Commentary on "Leadership, Production, and Exchange: An Evaluation of World- Systems Theory in a Global Context"

As we expand and extend our applications of world-system theory, as we explore the shifting interplay between cores and peripheries, as we see boundaries emerge and dissolve, we also fix world-systems theory itself on the map table. What is its core? What are its peripheries, or would it claim that all human interactions fall within its sway?Thomas Hall, for example, does not take quite the entire map, but takes "intersocietal interaction" as the world-systems domain.

One way of viewing the discipline as a whole is to suggest that two overarching issues shape our orientations.Although I would not want to revive the old materialis t/mentalist debate, many anthropologist<; seem to center more on (1) issues of adaptation, evolution, ecology, and economy, while others center more on (2) meaning, symbols, and the cultural construction of experience.
Following different cmpha<;cs, we seem to have aligned ourselves into c ontcnding trib es and factions, sometimes ignoring one another, and sometimes trying to shout one another down.Is this really the apocalyptic struggle for anthropology's soul and future, or is it little more than the combat of different gra<;shoppcrs from different fields?Small matters, a<; Aristotle observed, often cause disputes, even though the fights arc not really about the small matters.The world-system<; approach, precisely because it is a systems approach, may find itself marginali zed if it fails to address some of the issues in contention within the discipline at large.I would propose addressing the problem in these terms:

Journa I of World-Systems Research
Ethnography and Agency, Faction and Identity, Structure and Systems Fieldworkers, whether they be ethnographers, archaeologists, linguists, or ethnohistori ans, arc quite thorough ly engro ssed in the "primary data ".Or, mor e pr ecisely, they arc in the mids t of whirling, buzzing confusions of people enacting their daily performances.A<; Radcliffe-Brown (among others) once told us, people do things (so we won't get confused about the supcrorganic--a warning for world-systems theorists).Even without Radcliffe-Brown's help, ethnographers quickly notice that people do things.And that leads most of us to wonder "Why?Why do those people do things?Ethnography draws us into the problem <; of agency, especial ly now that the long Boa<;ian tradition of cultural determinism ha<; lost its steam.To "explain " human behavior a<; a product of culture or cultural rules is simply to rephra..,e the question.It would seem rca..,onable to expect general theory of any sort to offer some accounting of the mechanism..,, processes, or fundamental causal connections that link it to actual human behavior.Theory, above all, is supposed to tell us why, but it still needs to translate that so that it may tell us who docs what.( 1) Surrounded by the swirling kaleidoscope of people .dQ.ing things, I have recently been looking more at the colors they display, the signs, the flags and banners, the gestures .It is not semiotic theory that leads me to this, but Aristotle.I look for the little things that people contest in lieu of the big things.I find them sometimes before I step out the door.For example, I almost never wear a necktie, yet I have chosen to do so on a few occa..,ions.Only recently have I been driven to the agony of the tic a.., a political sign.If I wear a tie, would anyone think I'm Republican?I don't think anyone would make that mistake, but it didn't really matter until Rush and Newt invaded not only my nightmares but even my wardrobe.
My decision on whether to wear a tic can, of course, be connected to world-system considerations.My tic ties me to J. Crew, who tell.., me it is made in the USA, absolving me of complicity with the tyranny in Burma.Nonetheless, the silk comes from unspecified foreign sources, so we're in the world-system.We could also explore the economics of tie Journa I of World-Systems Research ownership.However, none of this would have much to do with why I choos e to wear or not to wear a tie.That is an agony of another stripe.
Dressing is a form of struggle (this is the Greek meaning of "agony"), whether it be Ongka preparing for his big moka, or the businesswoman dressing for power, or an academic trying not to give a damn.Even if we don't give a damn, it still says something about who or what we arc and who or what we are not.Even for the unwitting, in many urban area.., in the U.S. clothing choice may be a matter oflife or death.Although athletic wear can be expensive enough to attract the odd armed robber, I do not think cconomistic orientations carry us very far toward understanding youth violence.
Although the struggle, the agony, may start from a piece of clothing, a gesture, a word, or even a color, everyone knows it's not really about the small stuff .It's about the big stuff, even if the participants themselves aren't always sure just what that is.But then trying to uncover that is why we have anthropologis ts.
What is at play, what is at stake, is part ofidcntity.No one sets out to be Everyman, but instead to be someone or part of something in particular ( even if that means being part of a large group or organization that limits apparent individual differenc es).Th e approach I would suggest docs not intend to center on the issue of how individual identity develops, but looks instead to group identities.
Sometimes group identities may be apparently as low-key as necktie choice.For example, we may find people in southwestern Madagascar who say they arc distinct from other Malagasy because They pronounce 11 / 11 ,for example, in positions where other people pronounce 11 d 11 • Thus, the {ifilJz.words for "taboo II and 11 wffe 11 are respectively faly and valy and notfady and vady.(Eggert 1986:331) Others may, given other circumstances, be more vehement:

We are Cheyenne, and all the shit of the world can't change that. [From the.film Pow wow Highway]
Group identity requires differentiation from others who may appear to be very similar, or who may in fact share a common recent history.From an cmic perspecti ve, the stakes may be higher precisely because the differences arc so slight (or at least initiall y so) from an ctic perspective.This makes for big fights over small stuff.The term I would use for groups in conflict not because they arc greatly different from one another, but instead because they arc in many ways similar is faction.
As Elizabeth Brumficl argues,

. .factional competition is implicated in developments as dive rse as the spread of ceram ic technology and maize agriculture, the origins o.fpermanen tly instituted leadership o.f!ices, the expansion and collapse o.fstates, and the European dominatio n o.findige nous New World peoples. (1994).
Studying factional competition takes us from the "primary data" of ethnography (and we can hope to spot its correlates in archaeology as well a.., in the archives) directly into world-system issues.It draws our attention to the importance of the small stuff that might be dismissed and overlooked from an cconomistic perspective.Even ifwc a.., academics aren't ca..,ily impressed with fa..,hion (but that's one of the things we use to mark our status), we cannot say that those athletic shoes, those design er labels, those colors don't matter..During a recent visit to Madaga..,car, I wa.., (perhaps plca ... antly) surprised to find that many, if not most, of the Malaga..,y we met were not greatly interested in the U.S. Nonetheless, it wa.., clear that some of the most highly prized [Page 6] Journal of World-Systems Research clothing items were t-shirts celebrating the various ca..,t memb ers of Beverly Hills 90210.Signalling identity or membership places a premium on access to special mark ers -objects, signs, and symbols that are not available to just anyone.Access may be restricted in a numb er of ways, but one of the most common is to seek markers that are rare because they hav e come a long distance.That long-distance trade in "preciosities" is important in elite competition and display is no longer news.I mention it now a', one example of how studying factional competition gives us processual links between ethno graphy and world-systems theories.
A further exa mple of the value of exploring factional compctiton is that it offers a correction to some of the Eurocentric a',sumptions that may still be a..,sociated with world-systems theory.Hall, among others, notes the Marxist ancestry ofworld-syste1rn theory and its continuity a.., left analysis.One important critique of ela.., sical left analysis is the concept, or a ... sumption, of cla..,s solidarity.As should have been painfully appar ent even in Marx's own time, "class solidarity", if it exists at all, rep eatedly fails to transc end national, ethnic, or even local boundaries.We might offer the counter-argument that conflict is mor e likely between persons or groups sharing similar conditions than betw een those in differing situations (Brumfiel 1994).
Factional competition between groups sharing many similariti es may then intensify th e politics of identity and reputa tion (Herzfeld 1987).This incr ca..,es the value of signs of difference, and, in time, may allow a budding off of a "new" group.Especially if such a new group is able to claim its own territory, it may then form th e core of an ethnicity.
Ethnogcncsis may then result from processes I described earlier und er the rubric of the anthropology of meaning.In other situations, it may also be understood in terms of adaptive radia tion, a.., a parent group moves into new environm ent and smaller group s bud off into their own niches (Barth; Kottak ).This latter ethno gcnesis proc ess would come under the rubric of the anthropology of adaptation.Whatever the process promoting differentiation from prior commonality, the result is a structural change.
Ethnogcncsis then incrca..,cs the number of players in competition.Where once everyone wa.., alike, and everyone pronounced their d's a.., d's, now we find differ ent people, who pronounce their d's a.., l's, and for that ( among other things) they may believe they arc a better people.In time, the differences appear to harden into essences.In time, they arc taken [Page 7] Journal of World-Systems Research a.., coming from time immemorial.In time, they become, a.., Bourdicu puts it, things that go unquestioned because they come unquestioned.
In time, then, what were once intra-group relations become intcrsoci ctal relations, and we arc brought back to the threshold of world-systems theories.The path I have outlined is rooted in what we may observe on the ground cthno graphically.It do cs not begin with system, but with human action, human agency in the context of structures shaping and shaped from that agency.The focus on factional competition draws our attention to contests over group boundedness, which may then be discussed in such terms a.., (a) standoffa, peer polity interactions, (b) domination, hegemony, standoff, and varying terms of incorporation in world-systems (c) adaptive radiation and cthnogcncsis.I would also cmpha..,izc that such an approach is neither cco nomistic nor idealist.By exploring what people do, particularly on behalf of factional competition and the politics of identity, we find that in some ca..,cs substantial material int erests arc at stake, whil e in others the crucial markers may be less tangible.

Does World-Systems Theory Work?
My point of departure wa.., to address the "fit" of world-systems theory to th e empirical materials or "primary data" that anthropologists and archaeologists arc engross ed in.My general readin g of the papers in this session (and others in anthropological and archaeological venues) is that the fit ranges somewhere from too damned baggy to too damned tight , with few report s of much in between.Complaints of baggy fit would be expected if world-systems theory is seen as applicable to any and all intersocietal interactions.

[Page 8] Journal of World-Systems Research
What then is not a ca<;e for world-systems theory?
Complaints of too-tight fit would be expected if world-systems theory requires all the baggage a<;sociatcd with the quest for comprehensive theories of capitalism.The mor e we arc wed to Wallerstein 1974, the more we are squeezed into formal wear (and, a<; I not ed earlier, that's not what anthropologists typically do).
Suggested solution---lct's stop buying off-the-rack theory.Wheth er Wallcrstein 1974 fits our materials doesn't matter.What does fit?Let's do some alterations both for fit and for getting pa<;t 1974's latest fa<;hion.A great deal of new work ha<; been done to get beyond the Euro/core centric bia<; of world-systems theory.Let's use it, and continue to work on the fit.We need the people engrossed in the primary data in ethnography, archa eology, and cthnohistory.Alexand er's paper seems to suggest a fit that is simultaneously too loose and too tight!She cites Barbara Price's complaint that world-systems theory is loose in identifying specific archaeological correlates.She then proceeds to argue that in her study area in th e Yucatan the expectation from world-systems theory that we should find core dominance and greater marginalization, or "disenfranchis ement" in the periphery apparently does not hold.This, however, is not surprising.Although a too -tight version ofw -s-t may lead to such a predicted outcome, the ethnographic and archaeological evidence does not sustain the inevitability of core dominance or hegemony at local levels, especially over considerable distances.The empirical ca<;cs, among which hers is another valuable contribution, should show a variety of degrees of incorp oration, standoff, or perhaps indifference in w-s encount ers.
A" Alexander observes, it is important to consider the significant role local conditi ons play in w-s interactions.Th e bottom-up approach of ethnograph y and archaeology is crucial for correcting any top-down bia<; still latent (if not dominant) in w-s-t.
Shutes also underscores the im portance of tailoring w-s-t from the bottom up : It isfrequently the case that those who exhibit an acute interest in ethnography are often chary about the use of broad -based theories to explain the incredible richness and diversity o.lhuman behavior that they encounter in their work.
[Page 9] Journal of World-Systems Research the By focusing on local production strategics, Shutes centers our attention on human action and thereby demystifies the focus on systems behavior endemic in systems approaches.By comparing two different regions within the European Union, he documents the different conditions of incorporation contested and negotiated at local levels.By doing so, he explores not only the diversity in w-s interactions, but puts human agency at th e center of our view rather than at its periphery.
A-; Jeske explores the question, "does it (w-s-t) work?" for the Mississippian, the response seems to be a qualified "maybc .. .if. 11 Much of the qualification is consistent with Alexander's complaint that the archaeological correlates ofw-s-t still need clearer definition.As Jeske puts it, we still need to sharpen " ... how to devise testab le hypothese s that would differentiate a w-s approach from other concepts such as int eraction spheres".
Jeske urges particular attention to problems of geopolitics and logi stics in int crsocictal power relationships.In concert with Stein, Jeske argues that "power distance decay" is a crucial problem for any claim of core coercive power over peripheral areas.Given ancient transport technologies, we must not overlook the severe limita tions on longdistancc power projection in archaeological ca-;cs.
Kuznar finds, a-; I have myself, that the military-expansioni st Inca state offers promising terrain for w-s analysis.The archaeological and cthnohistorical evidence allows us to sec expansion from Cuzco across a variety of regions that were home to a considerable variety of ethnic polities.One of the most intriguing a-;pccts of the Inca ca-;c for w-s-t is that, a-; Kuznar quotes Morris and Thompson (1985), The Inca polity ... appears to have emphasized the maintenance and manipulation of diversity rather than an attempt to integrate through the creation of cultural un(formity .

[Page 10] .Touma I of World-Systems Research
This offers intriguing opportunities for exploring a multiplicity of ways that incorporation or resistance may be played out in different regions.As Kuznar explores some of these, he raises important questions regarding the role of not only material but ideological interests.Several of our participants have criticized a bias in w-s-t (though I would suggest w-s-t of an older vintage) toward material exchange as the central dynamic.Again, by exploring the role of ideological contest and factional competition we may hope to gain greater insights on human agency than might be afforded through excessively cconomistic approaches.
Kardulias draws together a number of these themes as they apply to the Aegean.With Shutes and Alexander, he draws our closer attention to changes in production.Reprising a common theme in these papers, Kardulias urges us to break out of cconomistic shackles.As we sec argued also in Chase -Dunn and Hall, and as he cites Edens trade isjust one facet of core-periphery relations and cannot be comprehended without consideration of warfare, diplomacy, cultural hegemony, and the social contexts of production and consumption.
As he traces multiple levels of interaction in the Bronze Age World-System, Kardulias again underscores the variety in w-s interactions, so that it is not simply a unidirectional incorporation into a world economy.In doing so, Kardulias makes perhaps the strongest case for making a fit between local cases and w-s-t.First, he leaves behind the stru ggle to force early vers ions of w-s-t to fit cases they were not designed to cover, but instead suggests appropriate corrections as well as building upon other reformulation s such as those offered by Chase-Dunn and Hall.Second, the Aegean is a particularly promising region for w-s analysis in part because sea transport allowed movements (including bulk goods) and contacts otherwise difficult or precluded in other ancient politics.
A world-systems analysis of the Aegean allows us to transcend some of the insularity that has afflicted some of the traditional historical discussion of the region.Some of our predecessors seem to have resisted the notion that Greece even was connected to a wide r The "miracle of Greece" is not merely the result ofa unique talent.It also owes its existence to the simple phenomenon that the Greeks are the most easterly of the Westerners (1995:129) From this, perhaps it would not be such a great step to reach the observation ofw-s theorists such as Andre Gunder Frank and Chris Cha..,c-Dunn that in fact the Gr eek.., were simply the most westerly of the Ea..,tcrncrs!

[Page 11 ]
Journal of World-Systems Researchworld.More recently Walter Burk ert has commented that