World Systems Theory (Hist 2c, L17)

caption

UCSB Hist 2c:World History, 1700-pres.)
World Systems & Authoritarianism
Lecture 17, on May 30, 2006 (prev., next)

by Professor Harold Marcuse
(Course homepage, Prof's homepage; marcuse@history.ucsb.edu)
created June 12, 2006, updated

Introduction

EIEIO of Genocide

Three Worlds

Modernization

Authoritarian Rule

Source Interpretations

Introduction (back to top)

This lecture had three parts.
- It began with a short summary and assessment of the vist by Holocaust survivor Nina Morecki in L16, including and EIEIO of genocide;
- it examined the origins of the "three worlds" concept of dividing up the globe, and discussed how the meanings of those terms have evolved, as well as how various countires can move from one "world" to another--namely by "modernization"; and
- it concluded with a discussion of one on the main ways of bringing modernization about: that of authoritarian rule.

EIEIO of Genocide(back to top)

The professor answered several questions about Nina's story that had been raised during section visits and in class.
- Why listen to a survivor of genocide, instead of hearing a lecture or watching a documentary on the causes of genocide?
  Because a unique, individual story helps us to connect with that history, to realize how close it still is to us. (Think about it: If Anne Frank had not been murdered, she would turn 77 years old in two weeks--she was born June 12, 1929--she was 8 years younger than Nina!) That realization may be far more memorable than facts and theories of genocide.
With that said, what IS genocide?
- 1948 convention on genocide, article II:
  "...genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
  (a) Killing members of the group;
  (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
  1. "intent" would rule out the mass death of native Americans from imported diseases and enslavement, since the first was accidental, and the intent of the second was not death.
  2. "in whole or in part" includes cases in which only part of a group. Thus, for example, not "all Jews," but only "all Jews living in Europe (or Germany)" would already be genocide.
  3. The list (a)-(e) excludes obliterating a peoples' culture--it must be the physical destruction of the people themselves.
- Other definitions of genocide take different positions on these 3 issues.
What do scholars found to be the main causes of genocide?
- Economic reasons: would include scapegoating (blaming poor economic conditions on a targeted group of victims), and also greed on an individual level (as when perpetrators are promised a share of the possessions plundered from the murdered).
- International reasons would include terrorizing a populace in order to gain control of territory. Inaction by bystander countries might be a necessary condition for genocide to happen, but it is not a cause.
- Elites and Leaders who decide to forcibly propagate an ideology, and how plan and order a genocide are important causal factors as well.
- Ideologies such as nationalism, especially when formulated as racial superiority or a need for ethnic purity, are powerful forces enabling and justifying genocide.
- And of course people, not as opposition, but as followers, are causal, in that they believe the genocidal ideology and carry out the genocidal plan or follow the genocidal orders.

Three Worlds (back to top)

The term originated in France in the 1950s (trois mondes--see Wikipedia: Third World).
' After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the "Western bloc" and the "Eastern bloc." The two "worlds" were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in the 1950s this latter group came to be called the Third World.'
This original or "classical" Cold War ("E-W") division was based on the economic system:
*capitalist (US, western Europe, Japan)
*communist (Soviet bloc+variants of communism)
*non-aligned (textbook: "between cap. & comm.")
Since the 1970s, and especially since the end of the Cold War (1989-1991: fall of the Soviet Union) economic development and political power have become the de facto characteristics determining to which "world" a country belongs:
*industrialized
*industrializing
*"un-/underdeveloped"
What are the various measures of "development"?
- urbanization, agriculture vs. industry, poverty (income), class equity, population growth, education, health; "independence" (autonomy)
- The map in the textbook (Tignor et al, p. 455), gives information on how this looks. I showed a slightly clearer graphical representation of the same information, and discussed it at length.

Would any of these measures: urbanization, population growth rate, or life expectancy, be suitable for categorizing countries into "three worlds"?

Note the bar graphs on the left and right, which compare population figures for 1990 and 2000. In that time period Latin America has surpassed Europe in total population. Note how Asia, Africa, and Latin America's populations are soaring, while Europe, Russia and North America are almost stagnant. (Australia is somewhat of an anomaly, as it is smaller, more isolated and sparsely populated.) This would indicate that we have only two worlds, as is indicated by the term "North-South divide."

Modernization (back to top)

Our understanding of modernization is closely tied to our notion of progress, which comes from ... [can you guess??] ... the Enlightenment. We might go so far as to say a modern society is one that has "growth for growth's sake."
But: Is growth good? Should it be the norm?
- Is economic development the same as industrialization?
- What alternatives are there?What goals, end points?
But putting such questions aside: There are (at least) 3 main ways of modernizing:
1. an evolutionary path. Example: industrial revolution in Britain
2. a popular (grass roots) revolutionary path. Example: industrialization in the U.S.
3. tight control in the hands of an authoritarian leader
Are any of these ways better than others? Which will yield the most lasting change?
- reforms and changes implemented "from above" are not enough,
- nor is education (changing the mindset) of elites alone.
- the broader populace has to embrace or even fight for changes themselves
How can resistance be dealt with? (inevitably, some groups will lose during modernization)

Violence only effective as a last resort;
Mandela, Pankhurst (women's suffrage): violence only justified as counterviolence
What types of violence are there?
-terror from "above" or "below" (think of the definitions of genocide...)
-"structural" violence exerted "indirectly" by institutions, laws, ...
Violence of both types is present under authoritarian rulers

Types of Authoritarian Rule (back to top)

In all societies individual freedom is subject to and limited by authority
How do those states guarantee individual freedoms?
4. 5. …
Exercise of authority depends on the nature of a society (customs, "culture"), and the world-historical stage(Kuhn's paradigm theory: appropriate match)
Three main types of authoritarian rule:
1. Absolutism
2. Bonapartism
3. Totalitarianism:

Source Interpretations (back to top)

The following sources in the textbook (pages from Tignor) are prime candidates for exam source interpretations:

377: Gandhi 1909 (India)
399: Mao 1940 (China)
402: Nehru 1940 (India)
405: Senghor 1959, 61 (Senegal)

prepared for web by Harold Marcuse, June 12, 2006, updated: see header
previous lecture: xx | next : xx
back to top, Hist 2c homepage