ReOrient
* Book: ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Andre Gunder Frank and Barry Gills.
URL =
The global system is not 500 years old, but 5,000, and European hegemony is but a blip in this Asian-centric evolution. See also: ReOrienting the 19th Century.
Introduction
Sing C. Chew:
"ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age questioned (theoretically and historically) the manner we have interpreted long-term social change, and especially, our common understanding of the timing of the rise of the European domination of the world economy/system (the 1500 divide), and therefore, the specific region that was the dominant power of the world system at the particular historical conjuncture. ReOrienting the 19th Century further buttressed this line of argument that the periodization of European dominance, as has been commonly accepted, needed even further revisions. With these two volumes, Frank not only challenged the contemporary understanding (theoretically and historically) of the making of the "modem" world, but as well, the writings of his colleagues (such as Wallerstein, Arrighi, Amin, etc.) in world-systems analysis, and even his own contributions to world-systems analysis prior to the early 1990s. Following Frank's typical critical iconoclastic stance, even Fernand Braudel was not spared (Frank 1994; Chew and Lauderdale 2010). Despite Gunder's numerous pleas, not too many in world-systems analysis pursued his demand for reorientation theoretically and historically in the rethinking of world history."
Contextual Quote
"Frank's RGEA and RI 9C propose that we consider seriously analyzing the trading patterns and networks in terms of volumes of trade flows at the world system level in order to understand the course of world development, and to distinguish the economic and financial trends according to the different regions of the world economy. Because of his demand that everything has to be considered at the world level, bilateral trading flows do not capture the socioeconomic historical reality of what really happened in world history. A historical multilateral trading pattern analysis would be more precise in determining the relative dominance of the world system, and therefore, in socioeconomic and political terms, the real hegemonic region of the world system that is not ideologically derived and mythically reinforced."
- Sing C. Chew [1]
Discussion
Dropping the concept of Capitalism in World-Systems Analysis ?
Sing C. Chew:
"Bergesen's going forward plan recommends dropping the concept of capitalism as a mode of production underlining the world-economy when dealing with the post-1500s global changes, and to realize the theoretical utility of his "world-system based globology approach." He joins Gunder Frank (1991) in dismissing the utility of the capitalist mode of production framework in understanding and explaining long-term change. Bergesen's argument, based on an ontological understanding of what is capitalism by definition, is rather straightforward. Because world-systems theory's level of analysis is the world economy or world economy, and the capitalist mode of production theoretically belongs to the national level defined by worker-owner social relations guaranteed by a national state, "capitalism, as a mode of production, remains a societal/national entity"; he suggests that there is an issue in terms of translation-utilizing a concept that is based at the national level and employing it at the global level, though as he has correctly suggests, it has not prevented Lenin and Hobson from doing so. This "theoretical error" of Lenin and Hobson that starts from national accumulation, and then leads to the export of capital for further accumulation ( exemplified by imperialism as the final stage of capitalism) on the world scale has to be dropped, according to Bergesen, if we intend to undertake a world-system level analysis.?
...
Whereas Bergesen utilizes ontological and epistemological assertions to dismiss the world-system as having a capitalist mode of production in the post-1500 era, Frank's ( 1991) dismissal of using capitalism as a mode of production to understand the evolution of the world system is based mostly on his fervent insistence that the only "correct" route to understand long-term change or system transition is a world systemic analysis based on history and theory. In Frank's case, his declaration that feudalism, capitalism, and socialism are transitional ideological modes that has put blinders on our eyes, and thus has prevented us from really understanding and explaining the course of world history, is based on an examination of the historical processes of global history, and whether the characteristics of capitalism existed prior to 1500-hence, his 'continuity thesis.' Frank's rejection was historically based, and not derived from ontological and epistemological shifts of the sort Bergesen has proposed for world-system theory after Frank. "
Understanding B-Phases in World-Systems Analysis
Sing C. Chew:
"Conceptually, the factors and processes that trigger crises over the last five thousand years have not been worked out or well understood. That however has not prevented the identification of these economic stagnations or B-phases. With the plethora of positions on world system/s development, crises or B-phases have been proposed to cover different duration, and have different meanings for those working in this area. In addition to the Gills and Frank's model I have outlined in the previous pages, Modelski and Thompson (1996) and Wallerstein (1974, 1980) also comes to mind. According to each model, the duration of these downturn phases varies. Different durations ranging from 50 years to one thousand years in length have been suggested. Leaving this difference in duration aside for the moment, there are also different views of what a B-phase is in relation to world system/s reproduction. For Gills and Frank (1993), B-phases represent the cyclical tendency or rhythms that a world system goes through as it expands. In other words, a B-phase is a cyclical downturn of the world system within its rhythm of expansion and contraction, a structural process of the world system (Gills and Frank 2002: 159-160). They are recurrences of economic downturns.
Along this reasoning, there is no notable difference between one B-phase and another. They are all economic downturns with no distinguishing characteristics depicting a specific era (conjuncture) of the world system, other than sharing similar tendencies such as hegemonic rivalries. Therefore, historical contingent circumstances/factors are not given much weight nor proffered to explain the genesis or resolution of the crisis.
Another view of a B-phase is quite different. For Wallerstein (1974, 1979, 1980) for example, a specific B-phase is not only signifying an economic crisis period (price fluctuations, etc.), it also demarcates specific characteristics of system reorganization and consolidation, depending on the particular B-phase in question. In his explication of the origin and evolution of the modern world-system, the B-phase between AD1300-AD1450 has been analyzed as a reorganization of the social structure ("the crisis of feudalism") in order to overcome the crisis conditions (Wallerstein 1980:25); In contrast, the B-phase between AD1600-AD1750 is considered not as a "crisis in the system" but as "a period of consolidation" of social relations and structures with its respective specificities (Wallerstein 1980: 31). Thus, a specific B-phase crisis has certain triggers that trip the crisis. In the case of the B-phase between AD1300-AD1450, the particular triggers for the "crisis of feudalism" were a conjuncture of secular trends, immediate cyclical crisis, and climatological decline. The apparent differences in just Frank and Gills' and Wallerstein's positions have implications for our understanding of the factors conditioning system crisis. If we consider a Wallersteinian B-phase, we need to note that it has some commonalities such as cyclical economic contraction trends (price changes, production losses, etc.) with other recurrent B-phases. In this case, Wallerstein's interpretation is similar to Gills and Frank's understanding of a B-phase. However, for Wallerstein, a specific B-phase might also be different from other B-phases, for it also has certain contingent particular characteristics ( e.g., breakdown of feudal social relations, climate changes) of the epoch in question that condition the system crisis. Hence, the specific conjuncture and its contingent socioeconomic and political characteristics are included in an understanding of the precipitation and determination of the crisis or contraction. Given this direction, for Wallerstein the identification of common elements that condition crises recurring over world history needs to be combined with the conjunctural elements in order to understand the crisis. The attempt, therefore, is to straddle nomothetic and idiographic methodologies for an explanation of system crisis and transition. Between these two viewpoints of B-phases, there are those that are closer or further away from the above two positions. Modelski and Thompson (1996, 2003) have suggested the recurrent nature of crisis and transitions over long cycles in the historical evolution of the world system. Agreeing with Gills and Frank on the dynamics of the world system since 3000BC, according to them, the recurring crisis phases have been characterized by learning (technological, writing, information, etc.) innovations,!olitical hegemonic struggles, population, urbanization, migrations, climate, and warfare. Unlike Frank (1992), Modelski and Thompson have identified both particular elements (technological innovation, information, writing, etc.) that underline a specific crisis phase, and common elements such as deurbanization, migration, population decreases, which permeate every system crisis phase. Beyond the widely agreed element of negative economic trends defining a B-phase, what we have are additional delineation of elements such as those that are specific (information, technological innovations, and writing), and other common elements ( deurbanization, migration, climate, and population decreases) that all form the matrix circumscribing system crisis and transition. For Modelski and Thompson, system crises, therefore, are transition points of system adaptation and evolution. In view of the state of discourse on long-term change over world history, we should also be aware of long-term structural crises-beyond a B-phase of contraction-that a historical world system experiences; what Modelski (2006) has called 'ages of reorganization' or what I have identified as Dark Ages (Chew 2007). Wallerstein's ( 1998, 2004; Hopkins and Wallerstein 1996) more recent works have also addressed this in terms of system maturation and transformation. These crises have also occurred in the past, and prior to the modern era have not been fully noted or understood. We do have some indications from historical accounts of social, political, and economic long-term downturn periods, and preliminary identification of the characteristic processes depicting these phases."
Review
Sing C. Chew:
"By stressing the continuity of the structures and processes of the world system and the irrelevance of the mode of production analysis to explain development pattern and the direction of social change, Frank has flattened world history and made it devoid of critical ruptures and specificities, as I have stated previously. For Gunder Frank, long-term social change over world history is depicted by long economic cycles of expansion and contraction (that he has not elaborated on why they occur), core-periphery relations, and hegemonic rivalry. There is no specificity of a transformation for a particular historical epoch as he has put it, just different players at the table.
...
If we are to understand the trajectory of world development and world history, such a flattened view of world history does not illuminate much. Frank, in his attempt to overcome certain breakpoints in world history, which he believed have been established as a result of the centric-ness (such as the 1500 break, as a result of Eurocentrism) of some analyses, does not address the issue of system crisis and transformation. As we know, all systems eventually will reach crisis conditions, and the effort is to maintain system equilibrium, which we know is especially difficult in systems that are organized on a hierarchical order with inequality as one of its basic features. The numerous theoretical and empirical works of Immanuel Wallerstein (1988, 1996, 1998, 2004) on the systemic crisis of a historical world system have addressed this issue precisely. Frank's model does not deal with system crisis and transformation; it is an endless cycle of system reproduction and perpetuation. "
More information
- " in 1995, a core group of scholars from various disciplines, including Frank, convened in Lund (Sweden) to discuss the evolution of the world system/world-systems (Denemark et al. 2000). The product of the discussions was to engage and write world system history along a trans-disciplinary approach. It is best summed up by the title of the first volume of the group's collective research: World System History: The Social Science of Long-Term Change." [2]