Ethnicity and World-Systems Analysis 53Second, I argue that a major aspect of the context for construction and reconstruction
of ethnicity is the world-system within which it is embedded (Hall 1998, 2004). That is,
ethnicity cannot be understood in isolation from the larger—systemic—context within
which it exists. As noted, the ethnicity–system relation is recursive—changes in one entity
shape changes in the other.
World-systems analysis has grown vastly in recent decades. When scholars refer only to
Wallerstein’s early writing, they often repeat inaccurate critiques (many of which Waller-
stein answers in the preface to the 2011 republication of theModern World-System).
Much of the new work has been summarized in Babones and Chase-Dunn (2012),
Chase-Dunn and Babones (2006), Galaty (2011), Hall, Kardulias, and Chase-Dunn
(2011), and Kardulias (1999, 2010). In this second generation of WSA, one question
that has received more attention is the place of all forms of identity, such as race, ethnic-
ity, gender, class, and so on, within the modern world-system (Balibar and Wallerstein
2011; Dunaway 2001, 2003). There are also many discussions of relations with indige-
nous or non-state peoples in pre-capitalist settings, but summary statements too often
emphasize the system-to-component relations over the components-to-system relations,
because that exposition is more concise. There has been much bottom-up writing, which
entails extensive descriptions and detailed discussions, both of which make concise sum-
mary difficult. This has led to a false impression that WSA is only top-down, which is not
only incorrect but quite unfortunate, since much of the most incisive insights in WSA
have emerged from bottom-up analyses. This, of course is where the evidence is. It is
also one of several possibilities where scholars from outside WSA can make important
contributions to the discussion.
World-Systems Analysis: Developments,
Critiques, Revisions
WSA shares with other accounts of inter-societal interactions a basic tenet—that past
cultures did not exist in isolation. Rather, contacts, direct or indirect, affected groups
involved in larger networks. WSA differs from other interaction models in its emphasis on
systematic interactions, a broader geographic view, stress on the problematic hierarchical
aspects of systems, and attempts to outline long-term cycles of expansion and contraction
in world-systems.
What exactly does WSA advocate? This section focuses on the most recent scholarship.
WSA suggests that: (1) societies do not now, nor did they at any time, exist in splendid
isolation; (2) societal trends follow cycles or patterns; (3) interactions within a system
are important in all social changes; and (4) the system itself is a key component of social
evolution. The search for regularities in the historical record doesnotmean that WSA
ignores idiosyncrasies. Rather, WSA forces examination of external links in which indi-
vidual areas are embedded. For instance, Bruce Batten (2003) presents a very instructive
example in his examination of ethnic minorities in Japanese history.
These insights notwithstanding, there have been several cogent critiques of WSA. Many
of them gave rise to important extensions or revisions. Jane Schneider (1977) objected
that luxury items formed an important part of the trade between cores and peripheries,
whereas Wallerstein focused on bulk goods (also see Smith 2005). The classifications of