Dustin Stoltz: What was it about political economy and economic sociology that initially attracted you?
Dennis McNamara: When I started graduate school, Theda Skocpol was the graduate director and just finished Bringing The State Back In, along with Orlando Patterson, Ezra Vogel, and Harrison White, there were a number of people doing political economy — weren't really thinking about “economic sociology” directly at the time. But, in addition to that, there were a number of scholars from abroad, especially from Europe and Israel, who were at the forefront of this effort to move beyond sociology, touching other areas like political science and economics. Within the Harvard sociology department, we were encouraged to do languages, and as we did it, it drew us into more language specific humanities, like the history department. I did my dissertation on the historical, socio-economic development of Korea in the late 19th century, and that was really welcomed in the sociology department.
There was this movement into these other disciplines, to see not just how sociology contrasted, but also how it fit in with these other disciplines. The people the department brought in we’re going in these different directions, and were so attractive that there was no way that you wouldn’t go with them. It was that interaction with these scholars and the openness of sociology — the openness to sharing with other disciplines — that made it all possible. And, Paul DiMaggio was there, two years ahead of me, and he’s done great work related to economic sociology, Tom Gold, who did work on Taiwan and the developmental state, John Lee and his work on development in Korea — I could go through the whole list of people, but it’s just reflective of the kind of ambitions and opportunities that were presented to us at the time. It’s always fascinated me that Stanford is often seen as the beginning of economic sociology — and it certainly was. But, Harvard also played an important role.
DS: From your perspective, what were the main interests in RC02 when you first got involved in the late 80s?
DM: There were two sides to that. First, is the American Sociological Association, and the second is the International Sociological Association. In RC02, it was really fascinating to hear the work from scholars in Canada, which tended to be a kind of bridge for American sociologists to French sociology and German sociology. The ASA — the American side of economic sociology — was really more focused on socio-economic development, and sometimes dialoguing with institutional economists. American sociology was really focused, whether conscious or not, on asking “Why don’t you develop like the United States?” Until Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and dependency theory began to have an influence in the United States. But, the Europeans were different. They also knew languages. They knew theory. They weren’t beholden to the American model. They saw the United States as one model, but they also had Germany, they had France. And, they were already engaging with the development of Latin America.
It was a very exciting time to be involved with RC02. Between the ASA and the ISA, it was like working in two different worlds for me. And, of course, RC02 was deeply influenced by scholars at the University of California, Berkeley. As I came in, Neil Smelser was stepping out of the leadership role, but Harvey Makler was continuing the influence from the West Coast, with wonderful contributions from the Berkeley folks. RC02 was the second oldest research committee. When you came to the international conference, there was a certain gravitas associated with RC02 — people recognized RC02, it served as a foundational piece in the organization.
DS: How has your experience with RC02 shaped or helped your own research agenda?
DM: In the 70s and 80s, I was doing work on socio-economic development, focusing on East Asia. There was a whole group forming around these ideas. Peter Evans, of course, and Chalmers Johnson, a political scientist with a strong sociological background — these scholars spawned a wonderful group working on development theory, and in particular development issues in East Asia. This group was strong when I was at Harvard and when I did a postdoc at Berkeley, and I was very much influenced by them. One of the reasons I got involved with ISA was to really tap international conversations—and especially the European scholars—which were a little more focused on socio-economic development with a stronger theoretical base. And, I certainly got that at ISA.
With the ISA, and especially with RC02, I would say the thing I really got was colleagueship. Harry Makler, Arnaud Sales, and Alberto Martinelli encouraged me from the beginning to strengthen ties with scholars of Asia in the Committee. I developed a network of people that I knew I was going to see, they knew the concepts, they knew the conversations, and the exchange started the moment we met. They were very supportive of my work and that is especially important for younger scholars. Both encouraging and just a fertile environment, because you get so many different perspectives in the same room. That is one of the reasons I found RC02 really critical to my work.
DS: What do you see as the biggest unanswered questions at the intersection of economy and society?
DM: we face such a profound transition, right now. Following Thomas Piketty’s book on global inequality (Capital in the 21st Century), we’re in the center of this huge dialogue that is suddenly taking hold of even the most convinced capitalist in the United States. If I look back on my own career, early on we were working with world systems, and were really struggling to get that into the mainstream, get people thinking about that — I don’t think that’s going to be a problem now!
The interaction of state and civil society in the economy have gained a lot of attention. Civil society and its balance with the state was really the foundation of development and the economy. I think these bases have eroded. But, what do we do about this erosion? For the younger scholars, the issue is: do we have any answers? Here in Washington, DC, the politicians are looking to the universities and saying “you’re not giving us much help.” These questions are so profound, they’re not easy. People are definitely working on it, but we have a lot of unanswered questions. There’s much work to be done.