one discerns a certain critical antinomy or inconsistency in the approach as a whole. In essence, this antinomy reflects a basic tension between, on the one hand, a fundamentally positivistic, teleological, and closed view of historical change, social structures, and the world-system itself and, on the other hand, an open-ended, dialectical, and nonpositivistic view of social reality. One example of this is the fairly derivative view of social institutions (class, nation, etc.) within world-systems analysis that was revealed in the discussion of the state above, complemented by a nuanced and finely textured notion of historical change exemplified by the discussions of hegemony. This example is representative of similar tensions that run through many of the critical works within the perspective (prominent illustrations of this tension can be found in Hopkins et al., 1977: 126-127; Wallerstein, 1974: 7-9; 1984: 7-8, 35, 185; 1987: 322-323).
The macrohistorical narrative of Indian state formation emphasizes a paradox: The period of American hegemony coincided with the construction of a highly statist and protectionist version of development in India, while the waning decades of U.S. hegemony ( 1971 to the present) have witnessed the beginnings of a dismantling of this closed economy, the progressive inability of state elites to continue with their earlier strategy, and the increasing subjection of the Indian economy to the "logic" of the world capitalist system. The paradoxical character of this development, it is argued in this chapter, is mitigated if one reconceptualizes state power and hegemony in ways described above. In other words, a more compelling mode of analysis becomes available if one resolves the antinomy inherent in world-systems analysis in favor of an open-ended, dialectical, and nonpositivistic epistemology.
I would like to express my thanks to Ravi Palat and Mark Rupert for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.