scholarly journals Poland as a periphery in Immanuel Wallerstein’s theory

2022 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-193
Author(s):  
Piotr Lewandowski

The article presents the issue of peripheries and its reference to Poland’s position in the world-system concept of Immanuel Wallerstein. The article discusses problems related to international security of Poland. It also presents the perception of Poland as a peripheral country and, on the basis of theoretical considerations, argues for the possibility of viewing Poland as a semi-peripheral country. Publication financed under the project implemented in the Research Grant Program of the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Poland.

2021 ◽  
pp. 72-77
Author(s):  
A.V. Verkhoturov ◽  
◽  
A.A. Obukhov

Analyzed is one of the most comprehensive modern approaches to the problem of the existence of evolution of human society as such and of specific human communities, i.e. “General Theory of Historical Development” by American historian and sociologist Stephen Sanderson. While agreeing, in general, with its main ideas, we believe that it is important to note that the issue of existence of individual communities demonstrating devolution (regression to an earlier historical state), stagnation or degeneration at certain historical stages is practically ignored in the framework of the theory under consideration. This creates its vulnerability in the face of specific empirical data, indicating a deviation from the evolutionary trend. We believe that overcoming this theoretical difficulty is possible in the process of comprehending the theory of S. Sanderson in the context of ideas of the world-system approach of Immanuel Wallerstein. We want to show that examples of devolution, stagnation and degeneration of societies do not deny general progressive evolutionary tendencies, characteristic for the world-system as a whole, but only indicate the transition of a particular society to a lower level within the world-system (from the core to the semi-periphery, or from the semi-periphery to the periphery).


Author(s):  
Christopher Chase-Dunn ◽  
Marilyn Grell-Brisk

The world-system perspective emerged during the world revolution of 1968 when social scientists contemplated the meaning of Latin American dependency theory for Africa. Immanuel Wallerstein, Terence Hopkins, Samir Amin, Andre Gunder Frank, and Giovanni Arrighi developed slightly different versions of the world-system perspective in interaction with each other. The big idea was that the global system had a stratified structure on inequality based on institutionalized exploitation. This implied that the whole system was the proper unit of analysis, not national societies, and that development and underdevelopment had been structured by global power relations for centuries. The modern world-system is a self-contained entity based on a geographically differentiated division of labor and bound together by a world market. In Wallerstein’s version capitalism had become predominant in Europe and its peripheries in the long 16th century and had expanded and deepened in waves. The core states were able to concentrate the most profitable economic activities and they exploited the semi-peripheral and peripheral regions by means of colonialism and the emergent international division of labor, which relies on unequal exchange. The world-system analysts all focused on global inequalities, but their terminologies were somewhat different. Amin and Frank talked about center and periphery. Wallerstein proposed a three-tiered structure with an intermediate semiperiphery between the core and the periphery, and he used the term core to suggest a multicentric region containing a group of states rather than the term center, which implies a hierarchy with a single peak. When the world-system perspective emerged, the focus on the non-core (periphery and semiperiphery) was called Third Worldism. Current terminology refers to the Global North (the core) and the Global South (periphery and semiperiphery).


2019 ◽  
pp. c2-64
Author(s):  
The Editors

buy this issue Immanuel Wallerstein, the celebrated world-systems theorist and longtime contributor to Monthly Review and Monthly Review Press, died on August 31, 2019. Wallerstein first achieved international fame with the publication in 1974 of his The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (the first in a four-volume masterwork on the Modern World-System. We pay tribute to Wallerstein in this new issue of Monthly Review.


2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anand Kumar ◽  
Frank Welz

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Fernández

The goal of this article is to analyze two institutional contexts in which academic communities develop their educational activities: the enterprising university and academic capitalism. The methodology of analysis of Higher Education institutions in the world system uses the model developed by the sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein. This analysis focuses on three dimensions: the "consolidation of the world-economy of the academic capitalism" (the transformation of higher education as a commodity), the "de-capitalization of the public university" (the new policies of quasi-market and of financing associated with the "entrepreneurial university") and "geoculture of the system-world of the academic capitalism," linked to the society of the knowledge, managerial ideologies, and intellectual entrepreneurship, but also to counter-hegemonic ideologies that supports the autonomy of the university as a pre-condition for social development.


Author(s):  
Paul Prew

The beginning of the twenty-first century is characterized by instability in the world-system—ecological, economic, and political. Immanuel Wallerstein, based on Ilya Prigogine’s concepts, argues the capitalist world-system is its crisis phase and now faces its inevitable transition to a new state. This chapter introduces a new concept, sociopoiesis, to integrate the complexity sciences with Wallerstein’s approach to crisis and Karl Marx’s understanding of metabolism and metabolic rift. Based on these ideas, this article demonstrates that capitalism cannot be ecologically sustainable due to how it organizes its relationship with nature: its sociopoiesis. The ecological rifts created by the capitalist sociopoiesis will eventually put pressure on the crisis phase Wallerstein describes in the capitalist world-system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document