Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:41:02.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From power politics to social change: an alternative focus for international studies*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1993

Jan Aart Scholte
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Our social circumstance is fundamentally changing, so we are told on this historical morning after the Cold War. What was formerly called the ‘Second World' has suddenly disappeared; apartheid appears to be in final retreat; class structures and gender relations are said to be undergoing substantial shifts; there are increased hopes for disarmament and a wider demilitarization of international life; existing state boundaries and to some extent also the nature of the state itself are deeply in question. At the same time, we of the late twentieth century are allegedly experiencing a world-wide upsurge in religious revivalism, an unprecedented global ecological awareness, a shift from states to markets and from globalism towards regionalism in the organization of the world economy, cascading democratization across the continents and so on. There is widespread talk of ‘a new world order’, of the emergence of what is variously called ‘post-industrial’, ‘post-capitalist’ or ‘post-modern’ society, and of ‘the end of history’. Symptomatic, too, of the pervasively felt sense of transition are insistent calls for new theories, new language, new politics, new institutions and new norms that will be equal to the challenges posed by this purportedly revolutionary world situation. True, sceptics might well argue that dynamism and upheaval of the kind that we are witnessing today constitute defining features of modern social life, and that our generation is but the latest in a long string t o succumb to a secular millenarian delusion that it has been granted the historical privilege of living through the dawn of a new epoch. However, whether they adopt a prophetic or an agnostic stance on the matter, most commentators would agree that the question of social change sits high on the agenda of current world affairs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 3 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1993

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

1 On this separation, see, e.g., Manning, C. A. W., ‘The Teaching of International Relations’, Political Studies, 3 (1955), pp. 75–6Google Scholar; Hill, C., ‘History and International Relations’, in Smith, S. (ed.), International Relations: British and American Perspectives (Oxford, 1985), pp. 126–45Google Scholar; Sked, A., ‘The Study of International Relations: A Historian's View’, Millennium, 16 (1987), pp. 251–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See Jarvis, A., ‘Societies, States and Geopolitics: Challenges from Historical Sociology’,Review of International Studies, 15 (1989), pp. 281–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Theda Skocpol and John Hall explicitly acknowledge their realist orientation: Skocpol, T.,States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge, 1979), p. 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hall, J. A. and Ikenberry, G. J., The State (Milton Keynes, 1989), pp. 63Google Scholar and 97–83

3 Webster, C.K., ‘The Study of International History’, History, 18 (1933), pp. 99–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See, e.g., Watt, D. C. et al., ‘What Is Diplomatic History?’ History Today, 18 (1985), pp. 33–41Google Scholar.

5 See James, A., ‘The Realism of Realism: The State and the Study of International Relations’,Review of International Studies, 15 (1989), pp. 215–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 E.g., Manning, C. A. W., The Nature of International Society (London, 1962)Google Scholar; Butterfield, H. and Wight, M. (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London, 1966)Google Scholar; Bull, H., The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (eds.), Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, MA, 1971)Google Scholar; Northedge, F. S., ‘Transnationalism: The American Illusion’, Millennium, 5 (1976), pp. 21–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Evans, P. B.et al. (eds.), Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hall, J. A. (ed.), States in History (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar; Mann, M. (ed.), The Rise and Decline of the Nation State (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar.

9 E.g., Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions; Bull, H. and Watson, A. (eds.), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar; Giddens, A., The Nation-State and Violence (Cambridge, 1985)Google Scholar.

10 DeConde, A., ‘On the Nature of International History’, International History Review, 10 (1989), pp. 286–7Google Scholar.

11 Craig, G. A., ‘The History of International Relations’, American Historical Review, 88 (1983), pp. 3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Hildebrand, K., ‘Geschichte oder “Gesellschaftsgeschichte”? Die Notwendigkeit einer politischen Geschichtsschreibung von den internationalen Beziehungen’, Hislorisclw Zeiischrift, 223 (1976), pp. 328–57Google Scholar.

12 Morgenthau, H. J. and Thompson, K. W. (eds.), Principles & Problems of International Politics (New York, 1950)Google Scholar, Preface.

13 See, e.g., Moses, J. A., The Politics of Illusion: The Fischer Controversy in German Historiography (London, 1975)Google Scholar; McCormick, T. J., ‘Drift or Mastery? A Corporatist Synthesis for American Diplomatic History’, Reviews in American History, 10 (1982), pp. 318–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See, e.g., Kim, K. W., Revolution and International System (New York, 1970)Google Scholar; Brucan, S., The Dialectic of World Politics (New York, 1978)Google Scholar. The alternative perspective is suggested by Fred Halliday in ‘“The Sixth Great Power”: On the Study of Revolution and International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 16(1990), pp. 207–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See, e.g., Holsti, O. R. et al. (eds.), Change in the International System (Boulder, 1980)Google Scholar; most contributions to Buzan, B. and Jones, R. J. B. (eds.), Change and the Study of International Relations: The Evaded Dimension (London, 1981)Google Scholar; Hughes, B. B., Change and Continuity in World Politics: A Clash of Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs, 1991)Google Scholar.

16 See Jones, R. E., ‘The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure’, Review of International Studies, 7 (1981), pp. 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, P., ‘The English School of International Relations: A Reply to Sheila Grader’, 15 (1989), pp. 49–58Google Scholar.

17 E.g., Knorr, K. and Verba, S. (eds.), The International System: Theoretical Essays (Princeton, 1961)Google Scholar; Krasner, S. D., ‘Regimes and the Limits of Realism: Regimes as Autonomous Variables’, in Krasner, (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca, 1983), e.g., p. 359Google Scholar; Little, R., ‘Structuralism and Neo-Realism’, in Light, M. and Groom, A. J. S. (eds.), International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory (London, 1985), pp. 74–89Google Scholar.

18 Vincent, Cf. R. J., ‘Change and International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 9 (1983), pp. 63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Gilpin, R., War and Change in World Politics (London, 1981), p. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ch. 6.

20 See, e.g., Dougherty, J. E. and Pfalzgraff, R. L., Contending Theories of International Relations (New York, 1990), p. 2Google Scholar; Collins, R., Sociology since Midcentury: Essays in Theory Cumulation (New York, 1981), pp. 18–23Google Scholar.

21 See Donald Watt's attack on the Annales School in ‘What About the People? Abstraction and Reality i n History and the Social Sciences’ (inaugural lecture, London School of Economics and Political Science, 1983).

22 E.g., Modelski, G. (ed.), Exploring Long Cycles (Boulder, 1987)Google Scholar; Kennedy, P., The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (London, 1988)Google Scholar; Thompson, W. R., On Global War: Historical-Structural Approaches to World Politics (Columbia, 1988)Google Scholar.

23 See, e.g., Kubalkova, V. and Cruickshank, A. A., Marxism and International Relations (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar; Grant, R. and Newland, K. (eds.), Gender and International Relations (Milton Keynes, 1991)Google Scholar; Linklater, A., Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (Basingstoke, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenau, P., ‘Once Again into the Fray: International Relations Confronts the Humanities’, Millennium, 19 (1990), pp. 83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 See, e.g., ‘Symposium: Responses to Charles Maier, S., “Marking Time: The Historiography of International Relations’”, Diplomatic History, 5 (1981), pp. 353–82Google Scholar; Hogan, M. J. and Paterson, T. G. (eds.), Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations (Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar.

25 For an exception, see Thorne, C., Border Crossings: Studies in International History (Oxford, 1988), part IGoogle Scholar.

26 The latter phrase is taken from Robertson, R. and Lechner, F., ‘Modernization, Globalization and the Problem of Culture in World-Systems Theory’, Theory, Culture & Society, 2 (1985), pp. 103–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Robertson, R., ‘Mapping the Global Condition: Globalization as the Central Concept’, in Featherstone, M. (ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity (London, 1990), pp. 15–30Google Scholar.

27 E.g., Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 222–5Google Scholar. See also Smith, A. D., The Concept of Social Change: A Critique of the Functionalist Theory of Social Change (London, 1973), pp. 50–9Google Scholar, 149–56.

28 Smith, A. D., Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Oxford, 1979), p. 191Google Scholar; Mann, M., The Sources of Social Power. Vol. I: A History of Powerfrom the Beginnings to A.D. 1760 (Cambridge, 1986), p. 503CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Chirot, D., Social Change in the Modern Era (San Diego, 1986), pp. 6, 296Google Scholar.

30 Wolf, E. R., Europe and the People without History (Berkeley, 1982), p. 18Google Scholar. See also Ekholm, K. and Friedman, J., ‘Towards a Global Anthropology’, in Blusse, L.et al. (eds.), History and Underdevelopment: Essays on Underdevelopment and European Expansion in Asia and Africa (Leiden, 1980), pp. 61–76Google Scholar.

31 Cox, R. W., Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York, 1987), pp. 1, 8Google Scholar, 105,107–9.

32 Brucan, Dialectic of World Politics, p. xi; also ‘The Nation-State: Will It Keep Order or Wither Away? International Social Science Journal, 30 (1978), pp. 14–22Google Scholar; ‘The State and the World System,’ International Social Science Journal, 32 (1980), pp. 752–69Google Scholar.

33 McCormick, T. J., ‘The State of American Diplomatic History’, in Bass, H. J. (ed.), The State of American History (Chicago, 1970), p. 139Google Scholar, also pp. 127–33. See also Lilley, C. R. and Hunt, M. H., ‘On Social History, the State, and Foreign Relations: Commentary on “The Cosmopolitan Connection’”, Diplomatic History, 11 (1987), pp. 243–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Immerman, R., ‘The History of U.S. Foreign Policy: A Plea for Pluralism’, Diplomatic History, 14 (1990), p. 581Google Scholar.

35 de Saint-Simon, C. H., ‘Ve lettre a messieurs les industriels’, reprinted in Oeuvres de Saint-Simon, tome VI (Paris, 1869), p. 23nGoogle Scholar [my translation].

36 Parkinson, F., The Philosophy of International Relations: A Study in the History of Thought (Beverly Hills, 1977), pp. 80–8Google Scholar, 102–6.

37 Landecker, W., ‘The Scope of a Sociology of International Relations’, Social Forces, 17 (1938), p. 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Bernard, L. L. and Bernard, J., Sociology and the Study of International Relations (St Louis, 1934)Google Scholar.

38 Barnes, H. E., World Politics in Modem Civilization: The Contributions of Nationalism, Capitalism, Imperialism and Militarism to Human Culture and International Anarchy (New York, 1930)Google Scholar; Elias, N., The Civilizing Process. Volume 2: State Formation and Civilization (1939; Oxford, 1982)Google Scholar.

39 E.g., Aron, R., Paix et guerre entre les nations (Paris, 1962)Google Scholar; Parsons, T., ‘Order and Community in the Internationa! Social System’, in Rosenau, J. N. (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory (New York, 1961), pp. 120–9Google Scholar; Etzioni, A., ‘The Epigenesis of Political Communities at the International Level’, American Journal of Sociology, 68 (1963), pp. 407–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Galtung, J., ‘Foreign Policy Opinion as a Function of Social Position’, Journal of Peace Research, 1 (1964), pp. 206–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 See, e.g., Angell, R. C., Peace on the March: Transnational Participation (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; Berberoglu, B., The Internationalization of Capital: Imperialism and Capitalist Development on a World Scale (New York, 1987)Google Scholar; Brewer, A., Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey (London, 1990), ch. 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallensteen, P.et al., Global Militarization (Boulder, 1985)Google Scholar; Mies, M., Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour (London, 1986)Google Scholar; Kazancigil, A. (ed.), The State in Global Perspective (Aldershot, 1986)Google Scholar.

41 Meszaros, Cf. I., The Power of Ideology (Hemel Hempstead, 1989), pp. 23–4Google Scholar.

42 Wertheim, W. F., Evolution and Revolution: The Rising Waves of Emancipation (Harmondsworth, 1974)Google Scholar; Wallerstein, I., The Modern World-System [three volumes to date] (New York, 1974/1980/1988)Google Scholar; Chirot, D., Social Change in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1977)Google Scholar; Frank, A. G., World Accumulation 1492–1789 (New York, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skocpol, T. (ed.), Vision and Method in Historical Sociology (Cambridge, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hall, J. A., Powers and Liberties: The Causes and Consequences of the Rise of the West (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar; Mann, M., States, War and Capitalism: Studies in Political Sociology (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar.

43 Spykman, N. J., ‘Methods of Approach to the Study of International Relations’, in Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of Teachers of International Law and Related Subjects, Held at Washington, D.C., April 26–27, 1933 (Washington, 1933), pp. 59–61Google Scholar; Zimmern, A., ‘Introductory Report to the Discussions in 1935 on University Teaching of International Relations’, in University Teaching of International Relations: A Record of the Eleventh Session of the International Studies Conference, Prague, 1938 (Paris, 1939), p. 7Google Scholar (see also similar statements by others on pp. 23, 34, 43–5, 54); Bailey, S. H., International Studies in Modern Education (London, 1938), pp. 266–7Google Scholar.

44 Even then, Stanley Hoffmann berated Georg Schwarzenberger for his use of ‘the dangerous expression “international society”’: in ‘International Relations: The Long Road to Theory’, World Politics, 11 (1959), p. 347nGoogle Scholar.

45 E.g., Brucan, S., The Dissolution of Power: A Sociology of International Relations and Politics (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Pettman, R., State and Class: A Sociology of International Affairs (London, 1979)Google Scholar; Banks, M. (ed.), Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations (Brighton, 1984)Google Scholar; Bornschier, V. and Lengyel, P. (eds.), World Society Studies. Volume 1 (Frankfurt, 1990)Google Scholar.

46 Halliday, F., ‘A “Crisis” of Internationa l Relations?’International Relations, 8 (1985), p. 412Google Scholar; ‘State and Society in International Relations: A Second Agenda’, Millennium, 16 (1987), p. 217Google Scholar and passim.

47 Krippendorff, E., Internationales System als Geschichte. Einfiihrung in die Internationale Beziehungen(Frankfurt, 1975)Google Scholar; Cox, Production, Power, and World Order.

48 See Figgis, J. N. and Laurence, R. V. (eds.), Lectures on Modern History by the late … Baron Acton(London, 1906), e.g., p. 317Google Scholar; Bryce, J., World History (London, 1919)Google Scholar.

49 Spengler, O., The Decline of the West [two volumes] (1918/22; New York, 1926/1928)Google Scholar; Toynbee, A., A Study of History [twelve volumes] (London, 1934-1961)Google Scholar; Polanyi, K., The Great Transformation (New York, 1944)Google Scholar; Braudel, F., Civilization and Capitalism 15th-18th Century. Volume III: The Perspective of the World (1979; London, 1984)Google Scholar; McNeill, W. H., The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000 (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar; Barraclough, G., An Introduction to Contemporary History (Harmondsworth, 1967)Google Scholar; von Laue, T. H., The World Revolution of Westernization: The Twentieth Century in Global Perspective (New York, 1987)Google Scholar.

50 E.g., Marwick, A. (ed.), Total War and Social Change (Basingstoke, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thorne, C., The Issue of War: States, Societies, and the Far Eastern Conflict of 1941–1945 (London, 1985)Google Scholar.

51 E.g., Hogan, M. J., The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe 1947–52 (Cambridge, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Two very interesting historical studies of national social development which make considerable reference to the international are Maier, C. S., Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decade after World War I (Princeton, 1975)Google Scholar; Peukert, D. J. K., The Weimar Republic: The Crisis of Classical Modernity (London, 1991)Google Scholar.

53 E.g., Parsons, T., The System of Modern Societies (Englewood Cliffs, 1971), chs. 3–8Google Scholar; Moore, W. E., World Modernization. The Limits of Convergence (New York, 1979)Google Scholar; Rostow, W. W., The World Economy: History Prospect (Austin, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 E.g., Mandel, E., Late Capitalism (London, 1975)Google Scholar; J. MacLean, ‘Marxist Epistemology, Explanations of “Change” and the Study of International Relations’, in Buzan and Jones, Change and the Study of International Relations, pp. 46–67; Wolf, Europe and the People without History; Cox, Power, Production, and World Order.

55 See Shannon, T. R., An Introduction to the World-System Perspective (Boulder, 1989)Google Scholar.

56 E.g., Bull and Watson, The Expansion of International Society; Hall, Powers and Liberties; Mann, Sources of Social Power; Tilly, C., Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1990 (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar; Banks, M. and Shaw, M. (eds.), State and Society in International Relations (Hemel Hempstead, 1991)Google Scholar.

57 E.g., Walker, R. B. J., One World, Many Worlds: Struggles for a Just World Peace (Boulder, 1988)Google Scholar; Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism; Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar.

58 E.g., Derian, J. Der and Shapiro, M. J. (eds.), International Intenextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (Lexington, 1989)Google Scholar; R. K. Ashley and R. B. J. Walker (eds.), ‘Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissidence in International Studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 34, no. 3 (1990).Google Scholar

59 I have undertaken a fuller exploration in International Relations of Social Change (Milton Keynes, forthcoming March 1993)Google Scholar.

60 On the multifaceted nature of change, see, e.g., Smith, A. D., Social Change: Social Theory and Historical Processes (London, 1976), pp.8–12Google Scholar and ch. 2; Buzan and Jones, Change and the Study of International Relations, ch. 1.

61 The three terms ‘world’, ‘international’ and ‘global' are often used interchangeably; however, I generally favour the adjective ‘world' over the other two. The word ‘internationar may convey a presumption that it is mainly through the nation and the national state that people are involved in world social relations, when it may be that race, class, gender and the like are equally or more significant. Meanwhile, the term ‘global' can suggest that the world social sphere covers everyone and everything on planet Earth, which is not always the case.

62 See, e.g., Smith, C. A., ‘Local History in Global Context: Social and Economic Transitions in Western Guatemala’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26 (1984), pp. 193–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 It is not being suggested tha t world society involves either a world community (in the sense of human consensus and solidarity on a global scale) or a sovereign world state. As the term is used here, ‘society' prevails when a collection of people are joined together in intense, constant, comprehensive and relatively ordered interactions and mutual dependence.

64 Cf. Wallerstein, I., ‘Societal Development, or Development of the World-System?’ International Sociology, I (1986), pp. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 11–12.

65 See, e.g., Petras, J. F. and Brill, H., ‘The Tyranny of Globalism’, in Petras, et al., Latin America: Bankers, Generals, and the Struggle for SocialJustice (Totowa, 1986), pp. 3–20Google Scholar.

66 Rasler, K. A. and Thompson, W. R., War and Statemaking: The Shaping of the Global Powers (Boston, MA, 1989), p. 211Google Scholar.

67 See, e.g., J. Boli, ‘World Polity Sources of Expanding State Authority and Organization, 1870–1970’, Thomas, G. M.et al., Institutional Structure: Constituting Slate, Society, and the Individual (Beverly Hills, 1987), pp. 71–91Google Scholar.

68 For a review of various conceptions of structure, see Blau, P. M. (ed.), Approaches to the Study of Social Structure (London, 1976)Google Scholar.

69 Cf. note 40 above.

70 Tinker, H., Race, Conflict and the International Order: From Empire to United Nations (London, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pieterse, J. P. N., Empire and Emancipation: Power and Liberation on a World Scale (London, 1990), ch. 11Google Scholar.

71 Mann, Sources of Social Power, p. 8.

72 See, e.g., Wendt, A. E., ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organization, 41 (1987), pp. 335–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bryant, C. G. A. and Jary, D. (eds.), Giddens1 Theory of Structuration: A Critical Appreciation (London, 1991)Google Scholar.

73 See, e.g., Freeman, C. (ed.), Long Waves in the World Economy (London, 1983)Google Scholar; Bousquet, N., ‘From Hegemony to Competition: Cycles of the Core?’, in Hopkins, T. K. and Wallerstein, I. (eds.), Processes of the World-System (Beverly Hills, 1980), pp. 46–83Google Scholar.

74 Wertheim, Evolution and Revolution, pp. 105–18.

75 See, e.g., Boulding, K. E., The World as a Total System (Beverly Hills, 1985), pp. 8Google Scholar, 75–91.

76 E.g., Stern, S. J., ‘Feudalism, Capitalism, and the World-System in the Perspective of Latin America and the Caribbean’, American Historical Review, 93 (1988), pp. 829–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 See, e.g., Arrighi, G.et al., Antisystemic Movements (London, 1989)Google Scholar.

78 Brucan, Dialectic of World Politics See also Vogler, C. M., The Nation State: The Neglected Dimension of Class (Aldershot, 1985)Google Scholar.

79 Goldstein, J. S., Long Cycles: Prosperity and War in the Modern Age (New Haven, 1988)Google Scholar; Shannon, Introduction to the World-System Perspective, pp. 124–30, 139–40.

80 Tilly, Coercion, Capital, p. 14.

81 Skocpol, in Bringing the State Back In, p. ix; also Mann, Sources of Social Power, p. 29; Giddens in Held, D. and Thompson, J. B. (eds.), Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics (Cambridge, 1989), p. 293CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 CfSmith, M. J., Realism from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge, 1986), p. 48Google Scholar.

83 Consequences of Modernity, p 15; Nation-State and Violence, p. 12.