In February, the Progressive and Critical Sociologist Network
discussion list had an exchange concerning the contributions and the
significance of the work of US sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein.
Reflecting on the exchange, I concluded that Wallerstein’s
contributions merit our collective consideration as social scientists,
historians, and philosophers.  Accordingly, I have published since
March 25 a number of posts on my blog that are dedicated to themes
related to the work of Immanuel Wallerstein.

         The central themes of the posts are the following.  On the
basis of a sustained encounter with African nationalism during the
1960s, Wallerstein became aware that African nationalists described
their social condition as a “colonial situation.”  Recognizing that
this African nationalist claim could not be denied, he sought explain
its origins.  He considered that conventional sociology, with
“society” as its unit of analysis, was not useful for this task.  Nor
was conventional political science, with its comparative approach,
helpful.  Neither did he turn to Marx or to Marxism-Leninism, and in
this he may have been influenced by African nationalism, in which a
consistent theme was the inapplicability of Marxism, at least in its
classic formulation, to the African situation.  He found answers to
the questions he was asking in the work of the French historian
Fernand Braudel, especially his concepts of the world-economy and the
long term.  He also found key answers in the work of the Polish
economic historian Marian Malowist and in Karl Polanyi’s classic work,
The Great Transformation.

        Thus emerged what Wallerstein calls “world-systems analysis,”
originally formulated on a basis of encounter with an anti-colonial
movement combined with the study of academic works guided by relevant
questions rather than disciplinary boundaries.  Wallerstein’s
world-systems analysis describes the origin and development of the
modern world-economy, thereby explaining the social dynamics that
established the “colonial situation” for the majority of people on the
planet.  It demonstrates that the disciplinary boundaries are
obstacles to understanding, and it provides the foundation for what
Wallerstein calls “historical social science” and I call “universal
philosophical historical social science.”

     Wallerstein’s world-systems analysis also reconnected the
knowledge of the universities with the knowledge of social dynamics
that has been developing in a form connected to social movements.  On
the basis of encounter with the proletarian movement of Western
Europe, Marx formulated a critique of political economy that advanced
scientific understanding of social dynamics.  Lenin, on the foundation
of his leadership of the Russian Revolution, further developed Marx’s
analysis.  But the insights of Marxism-Leninism were marginalized in
the university by scientistic epistemological assumptions and the
development of boundaries among philosophy, history, economics,
sociology, political science, anthropology, and Oriental studies.  But
the insights of Marxism-Leninism were appropriated by charismatic
leaders in revolutions throughout the world, further developing them
in accordance with particular national conditions.  Significant
moments in this process included the Chinese Revolution, the
Vietnamese Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, and revolutionary African
nationalism.  Thus, human knowledge of social dynamics was occurring
outside the universities, in a form connected to revolutionary
processes.  By encountering African nationalism and by ignoring
disciplinary boundaries in order to address the questions that the
encounter stimulated, Wallerstein connected the knowledge of the
universities to the knowledge of the movements.

      But there is a limitation here in world-systems analysis.
Wallerstein engaged in sustained encounter with African nationalism of
the 1960s, but not with other significant revolutionary processes.
This has left him with a limited understanding of Third World
revolutions in general, including the post-1995 renewal of the Third
World revolution that is occurring in Latin America today.

      The development of a universal philosophical historical social
science, to which Wallerstein’s work points, will require sustained
encounter with all Third World revolutionary processes and with
evolving Marxism-Leninism.

       I invite the readers of the list to visit my blog at the Global
Learning Website, “The View from the South: Commentaries on world
events from the Third World perspective.”  Find it at
http://www.globallearning-cuba.com/blog-the-view-from-the-south.html.

       The posts on Wallerstein are the following:  Wallerstein and
world-systems analysis (3/25/2014); Wallerstein and Africa
(3/26/2014); Wallerstein: Europe-centered or universal? (3/27/2014);
The terminal crisis of the world-system (3/28/2014); Domination and
ideology (3/31/2014); Reunified historical social science (4/1/2014);
Universal philosophical historical social science (4/2/2014); We can
know the true and the good (4/3/2104); How can knowledge be
reorganized? (4/4/2014); Wallerstein on liberalism (4/6/2014);
Liberals or revolutionaries? (4/7/2014); Wallerstein on Leninism
(4/8/2014); Wallerstein on revolution (4/9/2014); Wallerstein, Marx,
and knowledge (4/14/2014); The alternative world-system from below
(4/15/2014); Universal human values (4/16/2014); and An alternative
epistemology (4/17/2014).


     Charles McKelvey
     Professor Emeritus
     Presbyterian College
     Clinton, South Carolina

     Research Affiliate
     Center for US and Hemispheric Studies
     University of Havana

     Global Learning, LLC
     http://www.globallearning-cuba.com