![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This article provides a critical response to Clyde W. Barrow and Michelle Keck’s recently published essay in Studies in Political Economy 98-2. First, I find little empirical evidence for their claim that a “false antinomy” separates globalization theory and state theory in leading Global Studies (GS) literature. Quite to the contrary, GS scholars have appreciatively engaged with state theory and also offered criticisms, especially on account of the methodological nationalism underlying much of this literature. Second, this article disputes the way Barrow and Keck characterize my explanation of globalization as a deterministic and metaphysical teleology.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 177–96.
2 Steger, The Rise of the Global Imaginary.
3 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 178.
4 Steger and Wahlrab, What Is Global Studies?
5 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 179–86.
6 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 180.
7 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 179–83.
8 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 184.
9 Eriksen, Globalization, 78.
10 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 180.
11 Steger and Wahlrab, What Is Global Studies?, 124–32, 129.
12 Steger, The Rise of the Global Imaginary, 19–128.
13 Smallman and Brown, Introduction to International and Global Studies, 106.
14 Campbell et al., An Introduction to Global Studies, 49.
15 Sparke, Introducing Globalization, 230.
16 Ferguson and Mansbach, Globalization.
17 Ritzer, Globalization, 112.
18 Additional examples include Axford, Theories of Globalization; Held and McGrew, Globalization Theory, 119–22; O’Byrne and Hensby, Theorizing Global Studies; Eriksen, Globalization.
19 See, especially, O’Byrne and Hensby, Theorizing Global Studies; and Darian-Smith and McCarty, The Global Turn.
20 For information on the Global Studies Association (North America Chapter), see: http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/. For the scope of critical globalization studies, see Appelbaum and Robinson, Critical Globalization Studies, 11–18.
21 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 177.
22 Barrow, Critical Theories, 145. Much to their credit, Barrow and Keck reveal in their article that Barrow embraced this view in 1993.
23 Sassen, “The Global Inside the National,” 2.
24 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 185.
25 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 186, 189.
26 There are two problems here. First, Barrow and Keck’s footnote 5 incorrectly locates our alleged definition of globalization at page 35 of What Is Global Studies? (instead of page 55). Second, Barrow and Keck fail to note that their quote refers to our preliminary discussion of globalization. Our final definition can be found on page 57: “Globalization refers to the multidimensional expansion and intensification of social relations and consciousness across world-time and world-space.”
27 Barrow and Keck, “Globalization Theory and State Theory,” 178, 185.
28 Steger and Wahlrab, What Is Global Studies?, 55.
29 See, for example, Axford, Theories of Globalization, 31.
30 Steger, Rethinking Globalism, 3.
31 Steger, Globalism, 139–45.
32 Robertson, “Differentiational Reductionism and the Missing Link in Albert’s Approach to Globalization Theory,” 121.
33 Shaw, Theory of the Global State, 18–19; 25–26. See also Rupert, Ideologies of Globalization.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Manfred B. Steger
Manfred B. Steger teaches in the Department of Sociology at the University of Hawai’i-Mānoa, Hawai’i, Honolulu, USA.