贡德·弗兰克在其尚未完稿的遗作《19世纪大转型》中,将“大分流”的时间确定在了1870年代。他之所以给出这个让人难以认同的时间,主要因其将“大分流”理解为西方占绝对优势地位的世界新形势出现。透过弗兰克对“大分流”的独特理解,我们可以看到世界体系式的分析又回到了他的研究中。这曾是他在依附理论时期所仰仗的分析模式,之后在《白银资本》中变得模糊难辨,最终却以一副全新面貌出现在我们面前。在他所留下的最后一项研究中,弗兰克对19世纪的历史变迁作了“整体性”分析。他坚定地相信,无论是世界性的进程,还是地区性的变革,都必须置于全球视野中才能被正确地理解。用他自己的比喻来说,先搞清整个“森林”的面貌,才能看明白“树木”的状况。这种想法看上去颇为合理,但弗兰克研究“森林”时,还戴着一副世界体系式的有色眼镜,这致使他看到的“森林”有些异乎寻常,想通过它看清“树木”也并不现实。弗兰克所构建的分析架构,虽然不及他呈现全部“真实”的期待,但却成功变换了世界体系理论的面貌。 In his unfinished autograph “The Great Transformation in the 19th Century,” Gould Frank determined the time of the “Great Divide” in the 1870s. The reason why he gave this unacceptable time was mainly because of the new situation in which he interpreted the “Divergent Flow” as a world dominated by the West. Through Frank’s unique understanding of Dasein, we can see that the analysis of the world system is back to his research. This was the analytical mode upon which he relied during the theory of dependency and later became blurred in the “silver capital” and ended up in a completely new outlook. In his last study, Frank made a “holistic” analysis of 19th-century historical changes. He firmly believes that both the global process and the regional changes must be correctly understood in the global perspective. In his own metaphor, first find out the whole “forest” in order to see the “tree” status. This idea seems quite reasonable, but when Frank studied “Forest,” he wore a world-system of tinted glasses, which led him to see the “Forest” some unusual, want to see through it Clear “trees ” is not realistic. The analytic framework that Frank built, though less than all his “real” expectations, succeeded in transforming the face of world system theory.