Immanuel Wallerstein
(Sept. 28, 1930-)


Wallerstein is a Sociologist, born in New York City, New York, USA. He studied at Columbia University (1951 BA; 1954 MA; 1959 PhD), and at Oxford (1955-6). He taught at Columbia (1958-71), McGill University, Montreal, Canada (1971-6), and State University of New York, Binghamton (1976), where he was distinguished professor of sociology and director of the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economics, Historical Systems, and Civilizations. His many books dealing with the economy and political systems of the world include The Modern World-System (2 vols, 1974, 1980), The Politics of the World Economy (1984), and Geopolitics and Geoculture (1991).

The American Sociological Association describes him "as one of the most influential sociologists of his generation, due in large part to his development of a new paradigm for sociology, world-systems analysis. The world-systems paradigm offers linkages for previously unlinked studies and previously unaffiliated scholars. His world-systems analysis shifted the focus of studies of large-scale political processes from societies and nation states as the unit of analysis, to the world system, thereby bringing attention to interdependencies that had been largely ignored."

"Through his work, Wallerstein has extended the influence of sociology into other disciplines, including history, geography, economy, political science, cultural studies, ethnic studies, and women’s studies. His work has crossed not only academic borders but also has extended the influence of sociology to other parts of the world. His writings have inspired a whole generation of sociologists in Asia, Africa, and Latin America who want to know more about how the capitalist world-economy has shaped the contour of development of their own countries. His multi-volume The Modern World-System is a classic." (Craig Calhoun)

World-System Perspective

The basic concept of the theory, in Wallerstein's words, is that "all of the countries in the world are divided into hierarchical categories based on economic status and power. The primary of these categories are the “core” countries. These are the countries that hold the majority of the wealth and power of the world. They reap most of the benefits from capitalism, by exploiting the weaker countries. The first core countries were England, France and Holland. (Modern History Source Book. 1974) Today some of the core countries are America, Germany, France and Japan. Strong governments, powerful armies and international commerce maintain the core countries’ position in the economic food chain.

"The next group on the world system ladder is the “Semi-Periphery”. These countries are either on the rise to becoming core countries or falling out of the core. The periphery has much of the same qualities as the core, but has failed to benefit as well as the core did. This is largely due to the core having a stronger and more established control over international trade.

"The Third group is the “Periphery.” These are the poorest countries, commonly known as “third-world” countries. The periphery is exploited by the stronger countries and used to produce many goods that are typically exported at cheap prices and sold in the core and semi-periphery, where most of the profits are made. In some cases the peripheral countries are too busy and the land is too scarce to farm their own crops because of the agriculture for the core. As a result of this, the peripheral countries can’t grow enough food to feed their people. This is a major reason why the quality of life is so poor in these countries.

"The last category in the system is the external areas. These are countries that are out of the loop in the system because they maintain their own economies separate from the rest of the world. Their trade and commerce is more internal rather than internationally. (Modern History Book. 1974)

"In the World System Theory the core continues to grow rich while keeping the periphery in poverty. This does not mean that all of the citizens of the core countries grow wealthier, just the people that already have economic power. In return all of the people in the periphery do not grow poorer, just the people that are already in poverty. Someone has to be making money in the periphery, but you can rest assure that it is not the laborers. It also follows that the system is either ever changing or self destructive because the core will eventually exhaust the periphery so the system would have to evolve or collapse.

"The two basic premises of my work then are the world-system as a unit of analysis, and the insistence that all social science must be simultaneously historic and systemic.

Wallerstein does not consider his World-System as a "theory." In his own words: "I have argued that world-systems analysis is not a the­ory but a protest against neglected issues and deceptive episte­mo­l­ogies. It is a call for intellectual change, indeed for "un­thinking" the pre­mises of nineteenth-century social science, as I say in the title of one of my books. It is an intellectual task that is and has to be a political task as well, because - I in­sist - the search for the true and the search for the good is but a single quest. If we are to move forward to a world that is sub­stantively rational, in Max Weber's usage of this term, we cannot neglect either the intel­lectual or the political challenge."

Salient Features of World-System

Wallerstein as a Marxist Thinker
(Thoughts revealed in a 1997 Conference)

Wallerstein is a Marxist, who finds himself not as a rebel against capitalism but against intellectual idiosyncracies and liberal thought. To him, liberalism has been used to legitimize inequalities and perpetuate the status quo of the dominant states. Like Marx, he predicts it will self-destruct.

"I see the definitive collapse of liberalism as the defining geo-culture of our world system. Liberalism essentially promised gradual reform towards ameliorating the inequalities of the world system and reducing the acute polarisation. The illusion that this was possible within the framework of the modern world system has in fact been a great stabilising element, in that it has legitimated states in the eyes of their populations and promised them a heaven on earth in the foreseeable future. The collapse of communism along with the collapse of the national liberation movements in the third world and the collapse of faith in the Keynesian model in the western world were all simultaneous reflections of popular disillusionment in the validity and reality of the reformist programmes each propagated. But this disillusionment, however merited, knocks the props from under popular legitimation of states, and effectively undoes any reason why their populations should tolerate the continuing and increasing polarisation of our world system. I therefore expect considerable turmoil of the kind we have already been seeing in the 1990s, spreading from the Bosnias and Rwandas of this world to the wealthier and more stable regions of the world, such as the United States. These, as I say, are premises, and you may not be convinced of them, since I have no time to argue them. I wish therefore simply to draw the moral and political conclusions from my premises.

Criticisms

One of the major criticisms hurled against Wallerstein's world-system is its historicity. When did it begin? Wallerstein is quick to point out its birth, during the "long 16th century". That makes it only about 500 years old. Andre Gunder Frank, however, refutes this by saying that the world system has begun 5,000 years ago, in ancient Mesopotamia. World system, with or without a hyphen, makes a difference in their assertions (Wallerstein uses a hyphen, Frank does not). Janet Abu Lughod also points out a "13th century world system" in the case of Egypt. Such world systems, however, were called "world empires" by Wallerstein.

Another related criticism is that Wallerstein's world-system is "Eurocentric." It implies that Europe has determined its growth, and that capitalism is a European invention, which is not historicaly correct. This western bias denies the prior hegemonic status of "oriental" civilizations (e.g., Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.), which antedated modern, western civilization.

It is also important to note whether the world-system is a fully integrated model of "one world," or whether it is possible to think of "many worlds." Some critics argue otherwise. The reality is that the world may not be heading to just one direction, nor is it homogenizing. While the economy seems to be a very powerful integrator in the world-system, the cultural side has been relegated to the sideline. Culturally, the world is also being shaped by the actions of certain groups (e.g., Islamic militants) who believe that they or what they stand for has not received their proper due.

Internet Resources: