Unthinking Social Science: Limits of 19th Century Paradigms

by Immanuel Wallerstein

In this new edition of a classic work - now with a new preface - on the roots of social scientific thinking, Immanuel Wallerstein develops a thorough-going critique of the legacy of nineteenth-century social science for social thought in the new millennium. We have to unthink - radically revise and discard - many of the presumptions that still remain the foundation of dominant perspectives today. Once considered liberating, these notions are now barriers to a clear understanding of our social world. They include, for example, ideas built into the concept of development. In place of such a notion, Wallerstein stresses transformations in time and space. Geography and chronology should not be regarded as external influences upon social transformations but crucial to what such transformation actually is. Unthinking Social Science applles the ideas thus elaborated to a variety of theoretical areas and historical problems. Wallerstein also offers a critical discussion of the key figures whose ideas have influenced the position he formulates - including Karl Marx and Fernand Braudel, among others. In the concluding sections of the book, Wallerstein demonstrates how these new insights

Genres: Sociology, Politics, Social Science

296 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

About the author

Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein was a scholar of politics, sociologist, historical social scientist, and world-systems analyst. His bimonthly commentaries on world affairs were syndicated.

Reviews

[csillagkohó · Rating 4 out of 5]

I unlocked a memory about my highschool geography class which featured Wallerstein in the most depoliticized way possible. In our handbook the diagram of core, semi-periphery and periphery was drawn, but it was never clarified that there was an element of exploitation to this layered system: it was more akin to observing that a bread consists of dough and a crust. Even the word "capitalism" was not involved, as if it was just the world system.

The real Wallerstein is far from this dry scientist who carves the world up in static zones and dissects it with his scalpel. In fact there's a "mad prophet" tinge to him – a sense that all of his writing is underpinned by a grandiose and highly original vision, and you are unsure if you share that vision, but it doesn't matter because along the way prophetic insights and wisdoms are to be found.

One such wisdom is his attack on the false dilemma of nomothetic vs. idiographic (law-driven vs. contingent; "social science" vs. "history"). It has always been both. All structures have their particular histories, while every historical era has its own structural tendencies. In line with this, Wallerstein voices the view that specialization in the social sciences should be radically undone to get a broader analytic horizon.

Throughout the book he weaves other red threads onto this outlook, most of which really resonate with me. For example he's sublime at discussing:
-the role of racism/sexism (should be analysed as core conditions of capitalism, not accidental side-effects of it);
-the limits of deliberate reform within the capitalist system (p. 233: "there is no way of intruding systematically and persistently anti-market values into decision making");
-the "bourgeois revolutions" as a distortion of history (contrary to the standard Marxist view, the medieval aristocracy "became" the bourgeoisie rather than being overthrown by it).

A thornier question is, am I fully buying Wallerstein's aversion to categories such as "development"? Maybe not, and his skepticism towards all nationally organized projects risks missing the real dynamics of social change. As with Braudel, I feel like the problem with Wallerstein is the limited room for human agency in his theory. For example, when he suggests that Soviet policy from Lenin to Gorbachev is "completely explicable" as a function of the world economy, the pitfall of determinism isn't far off (even if he also explicitly criticizes determinism as a worldview).

But the questions raised are as interesting as they are politically important. Most crucially, Wallerstein exposes the blind spots of any narrative that conveniently forgets that Western development was driven by far-reaching global exploitation – a fact that makes it hard for exploited regions or states to follow a similar model. Even if they succeed, it would be at the expense of others.

In that sense Wallerstein is right to call for organizing across Third World countries for higher wages, daunting as that task may be, instead of allowing a fixation on growth rates to take hold. At each point on commodity chains, pressure should be put to locally retain a part of the surplus and thus to "overload" the system.

I particularly like the section where he notes that if 1973 had been a labor struggle inside the OPEC states (rather than a struggle between states) the results for oil workers might have been harder to reverse. The OPEC states retained more of the surplus after 1973, but without redistributing it in a socially useful way – which is logical since state officials have a class-based incentive to seek growth rather than redistribution. That is true for capitalist as well as socialist states.

An equally daunting task for movements, then, is to keep some distance from vested regimes, even those they helped bring to power. Movements are at their best and most productive in the stage where the struggle escalates. After achieving state power, the vanguard usually becomes ossified into practical day-to-day governance and represses its most organic and creative components. Parties' and movements' role may be to foster the old world's disintegration (p. 169): "Organizations may be essential to break the crust initially. It is doubtful they can actually build the new society." A radical conclusion to anyone schooled in orthodox Marxism, but one worth considering.

[S]

He's one of my heroes, and this is a great book. It gets somewhat repetitive and disappointing towards the second half, but if you need a short version of Wallerstein's ideas that doesn't involve reading about 16th century cereal prices in Poland, this is for you. I do hope you read it - it's immensely valuable.

[Ali Arabzadeh · Rating 3 out of 5]

بعضي از مقالات قديمي هستند و به وضوح طراوت و كارايي خودشان را از دست داده اند. اين يكي از فرق هاي اساسي فلسفه و جامعه شناسي است. كتاب هاي ارسطو وافلاطون و آگوستين و ملاصدرا و كانت و هگل را ميشود بارها و بارها خواند اما يك مقاله ي جامعه شناسي از يكي از مشهورترين جامعه شناسان معاصر كه مثلا 20 سال پيش نوشته شده است را ديگر نميشود با لذت مطالعه كرد.
تكرار، تكرار و تكرار. حرف هاي اصلي والرشتاين زياد نيستند ولي اصرار او بر تكرار كردن حقيقتا آزاردهنده است.
آنچنان كه از متن كتاب هم ميشود فهميد مطالعه ي آثار اسلاف والرشتاين كه بر او موثر بوده اند مثل برودل و پريگوژين بسيار برانگيزاننده تر است و در واقع آثار آنها اصيل تر و به مقام كشف نزديك تر است.
بازهم از اينكه رشته ي جامعه شناسي را انتخاب نكردم خوشحال و راضيم. :)

[Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aslında Wallerstein, bütün bir dünyayı ve sistemleri algılama biçimimizi oluşturan sosyal bilimlerdeki hatalı paradigmalardan dertli. Kitaplarında batı tarafından formatlanan akademik yaklaşım hatalarını sorguluyor ve bunlara karşı düşüncemizi nasıl özgürleştirebileceğimizi sunmaya çalışıyor.

[Alonso Carvajal · Rating 4 out of 5]

viejo basado

[Ying Chen]

Thanks to this book, I finally make sure that I don't have any interest on politics, maybe even political sociology.