World Systems, Culture, and Society: Globalization Theories

Introduction

The main theories of development—dependency, globalization, and modernization—have been joined by a number of other theories that seek to explain how our world and society have developed. The most prominent among these is world systems theory, but world culture theory and world society theory also exist, each using different frames of reference to support their views. These frameworks provide an interesting perspective on the many different ways we study development, and as such are worthy of scholarship and understanding—even the minor ones that have yet to enjoy much uptake in the scholarly community on development.

World Systems Theory

Immanuel Wallerstein proposed world systems theory in the 1970s. As he explains (2013), the theory was created out of a rejection of sociology as it had existed since the 19th century. The aim was to replace sociology with a theory that had greater explanatory power for the world as he observed it. By rejecting traditional sociology, Wallerstein intended to create a system of analysis that broke down the barriers between different social sciences and instead analyzed the world and its nations as a complex, interconnected system.

Wallerstein brought to this discussion his own conception of modernization—one that explicitly rejects modernization theory (Skocpol, 1977). Among his direct criticisms of modernization theory is its focus on the nation-state. Wallerstein's theory traces the origins of modern society back through feudal times, predating the nation-state and rejecting the idea that the nation-state is the only relevant unit of analysis. He also argues that there are multiple different paths of development, contrary to modernization theory, which holds that all nations must follow the same path, albeit at different times. Furthermore, Wallerstein incorporates transnational structures into his analysis—structures that were nascent in the 1970s but have since come to play a much larger role in global development.

Wallerstein has continued to build out his theory since he first developed it. The theory was originally presented with a number of flaws, which provided fodder for critics (Skocpol, 1977), but it gained traction as at least an alternative system for analysis. These critiques have allowed Wallerstein not only to defend his work but to build upon it. Robertson and Lechner (1985) offered a critique regarding how the theory treated culture, which provided an opportunity to flesh out the theory and address that weakness.

There are several similarities between world systems theory and dependency theory, and in part this has allowed world systems theory to maintain relevance. A number of scholars have adopted the framework, and many of its ideas have become accepted. This is due in part to the fact that Wallerstein remains an active contributor to the discourse. However, world systems theory does not outshine competing theories in terms of adherents; it is well-known but not widely accepted as the dominant theory for explaining global development.

One key similarity between world systems theory and dependency theory is the core-periphery relationship. Core nations extract cheap labor and raw materials from periphery nations, then use those inputs to produce high-profit consumption goods that are sold back to the periphery (Moyer, 2016). There is also a semi-periphery, which serves as evidence that some nations can move from the periphery toward the core. Unlike in modernization theory, however, there is no clear pathway for this movement, and not all nations that enter the semi-periphery are destined to advance further into the core. This lack of predictability in development pathways is a key element of world systems theory and distinguishes it somewhat from dependency theory as well.

World Culture Theory

World culture theory has been described as a "neo-institutionalist theory of global isomorphism" (Takayama, 2012), meaning that the cultures of the world, while currently disparate, are moving toward a universal world culture. This is a relatively new and still minor theory. One reason for its limited adoption is that, while it has considerable relevance for analyzing globalization and its impacts, many other development theories look to the past to understand how the world arrived at its current state and to extrapolate potential future conditions. World culture theory, by contrast, is more focused on the future and argues that the convergence path we are currently on will continue until there is one world culture.

Three primary authors associated with world culture theory are Roland Robertson, Arjun Appadurai, and Ulf Hannerz. The theory focuses on the convergence of cultures across the globe. People are, for example, "becoming aware of the new global reality—the problem of how to live together in one global system" (ILS, 2006). The theory is used to evaluate current processes of globalization, which are said to be "compressing" the world into a single entity. While many unique and distinct cultures currently exist, this view holds that their uniqueness and distinctiveness are being gradually reduced. If globalization is the endpoint for other global development theories, it is the beginning point for world culture theory; the end of this story will be written much further down the road, when there is truly one world culture.

World culture theory remains a relatively minor framework, but it has been applied in some studies. For instance, it has been used in comparative studies of education, on the premise that logic and science constitute a single source of truth and that education will therefore converge on those sources. Under this view, there is no need for fundamentally different forms of education, given the universal nature of such truth (Carney, Rappleye, & Silova, 2012).

The theory continues to be contested. One criticism is that there may be an erroneous conflation between globalization and the move to a world culture. Sobe (2014) argues that the two are not the same—that "global" can simply describe a person rooted in a particular culture who moves within a global world. This is similar to criticisms leveled at Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat, which posited a move toward an even, global world; critics noted that outside of some major world cities, this was by no means the case. The problem with Sobe's reading of world culture theory, however, is that it misses the central point: the move toward a world culture is gradual, piecemeal, and spread across centuries. Nothing is truly global today, but given enough time it will be—especially as we increasingly recognize that many of our problems, including development and environmental challenges, are genuinely global in nature and demand a global response.

While world culture theory is not yet a major framework, it certainly has the potential to become one as it is further developed and as more evidence emerges to support it.

Conclusion

All told, these three globalization theories are among the minor ones in the field of development studies. World systems theory is the most accepted and widely known of the three; it has been around the longest and appears to have the greatest number of adherents.

World culture theory takes an interesting viewpoint, seeing the present moment as more of a starting point on the path toward a global culture than as an endpoint—as would be the case if one viewed the world through the lens of modernization or dependency theory.

World society theory is fairly young and underdeveloped. It seeks to explain commonalities among cultures and use them as a backdrop for understanding the processes of globalization—many of which take as a starting point the view that there are common objectives all societies are generally interested in pursuing, with development being one of the most significant.