Wallerstein

http://aok2.lib.umbc.edu/reserves/staff/bibsheet.php?courseID=3272&reserveID=11163[7/19/2010 1:16:18 PM]

Reserve Number: E15Name: Bazgan, NicoletaCourse: MLL 603Date Off: End of semester

Wallerstein, Immanuel. Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World-System. Theory, Culture &Society. vol. 7. no. 2-3. p. 31-55. June 1990.Electronic

The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or electronic reproductions ofcopyrighted materials. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or electronicreproduction of copyrighted materials that is to be "used for…private study, scholarship, or research." You may download one copy of suchmaterial for your own personal, noncommercial use provided you do not alter or remove any copyright, author attribution, and/or other proprietarynotice. Use of this material other than stated above may constitute copyright infringement.

c ‘. ,-3& ?? Culture & Society .

&I:J.P. and Robertslon, R. (1968) Internaiional Sysicms und tIic Modcrnizairon 6 ~ ~ o c i e 1 i a : The Fonnaiion,p$Naiional Goals ond A tiitudcs. London: Fabcr.

,rParsoru, 7. (1964) ‘Communism and thc Wcst: Thc Sociology or Conflict’, pp. 390-9 in A. and E. Etzloni (ds). Social Changc: Sources. Pa,tertis and Consequencer. New York: Dasic Dooks.

Parsons, T. (1967) Sociological Tlieory and Modern Sociely. Ncw York: Free P r a s . Robertson. R. (1978) Mcaning and Cliarrgc. Oxford: Dlackwcll. Robertson, R. (1987a) ‘Globaliration Thcory and Civiliwtion Analysis’,

Comparative Civilisoliont Review I7 (Fall): 20-30. Robertson. R. (1987b) ‘Globalization and Societal Modcrnization: A Note on Japan

and Japancsc Religion’. Sociological Analysir 47(S): 35-42. Robertson. R. (1989) ‘Globalization. Politics and Religion’. pp. 10-23 in J.A.

Bcckford and T. Luckmann (CJs), The Changing Face of Rcligion. London: Sagc. Roknson. R. (199Oa) ‘Aftcr Nostalgia? Wilrul Nostalgia a11d tlic P h u c s of

Globalization’, in D.S. Turncr (cd.). Theories of Modernity and Posiitiodcrniiy. London: Sagc.

Hobcrrson, R. (1990b) ‘Globality, Global Culturcand Inlagcs of World Order’. i l l 11. Hafcrkamp and N. Smclscr (cds). Sociul Chatigc atid Modcrniiy. Ucrkclcy: University of California Prcss.

Robertson, R. (forthcoming) ‘Social Theory. Cultural Kclaiivity and tllc Problcnl or Globality’. in A.D. King (cd.). Culiurc. GIo6alirotiorr and iltc World Sysiettt.

Robertson, R. and Chirico, 1. (1985) ‘Humanity, Globaliwtion and Worldwide

I’

*

-

Hcligious Hcsurgcncc: A Thcorc t ia l Exploration’. Sociological Atialysk 46: 21 9-42.

Robcrtson, R. and Lcchncr. F. (1985) ‘Modcrnization, Globalization and thc Problrm or Culturc in World-Systcms Thcory’. Theory, Culiurc & Society 2

Roxncrancc. R. (1986) The Rise of the Trgding Stole: Conrnierce and Conquat in

Smith. A.D. (1979) Naiionalkiti in tlic Tivcntieilt Ccntury. Ncw York: New York

Smith. A.D. (1981) The Eihnic Rcvival. Ncw York: Carnbridgc University Press. Wagar. W.W. (cd.) (1971) Hisiory and i/ic ldca of Mankind. Albuqucrque:

Univcrsiiy of Ncw Mexico P r s . ~’a~lcrs tc in . 1. (1987) ‘World-Systcms Analysis’, pp, JO9-24 in A. Ciddcns and J.

Turncr (cdi). ~ O C I 0 1 Theory Toduy. Stanford: Stanford Univcrsity I’rcss. Worslcy, P. (1984) The Three W’cirlffs: Culiurc and Dcvclvprttctrt. Lolldoll:

Wcidcnfcld and Nicolson. Wuthnow. R. (19781 ‘Religious Movcmcnts and thc Transition in World Ordcr’,

pp. 63-79 in J. Nccdlcman and G. Bakcr (cds). Undersranding ihc New Religions. New York: Scabury Press.

(3): 103-18.

the Modern World. Ncw York: Basic Dooks.

University Press.

Roland Robcrlson is Profcssor o f Sociology ai tlic Univcrsiiy of Pittsburgh and thcauthor ornurncrous papcrs and books on various aspects of thc global siluation, iiicluding his rorthcoming Globalize- tion (Sage).

Culture as the Ideological B ttl €3- Modern W o r 1 d -S y s t em

Im/nariuel Wallerstein

w

und

1

3

I t is not our lwrnali nalurc Ilia1 is iinivcrsal. but our capacity Lo create cultural rcalitia, and tlicn to act in tcrnis of tlicrn. (Mititz. 1988: 14)

I

Culturc is probably tlic broadest conccpt of all tliosc uscd in thc historical social scicnccs. i t ctiibraccs a vcry largc raiigc of coiiiiota- lions, and thcrcby it is thc causc pcrliaps of tlic most difficulty. Tlicrc is, liowcver, oiic fundamcntal confusioti i n our usagc which I sliall addrcss.

On ihc onc hand, o m of tlic basic buildilig sloiics of social scicncc’s vicw of thc world, most cxplicitiy cniphasizcd by thc anthropologists, is thc conviction that, whilc all pcrsons sharc sornc traits with all othcrs, all persons also sharc otlicr traits with only somc othcrs, and all pcrsons liavc still othcr traits which thcy sliarc with no onc clse. That is to say, thc basic niodcl is that cach pcrson niay bc dcscribcd in thrcc ways: tltc universal charactcristics of tlic spccics, the scts of characteristics that dcfinc tlial pcrson as a mcrnber of a series of groups, that persoti’s idiosyncratic charactcr- istics. Wlicn wc talk of traits wliich arc ncithcr universal nor idiosyncratic wc ortcn USC thc tcrm ‘culturc’ to dcscribc tlic collcc- Lion o f such traits, or or such bcliaviors. or of such valucs, or or such bclicfs. Ln short, in this usagc, cach ‘group’ has its spccific ‘culturc’. To bc surc, cach individual is a mcnibcr of many groups. and indccd of groups of vcry difrcrcnt kinds - groups classiricd by gendcr, by racc, by languagc, by class, by iiationality, elc. Tlicrcforc, cach pcrson participatcs in many ‘culturcs’.

I n this usagc, cullurc is a way of summarizing thc ways in which

Theory, Crtlrrtrc & Sociery (SAGL. Lolrdoil. Newbury Park and Ncw Uellri), Vd. 7 (IYYO). 11-55

I

32 Theory, Cutlure & Sociciy

groups distinguish thcmsclves from othcr groups. I t rcprcscnts what is sharcd within thc -group, and prcsumably simultancously not sharcd (or not cntircly sharcd) outside it. This is a quitc clcar and quite uscful conccpt. On thc othcr hand, culturc is also uscd to signify riot thc totality of

thc spccilicity of onc. group against anotlicr but instcad ccrtaiii charactcristics wifhin thc group, as opposcd to othcr charactcristics within thc samc group. Wc usc culture to rcfcr to the ‘higher’ arts as opposed to popular or cveryday practice. Wc usc culturc to signify that which is ‘superstructural’ as opposcd to that which is thc ‘basc’. Wc usc culturc to signify that which is ‘symbolic’ as opposcd to that which is ‘material’. Thcsc various binary distinctions arc not idcntical, although they all sccrn to go in thc dircction of the ancicnt philosophical distinctions bctwecn thc ‘idcal’ and thc ‘rcal’, or between thc ‘mind’ and thc ‘body’.

Whatcvcr the mcrits of thcsc binary distinctions, thcy all go in a quitc different structural dircction from thc other usc of culturc. They point to a division within the group rather than to thc unity of thc group (which of course is thc basis of division bctwccn groups). Now, this ‘confusion’ of thc two tonalitics of thc conccpt, ‘culturc’, is so long-standing that it cannot be a mcrc ovcrsight, cspecially given thc fact that thc discussion of culture in general and of its definition in particular has been so voluminous throughout the nineteenth and twenticth centuries.

I t is safcst to prcsumc that long-standing intcllcctuai confusions arc dcliberatc and the fact of thc confusion should itsclf bc thc starting-point of thc analysis. Sincc this voluminous discussion has in fact takcn placc largcly within the confines of a singlc historical system, thc capitalist world-economy, it may bc that not only thc discussion but thc conccptual confusion arc both thc conscqucncc of thc historical dcvclopmcnt of this systcm and rcflcct its guiding logic.

The philosophical distinctions bctwecn thc ‘idcal’ and the ‘rcal’ and betwecn the ‘mind’ and the ‘body’ arc vcry ancicnt, and have givcn rise, broadly speaking, to two pcrspcctivcs, at least witliin thc context of so-callcd Wcstcrn philosophy. Thosc who havc prornotcd thc primacy of thc ‘idcal’ or of thc ‘mind’ havc tcndcd to arguc that the distinction points to an ontological rcality, and that thc ‘idcal’ or the ‘mind’ is morc important or noblcr or i n sornc way supcrior 10 thc ‘rcal’ or the ‘body’. Thosc who liavc proniotcd ~ h c primacy of thc ‘rcal’ or thc ‘body’ did not howcvcr takc thc invcrsc position.

Wallcrstcin, Culture as (he Ideological Llar(l.?groutid 33

Instcad, tlicy tcndcd to arguc that thc ‘idcal’ or the ‘mind’ arc tiot distinct csscnccs but rathcr social inventions, and that only thc ‘real’ or thc ‘body’ truly cxist. In short thcy liavc tclldcd to argue that the vcry conccpt of tlic ‘idcal’ or tlic ‘niiiid’ arc idcological wcapons of control, iiitciidcd L O inask Llic true cxisrcntial sittintioil.

Lct us thus dcsignatc as culturc (usagc I ) tlic sct of charactcristics which distiuguish oiic group rroni anotlicr, and as culture (usagc 11) somc sct o f phcnomcna which arc difrcrcnt from (and ‘liighcr’ tlian) some othcr sct of plicnomcna witliin any onc group. Tlicrc is otic grcat problcm about culturc (usagc I). Who or what has such a culturc? I t sccms that ‘groups’ liavc. But i f ‘culturc’ is tlic tcrin i i i

our scicntific vocabulary which has tl1c broadcst and 11iost confusing usagc, ‘group’ is the tcrm tliat has tllc vagucst usage. A ‘group’ as a taxonomic tcrm is anything anyonc wishcs to dcfinc as a group. Thcrc exists no doubt, to follow thc ulfiutcl rufio of such a tcrm: a ‘group’ of all those who arc of a given hcight, or who havc a ccrtain color hair. But can such ‘groups’ be said to have ‘cultures’? There would bc fcw who would claim so. Obviously, i t is oniy ccrtain ‘groups’ thcn that havc ‘culturcs’.

Wc could try this cxcrcisc starting from tlic othcr dircction. To what kinds of groups arc 'cultures' (usagc 1) normally attributcd? Nations arc oftcn said to have a national culture. ‘Tribes’ and/or ‘cthnic groups’ arc oftcn said to have a culture. I t is not unusual to rcad about the ‘culturc’ of ‘urban intcllectuals’, or of tlic ‘urban poor’. Morc rarcly, but frcqucntly, wc might rcad of tlic ‘culturc’ of ‘Communists’ or of ‘rcligious fundamcntalists’. Now what thosc ‘groups’ presumed to havc ‘culturcs’ (always usage I ) sliarc in comnion is that thcy scem to liavc somc kind of sclf-awarcncss (and thcrcforc a sense o f boundaries), somc sharcd pattcrn of socializa- tion combiiicd with a systcm of ‘rcinforccnicnt’ of tlicir valucs or of prcscribed bchavior, and somc kind of organization. Tlic organiza- tion may be quite formalizcd, as in tlic casc or a nation-state, or it can bc quite indircct, as for example the sharcd newspapcrs, magazines, and possibly tlic voluntary associations which act as communication nctworks bctwccn ‘urban intcllcctuals’.

Howcvcr, as soon as 1 raise thc qucstioii of who or what has a culture, i t bccomcs ininicdiatcly obvious how slippcry is thc tcrrain. What is the cvidcncc that any givcn group has a ‘culture’? Thc answcr is surcly not that all prcsumcd ‘rncnibcrs’ of any of tlicsc groups act similarly I O cach othcr and diffcrcntly from all otlicrs. At most, wc could arguc for a statistically sigriificaltt rclatioliship

34 Theory, Culiure d Socieiy

-between group ‘membcrship’ and ccrtain behavior, or valuc-

Furthcrmorc, if wc prcss thc mattcr a littlc furthcr, i t is quitc clcar that our statistical findings would vary constantly (and probably significantly) ovcr timc. That is to say, bcliavior or valuc- prcfcrcnccs or howevcr ooc dcfincs culturc is of coursc an cvolving phcnomcnon, cvcn if i t is a slowly-cvolving onc, at lcast for ccrtain charactcristics (say, food habits).

Yet, on thc othcr hand, it is surcly truc that pcoplc in diffcrcnt parts of thc world, or in diffcrcnt epochs, or in diffcrcnt rcligious or linguistic communitics do indced bchavc diffcrcntly from each othcr, and in ccrtain ways that can bc spccificd and fairly casily obscrvcd. For cxamplc, anyonc who travcls from Norway to Spain will note that the hour at which rcstaurants arc most crowdcd for thc ‘cvcning meal’ is quitc diffcrcnt in thc two countrics. And anyonc who travcls from Francc to thc US will obscrvc that tlic frcqucncy with which forcign strangcrs arc invitcd to homcs is quitc diffcrcnt. The lcngth of women’s skirts in Brazil and Iran is surcly strikingly diffcrcnt. And so on. And I havc only citcd hcrc clcmcnts of so- called evcryday bchavior. Wcrc l to raisc morc metaphysical issues, it would bc casy. as cvcryonc knows, to clucidatc group differenccs.

So, on thc onc hand, diffcrcnces arc obvious - which is what the conccpt of culturc (usagc I) is about. And yct the degrcc to which groups arc in fact uniform in thcir behavior is distressingly difficult to maintain. Whcn Mintz says that wc havc a ‘capacity to crcatc cultural rcalitics and thcn to act in tcrms of thcm’, I cannot bu t agrce. But I thcn wondcr how wc can know who thc ‘wc’ arc who havc this capacity. At that point, I bccomc skcptical that wc caii operationalizc thc conccpt of culturc (usagc 1) in any way that enables us to usc i t for statcmcnts that arc morc than trivial. The anthropologists, or at lcast sornc of them, havc argued convincingly that the conccpt of ‘human naturc’ cannot be uscd to draw mcaning- ful implications about rcal social situations. But is this not cqually truc of thcir proposcd substitutc, culturc?

This thcn is whcrc I bcgin. Culturc (usagc I ) sccms not to gct us vcry far in our historical analyscs. Culturc (usagc 11) is suspcct as an idcological covcr to justify thc intcrcsts of sornc pcrsons (obviously thc upper strata) within any givcn ‘group’ or ‘social systcm’ against thc intcrcsts of othcr persons within this sarnc group. And if, indccd, thc vcry distinction of ‘idcal’ and ‘real’, ‘mind’ and ‘body’ wcrc acknowledgcd to bc an idcological wcapon of control, thcn thc

* I prcferenccs, or whatever;.

Wallcrstcin, Culture as the /deological Battlqrotirrd 35

confusion of thc two usagcs of culturc would bc a vcry logical conscqucncc, sincc i t would no doubt add to the proccss of masking tlic truc cxistcntial situation. l would likc thcrclorc to tracc tlic actual dcvclopmcnt of thc ‘culturc’ (in citlicr or both usagcs) ovcr timc within thc historical systcm wliich has givcn birth to this cxtcn- sivc and confusing usc of tlic conccpt of culturc, thc modcrn world- systcni which is a capitalist world ccononiy.

11

Let us bcgin by rcvicwing somc of tlic rcalitics of tlic cvolution of this historical systcm, as thcy havc affcctcd thc way its participants ‘thcorizcd’ it. That is, 1 am conccrncd with thc dcgrcc to wliich this historical systcm bccamc conscious o l itsclf and bcgan to dcvclop intcllectual and/or ideological frameworks wliich both justified i t , and impcllcd its forward movcmcnt, and thcrcby suslaincd its rcproduction. 1 sliall mcntion six such rcalitics which havc implica- tions for tlic thcorctical formulations that liavc comc to pcrmcatc thc systcm.

1. The capitalist world-cconorny is constructed by irilcgraling a geographically vast sct of production proccsscs. Wc call this h c cstablishrnent of a single ‘division of labor’. Of coursc, all historical systems are based on a division of labor, bul notie before was as complcx, as cxtcnsivc, as dctailcd, arid as cohesive as that of llic capitalist world-economy. Tlic political franicwork within wliicli this division of labor has grown up has not liowevcr bccn that of a world cmpirc, but instcad that of an interstalc system, itsclf a product o f tlic historical dcvclopmcnt of this systcm. This intcrslate systcm has bccn composcd of, and givcn birth and lcgitiniacy to, a scrics of so-callcd sovercign statcs, whose dcfining characteristic is thcir tcrritorial distinctivcncss and coiigrucncc combined with their membcrship in and constraint by this intcrstatc systcm. I t is not thc intcr-state systcrn, Iiowcvcr, but tlic scparatc statcs that control the nicans o f violcncc. Furthcrmorc, thcir control is in thcory cxclusivc within thcir respcctivc jurisdictions. Althougll such total control is a myth. statc prc-emption of violcncc is at Icast inassivc, i f ncvcr cxclusivc.

This organization of social lifc whcre the prcdominant 'economic' prcssurcs arc ‘intcr-national’ (a bad tcrm, but tlic one in common usc), and tlic prcdominant ‘political’ prcssurcs arc ‘national’ poiats

36 Theory, Culrurc & Society

!,o a first contradiction in thc way participants can cxplicatc and justify thcir actions. How can onc cxplain and justify tlicm nationally and intcrnationally simultancously?

2. Thc capitalist world-cconomy functions, as do most (pcrhaps all) historical systcms by mcans of a pattcrn of cyclical rhythms. Thc most obvious, and probably thc most important, ofthcsc rhythms is a sccmingly rcgular proccss of expansion and contraction of tlic world-cconomy as a wholc. On prcscnt cvidcncc, this cyclc tcnds to be from fifty to sixty years in length, covcring its two phascs.

Thc functioning of this cyclc (somctimcs callcd ‘long wavcs’, sornctimes Kondraticff cycles) is cornplcx and I will not rcvicw it here (see, for example, Wallerstcin, 1982). Onc part, howcvcr, of the process is that, pcriodically, thc capitalist world-economy has seen thc nccd to cxpand the geographic boundarics of thc systcm as a whole, crcating thcrcby ncw loci of production to participatc in its axial division of labor. Over 400 ycars, thcsc succcssivc cxpansions have transformcd thc capitalist world-economy from a systcm located primarily in Europc to onc that covcrs thc cntirc globc.

The succcssivc cxpansions that havc occurrcd havc bccn a conscious process, utilizing military, political, and ccononiic prcssurcs of multiple kinds, and of coursc involving thc ovcrcoming of political resistances in the zones into which thc geographic expansion was taking placc. We call this proccss ‘incorporation’, and it loo is a complex one (scc Hopkins and Wallcrstcin, 1987). This proccss points to a sccond contradiction which thc populations of cach succcssivcly incorporated zonc faccd. Should thc trans- formations that wcre occurring in their zonc be conccived of as changcs from a local and traditional ‘culturc’ to a world-widc modern ‘culturc’, or wcrc thcsc populations rather simply undcr pressure to givc up thcir ‘culturc’ and adopt that of the Wcstcrn imperialist powcr or powcrs? Was it, that is, a case of modcrnization or of Westernization?

3. Capitalism is a system based on thc endless accumulation of capital. I t is therefore a system which rcquircs thc maximum appropriation of surplus valuc. There arc two ways to incrcasc the appropriation of surplus valuc. One is that workcrs work harder and more efficiently, thcrcby creating greater output with the samc amount of inputs (othcr than human labor-timc). Thc sccond way is to return Icss of the valuc that is produccd to thc dircct produccrs. In short, capitalism by definition involvcs a prcssurc on all dircct producers to work more and to be paid Icss.

c Wallcrstcin, Culture as [lie Ideological Ba[llcgrourid 37

This rcquircnicnt howcvcr ruiis afoul of lhc logic of tlic iiidivi- dual‘s pursuit of Iiis/licr owii intcrcsl. Tlic iiiost obvious iiicciitivc for hard work is Iiiglicr rccoiiipciisc. Oiic C ~ I I substitutc cocrcioii for liiglicr rccoinpciisc, but of coursc cocrcioii also has 3 cost and thcrcby its usc also rcduccs surplus valuc. I t follows that, utilcss oiic can substitutc (at lcast partially) sornc othcr motivation for work othcr than rccompcnsc or fcar, i t is vcry difficult to obtain simultancously tlic twin goals of hardcr work aiid lower pay. How can one think about this systcm in such a way as to achicvc this objcctivc?

4. Capitalism as a systcin rcquircs inovcmcnt aiid changc, at lcast formal changc. Thc maximal accumulation of capital rcquires riot only goods and capital to circulate bu t manpowcr as well. I t rcquircs in addition a constant evolution in thc orgaiiization of production in terms both of the naturc o f thc lcading scctors aiid of tlic sitcs of production. We usually analyzc tlicse plicnomcna undcr two labcls - that of economic innovation and that olthc riscaiid fall of nations.

Oiic priiicipal coiiscquciicc of this rcality is tlic ciioriiious cniphasis placcd witliiii thc iiiodcrn world-systcni 011 tlic virtucs of ‘ncwncss’. No prcvious historical systcin has cvcr bccii bascd oil a thcory of progress, indccd a thcory of iiicvitablc progrcss. But thc emphasis on newness, and its constant iinplcmentation (at lcast at the lcvcl of form) raiscs prcciscly tlic question of lcgitimacy - lcgitimacy of the historical systcm in gcncral; Icgitiinacy of irs kcy political institution, tlic various sovcrcign states, in particular. From Bodin to Weber to Mao Zcdong the qucstion of Icgitiinacy has bcen constantly dcbatcd and sccn as an cxtrcrncly knotty issuc to rcsolve. I t is particularly difficult becausc tlic vcry advocacy of thc virtucs of ncwncss undcrmincs tlic lcgitimacy of any authority, howcvcr laboriously the lcgitimacy was achieved.

5 . The capitalist system is a polarizing system, both in its rcward pattcrn and in thc dcgrcc to which pcrsons are increasingly forccd to play socially polarized rolcs. I t is, liowcvcr, also an expanding systcm and thcrciorc oiic in which all thc absolutc parainctcrs liavc taken thc form of a lincar upward projection ovcr tinic. Sincc its outsct, thc capitalist world-cconoiny has had cvcr inore productivc activity, cvcr more ‘value' produccd, cvcr niorc population, cvcr more invcntions. Thus, i t has had cvcr niorc outward signs of wcalth.

And yet, if i t has bccn a polarizing systcm, i t must at thc lcast be

38 Theory, Culrurc & Socicly

I truc that this incrcasc of wcalth has bccn going to only a small proportion of thc world’spopulation. I t might cvcn bc thc casc that real consumption pcr world capita has not bccii kccping pacc. For examplc, it is surcly thc casc that thcrc is lcss physical spacc pcr capita and fcwcr trccs pcr capita now than 400 ycars ago. What docs this mcan in terms of that clusivc but vcry rcal plicnomenon, thc ‘quality of lifc’?

Thc contradiction thcrcforc that nccds to bc liandlcd is that between 'progress' and dctcrioration, bctwcen visibly incrcasing wealth and vcry rcal impovcrishmcnt. Thc only way to defusc the rcsulting angcrs may wcll bc dcnial, but how is i t possiblc to dcny phcnomcna that arc so public, and wliosc public charactcr is iridccd one of thc cxigcncics of thc systcm? Thai is, thc cndlcss accumula- tion of capital rcquircs as onc of its mcchanisms a collcctivc oricnta- Lion towards consumption.

6. Finally, thc capitalist world-cconomy is an liistorical systcm. And being historical, i t has a lifc cyclc and, as any othcr such system, must at some point cease to function as the conscquence of thc aggrcgatcd rcsults of its cvcntually paralyzing contradictions. But i t is also a system which is based on a particular logic, that of thc ceaseless accumulation of capital. Such a systcm thcrefore must preach the possibility of limitless cxpansion.

Limitless expansion can sccm euphoric, as in the imagc of wafting upward into heaven, or disastrous, as in thc image of hurtling downward into spacc. In a scnsc, both images constrain action since thcre sccms to bc littlc an individual can do to affcct thc pattcrn. Tlic mundane rcality howcvcr is morc complcx, morc unscttling, but also more subject to human will.

As systems move towards their natural dcmisc they find thcmsclvcs in ‘transition’ to uncertain futurcs. And thc vcry unccrtainty, which at onc lcvcl is libcrating, is also disconcerting. Thus we arc faccd with thc dilemma of how to think about such transformation, whcthcr to deny thc process of systcmic ‘dcath’ or instcad to wclconic thc proccss of systcmic ‘birth’.

d

111

Thc ‘culturc’, that is tlic idca-systcm, o f this capitalist world- cconomy is thc outcornc of our collcctivc historical aitcmpts to comc to terms with thc contradictions, thc ambiguities, tlic complcxitics of the socio-political realities of this particular system. Wc havc

Wallcrstcin, Culture as [lie Ideological Battlegroutid 39

donc i t in part by crcating tlic coiiccpt of ‘culture’ (usage I) as tlic asscrtioii of unchanging rcalitics amidst a world that is in fact cease- lcssly changing. And wc liavc donc i t ia part by crcatiug tlic conccpt of ‘culturc’ (usagc 11) as tlic justification of thc incquitics of tlic system, as the attcmpt to kccp tlicni unchanging ill a world which is ccaselcssly t hrcateiicd by change.

The qucstion is how is this donc? Sincc i t is obvious that intcrests fundamcntally divcrgc, it follows that such constructions of ‘culturc’ arc scarccly neutral. Thcrcforc, the vcry construction of culturc bccomes a battlcground, thc kcy ideological battlcground in fact of thc opposing iritcrcsts within this historical systcm.

Thc hcart of tlic dcbatc, i t sccms to ~ i i c , rcvolvcs around tlic ways in which thc prcsunicd aiitinomics of unity and diversity, univcrsalism and particularlism, liuinanity and racc, world arid nation, person and man/woman liavc bccn manipulatcd. I liavc prcviously argucd that thc two principal idcological doctrincs that liavc cmcrgcd in thc liislory of thc capitalist world-cconoaiy - that is, univcrsalism on thc one hand and racism and scxisni 011 thc otlicr - arc riot oppositcs but a symbiotic pair. I liavc argucd tliat their ‘right dosage’ has madc possible the functioning of thc systcm, one which takes the form of a continuing ideological zigzag (Wallerstein, 1988).

I t is this zigzag which is at the basc or the delibcratc confusions inhercnt in the two usages of tlic concept of ‘culture’. I should likc to illustratc the issues by analyzing some comments madc by a polit- ical intcllcctual in Jamaica, Rcx Ncttlcford, in a spccch he gavc in 1983 to a political party mcctiiig, a party that calls itsclf thc Pcoplc’s National Party. Tlic spcccli itsclf, whcn reprinlcd, bore thc titlc ‘Building a Nation, Shaping a Socicty’. Nettlcford wishcd 10 cmphasizc thc iinportancc of a ‘scnsc of Iiistory’ in building a iiatioii against those who ‘tcach our young that tlicy have no liistory worth studying, only a futurc which . . . they arc expcctcd to conquer’. Hcrc is what Ncttlcford said:

‘Black’ docs not mcrcly incan skin in tlic liistory of thc Aincricas. It rncans culture - a culturc wovcn out of tlic cncountcrs bctwecn the millions of West Arricans brought as slavcs and tlic millions of Europcans who came as niaslers. scrtlcrs or indcnlurcd labourcrs. In Jamaica aiid tlic Caribbean the substance of a truly indigcnous lifc. lor a11 its tcxturc. has bccn lorgcd 111 tlic crucible oltlic black niajority’s carly crlorts to conic to tcriiis with tlic iicw cnvironnient aiid IO

survivc. That was a strugglc of a ~undatiicntal aiid clcnicii~al kind. and i t is that strugglc which is bcing dcnicd i t s propcr placc in ~ l i c ccono~iiic. bocial and cullurat

r(v I ticory, cul lure d: Socrciy

c

cthos of this socicty. I scnsc a dcblackcning o r i h c cilios. a pcrsistcni conicmpt in ;.rfsicial and cocktail circlcs Tor thc fruits or our pcoplr’s Iabuurs. and a liypocriiical rcfugc is bcing takch in our national motto by tliosc who prcfcr io cmphasizc tlic word ‘many’ sincc io ihcm thc ‘onc’ may nicaii tlic majority. ‘Out of many onc pcoplc’ bccomes ‘out or many onc’. So wc kccp tlic country pluralist and dividcd with the rnarginalizcd majority rcniaining niarginal. and a privilcgcd In* (with many ‘roast brwdfruits’ aniong thcni) holding on to the economic. social and cultural powcr in ihc land.

Thc real truth is that our pcoplc arc bcitcr than wc likc io think: wc arc not that unsophisticatcd io bc racist. but we arc not that foolish not io bc racc conscious. And on that dcliwtc balancing of scnsibilitics rests tlic unusual sophistiation of the mus of this population. I t is that sophistication which mislcads not only our own ludcrs. but thosc from outsidc who say thcy want to hclp us. Our pcoplc who havc gone through centuries of sirugglc know that ‘what is pcrtincnt today is not simply freedom from forcign opprcssion (wliicli in our own primitivc way we can d u l with). but thc creation within this country of socio-cconomic and political framcworks which accord high valucs to the liuman pcrsonality’. Wc arc vcry uptight about our personac. about our pcrsonal rccogniiioii and status. and wc hold suspect any class of pcoplc insidc o r ouisidc our nation. who would agrcc with a oncc influential Jamaican privatc sccior Icadcr. who iri criticising ilic policies of a certain rcgimc in the rcccni past said tliat during tlic scvcntia ‘our rich national culturc had bccn rcduccd. shrunken io lit into the narrow conccpt of a vigorous black culture’. She wassaying this in a country wlicrc ilic vasr majority arc hopcicssly of that ‘culturc.’ Anything that cxprcsscs thc imagc oT tlic niajority is a ‘reduction’ and a ‘shrinking’! Wc arc no1 likely to sliapc a sociciy or build a nation with such bclicfs in place. and cspccially iT they arc io be round among thosc in thc powcr structurc; and so I implorc this forum to think scriously on thesc things. (Ncttlcford, 1986: 9-10)

c

Noticc in this analysis that thc dcfinition o f a culturc is ccntral. Ncttlcford wants to build and shapc an cntity hc calls a nation or a socicty. This is of coursc standard languagc and sccms to rcfcr to culturc (usagc I), a usagc which prcsumably cmphasizcs thc ways in which Jamaicans arc alikc. But hc procccds to obscrvc that othcrs, ‘found among thosc in thc powcr structurc’ or this samc Jamaica, also claim thcy wish to do thc samc.

The two groups sccm to bc using the national motto ‘out or many one pcople’ to mean oppositc things. Those who Ncttlcford calls the ‘privileged few’ cmphasizc ‘pluralism’ within and unity without (‘frccdom from forcign opprcssion’). Ncttlcford says this ncglccts entirely thc ‘black majority’ who arc ‘rnarginalizcd’ and who arc sccking ‘the crcation within [Jamaica] of socio-ccononiic and polii- ical frarncworks which accord high valucs to tlic hurnan pcrsonality’ (which prcsumably mcans an incrcasc in ccononiic and social equality).

Wallcrstcin, Cullurc us (lie Ideological Ua[llcgroutrd 41

How arc lhc privilcgcd fcw doing this? I3y ‘a debluckerrirrg or thc cthos’, by hypocritically cmpliasizing tlic ‘many’ in [lie national motto, by railing to tcacli a fact (onc that is a fact liowcvcr not of the history of Jamaica, but of thc history of tlic Arncricas, aiid thcrcforc of thc world-systcm). This fact is that ‘millions of Wcst Africans [wcrc] brought as slavcs’ whilc ‘millions of Europcans . . . came as masters, scttlcrs or indcnturcd labourcrs’. Thc historic encounters of thcse two groups ‘in Jamaica and thc Caribbcan’ forgcd the ‘tcxcurc’ of a ‘truly indigenous life’. ‘Black’ is thc term of thc rcsultant ‘culturc’, which is ‘vigorous’ atid not a ‘reduction’ or a ‘shrinking’.

So, in thc cnd, what is bcing said is that thc assertion of ‘black- ness' as constitutivc of thc national ‘culture’ of Jamaica (culture licrc in usagc I ) is thc modc by which tlic ‘rnarginalizcd majority’ can liopc to protcct thcmsclvcs agaitlst tlic clainis of thc ‘privilcgcd fcw’ to rcprcscnt a highcr ‘culturc’ (usagc 11). Thus what sccms particularist at thc lcvcl of thc world-systcm (‘blackncss’) scrvcs as an asscrtion of a univcrsalist tlicnic (‘high valucs to thc human pcrsonality’). This, says Ncttlcford, is bcing ‘racc conscious’ but not ‘racist’, wliicli Iic admits rcquircs a ‘dclicatc balancing of scnsibil- itics’. In this complicated rcasotiing, which sccms to rnc correct, thc morc ‘blackness’ that Jamaica would exhibit, tllc more color- blindncss (or humanist valucs) i t would cxhibit.

YCS, you may respond, pcrliaps so, but whcrc docs this argunicnt cnd? At what point do wc cross tlic linc from ‘racc consciousness’ to ‘racism’? For thcrc arc clcarly many, many cascs across tlrc world whcrc thc asscrtion of tlic particularist ‘culturc’ of tllc (national) ‘majority’ to thc cxclusion of tlic minority or niinoritics could be sccn as opprcssivc? Havc I3rctons no ‘cultural’ claims in Francc, Swcdcs in Finland, Ailiu in Japan, Tamils it1 Sri Lanka, Kurds i t t

Turkcy, Hungarians in Komauia? Ncttlcford might agrcc - I do not know - that all thcse latter

groups havc lcgitimatc claims to their ‘cultural’ assertion, and still arguc that thc situation is historically diffcrcnt i n Jamaica. Wlly? Essentially because in Jamaica i t is thc majority that has been histor- ically ‘rnarginalizcd’. arid not tlic various ‘minoritics’. And, as long as that remains truc, thcn ncgritudc or any similar particularism may servc as thc ncgation or the ncgation, as Sartrc (1949) argued in ‘Black Orphcus.”

What tlic Ncttlcford quotc docs is to dcinonstratc how tanglcd i s thc skcin or cultural dcbatc in thc capitalist world-cconomy, but also

.‘

42 Tlrcory, Culture d Sociefy

% how covered with ncttles, and thcrcfore how careful we nccd to bc if we wish to understand and evaluatc this idcological battlcground.

I V

I would likc to takc cach of thc six contradictions of the capitalist world-economy and show how thc idcologics of univcrsalism and of racism-scxism hclp contain cach of the contradictions, and why thercforc thc two idcologics arc a symbiotic pair.

1. Sincc thc capitalist world-cconomy is a world-systcm, and for some timc now one that has cxpanded to cover thc cntirc globc, i t is easy to sec how universalism rcflects this phenomenon, and indecd this has been onc of thc most explicit cxplanations of thc ideologists. Today we havc a nctwork of Unitcd Nations structures, based in theory on thc Univcrsal Dcclaration of Human Rights, asscrting the cxistcncc of both intcrnational law and valucs of all humanity. Wc have universal time and spacc measurcmcnls. Wc havc a scientific community who assert universal laws. Nor is this a phenomcnon mcrcly of thc twcnticth ccntury. Universal scicncc was alrcady bcing proclaimed in thc sixtcenth century. and indeed far carlicr. Grotius was writing about a univcrsal ’law of thc scas’ in thc first half of the scvcntcenth ccntury. And so on.

At thc same time, of course, we have bcen erecting a network of ‘sovcrcign states’ with clear tcrritorial boundarics and with national laws, asscmblics, languagcs, passports, flags, nioncy, and abovc all citizcns. Thc cntirc land arca of thc globc is today cxhaustivcly divided into such units, which now numbcr ovcr 150.

There are two ways wc can considcr thcse 150 or so sovcrcign statcs. We can sec thcm as vcry strong institutions whose raison d ’ h is to limit thc validity of univcrsal rulcs. Sovcrcignty nicans in thcory the right to do within thc frontiers of thc country whatevcr the internal (and constitutionally appropriatc) authoritics dccide to do. But of coursc, at thc samc timc, thcsc 150 or so units are an immense rcduction from thc numbcr of political authoritics (to use a vague term) which cxistcd in thc world as of say 1450. Almost evcry one of the 150 or so units compriscs an arca that in 1450 includcd more than onc political authority. Thus most of tlicsc sovercign statcs facc the issuc of how thcy arc to trcat this ‘coming together’ historically of what wcrc prcviously scparatc cntitics. All of thcm, without any exception, do i t on thc principlc of citizenship, a

Wallcrstcin, Culture as flie Ideological Battleground 43

principlc which today usually asscrts that all pcrsons born in that statc arc citizcns (plus certain othcrs) and that all such citizens enjoy cqual rights. (Thc most notorious cxccption, South Africa, which as a statc rcfuscs to ackiiowlcdgc ttic tcgitiinacy of t~iis theory of citizenship. is considcrcd for that vcry reason a world scandal.) Thus, cach statc is proclaiming thc universality of thc equality of citizcns, and virtually all statcs arc acccpting this principlc as a sort of univcrsal moral law.

Wc can assert, if we wish, that the principlc of universalism both on a world-wide scalc and within cach of thc sovcrcign states that constitute thc intcrstatc systcrn is hypocritical. But i t is prcciscly bccausc thcrc is in rcality a hicrarchy of statcs witliiii the interstate systcm and a hicrarchy of citizcns within each sovcrcign statc that thc idcology of univcrsalism matters. I t scrves on tlic onc hand as a palliative and a dcccption and on thc other as a political couiitcr- wciglit which thc wcak can usc and do use against the strong.

But racism-scxism as an ideology cqually scrvcs to contain the contradiction involvcd i n crcating sovcrcign stalcs within an intcr- statc systcm that contains n siiiglc division of labor. For racism- scxisin is prcciscly what Icgitimatcs thc rcal iiicqualitics, tlic always cxisting ( i f continually shifting) hicrarchics both within thc world- systcm as a wholc and within cach sovcrcign statc. Wc know that the peoples of color wcrc subjected to fornial colonization as well as to slave labor during the history of this world-system. We know that thcrc exist many fornial discriminations coiiccrniilg the niovcmcnts of pcoplcs. And wc know tliat tlicsc phcnomcna havc becn justificd by racist thcorics, sonictinics bascd on pscudo-scicncc (tlicrcby dcfcrring to the ideology of univcrsalism) and sonictimcs bascd on unmitigatcd prcjudicc, as in thc talk of a Ycllow Pcril which was SO widcsprcad in thc Whitc arcas of tlic world in thc bcginnirig of the twcnticth ccntury.

At thc state Icvcl, thc phcnomcnon of justification by racism of an internal political, economic, and social Iiicrarchy is SO familiar t hat i t is scarccly worth rccounling. I would only point out two tliings. Whcrc intcrnal hicrarcliics cannot be bascd on skin color, thcy can always bc bascd on 0 t h particularist crilcria, as say in Northcrn Ircland. Sccondly, cvcrywhcrc - in all tlic statcs individually, and in the intcrstatc system as a wholc - thc racist idclogy takes [he sarnc form. Lt is argued that oiic group is gcnctically or ‘culturally’ (note here, culturc in usagc 11) infcrior to anothcr group in such a way that the group said to bc infcrior cannot bc cxpcctcd to pcrform

- tasks as wcll as the prcsumably superior group. This is said to hold true ?ither etcrnally or for a vcry long period into thc futurc (pending, in another dcfciencc to univcrsalist doctrinc, somc vcry long-tcrm cducational process).

So racism is used, as wc all know, to justify thcsc hicrarchics. But scxism? YCS, scxism too, and in two ways. First, if onc cxamincs racist tcrminology, onc will find that i t is regularly clothcd in scxist language. Thc superior ‘racc’ is considcrcd to bc morc rnasculinc, thc infcrior one to be morc feminine. I t is as though scxism was cvcn more decply rooted than racism. Whcrcas a purely racist idcology might occasionally fail to pcrsuadc, the idcologucs can find their clinching argumcnt by adding thc scxist ovcrtoncs. So wc hcar argumcnts that thc dominant group is rnorc rational, morc disci- plined, morc hard-working, more sclf-controllcd, morc indc- pendent, whilc the dominated group is more cmotional, morc self-indulgent, more lazy, morc artistic, morc dcpcndcnt. And this is of coursc thc samc sct of charactcristics that scxist idcology claims distinguish mcn from womcn.

There is a second way in which sexism doublcs with racism. The dominated racial group, because it is said to be morc sclf-indulgcnt, is thcrcby thought morc aggrcssivc scxually (and morc pan-scxual as wcll). Thc malcs of thcdominatcd group thcrcforc rcprcscnt a thrcat to thc fcmalcs of thc dominant group who, although womcn and not men, arc somchow more ‘sclf-controllcd’ than thc malcs of thc dominated group. But sincc thcy arc noncthclcss physically wcakcr. bccausc thcy arc women, they thcrcforc rcquirc tlic activc physical protcction of thc malcs of thc dominant group.

Furthcrmorc, wc can turn this scxist argumcnt around and still justify world hicrarchics. Now that, as a rcsult of rcccnt political dcvclopments, womcn havc gaincd more rights of various kinds in Wcstcrn countries,.thc fact that thcy havc not yct done as wcll politically in somc Third World countries, say thosc countries in which Islam is strong, bccomcs itsclf a further justification of racist idcoiogy. Thc Moslcms, i t is argucd. arc not culturally capablc of rccognizing thc samc univcrsal principlcs of man-woman rclations that arc said to bc acccptcd in thc Wcstcrn (or Judco-Christian world) and from this i t is said to follow that thcy arc also capablc of many othcr things.

2. We havc notcd that thc historic cxpansion of a capitalist world-economy originally locatcd primarily in Europc to incor- porate othcr zoncs of thc globc crcatcd thc contradiction of modcr-

.

Wallcrstcin, Cuilurc as tlie ideological Uoiilcgrourrd 45

nization vcrsus Wcstcrnization. Thc simplc way to resolve this dilcmma has been to assert that they are idcntical. In so far as Asia or Africa ‘Wcstcrnizcs,’ i t ‘modcriiizcs’. That is to say, the simplcst solution was to arguc that Wcstcrn culturc is in fact uliivcrsal culturc. For a long timc thc ideology rcniaincd at this simplc Icvel, whcthcr it took thc form of Christian prosclytization or of tlic famous ‘rnissiorr civilisorrice’ of France’s colonial cnipire.

Of coursc, this somctinics took thc slightly more sophisticatcd form of arguing that only Wcstcrn civilization, of all world civiliza- tions, was somchow capablc of cvolving from a prc-modcrn form to modcrnity. I n a sensc, [his is what Orientalism as a disciplinc clcarly iniplicd. Clothcd in tlic lcgitiniation of particularisln - Islam or India or China rcprcscntcd coniplcx, high culturcs wliicli a Westerner could only apprcciatc aftcr long, difficult, arid synl- pathetic study - thc Orientalists also suggcstcd that thcse high Oriental cultures werc historically frozcn and could not evolve, but could only be ‘dcstroycd’ from without. Various vcrsions of anthropological thcory - tlic scarch for thc pristinc prc-contact culturc, but also the univcrsalist distinction oT structuralist anthropology bctwccn cold and hot cultures - Icd to tllc sanic conclusions. Thc Wcst had cincrgcd into niodcrnity; thc otlicrs had not. Incvitably, thcrcfore, i f oiic wantcd to bc ‘iiiodcrii’ onc had in soiiic way to bc ‘Wcstcrii’ culturally. 1 T 1101 Westcrii religions, oiic had to adopt Wcstcrn languagcs. And i f not Wcstcrn languagcs, OIIC

had at thc vcry minimum to acccpt Wcstcril tcchnology, which was said to bc bascd on thc univcrsal principlcs of scicnce.

But at thc vcry sainc tinic that thc univcrsalist idcologucs wcrc preaching thc mcrits of Wcstcrnization or ‘assiniilation’, thcy wcrc also (or othcrs werc also) prcaching thc ctcrnal cxistcncc and virluc of dilfcrcnce. Thus a univcrsalist mcssagc of cultural multiplicity could scrvc as a justification of cducating various groups i n thcir scparak ‘culturcs’ and hencc prcparing tlicni Tor differcrit tasks in thc single economy. Thc cxtrcnic vcrsion of this, and an explicitly tlieorizcd onc. is aparllreid. I3ut lcsscr vcrsions, pcrhaps lcss colicrcritly articulatcd, have bccn widespread wirhiii thc systcni.

Furthcrmorc, racisni and scxisin can bc juslificd by a rcjcclion of Wcstcrnization which can takc tlic rorni of legitimating iiidigcnous ideological positions (a so-called revival of tradition) that iricludc blatantly racist and scxist thcmcs. At which point, wc havc a rcncwed justirication of the world-widc hierarchy. I t bccomcs lcgitimatc to trcat Iran as a pariah riation, riot only bccausc lrari uscs

, 46 Theory, Culture & Society

’ 'terrorist' tactics in thc intcrnational arcna, but bccausc Iranian women arc rcquired to wcar the chador.

3. The problcm of gctting workers to work hardcr at lower pay is inherently a difficult one. I t runs against thc grain of sclf-intcrest. Thc question is thercforc whcthcr thcrc can cxist an idcological motivation which might hclp achicvc this contradictory objcctivc of world capital. Lct us scc in what ways univcrsalism and racism- sexism can scrvc this cnd.

Universalism can bccomc a motivation for hardcr work in so far as thc work cthic is preachcd as a dcfining ccntcrpiccc of rnodcrnity. Thosc who arc cfficicnt, who dcvote thcmsclvcs to their work, excmplify a value which is of univcrsal mcrit and is said to be socially bcncficial to all. This is truc not only at thc individual lcvcl but at thc collcctivc Icvcl. Thus statcs that arc low in thc hicrarchy of thc world-systcm, groups that arc low in thc hicrarchy of statcs, arc adjurcd to overcomc thc handicap of lowcr status by joining in thc univcrsal cthos. By bccoming ‘compctitivc’ in tlic markct, indivi- duals and groups may obtain what othcrs alrcady havc, and thus onc day shall achicvc equality. Until thcn, inequality rcmains incvitablc.

Thus, the universal work cthic justifies all cxisting incqualitics, since thc explanation of their origin is in thc historically uncqual adoption by diffcrcnt groups of this motivation. Statcs that arc better off than other states, groups that arc bctter off than other groups, havc achieved this advantagc by an earlier, strongcr, and morc cnduring commitmcnt to thc univcrsal work cthic. Converscly, those who arc worsc off, thcrcforc thosc who arc paid Icss, arc in this position bccausc thcy mcrit it. Tlic cxistcncc or uncqual incomu thus bccomcs not an instancc of racism-scxism but rathcr of thc univcrsal standard or rcwarding cfficicncy. Thosc who Iiavc lcss havc lcss bccausc thcy havc carncd Icss.

But racism and scxism cornplcmcnt this univcrsalizing thcorcm vcry wcll. Racism and scxism, whcn institutionalizcd, crcatc a high correlation bctwccn low group status and low incomc. Thus, thosc at thc lowcr cnd of thc scalc arc casily idcntifiablc by what may thcn be tcrmcd cultural critcria (culturc. that is, in usagc 11). Culture (usagc 11) now becorncs thc explanation of thc causc. Blacks and women arc paid lcss bccausc thcy work lcss hard, mcrit Icss. And thcy work lcss hard because thcrc is sorncthing, if not in thcir biology, at lcast in thcir ‘culturc’, which tcachcs ihcm valucs which conflict with thc univcrsal work cthos.

Furthcrrnorc, wc can cnlist thc dominatcd groups in thcir own

“

Walicrstcin, Cullure as [lie Ideological Bat~legrouird 47

opprcssion. In so far as thcy cultivatc thcir separatcncss as ‘cultural’ groups, which is a modc or political mobilization against urlcqual status, tlicy socialize their mcinbcrs into cultural cxprcssions which distinguish them from thc dominatcd groups, and thus into some at lcast of thc values attributcd to thcin by racist and sexist thcories. And thcy do this, in a sccming paradox, on the grounds of tlic universal principlc of thc cqual validity of all cultural cxprcssions.

4. Modcrnity as a ccntral univcrsalizing thcmc gives priority to ncwness. change, progrcss. Through the ages, the lcgitimacy of political systems had bcen derived from preciscly thc opposite principlc, that of oldncss, continuity, tradition. Thcrc was a straightforwardness to prc-modern rnodcs of legitimation which docs not cxist anymorc. Political lcgitiniacy is a much morc obscure objcctivc within thc rcalitics of thc capitalist world-ccononiy, yet statu of coursc scck constantly to achicvc it. Sonic dcgrcc of Icgitimacy is a crucial clcnicnt in the stability of all rcgimcs.

Hcrc is whcrc culturc (usagc I) can bc vcry hclpful. For in tlic abscncc of tlic pcrsonalizcd lcgitimacy of monarchical-aristocratic systcms, whcrc rcal powcr normally dcfines thc limits of Icgilimacy, a fictionalized collcctivity with a collcctive soul, a liypotlietical ‘nation’ whose roots.arc located i n days of yore, is a marvclous substitute. Fcw governments in thc history of the capitalist world- economy have failed to discover the powcr of patriotism to achicve cohesion. And patriotism has quite often been reinforced by or transformed into racism Cjingoist chauvinism, opposition of the citizen to thc strangcr or immigrant) and scxism (thc prcsuincd niartial naturc of malcs).

But in tlic real world of thc capitalist world-cconorny with its rcgular risc and dcclinc or nations, a multifarious set of patriotisnis orrcrs littlc in thc way of cxplanation, cspccially for the losers i n thc cyclical shifts. Hcrc thcn Icgitiniacy can bc rcstorcd by appcaling lo thc univcrsalizing priiiciplcs of appropriate political and social changc which, by a changc in state structurc (a ‘revolution’) will make possible (for the first tinic or oncc again) national dcvclop- mcnt. Thus, by appcaling to culturc (usagc 11). the advanced clcrncnts of thc nation can placc thc statc in thc liric of univcrsal progrcss.

Of coursc, such ‘rcvolutions’ work to rcstore (or create) lcgitimacy by sceking to transform in somc significant way the position of thc state in tlic hicrarchy of tlic world-systcrn. Failing that, thc rcvolution can crcatc its own tradition about itsclf and liilk

48 Theory, Cuifurc & Society

tCis sclf-appraisal to a pcrhaps rcviscd but still fictivc history of thc statc. Thus, i f culturc.(usagc 11) is inefficacious or bccorncs so, onc Can fall back on culturc (usagc I).

5 . The capitalist world-cconomy docs not mcrcly havc uncqual distribution of rcward. It is thc locus of an incrcasing polarization of rcward ovcr historical timc. Hcrc howcvcr thcrc is an asyrnrnctry betwecn thc situation at thc lcvcl of thc world-cconorny as a wholc and that at thc lcvcl of thc scparatc sovcrcign slatcs which cornposc the interstate systcm. Whcrcas at the lcvcl of thc world-systcrn, i t secms cicar that gap of income between statcs at thc top and thc bottom of thc hicrarchy h a s grown, and has grown considcrably ovcr timc, it docs not nccessarily follow that this is true within cach statc struclurc. Noncthclcss, it is also thc casc that onc of thc moral justifications of thc capitalist world-cconorny, onc that is uscd to justify hard work at low pay (thc issuc just discusscd in thc prcvious section), is that inequalities of rcward havc bccn diminishing ovcr tirnc, that such inequalities as cxist are transitory and transitional phcnorncna on thc road to a rnorc prospcrous, morc cgalitarian futurc.

Hcrc, oncc again, we havc a blatant discord bctwccn official idcology and cmpirical reality. How has this bccn conhincd? Thc first linc of dcfcnsc has always bccn dcnial. Thc rising standard of living h a s bccn a ccntral myth of this world-systcrn. I t has bccn sustaincd both by arithmctic slcight of hand and by invoking thc paircd idcologics of univcrsalisrn and racism-scxisrn.

Thc arithrnctic slcight of hand is vcry straightforward. At thc world Icvcl, it consists first of all of talking about thc nurncrator and not thc denominator, and ignoring thc dispcrsion of tlic curvc. Wc talk about thc nurncrator whcn we rccitc tlic cxpandcd world volurnc of production, or total valuc produccd, whilc failing to divide i t by world population. Or we analyzc quality of lifc by observing sornc lincar trcnds but failing to count othcrs. Thus wc measurc agc of mortality or spccd of travcl but not avcragc nurnbcr of hours of work pcr ycar or pcr lifctimc, or cnvironmcntal conditions.

But thc rcal slcight of hand is to cngagc in national rathcr than global mcasurcs. which involvcs a doublc dcccption. First of all, in an unequal and ‘polarizing world-systcm. thcrc is gcographical dispcrsion. Hcncc. i t is pcrfcctly possiblc for rcal incomc, as rncasurcd by GNP per capita say, to risc in sornc countrics while going down in othcrs and in tlic systcm as a wholc. But since thc countrics in which thc risc occurs arc also tliosc most cxtcnsivcly

*-

Wallcrstcin, Culture as tire Ideological Ua~llegrorrrid 49

studicd, obscrvcd, and nicasurcd, i t is casy to undcrstaiid how racilc but falsc gcncralizations take root. In addition. dcspite the bcttcr statistical systciiis o f such corc couiitrics, i t is undoublcdly thc casc that tlicy do not nicasurc adcquatcly tlic non-citizcii coinporicnt of tlic population (oftcn illcgally i n rcsidcncc). And sincc this is thc poorcst cornponciit, tlic bias is cvidcnt.

Still, mispcrccption of rcality is only a first linc of dcfcnsc, and one that is incrcasingly difficult to sustain. Hcncc, in thc last f i f ty ycars, a world-widc sclicnia or ‘dcvclopmcntalism’ lias bccn crcctcd and propagatcd which Icgitiniatcs the polarization. By this point you will rcalizc tiow rcpctitivc is tlic pattcrn of idcological justifica- tion. First o f all, thcrc is tlic universalist thcnic. All statcs can dcvclop; all statcs shall dcvclop. Tlicii cornc thc racist thcincs. I f soinc statcs liavc dcvclopcd carlicr and fastcr tliaii othcrs, i t is bccausc tlicy havc donc soiiictliiiig, bcliavcd iri soiiic way tliat is diflcrcnt. Tlicy havc bccn mort individualist, or niorc ciitrc- prcncurial, or rnorc rational, or in somc way niorc ‘modcrii’. I f otlicr statcs liavc dcvclopcd iiiorc slowly, i t is bccausc tlicrc is soiiic- thing in tlicir culturc (usagc I at thc siatc Icvcl, usagc I I at tlic world Icvcl) which prcvcnis tlicni or lias ~ h u s lar prcvciitcd tliciii froiii bccorning as ‘rnodcrn’ as otlicr statcs.

TIic sccsaw of idcological cxplanation thcn coiitiiiucs into tlic liypothctical futurc. Siricc all slates can devclop. how call thc under- dcvclopcd dcvclop? In somc way, by copying thosc who alrcady havc, that is, by adopting tlic uiiivcrsal culturc of tllc inodcrii world, with thc assistancc of thosc who arc iiiorc advanccd (higher prcscnt culturc, usagc 11). I f , dcspitc this assistancc, thcy arc making no or littlc progrcss, i t is bccausc tlicy arc bciiig ‘racist’ in rcjccting univcrsal ‘inodcrn’ valucs which tlicn justifies that the ‘advanced’ statcs arc scornful of tlicni or condcsccnding to thcrn. Any attciiipt i n an ‘advanccd’ statc to cornprchcnd ‘backwardncss’ in tcrrns olhcr than wilful rcfusal to be ‘iiiodcrn’ is labelcd Third-Worldisrn. or rcversc racism or irrationalisni. This is a tiglit systcni of justifica- tion, sincc it ‘blarncs the victim’, arid thcrcby dciiics thc reality.

6. Finally, IC[ us turii to tlic contradiction of liinitlcssncss and organic dcatli. Any tlicory of liniitlcss cxpansion is a gainbler’s paradisc. I n thc rcal world, i t is not possiblc. Furtlicrmore, to the limitcd cxtent that the tlicory has sccrncd to accord with the cxistcn- tial rcality of thc capitalist world-cconoiny as a world-systcm, i t has not sccrncd to accord with the rcalitics of thc scparatc statcs. Evcn thc strongcst arid thc wcaltliicst of statcs, especially tlic stroligcst

t

. ’ SO Theory, Cuhre d; Socicfy

r

,*9 I- . ’ and wcalthiest, havc riscn and dcclincd. Wc arc currcntly living thc

bcginnings of thc long-term rclativc dcclinc of the Unitcd States, only recently still the hcgemonic powcr of the world-system.

Thus thc world-systcm as a wholc must dcal with the problcm of its cvcntual dcmisc and, within thc ongoing systcm, thc strong states must dcal with thc problcm of thcir rclativc dcclinc. Thc two problcms arc quite diffcrcnt, but rcgularly fuscd and confused. Thcrc arc basically two ways to dcal with dernisc or dcclinc: to dcny thcm or to wclcomc thc changc.

Oncc again, both univcrsalism and racism-sexism arc useful conscrvativc idcologics. First of all, racism-scxism scrvcs to sustain dcnial. Dcmisc or dcclinc is at most a Lcmporary illusion, causcd by morncntarily wcak Icadership, becausc by dcfinition i t is said i t cannot occur, givcn tlic strength or thc supcriority of thc dominant culturc (usagc I f ) . Or, if it is rcally occurring, it is bccausc culturc (usagc 11) has ccdcd placc to a dcccptivc world humanism in thc vain hopc of creating a world culturc (usagc I). Thus, it is argucd, thc dcmisc or dcclinc, which it is now admittcd may rcally bc occurring, is duc to insufficient cmphasis on culturc (usagc 11) and licncc to admitting ‘lowcr’ racial groups or ‘women’ to political rights. In this vcrsion of idcology, dcmisc or dcclinc is rcversible, but only by a rcvcrsion to a morc ovcrt racism-scxism. Gcncrally spcaking, this has bcen a thcmc throughout thc twcnticth ccntury of what wc today call the cxtrcme, or nco-fascist, right.

But therc is a univcrsalizing vcrsion to this cxcrcisc in dcnial. The dcmisc or dcclinc has pcrhaps not bccn causcd. or not primarily caused, by an incrcased political cgalitarianisrn, but much morc by an increased intcllcctual cgalitarianism. The denial of the supcriority of thc scicntific elitc, and thcir consequcnt right to dictatc public policy, is thc rcsult of an anti-rationalist, antinomian dcnial of univcrsal culturc (usagc 1) and its world-widc culture- bcarcrs (usagc 11). Dcmands for popular control of technocratic clitcs is a call for ‘thc night of thc long knivcs’, a rcturn to prc- modcrn ‘primitivism‘. This is thc heart of what is today callcd nco- conscrvatism.

But if thc ovcrtly ‘conscrvativc’ vcrsions of thc idcologics arc inadcquatc to tlic task, onc can put forward ‘progrcssivc’ vcrsions. I t is not too difficult to ‘wclcomc’ thc ‘transition’ in ways that in fact sustain thc systcm. Thcrc is thc universalizing mode, in which progrcssive transition is sccn as incvitablc. This can lcad on thc onc hand 10 postponing thc transition until tlic cqually incvitablc

Wallcrstcin, Culfure as [Ire Ideological Buf(legrourrd 5 I

‘preconditions’ of transition arc rcalizcd. I t can lcad oii the otlicr hand to intcrim mcasurcs whosc rcality is ilic worscning of condi- tions on the grounds thai this ‘speeds up’ ilic realization of the prcconditions. We havc knowii niaiiy such movcmcnts.

Finally, tlic ‘wclcoming’ of the transition can liavc the samc conscrvativc cffcct in a racist form. Ouc can insist that it is only tlic prcscntly ‘advanccd’ groups tliat can bc tlic lcadcrs of LIic ncxt prcsumcd ‘advancc’. Hcncc, i t is only on tlic bask of prcscntly- rcalizcd culturc (usagc 11) tliat thc transition to a ncw world will bc rcalized. Tlic rnorc ‘backward’ rcgions must in somc way wait on lhc morc ‘advanccd’ oncs in thc proccss of ‘transition.’

V

Thc paircd idcologics of univcrsalism and racism-scxisni tlicn liavc bccn vcry powerful mcans by wliich thc contradictory tcnsions of thc world-systcm havc becri containcd. But of coursc. they havc also scrvcd as idcologics of cliangc aiid trans forination iii tlicir sliglitly diffcrcnt clothing of tlic tlicory of progrcss and tlic conscicntization of opprcsscd groups. This has rcsultcd in cxtraordinarily ainbivalcnt uscs of thcsc idcologics by tlic presunicd opponents of the existing. systcm, thc aritisystcmic movcincnts. I t is to this last aspect of culture as an ideological battlcground that I should likc now to turn.

An antisystemic movcmcnt is a movement to transform the systcm. An antisystemic movement is at the same time a product of thc systcm. What culturc docs such a movenicnt incarnate? In tcrms of culture (usage I), it is hard to see how the antisystemic movements could conccivably have incariiatcd any culture other than that of tlic capitalist world-economy. I t is hard to see how thcy could not have been imprcgnatcd by and cxprcsscd thc paircd ideologies of univcrsalism and racism-scxism.

Howcvcr in tcrms of culture (usagc 11) they have claimcd lo havc crcatcd a ncw culturc, a culturc destincd to be a culture (usage I ) of thc futurc world. Thcy havc tricd to claboratc this new culturc thcorctically. Thcy haw crcatcd institutions prcsuinably designed to socializc mcmbcrs and synipathizcrs into this ncw culture. But of coursc it is not so casy to know what shall bc tlic culturc, a culture, of thc futurc. We dcsign our utopias in tcrms of what we know now. We cxaggcratc tlic novclty of what wc advocatc. Wc act in the cnd, and at best, as prisoncrs of ou r prcscnt rcalily who perniit oursclvcs to daydrcam.

52 Theory, Culturc & Socicty

This is not at all pointless. But i t is surcly Icss than a sure guidc to appropriate behavior. .What the antisystcmic movcmcnts havc donc, if onc considcrs thcir global activities ovcr 150-odd ycars, has bccn esscntially to turn thcmsclvcs into thc fulfillers of thc libcral drcam whilc claiming to bc its most fulsomc critics. This has not bccn a comfortablc position. Thc libcral drcam - thc product of thc principal sclf-conscious idcological Wellanschauung within thc capitalist world-cconomy - has bccn tliat univcrsalism will triumph ovcr racism and sexism. This has bccn translated into two stratcgic opcrational impcratives - the sprcad of ‘science’ in the cconomy, and thc sprcad of ‘assimilation’ in tlic political arcna.

Thc Cctishism of scicncc by thc antisystcniic movemcnts - for cxamplc, Marx’s dcsignation of his idcas as ‘scicntific socialism’ - was a natural cxprcssion of thc post-1789 triumph or Enliglitcnmcnt idcas in thc world-systcm. Scicncc was futurc-oricntcd; it sought total truth via thc pcrfcctibility of human capacitics; i t was dccply optimistic. Thc limitlcssncss of its ambitions might Iiavc scrvcd as a warning-signal of the decp affinity of this kind of scicncc to its world-systcm. But thc antisystcmic thinkcrs intcrprctcd this affinity to be a transitory misstcp, a surviving irrationality, doomcd to cxtinction.

The problcm, as thc antisystcmic movcmcnts saw it, was not that thcrc was too much scicncc, but too little. Sufficicnt social invcst- mcnt in scicncc was still lacking. Scicncc had not yct penetrated into cnough corncrs of economic lifc. Tlicrc wcrc still zoncs of the world from which it was kcpt. Its rcsults wcrc insufficiently applicd. Thc revolution - be it social or national or both - would at last rclcasc thc scicntists to find and’to apply thcir univcrsal truths.

In the political arcna, the fundamcntal problcni was interprcted to bc exclusion. Thc statcs wcrc the handmaidcns of rninoritics; thcy must bc madc thc instrumcnt of thc wholc of socicty, thc wholc of humanity. Thc unpropcrtied were cxcludcd. Include them! Thc minorities wcrc cxcludcd. Include thcrn! The womcn wcrc cxcludcd. Include thcm! Equals all. Thc dominant strata tiad morc than othcrs. Evcn things out! But i f wc arc cvcning out dominant and dominatcd, thcn why not minoritics arid majoritics, womcn and mcn? Evening out rncant in practicc assimilating tlic wcakcr to thc rnodcl of thc strong. This rnodcl lookcd suspiciously likc Everyman - thc man with siniplc but sufficicnt rncans, hard- working, morally upright and dcvotcd to family (fricnds, largcr community ) .

Wallcrstcin, Culrure as tlre Ideological Ualtlegrourrd 53

This scarch for scicncc and assimilation, what I Iiavc called thc fulfillment of thc libcral drcam, was located deep in the conscious- ness and in the practical action of thc world’s antisystcmic rnovcmcnts, from thcir cmcrgcncc in tlic mid-ninctccnth century until at lcast tlic Sccond World War. Sincc tlicn, aiid particularly sincc thc world cultural rcvolutioii of 1968, tlicsc movemcnts. or at lcast sonic of tlicni, havc bcguii to cvincc doubts as to thc utility, tlic rcasonablcncss of ‘scicncc’ and ‘assimilation’ as social objcctivcs. Tlicsc doubts havc bccn cxprcsscd in niultiplc forms. Tlic grccri rnovcmcnts, thc countercultural inovcments have raised questions about thc productivisrn inhcrcnt in tlic ninctcenth-ccntury adulation of scicncc. Thc many ncw social movcnicnts (of woiiicn. of niinori- tics) liavc pourcd scorn upon tlic dcniand for assimilation. I do iiot nccd LO spcll out hcrc thc divcrsc ways in wliicli this has bccri niani fcstcd.

Hut, and this is tlic crucial point, pcrliaps tlic rcal triumph of culturc (usagc I), tlic anlisystcrnic iiiovcmcnts liavc hcsitatcd to go all tlic way. For onc thing, thc prioritics of o w kind of antisystcmic niovcmcnt liavc oftcn bccn at odds with tliat of ariotlicr kind (c.g. ccologists v. Third World libcratioii iiiovcmcnts). For aiiotlicr thing, cadi kind of niovcnicnt itself tias bccn internally dividcd. Tlic dcbatcs within the women’s niovcnicnts or Black movcments ovcr such questions as political alliaiiccs or thc dcsirability of ‘protcctivc’ lcgislation for thc ‘wcakcr’ groups are instances of the tactical ambivalcnccs of thesc movcnicnts.

As long as tlic antisystcmic movcmcnts remaiii at the lcvcl of tactical ambivalcncc about tlic guiding idcological values of our world-systcm, as long as thcy arc unsure how to respond to thc libcral drcam of more scicncc and niorc assimilation, wecan say that thcy arc i n no position to fight a war of position with thc forces that dcrcnd tlic incqualitics of ttic world. For thcy ccde, by this ambivalcncc, thc cultural high-ground to tlicir opponcnts. The advocatcs of the systcm can continue to claim that scientisni and assimilation rcprcscnt thc truc values of world culture (usagc I ) and tjiat thcir practitioncrs arc tlic mcn of culture (usagc I t ) , thc high pricsts of this culturc (usagc I) . And, as long as this rcniains truc, we arc all cnvclopcd in ttic paircd idcologics (and tllc falsc antiriomy) of uiiivcrsalisrii and racism-scxism,

Tlic cultural trap i n which wc arc caught is a strong otic. ovcrlain by much protcctivc slirubbcry wliicli liidcs its outlilic aiid its fcrocily froin us. Can wc soincliow discntanglc oursclvcs? 1 bclicve i t is

54 Theory, Cullure & Society

possiblc, though at most I can only indicatc somc of thc dircctions i i i which, if wc movcd along thcm, I bclicvc wc might find ways to disentanglc.

Bcyond scicntism, I suspcct thcrc lics a morc broadly dcfincd sciencc, onc which will bc ablc to rcconcilc itsclf dramatically with the humanitics, such that wc can ovcrcomc what C.P. Snow (1959) callcd thc division of thc two culturcs (notc Llic tcrm again, hcrc in usagc 11). I suspcct wc may liavc to rcvcrsc thc history of scicncc and return from cfficicnt causcs to final causcs. I think, if wc do, that wc may be ablc lo scrapc away all that is contingcnt (that is, all that is Western) to uncovcr ncw possibilitics.

This will makc possiblc a ncw rcndczvous of world civilizations. Will somc ‘univcrsals’ ciiicrgc out of this rcndczvous? Who knows? Who cvcn knows what a ‘univcrsal’ is? At a rnomcnt of world history whcn thc physical scicntists arc at last (or is it oncc again?) bcginning to talk of thc ‘arrow of tirnc’, who is ablc to say that tlicrc arc any immutablc laws of naturc?

If we go back to mctaphysical bcginnings, and rcopcn thc question of thc naturc of scicncc, I bclicve that i t is probablc, or at least possiblc, that wc can rcconcilc our undcrstanding of thc origins and legitimacies of group particularisms with our scnsc of thc social, psychological, and biological meanings of humanity and humane- ness. I think that pcrhaps wc can come up with a concept of culturc that sublatcs thc two usages.

1 wish that I saw morc clcarly how this could bc donc, or whcrc it is leading. But I havc thc sense that in cultural tcrms our world- systcm is in nccd of somc ‘surgcry’. Unless wc ‘open up’ somc of our most chcrishcd cultural prcrnises, we shall never bc ablc to diagnose clcarly thc cxtcnt or thc cancerous growths and shall thcrcforc be unablc to comc up with appropriate rcmedics. I t is pcrhaps unwisc to end on such a mcdical analogy. Mcdicinc, as a mode of knowl- edge. has only too clcarly dcmonstratcd its limitations. On the other hand, the art of medicinc rcprescnts the eternal human responsc 10 suffering. death, and transition, and tlicreforc incarnates Iiopc, howcvcr much i t must bc tcmpcrcd by an awarcncss of human limitations.

Noics This article has also bccn publishcd in t hc Japancsc journal fiirorsubaslri JournuloJ sociul Sfudies. Vol. XXI. August 1989.

I . Jcan-Paul Sartrc (1949: 237) calls ncgritudc ‘antiracist racisn:’.

Wallcrstcin, Culture as (lie Ideological Bartlegrourrd 55

Hcfcrcnccs Hopkins, Terence. K. and Wallcrstcin. lmmanuel (1987) ‘Capitalism aitd I IIC

Incorporation of New Zones into the World-Economy’. Review IO(JI6): 763-79. Mintz. Sidney W. (1988) 77tr Power oJSweefnes and tlrr Swceincrr of Power. 8ii1

Duijkcr Lecture. Dcventcr: Van Loghum Slaterus. Nettleford. Rex (1986) ‘Building a Nation. Shaping a Socicty’. pp.9-10 in J .

Wcdderburn (ed.). A Caribbcun Heuder on Developnrenf. Kingston. Sartrc. Jean-Paul (1949) ‘Orphte noir’, pp. 229-88 in Situations. 111. Paris:

Gallimard. Snow, C.P. (1959) The Two Cultures and the Scienlrpc Revolution. New York:

Cambridge University Press. Wallersicin. lmmanucl (1982) ‘Crisis as Transition’. pp. 11-54, esp. 12-22 iii S.

Amin et at. (eds), Dynutrricr of GloDul CriSir. New York: Monthly Kevicw Press. WaIIcrstcin. lmmanucl(i9R8) ‘The ldcological Tctisioiir or Capitalisni: Uiiivcrsalisiii

vcrsus Racism and Scxisii:’, pp. 3-9 iii J. Sri:itli ct ai. (cd). Hacirnr. Scxisnr. arrd/he World-System. Wcstport, CT: Grcenwood 13rcss.

lmmanuel Wallcrslcin is thc Dircctor of tlic Fcrnand Braudcl Center (SONY-Binghamton), and thc author of The Modern World- Sysieni .