In Memoriam-Professor Giovanni Arrighi (1937-2009) and Graduate Mentoring: A Reflection on His Teachings and My Academic Development (2009)

I was profoundly saddened by the passing away of Professor Giovanni Arrighi on June 18, 2009. I met him twenty years ago when I was pursuing my second doctoral degree at SUNY-Binghamton. He became my doctoral thesis supervisor and taught me important lessons about sociology and how to pursue an academic career in the field. Professor Arrighi contributed enormously to the study of global political economy. Among many contributions, he deepened our understanding of hegemony in a world-systems framework, and especially regarding the nature of hegemonic transition, by historicizing Marx's formula of capital, M-C-M'. (1) He pointed out that in periods of downturn in business cycle, capitalists lift investment from production and channel it into finance. This 'financial rebirth' has been observed in past hegemonic transitions, and it has often been accompanied by a transfer of capital from the declining hegemon to the emerging hegemon. Professor Arrighi's last book, Adam Smith in Beijing (2007), tackled the current stage of capitalist development. Instead of capital leaving the U.S., the declining hegemon, there is an inflow of capital to the U.S. This is partly due to the lack of a clear hegemonic successor and to the measures taken by the U.S. government with its financial sector to provide lucrative opportunities to global investors from all over the world (which, however, came to a sudden end in 2008). In the previous transitions, the hegemonic container has expanded in size from the Dutch, British, to the U.S. and it is not likely that this pattern will continue. What does the rise of China suggest regarding the future of capitalism? Does it foretell the end of capitalism? Professor Arrighi left us important insights and concepts for our continuing engagement with the global political economy. The objective of this essay, however, is to reflect on Professor Arrighi's contribution to graduate mentoring. My experience as a graduate student at SUNY-Binghamton taught me a lot about how to be a good instructor, and I feel blessed to have Professor Arrighi as the supervisor and Professors T.K. Hopkins and Immanuel Wallerstein in the supervisory committee of my doctoral program. One of the guiding principles of graduate instruction at Binghamton when these three professors were there was the idea that graduate school is a place where young scholars and not-so-young scholars work together. I remember Professor Arrighi telling us this principle at many occasions. Professor Hopkins established this principle in the graduate program at SUNY-Binghamton, and Professor Arrighi was one of the professors who carried the torch. In the following, I would like to highlight what I learned from Professor Arrighi regarding matters of teaching and instruction. Graduate Instruction During my stay in Binghamton in the 1990s, my professors treated graduate with respect. Graduate had representation at the faculty meeting with voting rights. When Professor Hopkins initiated this system in the 1970s, each student had one vote. Students' voting right was reduced since then, but the graduate still had five votes at the faculty meeting when I was a student. The graduate were the stakeholders in department management and they were involved in the decision-making process. With voting privilege came responsibility. Department meeting was a place where individual aspirations were juxtaposed against others' until consensus was reached. Graduate were often drawn into exploring complex problems regarding departmental management, and we were trained to prepare for our future involvement in administrative affairs as faculty members. The young scholar and not-so-young scholar principle meant that graduate are not just students and the faculty members are not just teachers in the conventional school setting. The young scholars may require mentoring and suggestions from the not-so-young scholars. …