¹ Cassirer, Ernst, An Essay on Man (New York, 1956), p. 43Google Scholar.

² Innis, Harold A., The Bias of Communications (Toronto, 1964), p. 3Google Scholar.

³ Ruggie, John, ‘Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity In International Relations’, International Organization, 47 (Winter 1993), pp. 139–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Rosenau, James, Turbulence in World Politics (Princeton, 1990)Google Scholar.

⁵ Zacher, Mark, ‘The Decaying Pillars of the Westphalian Temple’, in Rosenau, James and Otto-Czempiel, Ernst (eds.), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 58–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Toffler, Alvin and Toffler, Heidi, War and Anti-War (Boston, 1993)Google Scholar.

⁷ Bell, Daniel, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (New York, 1973)Google Scholar.

⁸ See Harvey, David, The Conditions of Postmodernity (Oxford, 1989)Google Scholar; Lipietz, Alain, Mirages and Miracles: The Crises of Global Capitalism (London, 1985)Google Scholar; and Piore, Michael and Sabel, Charles, The Second Industrial Divide (New York, 1984)Google Scholar.

⁹ See Lyotard, J. F., The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Minneapolis, 1984)Google Scholar; and Smart, Barry, Modern Conditions, Postmodern Controversies (New York, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Ruggie, Territoriality’, pp. 143–4.

¹¹ See Baran, Paul, The Political Economy of Growth (New York, 1957)Google Scholar; Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1974)Google Scholar; Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McNeill, William, The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Forces and Society since A.D. 1000 (Chicago, 1984)Google Scholar; and Deudney, Daniel, ‘Dividing Realism: Security Materialism vs. Structural Realism on Nuclear Security and Proliferation’, Security Studies, 2, nos. 3/4 (Spring/Summer 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² See Haas, Peter, ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, International Organization, 46 (Winter 1992), pp. 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Goldstein, Joshua and Keohane, Robert (eds.), Ideas and Foreign Policy (Ithaca, 1993).Google Scholar

¹³ Heyer, Paul, Communications and History: Theories of Media, Knowledge and Civilization (New York, 1988), p. xiiiGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. xiv.

¹⁵ See, for examples, Sorenson, Thomas C., The World War The Story of American Propaganda (New York, 1968)Google Scholar; Zeman, Z. A. B., Nazi Propaganda, 2nd edn (New York, 1973)Google Scholar; Vermaat, J. A. Emerson, ‘Moscow Fronts and the European Peace Movements’, Problems of Communism (Nov.-Dec. 1982), pp. 43–56Google Scholar; Lasswell, Harold, Lerner, Daniel, and Speier, Hans (eds.), Propaganda and Communication in World History (Honolulu, 1980)Google Scholar; Martin, John, International Propaganda: Its Legal and Diplomatic Control (Gloucester, 1970)Google Scholar; Davidson, W. Phillips, ‘Political Communications as an Instrument of Foreign Policy’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 27 (1963), pp. 28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Dorman, William and Farhang, Mansour, The US Press and Iran: Foreign Policy and the Journalism of Deference (Berkeley, 1987)Google Scholar; Rachlin, Alan, News as Hegemonic Reality: American Political Culture and the Framing of News Accounts (New York, 1988)Google Scholar; Entman, Robert M., ‘Framing US Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incident’, Journal of Communication, 41 (Autumn 1991), pp. 6–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For ‘frame analysis’, see Goffman, Erving, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Boston, 1974)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Arlen, M., Living Room War (New York, 1969)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Deutsch, Karl, ‘Mass Communication and the Loss of Freedom in National Decision-Making: A Possible Research Approach to Interstate Conflict’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1 (1957), pp. 200–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burton, John W., Conflict and Communication (London, 1969)Google Scholar; Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, 1976)Google Scholar; Berkovitch, Jacob, ‘Third Parties in Conflict Management: The Structure and Conditions of Effective Mediation in International Relations’, International Journal, 40 (Autumn 1985), pp. 736–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Mitchell, J. M., International Cultural Relations (London, 1986)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Young, Oran, The Intermediaries (Princeton, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lockhard, Charles, Bargaining in International Conflicts (New York, 1979)Google Scholar; Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures (Washington, 1991)Google Scholar.

²¹ Wood, John R. and Seers, Jean, Diplomatic: Ceremonial and Protocol (New York, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, Raymond, Theatre of Power The Art of Diplomatic Signalling (London, 1987)Google Scholar; Derian, James Der, On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford, 1987).Google Scholar

²² For a useful overview, see Chomsky, Noam, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies (Toronto, 1989)Google Scholar.

²³ See Gill, Stephen (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism, and International Relations (Cambridge, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ Mowlana, Hamid, Global Information and World Communication: New Frontiers in International Relations (New York, 1986)Google Scholar.

²⁵ McPhail, Thomas, Electronic Colonialism: The Future of International Broadcasting and Communication, 2nd edn (Beverly Hills, 1987)Google Scholar.

²⁶ See Nordenstreng, K. and Schiller, H. I. (eds.), National Sovereignty and International Communication (Princeton, 1979)Google Scholar; Hamelink, C. J., Cultural Autonomy in Global Communications (New York, 1983)Google Scholar; and Tomlinson, John, Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction (Baltimore, 1991)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Deutsch, Karl, The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control (New York, 1963)Google Scholar; Deutsch, Karl, Nationalism and Social Communication (Cambridge, 1966)Google Scholar.

²⁸ Connor, Walker, ‘Nation-Building or Nation-Destroying?’, World Politics, 24 (April 1972), pp. 319–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Puchala, Donald J., ‘Integration Theory and the Study of International Relations’, in Merritt, Richard L. and Russett, Bruce M. (eds.), From National Development to Global Community: Essays in Honour of Karl W. Deutsch (London, 1981), pp. 145–164Google Scholar.

³⁰ Meyrowitz, Joshua, No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behaviour (New York, 1985), p. 15Google Scholar.

³¹ Finnegan, Ruth, Literacy and Orality: Studies in the Technology of Communication (London, 1988)Google Scholar.

³² In addition to other works cited in this study, see especially McLuhan, Marshall, The Gutenberg Galaxy (Toronto, 1962)Google Scholar, and Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (New York, 1964)Google Scholar.

³³ See especially Ong, Walter J., Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Heyer attributes the formulation of this distinction to James Carey. See Heyer, Communications and History, p. 126.

³⁵ Innis, Harold, Empire and Communications (Toronto, 1986; originally published Oxford, 1950)Google Scholar. See also Innis, Bias of Communications. The following overview of Innis is indebted to Heyer's informative overview in Communications and History.

³⁶ Heyer, Communications and History, p. 115.

³⁷ Innis, Bias of Communications, p. 33.

³⁸ See especially Carey, James W., ‘McLuhan and Mumford: The Roots of Modern Media Analysis’, Journal of Communication, 31 (Summer 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ See Bijker, Wiebe, Hughes, Thomas, and Pinch, Trevor, The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA, 1989)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Innis, Bias of Communications, p. 23.

⁴¹ My reading of evolutionary theory is derived mostly from the work of Stephen Jay Gould. See the series of collected essays beginning with Gould, Stephen Jay, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History (New York, 1977)Google Scholar. My thanks to Darcy Cutler for help in formulating this analogy.

⁴² In other words, that modernity or capitalism did not arise in China or Korea as a result of the invention of printing does not falsify medium theory in any way. We would expect unique consequences depending on the social and historical context. That said, however, certain general ‘universal’ consequences have been observed across cultures as a result of the transition from primitive orality to writing. See Ong, Orality and Literacy; Goody, Jack, The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society (Cambridge, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Interface Between the Written and the Oral (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar.

⁴³ Goody, Interface Between Written and Oral, p. 3.

⁴⁴ Innis, Bias of Communications, p. 4.

⁴⁵ Ruggie, ‘Territoriality’, p. 154.

⁴⁶ See Hepworth, Mark, Geography of the Information Economy (London, 1989)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Ruggie, ‘Territoriality’, p. 157.

⁴⁸ See Gergen, Kenneth and Gergen, Mary (eds.), Historical Social Psychology (Princeton, 1984)Google Scholar. ‘Imagined communities’ is taken from Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities (London, 1991)Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Ruggie, ‘Territoriality’, p. 158.

⁵⁰ See, for examples, Mannheim, Karl, Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge (New York, 1936)Google Scholar; Berger, Peter and Luckmann, Thomas, The Social Construction of Reality (New York, 1967)Google Scholar. For an application of social constructivism to international relations, see Wendt, Alexander, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Polities’, International Organization, 46 (Spring 1992), pp. 391–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵¹ Mumford, Lewis, Technics and Civilization (London, 1934)Google Scholar.

⁵² Ibid., p. 15.

⁵³ Ibid., p. 17.

⁵⁴ Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York, 1973)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ This practice of unearthing unconscious boundaries and biases of thought is most often associated with the early work of Foucault. See especially Foucault, Michel, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York, 1970)Google Scholar, and The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language (New York, 1972)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Keohane, Robert, ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, 32 (1988), pp. 379–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁷ Cox, Robert, ‘Social Forces, States, and World Order’, in Keohane, Robert (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York, 1986), p. 210Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Gellner, Ernest, Plough, Sword, and Book: The Structure of Human History (Chicago, 1988), p. 12Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ As Adler puts it, the main components of the international system are treated as if ‘suspended in space’. See Adler, Emanuel, ‘Cognitive Evolution: A Dynamic Approach for the Study of International Relations and Their Progress’, in Adler, Emanuel and Crawford, Beverly (eds.), Progress in Postwar International Relations (New York, 1993), pp. 43–88Google Scholar. For similar views on the ahistorical tendencies of neorealism and neoliberalism, see Wendt, ‘Anarchy’, pp. 391–6; and Ashley, Richard K., ‘Three Modes of Economism’, International Studies Quarterly, 27 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Boston, 1979)Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ My formulation of ‘ecological holism’ is derived mostly from the work of the French Annales school of medieval historians, including Fernand Braudel, Marc Bloch, and more recently Jacques Le Goff. Apart from other works cited in this paper, see especially Braudel, Fernand, On History (tr. Sarah Matthews; Chicago, 1980)Google Scholar; and Le Goff, Jacques, The Medieval Imagination (tr. Arthur Goldhammer; Chicago, 1985)Google Scholar.

⁶¹ On p. 152 of ‘Territoriality’, Ruggie states the basic ecological holist position that ‘material environments, strategic behaviour, and social epistemology ‘ are ‘irreducible to one another’. See also John Gerard Ruggie, ‘Continuity and Transformation in World Politics: Towards a Neorealist Synthesis’, in Keohane (ed.), Neorealism; and Ruggie, John Gerard, ‘International Structure and International Transformation: Space, Time, and Method’, in Czempiel, Ernst-Otto and Rosenau, James N. (eds.), Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges (Lexington, 1989)Google Scholar. Other examples might include Haas, Ernst, ‘Words Can Hurt You; or Who Said What to Whom about Regimes’, in Krasner, Stephen D. (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca, 1983)Google Scholar; Adler, ‘Cognitive Evolution’; Cox, ‘Social Forces, States, and World Order’; and Daniel Deudney's ongoing reconstruction of geopolitical theories, in Pax Atomica; Planetary Geopolitics and Republicanism (forthcoming, 1995) and ‘Bringing Nature Back In: Concepts, Problems, and Trends in Physiopolitical Theory from the Greeks to the Greenhouse’, in Deudney, Daniel and Matthew, Richard (eds.), Contested Grounds: Security and Conflict in the New Environmental Politics (New York, 1995)Google Scholar. While ecological holism shares an obvious commonality with the constructivist theories of Wendt, Friedrich Kratochwil and others, insofar as both focus on the historical malleability of interests, identities, and institutions, it differs from these approaches by recognizing the full extent to which environmental and technological factors also play a part in shaping human societies. Cf. Wendt, ‘Anarchy’; and Kratochwil, Friedrich, Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In a footnote (p. 398 n. 27), Wendt concedes that some constructivist approaches may be ‘oversocialized’ when dealing with ‘presocial but non determining human needs’, but he goes no further in elaborating if and when other ‘material’ factors beyond neurophysiological traits, like climate or population, would enter into the picture. Of course, the differences between ecological holism and social constructivism are minimal compared to the similarities, especially in contrast to mainstream rationalist approaches, which treat identities and interests as relatively fixed.

⁶² This division does not imply temporal precedence of one over the other. In fact, the changes described here occur at different pulses and intervals, some evolving more slowly than others. Moreover, they are interdependent in the sense that changes in one sphere reinforce those in another.

⁶³ It is common for international relations theorists to compare different ‘worlds’ across time which are, for the most part, geographically, politically, economically, and culturally bounded. For discussion of these themes, see Watson, Adam, The Evolution of International Society (New York, 1992)Google Scholar; Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam (eds.), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar; Wight, Martin, Systems of States (Leicester, 1977)Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ For various discussions, see Robert Cox, ‘Towards a Post-Hegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflections on the Relevancy of Ibn Khaldun’, in Rosenau and Otto-Czempiel (eds.), Governance without Government; and Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (New York, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the notes that follow.

⁶⁵ Robert Cox, ‘Structural Issues of Global Governance: Implications for Europe’, in Gill, Stephen (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge, 1993), p. 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁶ Ruggie, ‘Territoriality’, p. 152.

⁶⁷ Eco, Umberto, Travels in Hyper Reality (New York, 1983), p. 73Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Le Goff, Jacques, Medieval Civilization (Oxford, 1988), p. 95Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 137.

⁷⁰ See Lovejoy, Arthur, The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge, 1957)Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Mattingly, Garrett, Renaissance Diplomacy (London, 1955), pp. 19–20Google Scholar.

⁷² See Le Goff, Medieval Civilization, p. 96.

⁷³ Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, p. 26.

⁷⁴ See especially, Goody, Logic of Writing.

⁷⁵ Gellner, Plough, Sword, and Book, p. 71.

⁷⁶ Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 14. This belief was more the case during the early Middle Ages, gradually becoming a contested site from the twelfth century onwards with the spread of literacy, as evidenced by the debate between nominalists and realists of the time. For a more thorough treatment of these issues, see Stock, Brian, Listeningfor the Text: On the Uses of the Past (Baltimore, 1990).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ A number of telling anecdotes which nicely illustrate the revered status of the ‘Book’ in the Middle Ages are provided by Drogin, Marc in Biblioclasm: The Mythical Origins, Magic Powers, and Perishability of the Written Work (Princeton, 1989)Google Scholar. For example, it was widely held among medieval Christians that the alphabet was a gift from God. In writing it out, it was customary to begin with a cross, ‘because all knowledge began with God’ (p. 24). Written words were also widely held to have quasi-magical powers, as evidenced by the herbal medicine called ‘the holy salve’, in which the person making the concoction is instructed to write the words, ‘Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’ (p. 38). There are also many cases in which the text itself is attributed metaphysical powers, as in the Crusader's practice of wearing a parchment scroll beneath the coat of mail to ensure protection.

⁷⁸ Anderson, Imagined Communities, pp. 15–16.

⁷⁹ For discussion, see McKitterick, Rosamond, The Carolingians and the Written Word (New York, 1989), pp. 167–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁰ See Cantor, Norman, The Civilization of the Middle Ages (New York, 1993), pp. 149–153Google Scholar; and Miccoli, Giovanni, ‘Monks’, in Le Goff, Jacques (ed.), Medieval Callings (Chicago, 1987), p. 43Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Innis makes the connection between the rise of Islam and the cut-off of papyrus exports to the West. See Innis, Empires and Communications, p. 117.

⁸² Innis, Bias of Communications, p. 48.

⁸³ Cantor, Civilization of the Middle Ages, p. 153. This is not to say that medieval monks did not transmit many important classical works; just that a form of censorship was involved in selecting which texts would be transmitted and which would not.

⁸⁴ Clanchy, M. T., From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1993), p. 125Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Dudley, Leonard M., The Word and the Sword: How Technologies of Information and Violence have Shaped our World (Cambridge, 1991), p. 146Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Cantor, Civilization of the Middle Ages, p. 153.

⁸⁷ Duby, Georges, ‘The Diffusion of Cultural Patterns in Feudal Society’, Past and Present, 39 (April 1968), p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁸ See Stock, Brian, The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton, 1993), pp. 35Google Scholar, 60–1.

⁸⁹ Bioch, Marc, Feudal Society, vol. 1 (Chicago, 1961), p. 80Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Ibid.

⁹¹ Initially, the Church was enthusiastic about the printing press, using it as a tool in its anti-Turkish polemics. As a reflection of this, it is somewhat ironic that the first dated printed product from . Gutenberg's workshop was an indulgence. See Eisenstein, Elizabeth, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformation in Early Modern Europe, vol. I (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 317Google Scholar, 375.

⁹² See Barraclough, Geoffrey, The Medieval Papacy (London, 1968), pp. 194–195Google Scholar.

⁹³ Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 39.

⁹⁴ Le Goff, Medieval Civilization, p. 148.

⁹⁵ Febvre, Lucien and Martin, Henri-Jean, The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing, 1450–1800 (London, 1976), p. 288Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ See Edwards, Mark U., Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther (Los Angeles, 1994)Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ This was evidenced by the fact that it was Rome which felt the need to formulate the Index Librorum Prohibitorum at the Council of Trent. It should be pointed out that the Church's opposition to print was by no means exclusive or permanent In fact, the word ‘propaganda’ has its origins in 1622 when a printing press was established in Rome primarily for that purpose. See Eisenstein, Printing Press, p. 326. By 1622, however, the monopoly over written information had long been breached.

⁹⁸ Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 40.

⁹⁹ The way print facilitated scientific exchanges along these lines is thoroughly documented by Eisenstein, Printing Press, vol. II.

¹⁰⁰ Strayer, Joseph, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (Princeton, 1970)Google Scholar. See also Clanchy, From Memory.

¹⁰¹ Strayer, On Medieval Origins, p. 13.

¹⁰² This was a fairly regular pattern in the Middle Ages, as evidenced by the dissolution of the Carolingian and Ottonian dynasties, for example. In Poggi's words, medieval political rule ‘possessed an inherent tendency to shift the seat of effective power, the fulcrum of rule, downward toward the lower links in the chain of lord-vassal relations’. Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction (Stanford, 1970), p. 26Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Gellner, Ernst, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar. See also Buisseret, David (ed.), Monarchs, Ministers, and Maps: The Emergence of Cartography as a Tool of Government in Early Modern Europe (Chicago, 1992)Google Scholar, for the use of printed maps by centralizing state monarchs in surveillance of territorial spaces; and Luke, Carmen, Pedagogy, Printing and Protestantism: The Discourse on Childhood (New York, 1989)Google Scholar, for the relationship between printing and standardized public education as a tool of the early modern ‘disciplinary’ state.

¹⁰⁴ Noteworthy in this respect is Cianchy's thesis that expanding literacy and the increased secular use of writing in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in England was a consequence of centralized governance and bureaucratic growth: ‘that lay literacy grew out of bureaucracy’. Clanchy, From Memory, p. 19. Here, Clanchy reminds us that social forces in favour of bureaucratization had emerged prior to printing, indeed, may have been at least partially responsible for its emergence.

¹⁰⁵ See Wallerstein, Modern World System.

¹⁰⁶ Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 144. It is no coincidence that certain defining features of capitalism-the multinational corporation and the stock exchange, to name but two-were developed in the United Provinces of the Netherlands, a region which, unlike the south of Europe during the same period, had energetically encouraged widespread dissemination of print and literacy among the populace. See Dudley, Word and Sword, pp. 139–79.

¹⁰⁷ Durkheim, Emile, The Division of Labour in Society (New York, 1933).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See Kaufer, David and Carley, Kathleen M., Communication at a Distance: The Influence of Print on Socio-cultural Organization and Change (Princeton, 1993)Google Scholar, p. 5; Goody, Logic of Writing; and Clanchy, From Memory, p. 263. For the use of printed newspapers in facilitating early modern commercial transactions, see McCusker, John J. and Gravesteijn, Cora, The Beginnings of Commercial and Financial Journalism: The Commodity Price Currents, Exchange Rate Currents, and Money Currents of Early Modern Europe (Amsterdam, 1991).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See Anderson, Perry, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London, 1974)Google Scholar; Mann, Michael, Sources of Social Power, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European Slates, A.D. 990–1990 (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Ruggie, ‘Territoriality’, p. 157.

¹¹¹ Dumont, Louis, Essays in Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective (Chicago, 1986), p. 62Google Scholar.

¹¹² Ibid., p. 23.

¹¹³ See Le Goff, Jacques, Intellectuals in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1993)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Lyon, John, The Invention of the Self: The Hinge of Consciousness in the Eighteenth Century (Carbondale, 1978), p. 37Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Ashley, Richard K., ‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17 (1988), p. 230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Dumont, Essays in Individualism, p. 73.

¹¹⁷ As quoted Ibid., pp. 74–5.

¹¹⁸ Lyon, Invention of the Self, p. 67.

¹¹⁹ Ong, Orality and Literacy, p. 133.

¹²⁰ Ibid., p. 131.

¹²¹ Chaytor, Henry John, From Script to Print: An Introduction to Medieval Vernaculars (London, 1945), p. 1Google Scholar.

¹²² Ong, Orality and Literacy, p. 131.

¹²³ Febvre and Martin, Coming of the Book, p. 261.

¹²⁴ Ong, Orality and Literacy, p. 133.

¹²⁵ For an extensive discussion, see Chartier, Roger, ‘The Practical Impact of Print’, in Aries, Philippe and Duby, Georges (eds.), A History of Private Life, vol. III (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 111–159Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ Ibid., p. 125.

¹²⁷ Finnegan, Literacy and Orality, p. 28.

¹²⁸ Chartier, ‘Practical Impact of Print’, p. 111.

¹²⁹ Ruggie, ‘Territoriality’, p. 158.

¹³⁰ For discussion, see Orest Ranum, ‘The Refuges of Intimacy’, and Jean Marie Goulemot, ‘Literary Practices: Publicizing the Private’, both in Aries and Duby (eds.), History of Private Life.

¹³¹ Ong, Orality and Literacy, p. 131.

¹³² Ruggie, ‘Territoriality’, p. 159.

¹³³ Harvey, Condition of Postmodernity, p. 241.

¹³⁴ Soja, Edward W., The Political Organization of Space, Resource Paper No. 8, Association of American Geographers (Washington, 1971), p. 9Google Scholar.

¹³⁵ Walker, R. B. J., Insideloutside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge, 1993), p. 129Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ Harvey, Condition of Postmodernity, p. 245.

¹³⁷ McLuhan, Understanding Media, p. 157.

¹³⁸ Lowe, Donald, A History of Bourgeois Perception (Chicago, 1982), p. 26Google Scholar.

¹³⁹ McLuhan, Marshall and Fiore, Quentin, The Medium is the Message (New York, 1967), p. 49Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ Ong, Orality and Literacy, p. 127.

¹⁴¹ For a discussion, see Guenee, Bernard, States and Rulers in Later Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1985), pp. 50–65Google Scholar.

¹⁴² Chaytor, From Script, p. 22.

¹⁴³ Febvre and Martin, Coming of the Book, p. 319.

¹⁴⁴ Chaytor, From Script, p. 34.

¹⁴⁵ Febvre and Martin, Coming of the Book, p. 319.

¹⁴⁶ Chaytor, From Script, p. 45.

¹⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 46.

¹⁴⁸ Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. 46.

¹⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 26.

¹⁵⁰ McLuhan, Gutenberg Galaxy, p. 260.