Suchergebnisse

Archaeology has tremendous potential for developing world‐systems approaches to non‐Western and noncapitalist societies because it has the ability to both explore non‐Western and noncapitalist societies with the sophistication of anthropology and to explore societies in existence long before the capitalist world‐system began to evolve. I suggest that sociologists stand to gain by learning about non‐Western and noncapitalist societies, particularly as they are understood by archaeologists. World‐systems theory provides a common framework within which archaeologists and sociologists can both work. This article explores recent work in world‐systems archaeology that sociologists might find particularly valuable.

Demonstrates how the application of a world-systems perspective in anthropological research can offer sociologists new insights into non-Western & noncapitalist societies. Archaeologists have begun such work via redefinitions of (1) the nature of geographic differentiation within world systems & (2) the nature of economic interdependence among differentiated regions. Research in each of these areas is summarized. 42 References. K. Hyatt Stewart

"Geographic Perspectives on World-Systems Theory" published on by Oxford University Press.

World-systems theory is analyzed in the context of general systems theory, outlining some basic concepts of the latter that are of particular relevance to the former. Particular attention is devoted to the notion of dissipative structures, borrowed from physical chemistry, which extended Newtonian mechanics to the study of open systems, ie, those that exchanged matter & energy with their environments. The characteristics of the world system as a dissipative structure are discussed, & contributions of the theory of dissipative structures to world-systems analysis are identified. 54 References. K. Hyatt Stewart

This paper focuses upon one small region of World-Systems Theory (wst) but one that is important for analysis of the contemporary world: the dynamics of intra-core relations.I will try to address three questions: 1. Does the wst theory of the historically cyclical patterns of intra-core relations provide us with a persuasive framework for understanding contemporary core dynamics? 2. More specifically can the reach and depth of the power of the United States within the contemporary core be captured by wst's theory of capitalist hegemons and their rise and decline? 3. Is wst's insistence that its concept of core-wide world empires cannot be established in the modern world system valid? In addressing these issues, I will begin by outlining the general approach of wst to the analysis of intra-core relations, focusing in particular upon wst's concept of core hegemons and their rise and fall. I will then look at the arguments of wst as to why a capitalist world empire is impossible. I will then go on to examine how we might conceive of the victory of a World-Empire. And I will then turn to examine the contending situation and the character of the power of the US today.

JANET ABU-LUGHOD RESPONDS TO DONALD NIELSEN'S CRITIQUE OF HER BOOK "BEFORE EUROPEAN HEGEMONY." SHE DECLARES HER BASIC AGREEMENT WITH NIELSEN'S CRITIQUE, BUT HOPES THAT HER WORK WILL STILL FULFILL ITS BASIC PURPOSE: THE STIMULATION OF FURTHER DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT.