Theoria

The collapse of the state-socialist systems in Eastern Europe and the much discussed rise of the so-called ‘new economy’ have compelled scholars and thinkers to address developments of arguably world-historical significance. In particular, they have had to reflect on the impact on global society of what appears to be a new, globalised economic system characterised, among other things, by the unrivalled hegemony of capitalism, the consolidation of liberal-democracy in the advanced economies and the claimed demise of the nation-state. These developments have had implications for culture and for intellectual life, for education and for labour markets, and for public policy. They have forced us to revisit the role of the state and to reflect, anew, on the manner in which we describe and analyse the attendant societal phenomena. They invite us, too, to ask once again whether – and if so what – alternative, more desirable, institutional arrangements might be envisaged. The contributions to this issue of Theoria address, in diverse ways, these and related questions.

A bizarre adventure happened to space on the road to globalisation: it lost its importance while gaining in significance. On the one hand, as Paul Virilio insists,1 territorial sovereignty has lost almost all substance and a good deal of its former attraction; if every spot can be reached and abandoned instantaneously, a permanent hold over a territory with the usual accompaniment of long-term duties and commitments turns from an asset into a liability and becomes a burden rather than a resource in power struggle. On the other hand, as Richard Sennett points out, ‘as the shifting institutions of the economy diminish the experience of belonging somewhere special … people’s commitments increase to geographic places like nations, cities and localities’.2 On the one hand, everything can be done to far away places of other peoples without going anywhere. On the other, little can be prevented from being done to one’s own place however stubbornly one holds to it.

When they were first penned (in 1963), in the midst of the civil rights struggle in the United States, these lines stirred the conscience of a nation and awakened many people previously on the sidelines to a full awareness of the infamy of racial hatred and injustice. There can be no doubt that, partly under the inspiration of Baldwin and Martin Luther King, Americans were able – at least for a time – to ‘achieve’ their country in a better, nobler way than before, thus living up more seriously to the promise contained in their history. In the meantime, nearly half a century has passed and, despite many ennobling ventures, much ‘nightmare’ still remains – both in America and in the rest of the world. With sickening repetitiveness, the conscience of humankind is affronted by large-scale atrocities, from genocide and ethnic cleansing to random outbursts of violence; almost invariably, the root causes of these calamities can be traced to racial, cultural and/or economic factors. In our time of rapid globalisation or intensified global interdependence, is it still possible to heed Baldwin’s challenge to shoulder ‘our duty now’? Is there a chance – in the opening new millennium – to ‘achieve’ our global humanity by drawing on the promise contained in the histories of multiple countries?

There can be little doubt that discourse analysis has come to represent something of a ‘growth industry’ in the critical social sciences. Indeed, there has been, together with a proliferation of the various models of the process of discourse analysis (cf. Bannister 1995; Fairclough 1995; Parker 1992; Potter & Wetherell 1987) a veritable explosion of discursive analytic work. This almost unfettered expansion of discursive analytic work has led almost inevitably to a variety of misapplications of the work of Michel Foucault, whose name is often attached, almost as matter of course, to varieties of discourse analysis.

Few dispute the notion that the rapid development of industrialising economies in Asia and Latin America, new information technologies, liberalisation of trade, and global financial markets have contributed to the emergence of a truly global economy in the past ten years. Neither do they dispute that national economies almost everywhere in the world have become increasingly less ‘national’. Most countries’ foreign trade has increased, and in many, foreign investment and payment on foreign debt have become more prevalent than in the past. Labour movements also appear to be increasing, especially the movement of highly skilled labour. But does this mean that nation-states have decreased influence over the definition of economic and social life? Does globalisation imply the demise of the nation-state?

The U.S. economy’s high-tech sector (internet, computers, telecommunications, etc.) burst its classic speculative bubble in 2000. The Nasdaq stock market lost 40 per cent of its value during the year and lost another 20 per cent in the first quarter of 2001. The Nasdaq dragged down most other stock market indicators in the U.S. Trillions of dollars in U.S. wealth vanished. The wealthiest citizens turned away from the stock market as rapid losses replaced the absurdly high gains of 1999. Other U.S. citizens watched in horror as their recent expansions of securities holdings rapidly shrank in value (also confronting many with vanished savings and reduced retirement benefits since their pensions were invested in ‘history’s greatest boom’). See Appendix 5 for the details on U.S. stock ownership patterns. Industries began to scale back their investment programs as rapid growth shifted to slow growth and recession loomed. The majority of workers slowed their spending and their accumulation of debt because of falling stock prices and because they fear a recession’s impact on wages, benefits, and job security. All these negative developments are continuing into 2001.

The Rise and Decline of the State, by Martin van Creveld. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Reviewed by Roger Deacon

Sustaining Affirmation: the Strengths of Weak Ontology in Political Theory, by Stephen K. White. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, 160 p. Reviewed by Jocelyn Maclure

Perception, Knowledge and Belief: Selected Essays, by Fred Dretske. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ISBN 0 521 77742 9. Reviewed by Deane Baker

Body Talk: Philosophical Reflections on Sex and Gender, by Jacquelyn N. Zita. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Reviewed by Michael Lambert

The Study of History: A Bibliographical Guide, compiled by R.C. Richardson. 2nd edition. Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press, 2000. Reviewed by Roger Deacon

Notes on the Contributors