Home Mission Company Services Contributors Sponsors Copyright Privacy Policy Disclaimer
A Theoretical Test by Sino-U.S. Relations (I)
INTRODUCTION (Editor's Note: This paper was published in 1997 before the handover of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China under a different world situation and different historical background. However, the insightfulness and implication from this paper is still significant and valid for today's world issues. In the words of Dr.Kidd of University of San Francisco, "Peterson Baosheng Zhou opens a path which calls for a flexible attitude of exchange rather than conflict." (Click here)If you have any question, please contact editorial board at editor@superdirector.com.) In his discussion on recent development of sociological
theory, one of the most prominent American Sociologists points
out that "If theory without research tends to be 'empty',
research without theory tends to be decidedly 'blind"(Wiley,
1990). This point of view suggests the importance of
relationship between theory building and empirical research.
Both the "grand narrative" and "empirical research" are
considered to be important in sociological explorations. The
problem is that how to apply correct theory to research and
how to disapprove incorrect theory by empirical research.
More and more sociologists are inclined to build an entirely
new approach by developing or modifying some concepts or
propositions from other conventional schools in order to meet
the changes and challenges of the modern world because "the
new society requires a new social science"(Coleman,1996) and
the new social science "must be willing to cut across
traditional disciplinary boundaries"(Ritzer,1996). In my
opinion, Ritzer does not provide us with an explicit answer to
this question, though he does suggest the difference between
new social science and conventional social science. Although
some theorists attach great importance on the linkages between
macro and micro analysis, they focus on the characteristics of
the sociology rather then on the new theory per se. Coleman
emphasizes that "the most formidable task of sociology is the
development of a theory that will move from the micro level of
action to the macro level of norms, social values, status
distribution, and social conflict"(Coleman,1994).
Unfortunately, Coleman's explanation is also not
sufficient to address such a question as "what is the new
theory" or "what is a new science", even though he does
suggest that rational choice and exchange theories be a new
trend of micro-macro integration theoretical perspective.
Obviously, although micro-macro integration has become a
contemporary sociological movement with the leading exponents
such as George Ritzer, Jeffrey Alexander, Norbert Wiley, James
Coleman and Randal Collins, a new social science is yet still
not available, even sociology is still considered as an
immature science(by Turner). Because of the difficulties for
analyzing the complex social phenomena by employing only one
single perspective, more and more contemporary sociologists
tend to conduct research by using different approaches or
develop their theories by borrowing ideas and concepts from
other perspectives. There is possibility for the solutions of
modern social problems if appropriate approaches are developed
and the coping strategies with the strains toward the macro or
micro extremes are properly adopted.
In my opinion, the combination of Conflict theory and
exchange theory is an effective approach to address the social
problem in real world especially in the case of modern China.
Although this combination can not be defined as a new science,
the new approach is very powerful and very useful in
explaining the macro phenomena in the new world system since
the end of World War II. In this paper, I intend to discuss
international politics focusing on international relations
between the United States and China. While contrasting and
comparing the different propositions and characteristics of
various conflict and exchange theories as well as the
development of related sociological perspectives, I illustrate
the challenge of Marxism by dramatic social change and the
revision and modifications by neo-Marxian theorists,
especially the geopolitics theorists. By analyzing the
similarities and differences between Wallerstein's models and
Collins' Models, the author believe that both of them are
hyper-macro analysts and have made great contributions to the
modern geopolitics, though both of them have historical
limitations in addressing to the problems of modern China.
However, their limitations are repairable and remediable if
enough attentions are given to other theorists such as Mann's
network theory, Levi-Strauss's structural analysis and
exchange network theory of Emerson.
Following the meaningful attempt of micro-macro
integration, the author attaches great importance on the
conflict-exchange integration approach because of the
compatibility of these two prominent perspectives. My
propositions are that: 1, Conflict and exchange are two most
important interactions among human beings, therefore, they are
two eternal subject matters for social scientists. 2,
Conflict is the consequence of unequal exchange while exchange
is the alternative to conflict. 3, Conflict and exchange will
lead to the change of power, thus lead to alliance of two
parties against the third party. This paper consists of three
parts: (I) The development of conflict theory in geopolitics;
(II) The development of exchange theory and its compatibility
with conflict theory; (III) The application of conflict and
exchange theories as well as other perspectives in studying
relationships between China and the United States exemplified
by business and trade relations.
I. The Development of Modern Conflict Theory in Geopolitics.
It is generally believed that modern conflict theory has
developed as partially reaction to structural functionalism
and as a result of many criticisms. However, unlike the
criticism of structural functionalism, conflict theory has
been attacked for ignoring order and stability, for being
ideologically radical. Marx's conflict theory was attacked as
economic determinism and was only single dimension that was
insufficient in explaining the multidimensional social
phenomena. Theoretically, Marx was regarded as an economic
determinist. According to Marx, society consists of two major
parts, economic base and superstructures. Human being must
first solve the problems of substance of living before they
can pursue careers in the superstructure such as politics,
religion, ideas, art, literature and so forth.
By analyzing the relationship between the means of
production and the ownership in capitalist countries, Marx
divided individuals into two major interested groups: those
who own means of production are in a better position in
maintaining their power and control over those who had not any
access to the means of production. As a result, the society
is made up of the two conflicting class: proletariat and
bourgeoisie. The proletariat had to work for capitalists who
own the means of production and thus increased their wealth by
exploiting workers' surplus value. Class is the motor of
transition from one mode of production to another. "The
change of the economic foundation the entire immense super-structure is more or less rapidly transformed."
(Burawoy,1990).
Methodologically, Marx was believed to be a macro dynamic
analyst. For Marx, "class" was his unit of analysis, though
it was too narrow to explain society. Marx's theory on class
was considered not only a theory of social structure, but also
a theory of change (Wallance, 1995). According to Marx, "The
history of all hitherto existing society is the history of
class struggles", that is the struggle between working class
and bourgeoisie, between the oppressed and the oppressors.
For Marx, the conflict between these two classes will never
decline in the class society until the birth of new and
classless society.
Politically, Marx was a radical and a revolutionary. He
predicted the demise of capitalism in an optimistic point of
view. "Inequality" is the major social problem in capitalist
society. According to Marx, the fundamental solution to this
social problem is to get rid of capitalist system through the
means of revolution and build a better socialist system
instead. In socialist society, the ownership of the means of
production belongs to Public through the management of state
and the market is controlled by state through planned
economics.
In Marx's point of view, the distribution of the social
resources in socialist system was quite different from that of
capitalist system and it was better than capitalist society,
because the social inequality can be solved in socialist
country. The individuals get what they need according to
their contribution (labor) to the society. The principles for
distributing resources are made based on individuals' working,
not based on individual needs (In this sense, Marx was
regarded as naive and antagonism to individual and more
idealistic).
Marx predicted that the modern technology and the mass-production manner in industries make it possible for the
working class to overthrow the capitalist system because
capitalism lays solid economic foundation for the socialist
society, and create the grave-diggers for the capitalism at
the same time. The working class in all countries can be
united and become the major force which is powerful to
overthrow capitalist system because they have same interests
and bond by the same conscience.
Historically, Marxism was quite successful in
revolutionary practices by the communist parties in such
countries as China, former Soviet Union, Cuba and Vietnam. As
one major theoretical base in guiding their collective actions
and organization as institutions, the Marxist practitioners
had succeeded in their efforts to overthrow the old systems
with the collapse of the previous ruling class.
Unfortunately, Chinese socialist system was built on the semi-feudal and semi-colonialist society instead on solid basis of
capitalist system. China's socialist system was challenged by
the weak economic foundation ever since the birth of the
People's Republic of China in 1949. The economic development
was not paid enough attentions since the Communist Party of
China had wrongly interpreted Marx's ideas on class and had
busily engaged in continuous class struggle and revolution.
The chaotic upheaval of the whole country reached to its peak
in 1960' as The Great Cultural Revolution and caused the death
of tremendous number of people including the President Liu of
the People's Republic of China and several marshals(Lin Biao,
Helong, Chen Yi).
In my opinion, Marxism is impotent in explaining the
social inequality in distribution of resources in the case of
China although socialism has been adhered to but the
democratic politics and humanitarism have been neglected. One
of the major reasons is that the first-generation-Marxist-leaders either failed to master the real Marxism core
principle in its original sense or just adhered to one theory
without considering other valuable theory. Therefore, they
overemphasized the importance of revolution and class
struggle, but neglected Marx's essential principle in economic
development. For Marx, "economy is the basis of
superstructure". It is the Marxist practitioners' faults,
though the theory itself has limitation and needs modification
and revision.
Marxian theory had left a lot of unsolved problems for
sociologists which gave rise to the developments of neo-Marxism in the different orientations in critical, analytical
and historical conflict theories and economic sociological
theory. Realizing the limitation of Marxism in explaining the
social reality, neo-Marxian theorists have made great attempts
in filling the gaps and tried to modify Marx system.
Historically orientated Marxism and Neo-Marxian economic
sociological theory are such endeavors. As two of the
prominent modern Marxist theorists, Immanuel Wallerstein and
Randall Collins have made intensive and extensive research on
the modern word-system theory and geopolitics respectively
which are defined as historical conflict Marxism (On the
whole, Collins's theory is defined as Exchange Conflict theory
by Jonathan Turner).
Unlike Marx who focused on analyzing classes, Wallerstein
directs his interest in studying a broader economic entity
with a division of labor which is not circumscribed by
political or cultural boundaries. His unit of analysis is the
world-system which is considered by some sociologists (such as
Ritzer and Collins) as too abstract and is believed to take
conception from Braudel(Collins, 1981). In my opinion,
Wallerstein is a hyper-macro analyst. Based on the
historical-comparative approaches, Wallerstein argues that
there are two types of world-systems. One is "world empires",
the other is "world-economies". The world empires are based
on political domination while world-economies are
characterized by a multiplicity of political units, and which
are tied together by warfare and by economic exchange. In
contrast to Marx's radical ideas on the solution of Capitalist
system, Wallerstein suggests a moderate means. He predicts
that there will be possible for the third type of social
system that but might come into being in future. The unborn
world system is a socialist world-government within the
capitalist world economy.
In contrast to Marx, Wallerstein analyzes the division of
labor in a macro scale. According to wallerstein, the
exploitation of labor not only occur in the relationship
between working class and the capitalists, but also happen in
the relationship between the core geographical areas and the
periphery areas(states). In his ideas, the periphery consists
of those areas that provide raw materials, low-skilled and
low-waged laborers to the core and are therefore heavily
exploited by the core states. Internally, the amount of
costly class warfare are thus greatly reduced by a free and
relatively well-paid labor force and a mass consumer market
for economic products is created.
Wallerstein does not see evils of capitalism as Marx did.
On the contrary, he regards capitalism as an economic
alternative to political domination. Therefore, economic
exploitation " makes it possible to increase the flow of the
surplus value from the lower strata to the upper strata, from
the periphery to the center, from the majority to the
minority"(Wallerstein, 1974). He analyzes the surplus value
and exploitation in a broader and larger scales and a longer
period of circles.
On the other hand, he tries to explain the solutions of
"market" by illustrating the humanitarian ideas advocated
during the French Revolution. Wallerstein(1981) stated that
"liberty, equality, fraternity are the concepts which have
always been treated as three different ones and have been
argued about the compatibility of each other for nearly 200
years". By analyzing Braudel's preconception of capitalism in
which everything is seen upside down, Wallerstein sees the
strength of adaptability, flexibility and rapidity of creating
profit of capitalists. However, Wallerstein emphasizes the
remarkable rising of "market socialism" as a policy option of
the socialist countries in the last decade( China), in which
competition is controlled. Furthermore, he suggests a better
definition of capitalist world as "economic life" by
describing two different pictures between "economic life" and
"capitalism": "Economic life is regular, capitalism unusual.
Economic life is a sphere where one knows in advance,
capitalism is speculative. Economic life is transparent,
capitalism shadowy or opaque. Economic life involves small
profits, capitalism exceptional profits. Economic life is
liberation, capitalism the jungle. Economic life is the
automatic pricing of true supply and demand, capitalism the
prices imposed by power and cunning. Economic life involves
controlled competition, capitalism eliminating both control
and competition. Economic life is the domain of ordinary
people; capitalism is guaranteed by, incarnated in the
hegemony power(Wallerstein, 1991).
According to Wallerstein, the rise of capitalist world-economy is based on the three factors: geographical expansion
through exploration and colonization, development of different
methods of labor control for zones of the world -economy, and
development of strong states. The strong states dominate the
world economy system not by political forces or military
resorts but by their economic power. The dominated states
take the leading positions by turn as a result of their change
in economic power because of the crisis. The cycles are
analogous to the periodic crisis of Marxian economics, but
unlike Marxian periodicity in 10 years at the national level,
Wallerstein's cyclical dynamics is a century and is
transnational.
Politically, class conflict increases during the downturn
phase, but also that rivalry between cores stats erupt into
especially severe warfare at those times. The uprising never
occurred in the core countries because the people in these
countries share the benefits from exploitation of the
periphery countries. On the other hand, increasing
concessions should be made to the workers in order to keep
class conflict within bounds. In the case of the United
States, the signs of trouble were not only in the gap between
the rich and poor in America, but also in the rest of the
world.
Economically, Western Europe and Japan are catching up
with the United States. Raghavan is quite right in his
analysis of the decline of the U.S. power. "After the collapse
of the Bretton Woods system, and the subsequent political and
economic upheavals of the 1970's, it is perhaps true to say
that the US power had been relatively reduced, in military
terms through the Soviet emergence as a nuclear and space
power and in Economic terms by the new centers in Europe and
Japan"(Raghavan,1990). Therefore, Wallerstein focuses his
attention on the economic development in different countries
while analyzing the world economic system and predicts the
change of power in the change of exploitation. To a certain
degree, Wallerstein is also an economic determinist.
However, Wallerstein's models are considered very abstract
and "his long-term cyclical model has not been worked out"
(Collins, 1981). It seems to Collins, Wallerstein' projection
of the future of capitalist cycles expresses the Marxian
revolutionary hope in a new form. It is old wine in a new
bottle. He neglects other important factors such as culture
and religion as Collins criticizes on this point
(Collins,1981). Although Collins does not specify in his
criticism on Wallerstein approach, there is some clues in his
comments on Wallersitein's models that his approach is one-dimensional rather than multidimensional in his comparative
and historical analysis.
Nevertheless, Wallerstein's approach has unique merit in comparison with the conventional geopolitics, because he is able to show how military relations in space have economic effects and he agrees to the point that the state is an economic consumer that determines long term political power. Collins suggests the improvement of Wallerstein's models by filling in some of its explanatory gaps if it were tied to a systematic theory of geopolitical factors such as heartland territories and natural barriers. Another friendly suggestion by Collins is that "Wallerstein's model would be made stronger if its Marxian dynamics were still further integrated with the Weberian tradition"(Collins, 1981).
Similar to wallerstein's world economic system analysis,
Collins is another hyper-macro-analyst in exploring his
geopolitics(he is very micro in conflict theory in general),
though his conflict theory is not limited to geopolitics.
While analyzing change and conflict at macro level, Collins
also extends his unit of analysis to the territorial power of
states and extends the variable of time to 10- 30
generations. In this case, it is possible for him to extend
his study to 1000 B.C. onward in China, and 3000 B.C. in
Middle East, and 1000 B.C approximately in Europe because he
believes that external patterns have overriding influences in
a multi causal situation in the changing of macro sociological
structure. He places great emphasis on studying the
relationships between internal organizations and the external
patterns.
Collins also attaches great importance on the institution
of economy though he is by no means an economic determinist.
In his opinion, "more productive economics have
proportionately greater surplus for investment in war
equipment, larger populations, and greater proportions of the
population freed for military action"(Collins,1981)
However, unlike Walleinstein's categories of cores zones
and periphery and semi-periphery zones, Collins divides his
determinants of states into two sorts: the organizational
resources that make up the bases of military power, and the
territorial configurations in which this power is exercised.
The first determinant consists of three variables "weapons and
military structure", "economy" and "administrative resources
including the technology of administration and cultural
resources in the forms of religion and ethnicity". The
second sort is made up of another three variables:
"heartlands", "barriers" and "the external relationship among
heartlands and the states that are built upon them. Similar
to Wallerstein's model, Collins's models also address to very
lengthy historical period and "certain configurations of
variables may take as many as 10 to 30 generations to work
themselves out"(Collins,1981).
Politically, his ideas on heartlands is wider than core
zones. The "states based upon the largest and wealthiest
heartlands tend to dominate the smaller and poorer ones, all
else being equal"(Collins,1981). "Thus, most powerful and the
wealthiest nations have richer economic resources which are in
advantageous positions in competing with other nations states.
In the example of the Second World War, the economic resources
of the U.S., U.K. and the U.S.S. favored military predominance
over Germany, Italy, and Japan.(Liddell-Hart,1971:16-24)" (in
Collins, 1981).
However, as admitted in his essay, even Collins realizes
the difficulties in formulating workable units of analysis.
In his opinion, a perfect full-fledged model is yet a goal for
sociologists to take pains to reach. In studying powers of
states, it still remains to tie together the variables(weapons
and military organization, economy, administrative resources)
affecting the internal organization of the state, to show
where they add additional predictive powers in the multi
causal composite of external factors. In the light of this
statement, Collins' paradigm seems more comprehensive and
multidimensional, therefore should be considered more
applicable and more significant than Wallersteins' models.
His elaboration on the importance of related factors in
administrative resources such as culture and religions and
ethnicity is particularly significant. His analysis on the
history of ancient China is far reaching and deep. Collins
concludes that: "In China, the unified periods have lasted
approximately 250,400,300,160, and 600 years, and the periods
of disunity approximately 600,400,60, and 160 years" (Collins,
1981).
Unfortunately, he neither gives the explanation to the unity and disunity of modern China, nor predicts the possibility of the reunification of China and Taiwan and the birth of "Greater China" in the wake of the restoration of the sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macao by the end of this century. Collins does not explain the disunity and reunification of the modern states such as Germany, Vietnam, and Korea either. He has hardly address to the internal factors that lead to the great social change. In these areas, contemporary network analysis theorists such as Skocpol, Goldstone, Downing and Mann have contributed tremendously to the development of geopolitics and fill the gaps by Collins and Wallerstein's models.
Collins believes that Skocpol develops her revolutionary
theory which has not only a geopolitical component, but also a
domestic component. Skocpol emphasizes on geopolitical crises
bringing about fiscal strain and intra-elite conflict that
sets the stage for revolts. Therefore, Skocpol's theory is a
powerful alternative to conflict theory or rather to Marxian
theory in explaining the causes of revolutions not only in
modern China, but also the revolutions taken place in other
third world countries. In China's case, the internal factors
such as the extreme inequality gap and the large numbers of
poor people as well as the corruption of the ruling class
became the major reasons of the civil revolution. In addition
to the internal factors, the external factors such as the
invasion of foreign country(Japan and eight-nation
alliance)and the assistance from foreign countries( Russia and
U.S.) are also very important factors to be studied.
However, I think Mann's network models is also very
convincing in China's case. Although Mann's four-network
models are overlapping and noncoinciding, his perspective
bears a kinship to Wallerstein world-system analysis. Mann's
network model is considered more extensive in logics(by
Collins) and more comprehensive in context and more powerful
in explaining modern conflicts between states(by me). His
dialectical analysis on the relationship between economics and
geopolitics is particularly important under the circumstances
of modern world situation. In the case of China, Mann's
network theory is better in explaining the domestic conflict
and disunity of modern China. "The collapse of one form of
stratification means the opportunity for its enemies, those
who were oppressed by it, to seize the means of mobilization
and organization for themselves"(Collins,1981). His
cultural/ideological networks is a good model that display the
importance of cultural resources or ideal resources as
variables in studying states as unit of analysis. During the
anti-Japanese War, it was the common ideas and culture that
united all Chinese people regardless of internal political
conflict or religious differences under a disadvantageous
situation. There was lack of financial and technological
power and the weapons was very backward in comparison with the
military strength of Japan. However, the Japanese finally had
been defeated. One of the reasons is that, they did not have
cultural capital and emotional energy.(Post-War Japanese
economic miracle is the consequence of the cultural capital:
team spirit which resulted from the defeated humiliation.)
In Collins's own conflict theory, cultural capital and emotional energy are two important concepts which are hardly discussed by some other conflict theorists except for a few theorists such as Bourdieu and Alexander and Wuthnow whom are defined as structuralist or new Cultural sociologists.
To be frank, some of his general hypotheses and
corollaries need to be supported by further evidences and some
of his assumptions need to be modified since the world has
changed as the end of cold war and as a result of the demise
of Soviet Union.(I do not quite agree with Collins analysis on
the demise of Russian empire because the personality of the
state leaders play critically important role in social change.
If the leader were Stalin not Gorbachev, the Soviet Union
would not had been demise. The fundamental change of a social
system relies on many factors and should be studied in a
multidimensional perspective.
In sum, Collins conflict theory is in the direction of a
more holistic perspective. Ritzer believes that Collins'
conflict theory is relatively little influenced by Marx but
more influenced by Weber, Durkhein and above all phenomenology
and ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionlism. This is
perhaps the most striking feature that distinguishes Collins
from other conflict theorists as well as those in other
perspectives. It is Weber who influenced Collins and help him
to emphasis on the state as the agency that control the means
of violence, which shifted attention from conflict over the
economy(means of production) to conflict over the state. His
understanding of the social arena of emotional product,
particularly religions, is also due to Weber. Modern conflict
theory is so influential and powerful that Ritzer warns that
"one must be wary of the theoretical imperialism implied by
this approach and the similar tone that pervades Collins's
essay"(Ritzer,1996).
In the modern world stage, state power not only depends on
the internal economic development and its international
economic position, but also depends on clear strategy and the
correct foreign policy. In my opinion, the military actions
is the last choice for the state leaders to make since there
is no real victory to any party in modern warfare especially
the nuclear war. That's the reasons for China to reduce one
million military forces in the late 80's because of the clear
strategy and foreign policy. For all states regardless of
rich or poor, the most appropriate and acceptable solution
to the conflict is the means of exchange operationalized into
international trade.
Conversely, it remains to show the ramifications of
external geopolitics for internal process of domestic
politics, economic change, and stratification. It seem to me
that the key to link the external macro international
structure to internal micro domestic structure is the analysis
of the variables in models generated in the network analysis
with focus on the international trade behaviors.
Modern conflict theorists have emphasized the possibility
and importance of the consensus and integration between
states. For instance, the alliance between the United States
and Japan that developed after World War II. Therefore,
sociology theory should be divided into two parts, conflict
theory and consensus theory(Dahrendorf in Ritzer,1996). On
the other hand, Coser argued that conflict may serve to
solidify a loosely structured group. Conflict with one group
may serve to produce cohesion by leading to a series of
alliances with other groups. For example, conflict with the
Arabs has led to an alliance between the United States and
Israel. Continued lessening of the Israeli-Arab conflict
might weaken the bonds between Israel and the United States.
The Conflict between Mainland China with Taiwan might lead to
the alliance between United States and Taiwan. These ideas
reflect the influence of network theory and structuralism
especially Levi-Strauss.
Starting at the point of analysis of kinship, Levi-Strauss
extends his emphasis on the clan kinship to historical
structure. Although his concepts on the structure are seen as
resulting from exchange and regarded as "antipositivism and
aestheticism" (Collins,1981), his accounts are considered
"systematical", and therefore are acknowledged to have
theoretical merit. Levi-Strauss' structural version of
exchange theory, in Collins point of view, "appears a much
more promising route to understanding this phenomenon
(alliance network) than the individual-level, utilitarian
style of exchange theory as in the styles of Homans, Blau et
al"(Collins,1981). His concepts may provide the building
blocks that is wanted for a better theory of alliances that
make up modern politics and international relations as well as
interorganizational ties, business communities, friendship
network and the intellectual world itself. The structural key
to historical change is the interdependence of conflict and
exchange. In his dictionary, world is predictable and the
historical structure is also predictable. History is a series
of alliances structure, with their strains and conflictual
transformations. According to his ideas, "Exchanges are
peacefully resolved wars, and wars are the result of
unsuccessful transactions (1949/1969:67)"(In collins, 1981).
It seems imperative and worthwhile to briefly examine the
development of modern exchange theory first before I further
discuss the relationship between conflict theory and exchange
theory.(1997)
    Contact Us
Copyright © 1999-2003 Superdirector.Com All Rights Reserved. http://www.superdirector.com |
Next page