Transdisciplinarity in world-system analysis

Turhan Oğuz Alperen Postgraduate at the Department of International Relations and World Policy of St Petersburg State University  199034, Russia, Leningradskaya Oblast' oblast', g. Saint Petersburg, ul. Ul. Universitetskaya Naberezhnaya, 7-9 oguzturhan@yahoo.com Other publications by this author

1) Transdisciplinarity and the emergence of social sciences The world-system analysis (or the world-system approach) was developed by sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein in order to interpret social systems in the historical process ^{[1, p. 7]}.

In this process, the world-system is taken as the main unit. It implies a certain space in which, first of all, there is a principle of division of labor, and thanks to which many commercial and non-commercial relationships are established. The name of this approach appeared in Wallerstein's works in the 1970s, however, the roots of world-system analysis go back to the School of "Annals", and especially to the works of Fernand Braudel. He also claims that "their points of view with Wallerstein are almost identical"^{[2, p. 83]}. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it was his ideas that inspired Wallerstein and thus laid the foundation for world-system analysis. It should be noted that their views are not always accepted by other representatives of the approach unanimously. Firstly, this is due to the fact that researchers of different worldviews use world-system analysis. Secondly, the world-system analysis in the traditional sense is not a theory, but on the contrary opposes theorization.  Because everything changes and even the laws of nature are no exception to this rule.

          One of the most significant contributions to the world-system analysis of Braudel can be considered a clear separation of the free market from capitalism. Capitalist production, according to his conclusions, is exclusively aimed at the constant accumulation of capital and at the same time depletes all possible resources within reach ^{[3, pp. 237-239]}. So, according to the way the world-system analysis interprets the current situation, it is this kind of production that prevails in the world. Moreover, capitalism is an integral part of the modern world economy, and in parallel with this; it is coming to its end, dragging the latter with it.

It is worth noting that the term "transdisciplinarity" does not fully cover the ideas of the world-system specialists for the reason that their works do not give an exact definition of this concept. This is due to two factors: firstly, the world-system analysis has a complex character, it not only predicts a crisis in the world system and in science, but also develops its own methodology for finding a way out of this crisis. Secondly, the world-system analysis recognizes the incessancy and inevitability of change: since its inception in the 1970s, the theorists of world-system analysis have entered into various discussions and their ideas, although not radically, have undergone changes. Thus, Wallerstein writes about a certain "one-disciplinary approach", warning that it should not be confused with multidisciplinarity or interdisciplinarity, since the world-system analysis does not approve of the independent "intellectual existence" of these disciplines ^{[4, p. 90]}. We have chosen the term "transdisciplinarity" because, firstly, there is no such term as "one-disciplinarity" in the literature. And secondly, the main features of transdisciplinary research, i.e. the creation of a common research language, the formulation of common questions and the development of a holistic project structure, in our opinion coincide with the goals of world-system analysis in this context^[5].  If we conditionally and briefly define "transdisciplinarity" here within the framework of world-system analysis, then this term means a preliminary process of merging social disciplines under a single historical social science.

Disciplines, in fact, include more than they seem, Wallerstein argues: first, they are intellectual categories with certain boundaries separating the fields of knowledge. Secondly, disciplines serve as institutional structures in which various activities are carried out, such as scientific conferences, publications of specialized journals, awards of scientists, etc. Thirdly, disciplines are cultures that create their own special language, they also include specific scientific disputes, thus strengthening disciplinary walls^{[6, p. 453]}.

1.1) The evolution of social sciences before 1945 from the point of view of world-system analysis         

The formation of the social sciences began with man's search for knowledge. In the interpretation of the world-system analysis, it is as much connected with internal dynamics as with the political developments of the world. The first source was religion, which has manifested itself in various forms throughout history. Then philosophy appeared and over time reason began to replace theology. Thanks to the works of such philosophers as Descartes, Spinoza, systemic cognition began to separate from religious cognition ^{[4, p. 56]}. Meanwhile, there was a narrow circle of researchers who considered philosophy speculative, and preferred to conduct empirical research. Astronomical research served as the basis of natural sciences, however, knowledge was still considered a single space, for example, Immanuel Kant lectured on astronomy, poetry and metaphysics at the university ^{[4, p. 56]}. However, then with the spread of Newtonian physics and also with the almost completion of the era of geographical discoveries in the XVIII century, the split between science and philosophy was clearly marked. Representatives of the natural sciences began to explore everything that is measurable by scientific methods, and left the rest of the subjects to the so-called humanities, who did not oppose this division of work. This separation led to the emergence of the so-called two cultures.         

Against the background of these processes, when social science (of course, then it was only in the form of an embryo) and history fluctuated between these two spheres in 1789, the Great French Revolution took place. It is as important in the development of global events as it is in the formation of social sciences. The Great French Revolution led to two new phenomena: firstly, the revolution demonstrated that everything can change, monarchs are not eternal and the transition is permanent, secondly, sovereignty belongs only to the people, respectively, all the dynamics of public administration have radically changed ^{[7, p. 8-9]}.^[1] Thus, it became clear that the dynamics of social phenomena, as natural, occur within the framework of regularities and laws of nature, and they can be investigated as natural sciences are investigated. Following this, the process of institutionalization of the social sciences begins.

During this period, in the scientific field, due to the dominant position of Newtonian physics, the deterministic approach prevailed. Auguste Comte, appealing to the latter, used the term "social physics", which allowed him to clearly separate social science from philosophy, reality from metaphysics, and thus study the real world ^{[7, p. 11]}. In turn, his contemporary Stuart Mill noted that in comparison of social science with astronomy, the disadvantage of the former lies only in the lack of a full and accurate analysis^[7].

          The development of history is somewhat different from the rest of the sciences, since it is the oldest and most comprehensive among the social sciences. Historians before the XIX century usually wrote history arbitrarily, without any documents and evidence, taking into account the interests of their countries, rulers, etc. And in the XIX century Leopold von Ranke introduced a new approach to the study of historical events. The well-known phrase wie es eigentlich gewesen ist, i.e. as it really was, reflects the essence of this new approach^{[4, p. 61]}. Thus, a modern scientific historical archive appeared, where historical documents are stored, with which historians justify their research. However, despite this, history, unlike other social sciences (economics, political science, sociology), joined the humanities. Wallerstein explains this phenomenon by the reluctance of historians to develop general laws, generalizations and patterns ^{[4, p. 63]}. Accordingly, history has joined the idiographic disciplines, which, unlike nomotetic ones, treat the phenomena under consideration as unique.

The documents used in historical works, as a rule, were compiled by officials, besides they were mainly in Western Europe and in the United States. This led to two interrelated results: firstly, historians chose the topic of research based on the availability of sources, and not on the need to solve deferred issues, and wrote mainly the history of their countries. Secondly, the pace of Eurocentrism in science, which had already been formed by that time, accelerated. History was assigned only to the study of the past (these two names have become almost synonymous by our time, although this was not always the case), and the social sciences took upon themselves the responsibility to study the phenomena of the present. Wallerstein refers three disciplines to the social sciences: economics, political science and sociology, adding that this division by time factor serves as an obstacle in the search for objective knowledge ^{[8, p. 171]}.

Social sciences were considered at three levels due to the fact that the dominant liberal ideology divided society into three components: the market, the state and civil society^{[4, p. 64]}. As already noted above, the social sciences belonged to nomotetic disciplines and, when studying world phenomena, tended to search for generally accepted and universal laws of nature. They also served as a source of necessary information for the authorities of the respective countries.

Representatives of the social sciences drew their conclusions based on social phenomena in their countries. Then they began to apply their methodology in colonies that differed significantly from Western countries in lifestyle, culture, social structure, etc. In some colonies there was no written culture, no economic activity, no political structure, therefore it became clear that the laws of nature of Western social sciences are not able to explain the phenomena of "primitive" societies ^{[7, p. 21]}. As a result, new disciplines have emerged, such as anthropology and ethnography, in order to specifically study these "uncivilized" peoples.

Not only did anthropology and ethnography belong to idiographic disciplines, they completely studied the aforementioned tribes, their religion, languages and culture - they considered everything together. Anthropologists and ethnographers also provided the necessary information about "primitive" peoples to the colonial authorities and missionaries and served as translators and interpreters^{[8, p. 176]}.

Anthropology and ethnography, despite their great contribution to Western science, have not studied all non-Western peoples. On the one hand, some societies were not as "primitive" as most sub-Saharan tribes, and on the other, it was still difficult to consider them equal with Western civilizations^{[8, p. 183]}. These societies included such civilizations as China, India, the Islamic world, etc. They, unlike the "primitive" ones, had their own written culture (and even developed literature), the central government of the state, a peculiar system of science, etc. These "high" civilizations were engaged in Oriental studies.

In the current situation, anthropology, ethnography, Oriental studies and history, being representatives of the idiographic approach, found a place among the humanities, and nomotetic social sciences, such as economics, political science and sociology, abandoned the humanities faculties, but could not be attached to the faculties of natural sciences, became a separate direction. It should be noted that these three disciplines in the scientific field were not perceived as equal to each other, and their proximity to the natural sciences they formed a kind of hierarchy: economics was considered the closest to the natural sciences, and thus more scientific, due to its relationship to mathematical data, the second place was occupied by sociology, and the third by political science^{[9, pp. 243-264]}.

In the period 1850-1914, disciplines began to specialize more and more in their fields, respectively, disciplinary walls increased. From 1914 to 1945, the sciences, mainly natural sciences, progressed at an accelerated pace due to turbulent events in the world. By the end of the Second World War, the formation of the hegemony of the United States in the Western world dramatically affected the trajectory of the social sciences.

1.2) Social sciences in the period after 1945 and the concept of development

          After the American hegemony was established, the authorities decided to send specialists to many countries to receive the necessary information for political decisions. This function was previously performed by anthropologists, ethnographers and orientalists, however, taking into account recent political events, their activity in the new conditions turned out to be insufficient^{[4, p. 71]}. The authorities needed strategic information, and for this reason regional studies appeared. Most anthropologists returned to their countries and began to apply their methods, this time to their societies, and ethnographers and orientalists turned into historians. Also, during this period, many universities were established in all parts of the world. The American education system began to spread in many countries (except socialist countries). Large investments were made in science, especially in natural and social sciences, which attracted many scientists, this led to the fact that the pace of scientific research accelerated^{[7, p. 35]}.

          The data collected by regional and country scientists, over time, began to be used in the works of social science researchers. These new studies have shown that the rules of nomotetic disciplines apply in non-Western countries. As a result, the concept of "development" appeared, but in the period before 1945 it did not acquire its current meaning. Development provided for a certain set of stages and conditions, such as democratic governance, an open market, the adoption of a liberal regime, etc., while the ideal state according to these criteria was the United States ^{[4, p. 72]}. In addition, Wallerstein adds that this concept was also borrowed by the Soviet Union, but, of course, with some changes ^{[4, p. 73]}.

          The new concept of development has led to the emergence of a new trend, namely the theory of modernization. Modernization provides for a transition from traditional forms of societies to modern ones, taking into account two main factors: firstly, industrialization reduces the level of individual dependence on natural phenomena, and secondly, secularization frees the individual from spiritual life, stops the influence of the church and motivates people to participate more in political life ^{[10, p. 1049]}. Based on this definition, it can be concluded that modernization was a recipe of the West for the development of other states. If this recipe is followed exactly, it will lead to progress and development of the country, if not, the state will remain as poor as before.

          The modernization theory has not received approval among researchers. In the 1950s and 60s, in the UN Economic Commission for Latin America, economists came to the conclusion that international transfers of capital and goods were beneficial only to European countries and the United States, and unprofitable for Latin American countries and other undeveloped countries ^{[11, p. 1]}. The former began to be called the core, respectively, the latter the periphery. The main reason for this phenomenon was that trade between the core and the periphery was not carried out equally^{[4, p. 75]}. This was due to a number of different factors, such as the difference in the types of production in the core and the periphery, the dominant advantage of the core in the technological field, the presence of many alternative trading partners for the core, the lack of established institutions in the periphery, etc.

          Wallerstein, including the theory of dependence in the world-system analysis, adds that the problem with the modernization theory was its anti-historicity ^{[8, p. 108]}. Therefore, an alternative approach to the study of social phenomena can serve as a basis for solving the problems of today's world economy. The world-system analysis attempts to provide an alternative to the current unbalanced paradigm of sciences. At the same time, they use the concepts that were used in the works of the Annals school.

2) Conceptual troika: legacyAs a representative of the second generation of the Annals school, Braudel introduced significant concepts into the world-system analysis, such as the dichotomy of capitalism and the free market, minisystems, the world-empire and the world-economy, a change in the concept of unity in historical analysis in the form of a transition from state-centricity to the world-economy based on the principle of division of labor, holistic the approach to the system in the form of total history, a new understanding of time in the analysis of history and the concept of longue dur?e.

It can be assumed that the foundation in the world-system analysis, first of all, is a kind of approach to time. Further, on this foundation is based a comprehensive consideration of history, the so-called total history, which is intertwined with the school of "Annals" in the scientific literature. Total history entails the use of a variety of disciplinary methods. Accordingly, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research appears as a variant of a new approach. However, both Braudel and Wallerstein argue that interdisciplinarity, firstly, remains insufficient in terms of interaction, and secondly, further distances the social sciences from each other. Therefore, Braudel proposes the concept of interscience, Wallerstein introduces this concept into the world-system analysis and transforms it under the current circumstances of the dominant ideology and social sciences.

2.1) Time stages, longue dur?e and time space Braudel examines history in three stages:

the first is a short-term history in which events are mainly analyzed. He defines this period as unreliable and deceptive, since detailed consideration of individual events often misleads researchers and overshadows the long-term consequences of these events ^{[12, p. 173]}. The second stage is a conjunctural or cyclical history, which includes different ten–year periods, quarters of a century or "Kondratiev cycles". He also regarded this middle stage as a social one, in contrast to the aforementioned short-term-individual period.

He calls the third stage longue dur?e, i.e. an extended period, in the explanation of which Braudel relies on the term borrowed from economic sciences, long-term trends ^{[12, p. 178]}. The concept of longue dur?e in the interpretation of the evolution of the social sciences has a particularly important character. Within the framework of this concept, special attention is paid to structures. They form a reality that is gradually eroding, constantly changing, and thus extends to the present time, but at the same time they do not include unchangeable eternal laws because everything is subject to change. In comparison with individual and social times, longue dur?e is a geographical dimension in human history. Within the framework of this periodization, Braudel explores geographical objects, climate changes, the development of trade routes, demographic indicators, vehicles, as well as changes in the price of gold, silver, etc. many factors and their consequences for everyday life in order to describe the full picture of the space under consideration ^{[13, p. 22]}.

Braudel's categorization of time also affects idiographic and nomotetic approaches. The idiographic approach tends to consider each event in its specific context. Wallerstein writes about this that according to this approach, knowledge of historical events is waiting for historians to discover it, but in reality, this is far from the case ^{[14, p. 197]}. In contrast to the idiographic approach, the nomothetic approach looks for laws of nature that are immutable and applicable to any object in any context. In the world-system analysis, this is seen as neglecting the time factor, as everything changes over time, including the "laws of nature" ^{[14, p. 206]}. Wallerstein explains this antinomy using the concept of Timespace.

Wallerstein uses time Space not as an invention providing an explanation of old problems, but through it illustrates the disadvantage, and therefore the fallacy in the logic of representatives of nomotetic and idiographic approaches. There may be an infinite number of types of time space, and because of the above-mentioned errors in science, today research is conducted within the framework of two of them, eternal and "episodogeopolitical" time Space ^{[15, p. 73]}. For him, time and space are inseparable elements of reality, which they jointly create and they cannot be considered separately from each other ^{[16, p. 295]}.

2.2) Total history and the Principle of IntegrityAs noted above, the basis of the world-system analysis was laid by representatives of the Annals school, first of all by Braudel, who defined the history of events as "dust" not only on the basis of their insignificance, but also because of their peculiarity to block the actual trends ^{[17, p. 82]}.

          Accordingly, this approach to history has led to a more comprehensive perspective in the study of history. The study of a certain space as a whole, accordingly, led to the concept of total history, which, as a term, is closely related to the school of "Annals". Braudel developed the concept of the world economy, which further served as the basis of the world system. the world-economy implies a certain space in which production is carried out, there is a principle of division of labor and, as a result, trade relations are conducted, this space is also economically autonomous and includes zones of hierarchy ^[18]. It should be noted that the difference between the world economy and the world economy is significant. It means that each world-economy within itself is a kind of world. The world-economy is based on the principle of market exchange, and, according to Wallerstein, the modern capitalist world-system is a continuation of the system that appeared in the XVI century ^{[4, p. 98]}.

In addition to the world economy, Braudel also talks about minisystems and world empires. While, for the world economy, the main principle is market exchange, for the minisystem, interconnection plays a similar role, and for the world empire, the principle of redistribution. The minisystem differs from the world-economy and the world-empire by characteristic microdynamics, meanwhile, the world-empire, unlike the world-economy, has a political center, which allows them to levy taxes and fees, and thus exploit peripheral objects. Despite the high level of correspondence between their worldviews, Wallerstein and Braudel differ in determining the number of world-systems in history: Braudel believes that throughout history there have been various world-economies, in turn Wallerstein argues the opposite:, the world-economy in history was only one, i.e. the one that has been going on since the XVI centuries^{[2, p. 83]}.

          Although, in an explicit form, Wallerstein, despite the similarity, does not discuss the connection of world-system analysis with the general theory of systems, he, appealing to Prigogine, defines historical systems as examples of an irreversible arrow of time ^{[19, p. 205]}. Historical systems, as is the case with complex systems, include intrinsic trends such as secular trends, cycles, crises, transitions and breaks, which strengthens the feature of the world-system to serve as the world within itself.

2.3) Interscience and beyondLike many other ideas, the recognition of the crisis in the social sciences has passed from the school of "Annals" to the inheritance of the world-system analysis.

From the late 1950s until the end of his life, Braudel constantly advocated for the "universal council" of social sciences called interscience (the translation of the term means "interdisciplinarity", but in fact is completely different). Further, he proposed three conditions that are necessary for this merger: the mathematization of science, the emphasis on local specifics and longue dur?e^{[20, p. 4]}. Interscience covers a wide range of fields of knowledge from both the humanities and social sciences. In addition, Braudel emphasized the difference between interdisciplinarity and interscience, equating the first to the legal marriage of two bordering disciplines, and the second to the immoral attitude of all sciences, including philosophy and philology^{[20, p. 6]}. This opinion is shared by Wallerstein, arguing that interdisciplinary research can only lead to the reinforcement and institutionalization of new disciplines^{[21, p. 29]}.

In the period after 1968, with the wave of protest movements, there is a large-scale branching in the social sciences. If in the period since 1914 this manifested itself in the form of new interdisciplinary sciences, such as historical sociology, historical political science or political history, etc., then during this period feminist studies, African-American studies, LGBT studies, etc. appeared. Without a doubt, this only exacerbated the "discipline". The world-system analysis is critical of this situation, and opposes that each sociopolitical phenomenon should become a separate discipline, rethink the world from its point of view and abandon all other approaches to science^{[22, p. 24]}.

It can be said that Braudel's efforts to create a kind of transdisciplinary social field are partly reflected in the scientific field. At first, he made this attempt at the Sorbonne University, but he failed to breathe life into his project there, nevertheless, at the Higher School of Social Sciences (?cole des hautes ?tudes en sciences sociales), courses called interscience were taught for some time, and various academic studies of a general scientific nature are currently being conducted there.

Wallerstein distinguishes two categories of transdisciplinary research: one of them represents the natural sciences – the study of complex systems (complexity science), and the other, the humanities – cultural studies (cultural studies) ^{[20, p. 10]}. Researchers of complex systems oppose classical Newtonian epistemology, determinism. One of the representatives of this approach, Ilya Prigozhin, sought to combine social sciences with natural sciences. Cultural studies, using aesthetic and anthropological methods of analysis, seek answers to questions about the concepts of subjectivity and power^[23]. Wallerstein argues that cultural studies are often misunderstood due to the nihilistic attitude of some "extremists". In fact, cultural studies have two functions: on the one hand, they show specific rules of "good", and on the other, among these specific rules they find universal patterns.

ConclusionThe world-system analysis attaches much more importance to rethinking the current state of the social sciences than to replacing it with "historical social science".

The main arguments of the world-system analysis in favor of creating a unified social historical science can be listed as follows:

1)    In most studies, the content and conclusions often overlap. The same concepts are explained in different terms, and this leads to a discrepancy between the scientific data of one discipline and others.

2)    All disciplines go deeper into their narrow spheres, while the connection with other disciplines, even with loved ones, disappears. The conclusions of the research become incomprehensible to many researchers.

3) When representatives of these disciplines notice a gradual distance from the rest, in order to resynchronize their fields, they undertake interdisciplinary activities that further aggravate the situation, and a vicious circle is created.

4) Heads of departments erect and strengthen a disciplinary wall in order to preserve their influence and not share their authority in their departments.

5) World-system analysis criticizes nomothetic and idiographic approaches because of their erroneous justification on deterministic and indeterministic paradigms. The world-system analysis alternatively offers Prigozhin's principles of self-organization and deterministic chaos. In comparison with the mentioned approaches, the world-system analysis is probabilistic, therefore it does not always pretend to predict upcoming events.

6)    According to the world-system analysis, social science, as such, appeared in the XIX century in order to provide the information necessary for the management of political elites. Over time, a split occurred, scientists defined other principles, primarily "science for itself", but the institutions remained practically the same. The world-system analysis sets the task of reviewing the potential benefits in determining scientific goals.

7)    Since their emergence after the French Revolution, liberal ideology and social science have always supported each other, but the impending collapse of liberalism at the same time poses threats to social science itself.

8) Today's institutes of social sciences appeared in the XIX century in Europe and the United States, and the Eurocentric shade in them still persists for a number of reasons.

Despite the specific criticisms of the social sciences, the proposed options for world-system analysis to solve the problem remain insufficiently substantiated for implementation. Of course, this requires more than the support of a narrow circle of scientists. The two figures in question, Braudel and Wallerstein, not only verbally promoted the idea of transdisciplinary social sciences, but also actively acted as initiators, created relevant sections in their universities and institutes, and participated in international platforms. Whether their efforts have made the social sciences more transdisciplinary remains a question, but their contribution to potential developments in this area is undeniable.

Transdisciplinarity in the world-system analysis arises mainly as a result of its interpretation of time. Longue duree leads to the search for patterns and structures, the analysis of which requires a holistic approach. At the same time, transdisciplinarity arises as an instrumental necessity, and then turns into a principle of research. In addition, the neo-Marxist nature of the world-system analysis generates incentives to challenge the current position of the social sciences, especially in the universities of the so-called Ivy League.

^[1] The Gulbenkian Committee, of course, can hardly be called a representative of the world-system analysis, however, the committee was headed by I. Wallerstein himself and the report was also composed by him, besides, in our opinion, the ideas of the world-system analysis about the social sciences do not differ from the point of view of the report of the Gulbenkian committee.