The Case for A World-System Approach to Civilizations

The world-system perspective is a field of study that aims to understand how our world came to
be. It is divided into several camps, all maintaining similar relations. The world-system is a
unitary concept and social system that makes up a self-contained "world" and became a global
system by the late twentieth century. It is the fundamental unit of analysis, and all
subcomponents, including modern nation-states, are part of a larger system. The term "world-
system" is correctly written with a hyphen since it represents a unified idea and societal structure
that forms a self-contained "world." This global system, known as the world-system, had
encompassed the entire planet by the end of the twentieth century. Wallerstein's examination
highlights the systemic characteristic of this emerging entity, emphasizing that the social
composition and role of each element within the system can only be comprehended in relation to
its systematic connections with all other elements. In terms of methodology, the system itself
serves as the primary unit of study. All subcomponents, explicitly including so-called "modern"
nation-states, are not completely autonomous actors but part of a larger system. As is well
known, a key aspect of this argument is Andre Gunder Frank's concept of the "development of
underdevelopment." That is, the development of the core states of this system depended on the
exploitation of peripheral components. Furthermore, peripheral dependence was not only vital to
core development, but necessarily entailed the simultaneous and consequential
underdevelopment of peripheral components. Wallerstein's analysis emphasizes the systemic
nature of the world-system, stating that the social structure and function of any component of the
system could only be understood in the context of its systematic relations with all other
components. This theory has been used to solve a sociological conundrum, arguing that some
social processes seem to have opposite results in core and peripheral countries.

In core countries, development promotes class formation and undermines status divisions,
improves the status of women, and leads to democracy. In peripheral countries, class formation is
undercut, racial and ethnic divisions are rife, the status of women declines with development,
and totalitarianism prevails over democracy. This modern, Wallersteinian, camp of world-system
theory has been accused of being "Eurocentric" due to its lack of attention to peripheral and
semiperipheral areas.

The anthropological camp has gained significant success by examining the interactions between
state expansion and "tribal" peoples. Eric R. Wolf's book, Europe and the People Without
History, argues that non-literate indigenous peoples have histories and that understanding their
societies requires understanding how their histories have shaped their social lives. Brian
Ferguson and Neil Whitehead's essay, War in the Tribal Zone, examines the interaction of state
expansion and "tribal" peoples, finding two consistent effects of war in the "tribal zone." These
effects are not unique to modern contacts but have occurred in most ancient civilizations or
world-systems. Archaeologists using world-system theory have faced frustration due to its focus
on circumscribed, local processes and neglecting intersocietal interactions in the production of
social and cultural change.

Precapitalist world-system analysis has four separate roots. The oldest is associated with Ekholm
and Friedman, who claim that capital accumulation has been a continuous process since the
formation of the first states in ancient Mesopotamia. Another root is found among
anthropologists and archaeologists who seek to explain intersocietal interactions, such as
connections between pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and the American Southwest, complex
developments in Oaxaca, Mexico, or early state formation in Mesopotamia. A third root is found
in world-system theorists who see a possibility of a major cyclical change coming sometime in
the next century and seek to understand that change by looking at past major changes in world-
systems.

The world-system approach to studying civilizations has evolved over time, with a focus on
intersocietal interaction systems. This approach has been divided into two camps:
continuationists and transformationists. The continuationists argue for a single, episodic world-
system, while the transformationists argue for multiple types of systems and their ongoing
transformations. Both approaches acknowledge the problematic bounding of relevant entities and
the importance of the system as the fundamental locus of social change.
The world-system approach also emphasizes the role of nonstate societies in the processes of
change, such as the role of nomads in the evolution of the continuous world-system. The term
"evolution" in world-system approaches refers to patterns in social change that led from a
situation of over 100,000 autonomous societies to the present state of an emerging global society
or civilization.

The precapitalist world-system research agenda is still expanding, with a focus on intersocietal
interaction systems. The fundamental difference between continuationists and transformationists
lies in their differing approaches. The paper addresses some of the issues raised by Melko and
focuses on the "transformationist" camp.

The author discusses Professor Melko's critique of world-system approaches to civilizational

studies, arguing that the term "evolution" is used differently by world-systems analysts. They
also discuss the concept of "modernization" as ethnocentrism elevated into "scientific dogma,"
and the fact that Immanuel Wallerstein pronounced "modernization theory" dead.

Underdevelopment refers to systematic changes in economic and social development in

peripheral areas due to interaction with developed areas. Melko critiques a world-system
approach that emphasizes economic interaction, neglecting internal conceptual integrity and
comparative study of civilizations. World-system analysts study the interplay between internal
structure and position in a system.

This paper discusses the existence of earlier world-systems and their roles in the emergence of
the modern world-system. It divides between continuityists and transformationists, focusing on
the transformation from one type to another. The paper also addresses the problem of interaction
between world-systems and their incorporation.

The research focuses on the incorporation processes in the American Southwest, comparing
Spanish empires, European empires, and world-systems. The modern world-system has three
boundaries that coincide, making their partial independence unproblematic. World-system
analysts and civilizationists differ in their perceptions of similarity and differences among world-
systems/civilizations.

Both world-system and civilization concepts have a vague definition due to fuzziness in their
boundaries. Civilizationists focus on cultural elements, while world-system analysis is overly
materialistic or economic. Culture and religion are often interconnected, with world-system
exchanges often facilitated by the spread of new ideologies, such as religion.

The role of ideology in incorporation processes is not yet fully understood. Wallerstein and
Bergesen argue that a hegemonic shift from the US to Japan is unprecedented in the modern
world-system. World-system analysts offer a systematically studied approach to understanding
intersocietal interaction, considering factors such as exchange, importance, and production. The
formation and transformation of systems reveal our evolution from small, autonomous bands
10,000 years ago to our modern global village, a complex and intriguing puzzle that warrants
various attempts.