Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:42:44.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The global transformation, multiple early modernities, and international systems change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2016

Andrew Phillips
Andrew Phillips*
Affiliation:
School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article critically engages the Global Transformation thesis through the lens of multiple early modernities. The 19th century undeniably saw a profound shift in the global mode of power, driven by industrialization, rational state-building, and the rise of ideologies of progress. But this triad impacted on regions that had already been reconfigured by an early modern Eurasian Transformation, centered on an ‘industrious revolution’, absolutist state-building, and the spread of ‘civilizing processes’. This Eurasian Transformation yielded distinct early modernities and regional orders, which fundamentally conditioned the nature, extent, impact, and legacy of later Western expansion. Acknowledging the diversity of these early modern orders enhances our understanding of the variance in patterns of order reconfiguration that attended the Global Transformation. Equally, it strengthens the case for reconceptualizing international systems change as encompassing reconfiguration as much as revolutionary transformation. This cautions against thinking of ‘great transformations’ in world politics as constituting radically discontinuous breaks with the past.

Type
Symposium: Theory, History, and the Global Transformation
Information
International Theory , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , November 2016 , pp. 481 - 491
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bayly, Christopher A. 2001. “‘Archaic’ and ‘Modern’ Globalization in the Eurasian and African Arena, c. 1750-1850.” In Globalization in World History, edited by Anthony G. Hopkins, 47–73. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar
Bukovansky, Mlada. 2002. Legitimacy and Power Politics: The American and French Revolutions in International Political Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Lawson, George. 2015. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Vries, Jan. 1994. “The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution.” The Journal of Economic History 54(2):249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirlik, Arif. 2015. “Revisioning Modernity: Modernity in Eurasian Perspectives.” In Delimiting Modernities: Conceptual Challenges and Regional Responses, edited by Sven Trakulhun, and Ralph Weber, 143–178. London: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 2000. “Multiple Modernities.” Daedalus 129(1):1–29.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N., and Schluchter, Wolfgang. 1998. “Introduction: Paths to Early Modernities – A Comparative View.” Daedalus 127(3):1–18.Google Scholar
Elias, Norbert. 2000. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Flynn, Dennis O., and Giráldez, Arturo. 1995. “Born With a ‘Silver Spoon’: The Origin of World Trade in 1571.” Journal of World History 6(2):201–221.Google Scholar
Goddard, Stacie, and Nexon, Daniel. 2016. “The Dynamics of Global Politics: A Framework for Analysis.” Journal of Global Security Studies 1(1):4–18.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, A.G. 2001. “The History of Globalization – And the Globalization of History?.” In Globalization in World History, edited by Anthony G. Hopkins, 1–10. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar
Khan, Iqtidar A. 2009. “Tracing Sources of Principles of Mughal Governance: A Critique of Recent Historiography.” Social Scientist 37(5/6):45–54.Google Scholar
Kocka, Jürgen. 2003. “Comparison and Beyond.” History and Theory 42(1):39–44.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Paul, and Nexon, Daniel H.. 2013. “Singularity or Aberration? A Response to Buzan and Lawson.” International Studies Quarterly 57(3):637–639.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Paul, and Nexon, Daniel. 2016. “The Global Transformation: More than Meets the Eye.” International Theory 8(3):436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perdue, Peter. 2009. China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Andrew. 2011. War, Religion and Empire: The Transformation of International Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Andrew. 2014. “Civilising missions and the rise of international hierarchies in early modern Asia.” Millennium – Journal of International Studies 42(3):697–717.Google Scholar
Philpott, Daniel. 2001. Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pomeranz, Kenneth. 2000. The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawski, Evelyn S. 2012. “Sons of Heaven: The Qing Appropriation of the Chinese Model of Universal Empire.” In Universal Empire: A Comparative Approach to Imperial Culture and Representation in Eurasian History, edited by Peter, Bang, and Dariusz, Kolodziejczyk, 233–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2016. “Theory, History, and Great Transformations.” International Theory 8(3):422–435.Google Scholar
Richards, John. F. 1996. The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, Philip. 2011. The Company State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. 1997. “Connected Histories: Notes Towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia.” Modern Asian Studies 31(3):735–762.Google Scholar
Teschke, Benno. 2003. The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen. 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 2:369–404.Google Scholar
Todorov, Tsvetan. 1984. The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Van Creveld, Martin. 1991. The Transformation of War: The Most Radical Reinterpretation of Armed Conflict since Clausewitz. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Wittrock, Björn. 1998. “Early Modernities: Varieties and Transitions.” Daedalus 127(3):19–40.Google Scholar
Wong, R. Bin. 1997. China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of European Experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar