriate because the topic had been included in several professional workshops. I'm curious to know how others feel about this. It is my belief that one and maybe several sessions on the Internet are warranted and the decision not to have a session was primarily made on political grounds (given that the Internet seems to be one of the few arenas of dissent). Carl Dassbach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: DASSBACH@MTU.EDU Dept. of Social Sciences Phone: (906)487-2115 Michigan Technological University Fax: (906)487-2468 Houghton, MI 49931 USA From chriscd@jhu.edu Wed Jul 12 07:38:43 1995 id <01HSS0ZA90CGIBCHTD@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 09:40:23 -0400 (EDT) id <01HSS0Z7O3F4IBCD2N@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 09:40:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 08:30:00 -0400 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: Fw: Cuba:Conf:Sep. 95: INFO95 Sender: chriscd@jhu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu X-NUPop-Charset: English ------------------------------ From: David Sangurima Subject: Cuba:Conf:Sep. 95: INFO95 =09=09---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 16:54:28 -0700 From: David Sangurima 9595 95959595 9595 959595959595 959595959595 95959595 95959595 9595 9595 9595 9595 959595959595 959595959595 95 595 95 9595 9595 9595 9595 9595 9595 9595 95 95 95 9595 9595 9595 9595 95959595 9595 9595 95 95 95 9595 9595 9595 9595 95959595 9595 9595 95959595 95959595 9595 9595 9595 9595 9595 9595 9595 95 95 9595 9595 9595 9595 9595 9595 9595 95 95 9595 9595 95959595 9595 959595959595 95 95 9595 9595 9595959 9595 959595959595 95 95959595 C O N G R E S O I N T E R N A C I O N A L D E I N F O R M A C I O N 25 AL 29 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 1995 Estimado colega: Resulta muy grato comunicarle que del 25 al 29 de septiembre de 1995 se celebrara, en el Palacio de las Convenciones de La Habana, Cuba, el Congreso Internacional de Informacion INFO'95, bajo el lema: "Informacion: Un factor para el exito en el desarrollo humano". En 1995,la Federacion Internacional de Documentacion e Informacion FID celebrara su centenario. A propuesta de la Comision Latinoamericana de la FID, FID/CLA,las actividades por el centenario de FID y el XXXV aniversario de FID/CLA se realizaran dentro del marco de INFO'95. Simultanemante al Congreso se organizara la Feria-exposicion internacional EXPOINFO'95 y la Exhibicion de Bases de Datos, Softwares y Servicios para bibliotecas y centros de informacion, DATAEXPO'95.=20 PROGRAMA PROFESIONAL El programa profesional incluye conferencias magistrales, mesas redondas, seminarios, talleres, paneles y presentacion de temas libres. El Comite Organizador trabaja junto a diferentes organizaciones en el dise=A4o de estas actividades. Los titulos definitivos de estos se iran precisando a medida que avance la organizacion del programa profesional.=20 SEMINARIOS -Impacto de la informacion en las organizaciones (organizado por IDRC, Canada). -Mercadeo de servicios y productos de informacion (organizado por PROINFO). -La informacion y la comunidad. (organizado por la BNCT, Cuba). -Aplicacion de multimedia e hipermedios a los servicios y productos (organizado por la Universidad de Colima, Mexico). -La educacion y el adiestramiento en ciencias de la informacion (organizado por el Comite de la FID para la Educacion y Adiestramiento, FID/ET). -Aplicacion de estudios metricos a los servicios/productos biblioteco-informativos.(organizado por el Centro Universitario de Investigaciones Bibliotecologicas CUIB, Mexico). -Terminologia e informacion (organizado por Union Latina, Francia). -La gerencia de archivo y registros (organizado por el Grupo de interes de la FID sobre gerencia de archivos y registros, FID/ ARM). MESAS REDONDAS -La investigacion en bibliotecologia y ciencias de la informacion en America Latina y el Caribe. (organizado por PROINFO, Cuba y el CUIB de Mexico). -Las asociaciones profesionales en el campo de la informacion. (organizado por la SOCICT, Cuba). TALLERES -Redes y comunicaciones para la optimizacion de los servicios de informacion. (organizado por el CENIAI, Cuba). -La gerencia de informacion en bibliotecas universitarias (organizado por la Universidad de La Habana). -Los servicios de consultoria en el campo de la informacion, en paises en vias de desarrollo (organizado por el Centro BIOMUNDI). PANEL -El profesional moderno de informacion. (organizado por PROINFO, Cuba en coordinacion con el Grupo de Interes de la FID sobre el Profesional Moderno de la Informacion). PRESENTACION DE TEMAS LIBRES Los interesados podran solicitar a la Comision del Programa Profesional la presentacion de trabajos sobre las tematicas incluidas en las actividades anteriormente enumeradas o sobre temas afines. Los idiomas oficiales de INFO'95 seran espa=A4ol e ingles. Si esta interesado en recibir informacion adicional sobre este encuentro, sirvase llenar el cupon adjunto. CUOTAS DE INSCRIPCIoN Delegado US $310,00 Acompa=A4ante US $150,00 Estudiante US $180,00 ************ ************** **************** ************** :::: CUOTAS DE INSCRIPCION PROMOCIONAL A TRAVES DE LAS AGENCIAS DE VIAJE DEL PALACIO DE LAS CONVENCIONES EN LOS DIFERENTES PAISES ::: Delegado US $210,00 Acompa=A4ante US $100,00 Estudiante US $130,00 ************* *************** *************** ************** Cualquier informacion solicitela a: Lic. Gloria Ponjuan Dante Vicepresidenta Ejecutiva Comite Organizador Aptdo.2019, Codigo 10200 La Habana, Cuba Tel. 635500, 626501, 603411, ext. 1335, 1245 Fax: (0537) 338237, Correo electronico: info@ceniai.cu, proinfo@ceniai.cu CUPON DE INSCRIPCION Nombre y apellidos_____________________________________________ Especialidad_____________________________________________________ Cargo____________________________________________________________ Institucion______________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Organismo________________________________________________________ Direccion________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Ciudad _______________________Municipio__________________________ Provincia________________________________________________________ Apartado_________________________Codigo__________________________ Telex_________________Telefonos__________________________________ Fax_____________________C. electronico__________________________ Deseo participar en el Congreso como: - INFO'95 : Ponente __ Delegado ___ - EXPOINFO'95 ___ - DATAEXPO'95 ___ Para los ponentes: Titulo preliminar de su ponencia. _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu From chriscd@jhu.edu Thu Jul 13 07:59:58 1995 id <01HSTG2TRV80IBCI8O@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Thu, 13 Jul 1995 10:03:08 -0400 (EDT) id <01HSTG2OUQYOIBCW86@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Thu, 13 Jul 1995 10:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 08:52:27 -0400 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: Fw: GA on world empire/world-economy? Sender: chriscd@jhu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu X-NUPop-Charset: English On July 4 Teivo Teivainen wrote the following: "At this point, I would like to pay attention to one possible difference between traditional (Wallersteinian) w-s analysis and Arrighi's interpretation. As far as I've understood it, the one economy/many polities dichotomy has been one of the main characteristics of the Wallersteinian view on the modern world-system. This dichotomy constitutes the basic difference between a world-economy and a world-empire, and the modern world-system has been characterized as a world-economy." "Arrighi, however, says (p. 58) that "the capitalist world-economy as reconstituted under British hegemony in the nineteenth century was as much a 'world empire' as it was a 'world-economy'...". The famous hyphen has been left out of the former term, so it is hard to tell to what extent Arrighi wants to challenge the Wallersteinian categorical view on the modern world-system not being a world-empire. In any case, it is a theoretically relevant provocation on which I would like to hear comments." "More generally, I think there could be more discussion on the usage of terms "economy" and "polity" within the w-s tradition. On the one hand, we are probably all familiar with Wallerstein's invitation to "unthink" the division to economic/political/socio-cultural categories in social analysis. On the other hand, the many political units/ one economic unit dichotomy has, as far as I have noticed, not been really challenged. Not even by Wallerstein, perhaps because the challenge would imply an 'unthinking' of some of the basic premises of the traditional w-s analysis." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think Giovanni Arrighi was saying that the significance of a single very large colonial empire was great in the 19th century and that the British hegemony was a political structure that was in some ways comparable to a world state. But remember he is comparing the British hegemony to earlier and later systemic regimes of accumulation in the modern world-system. I doubt that he would go so far as to argue that the British hegemony was a true world state in the full sense. Thus I dont think his point is meant to challenge the Wallersteinian distinction between a world-empire and a world-economy. The nineteenth century world-system was still a world-economy but had an unusually centralized and politically structured polity. The world-economy/world-empire distinction was invented to emphasize a structural difference between the modern world-system and earlier state-based world-systems. Tom Hall and I have renamed "world-empire" as "core-wide empire" because there have been no world-systems in which a single state dominated the whole arena of interaction. This is discussed in our forthcoming _Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems_ (Westview Press). chris Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu From fredr@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu Thu Jul 13 12:25:45 1995 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 08:24:17 -1000 From: Fred Riggs To: cs_sanderson Subject: "Political Evolution"--a note In-Reply-To: <01HSFP9B8ZPY8WX0RI@grove.iup.edu> Dear Stephen: I have only just come across your posting of 3 July about the use of "evolution." No doubt the word has acquired a multiplicity of connotations and users should be careful to explain the sense in which they use the word--it can easily be misunderstood by those, for example, who link it with teleological, or even racist, connotations. However, I agree with you that it is an important and useful word that, in context, can be very helpful. As a political scientist, I have used it by contrast with "development" to make the point that individual societies or states may (sometimes?) develop in the context of modernization and the contemporary world system. However, long-term changes in political systems can be viewed as a type of political evolution. This notion does not translate, of course, into ideas about the "evolution" of world-systems. I would argue that changes occurring in components of a world-system may involve the evolution of sub-structures whether or not the world-system of which they are a part evolves. It is reasonable to assume that changes at different levels are related to each other, but how and why that occurs should be viewed as an empirical question to be investigated, not to be assumed a priori. To explain what I think of as political evolution consider the fact that in many "simple" societies--anthropologists refer to them as "stateless" there are no formal structures of governance. Many such societies continue to the present day, I believe, but they are embedded as "indigenous" or "aboriginal" peoples in the context of modern states. The first evolutionary stage or step (what would you call it) away from statelessness probably involved recognition of a leader (ruler, chief, king) who was able to coordinate and direct the activities of a community. This was surely a giant step since in stateless societies, I believe, no permanent or institutionalized leadership roles of this type were acknowledged. This is a sweeping statement but anthropological research in stateless societies provides good evidence. A second step involved the development of institutionalized supporting roles for the leader, and we have some data on how this happened de novo in both Rome and China. It led to bureaucratic roles by contrast with reliance on personal friends and relatives (kith and kin) to carry out the functions of governance--or even on rotation and selection by casting lots. Governmental functions were, no doubt, performed in pre-bureaucratic societies, but learning how to recognize military and administrative roles and assign individuals to them on a routined basis greatly strengthened the ability of governments to govern--I understand that such a change enabled the king of Chin to create the Chin empire in China, as we know from the work of H. Creel. States with kings (rulers) and bureaucracies created empires for several thousand years (a lot depends on how we evaluate ancient Egypt and the states of the Fertile Crescent, etc. Assemblies and councils are also ancient but their membership was ascriptive--as in the Roman Senate, the British House of Lords, and innumerable councils of chiefs, elders, etc. A giant step occurred when the idea of representation gained acceptance so that a people (citizens, members) could elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. This became well institutionalized in the American colonies and provided a basis for the U.S.Congress, and the idea evolved in parallel in Europe, (perehaps originally in Iceland) spreading from there to the rest of the world in our times. All "modern" organizations and states are institutionalized, formally, through representative institutions (including elections, parties, assemblies, and elected heads of government) in parallel with bureaucratic institutions. Obviously, many contemporary organizations and states do not have this form--I've mentioned stateless societies which continue, criminal gangs, social clubs, families, etc which continue to function in modern societies. Despite the formalism of representative institutions, state power may be highly centralized, as in single-party authoritarianism. Military dictatorships also invalidate representative institutions, but often retain them formalistically as a technique for legitimizing their arbitrary rule. In this usage, "modern" refers to a form of organization by contrast with "contemporary" which means the present time, and many contemporary organizations are not modern. This is where the contrast with "development" comes in: modernizers are those who wish to transform contemporary non-modern political, economic, cultural structures into "modern" ones. They do not think much about political evolution because they take for granted what they see. In this note I've used words with multiple meanings like "evolution" and "modern." You may reject the words because, in your usage, they have other meanings that are more important for you. But if you accept the utility of the ideas explained here while rejecting the words used here to talk about them, then I think you have an obligation to propose a more suitable term that can be used to talk about the same thing. I have proposed a neologism, for example, to discuss what I call "modern." It has only one precise meaning in this context whereas, for many, "modern" means "contemporary." However, resistance to neologisms compels me to resort to familiar words and try to pin more precise meanings on them on the premise that readers will remember these stipulated meanings, at least while reading the text. To return to your comment, I wonder if you have run into this problem when using "evolution." Is your use of the word consistent with mine? If we are talking about different things, please tell me why. If we agree, then how can we best handle the confusions that arise because others use if for different concepts--e.g. for teleologically oriented changes. If they reject "evolution" as a term for non-teleological long-term structural changes in a system, what term would they substitute? We cannot reject a good idea just because we don't have a good word for it. Isn't that why most subscribers distinguish "world-system" from "world system." The hyphen is not important, but the two concepts are both important and quite different from each other. Cheers and aloha, Fred Mon, 3 Jul 1995, s_sanderson wrote: > Carl Dassbach asks why we should continue to use the term evolution given the > misunderstandings and miusages of the concept that abound. My answer is > because it is one of the most magnificent concepts that has ever been > formulated. Look at what it's done for the biological sciences and for a large > part of anthropology. It has fantastic explanatory power and a tremendous > capacity to unify. It can do much the same for the social sciences, so let's > not discard it. > > I might just note that in its original usage the term evolution derives from > the Latin "evolutis," meaning "an unrolling." This is certainly teleological > in implication, no denying that. But virtually no evolutionary biologist that > I know of today wants to think of evolution as a teleological process. If the > biologists can discard this original meaning but continue to use the term, > then social scientists can (and should) too. > > For more details, see my Social Evolutionism book. > > Stephen Sanderson Let me add: I look forward to reading your book. Meanwhile, best wishes, Fred ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FRED W. RIGGS, Professor Emeritus Political Science Department, University of Hawaii 2424 Maile Way, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, U.S.A. Phone: (808) 956-8123 Fax: (808) 956-6877 e-mail: FREDR@UHUNIX.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From amcgowen@hposl02.cup.hp.com Thu Jul 13 14:30:30 1995 From: Alan McGowen Subject: Culture and Evolution To: fredr@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 13:33:10 PDT In-Reply-To: ; from "Fred Riggs" at Jul 13, 95 8:24 am I am curious to know what world systems folk think of Boyd and Richerson, Culture and the Evolutionary Process, U of Chicago, 1985. Alan McGowen From mingione@icil64.cilea.it Mon Jul 17 05:57:31 1995 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 13:51:56 +0000 From: Enzo Mingione Sender: Mingione@icil64.cilea.it To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: mingione@icil64.cilea.it X-Confirm-Reading-To: mingione@icil64.cilea.it X-pmrqc: 1 Dear collegues, I'm a young scholar working in the Department of Sociology of the University of Milan (Italy) and the Fondazione Bignaschi. I have been working for a long time on poverty and welfare systems, from a comparative perspective too. On these themes I published a few articles in books and review (in Italian, French and English). Now, with a collegue of mine (Simone Ghezzi, who is going to attend a master on Social Anthropology at the University of Toronto), I'm studying the effects of the processes of globalization on the urban structure of Milan, with a soecific focus on small firms and the formation of the identities of the entrepreneur. It could be very useful for my researches to receive any suggestion, bibliografy and so on, mainly about the formation of identities in a global market. Hearing from you soon, all the best. David Benassi From wxhst3+@pitt.edu Mon Jul 17 10:49:25 1995 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 12:46:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Haller Subject: Re: your mail To: Enzo Mingione In-Reply-To: <01HSZ9I7RWWIA24PB6@ICIL64.CILEA.IT> On Mon, 17 Jul 1995, Enzo Mingione wrote: > Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 13:51:56 +0000 > From: Enzo Mingione > To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK > Subject: > > Dear collegues, > I'm a young scholar working in the Department of Sociology of the > University of Milan (Italy) and the Fondazione Bignaschi. > I have been working for a long time on poverty and welfare systems, > from a comparative perspective too. On these themes I published > a few articles in books and review (in Italian, French and English). > Now, with a collegue of mine (Simone Ghezzi, who is going to attend a > master on Social Anthropology at the University of Toronto), I'm > studying the effects of the processes of globalization on the urban > structure of Milan, with a soecific focus on small firms and the > formation of the identities of the entrepreneur. > It could be very useful for my researches to receive any suggestion, > bibliografy and so on, mainly about the formation of identities in a > global market. > Hearing from you soon, all the best. > David Benassi Dear David and Enzo, The first items I would suggest are __Global Cities__, by Saskia Sassen and __The Informational City__ by Manuell Castells. Those should help on globalization and urban structure. Regarding the formation of identities of entreprenuers, the only work I can think of at the moment that *might* help is __Urban Fortunes:the Political Economy of Place__ by John Logan and Harvey Molotch. Logan and Molotch discuss different types of entreprenuers, but emphasize linkages to real estate more than linkages to economic globalization. __Technopoles of the World__ by Manuel Castells and Peter Hall could prove very helpful, but the regional focus of this work seems to be on R & D centers above and beyond cities (and their surrounding [sub-, ex-] urbanized regions) more generally. There's a whole sub-area of urban semiotics which could be relevant. You could get some leads on this through Mark Gottdiener's (1994, 1st edition) text, __The New Urban Sociology__, but this sub-area seems to hinge on notions of "space" in urban political economy which, in my opinion, is fraught with serious conceptual difficulties. I want to take this opportunity to thank Enzo Mingione for his recent book, __Fragmenting Societies__. I found it very useful in formulating my thoughts on restructuring and socioeconomic change. I hope these few leads I've provided will help. Sincerely, Bill Haller ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bill Haller \/ University Center for Social Department of Sociology /\ and Urban Research (UCSUR) University of Pittsburgh \/ 121 University Place, 6th floor email: wxhst3+@pitt.edu /\ Pittsburgh, PA 15213-9972 ------------------------------------------------------------------- From chriscd@jhu.edu Mon Jul 17 12:34:00 1995 id <01HSZ2Q8OUUOIDRKAD@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:45:54 -0400 (EDT) id <01HSZ2Q6D5S0IBDVLV@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:35:28 -0400 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: Fw: French nuclear tests Chain letter (fwd) Sender: chriscd@jhu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu X-NUPop-Charset: English ------------------------------ From: Marcus Lindemann To: INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY Subject: French nuclear tests Chain letter (fwd) > > >> #### ##### #### ##### > >> # # # # # # # > >> #### # # # # # > >> # # # # ##### > >> # # # # # # > >> #### # #### # > >> > >> # # # # #### # ###### ## ##### > >> ## # # # # # # # # # # # > >> # # # # # # # ##### # # # # > >> # # # # # # # # ###### ##### > >> # ## # # # # # # # # # # > >> # # #### #### ###### ###### # # # # > > >> > >> ##### ###### #### ##### #### # > >> # # # # # # > >> # ##### #### # #### # > >> # # # # # > >> # # # # # # # # > >> # ###### #### # #### # > >> > >> > >> 1 SHIMIZU Seishi Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > >> 2 Yuichi Nishihara Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > >> 3 Hirohisa TANIGUCHI Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > >> 4 Takashi Tomoeda Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > >> 5 Tomoki KOBAYASHI Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > >> 6 Munehito ARAI Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > >> 7 Akira Okazaki Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > >> 8 Atsushi Matsumura Physics, Tohoku University, Japan > >> 9 Kouta Yamamoto Chemistry,Tohoku University,Japan > >> 10 Yasushi UJIOKA Degremont S.A., France > >> 11 Toru Hara Universite de Paris Sud, France > >> 12 Rene Bakker CEA - Sacley, France > >> 13 David Garzella Universite de Paris Sud, France > >> 14 Henk Blok Vrije Universiteit/NIKHEF, Amsterdam > >> 15 Igor Passchier NIKHEF, Amsterdam > >> 16 Ard van Sighem NIKHEF, Amsterdam > >> 17 Johan Noordhoek KOL Leiden > >> 18 C.M.C.M. van Woerkens Kamerlingh Onnes Laboratory, Leiden > >> 19 Annemarie Borst, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam > >> 20 Gijs Nelemans Universiteit Utrecht > >> 21 Susanne Buiter Universiteit Utrecht > >> 22 Yvo Kok Paleomagnetic Lab., Utrecht > >> 23 Thom Pick Paleomagnetic Lab., Utrecht University > >> 24 Dagmar Olbertz Universiteit Utrecht > >> 25 Eleonore Stutzmann Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, > France > >> 26 Nicole Girardin Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, > France > >> 25 Eleonore Stutzmann Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, > France > >> 26 Nicole Girardin Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, > France > >> 27 Francois Girardin Ecole Nat. Sup. des > Telecommunications,France > >> 28 Axel Manthey Comnets RWTH Aachen, Germany > >> 29 Martin Papproth ComNets RWTH Aachen, Germany > >> 30 Eckhard Papproth Ecole Nat. Sup. des > Telecommunications,France > >> 31 Lothar Heinz Universitaet Bonn > >> 32 Achim Weigel DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany > >> 33 Stevan Agne DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany > >> 34 Martin Schaaf DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany > >> 35 Andreas Abecker DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany > > 36 Frank Steinle Uni Trier, Germany > > 37 Joerg Kunz Uni Trier, Germany > > 38 Axel Buchner Uni Trier, Germany > > 39 Heike Martensen KUN, Nijmegen, Nederland > > 40 Alfred Kohnert Uni Marburg, FRG > > 41 Joerg Hoppe University of Southern Queensland, Australia > 42 Kerstin Weinbach Univ. Marburg, FRG > 43 Claus-Dieter Koenig Uni Marburg, Germany 44 Marcus Lindemann University of Essex, UK > > > Dear Sirs, > > > > This is a chain letter to urge the french > > government to stop nuclear tests. > > If you agree with us, please add your name to the list above, > > and send copies to your friends. > > We will add up the lists that had come back to us, and send it > > to the French Government. > > > > If you happen to be the hundredth,two hundredth, three hundredth, > > and so on, on the list, please send a copy of the mail back to the > > addresses below, so that we can keep track of this project. If you > have > > any comment please send mails to us. And also, > > if you are multi-lingual and have friends who may not understand > > English, please translate this message and add it to the end of the > mail. > > Thank you very much. > > > > > >******* addresses of the organizers > >******* addresses of the organizers > >shimizu@femto.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp > >keshi@uticeaix1.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp <- please use this adress > >******* Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu From mgold@oise.on.ca Mon Jul 17 12:49:39 1995 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 14:48:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Mitchell Gold To: chris chase-dunn Subject: Re: Fw: French nuclear tests Chain letter (fwd) In-Reply-To: <34528.chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> content-length: 5899 I am not aware of the effectiveness of Chain letters on government's behaviour. I am aware of the economic effect of government's decisions and that economics will rule the day. The French are obviously ignoring the "ethics" of their actions. They are ignoring the "health" results of their actions, and they are ignoring the "energy" component of their actions. The French pretend to be globally minded. One cannot ignore the four E's if one is to be considered a Global Citizen. Let the French find somewhere else to live. Our planet requires larger thinking. Please add my name to your list, and also perhaps add the notation of STOP DRINKING FRENCH WINES!!!!! On Mon, 17 Jul 1995, chris chase-dunn wrote: > > ------------------------------ > From: Marcus Lindemann > Fri, 14 Jul 1995 09:06:54 -0400 > To: INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY > Subject: French nuclear tests Chain letter (fwd) > > > > > > >> #### ##### #### ##### > > >> # # # # # # # > > >> #### # # # # # > > >> # # # # ##### > > >> # # # # # # > > >> #### # #### # > > >> > > >> # # # # #### # ###### ## ##### > > >> ## # # # # # # # # # # # > > >> # # # # # # # ##### # # # # > > >> # # # # # # # # ###### ##### > > >> # ## # # # # # # # # # # > > >> # # #### #### ###### ###### # # # # > > > > >> > > >> ##### ###### #### ##### #### # > > >> # # # # # # > > >> # ##### #### # #### # > > >> # # # # # > > >> # # # # # # # # > > >> # ###### #### # #### # > > >> > > >> > > >> 1 SHIMIZU Seishi Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > > >> 2 Yuichi Nishihara Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > > >> 3 Hirohisa TANIGUCHI Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > > >> 4 Takashi Tomoeda Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > > >> 5 Tomoki KOBAYASHI Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > > >> 6 Munehito ARAI Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > > >> 7 Akira Okazaki Physics,University of Tokyo,Japan > > >> 8 Atsushi Matsumura Physics, Tohoku University, Japan > > >> 9 Kouta Yamamoto Chemistry,Tohoku University,Japan > > >> 10 Yasushi UJIOKA Degremont S.A., France > > >> 11 Toru Hara Universite de Paris Sud, France > > >> 12 Rene Bakker CEA - Sacley, France > > >> 13 David Garzella Universite de Paris Sud, France > > >> 14 Henk Blok Vrije Universiteit/NIKHEF, Amsterdam > > >> 15 Igor Passchier NIKHEF, Amsterdam > > >> 16 Ard van Sighem NIKHEF, Amsterdam > > >> 17 Johan Noordhoek KOL Leiden > > >> 18 C.M.C.M. van Woerkens Kamerlingh Onnes Laboratory, Leiden > > >> 19 Annemarie Borst, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam > > >> 20 Gijs Nelemans Universiteit Utrecht > > >> 21 Susanne Buiter Universiteit Utrecht > > >> 22 Yvo Kok Paleomagnetic Lab., Utrecht > > >> 23 Thom Pick Paleomagnetic Lab., Utrecht University > > >> 24 Dagmar Olbertz Universiteit Utrecht > > >> 25 Eleonore Stutzmann Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, > > France > > >> 26 Nicole Girardin Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, > > France > > >> 25 Eleonore Stutzmann Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, > > France > > >> 26 Nicole Girardin Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, > > France > > >> 27 Francois Girardin Ecole Nat. Sup. des > > Telecommunications,France > > >> 28 Axel Manthey Comnets RWTH Aachen, Germany > > >> 29 Martin Papproth ComNets RWTH Aachen, Germany > > >> 30 Eckhard Papproth Ecole Nat. Sup. des > > Telecommunications,France > > >> 31 Lothar Heinz Universitaet Bonn > > >> 32 Achim Weigel DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany > > >> 33 Stevan Agne DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany > > >> 34 Martin Schaaf DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany > > >> 35 Andreas Abecker DFKI, Kaiserslautern, Germany > > > 36 Frank Steinle Uni Trier, Germany > > > 37 Joerg Kunz Uni Trier, Germany > > > 38 Axel Buchner Uni Trier, Germany > > > 39 Heike Martensen KUN, Nijmegen, Nederland > > > 40 Alfred Kohnert Uni Marburg, FRG > > > 41 Joerg Hoppe University of Southern Queensland, Australia > > 42 Kerstin Weinbach Univ. Marburg, FRG > > 43 Claus-Dieter Koenig Uni Marburg, Germany > 44 Marcus Lindemann University of Essex, UK > > > > > Dear Sirs, > > > > > > This is a chain letter to urge the french > > > government to stop nuclear tests. > > > If you agree with us, please add your name to the list above, > > > and send copies to your friends. > > > We will add up the lists that had come back to us, and send it > > > to the French Government. > > > > > > If you happen to be the hundredth,two hundredth, three hundredth, > > > and so on, on the list, please send a copy of the mail back to the > > > addresses below, so that we can keep track of this project. If you > > have > > > any comment please send mails to us. And also, > > > if you are multi-lingual and have friends who may not understand > > > English, please translate this message and add it to the end of the > > mail. > > > Thank you very much. > > > > > > > > >******* addresses of the organizers > > >******* addresses of the organizers > > >shimizu@femto.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp > > >keshi@uticeaix1.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp <- please use this adress > > >******* > Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn > Department of Sociology > Johns Hopkins University > Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA > tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu > From chriscd@jhu.edu Mon Jul 17 17:36:12 1995 id <01HSZLBXOS6OIDRKMV@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 19:38:48 -0400 (EDT) id <01HSZLBV3X1SIBDYEI@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 19:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 19:38:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Christoph Chase-Dunn Subject: conference anouncement (fwd) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Call for Papers British Sociological Association Annual Conference 1st-4th April 1996 The University of Reading Worlds of the Future: Ethnicity, Nationalism and Globalization The conference provides the opportunity to explore the inter-related structures and processes of ethnicity, nationalism and globalization. The reassertion of ethnic identities is constantly in a process of contesting taken for granted notions of globalized cultures. The continued salience and power of nationalism has confounded many aspects and hopes of the project of modernity. Globalization problematizes that which sociology has formerly taken as given, the nation state and social formations. The theme therefore offers the opportunity to contribute to debates in these contested areas. The streams are intended to encourage reflection upon current theorising and empirical research, at local and global levels. The organisers expect papers to explore the social relations of nationalism, ethnicity and racism and their the inter-relatedness with social class, gender and sexuality. Papers will be welcomed on issues as varied as nation building in the post-colonial world, the changing international division of labour and labour process, bandwidth and communication. conflicts in East and Central Europe and the territories of the former Soviet Union, changing Ireland, and the possible disintegration of the UK and other nation states. Potential Streams Include: The global political economy political and other social movements the environment communication diasporas ethnic conflicts global and national welfare policies racialised identities nationalist ideologies religion The organizers expect gender issues to permeate all streams and will welcome the submission of papers with such a focus. Other suggestions will be welcomed As well as proposals for formal papers, we should also be interested in proposals for a variety of other forms of presentation, such as workshops, displays, round tables, electronic conference etc. There will be an Open stream for papers not addressing the Conference themes as well as all the other events and meetings associated with the BSA Conference. Please send abstracts (250 words) by 31st August 1995 to: The Conference Officer, 1996 BSA Conference, Department of Education Studies, The University of Reading, Bulmershe Court, Reading RG6 1HY (Tel: 0734 875123) In most instances paper givers are expected to be members of the BSA. Anyone wishing to give a paper may join the BSA. The organizers reserve the right to refuse papers Conference Organizing Committee Kevin J. Brehony, Department of Education Studies and Management, The University of Reading Avtar Brah, Centre for Extra-Mural Studies, Birkbeck College, University of London Ma=EDrtin Mac An Ghaill, School of Education, The University of Birmingham Mary Hickman, Irish Studies Centre, University of North London Naz Rassool, Department of Education Studies and Management, The University of Reading Dr Kevin J. Brehony emsbreny@reading.ac.uk Dept. Education Studies and Management Tel: 01734 875123 x4873 University of Reading Fax: 01734 352080 Bulmershe Court, Reading RG6 1HY UK=20 From wxhst3+@pitt.edu Tue Jul 18 06:41:40 1995 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 08:40:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Haller Subject: anti-nuke letter (read 1st) To: wsn It seems there have been some technical problems with the chain letter asking France to stop nuclear testing. They are summarized below. Please do not reply to the letter or pass it on to others. The following contains alternative instructions for anyone wanting to participate in this effort. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 03:40:30 GMT From: Yuichi Nishihara Subject: This reply is made automatically Dear Madames/Sirs, This reply is made automatically. Due to the enormous amount of mails I'm recieving, it is now completely impossible for me to answer to your mail. I have some announcements. 1. The chain letter, "Stop Nulcear Tests!" is no longer wanted to be distributed. We have changed our method to collect names of people who are against the Nuclear Tests of France. We have opened a WWW site, and names put down using the easy fill out forms on the site will have the first priority. The adress of the WWW site is, http://www.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~keshi/ We have much more information there than we had on the chain letter. We have collected 10378 names from 74 countries/regions by Mon Jul. 17. 2. For those of you who had sent me back the lists, thank you very much for participating in this. We will include your list in our list which is to be sent to Mr. Chirac, but it will not appear as fast as the signs made via WWW. We couldn't help it, but I think there is noone who can manage more than 2000 mails per day. If you want to have your name on the list faster, please try our WWW site. Don't worry about duplications because it is rather easily eliminated by using the sort program. And ofcourse before sending it to Mr. Chirac, it will be very carefully checked. 3. If you had distributed our chain letter to your friends, thank you for your support, but please try to stop your friends from distributing it further. And also, tell your friends about the WWW site, and tell them to sign via WWW if they want their names on the list. What you should do about the list you have: if you had not yet sent the list back to me, please send it back with only the list part with it. That means, please cut the banner and the sentences away. 4. About the chain letter: after distributing our first chain letter, we have realized there were many problems in our chain letter, and then, that using chain letter was inadequate from the begining. We have sent our second chain letter to go after the first one, since that was the only way we could think of to stop the first one from spreading. However this is not working so well, and now many sites around world is having unnecessarly high traffics and are getting into troubles. We deeply apologize for having started a chain letter. We hearby declare that we will never ever start such thing and also never distribute one when we recieve other chain letters, no matter what the content may be. If you see anywhere anyplace in the network about this chain letter, please tell people that we have realized the inadequateness of our method and trying our best to stop further distributions. 5. If you had recieved our letter with only "Dear Sirs" on it, we are very sorry about this. It comes from our poor knowlege of English: in Japanese, we don't have differnt ways to call to Men and Women. Those of you who had added "Dear Madames" or changed it to "Dear people" and so on, thank you for your help. To gather many peoples power was from the begining our scheme. 6. We have already told all our story to our postmaster, and they have understood us. So, it is no use complaining about us to him. We are trying our best to stop what we have started. Sincelery, Yuichi Nishihara Shimizu Seishi both Physics student at University of Tokyo. From teivaine@cc.helsinki.fi Tue Jul 18 12:12:03 1995 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 21:15:05 +0300 (EET DST) From: Teivo Teivainen To: chris chase-dunn Subject: Re: GA on world empire/world-economy? In-Reply-To: <31947.chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, chris chase-dunn wrote: > I think Giovanni Arrighi was saying that the significance of a single > very large colonial empire was great in the 19th century and that the > British hegemony was a political structure that was in some ways comparable > to a world state. But remember he is comparing the British hegemony to > earlier and later systemic regimes of accumulation in the modern > world-system. I doubt that he would go so far as to argue that the British > hegemony was a true world state in the full sense. Thus I dont think > his point is meant to challenge the Wallersteinian distinction between > a world-empire and a world-economy. The nineteenth century world-system was > still a world-economy but had an unusually centralized and politically > structured polity. I totally agree that it would be absurd to claim that the British hegemony was a a true world state. That`s why I speculated that the choice of terminology (calling the capitalist world-economy as reconstituted under British hegemony a "world empire") might be some kind of exagerration to open up a debate (this can be interpreted as a question to Arrighi). I think the interesting issue is the assumption that the "political superstructure" of the world-economy is exclusively constituted by territorial nation-states. As far as I have understood, this is what the Wallersteinian framework strongly assumes. According to my reading, in Arrighi's research agenda the status of this assumption is somewhat different. Because there is no explicit discussion on this issue in the book, I cannot, however, be sure. But let me speculate a few lines worth. Arrighi's emphasis on "the world governmental functions" of the UK is not necessarily in contradiction with the above-mentioned assumption. It is rather his emphasis on the transnational and "nonterritorial" spaces-of-flows which makes his approach somewhat different from the Wallersteinian one. To the extent that these spaces-of-flows are considered political, the assumption that the "political superstructure" of the world-economy is EXCLUSIVELY constituted by the states becomes very problematic. Since I feel that there is some ambiguity in the book as regards the use of "politics" and "political", I am not sure whether Arrighi would agree.1 In any case, I do think that it is problematic to assume that the only political units of the world-system are nation-states. One example: Even though there are many differences between the bureaucracies and planning-systems of the states and those of the transnational corporations, both should be regarded as political units. The difference is rather that the former are more territorialist than the latter. I think Arrighi`s book is more able to analyze this difference than many of the previous contributions to the w-s literature. > The world-economy/world-empire distinction was invented to emphasize > a structural difference between the modern world-system and earlier > state-based world-systems. Tom Hall and I have renamed "world-empire" as > "core-wide empire" because there have been no world-systems in which a > single state dominated the whole arena of interaction. > This is discussed in our forthcoming _Rise and Demise: Comparing > World-Systems_ (Westview Press). Looking forward to reading it. I hope there was no misunderstanding: I am by no means saying that the distinction between world-economies and world-empires should necessarily be rejected. I just wanted to pay attention to one problematical assumption in the definition of the world-economy. Cheers, teivo Teivo Teivainen Iberoamerican Research Center PO Box 4, 00014 University of Helsinki fax: 358-0-1917940 e-mail: teivo.teivainen@helsinki.fi From brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu Wed Jul 19 00:32:46 1995 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 02:36:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce McFarling To: Teivo Teivainen Subject: Re: GA on world empire/world-economy? In-Reply-To: content-length: 3505 > On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, chris chase-dunn wrote: > > > I think Giovanni Arrighi was saying that the significance of a single > > very large colonial empire was great in the 19th century and that the > > British hegemony was a political structure that was in some ways comparable > > to a world state. But remember he is comparing the British hegemony to > > earlier and later systemic regimes of accumulation in the modern > > world-system. I doubt that he would go so far as to argue that the British > > hegemony was a true world state in the full sense. Thus I dont think > > his point is meant to challenge the Wallersteinian distinction between > > a world-empire and a world-economy. On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, Teivo Teivainen wrote: > I totally agree that it would be absurd to claim that the British > hegemony was a a true world state. That`s why I speculated that the > choice of terminology (calling the capitalist world-economy as > reconstituted under British hegemony a "world empire") might be some kind > of exagerration to open up a debate (this can be > interpreted as a question to Arrighi). While I fear this may be a bit pedestrian[*], from my reading, these points are discussed rather clearly in TLC, including on the same page as the statement comparing "world empire" to "world-economy" (p. 58). First, when 'the capitalist world-economy in the 19th C was as much a "world empire" as a "world-economy" -- an entirely new kind of world empire, to be sure, but a world empire none the less.' I think this challenges the dichotomy, but in a positive way: it does not denigrate the usefulness of the distinction, but it challenges us not to abuse the dichotomy to exclude relevant information. As noted in a prior post, this is not a world-empire *within the core*, but that is not what TLC says: the text describes a world empire *of the core*: "The most important and novel feature of this world empire _sui generis_ was the extensive use by its ruling groups of a quasi-monopolistic control over universally accepted means of payment." At least in Latin America, where I have done some modest personal study of this control in the case of the Argentine railway system, this is not limited to the British -- but it *is* limited to the core. It might be especially relevant to this world empire - but not in the core - that in the case of the British, unlike the case presented earlier in this first chapter, other imperial European countries might contest particular imperial territorial gains, but none could contest the basis of Empire. This included oceanic empires of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and (the remnants of) the Iberian empires, as well as the land empires of Austria and Russia. This would seem to be part of the reason that the *quasi* monopoly on which the 'world empire' was based stood. until it was challanged by European late-comers lacking a vested interest in the system and the US where colonization involved an entirely different strategy. If a substantial part of the leadership component of a hegemon involves leading where the followers wish to go, there may be nothing so disruptive as the rise of power who wish to go elsewhere. Virtually, Bruce McFarling, Knoxville brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu [*] On which point, I can beg that a pedestrian development economist is at least better situated to view his subject than the chauffered 'development' economists that one may see (provided one stays close enough to the capital). From chriscd@jhu.edu Fri Jul 21 07:18:32 1995 id <01HT4KYGVOM8IDRLM9@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 09:21:54 -0400 (EDT) id <01HT4KYCDH6OIBF1BD@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu>; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 09:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 08:11:16 -0400 From: chris chase-dunn Subject: Fw: Call for papers/abstracts Sender: chriscd@jhu.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu X-NUPop-Charset: English ------------------------------ From: Jipson Art To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK Subject: Call for papers/abstracts Please forward and pass on to any interested folks... Call for Papers, Presentations, Abstracts on The Sociology of the Internet at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Sociological Society, April 3-6, 1996 at the Chicago Marriot Downtown. Send any papers or abstracts that deal with the nature, organization, research, content or context of the internet to the session organizer. The deadline for submissions is October 1, 1995! Please note that the session organizer needs your name, affiliation, address, presentation title, contact information (phone, e-mail, fax), and your a/v needs. Session organizer: Art Jipson Department of Sociology, Gerontology, and Anthropology Upham Hall Miami University Oxford, Ohio 45056 513-529-2637 jipson_art@msmail.muohio.edu or JIPSONAJ@MUOHIO.EDU http://www.lib.muohio.edu/~skimmel/jipson/jipsonpage.html Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhu.edu From mschetti@colmex.mx Fri Jul 21 12:00:11 1995 Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 11:56:17 -0900 (PDT) From: M Schettino To: pen-l@ecst.csuchico.edu, pkt@csf.colorado.edu, wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: WP about institutions To the Honorable Body of Coleagues: I have finally posted a working paper in the WUSTL archive. With the title of "Intuition and Institutions, the Bounded Society" I have tried to establlish the link between bounded rationality and the creation of social institutions that determine economic performance. I would be pleased if someone could take a look over it and, maybe, suggest where to publish it. My ignorance have made it difficult to find where is it fit, so I appreciate any help. Maybe private posts would be better, since there is always the possibility of finding no place for it. The paper is in econwpa.wustl.edu, in the economic history archive, by the number 9507001. There seems to be some problems in reading it, I have been able to recover the file 9507001.pdf and read it with Acrobat Read, which is available for free on WWW. Hope to hear from some of you... Macario From ba05105@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Fri Jul 21 13:39:39 1995 From: ba05105@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Subject: Re: Arrighi's _Long Twentieth Century_ To: dassbach@mtu.edu Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:54:15 -0400 (EDT) > > Given CC-Ds observations on GA's LONG 20th C.(L20C), which I take as a > kick-off of WSN's planned discussion of the book, I would like to raise two > questions - one, old and one new. > > Old question - Is L20C world-system? Why - or more generally, what does it > mean to adopt a "w-s" perspectives. What an excellent question! Does ws==IW? I have seen many critiques that say something like "according to the world system perspective the semiperiphery is necessary to the system because the core needs a buffer. I wish to challenge ws on this point." In other words, WS is so closely associated with IW that virtually every idea the guy has ever tossed out is regarded as dogma of 'world system theory.' As I understand Arrighi's perspective, you learn something by looking at the whole world that you miss if you look only at the traditional units of nation states. I believe he regards this as 'world systems' perspective (but not a theory). It also seems to me that their has always been an ambiguity in the way the phrase world system is used. In the 16th century the capitalist world system did not cover the globe. An autonomous system existed in East Asia. The Ottoman Empire was also autonomous, as was the Indian Ocean economy. Since then, the capitalist world system at least appears to have expanded to fill the entire global space (Whether it does so by killing off these other systems or simply temporarily submerging them is another question). In any case, It seems world systems should involve the study of economic/cultural systems larger than individual political units. I think this is what Arrighi is doing. I don't see why one has to endorse Kondratieff waves, core-periphery approaches, or any other elements specific to particular theorists ways of approaching these systems. > > > CC-D writes: > > This is a new world-systemic version of the "stages > >of capitalism" literature, but in my opinion Arrighi gets > >it right whereas earlier efforts have missed much that is > >important in characterizing the evolution of capitalism. > > I have my reservations about the terms "stages" and "evolution" - I would > prefer to see these as "incarnations" instead of "stages" and I am curious > to what CC-D means by "evolution". I have always read IW as maintaining > that the system does not "evolve" - it expands and deepens but the basic > structures function in the same manner. Ergo( for example), there was no > industrial revolution. What's wrong with evolution? Aren't all the different life forms studied by Darwinian evolutionists simply 'incarnations' of the earths biomatter? > > >> > I do have some concerns about the "elegance" of the model. It is > wonderfully elegant but maybe `too' elegant - too neat, too clean, too > authoritative, too encompassing - contingency (which is the essential to the > historical process) `vanishes.' I am not saying that contingency (and > anomaly) are replaced by determinism but they are (somehow) > displaced/subsumed to some higher order logic. In a sense, (and I am not > quite sure how) GA's own observations about "displacing anomalies from the > field of analysis" in the Introduction to the GEOMETRY OF IMPERIALISM may be > relevant here. > > The model anticipates financial expansion, material expansion, competition..But that the Venetians, Geneose, Dutch, English and Americans were the major players seems to be where historical contingency comes in..Especially the contingency of being in the right place in the right time. Steven Sherman Binghamton University Sociology > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: DASSBACH@MTU.EDU > Dept. of Social Sciences Phone: (906)487-2115 > Michigan Technological University Fax: (906)487-2468 > Houghton, MI 49931 USA > > From dassbach@mtu.edu Sat Jul 22 11:36:36 1995 From: "Carl H.A. Dassbach" Subject: [PEN-L:5968] Ernest Mandel has passed away (fwd) To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 13:41:12 -0400 (EDT) Forwarded message: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 13:28:10 -0700 Errors-To: ctrown@ecst.csuchico.edu Reply-To: pen-l@ecst.csuchico.edu Originator: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu Sender: pen-l@ecst.csuchico.edu Precedence: bulk From: Tavis Barr Subject: [PEN-L:5968] Ernest Mandel has passed away (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Progressive Economics List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 08:05:26 -0700 From: Joanna Misnik Subject: Ernest Mandel has passed away Ernest Mandel, a leader of the Fourth International and internationally known Marxist economist died yesterday in Belgium of a heart attack. He was 72 years old. Mandel had been in failing health for several years. Cremation is today at a small family service. In September, broader commemorative events are planned when his ashes will be moved to either Paris or Antwerp. Active throughout his illness, Mandel was working along with Swiss comrade Charles Andre Udry on a book analyzing the role of finance capital in today s global economy. He was able to attend the 14th World Congress of the FI which was held this June and intervened in his usual spirited and incisive fashion. Messages of condolence to his comrades, and his companion Ann can be faxed to the Belgian section of the FI. The number is 011 32 2 522 6127. He will be sorely missed, particularly by an entire generation of revolutionaries who came to Marxism and to the Fourth International in the heydey of the 1960s. He was our teacher. Joanna From mschetti@colmex.mx Mon Jul 24 12:52:24 1995 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 12:48:17 -0900 (PDT) From: M Schettino To: pen-l@ecst.csuchico.edu, pkt@csf.colorado.edu, wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: WP about institutions In-Reply-To: With the help of Ric Holt and G. Langer, I have now a directory with my name in the authors gopher at csf. colorado.edu. I have posted there a better copy of the paper mentioned below. I repeat my request for comments and publishing recommendations... Macario On Fri, 21 Jul 1995, M Schettino wrote: > > To the Honorable Body of Coleagues: > > I have finally posted a working paper in the WUSTL archive. With the > title of "Intuition and Institutions, the Bounded Society" I have > tried to establlish the link between bounded rationality and the > creation of social institutions that determine economic performance. > > I would be pleased if someone could take a look over it and, maybe, > suggest where to publish it. My ignorance have made it difficult to > find where is it fit, so I appreciate any help. Maybe private posts > would be better, since there is always the possibility of finding no > place for it. > > The paper is in econwpa.wustl.edu, in the economic history archive, by > the number 9507001. There seems to be some problems in reading it, I > have been able to recover the file 9507001.pdf and read it with > Acrobat Read, which is available for free on WWW. > > Hope to hear from some of you... > > Macario > > > From FDEYO@ACSPR1.acs.brockport.edu Wed Jul 26 13:08:56 1995 From: FDEYO@ACSPR1.acs.brockport.edu To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: PEWS Date: 26 Jul 95 15:16:26 EDT A final request to PEWSERS to please sent[Dd to me or to Dale Wimberley ideas for panels for next year's annumal[D[D[Dal ASA meetings..this wo[Dill greatly facilitate the porc[D[D[Drocess of panel development and give your new Chair time to contact people and do a thoughtful job with this important task. Also, if you know of anyone (esp. students) who would lo[Dike a free room for the night of Aug 19..we will have a party suite available..the only hitch will be that late leavers will probal[Dbly make it difficult to get to sleep before 1"[D:00AM or so! If we have takers, please contact me or Dale. See you [D[D[D[D[D[D[D [Dthe 19th! (I'll be out the country Aug 7-17, so communications during that perop[D[D[D[D[Dperiod should go to Dale. [D[D) Fred Deyuo[D[D Fred Deyo, Chair, PEWS. From amcgowen@hposl02.cup.hp.com Wed Jul 26 17:27:58 1995 From: Alan McGowen Subject: Social evolution To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 16:32:01 PDT Those who have discussed evolution on this list seem to be in agreement that "teleology is out". I am somewhat surprised by this. For one thing, it makes social evolution seem quite "Darwinian" (in the Darwinian sense, not the social Darwinism sense). Teleology has to do with whether the selection mechanism is nonmyopic, i.e. influenced by the results of selection in a way that integrates information about the adaptive landscape (itself changing under the action of selection) into the selection process. Biological evolution is myopic. Evolution occurs in the direction of the instantaneous fitness gradient, but the gradient may decrease with time as a result of growth of the 'fittest' driven in that direction. Myopic evolution can produce a tragedy-of-commons in which the *relatively* fittest systematically triumph at the cost of shrinking total absolute fitness: a system which can evolve its own extinction. One might naively hope that humans have the power to do a bit better than that: might incorporate information about our own impacts on our 'adaptive landscape' of social institutions and the biosphere, might learn from observation of anthropogenic global change and undesired social change, and might alter the selection regime of social evolution in response to that knowledge. If we can do this, social evolution would arguably be 'teleological', seeking a sustainable world system as its goal. If we can't do it, then anthropogenic global changes will eventually cease as do other myopic systems that evolve their own extinction... Alan McGowen From wxhst3+@pitt.edu Thu Jul 27 10:35:06 1995 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:32:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Haller Subject: Re: Social evolution To: Alan McGowen In-Reply-To: <9507262332.AA08004@hposl02.cup.hp.com> Alan, Thanks for the clarification. I never heard that definition of teleological before. So, basically then, teleological means that there is a learning feedback loop (more generally, a negative feedback loop in a self-regulating system). I was under the impression that teleological meant that the processes of change (or development) in a system move toward an inherently pre-determined outcome. Bill Haller ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bill Haller \/ University Center for Social Department of Sociology /\ and Urban Research (UCSUR) University of Pittsburgh \/ 121 University Place, 6th floor email: wxhst3+@pitt.edu /\ Pittsburgh, PA 15213-9972 ------------------------------------------------------------------- From amcgowen@hposl02.cup.hp.com Thu Jul 27 11:29:56 1995 From: Alan McGowen Subject: Re: Social evolution To: wxhst3+@pitt.edu Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:33:53 PDT In-Reply-To: ; from "Bill Haller" at Jul 27, 95 12:32 (noon) > Thanks for the clarification. I never heard that definition of teleological > before. So, basically then, teleological means that there is a learning > feedback loop (more generally, a negative feedback loop in a self-regulating > system). I was under the impression that teleological meant that the > processes of change (or development) in a system move toward an inherently > pre-determined outcome. > > Bill Haller Development is full of feedback regulation. If by 'teleology' you mean something like Aristotlean 'final causes' without any regulatory mechanisms ('efficient causes') to reach the 'final causes', then certainly biology rejects 'teleology' in that (vitalist) sense. BTW, the pre-programming of developmental outcomes (developmental stability) is a matter of degree -- some traits of the outcome are more variable than others. Developmental stability is the result of regulation processes during development, and if these are impaired (e.g. by environmental toxins) stability is reduced, and an abnormal morphology may develop. Alan McGowen From Dale.Wimberley@vt.edu Sat Jul 29 07:54:34 1995 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 09:58:54 +0600 To: World Systems Network From: Dale.Wimberley@vt.edu (Dale W. Wimberley) Subject: Request for PEWS panel ideas for 1996 Fred Deyo sent a request for ideas for 1996 PEWS panels at ASA on Wednesday, and as PEWS sec.-treas. I would like to underscore that request! The PEWS section officers need your input. Please send your input to Fred (FDEYO@ACSPR1.acs.brockport.edu) for now; he will be out of the country starting the 7th of August, and I don't think he will be back in his office until after ASA. After Fred is unavailable, please send your input to me at the e-mail address above, or fax to (540) 231-3860, or mail to me at Dept. of Sociology, VPI & SU, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0137. I will be out of town myself from now until August 16, and will check for your responses upon my return (please put "PEWS panel idea" or some such in the subject line if you send e-mail, else I may miss it in the long list of messages likely to arrive between now and then). I will need to have these no later than Thursday afternoon, Aug. 17, before I leave for Washington. Or, you can contact Chair-elect Phil McMichael (Cornell) or any current council member. *** PLEASE NOTE! *** My e-mail address has changed to Dale.Wimberley@vt.edu Dale W. Wimberley Department of Sociology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University