Global Public Social Science[1]
Christopher Chase-Dunn
Department
of Sociology and Institute for Research on World-Systems (IROWS)
University
of California-Riverside
(v.
9-19-11)
6278
words
C. Wright Mills
Abstract: Burawoy’s classification of the complementary aspects of the discipline of sociology is used to describe an emergent global public social science that will assist transnational social movements in the building of a democratic and collectively rational global commonwealth.
A revised version was published as C. Chase-Dunn 2005 “Global public
social science” The American Sociologist
36,3-4:121-132 (Fall/Winter). Reprinted
Pp. 179-194 in
IROWS Working Paper # 73 at https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows73/irows73.htm
Michael Burawoy’s 2004 ASA presidential address (Burawoy
2005) has raised anew the significant issues about what sociology is and is
not, the connections between scholarship and activism, and the responsibilities
that sociologists have to larger publics, and to human society. These are the
big questions and have been since the emergence of modern social science. The tension
between humanism and science is not external to social science. It is internal
to it. And Burawoy’s most important thesis is that this is a productive and
generative contradiction that should be used to produce both better science and
a better society. I will employ the
distinctions that Burawoy has elaborated in his presidential address between
professional, critical, policy and public sociology to discuss the issues he
raises and to describe the emergence of global public social science.
I mainly agree with Burawoy’s analysis and strongly
support his effort to renew the dialogue within sociology about the symbiotic
relationship between science and activism.
The value of his approach is starkly demonstrated by those social
science disciplines (especially Anthropology) that have largely failed in the
effort to live under a big umbrella that includes professional, public,
critical and policy social science. The internecine battles between the
politically correct activists and the stalwart defenders of scientific purity
have left all the parties weaker and the interests of all the contenders have
been profoundly undermined by the combat.
This is not a path that any sane person would choose to follow. The
anger and mistrust that are often generated in conflicts of this kind live for
years in the psyches of the combatants. They erupt again and again, reinjuring
old warriors and harming younger generations of scholars and students. The big tent of activists, scientists,
scholars and scholar-activists is a good shelter and good social science has
been, and will be, crafted within it.
Public Sociology Is More Than
Sociologist-As-Citizen
Most
of the students that come into social science are motivated by a humanistic
desire to improve upon society, often by helping the most exploited and
oppressed peoples. They believe that social science will be an avenue for
designing policies, programs, and activities that will change society in a
progressive direction. These motivations
are an important basis of the ability of our social science disciplines to
recruit hard-working and smart young people. Social science is not a road to
wealth or power. So humanistic motivations are an important part of our
cultural capital and a substantial basis of our ability to recruit those who
will become the next generation of scholars.
One very valuable aspect of Burawoy’s approach is the
acknowledgement that
”professional sociology” is the necessary center and source of strength for
public, critical and policy sociology.
My own scholarly work is quite interdisciplinary (combining ecology,
geography, history, political science, anthropology and sociology), but I
nevertheless acknowledge the importance of core disciplinary values and
procedures in sociology. I agree with Burawoy that professional sociology is
central to the constitution of the discipline of sociology, and that public
sociology, and the other forms, derive immense cultural, political and
scientific value from their connection with, and interactions with, professional
sociology.
This
is the main reason why Burawoy’s insistence that public sociology is something
distinct from the sociologist in the citizen role is valuable and useful. The
“sociologist-as-citizen” makes claims to expertise that may, or may not, be
acknowledged by larger publics. But public sociology is a stance within
sociology, and it is evaluated by both external publics and by other
sociologists because it is a legitimate form of sociological practice that
should be recognized and encouraged by all sociologists because we have a duty
to serve the human societies that fund our science. This means that the
sociological methods and theories employed in public sociology need to meet the
standards of the discipline and that all sociologist bear some responsibility
to evaluate the work that is carried on in the name of the discipline. There
are no insuperable and conflictive contradictions between professional
scientific sociology and engaged public sociology, though they are not the same
thing. The big tent requires that we acknowledge and respect both the
scientific and the humanistic roots of our discipline.
Emergent World Society and Public Social Science
I do not agree entirely with Burawoy’s characterization
of the historical development of social science in the last few decades. His
characterization of the rise of radical sociology in the 1960s is mainly used
to make the point that mainstream sociology was rather conservative then, and
that most sociologists have become (or remained) fairly liberal while much of
the rest of American society has moved to the right. I do not disagree with
this, but Burawoy’s depiction of the
struggles and outcomes that occurred in the 1960s misses an important
development: the discovery that the
Burawoy’s
narrative of sociological practice does not really even acknowledge the other
path that emerged strongly in the sixties and seventies: Third Worldism and the
world-systems perspective. The Third Worldists argued that strong challenges to
capitalism are not likely to come from the core because the most exploited
peoples are in the periphery. Some of them also discovered that the “developed
and less developed” national societies are tightly linked into a global
stratification structure – the core/periphery hierarchy. These issues are
directly relevant for both professional and public sociology. One of the
mainstays of professional sociology is the study of socially constructed
inequalities. If there is really an institutionalized core/periphery hierarchy
(rather than a set of disconnected “advanced” and “underdeveloped” national
societies) then the most unequal contemporary socially structured inequalities
are global in scope. A sociology that focuses exclusively on inequality within
countries is ignoring the most important part of the phenomenon about which it
claims expertise.
With
regard to public sociology, it is not enough to simply be of service to
existing popular movements or groups or to address larger publics. The first
job is to analyze which groups are worth serving and which ones are likely to
have an important impact in the struggle to make human societies more humane
and more equal. This analysis requires an understanding of the processes of
modern social change and the probable directions that historical development is
likely to take.
I
am a proponent and producer of what has become known as the comparative
world-systems perspective. The basic idea is that social change occurs in
systems of societies rather than in single isolated societies, and that this
has been true since the Paleolithic, though earlier world-systems were small
regional affairs (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997).
From this point of view most of sociology, including all the types
designated by Burawoy, is hopelessly presentist and core-centric. Social change
is primarily about the historical development of human social institutions.
Social change has been a singular world historical process increasingly since
the sixteenth century. So telling stories of national societies as if they
occurred on separate planets is a major distortion of reality for both social
science and for progressive politics.
Contemporary social change can only be
comprehended in its world historical context. Focusing solely on the United
States, as most sociologists and most other people in the U.S. do, makes it
impossible not only to understand the extremely important world historical
events and developments that are occurring elsewhere, but also precludes
understanding of what is happening within the United States. Why did politics
in the
What are the implications of the above for Burawoy’s
public sociology project? His search for the relevant publics for public
sociology is a good idea, but the relevant publics need to be understood as
parts of an emerging global civil society. World sociology needs to analyze
non-U.S. realities and the whole emergent global system of which the
The crucial slip in Burawoy’s description of what
happened in sociology and what happened in the
Waves of Globalization
Understanding contemporary globalization requires that we compare the wave of globalization since World War II with earlier waves, especially the last half of the nineteenth century when international trade as a proportion of the whole world economy was nearly as high as it is now (Chase-Dunn, Kawano and Brewer 2000). It is important to distinguish between globalization as large-scale connectedness, which is a structural and empirical question about economic, political, cultural and communications network linkages, and the “globalization project,” which is the political ideology of Reaganism-Thatcherism that became hegemonic in the 1980s (McMichael 2004). One reason why many see the contemporary wave of globalization as a completely new stage of global capitalism is that nationalism and Keynesian national development policies were powerfully institutionalized and centrally propagated from World War II until the 1970s. The Keynesian national development project (the Global New Deal) was itself a world historical response to the “Age of Extremes” (Hobsbawm 1994) and the deglobalization of the early decades of the twentieth century. It never really created a world of separate national economies, but it did focus strong attention on the problem of national import substitution and the development of the national welfare state. This focus on national policy is what allows many of the contemporary analysts of global capitalism to imagine that the world was really composed of separate national societies before the most recent wave of globalization.
Figure 1: Trade Globalization 1830-1994
A profit squeeze and accumulation
crisis occurred in the 1970s when
Neoliberalism was a political ideology that took hold and became hegemonic beginning in the 1970s. It was a revival of the nineteenth century ideology of “market magic” and an attack on the welfare state and organized labor. It borrowed the anti-statist ideology of the New Left and used new communications and information technologies to globalize capitalist production, undercutting nationally organized trade unions and attacking the entitlements of the welfare state as undeserved and inefficient rents. This “global stage of capitalism” is what has brought globalization into the popular consciousness, but rather than being the first time that the world has experienced strong global processes, it was a response to the problems of capitalist accumulation as they emerged from the prior Global New Deal, which was itself a response to the earlier Age of Extremes and deglobalization. This is what I mean by saying that social change is world-historical.
The pace of
global social change accelerated dramatically with the late eighteenth century
industrial revolution, culminating in the first wave (1840-1900) of what can
properly be called globalization in the sense of Earth-wide integration and
connectedness. The United Kingdom of Great Britain was the world leader in
industrialization, an exporter of the key technologies (railroads, steamships
and telegraph communications) and the advocate of free trade policies and the
gold standard (O’Rourke and Williamson 2000). As
The decline
of British hegemony was accompanied by a downturn of trade globalization from
1880 to 1900 and then by a period of interimperial rivalry – two world wars
with
World Wars I and II were long and massively destructive battles in a single struggle over who would perform the role of hegemon. Between the wars was a short wave of economic globalization in the 1920s followed by the stock market crash of 1929 and a global retreat to economic nationalism and protectionism during the depression of the 1930s. Fascism was a virulent form of zealous nationalism that spread widely in the second tier core and the semiperiphery during the Age of Extremes. This was deglobalization.
The point here is that globalization is not just a long-term trend. It is also a cycle. Waves of globalization have been followed by waves of deglobalization in the past, and this is also an entirely a plausible scenario for the future.[2]
The
The
Mass education created a large throng of not-yet
politically incorporated students in all the countries of the world, and this
group led the world revolution of 1968, a protest against the capitalist
welfare state, the shams of parliamentary democracy and the fakeries of state
communism. In the wake of this political
and cultural challenge and the emergence of a spate of “new social movements,”
core capital experienced a profit squeeze because Germany and Japan caught up
with the U.S. in the production of the most profitable lead technologies, and
so prices could no longer be raised to keep profits high (Brenner 2002).
This spurred a change of strategy by the now-global
capitalist class in which the Keynesian national development project that had
justified the capitalist welfare state and the developmental programs in the
periphery and semiperiphery was scuttled in favor of Reaganism-Thatcherism.
Free markets were to replace government intervention. Downsizing, streamlining,
attacks on politically guaranteed entitlements, all this was justified by the eighteenth
century idea that the market is the most efficient and fairest arbiter of human
interactions.
With
new technologies of communications, transportation and infomatics businesses
were able to relocate to take advantage of cheaper labor costs, lower tax
rates, and less environmental protection.
This was the globalization project and the new international division of
labor (McMichael 2004). Industry moved from the core to the semiperiphery and
the periphery. New lead technologies
(the Internet, biotechnology) were touted as the potential basis for a new
round of
To make a long story short, with a few important
differences, the world-system is repeating what happened during the decline of
British hegemony at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning decades
of the twentieth century. To be sure, the
But
the basic logic of capitalist uneven development and the mismatch between the
economic and political structures are quite similar. The hegemon is desperately trying to stay on
top. Financial centralization only works for a while. It is the first card that
is played, but when the potential for instability and collapse becomes obvious,
the powers-that-be pull out their other remaining card: military capability.
This produces what has been called the “new imperialism “ (Harvey 2003) and the
neo-conservative “Global Gamble” (Gowan 1999).
Oil is running out. If “we” can control global oil the potential challengers
(
Some see this as pouring gasoline on the smoldering coals
of resistance. It appears to blatantly contradict the very ideologies of
equality and democracy that the
The continuing decline of
In the
The contemporary wave of global industrialization based on fossil
fuel may have already led to a substantial overshoot in the ability of human
society to sustain a livable biosphere. If this is the case we may encounter
environmental disasters that require global cooperation in order to restore the
balance between human society and the natural systems upon which it depends.
Another round of conflict over global hegemony may be forthcoming despite the
current monopolization of serious military power by the
If
this sounds gloomy, I want to also point out that the coming period of
contestation is an opportunity to create global democratic cooperative
institutions that set up a more sustainable relationship between human society
and the natural environment and more humane and just relationships among the
peoples of the world. A global democratic and collectively rational
commonwealth will probably emerge eventually, unless we manage to completely
extinguish ourselves (Wagar 1999). With intelligent political action based on a
world historical understanding of global social change, it is possible that this
will emerge sooner rather than later.
A new call is rising from global civil society and from
those countries in the semiperiphery that have both the motivation and the
means to resist global corporate capitalism. The World Social Forum (Fisher and
Ponniah 2003) is a movement of movements and a forum for organizing a global
party (or parties) that will challenge the transnational capitalist class.
Another world revolution is in the making. Global public social science needs
to explain world historical processes to people and to actively engage with
global civil society so that the worst excesses of deglobalization can be
(hopefully) avoided and we can move toward a democratic and collectively
rational global commonwealth (Wagar 1999; Boswell and Chase-Dunn 2000).
I have declared the value of disciplinary sociology above
in my discussion of the centrality of professional sociology. But many of the
institutional boundaries between contemporary social science disciplines are
annoying obstacles to both the scientific and the political understanding of
social reality. I do not recommend abolishing the disciplines, but rather that
a sizeable number of professional and public sociologists should learn the
basics of theories and methods in geography, history, political science,
economics, ecology and anthropology. This will allow the disciplinary blinders
to be thrown off without wrecking the good parts of the disciplines.
Global Public Social Science
So what is global public social science? And,
following Burawoy’s typology, what are global professional, critical and policy
social science? The short answer is that these all take the emergent Earth-wide
human system as an important unit of analysis in its own right, although other
entities are also important. Global professional social science studies social
realities (culture and institutions, politics, inequalities, transnational
relations, globalization processes, etc.) on a global scale using the
methodological tools and theoretical perspectives of the social sciences.
Examples in economics, geography, political science, history, anthropology and
sociology are too numerous to enumerate here. Michael Burawoy’s (2000) work on
global ethnography is certainly a valuable exemplar.
Global critical social science critiques, deconstructs
and reformulates important global social science concepts (such as
globalization) as well as global institutions. It also proposes critical ways
of categorizing social forces, contradictions and antagonisms in ways that are
intended to be of use for transnational social movements. This is also a
voluminous literature. Important recent examples are Michael Hardt and Antonio
Negri’s (2004) Multitude, a valiant effort to rethink political theory
for the purposes of building global democracy, and Amory Starr’s (2000) Naming
the Enemy, an analysis of the main dimensions of the antiglobalization
movements and a structural conceptualization of global corporate capitalism as
the enemy that must be confronted.
Global policy social science would seem to be an unlikely
activity, since there is (currently) no true world state that could implement
global policies. There are, however, important global institutions that do
formulate and try to implement global policies (e.g. the United Nations, the World
Bank, etc.). But all people now need to formulate global policies because
everyone lives in a global polity, a global economy, and an increasingly
globalized set of cultures. Global policies are planful ways of coping with
global economic, political and social forces.
Global Policy Institutes (by that name or some close variant) now exist
in New York, Geneva, Berlin, Honolulu, and at the University of Virginia at
Charlottesville, and many public policy institutes and centers all over the
world are establishing globally oriented policy research programs.
Global
public social science refers to social scientists who use their research skills
and analytic abilities to address global civil society and in the service of
transnational social movements. Burawoy reminds us that one of our important
publics is our undergraduate students. Teaching and writing textbooks for
undergraduates is an important part of public sociology. A growing number of
universities have established interdisciplinary undergraduate majors in global
studies (e.g. University of
The
Global Studies Association (http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/index.htm)
has had several exciting conferences and it has been attacked by right-wing
ideologues as famous as Michael Horowitz. This red badge of courage may be the
highest credential in public social science. Some very useful textbooks and
readers for global studies courses are those by McMichael (2004), Hall (2000)
and Chase-Dunn and Babones (2006).
Research
at the behest of global civil society is another important activity of global
public social science. A large corpus of the research and published monographs
and journal articles comprising global professional social science serves
global civil society and transnational social movements. My recent favorites
are Rich Appelbaum and Edna Bonacich’s (2000) Behind the Label, Stephen
Bunker and Paul Ciccantell’s (2005) Globalization and the Race for
Resources, big historian David Christian’s (2004) inspiring Maps of Time,
Jared Diamond’s (2004) Collapse, Michael Mann’s (2003) Incoherent
Empire, Valentine Moghadam’s Globalizing Women (2005), J.R. and
William McNeill’s (2003) The Human Web, William I. Robinson’s (2004) A
Theory of Global Capitalism, Beverly Silver’s (2004) Forces of Labor and
Immanuel Wallerstein’s (2003) The Decline of American Power. These are
works of professional sociology that serve global civil society and local
groups trying to deal with the forces of globalization by providing research
and theories that help people understand what is going on.
But
Burawoy’s most important precept of public sociology endorses direct
interaction with, and participation in, civil society groups, and research that
is directed toward helping these groups achieve their goals. Since, as I have
pointed out above, everyone now needs to deal with the issues and forces of
globalization, practically any project could qualify. But I will focus on the
research of those who have studied and participated in transnational social
movements. Arguably social movements have been importantly transnational at
least since the nineteenth century in the sense that the conceptual frames, collective
action repertoires, and
communications networks already involved intercontinental interaction,
migration, and flows of other important resources (Keck and Sikkink 1998). But
here I will discuss social science research on, and involvement with, the
emerging movements that have focused on contemporary globalization. I already
mentioned Amory Starr’s (2000) excellent contribution to global critical
sociology above. Starr’s new book (2005), Global Revolt, is an inspiring
and informative “how-to-do-it” manual for antiglobalization activists based
mainly on Starr’s intensive participant observation in anti-globalization
protest demonstrations.[3]
Jackie Smith’s (Smith and Johnston 2002, Smith
2004) studies of transnational social movements are based on both careful
formal analyses of systematic data and Smith’s involvement with, and
participation in, the movements she is studying. Bruce Podobnik’s (2004)
studies of the changing location and frequency of anti-globalization protest
events is another important contribution, and the new book that he co-edited
with Tom Reifer (Podobnik and Reifer 2005) contains several works that must be
included in a survey of global public sociology. I have already mentioned the important work
by Thomas Ponniah and William Fisher (2003) on the World Social Forum.
UCR Project on Transnational Social Movements
At
the University of California-Riverside (UCR) the Research Working Group on
Transnational Social Movements has undertaken a study of the participants in
the World Social Forum that is intended to help the participating groups better
understand the contradictions and overlapping issues and agendas among the
movements so that they might be better able to cooperate and collaborate with
each other in forming a credible and effective political force in world
politics. Professor Ellen Reese and I organized the research working group,
which is composed of graduate and undergraduate students at UCR, most of whom
are majoring in sociology.[4]
This participant observation and survey research is sponsored by the UCR
Institute for Research on World-Systems (irows.ucr.edu). Ellen and five of our
students attended the 2005 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil where
they obtained over 600 written responses to a survey questionnaire (in
Portuguese, Spanish and English)
(irows.ucr.edu/research/tsmstudy/wsfsruvey.htm) that gathers information on the
backgrounds of participants and their involvements in different kinds of issues
and social movements. We also asked respondents to help us identify possible
contradictions among the participating transnational social movements, and to
suggest ways in which two well-known contradictions might be overcome
(see http://www.irows.ucr.edu/research/tsmstudy.htm). [5]
Figure 2: UCR Transnational Research Working Group
surveyors at the World Social Forum in
At
the time of this writing we are still in the midst of processing and analyzing
the survey results. We will present papers based on our research at the annual
meetings of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, the American
Sociological Association, the International Studies Association and the World Congress
of Sociology in
The
issue of representation and legitimacy is a huge one for the participants at
the World Social Forum and our study will be able to add to the available
knowledge about who attends and what participants believe about representation.
Earlier research (Schonleitner 2003) found that a majority of the attendees are
majoring in, or have undergraduate or graduate degrees in, social sciences and
our survey confirms this. The activists in the emerging global civil society,
who are very concerned about the extent to which poor and disadvantaged groups
are able to participate in global politics, are themselves mainly people who
have training in the social science disciplines. This simple fact speaks
volumes about the complementary relationship between global professional and
public social science and also about the real makeup of global civil society.
Gramsci,
Gouldner and many other observers of social change have long noted the
important role of intellectuals in both sustaining and challenging the
structures of power. That most of the activists in global civil society are
trained in the social sciences would come as no surprise. The reaction of
popular forces against global corporate capitalism and the ideology of
neoliberalism is generating new constellations of ideas and new forms of
organization. Elites have long participated in the global polity as statesmen,
diplomats, publicists, scientists, religious leaders and etc. What is happening
now is the emergence of large transnationalized segments of the popular classes
who are using new information technologies to organize globally. The World
Social Forum is the most important arena for the organization of global
networks and parties that claim to represent the peoples of the Earth (Gill
2000). The processes of party-network formation are what we are studying, and
also what we intend to facilitate. This is both professional and public global
social science.
References
Appelbaum, Richard and
Edna Bonacich 2000 Behind the Label.
Arrighi, Giovanni,
Terence K. Hopkins, and Immanuel Wallerstein. 1989. Antisystemic
Movements.
Arrighi, Giovanni 1994 The
Long Twentieth Century.
Boswell, Terry and
Christopher Chase-Dunn 2000 The Spiral of Capitalism and Socialism:
Toward
Global Democracy.
Brenner, Robert 2002 The
Boom and the Bubble: The
Burawoy, Michael 1979 Manufacturing
Consent.
Burawoy, Michael 1985 The
Politics of Production: factory regimes under capitalism and socialism.
Burawoy, Michael et
al. 2000 Global Ethnography.
Burawoy, Michael 2005
“2004 ASA Presidential Address: For public sociology” American
Sociological
Review 70,1:4-28 (February).
in
Mark Herkenrath, et al (eds.) The Future of World Society.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher
and Thomas D. Hall 1997 Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher,
Yukio Kawano and Benjamin D. Brewer 2000 “Trade
globalization
since 1795: waves of integration in the world-system.” American
Sociological
Review 65,1: 77-95 (February).
Chase-Dunn, Christopher
and Salvatore Babones (eds.) 2006. Global Social Change: Comparative
and Historical Perspectives.
Fisher, William F. and
Thomas Ponniah 2003 Another World Is Possible: Popular Alternatives to
Globalization
at the World Social Forum.
new
politics of globalization” Millennium 29,1: 131-140.
Gowan, Peter
1999 The Global Gamble:
Hall, Thomas D. (ed.)
2000 A World-Systems Reader.
Hardt, Michael and
Antonio Negri 2004 Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire.
Harvey, David 2003 The
New Imperialism.
Hobsbawm, Eric 1994 The
Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991. New
Jeffries, Vincent 2005 “Piterim A. Sorokin’s
Integralism and Public Sociology” American Sociologist. American
Sociologist, Vol 36.
Keck, Margaret E. and
Katherine Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in
International Politics.
Lipset, Seymour Martin
1963 The First New Nation: The
Mann, Michael 2003 Incoherent Empire.
McMichael, Phillip 2004 Development and Social
Change.
Forge Press
Moghadam, Valentine 2005 Globalizing Women.
O’Rourke, Kevin H. and Jeffrey G. Williamson 2000 Globalization
and History.
Podobnik, Bruce 2004
“Resistance to globalization: cycles and evolution in the
globalization
protest movement” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological
Association,
Podobnik, Bruce and
Thomas Erlich Reifer (eds.) 2005 Transforming Globalization: Challenges and
Opportunities in the Post 9/11 Era.
Robinson, William I. 2004
A Theory of Global Capitalism.
University
Press.
Sachs, Jeffrey 2005 The
End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of Our Time.
Schönleitner, Günter 2003
"World Social Forum: Making Another World Possible?" Pp.
127-149
in John Clark (ed.): Globalizing Civic Engagement: Civil Society and
Transnational
Action.
Silver, Beverly 2003 Forces
of Labor.
Smith, Jackie 2004 “The
World Social Forum and the challenges of global democracy.”
Global Networks 4,4:413-421.
Smith, Jackie and Hank
Johnston (eds.). 2002. Globalization and Resistance:
Transnational
Dimensions of Social Movements.
Littlefield.
Starr, Amory 2000 Naming
the Enemy: Anti-corporate Movements Confront Globalization.
Zed Press.
Starr, Amory 2005 Global
Revolt: A Guide to the Global Revolt Against Globalization.
Silver,
Beverly and Giovanni Arrighi 2005 “Polanyi's
‘Double Movement’:
The
Belle Époques of British and
Friedman and Christopher Chase-Dunn
(eds.) Hegemonic Declines: Present and
Past.
Wagar, Warren W 1999 A Short History of the
Future.
Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel 2003 The Decline of
American Power: the
World.