Wolf chapter 1 Flashcards
Wolf’s general critique of social sciences
Treats nation-states/communities as bounded, static entities that are unchangeable. By creating isolated specialities of social scienes, such as treating politics, economics, history sociology and anthropology as distinct disciplines, one fails to look at how they connect and influence one another (in their attempts to explain the nature of society/human behaviour)
Wolf’s argument for nation-states being dynamic
Looking at history, nation-states have never been isolated - rather, influence between countries have persisted for years and years. External influence shape internal structures, which is under-emphasized in the social sciences
Three reasons why we insist on treating ourselves as “disconnected” to other entities
- Classroom education - A linear account of history, making it a Moral Success Story where there appear to be a “winner” of other “losing” and “erased” part of history (eg Colonisation of America)
- No discussion or emphasis of internal disputes - which fails to account for why some natives lives outside of their country
- Turning names into things. resulting in false models of reality (Reification) eg of “the West”, “the East” and “the Third World”.
What is a consequence of reification according to Wolf?
By treating an abstract as an actual thing, one can target it and influence it. Reification becomes an intellectual instrument (especially in the cold war). For instance, by treating the East as an entity, one can argue that they are a prey to communism, which requires “saving” from the free, democratic West. Similar to the third world - can argue that they are bound up in tradition.
This ultimately resulted in a mindset in which the “west” is superior or more advanced than the rest, and has justified “civilization/saving missions” - how to lead them to the happiness of the West (Modernization theory)
Forced Draft Urbanization
A consequence of Modernization, in which Western powers justified bombing rural areas (eg in Vietnam) to drive people to Urban areas and towards industrialisation
Critique of sociology
Looks merely at social relations and how these constitute society. Tries to balance / counter disorder by finding/explaining order. Society thus becomes a “seat of cohesion”, or a stable, internal structure, which encounters a boundary where orderliness/social relations grow less intense
“Society in need of order becomes a particular society to be ordered”.
The devt of sociological theory
In 19th cent. Europe, older social ties between people disintegrated under capitalism and industrialisation.
Many different sociologists/anthropologists have tried to conceptualise these changes, but most significantly:
Ferdinand Tönnies: from Gemeinschaft (community) to gesellschaft (society)
Robert Redfield: Folk to Urban Society
Result of capitalism / industrialization on society (Max Weber)
Vergellschaftung:
Relations rely on rational agreement by mutual consent.
This type of universal, overarching society REQUIRES modernity to exist, meaning bureaucracy, public participation, economic development
Modernization theory (according to Wolf)
a. an instrument of praise of modern societies
b. critical to those who are unable to achieve it
c. synonym for United States (“democratic”, “rational”, “secular”)
d. tradition = lack of development
e. classification of the world into
1. modern
2. transitional
3. traditional
which blocked any effective understanding between these nation-states
AND
discouraged analysis of intergroup interchanges, such as colonialism, imperialism, societal dependency and internal disputes.
Wolf on Anthropology
- (Historically) Too focused on description over explanation. Functionalist anthropology studies a “microcosm” and how this is maintained –> creates it into a theoretical construct (bounded entity).
- Eventually, the study shifted towards a study of meaning, inspired by linguistics. Yet a relational, dialectical perspective was still missing (Volosinov). Context is still crucial to understand meaning (eg Geertz and the wink)
- Anthropology is ultimately an offspring of imperialism - the study would not exist if imperialism did not take place. The study has an inherent assumption that those to be studied have no history. Also because 500 years of killing has been erased by Western powers.
Wolf on “the uses of Marx”
If antagonistic classes are a given in all societies, pursuit of order is always haunted by a specter of discord.
Positive things on Marx
1. Aimed at holistic social science by incorporating various specialisations
2. Argued of the existence of distinct modes of production in human history
3. Must understand the present and future based on historical growth of the world market and the course of capitalist devt.
Andre Gunder Frank on capitalism
He questioned modernization theory’s approach to econ devt. Argued that capitalism turned areas into dependent “satelites” of the “metropolitan center”.
Claimed it to be the “development of underdevelopment” (real shit)
Immanuel Wallerstein on capitalism
Claimed capitalism to be the “European World Economy” (real).
Resulted in a global division of labor between COREcountries (Frank’s metropolis) and PERIPHERYcountries (Frank’s satelites)
Intersection Frank x Wallerstein
Capitalism = Unequal exchange
periphery - coerced labour
core - free wage labour (stemming from high population density –> competition –> willingness to submit to market discipline
Takes the focus away from modernization theory to evolvement of capitalism.
Wolf’s critique of Wallerstein and Frank’s theories
By majorly focusing on how the core countries subjugate the periphery countries, not the reactions of the micro-populations, they neglect
1) Range and variety of such populations
2) their mode of existence before European expansion and capitalism
3) and how these were pentrated, subordinated and destroyed
Periphery becomes a cover for “traditional society” again, just another reification
