Review article

History and globalization:

reflections on temporality
DUNCAN S. A. !""#
Globalization in world history. Edited by A. G. Hopkins. London:
Pimlico. 2002. 66pp. !nde". Pb.: #$2.0. 0 %$26 %%&0 2.
Global metaphors: modernity and the '(est )or one world. *y +o,Anne
Pemberton. London: Pl(to. 200$. 2&-pp. !nde". Pb.: #$6.... 0 %& /$6/ 0.
A sense of r$pt$re wit% t%e past pervades t%e p$blic conscio$sness of o$r time.&
'lobalization is a p%ase of capitalism( b$t not so m$c% a new p%ase as a revival or
res$mption of a similar p%ase in t%e late &)t% cent$ry.*
+o c%art t%e ,growt% of nations-( Ale.is de +oc/$eville wrote( it is essential to
$nderstand t%at t%ey carry wit% t%em ,some of t%e mar0s of t%eir origin-.1 And
so it is wit% all social( political( economic and c$lt$ral instit$tions and forms of
life. 2e are always already prod$cts of o$r past.
,'lobalization- is t%e indeterminate and m$ltivocal concept t%at %as emerged
as t%e most pop$lar means of compre%ending t%e alleged transformation of
global order at t%e t$rn of t%e twenty3first cent$ry. +%$s 4alcolm 2aters can
claim t%at( w%ile postmodernism was t%e defining concept 5%owever opa/$e
and el$sive6 of t%e &)78s( globalization is t%e ,0ey idea by w%ic% we $nderstand
t%e transition of %$man society into t%e t%ird millenni$m-.9 +%e e.%a$stive
,great debate- over globalization ill$minates and indeed perpet$ates t%e e.ist3
ence of ,a global ambience of pervasive c%ange-(: a foreboding sense t%at t%e
# ; wo$ld li0e to t%an0 t%e following 5in no partic$lar order6 for t%eir %elpf$l comments on earlier drafts of
t%is article: Casper Sylvest( ;an Hall( +ara0 ar0awi and 4aria Neop%yto$.
& 4artin Albrow( +%e global age: state and society beyond modernity 5Cambridge: <olity( &))=6( p. &.
* 4eg%nad Desai( ,'lobalization: neit%er ideology nor $topia-( Cambridge Review of ;nternational Affairs &9:
&( *888( p. &=.
1 Ale.is de +oc/$eville( Democracy in America( trans. Henry Reeve 5"ondon: "ongman( &7=* >&71:?6( vol. &( p. &1.
9 4alcolm 2aters( 'lobalization 5"ondon: Ro$tledge( &)):6( p. &.
: Ronald @o%nson( <eter +aylor and 4ic%ael 2atts( ,'lobal c%ange at t%e end of t%e twentiet% cent$ry-(
in Ronald @o%nson( <eter +aylor and 4ic%ael 2atts( eds( 'eograp%ies of global c%ange: remapping t%e world
in t%e late twentiet% cent$ry 5A.ford: lac0well( &)):6( p. 9.
78&
International Affairs 79, ( )
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell BD *D 8 1( & &: *7 7 8&
Duncan S. A. Bell
;s globalization a radical depart$re from previo$s modes of global orderE Ar
is it instead simply a contin$ation of e.isting trends clad in a different r%etorical
cloa0E 'lobalization t%eorists( proponents and adversaries ali0e( propo$nd radi3
cally different answers to s$c% /$estions. However( satisfactory answers re/$ire
compre%ensive %istorical investigation( and( as one disting$is%ed %istorian %as
warned( t%e t%eorists %ave ,yet to engage wit% t%e %istorical literat$re in any
dept% or detail-.= +%e globalization debate is pervaded by a lac0 of %istorical
sop%istication( sensitivity or $nderstanding. 4$c% wor0 remains to be done
%ere. Nevert%eless( %istorians can also learn from t%e debate( escaping t%e fetters
t%at t%e writing of ,national %istories-Fin t%e indomitable style of Ran0eBF
%ave imposed on many of t%em d$ring t%e last cent$ry and a %alf.7 ,+%e st$dy
of globalisation promises to reinvigorate t%e appraisal of large slices of t%e past
and to lin0 %istory to t%e present in ways t%at o$g%t to inform t%e disc$ssion of
contemporary iss$es.-) 2%ile economic %istorians %ave beg$n to embar0 on t%is
tas0( social( c$lt$ral and political %istorians lag be%ind.&8 +%ere is conse/$ently
scope for an important and m$t$ally beneficial dialog$e.
;n t%is article( ; s0etc% briefly t%e manner in w%ic% %istorical interpretations(
eit%er conscio$s or s$blimated( s%ape globalization disco$rse. +%e two boo0s
$nder review( meanw%ile( %ig%lig%t t%e way in w%ic% a %istoricized approac% to
$nderstanding global processes( one t%at e.plores patterns of contin$ity and
c%ange and w%ic% attempts to place t%e contemporary world in t%e conte.t of
past worlds( can s%ed lig%t on e.isting debates.
0he historical identity o) 1lobalization: )o(r theses
+%e intrepid so$l w%o enters into t%e globalization debate immediately faces a
problem. +%ere is c$rrently a massive proliferation of academic and pop$list
writing t%at strives to analyseFand $s$ally eit%er castigate or s$pportFt%e
m$ltidimensional processes of globalization( and as yet t%ere seems to be no end
in sig%t to t%is del$ge. Analysts %ave constr$cted a n$mber of different typo3
logies t%at attempt to corral t%is literat$re into a manageable sc%ema. +%e most
= A. '. Hop0ins( ,+%e %istory of globalizationFor globalization in world %istoryE- in Hop0ins( ed.(
Globalization in world history, . !".
B Gor e.ample( Ran0e( ,+%e great powers- >&711?( in +. H. von "a$e( "eopold von Ran0e: t%e formative years
5<rinceton( N@: <rinceton University <ress( &):86( pp. &7&H*&7.
7 A. '. Hop0ins( ,ac0 to t%e f$t$re: from national %istory to imperial %istory-( <ast and <resent &=9( &)))(
pp. &)7H*99. 2%ile ,world %istorians- %ave for decades engaged in s$c% wor0( t%ey %ave remained
marginal wit%in t%e field as a w%ole. Gor a disc$ssion of potential f$t$re directions( see C%arles rig%t
and 4ic%ael 'eyer( ,2orld %istory in a global age-( American Historical Review &88( &)):( pp. &819H=8. ) Hop0ins( ,+%e %istory of globalization-( p. 1=.
& 8 2or0 in economic %istory incl$des Ievin H. A-Ro$r0e and @effrey '. 2illiamson( 'lobalization and
history# the e$olution of a nineteenth%century Atlantic econo&y ('a&brid(e, )A# )I* +ress, !999), and
,arold -a&es, *he end of (lobalization# lessons fro& the Great Deression ('a&brid(e, )A# ,ar$ard
.ni$ersity +ress, "//!).
78*
world is $ndergoing a %istoric revol$tion. Jet( as t%e two /$otations at t%e top
of t%is article ill$strate( t%ere is no consens$s concerning t%e %istorical identity
of t%e p%enomenon.
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell B D* D8 1( & &: *7 7 8*
,istory and (lobalization
widely employed is t%e triadic model developed by David Held and %is col3
leag$es.&& +%ey claim t%at globalization arg$ments tend to fall into one of t%ree
broad categories: t%e %yper3globalist( t%e sceptical and t%e transformational.
+%ese categories refer primarily to differing interpretations of t%e str$ct$re of
contemporary global order( for wit%in eac% fall antit%etical normative K$dge3
ments abo$t t%e perceived state of affairs. +%is sc%ema is not concerned primarily
wit% t%e /$estion of %istoricity( alt%o$g% of co$rse it to$c%es on it. ;t is t%ere3
fore $sef$l to s0etc% a parallel typology t%at foc$ses more on t%e relations%ip
between past and present by %ig%lig%ting t%e different ways in w%ic% t%e
%istorical identity of globalization 5if it indeed %as one6 is conceived. +%e
debate( ; wo$ld arg$e( is str$ct$red by fo$r t%eses: t%e novelty t%esis( t%e t%esis
of ret$rn( t%e contin$ity t%esis and t%e transformation t%esis.
*he no$elty thesis
+%is is t%e view t%at globalization %as no comparable past and t%$s represents an
entirely new p%enomenon( a novel t%o$g% still evolving form of global order
t%at in recent decades %as reconfig$red 5and potentially erased6 economic(
political and c$lt$ral bo$ndaries. +%is is t%e position advocated by many neo3
liberals( b$t also by some trenc%ant critics of t%e system( incl$ding 4ic%ael
Hardt and Antonio Negri.&* Novelists claim t%at t%e globalization of economic
activity 5in partic$lar6 is res%aping t%e ordering principles of t%e modern world(
$ndermining t%e role of t%e stateFt%e constit$tive political $nit of modernityF
and revol$tionizing t%e ways in w%ic% people interact. Ienic%i A%mae( for
e.ample( %as claimed t%at ,many of t%e core val$es s$pporting a world order
based on discrete nation3statesFliberal democracy as practiced in t%e 2est( for
instance( and even t%e very notion of political sovereignty itselfF%ave s%own
t%emselves in serio$s need of redefinition or( per%aps( replacement.-&1 Novelists
s$c% as A%mae often arg$e t%at t%ese processes are inevitable and largely irre3
versible. Jet it is wort% remembering t%at( as 'eorge Arwell remar0ed in
,<olitics and t%e !nglis% lang$age- 5&)9B6( polemically maKestic adKectives s$c%
as %istoric( tri$mp%ant( inevitable and ine.orable are more often t%an not ,$sed
to dignify t%e sordid processes of international politics-.&9 4eanw%ile( Hardt
and Negri( in a postmodern 4ar.ist vein( are also at pains to stress t%e ,novelty
of t%e str$ct$res and logics of power t%at order t%e contemporary world-.&:
& & David Held et al.( 'lobal transformations: politics( economics( and c$lt$re 5Cambridge: <olity( &)))6. A f$rt%er
$sef$l typology can be fo$nd in @ens artelson( ,+%ree concepts of globalization-( ;nternational Sociology
&:: *( *888( pp. &78H)=.
& * 4ic%ael Hardt and Antonio Negri( !mpire 5Cambridge( 4A: Harvard University <ress( *8886.
& 1 Ienic%i A%mae( +%e end of t%e nation state: t%e rise of regional economies 5New Jor0: Gree <ress( &))=6( p.
vii. Gor variations on a 5novel6 t%eme( see <a$l Andre Harris( ,www.timeandglobalization.comD
narrative-( +ime and Society ): 1( *888( p. 1&)( and La0i "aidi( A world wit%o$t meaning: t%e crisis of meaning
in international politics( trans. @$ne $rn%am and @enny Co$lon 5"ondon: Ro$tledge( &))76( p. )B.
& 9 Sonia Arwell and ;an Ang$s( eds( +%e collected essays( Ko$rnalism and letters of 'eorge Arwell 5"ondon:
Sec0er M 2arb$rg( &)=76( vol. ;N( p. &1&.
& : Hardt and Negri( !mpire( p. &==.
781
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell BD *D 8 1( & &: *7 7 81
Duncan S. A. Bell
*he thesis of return
+%e ad%erents of t%is t%esis $nderstand t%e contemporary world as a replay of
earlier forms of order( and in partic$lar a ret$rn to political and economic
conditions t%at obtained before t%e Girst 2orld 2ar. +%e intervening period(
t%e span of Hobsbawm-s ,s%ort twentiet% cent$ry-( was merely a long deto$r.&=
4any on t%e radical left( for e.ample( view globalization as a re%eated mode of
imperialism( wit% t%e US pic0ing $p t%e %egemonic mantle ass$med d$ring t%e
nineteent% cent$ry by ritain.&B ;n t%is vein( Samir Amin( for e.ample( claims
t%at ,;mperialism is not a stage( not even t%e %ig%est stage( of capitalism: from
t%e beginning it is in%erent in capitalism-s e.pansion. +%e imperial con/$est of
t%e planet by t%e !$ropeans and t%eir Nort% American c%ildren was carried o$t
in two p%ases and is per%aps entering a t%ird.-&7 +%is type of arg$ment is %ig%ly
sceptical of t%e novelty t%esis beca$se it does not see anyt%ing partic$larly new in
t%e $nderlying telos of ,globalization-. Despite vario$s s%ifts in emp%asis and
deflections along t%e ro$te( t%e logic of 5capitalist6 %istory is re3asserting itself.
S$c% scepticism abo$t t%e possible transformation of world order is not con3
fined to elements of t%e left( %owever( and one of t%e most interesting effects of
t%e debate is t%at it obliterates any straig%tforward $nderstanding of a leftHrig%t
political spectr$m. Grom a %ig%ly critical rig%t3comm$nitarian position( @o%n
'ray %as branded contemporary capitalism ,4anc%esterism rediviv$s-.&) ;n a self3
conscio$sly more optimistic style( t%e conservative %istorian Niall Gerg$son
arg$es t%at t%e US needs to reassert its global %egemony and( as t%e Nictorian and
!dwardian liberal imperialists attempted( to spread ,2estern- val$es t%ro$g%o$t
t%e world. ,<olitical globalization is K$st a fancy word for O imposing yo$r views
and practices on ot%ers.-*8 And t%is is somet%ing t%at Gerg$son( for one( appla$ds.
*he continuity thesis
+%e proponents of t%e contin$ity t%esis do not believe t%at globalization
represents eit%er anyt%ing partic$larly novel or a long3delayed ret$rn to earlier
forms of politicalHeconomic governance. +%ey %ave an entirely different $nder3
standing of global political ontology( one in w%ic% massive c%ange eit%er is not
possible or occ$rs slowly. +%e Cold 2ar was not so m$c% an e.ceptional
deto$r as ill$strative of t%e r$le.
& = !ric Hobsbawm( Age of e.tremes: t%e s%ort twentiet% cent$ry( &)&9H&))& 5"ondon: 4ic%ael @osep%( &))96.
& B See e.g. Robert iel( +%e new imperialism: crisis and contradictions in Nort%HSo$t% relations 5"ondon:
Ro$tledge( *8886P Ale. Callinicos( ed.( 4ar.ism and t%e new imperialism 5"ondon: oo0mar0s( &))96P "eo
<antic%( ,+%e new imperial state-( New "eft Review( *( 4arc%HApril *888( pp. :H*&P <eter 'owan( +%e
global gamble: 2as%ington-s bid for global dominance 5"ondon: Nerso( &)))6P Samir Amin( ,;mperialism and
globalization-( 4ont%ly Review :1: *( *888( p. =.
& 7 Amin( ,;mperialism and globalization-( p. =.
& ) @o%n 'ray( ,+%e $ndoing of Conservatism-( in @o%n 'ray and David 2illetts( ;s Conservatism deadE
5"ondon: <rofile( &))B6( p. :P b$t see also t%e comments in t%e new postscript to @o%n 'ray( Galse dawn:
t%e del$sions of global capitalism( 1rd edn 5"ondon: 'ranta( &)))6( pp. *&:H&=.
* 8 Niall Gerg$son( '$ardian( 1& Act. *88&( p. =. An t%e forer$nner of t%is 0ind of view( see H. C. '. 4att%ew(
*he liberal i&erialists# the ideas and olitics of a ost%Gladstonian elite (01ford# 01ford .ni$ersity +ress, !972).
789
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell B D* D8 1( & &: *7 7 89
,istory and (lobalization
2e can divide t%e ,contin$ity- ad%erents into two separate strands( eac% wit%
its own %istorical logic: t%ose w%o believe t%at we are witnessing a grad$al b$t
perceptible division of t%e world into regional trading blocs( an economic and
political process w%ic% %as been developing steadily for decades and w%ic%
c%allenges claims as to bot% t%e dept% of ,globalization- and its reac% 5for m$c%
of t%e world is left $ndist$rbed6P and t%ose( primarily self3proclaimed political
realists( w%o remain $nconvinced by t%e world3transforming r%etoric of t%e
globalizers( believing instead t%at t%e perennial feat$res of t%e international
system remain largely $ndist$rbed. +%ey bot% agree on t%e c%imerical nat$re of
globalization( b$t differ on t%e degree of importance ascribed to t%e economic
as opposed to t%e powerHpolitical.
+%e ,economists- often claim t%at we are witnessing t%e contin$ing inter3
nationalization of econo&ic acti$ity, and, if anythin(, the 3triadization4 of the
world into re(ional tradin( zones centred on 5uroe, -aan and the .nited
States."! 3Globalization4 is not (lobal. 3*he state46which in this debate tends to
&ean certain owerful western states6is not about to be sub&er(ed under a
tsuna&i of so$erei(nty%eradicatin( (lobal caital, but (in &any cases) is dri$in(
this rocess. It is at this oint that the econo&ic criti7ue is 8oined by realists
who $iew the state as the ri&ary bastion of ower in the international syste&,
and who re&ain wary of assertions that econo&ic interdeendence renders
traditional lo(ics of realoliti9 obsolete."" :e are &ost certainly not obser$in(
either the 3end of (eo(rahy4 or the e$en &ore elusi$e 3end of history4."2 +ower
and the self%interest of states will continue to shae the (lobal landscae.
*he transfor&ation thesis
+ransformationalists believe t%at we are witnessing a %istoric s%ift in t%e str$ct$re
of global order. However( $nli0e t%e novelists( t%ey do not believe t%at t%is is
an $nprecedented and largely a%istorical p%enomenon( nor do t%ey believe t%at
it is inevitable. 'lobalization in one form or anot%er %as been developing in fits
and starts t%ro$g%o$t t%e modern age( as economies %ave become interwoven
and tec%nologies lin0ed t%e comm$nities of t%e world in a web of comm$nica3
tionP %owever( t%ey insist( its latest manifestation represents a profo$nd
/$alitative s%ift. +%is position is elaborated most compre%ensively by David Held
and %is colleag$es. +ransformationalists are wary of t%e perceived ,essentialism-
of t%e preceding categories( and instead t%ey deliberately propose a via media(
* & See "inda 2eiss( +%e myt% of t%e powerless state: governing t%e economy in a global era 5Cambridge: <olity(
&))76( and <a$l Hirst and 'ra%am +%ompson( 'lobalization in /$estion: t%e international economy and t%e
possibilities of governance 5Cambridge: <olity( &))=6.
* * Iennet% 2altz( ,'lobalization and American power-( National ;nterest :)( *888( pp. 9=H:B. 2altz t%$s
remains convinced by t%e arg$ment %e artic$lated in %is infl$ential +%eory of international politics
5Reading( 4A: Addison32esley( &)B)6. See also D$ncan S. A. ell( ,Anarc%y( power( and deat%:
political realism as ideology-( @o$rnal of <olitical ;deologies B( *88*( pp. **&H1).
* 1 Ric%ard A-rien( 'lobal financial integration: t%e end of geograp%y 5"ondon: Royal ;nstit$te of ;nternational
Affairs( &))*6P Grancis G$0$yama( +%e end of %istory and t%e last man 5"ondon: Hamis% Hamilton( &))*6.
78:
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell BD *D 8 1( & &: *7 7 8:
Duncan S. A. Bell
*i&e, history and (lobalization# reli&inary reflections
+%e debate among t%ese fo$r positions establis%es t%e parameters of academic
globalization disco$rse. However( t%e foc$s wit%in t%at disco$rse is primarily
on e.ploring t%e act$al e.istence and potential scope of globalization( and t%e
opport$nities or benefits t%at mig%t flow from it. ;t is a debate cond$cted across
disciplines( b$t dominated by iss$es from international political economyFtrade
flows( import ratios( levels of economic integration( etc.Fand /$estions over
t%e potential wit%ering of sovereignty. +%e %istorical claims made by t%e global3
ization specialists in t%e co$rse of t%ese deliberations are fre/$ently s$perficial.
4oreover( t%ere are significant gaps in t%e literat$re. Gor e.ample( t%ere is
very little s$stained analysis of t%e intellect$al %istory of global interdependence.
@$st as for m$c% of t%e previo$s cent$ry political and economic %istorians were
preocc$pied wit% writing ,national %istory-( %istorians of political t%o$g%t %ave
also tended to foc$s t%eir energies on t%e statist elements of political t%eory.
+%ere is m$c% researc% to be done on t%e $nderlying ideas t%at animate and
s%ape t%e m$ltidimensional processes t%at are 5potentially6 restr$ct$ring t%e
global order( and t%eir relations%ip wit% previo$s e.pansionary ideologies.*=
<emberton-s boo0 is a welcome step in t%is direction.
G$rt%ermore( t%ere are interesting /$estions to be as0ed abo$t t%e nat$re of
temporality and its relation to globalization. Historical time can be $nderstood
in at least two senses. +%e first is simply ,t%at w%ic% went before-( encompassing
t%e totality of t%e past. +%is is t%e conventional $nderstanding of ,%istory-. +%e
ot%er refers to t%e way in w%ic% %$mans perceive time itself. +%e manner in
w%ic% we interpret and frame t%e pastFo$r $nderstanding of t%e flow and
meaning 5if any6 of %istoryFinflects t%e way in w%ic% we conceive of t%e
present and t%e f$t$reP it acts to s%ape t%e str$ct$re and %orizons of %$man
* 9 Held et al.( 'lobal transformations( p. B.
* : ;bid.
* = A notable 5albeit partial6 e.ception is wor0 on early modern ideologies of empire: David Armitage(
Ideolo(ical ori(ins of the British e&ire ('a&brid(e# 'a&brid(e .ni$ersity +ress, "///); <ichard *uc9, *he
ri(hts of war and eace# olitical thou(ht and international order fro& Grotius to =ant (01ford# 01ford
.ni$ersity +ress, !999); Anthony +a(den, >ords of all the world# ideolo(ies of e&ire in Sain, Britain and
?rance c.!@//Ac.!B@/ (Cew ,a$en, '*# Dale .ni$ersity +ress, !99@); Andrew ?itz&aurice, ,u&anis& and
A&erica# an intellectual history of 5n(lish colonialis&, !@//A!E"@ ('a&brid(e# 'a&brid(e .ni$ersity +ress,
"//2). *he &ost co&rehensi$e account yet of 3(lobalizin(4 ideolo(ies is Ist$an ,ont, -ealousy of trade#
so$erei(nty, nationalis&, and the :ealth of Cations ('a&brid(e, )A# ,ar$ard .ni$ersity +ress,
forthco&in( "//F).
78=
claiming t%at globalization is a momento$s p%enomenonFone t%at is novel in
many respectsFb$t noting also t%at it is ,a long3term %istorical process w%ic% is
inscribed wit% contradictions and w%ic% is significantly s%aped by conKect$ral
factors-.*9 As s$c%( globalization %eralds great opport$nities and poses profo$nd
dangersP it embodies a set of contested and contestable processes. ,At iss$e is a
dynamic and open3ended conception of w%ere globalization mig%t be leading
and t%e 0ind of world order it mig%t prefig$re.-*:
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell B D* D8 1( & &: *7 7 8=
,istory and (lobalization
e.perience. Nevert%eless( w%ile we are temporal beings( we %ave different senses
of temporality. +%e same is tr$e of t%eoretical programmes( w%ic% contain
wit%in t%em ass$mptions abo$t t%e nat$re of %istorical time.*B +o give only
one brief e.ample from ;nternational Relations: many 5neo6realist arg$ments(
claiming to draw on t%e wisdom and e.perience of t%e ages( s$ggest t%at t%ere
are perennial feat$res of intercomm$nal politics( and t%at as a res$lt it is necessary
to recognize t%ese and to act in accordance wit% t%eir dictates. ;n so doing( realists
artic$late a specific conception of %istorical time( as static and $nc%anging( and
conse/$ently t%ey stress t%e inescapability of t%e logic of power politics. S$c%
,realism- t%$s forecloses t%e possibility of s$bstantial global transformationP conse3
/$ently( it anni%ilates t%e f$t$re t%ro$g% denying any possibility of transcending
t%e obd$rate traKectory of t%e past. +%eorizing globalization is li0ewise reliant
$pon specific 5and often conflicting6 $nderstandings of %istorical time( and t%is
is a fascinating iss$e wit% w%ic% t%e c$rrent debate simply does not engage.
Anot%er intellect$al lac$naFand to my mind one of t%e most important
topics t%at can be probedFis t%e notion of globalization as a cognitive p%eno3
menon: in ot%er words( t%e /$estion of t%e way5s6 in w%ic% people become
conscio$s of t%e global as opposed to t%e international( t%e regional( t%e
national or t%e local dimensions of individ$al and collective life( and %ow t%is
impacts on bot% action and identity. ;f( as C%ris ayly %as claimed( t%e modern
world displays ,t%e persistence of long contin$ities of form- in globalizing
processes(*7 w%y is it today commonly perceived t%at everyt%ing is newE 2%at
c%anges in society and polity( in collective conscio$sness( %ave acted as t%e
condition of possibility for t%is s%iftE ;f t%e sceptics are correct( t%en it is a
pressing /$estion as to w%y so many people todayFacademics( politicians and
t%e p$blic ali0eFt%in0 t%at ,globalization- constit$tes a f$ndamental
transformation of world order.
Globalization and history
+ast and resent# the tra8ectory of &ultile (lobalizations
Globalization in world history is the roduct of a series of &illenniu& lectures
hosted by the ?aculty of ,istory at 'a&brid(e .ni$ersity. *he result is an
i&ortant but dis8ointed ense&ble. *his is understandable, (i$en the enor&ous
scoe of the ro8ect, for, as the editor warns, 3GtHhe ossibilities are as lar(e as the
concet itself and cannot be e1lored fully in a sin(le $olu&e.4"9 *he boo9 is
both &ore and less than the su& of its arts# less in the sense that the icture it
aints so&eti&es lac9s coherence, offerin( interestin( and ro$ocati$e
* B See e.g. Rein%art Iosellec0( G$t$res past: on t%e semantics of %istorical time( trans. Ieit% +ribe 5Cambridge(
4A: 4;+ <ress( &)7:6P @. '. A. <ococ0( <olitics( lang$age( and time: essays on political t%o$g%t and %istory
5"ondon: 4et%$en( &)B*6.
* 7 C%ris ayly( ,QArc%aicR and QmodernR globalization in t%e !$rasian and African arena( c.&B:8H&7:8-( p. =7.
* ) A. '. Hop0ins( ,;ntrod$ction: globalizationFan agenda for %istorians-( in Hop0ins( ed.( 'lobalization in
world history, . ".
78B
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell BD *D 8 1( & &: *7 7 8B
Duncan S. A. Bell
Aside from s%owcasing a plet%ora of individ$al arg$ments( t%e boo0 see0s to
ma0e two general points. +%e first is t%at ,globalization-Fdefined by ayly as ,a
progressive increase in t%e scale of social processes from a local or regional to a
world level-18Fis a far more m$ltifaceted and deeply rooted comple. of trends
t%an many analysts appreciate. +%e second is t%at it is not simply a western
p%enomenon. ;n ,re3mapping t%e geograp%y of t%e s$bKect-( as Hop0ins p$ts
it(1& t%e contrib$tors e.plore ancient and modern( western and eastern dimen3
sions of globalizing processes. Gor e.ample( Amira ennison s0etc%es t%e ideas
and ideals of t%e $mma( t%e $niversal 4$slim comm$nity( w%ile Hans van de
Nen e.amines t%e vital role played by C%ina( and especially its wide3ranging
diaspora comm$nities( in global movements. A 0ey t%eme r$nning t%ro$g% t%e
boo0 is t%e centrality of empires in spreading peoples( ideas and instit$tions
t%ro$g%o$t t%e worldP t%e processes and t%eir political and economic o$tcomes
%ave been distrib$ted $nevenly( b$t t%e flow %as not simply been from t%e
,2est- to t%e ,rest-. +%e agents of globalization %ave been( at different times and
in different places( religio$s leaders and belief3systems( advent$ro$s monarc%s(
rapacio$s capitalists( nomadic soldiers and sc%olars( diasporic comm$nities(
traders( rog$es and so fort%. +%e intermingling of and tensions between t%em
and establis%ed political and economic instit$tions and social systems form t%e
bac0drop to t%e world of today.
;n %is programmatic ,agenda for %istorians-( Hop0ins sets o$t a $sef$l typology
of %istorical globalizations( eac% different in its scope( forms and intensity.1*
+%ey are classified as ,arc%aic( proto( modern( and post3colonial-( and t%e a$t%ors
try 5not always s$ccessf$lly6 to employ t%is division as a str$ct$ring device.
<ost3colonial globalization is t%at on w%ic% t%e mainstream social science dis3
co$rse foc$ses c$rrently( and t%e boo0 pays less attention to t%is t%an t%e ot%ersP
it is( after all( an attempt to place contemporary developments in t%e conte.t5s6
of earlier periods.
Arc%aic globalizations are t%ose t%at occ$rred before t%e age of ind$strial3
ization and t%e rise of t%e modern state. D$e to t%e enormity of time t%at t%is
encompasses t%is is t%e most problematic of t%e categories( and it needs m$c%
more detailed specification before it can provide ade/$ate analytical leverage.
@o%n "onsdale( ennison and( in partic$lar( ayly all engage wit% t%is topic. 2%at
emerges is a pict$re of t%e m$ltiple ways in w%ic% e.pansionary tendencies
manifested t%emselves in different c$lt$ral settings( and also of t%e inability of
many of o$r c$rrent categories of political analysis to grasp t%ese dynamics. ;n
partic$lar( t%ey stress t%e role of $niversal 5$s$ally religio$s6 belief3systems( and
1 8 ayly( ,QArc%aicR and QmodernR globalization-.
1 & Hop0ins( ,;ntrod$ction-( p. *.
1 * ;n a separate c%apter 5,+%e %istory of globalizationFand t%e globalization of %istoryE-6 Hop0ins s$mmar3
izes $sef$lly t%e ,$neven and disconnected- %istoriograp%y of globalization.
787
fragments and %istorical snaps%otsP more in t%e sense t%at( despite t%is lac0 of
consistency( a vivid pict$re of t%e %istorical ric%ness and comple.ity of
globalization emerges.
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell B D* D8 1( & &: *7 7 87
,istory and (lobalization
t%e comple. patterns of prod$ction and cons$mption t%at led to globe3circling
lines of trade and comm$nication. +%ese tended to operate mainly between 0ey
regions( for e.ample aro$nd t%e coastal regions of Africa( ;ndia( C%ina and !$rope.
<roto3globalization refers to t%e period &=88H&788 w%en( t%ro$g%o$t large
parts of t%e world( political and economic instit$tions began to m$tateP distinct
state systems emerged( and trade( man$fact$ring and ind$stry began to develop
massively. +%e age of t%e modern state dawned. ;n partic$lar( t%is was a time of
western e.pansionP +ony allantyne describes t%e &B=8s in partic$lar as a ,decade
of globalization-.11 ;ndeed( t%e Seven Jears 2ar 5&B:=H=16 can be classified as
t%e first tr$ly global war. Ric%ard Drayton( meanw%ile( provides a sal$tary
reminder of t%e centrality of slavery in %istorical globalization.
4odern globalization evolved alongside t%e state( nationalism and f$ll3blown
ind$strial capitalism. New tec%nologies allowed for ever greater e.tension(
w%ile t%e cosmopolitan ideals of earlier periods were flavo$red and $ltimately
defeated by increasingly vir$lent strains of nationalism( especially wit%in and
between !$ropean imperial powers. However( once again( t%e a$t%ors are 0een
to ,decentre- !$rope( and t%e essays by van de Nen( ennison and "onsdale
trace ot%er political traKectories( and also %ig%lig%t t%e way in w%ic% indigeno$s
c$lt$res %ave reacted to( absorbed and sometimes rewor0ed to t%eir advantage
t%e encroac%ing imperial c$lt$res and instit$tions of t%e !$ropeans. Civilizations(
empires( nations and ot%er %$man collectives s%o$ld not be viewed as monolit%s(
impregnable and $ndifferentiated( b$t more as poro$s and capable of massive
transformationsP s$c% %as been t%e res$lt of t%e interaction of c$lt$res over t%e
last millenni$m. As ayly stresses( eac% s$ccessive mode of globalization was
layered on top of t%e previo$s ones( serving to c%annel and s%ape patterns of
trade( cons$mption and comm$nication. 4oreover( t%ey often coe.isted for
e.tended periods. +%e new always carries wit% it traces of t%e old.
+%is is not to say( of co$rse( t%at all c$lt$res %ave wielded e/$al power.
David Reynolds( in %is meas$red analysis of t%e role of t%e United States(
s0etc%es bot% t%e c%ange and t%e contin$ity t%at t%e ,American cent$ry- %as
witnessed. 'lobalization did not start wit% America( %e arg$es( for in its c$rrent
forms it is a contin$ation of t%e patterns of integration t%at began in earnest in
t%e nineteent% cent$ry( and w%ic% drew on earlier modes of !$ropean
5imperial6 globalization. He concl$des %is essay by claiming t%at ,+%e twentiet%
cent$ry was neit%er t%e end of %istory nor t%e beginning of globalization.-19
+%at in itself presents a researc% agenda for %istorians and social scientists.
Drea&in( of the future# the technocraticAutoian ideal
@o3Anne <emberton-s central arg$ment in 'lobal metap%ors can be seen partly as
a co$nterblast to t%e type of claim made by +im Harper in %is e.cellent essay in
1 1 +ony allantyne( ,!mpire( 0nowledge( and c$lt$re: from proto3globalization to modern globalization-(
in Hop0ins( ed.( 'lobalization in world %istory.
1 9 David Reynolds( ,American globalism-( in Hop0ins( ed.( 'lobalization in world %istory( p. *:7.
78)
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell BD *D 8 1( & &: *7 7 8)
Duncan S. A. Bell
Globalization in world history, na&ely that, 3the interwar eriod &ar9ed the end
of fin de siIcle (lobalis& and the be(innin( of la tyrannie du national4.2@ Instead,
she ar(ues con$incin(ly that while the (eoolitical stor& clouds were (atherin(
once a(ain, there was also a re&ar9able outburst of (lobalist thin9in(, which, in
its focus on technolo(y and econo&ic and olitical rationalization, bears a
&ar9ed rese&blance to conte&orary (lobalization discourse. In articular, she
structures her ar(u&ent around the i&act of the hilosohies of :illia& -a&es
and ,enri Ber(son, de&onstratin( their centrality6whether i&licit or e1licit
6in discussions of (lobal order in the years recedin( the Second :orld :ar.
A g$iding t%eme of t%is impressive st$dy is t%e d$al nat$re of ,modernity-(
t%e way in w%ic% t%e term implied bot% ,organisation and $ngoverned energy-.1=
!arly twentiet%3cent$ry modernity t%$s contained two contrasting tendencies:
,4odernity denoted rational organisation based on obKective social 0nowledge
b$t it also implied an ent%$siasm for waywardness and indeterminacy.-1B +%e
tension between t%ese two positions is e.plored wit% penetration in t%e open3
ing c%apters. +%$s( w%ile t%e pragmatist p%ilosop%y of @ames( and t%e idea of
fl$. in ergson( were open to m$ltiple interpretations and t%e e.trapolation
from t%em of varied political programmes( <emberton arg$es t%at in t%e
interwar period( in an environment permeated by an insidio$s sense of ,crisis-(
t%e balance tilted decisively towards organization: ,t%e p%ilosop%ies of will and
becoming associated wit% @ames and ergson informed anarc%istic celebrations
of social c%aos alt%o$g% t%ey were often only a prel$de to t%e attempt to
constr$ct an order of some 0ind w%et%er in t%e form of fascist corporatism or a
world state.-17 +%is represented a desperate attempt to dampen t%e t$rb$lence
and tame t%e c%aos.
<emberton t%en e.plores t%e plans for rationalization and t%e world3state
t%at proliferated in and aro$nd t%e intellect$al arm5s6 of t%e "eag$e of Nations.
S%e foc$ses on %ow t%in0ers d$ring t%e interwar period drew s$stenance from
t%e intellect$al c$rrents of t%e prewar era( b$t also on %ow t%e war res%aped t%e
nat$re of political and moral debate and foregro$nded t%e idea of western
degenerationP t%e response was t%e artic$lation of a scientificHtec%nocratic
$topia. +%is was an idea t%at dissipated as t%e Second 2orld 2ar loomed( b$t
reappeared in vario$s forms t%ereafter( manifested in t%e environmental
movement and t%e c$rrent fetis% for global governance proposals. <emberton
adds %istorical dept% to t%e analysis of contemporary globalism( of w%ic% s%e is
%ig%ly 5and rig%tly6 sceptical: ,'lobalization( $nderstood in its e.pansive sense(
is less a clearly discernible feat$re of e.perience t%an a r%etorical effect.-1) ;t is
one( moreover( t%at resonates wit% earlier prop%ecies abo$t modernity( bot%
1 : +im Harper( ,!mpire( diaspora( and t%e lang$ages of globalism( &7:8H&)&9-( in Hop0ins( ed.(
Globalization in world history, . !E/.
1 = <emberton( 'lobal metap%ors( p. &&*.
1 B ;bid.( p. &1.
1 7 ;bid.( p. :B.
1 ) ;bid.( p. &=).
7&8
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell B D* D8 1( & &: *7 7 &8
,istory and (lobalization
from t%e interwar years and more recently from sc%olars s$c% as 'eorge
4odels0i.98 'lobal metap%ors ends wit% a criti/$e of naSve and %omogenizing
political plans and a %eavily /$alified plea for statism3as3pl$ralism. ;ndeed( to an
e.tent( we can see <emberton-s t%esis as an e.emplar of t%e contin$ity t%esis.
Global &etahors is a ti&ely and inno$ati$e addition to the intellectual history
of global order. T$estions remain( %owever. Girst( at times <emberton seems to
overplay %er case for t%e pervasiveness of t%e scientificHtec%nocratic $topian
imp$lse( and in so doing neglects ot%er more moderate strands of global t%in03
ing( often e/$ally prominent.9& ;t is( of co$rse( one of t%e maKor temptations of
intellect$al %istory to mista0e part of any given concept$al space for t%e Leitgeist.
4oreover( t%ere is t%e /$estion of t%e degree of novelty embodied in m$c% of
t%e t%eorizing t%at s%e e.amines. At one point <emberton arg$es t%at ,+%e
overlap between t%e political r%etoric of t%e interwar period and t%at of today
in respect to world affairs $nderlines t%e point t%at va$nted new directions in
%istory are K$st as li0ely to reflect past imaginings and yearnings as t%e act$al
conto$rs of $nfolding events.-9* +%is is a K$dicio$s warning( b$t t%is ,overlap-
does not apply only to t%e interwar period and o$r ownP it applies also to pre3
vio$s ages( as 'lobalization in world %istory ill$strates. Gor e.ample( many of t%e
images( an.ieties and ideas of t%e &)*8s were anticipated d$ring t%e Nictorian era.
<emberton stresses t%e proliferation of organic and tec%nologically inf$sed
imagery in global order t%eorizing d$ring t%e interwar period.91 S%e foc$ses
also on t%e pervasiveness of ideas abo$t speed and acceleration( and on wonder
at t%e powers of electricity and instantaneo$s comm$nications. Jet t%is did not
represent a radical depart$re( for t%ese notions were all common c$rrency over
:8 years before%and. ;t is not clear from <emberton-s analysis w%et%er s%e wants
to ma0e t%is lin0 or notP it often seems as t%o$g% s%e views t%e interwar
periodFat least( s%ot t%ro$g% t%e prism of early twentiet%3cent$ry p%ilosop%y
Fas more novel t%an it act$ally was. +%$s s%e is at times in danger of falling
prey to t%e problem t%at s%e %as so$g%t to rectify. <lans for a globe3spanning
state 5albeit one circ$mscribed by ,Anglo3Sa.on- racial bo$ndaries6 were
propo$nded incessantly between &7B8 and &)88( and t%ey li0ewise relied on
panglossian tec%nological proKections. +%is was largely a conse/$ence of t%e
revol$tion in comm$nications. As @. R. Seeley wrote in %is best3selling +%e
e.pansion of !ngland 5&7716( ,Science %as given t%e political organism a new
circ$lation( w%ic% is steam( and a new nervo$s system( w%ic% is electricity(- and
conse/$ently( as a res$lt of t%e new tec%nologies( ,distance %as now no longer
t%e important infl$ence t%at it %ad on political relations.-99 !dward Greeman(
9 8 ;bid.( p. &:=.
9 & Gor an interesting disc$ssion of a prominent aspect of t%e ritis% debate( see Casper Sylvest(
,;nternationalism in t%e "abo$r <arty between t%e wars and t%e %istoriograp%y of international relations-(
$np$blis%ed 4.<%il. t%esis( University of Cambridge( *88*. See also @eanne 4onefield( Gamiles of
man0ind: liberal idealism and t%e constr$ction of twentiet% cent$ry internationalism 5<rinceton( N@: <rinceton
University <ress( *8816.
9 * <emberton( 'lobal metap%ors( p. &&8.
9 1 ;bid.( pp. &B8H&.
9 9 @. R. Seeley( +%e e.pansion of !ngland: two co$rses of lect$res 5"ondon: 4acmillan( &7716( pp. B1( B9.
7&&
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell BD *D 8 1( & &: *7 7 &&
Duncan S. A. Bell
+%e $se of organic metap%ors in imagining global political formations was
also widespread in t%e &7B8s and &778s. ;n partic$lar( t%is mode of e.pression
specified an intimate connection between empire( electricity and t%e mammal3
ian body: %ence Seeley-s claim t%at electricity %eralded a ,new circ$lation- for
t%e ,political organism-( and t%e 4ar/$is of "orne-s disc$ssion of political
s%oc0s spreading instantaneo$sly t%ro$g% t%e imperial ,limbs-.9B 4eanw%ile(
t%e idealist p%ilosop%er @. H. 4$ir%ead declared t%at ,New arteries and nerve
systems were beginning to be formed- between t%e vario$s sections of t%e
!nglis%3spea0ing race.97 Gorging an even more direct analogy( anot%er observer
claimed: ,Nowadays( t%e w%ole eart% resembles( in a meas$re( one of o$r own
bodies. +%e electric wires represent t%e nerves( and messages are conveyed from
t%e most distant regions to t%e central plane of government( K$st as in o$r
bodies( w%ere sensations are conveyed to t%e sensori$m.-9)
<emberton stresses t%e sense of crisis gripping t%e western mind from t%e
early years of t%e twentiet% cent$ry.:8 ;ndeed( s%e views t%e cent$ry as one
defined( to an important degree( by ,t%e $bi/$ity of a self3conscio$s r%etoric of
crisis-.:& Jet t%e second %alf of t%e nineteent% cent$ry was also defined by a
,crisis of reason-.:* Across !$rope( t%is co$ld be traced to t%e mon$mental impact
of specific scientific t%eories 5in partic$lar in geology and biology6 and t%e
concomitant dissol$tion of t%e bases of dogmatic religio$s fait%.:1 As t%e K$rist
A. N. Dicey commented( d$ring t%e closing decades of t%e cent$ry people wit3
nessed t%at ,sing$lar p%enomenon w%ic% is best described as t%e disintegration
of beliefs( or( in ot%er words( t%e brea0ing $p of establis%ed creeds( w%et%er
9 : !dward Greeman( ,+%e p%ysical and political bases of national $nity-( in Art%$r 2%ite( ed.( ritannic
confederation# a series of aers J edited J by A. S. :hite J rerinted fro& the Scottish Geo(rahical
)a(azine. :ith a new &a of the British 5&ire (>ondon# G. +hili K Son, !B9"), . @".
9 = Salisb$ry( speec% reprinted in +%e !lectrician( 7 Nov. &77)( p. &1.
9 B 4ar/$is of "orne( ;mperial federation 5"ondon: Sonnensc%ein( &77:6( p. &&1.
9 7 @. H. 4$ir%ead( ,2%at imperialism means- >&)88?( in David o$c%er( ed.( +%e ritis% idealists
5Cambridge: Cambridge University <ress( &))B6( p. *91.
9 ) Sir 'abriel Sto0es( reply to "ord Salisb$ry( +%e !lectrician( 7 Nov. &77)( p. &1.
: 8 ;n so doing <emberton el$cidates interestingly t%e similarity between fin3de3siUcle p%ilosop%ies and
postmodernism 5see e.g. 'lobal metap%ors( pp. )( *86.
: & <emberton( 'lobal metap%ors( p. &=&.
: * $rrow( +%e crisis of reason: !$ropean t%o$g%t( &797H&)&9 5New Haven( C+: Jale University <ress( *8886.
An t%e f$nction of t%e lang$age of ,crisis- in political t%o$g%t( see ;stvan Hont( ,+%e contemporary crisis
of t%e nation state in %istorical perspective- in %is @ealo$sy of trade.
: 1 @o%n $rrow( !vol$tion and society: a st$dy in Nictorian social t%eory 5Cambridge: Cambridge University
<ress( &)==6( and oyd Hilton( +%e age of atonement: t%e infl$ence of evangelicalism on social and economic
t%o$g%t( &B):H&7=: 5A.ford: Clarendon <ress( &)776.
7&*
Seeley-s co$nterpart as Regi$s <rofessor of 4odern History at A.ford( agreed:
,modern science-( %e wrote( ,%as anni%ilated time and space.-9: +%ese com3
ments co$ld %ave been written by any one of t%e breat%less prop%ets of modern
globalization. "ord Salisb$ry( fo$r times prime minister( claimed t%at t%e
inventions of electrical engineers %ad ,combined toget%er almost at one
moment( and acting at one moment $pon t%e agencies w%ic% govern man0ind(
t%e opinions of t%e w%ole of t%e intelligent world wit% respect to everyt%ing
t%at is passing at t%at time $pon t%e face of t%e eart%.-9=
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell B D* D8 1( & &: *7 7 &*
,istory and (lobalization
religio$s( moral( political( or economical-.:9 "i0ewise( bot% t%e sec$lar fait% in(
and t%e reactive fears of( t%e power of science to organize society rationally
were far from new. +%e age of scientific $topianism spanned t%e second %alf of
t%e nineteent% cent$ry. +%omas Carlyle( in an ambig$o$s vein( intoned t%at
,2e war wit% r$de Nat$re and( by o$r restless engines( come off always
victorio$s( and loaded wit% spoils.-:: +%e dangero$s and de%$manizing spectre
of mac%ines and mac%ine order( w%ic% terrified many of t%e critics of interwar
rationalization( also scared R$s0in( Coleridge( Carlyle and( most famo$sly(
Nietzsc%e( w%o lamented ,o$r rape of nat$re wit% t%e %elp of mac%ines and t%e
completely $nscr$p$lo$s inventiveness of tec%nicians and engineers-.:=
All of t%is is not to s$ggest t%at t%e interwar years were a carbon copy of t%e
Nictorian age( any more t%an contemporary globalization is identical to t%e age
of fascism and Stalinist five3year plans. +%ere were( of co$rse( great differences
between t%e periods. After all( %istory is( as <a$l NalVry once claimed( t%e
science of w%at never %appens twice. Rat%er( t%e point is t%at many of t%e
t%emes t%at <emberton finds resonating in t%e wa0e of @ames and ergson can
be fo$nd also in an earlier period. ;n lig%t of t%is pattern of contin$ity( in beliefs
and ideals( w%it%er t%e modernity t%at s%e see0s to capt$reE 2e still do not
0nowP as ever( its el$siveness escapes ade/$ate specification.
2oncl(sions
2%at is often missing from t%e analysis of globalization is w%at @ac/$es arz$n
%as labelled a ,sense of %istory-( a sense defined by t%e ,sim$ltaneo$s perception
of difference and similarity between past and present-P:B a conscio$sness( t%at is(
of t%e contin$ities and also t%e innovations in any social( political( economic or
c$lt$ral order. ot% of t%e boo0s e.amined %ere %ig%lig%t t%e importance of
s$c% an approac%. Historians can %elp to render contingent t%at w%ic% is so
often nat$ralized as inevitable( as inescapable. +%ey can eradicate t%e telos from
processes $ltimately s$bKect to agency and political c%oice. An $nderstanding of
t%e %istorical identity of globalization( of t%e ways in w%ic% its manifold pro3
cesses and o$r $nderstanding of t%em %ave evolved o$t of t%e past( is essential
for enric%ing and deepening t%e contemporary debate. 'lobalization analysts
often claim t%at virt$ally everyt%ing is new or( conversely( t%at little or not%ing
%as c%anged. +%e transformationalists w%o 5sometimes6 ma0e more moderate
claims abo$t t%e %istorical identity of t%e present global order %ave li0ewise
s%own little willingness act$ally to grapple wit% t%e way in w%ic% t%is present
: 9 Albert Nenn Dicey( "ect$res on t%e relation between law and p$blic opinion in !ngland d$ring t%e nineteent%
century, "nd edn (>ondon# )ac&illan, !9!F), . FFF.
: : +%omas Carlyle( /$oted in 4ic%ael Adas( 4ac%ines as t%e meas$re of men: science( tec%nology( and ideologies of
:estern do&inance (Ithaca, CD# 'ornell .ni$ersity +ress, !9B9), . !.
: = Griedric% Nietzsc%e( An t%e genealogy of morality >&77B?( ed. Ieit% Ansell3<earson 5Cambridge: Cambridge
University <ress( &))96( p. 7=.
: B @ac/$es arz$n( Grom dawn to decadence: &:88 to t%e present: :88 years of 2estern c$lt$ral life 5"ondon:
HarperCollins( *88&6( p. 9B.
7&1
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell BD *D 8 1( & &: *7 7 &1
Duncan S. A. Bell
7&9
%as emergedP t%ere %ave been few attempts to identify t%e lines of r$pt$re( t%e
patterns of connection( s0etc%ing t%e differential traKectories of diverse forms of
political endeavo$r and t%eir transm$tation over time and space. ;n order to
%old any weig%t( all s$c% claims re/$ire as a precondition a compre%ensive
$nderstanding of t%e past 5in so far as s$c% a t%ing is available6. ;t is t%is sense of
%istory t%at is so glaringly absent from contemporary disco$rse( and w%ic%
res$lts in its pec$liar tenor and tone( as if conceived in a temporal vac$$m. ;t is
a sense t%at we need to reclaim( and $rgently.
; N+ AB) C9C 8=C ell B D* D8 1( & &: *7 7 &9