Polirical Geography, Vol. 17, No. I. pp.

71-82, 1998
0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0962-6298/98 $19.00 + 0.00

Pergamon

PII: SO962-6298(96)00097-2

The time of space and the space of time: the

future of social science
IMMANUELWALLERSTEIN

Femand

Braudel Center, Binghamton University, PO Box 6000, Binghamton,

NY 13902-6000, USA

Assnu\cr. Time and space are irremediably locked together and constitute a
single dimension, TimeSpace. Social science, as invented between 1850 and
1914, has involved limited interpretations of TimeSpace emphasizing either
sociology, political science) or episodic
eternal TimeSpaces (economics.
geopolitical TimeSpaces (history, anthropology, Oriental studies). The difficulty
for establishing a successful discipline of geography was that it straddled these
two kinds of TimeSpace. Social science neglected three other types of
TimeSpace that were potentially subversive. The Annales school of history
emphasized
cyclic-ideological
TimeSpace and structural TimeSpace which
transcend the old choice between the idiographic and nomothetic through the
study of historical systems. Historical systems are defined by structural
TimeSpace and function through cyclico-ideological
TimeSpace. Between
structural TimeSpaces there is transformational TimeSpace and our historical
social system is reaching such a moment of bifurcation. Intellectually, social
science needs refashioning into a tool of this transformation and, politically, we
have to dare to develop a sober utopia and to seek to construct it. 0 1997
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Time and space

concepts

are the most elementary

parameters

very early in life, and all of us use them

Furthermore,

we know

though

are usually

they

objective

realities,

way. Chaucer

that time

expresses

are quite

different

equally

important.

And

upon

this oft-repeated

us, and ones

We are taught these

We know

and space

considered

not dependent

of our existence.
constantly.

what they are.

dimensions
we

we cannot

know

of reality,
that

they

are

affect in any significant

view in The Clerkes Tale

For thogh we slepe or wake, or rome, or ryde,

Ay fleeth the tyne, it nyl no man abyde. (11.118-l 19)
1 wish to challenge these most obvious verities. I believe that the meaning
space in our lives is a human invention,
and that different groups of people
differently.
constitute

I believe
a single

further

that time and space

dimension,

can we affect them in significant

which

are irremediably

I shall call Timespace.

locked

And I believe

of time and
define them
together

and

that not only

ways, but that all of social science has involved one vast
of TimeSpace.
The interpretation
given
interpretation,
and therefore
manipulation,
hitherto by social science was in fact a very particular interpretation,
one that is coming

72

The time of space and the space of time

under skeptical review today. Finally, I believe that our conceptualization

can have a crucial impact on our collective

of TimeSpace

social future, and that therefore

it is very

important that we reflect carefully upon the history and use of the concept.
It is hard to know how other forms of sentient beings conceive

of TimeSpace.

Most

forms of animal life do seem to have some sense of territoriality, and they even seem to
have ways of marking it. Do they also have a sense of time? Mammals, at least, seem to
have some sense of life span, and some ways of recognizing

its passage.

But humans

seem to have taken all of this much further. For one thing we invented measurements

of

time and space. There are such things as a ruler and a watch. These are, if you think of
it, remarkable

inventions. They started out as crude mechanisms

millennia went by, the technology

of measure and, as the

was improved. Today physicists (or is engineers?) can

apparantly guarantee the so-called accuracy of these measurements

to an extraordinarily

high degree. Not only can we tell how long is a second or an inch in terms of some cosmic
phenomenon

that is thought

to be stable

(or at least more stable),

but we define

astronomic distances in terms of the concept of a light-year, the space through which light
passes in a years time.
Such careful measurements
difficult operations,

are no doubt important

for many highly technical

and

but most of us, most of the time, are quite satisfied to use older and

cruder measures. We seldom expect that our watches will show exactly the same time, to
the second or even to the minute, as do the watches of those around us. We describe life
spans in terms of amorphous and inexact categories, like childhood, adolescence,

and old

age. We use terms like large cities and small towns, and would be hard pressed to give
population figures in most cases, not to speak of knowing the number of square miles a
given city includes. We do not usually feel ourselves to be intellectually crippled by the
use of such approximations.

Should we? I dont think so. The concept of large city is in

many ways far more meaningful

miles and 3,257,490

people.

than the concept

of a city that contains

For one thing, the number

of people

257.4 square

in a city changes

virtually with each second. And decisions by municipal councils to include or exclude a
few more square miles often pass by totally unnoticed by most people. But we would find
it hard to discuss the modern world if we excised from our vocabulary

the term, large

city.
What kinds of TimeSpace
question

is ambiguous,

(Wallerstein,

there

are many

wes. In a previous

19911, I categorized five different kinds of TimeSpace

in the modern
TimeSpace,

do we actually use, and for what ends? The we in this

because

world.

I gave

cyclico-ideological

transformational

TimeSpace.

names

TimeSpace,

to these

five varieties:

structural TimeSpace,

discussion

that are actually used

episodic

geopolitical

eternal TimeSpace,

Without repeating in detail my previous discussion,

and
allow

me to define each very briefly, in order to be able to discuss how social science has used
them, or ignored them, over the past 150 years.
By episodic geopolitical TimeSpace, I mean those categories by which we discuss
immediate history, for example in every days newspaper, when it refers to riots in
Brighton or elections in Ulster. Immediate history doesnt have to be current history. The
fall of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 is also episodic

geopolitical

TimeSpace.

The key

element is that it is short-term in its definitions of both time and space, and the events are
tied to the meanings given to them by the immediate context in which they occur.
By cyclico-ideological
TimeSpace, I mean those categories by which we sometimes
explain immediate history, as when we account for elections in Ulster by long-standing
Catholic-Protestant
differences in Ireland, or by Great Britains difficulties in liquidating
the sequels of British colonialism, or by some other factor that emphasizes a longer run

IMMANUELWALLERSTEIN

73

of time, and that involves some definition of the situation deriving from an evaluation of
the meaning of location in time and space of particular groups.
By structural TimeSpace, I mean those categories by which we discuss phenomena
such as the so-called rise of the West or the continuing cultural relevance of the Roman
limes, or try to understand
the origins of East Asias spectacular improvement
of its
economic position in the world-economy
in the light of the structural explanations of the
functioning of the modern world-system. The explanations here are much more longterm, and are in fact definitions of the kind of historical system in which we live as well
as its boundaries in time and space.
By eternal TimeSpace, I mean, for example, explanations of ethnic cleansing in terms
of asserted fundamental incompatibilities
of so-called ethnic groups with each other, or
aggressive instincts human beings are supposed to possess, or even the effect of climate
upon social behavior. The defining characteristic here is an assumption of timelessness
and spacelessness, in effect, of the irrelevance of time and space to the analysis.
By transformational
TimeSpace, finally, I mean exactly the opposite kind of analysis,
one which emphasizes the specialness of the occurrence, its exceptional quality, and its
profound effect on all the major institutions of our world. The Christian explanation of the
coming of Christ on earth is one such explanation. We can cite the year and the place, but
do they matter? Or if you prefer a more secular example, we talk of the agricultural
revolution. Here too we can cite the year and the place, though much more
approximately,
but once again, does it matter? What matters is the profound
transformation
or rupture that we believe has occurred, and which has affected
everything subsequent to it. And yet, although the particular place and time do not seem
to matter in the sense that they are not really part of its intrinsic or even its immediate
explanation, transformational
TimeSpace is said to occur, as we shall see, at the right
time and place, therefore in a sense at the only time and space at which it could have
occurred.
The important things to notice about these five varities of TimeSpace are that each
presents us with a totally different level of analysis and with different definitions of time
and space. Furthermore,
no particular expression
of any of these varieties is
uncontroversial or uncontested. Whatever explanation I provide within the context of any
of the five varieties, there will be others who will say that I have got the particular
definitions of time and space wrong. Surely that is what is at stake in Ulster. For the Sinn
Fein, Ulster is part of a space called Ireland-morally
and historically, if not juridically.
For the Unionists, Ulster is part of a space called the United Kingdom-morally,
historically, and juridically. In addition, if you ask either side for how long this has been
true, you will get different answers.
Sometimes the debate is about which kind of TimeSpace is most relevant, Take the
debate, obscure to all those who are not a part of it, over Kosovo. Kosovo is the natne of
a geographic district in post-1945 Yugoslavia. In the period when Tito was President, this
zone was accorded a special politico-juridical status. Although it was not one of the six
federated republics, it was proclaimed an autonomous region within one of those
republics, Serbia. In 1989, Serbia revoked Kosovos autonomous status unilaterally. I am
not prepared to discuss the constitutional legalities of this action. I am interested in the
justifications. The large majority of the population of Kosovo are Albanian in terms of the
ethnic definitions used in this part of the world. They claim the right of self-determination
on the basis of numbers in a locality whose boundaries were formally defined only in the
twentieth century. They are arguing in terms of episodic geopolitical TimeSpace. The
Serbian governments
argument was quite different. They spoke in the name of a

74

78e time of space and the space of time

presumably

long-existing

entity, the Serbian

historic cradle of the Serbian people because

people.

They said that Kosovo

was the

it was there that in I389 the Serbs chose

death rather than surrender to the Ottoman enemy (to whom the contemporary

Albanians

in Kosovo, who are Muslims, are mentally assimilated). The argument was that this battle
gave rise to Serbian national consciousness,

and that it was therefore

inconceivable

that

there could be a Serbian state that did not include Kosovo as an integral part. Hence, the
Serbians

continued,

current

population

figures

and current

irrelevant; Kosovo was part of Serbia morally because

boundaries

are simply

of things that happened

fourteenth century. These are arguments using sructural TimeSpace.

in the

Kosovos location in

Serbia was said to be structurally given. There is no way of resolving

such a debate

intellectually. Neither side can demonstrate that it is right, if by demonstrating

it we mean

that the arguments are sustained by the weight of the evidence in some scientific puzzle.
This is a political dispute, in which TimeSpace

coordinates

are simply a tool of each side.

The issue will only be resolved politically.

The debates about Ulster and Kosovo are typical political differences
is interesting
concepts

about them for our discussion

of TimeSpace

of our time. What

is not only that they employ

particular

but also they they both implicitly (and sometime explicitly) refer

to justifications deriving from the social sciences. The social sciences are not at all neutral
on such subjects, but they are often ambiguous.

And it is with the hope both of reducing

some of the ambiguity and underlining the non-neutrality

of the conceptualizations

that

I address these issues today.

Let us start by remembering
knowledge,

some of the history of the social sciences.

its very name, was essentially a product of the nineteenth

This form of

century. It is not

that the issues discussed by social scientists were not previously elaborated

by authors,

some of whom we think still worth reading today. But the idea that there was a specific
domain of knowledge we call social science, that it in turn was divided into something we
call disciplines, and that the production and reproduction

of this disciplinary knowledge

should be located in special social institutions to house them-all

constructed

only in the period between

When I say that social institutions were constructed,

that became accepted as domains of knowledge,
universities
departments

this was definitively

1850 and 1914.

I am thinking first of all of names

and the consecretion

in the form of chairs and departments

of such names by

of instruction bearing these names,

in which students could pursue degrees

qualifying them as specialists

in

these disciplines. Most of the students who obtained doctorates in these disciplines went
on to obtain positions as professors of these disciplines or as researchers in parauniversity structures. In addition, these specialists created national (and later international)

associations

and established

scholarly journals which bore these disciplinary

names. These associations and journals were intended to facilitate the exchange of views,
but they also served to define recognition within disciplinary boundaries. Finally, the socalled great libraries began to catalogue their books in terms of these same disciplinary
distinctions.

In this period, most of this activity (say 95%) was occurring

countries: Great Britain, France, the Germanies,

in only five

the Italies, and the United States. Almost

none of these organizational structures existed as of 1850. And most of them were in place
by 1914 (for a detailed analysis of this whole process,

see Wallerstein et al., 1996, Part

I).
The names that were consecrated were principally six, only six one should say:
history, economics, political science, sociology, anthropology, and Oriental studies. Why
I do not include geography in this list is a question to which I shall return. If one looks
carefully at this list of six disciplines, as they were defined in this period, one sees that

they reflect

three

basic

there was the cleavage

the past. Economics,
with the present.
Secondly, there

cleavages,

all of which

past/present.
political

History

science,

was the cleavage

located

geographically:

history,

economics,

political

science,

period,

with

whelmingly

only with the five countries

the

between

domain
these

two disciplines

with primitive

tribes, who

parts of southeast

of the Americas,

islands

of the globe.

located

in zones

control

of them: notably

second

whose

cleavage

among

turns

Oriental

lines

identical.
national

economy,

themselves,

And

(past/present)
were

or densely

in terms of the presumably

lines

sociology.

There

and a British

was thought

national

society.

and

and a

there was a third

space.

This was the

domains
space?

of the market,

On inspection,

unit of analysis

were
juridically

to be a British national
You see immediately

in the

state, a British
the problems

of

when

national society,
Northumberland

and not Scats and English national societies? Can there be said to he a
civil society or a Highlander
civil society? I call this hypothetical
space

the scholar

is claiming

of the state from those

can somehow

to be able to distinguish

that occur

in the market

keep them separate

analytically

other. But if they are truly separate,

overlap,

a bit like the intermeshed

as a structure

of parcellized

be part of multiple
The partitioning
course

nineteenth

century,

because

He is asserting

which

a particular

he

on one or the

even if the spaces

scholars

describe

unit of land may

jurisdictions.
about

It reflected
and most

that occur in the domain

spatial,

of feudal Europe,

precisely

we talk of British

his attention

are they not hypothetically

sovereignty,

competing

activities

or in the civil society.

and concentrate

jurisdictions

of knowledge

not accidental.

of Great Britain. Why should

it

actually

such a definition

because

I use the instance

as

in political

temporal,

lines were those of the state, as defined

or potentially.

defined

empires

This trio of disciplines

autonomous

of each

or glacial

plus the isolated

Persia. the Turkic world.

Why do I call this hypothetical

boundary

to deal
of Africa:

were essentially

of hypothetical

and

division

forested

spatial in character,

those

science.

the

wdS supposed

that was ostensibly

that was ostensibly

political

too

and the Himalayas;

which

over-

the non-West,

areas of the world-most

India, the Arab world,

of demarcation

virtually

themselves

here

Anthropology

in specific

as being

just mentioned-

concerned

studies.

dealt with regions

cleavage

De facto, the boundary

actually

Oriental

of Eurasia,

China, Japan,

the geographic

present,

they

point in the past had large bureaucratic

and the civil society.

out that

I have

in

to a concern

that was defined

concerned

Indeed,

(that is, mountainous

studies

economics,

their boundaries

the state,

zones

(civilized/other)

cleavage
defined

located

the far north

to the one

cleavage

a cleavage

was geographical.

that at some

limited

fdCt0

I listed. Most of the other countries,

and

were

Asia; remoter

zones)

Byzantium.
In addition

the West.

of anthropology

de

The four disciplines

and sociology-all

in this

First of all.

to deal with what occurred

were

civilized/other,

exclusively
were

have to do with TimeSpace.

was supposed

and sociology

West/non-West.

75

WALERSTEIN

IMMANOEL

the social world

the dominant
particularly

world

liberalism

into these

six disciplines

views

of the Western

which

became

was of

world

crystallized

in the
as the

geoculture
of the world-system
in response to the upheavals
occasioned
and symbolized
by the French Revolution.
It was the epoch of a belief in progress,
progress towards a
more civilized

world,

West, progress

towards

be a mainstay

of the social system.

The impact

progress
a world

of this partitioning

whose

principal

in which

impulses

differentiation

were thought
of institutions

to be found

in the

was considered

upon how we think about and use TimeSpace

to

is seldom

discussed.
Of the five kinds of Tlme Space I have enumerated,
it was eternal TimeSpace
that earned price of place. This is not really surprising. The same nineteenth
century was

76

The time of space and the space of time

the moment in time when the natural sciences, particularly in the form of Newtonian
mechanics, finally triumphed as the only truly legitimate form of knowledge. Theological
knowledge
had at last been definitively dethroned,
but so too had philosophical
knowledge, which now came to be perceived as no less arbitrary and speculative than
theology.
At the end of the nineteenth
century, Windelbrand
put forward the now widelyaccepted thesis that the social sciences were caught in what he called a Methodenstreit,
one between what he called idiographic and nomothetic epistemologies, that is, between
those who believed that every social situation was particular and that all that a scholar
could do was to reconstruct it empathetically
or hermeneutically,
and those who
believed that every social situation could be analyzed in terms of universal, so-called
covering, laws that applied through all of time and space. This was of course the same
distinction that C.P. Snow would make later between what he referred to as the two
cultures-the
humanities or literature on the one hand and science on the other.
However, Windelbrand was speaking neither of literature nor of science but of social
science, which lets us see that the split between the two cultures occurred right in the
middle of that in-between form of knowledge we call social science. Social science,
methodologically,
seemed to have no autonomy. Its practitioners were pulled in two
opposite directions by the two strong intellectual currents, and social scientists felt that
they had to choose sides.
We know which sides they chose. In the period going at least up to 1945, the majority
of those who called themselves historians tended to opt for the humanistic side, to
consider themselves practitioners of an idiographic epistemology. Their argument was
rather straightforward. The dense texture of historical reality could never be encapsulated
in simple formulas or equations.
Historical events are unique and do not repeat
themselves. The closer we look at any particular sequence of events the more complex
it seems, in terms of motivations and the range of factors that explain its outcome. The
task of the historian should be to capture this reality in its richness, relying on written
documentation
of the time (so-called primary documents),
and to transmit what
happened empathetically to the reader.
To be sure, the historiographical revolution of the nineteenth century had been deeply
influenced by the mythology of science (Wallerstein, 1996). The historians said they
wanted to uncover what had really happened, and they wanted to use empirical (that is,
archival) evidence to establish this. They thus accepted that there did exist an objective
reality outside the investigator, a basic premise of science, and that the investigator should
not allow his prejudices
to intrude upon his analysis (another basic premise).
Furthermore, they joined the natural scientists in denouncing philosophy, which seemed
to the historians the incarnation of myth rather than reality. It was however precisely
because they rejected philosophy so strongly that they became deeply suspicious of
generalizations, wondering what empirical validity such generalizations
could have,
fearing that their use would be the path back to philosophical speculation.
So the historians preached staying close to the data found in archives, which was
terribly constraining in two ways. It was constraining geographically, since the existence
of archives depended on social preconditions which were not equally met in all parts of
the world. And it was constraining temporally because of the kind of data to be found in
archives. Archives normally contain data defined in terms of episodic geopolitical
TimeSpace. After all, who writes documents and who collects them? Primarily the states,
and primarily to keep records of current geopolitical transactions. There was indeed a
further constraint: archives contained secrets, and as a result states normally made them

W~nERsrrr~

IMMANUEL

77

available only for periods long gone by. A 50-year rule was commonplace.
archives could not be used to analyze the present.
Economists,
political scientists, and sociologists
went in quite another
disciplines
were based upon the presumed
differentiated
institutions
world,
how

In that sense,
can one

scholars
posed

the pre-modern

know

about

world

the modern

to look at it directly.

or could be created,

data could be located

and/or

statistics,

reports,

newspaper

How

could

one

quantification,

be

present-orientation
normally
reinforced

that

such

the

narrow

geographic

the conditions

the practice

of the scholars

to justify the validity

themselves

by laws, then

was the necessary

When

we

studies-we
those

turn

to the

discover

of history.

mediating
extremely
concept

strange.

extra-European

Two epistemological
quite difficult
contact

to acquire

knowledge.
were

primitive

therefore
present.
were

in the

They were
Small

neighboring

peoples

space
people

which

such

was different,

narrow

in time and space,

that social behavior
Eternal

positions

with understanding,
were,

from
These

peoples

point

participant

could

have

without

primitive.

covered

The

documents;
institutions,

One was that it was

and that only direct,

prolonged

observation,

yield such

primarily

would

contemporary

data. But, on

the verb assumed)

been

no historical

that, if they

evolution,

the same as their behavior

history.

the anthropological

and

of view,

had a technology

they did not have written

from such a definition

Oriental

explaining,

a European

they did not have differentiated

called

peoples

TimeSpace

very close to

science;

in language,

to

where

and

about such a people,

there

sought

There could be only one way

was irrelevant.

in the past must have been

therefore

scholars

was

sciences-anthropology

that the data were

in what was called

These

in
the

which

pseudo-laboratories

sample,

(and one has to underline

present.

that their behavior

written

The

meant

seen

the best infrastructure,

creating

meaning.

were drawn

it was assumed

was

This reinforced

term of the time was that they were

via a method

This perforce

the other hand,

who

of modern

knowledge

with the people,

non-secret

epistemological

concerned

small spaces;

conclusions

answer

If one assumed

social

had a clear operational

in relatively

Such

social scientists.

to defend

of peoples

that did not use the knowledge

they were located

had

of the sample

were

The

scholars.

scientists,

epistemology.

The consecreared

of primitive

present:

of the data.

could be controlled.

that they tended

realities

data

and the civil society.

reliable?

of these

of nomothetic

Anthropologists

the social

was

collection

on such a narrow

the locus

presumption

they

in the public

since the best data (in terms of reliability)

bias

of data based

these

light on the questions

It was to be found

in sites which

of the natural

and that was full faith in a nomothetic

was governed

data

in the careful

and collected

approximate

But

directed

data of all sorts.

of the three disciplines,

the most recent,

throw

intellectually.

ethos

most easily about the immediate

interview

sure

could

in archives.

direction. These
of the modern

irrelevant

the scientific

about the state, the market,

created

and therefore

largely

Here

The data which

was by and large not to be found

that existed,

seemed

world?

Hence,

For this reason,

and
in the

ethnographies

present.
invited

in customs,

the

observation

in beliefs.

that

each

It was deduced

that

the complex
texture of each people
was irreducible
to formulas,
and therefore
that
generalizations,
even about primitive peoples in general, were dubious
if not totally
excluded.
Thus we arrive at the same conclusions
that the hislorians,
faced with theilarchival data, had reached,
that anthropologists
came
peoples

they were

thdt only an idiographic

epistemology
was legitimate. The fact
to defend the reasonableness
of the strange customs of the

describing

reinforced

this bias, in that all generalizations

reify European
customs and norms as the only rational
were also using episodic
geopolitical
TimeSpace.
even

seemed

ones. In this way, ethnologists

though the term geopolitical

to

78

The time of space and the space of time

sounds anachronistic
here, because the meanings
immediate
context in which they occur.
Oriental

studies

faced

a different

called in the nineteenth

meaning.

High

complex

civiiizations

technologies

written

What underlay

these

high
focus

not have become

could

however,
analysis
world.

were

Somewhere

obviously

world

were

in these

the scholar
of these

history

and
could

and prevented

way, these civilizations

incarnated

overcome.

Muslim civilization.
geopolitical
meanings

about

Once

TimeSpace,

In summary,

six disciplines

context
emerged

uncover

to knowledge

of a

it. In this case,

philological

by the Western

the reasons

for the non-

although

the emphasis

that seemed

there

was

came to be on

forward

into modernity.

past of the West that the

was pressed

of Chinese,

scale,

m which

why they

required

Hence,

the scholar

particularity

to be sure on 3 grand

non-modernity

set itself to solve.

with

and

the move

again the only TimeSpace

tied to the immediate

studies

the traditional

Once again therefore

the essential

of a large

indeed

comprehensible

studied,

that froze rhe process

framework,

meant

texts, and not with the people.

civilizations.

that mighr have been

their

contact

religious,

elements

idiographic

and

of access

long

In an important

West had somehow

had

world),

was

of history

not modern,

was one

into terms

texts

of time,
Western

(by which

that Oriental

with the written

their wisdom

what were

by this civilization.

required

ancient

by the

by the high civilization).

not modern,

the problem

part

periods

religions

Why they were

which

most

iong

of the modern

at one or more moments

and non-mnodernizability
a diachronic

over

as those

was the puzzle

was on contact

for the

to be able to translate

modernity
those

civilizations

again

were explaining

the area covered

of the analysis.

civilization

the emphasis
texts

scholars

the area encompassed

it do this? Here

given to the customs

Here too there was a clear operational

spaces

and

throughout

modern,

but complex,

These

languages,

covering

the central

strange,

in large

not as complex

widespread

empire

Nonetheless
could

These

these traits was the existence

bureaucratic
became

existed

unifying

that were

dilemma.

high civilizations,

(though

documents,

religions

How

century

are those

back into an

or Hindu,

no matter

but nonethcles~

or Arabo-

was episodic

concerned

with

they occurred.

in this period.

And in the grand

kkhxk%str~if,

three
three of them were nomothetic-econt,mich.
political sclencc. and sociology-and
of them bvcre idiographic-history,
anthropology,
and Oriental studies. The former used
eternal

TimeSpace

seemctl

to

USC

It IS now

of

the other

the moment

taught

in almost

terms

of numbers

prominence

and the latter cpiaodic

any

threv

geopolitical

to talk of geography

all the universities

of scholars.

as

;I

clibcipline.

of attention.

And none

of them

I have idenrified.

of the ~~.orld. It is an honorccl

and centrality

of the six disciplines

TimeSpace.

kinds of TimeSpace

Geography
name.

it has never

is of course

ISut curiously.
quite attained

in
the

I have been discuss&. (J Yet it is the only other social

science. along Lvith histoT. that is taught in all the stlcc~ncl~ry schools of the world. This
seems anomalous.
2nd requires some explanation.
I belie\,c the key lips in rile fact ihat
geography

did not

fit in the

neat

pattern

that

I IML.C dcscribecl.

It ignored

thr

cleavages.
One the one hand. geography
European

got great impulse

from European

exploration

of the non-

world.

In the nineteenth
century. particularly.
this involved a strong overlap
and to :I lesser exrcnt \\ith Oriental studies.
Hut geography
also
Lvitll :intliropology,
concrrned
itself with the Western world. 2nd most particularly Ivitti the country in which
particular geographers
Lvcre located. and in this way overlapped
very much with the
domain of history. All these disciplines
were strongly idiographic,
as we have seen. But
geography
was also strongly oriented to the natural environment.
overlapping
with the
natural sciences,
and drawn to nomothctic
~pistcrnol~~g~-l~~~~~~
cl\~erlapping
\vith

h,MANUEL

economics,
were

political

emerging

science,

WALLERSTEIN

and sociology.

as it did, and fitting

Cutting

into none

die out as a separate

79
across

the disciplinary

of them,
its various

divisions

have

parts being

that

expected

absorbed

thdt

geography

would

other

by the

Already in 1917, an Austrian geographer, H. Hassinger, was calling

the Cinderella of German science (cited in Droz, 1960: 18). The question then

disciplines.

geography
becomes

less why geography

it managed

to survive

did not succeed

contains

to look

five signed

Dr. Fridtjof
Zealand
Clinton

How can the North Polar Region

Exploration

F.D. Lugard,,

a second

to matters

reason

within

schools,

in exploration.

It

be Crossed?

Exploration

universities.

and indeed

functions

within

the

school

of compulsory

ninetcwXh

and

formation

and Character

of Principal

New

stiicl~nts

in Africa

the primary

French

geography

of their

kno\\ ledg:e of the place

names.

()f the \\ hole. Geography

coiiltl t>r neglected.

just barely,

made

seconclar\.,

place

TimtSpace.

What difference

TimcSpace.
cxogcnous

the regional

whose

Our ancestors.

primaril~~,

\v;is offered

;1 real ashcssmt~iit

pillx.

that,

the secondary

of the

central

education

via the

conveying

to the

roots lay deep

the Gauls. bears

on

the

social

in the late

integration,

What the schools

impressing

a
than

in time.

spectac.ula1

taught

students

\vas the

;I

detailccl

\Mations.
and abo\,e all the hypothetical
~1s.i signal Icsson in \\hy no part of the state
xulyi\ ccl

As ;I result, hou,cver.

3s 3

discipline.

1,111

it could play tittlc

of tlic centralit)~ of 3p;ice in soci:1l analysis.

eternal

for episodic

one

of national

and that all \\ ere i~xzful. ll~ii.4 geogaplq.

The social sciences

within

secondary)

structure

I think,

is the clue. Why was it so

that

function

national

geography

that I observed

strong

Thih. 1 think,

21s:I poor relL1tiL.egood for sc%oolboys.

role in forcing

Remember

remember

was the other

country

gave

was one pillar of this training,

recitation.

Geography
own

schools.

uas the

History

certainly

extremely

(and later compulsory

centuries

schoolbo),s

to this effort.

interest

Rut this is less important,

away.

\vas

We must

primaT
citizens.

state

did not waste

geography

that they Lvere part of 3 single

The famous

of High Altitudes

did not have.

system?

twentieth

of national

Effects

of immediate

disciplines

why geography

the

within

witness

interest

Geogruphical Journal.

of the Black Sea

Treaty Making

base that other

strong

Society,

F.R.C.S., Physiological

This orientation

weak

it had from non-university

with a strong

Glaciers

Dent,

political

Society,

at Vol. I, No. 1, 1893, of the Societys

Hon. Sec., N.Z. Alpine

N. Andrusoff,
Captain

and more how

articles:

Nansen,

A.P. Harper,

itself better

here. One is the strong support

such as the Royal Geographical

It is revealing

in establishing

at all.

I think there are two answers

structures,

unit)

study,

we might

TinMpace

geopolitical

central.

:1nd rcs~n~~l

an important.

albeit

Ti1neSpac.e.

but ignored all other kinds of

did thi:, make? The first thing to say is that, of the fi\,e kinds 01.

the t\vo that were fa\xwetl

ancl. in consequence,

\\ere

the t\w

\\ hich

mxlc

time-

in the long run socially unimportant.

and space

soc%1ll)

This is how u e teach

time 2nd space to little children. Time and space ;1rc there. out there . duxys
there. to bc
measuwrl
more OI-less. They constitute> marhcrs in our lives. We pass milestones.
We pass
:inni\ ersarie5.
moist yield.
unclcrstancling

They are formicl:1btc

Such

;I conception

of the social

siibst;inti;11 role in constructing

realities.
is doul~ly

colossi

to \vliosc

nefarious.

~vorlcl. And it mahes

impla~1l~le

It kt*eps

it difficult.

us

from

constraints

\vc

an xlecp~tc

if not impossible.

to pla)

the social world as \ve \voulcl want it to be.

ltlc idiograpt1ic thrust, using episodic gcopotiticxl IinieSpa~e. tells iis in effect that there
is no useful cspl:in:1tion of \\ h:1t 1~1.4ti:rppcn~d. he!~ong recountin g the sequence of e\ents

:I

80

7%e time of space and the space of time

that preceded whatever it is we are observing. The amount of detail that is included in such
a sequence is a function of the availability of records, the judgment of the one who
reconstructs the sequence as to what merits inclusion, and the energy of the scholar and the
reader. Any sequence is infinitely extensible, and between any two points in the sequence,
there always lie other occurrences,
A true reconstruction
of the sequence would
encompass rerunning the diachronic history of the universe. Since this is absurd, the natural
tendency is to limit the sequence drastically. A country declared war on another because its
ruler decided it. The ruler decided it because he feared that the other country would do x or
y, or because the ruler was subject to the influence of a counselor who wished for war. The
unemployment
rate has risen because the rate of exchange of the national currency has
become unfavorable. The rate of exchange has become unfavorable because production of
key exports has become less efficient. Production of key exports has become less efficient
because unions prevented the use of quality control. And so it goes.
In this kind of litany, we learn much, but we also learn nothing. What we can never tell
is whether all or any of these variables are crucial. Which of them could have been
changed, without altering the outcome? It is against the limitations of this kind of
idiographic use of immediate time and space that the nomothetic camp put forward its
alternative. Let us analyze, they said, all situations in which the rate of exchange becomes
unfavorable. Does unemployment
always follow? If not always, under which particular
conditions? Here we go down the path of systematic and controlled comparison. But are
all these situations that are being compared the same in some essential way? There were
rates of exchange in East Asia in the twelfth century, and in Latin America in the twentieth
century. There were rates of exchange when there is a dominant gold standard, and rates
when there is a fluctuating dollar standard. Does even the concept, rate of exchange,
however operationally defined, apply in the same way in the different situations? In short,
have we reified rate of exchange into an essence by its narrow definition?
It was this latter set of questions that has led an increasing number of social scientists in
the twentieth century to reject the trap of being forced to choose between episodic
geopolitical TimeSpace and eternal TimeSpace, and to insist on the existence of other kinds
of TimeSpace. One important example is the Annalesversion
of history, at least in the time
of Febvre, Bloch, and Braudel. Their emphasis was on cyclico-ideological TimeSpace and
structural TimeSpace. The heart of their argument was that concepts, the key tools we use to
make comparative analyses, are not eternal but are a function of the TimeSpace constructs
we make. Yes, explanations are possible in terms of general rules of behavior, but only
within the context of specific long-term structures, what I prefer to call historical systems.
Such historical systems have lives and spaces. They exist in time and space, and the time
and space of their existence is a crucial element in their definition, Hence they have
structural TimeSpace, and one of the key questions for the social science investigator is to
discern its parameters. It is not just there. It has been created as part of the creation of the
historical system. But once there, it is determinative of the regularities of the system, as well
as of its trajectories, It is by no means easy to delimit these parameters, particularly because
they are evolving over time and space, and are not predetermined by some heavenly force.
Not only are these time and space parameters constructed hut they must be internalized by
the members of the historical social system if they are to control (and limit) action. Yet,
because they are structural, they are internalized beneath the level of conscious awareness,
in order that they not be constantly open to question, in order that they function with
seeming automaticity. This is one of the fundamental reasons why nineteenth-century
social science did not wish to look at them. Looking at structural TimeSpace can be
subversive of its ability to structure the cultural discourse, and therefore subversive of the

81

IMMANUELWALLEKSTEIN

historical

social system itself. This is of course particularly

in which

we are living. But even looking

social systems

can raise questions

Within any structural

true of the historical

at the structural

TimeSpace

about that of the current

TimeSpace

social system

of defunct

historical

system.

there is cyclico-ideological

TimeSpace,

because

this is

the kind of TimeSpace

that permits the system to function. The analogy, and not a bad
one, is to human breathing.
If we did not inhale and exhale, the human organism could
not survive.

But inhaling

differently

when

subversive,

particularly

patterns,

it raises

always

being

not see more

as the system

cycles)

year cycles,

the so-called

functioning
profit,
whereas

the

negative

situations

ultra-short

the relative

Once

we begin

to what

to enter

analyze

effectively

science.

we look when

historical

we try to understand

and why, and what

our world.

on these

other

They say that, to the degree

TimeSpace

systems,

we seem to give priority

call human

agency.

TimeSpace

is not at all immobile.

momentary
that

in the last quarter

of the

for the social sciences?

in which

the world
not

history

really

only

can

as well. But

by nineteenth-century
or the civilized

social

and the others,

kinds

of historical

but are the first elements

at which

are people

using,

the trajectories?

kinds of TimeSpace

have one seemingly

that we turn our attention

and thereby

to misunderstand
This

that

What kind of TimeSpace

to the immobile,

This is however

of

in the system,

bears

or at least different

kind will aid us in assessing

Critics of an emphasis
argument.

social

are not just out there,

the

in the last 20 years

but all of human

constructed

and the
about

and sources

TimeSpace-we

past and present,

of

50-60

to acknowledge

Britain

structural

were the cleavages

Time and space

people

of analysis

the TimeSpaces

world-system

are not between

different

social systems.

assuring

matter

and

patterns

of the major actors

to Great

into our analyses

our contemporary

The differences

but between

happened

to analyze

of profit

the

the length

so obvious

certain

in the world-system

TimeSpace

then we also see how absurd

it absurd

Why are we so unwilling

Has

to acknowledge

cycles (about

to cycles

so comforting,

how
being

far from equilibrium?

reveal

serenity

Why is this not a central

moves-cyclico-ideological

cycles

if we

may we

is inevitably

are willing

consider

its relation

the ideological
seem

the new

and therefore

that

How could one be considered

of US dominance

century?

system

and irremediably

all economists

world-system,
ones

resemblance

nineteenth

of a given

same economists

are only momentary?

decline

remarkable

implacably

Kondratieffs?

menace

of progress,

an equilibrium

It is not that the longer

and therefore

is also
repetitive

is a linear progression,

2-4 year cycles they call business

of our modern

long-term

accretions

from that which

that almost

but most of these

so implausible?

of slow

functions

TimeSpace

But if the new is not really new? Or rather,

to restore

moves

and the body

By emphasising

are the contradictions

are mechanisms

of very short-run

weather

the ideology
is cyclical

struck you as peculiar

existence

other

what

moments,

Cyclico-ideological

world-system.

better.

that which

clearly

undermined
it never

of our modern

into question

processes

are different

the one or the other.

seen as something

learn to distinguish
cyclical

and exhaling

it is doing

is rather

structural

what

eternal

strong

first of all to structural

to eliminate

what some

TimeSpace.
TimeSpace

Structural
is. Eternal

TimeSpace
pretends
that it emphasizes
eternal change (that is, progress)
but it actually
gives us a model in which human behavior
always obeys the same rules. Structural
TimeSpace
Structures

emphasizes
continue

bifurcation,
This

then

continuity,

yes, but it also puts a time limit on the continuity.

until their internal

and then they explode

brings

us to the

contradictions,

or implode,

last of the

their evolving

and real change

TimeSpaces,

what

trajectories,

force a

occurs.
I call transformational

Tim&pace.
Unlike those who huff and puff about agency, I do not believe that we can
transform the world at every instant. We-singly,
or even collectively-do
not have this

82

The time of space and the space of time

power.

But we can transform

when

structures

bifurcation,

move

very

that small pushes

and can in fact determine

into existence.

sometimes,

far from

equilibrium,

in one direction

the shape

the TimeSpace

seize fortuna

possibilities

if we do not know

there.

And there

is little value in its being

We are condemned

There

have it. Our historical

social system

signs of this. One of the most interesting

has been

called into question

last 20 years.
eternal
concepts

and indirectly

like bifurcations,

popular.
made

It was this old Newtonian

TimeSpace
Suddenly,

chaos

Suddenly,

refashion

on our political

will-to
which

in the face. I do not suggest

in a difficult

worldwide

splintered

collective

Yet, why should

choice,

situation

we appreciate

TimeSpace

(despite

communication
moral and political

and probably

what we could

community

directly

geopolitical
and

fractals

are

can be openly

of

Today
suddenly

social

that our historical

science

discussed.

social system

is

times.

In

It depends

on

into a tool of this transformation.

It

that space

utopia

and to seek to construct

has time and time has space,

we use. Let us look these possibilities

risks, or that we should

we master

form,
in the

the concept

TimeSpace.

we are living in interesting

a sober

about a better world.

about which

would

are many

in its Newtonian

But there are no guarantees.

the social sciences

that this is without

is no call for naive triumphalism

is still sufficiently

In that sense,

dare to develop

of this unless

and that we may choose

There

again up for grabs.

to conclude

is out there to be grabbed.

will-to

it, We will do none

choice

them.

ethos,

and therefore

at certain

proverb

of bifurcation.

order,

We

but we

moments.

that nineteenth-century

are once

that will come

out to grab it. Social

these

legitimated

new

undermined

of the disciplines

here develop

fortuna

our intellectual
depends

creates

there are many other reasons

in crisis, I cannot
that sense

that

which

of

impact,

out to grab it if it is not

of the scientific

of episodic

interpretation

is being

the boundaries

Of course,

a moment

model

edge

and can be seized

if we do not reach

segment

the concept

the particular

of time and space

exists

is that the scientific

by a significant

system

times, as the old Chinese

is reaching

the

We must seize fortuna,

at all, must help us to recognize

to be living in interesting

It is precisely

on

to our TimeSpaces.

is little use reaching

there

are

historical

to be sensitive

that fortuna

and not at others.

they

can have an enormous

of the moment.

and places

if it has any function

when

or another

therefore

times
science,

at the right moment.

of the replacement

Here again it is important

must recognize
cannot

the world

squarely

not be fearful. This

This is a call for moral and political

too little knowledge,

all the magic of the information

in a world

revolution)

that

to make

not at all easy.

choice

be easy? If it were,

choose

would

there were not be much

not be something

worth

choosing.

Acknowledgements
This paper was a Tyneside Geographical Society Lecture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 22
February 1996, co-sponsored
by the Department of Geography and the Royal Geographical
Society.
References
DIIOL,J, (1960) LEurope centrale: evolution historique de lidge de MiHeleuropa. Payot, Paris.
WAILFKS-MN,
I. (1991) The inventions of TimeSpace realities: towards an understanding of our historical systems.
Gw~grcrph.~LXXIII(41, pp. 5-22..

WALLPRITFIN,
I. (1996) History in search of science. Review XIX(l), 1-9.
WAI.I_I.R~~IU,
I. ETAI. (1996) Oprn theSocial Sciences. Report of the Gulhenkiau
qf the Social Scienc&s Stanford Ilniverslty Press, Stanford, CA.

Commission on the Restructuring