Routledge Studies in Global and Transnational Politics is concerned with the implications and outcomes of global and transnational processes in history and in the contemporary world. Its aim is to promote greater theoretical innovation and inter-disciplinarity in the academic study of global transformations. The understanding of globalization that it employs accords centrality to forms and processes of political, social, cultural and economic connectivity (and disconnectiviy) and relations between the global and the local. The series’ editors see the multi-disciplinary exploration of global and transnational connectivities as contributing, not only to an understanding of the nature and direction of current global transformations, but also to recasting the intellectual agenda of the social sciences. The broader aim of the series, therefore, is to promote empirical, conceptual, and methodological contributions from across disciplines that enrich and extend the scope and theorization of a broad range of traditionally defined areas of study throughout the social sciences.

Routledge Studies in Global and Transnational Politics offers a distinctive and original focus within the study of global and transnational processes. The series aims are to:

(i)      highlight global-local relations and the productive role of locality, as well as processes of social, political, and cultural connectivity often not emphasized in International Relations, International Political Economy, and more economistic studies of globalization;

(ii)     promote multi- or trans-disciplinary perspectives on global and transnational processes;

(iii)    encourage efforts to revisit and subject the substantive content and issue base of traditional social science disciplines to critical interrogation from the multi- or trans-disciplinary perspectives emerging from within global and transnational studies.

Read the Call for Proposals

The workshop was a great success and we will be posting a report shortly. In the meantime we have some pictures and the event flyer.

Re-Living the Global City Flyer/Programme

The next issue of the Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies on ‘Modelling Capitalism’ will be the journal’s most ambitious special issue to date. We aim to be the first interdisciplinary journal to examine this important global trend: the increasing use of models and computer simulations to understand global economic dynamics.

Frequently held in suspicion by critical thinkers, modelling and simulation technologies are nonetheless more and more integral to how the world works, utilised by international bodies, governments, financial firms, and large corporations. This special issue wishes to approach in a synoptic fashion some of big themes raised by this development. Questions we are concerned with include fundamental philosophical issues: Can economic models ever be realistic? Can they model complexity? Pragmatic questions: Is their use responsible for the depression initiated with the 2008 crash? To what extent are they changing the nature of capitalism? Political debate: Do models merely dress up dominant ideologies in technical drapery? Can models be used for critical purposes, or for proposing economic alternatives? With this issue we thus aim to bring into dialogue scholars working in diverse fields including the philosophy of science, economic modelling, the social studies of finance, and political theory.

To explore these issues, the journal is open to articles, essays and interview contributions in
the following streams:

1. How realistic are models?
2. Can models model complexity?
3. Can value theory be modelled?
4. Are models making capitalism in their image?
5. Models: oppressive or liberating technologies?
We are also willing to consider suggestions for other lines of investigation or special
features.

In the first instance, please send an abstract to editor-in-chief for issue 7, Nathan Coombs,
detailing your proposed contribution: nathan@criticalglobalisation.com

Please send complete manuscripts to: abstracts@criticalglobalisation.com.

Final submission deadline: 1 August 2013

Discounted student registration £150.

Conference dinner £40 extra for all delegates.

Registration includes automatic
GSA membership.

To register for the conference please follow this link:
http://estore.roehampton.ac.uk/browse/product.asp?
catid=92&modid=2&compid=1

Click on the image to access the new issue at criticalglobalisation.com

Democracy and law are central themes of global studies. Nowadays
international politics seems to be interceded via a multitude of legal
practices and processes, consequently bringing the role of, and need for,
international law into sharp relief. Yet particularly since the emergence of
the ‘war on terror’ many have questioned the efficacy of international law.
No longer framed in terms of a Westphalian ‘law of nations’, international
law is undergoing a series of fundamental challenges that are
increasingly calling into question its status, effectiveness and application.
Extraordinary rendition, the widespread use of torture and the politics of
exception in general highlight both its ineffectiveness and flexibility in
equal measure. Consequently, some champion the strengthening of
current state-centric institutions and regimes to protect human rights,
while others argue that breaking existing regulations can be justified.
Others still argue for radically different (bottom-up) approaches to
international law and democracy, taking into account not only relations
between states but also relations between individuals.

JCGS has issued a Call for Papers for issue 7 on the theme of ‘Modelling Capitalism’.

Your book Theorizing Global Studies, co-authored with Alexander Hensby, is centrally concerned with global studies. How important is the distinction between global studies/sociology of globalization in your work?

Very important. Research into processes that we tend to call ‘globalization’ by its very nature transcends disciplinary boundaries. I’m a sociologist, and proud of it, but an understanding of the dynamics of contemporary global change has to incorporate economic, political, anthropological, plus sociological perspectives and more besides – and I don’t mean in an old-fashioned inter-disciplinary way, a bit of this, then a bit of that, but rather in a way that examines these dynamics at the intersection of these perspectives. Using ‘global studies’ in this context, treating it as its own emerging discipline rather than a sub-field of some other discipline, is helpful because it forces us to develop genuinely useful conceptual frameworks within which to understand the processes, rather than rely on what is already there in this or that discipline.

Cosmopolitanism (or cosmopolitanization) is not one of the processes outlined in the book. Given the importance of cosmopolitanism in contemporary discourse on globalization what were the reasons for this omission?

It’s not entirely clear to me what cosmopolitanization might actually mean. I mean, the point of the eight models used in the book was to highlight the extent to which global change is a multi-layered thing, comprised of sometimes contradictory processes pulling in different directions. By identifying eight rather general ones, we tried to show the complexity of what commentators often lazily call ‘globalization’. Cosmopolitanization is not, for me, a comparable process – from what I understand of the literature on cosmopolitan thinking, there are clear overlaps with the processes we have defined as ‘transnationalization’ (particularly in respect of transnational governance and international law), ‘globalization’ (especially if we see a cosmopolitan world-view as an expression of globality), and even ‘creolization’. But these eight models are different to, say, theoretical perspectives on global change. Within the literature on cosmopolitanism I do see a distinctive cosmopolitan perspective emerging, centred largely of course around the writings of Beck.

By looking at so many contemporary processes of transformation the book allows for the possibility of exploring counter-globalization tendencies. To what extent to you think de-globalization, or the possibility that globalization is reversible, is neglected in the existing literature?

Absolutely. There is an underlying assumption in the book, and in much of the literature, that something has been happening of which we need to be critically aware. Let’s call it ‘global change’, broadly conceived. We identify eight forms of that. It’s possible that a global process of de-globalization can also be identified. But ‘de-globalization’, as it has been used by Bello and other such luminaries, is not intended to serve as a generic model of global change, but as a concrete form of resistance to a dominant globalizing process (‘liberalization’ interpreted as ‘polarization’).  Oh, and I would question the wording of the last bit of the question, where you ask whether it is possible that globalization is reversible. The point of the book is to avoid making those kind of crude generalizations, to presume there is such a ‘thing’ a ‘globalization’ which has its own kind of singular logic or narrative.

Ulrich Beck offers the possibility of Brazilianization rather than, say, Balkanization; what do you think of this?

We struggled a bit with Americanization, to be fair. Why Americanization and not, say, sinoization? The justification for including this as a model is of course that there have been an awful lot of people who have treated global change as an American hegemonic or imperialist project, hence Americanization. There is no comparable literature on the extent to which the world might be being reshaped in the image of China, or Brazil. Not yet. The growing influence of these societies / economies on the world stage is a manifestation of what we have decided to call Balkanization. But these models are themselves historically contingent.

This book also presents a challenge in the way it divides the field into different models. To what extent was there the risk of presenting overly structural accounts of each model? As one example, migrants do not feature strongly in the texts on transnationalization or creolization.

It’s a fair point, although in its defense, the book is intended to be a survey of eight possible conceptual frameworks. There’s plenty of scope for subsequent work, drawing on the broader model, in which the micro-level dynamics and everyday experiences of these frameworks are more closely interrogated. In fact, we welcome that work! Most of my work has been conceptual rather than empirical, and perhaps there is a structural bias in some of it, but taken as a conceptual framework, each of the models is meaningful only in so far as it is lived out by individuals and groups.

It is tempting for readers to suggest their own processes which could have been included in the book’s coverage: how about internationalization as a precursor to globalization? 

Or modernization. Yes, I agree. In the book we decided to concentrate on models which can be specifically applied to processes of contemporary global change, which, to lay our cards on the table, we do see as historically distinctive. However, the book forms part of the broader literature on social change, and in that respect, terms like ‘modernization’ or ‘internationalization’ need to be understood, because they have been used to refer to specific kinds of change, which may or may not be relevant at the moment. We do try to make reference to how current processes relate to, and sometimes emerge from, earlier ones throughout the text. And we welcome contributions from readers identifying other such processes: our basic point is that global change is complex and multi-directional, we make absolutely no claims that the eight models constitute an exclusive list.

A number of the models discussed in your book suggest a much longer-term social process akin to Elias’ civilizing process. In your introduction you also mention that there could/should be a companion volume Historicizing Global Studies. Have you given this any consideration since publication?

At the moment, I am working on a book on globalization and human rights, and beyond that there is still plenty of mileage to be had with the eight models discussed in Theorizing Global Studies, to show their usefulness within different kinds of debates (I’ve just finishes an article with a colleague in the Business School applying them to an understanding of business practices, for example). So, at the moment, the proposed Historicizing companion piece remains an aspiration rather than anything I am giving concrete consideration to writing. But it would be useful, because it would take up the point you made earlier about internationalization as a precursor, and my comment about modernization. However, I do think that within sociology at least, there has been a serious attempt by many leading writers in the field to consider contemporary global change (whether they call it ‘globalization’ or something else) in historical context, which is perhaps more than can be said for the numerous neo-liberal economists and management ‘gurus’ whose contributions sadly still dominate the wider debates on this topic.

For more information about the book, see the website: http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=278491

(interview by Alistair Brisbourne)

Roehampton University, Wed 10th – Fri 12th July 2013

Keynote speakers (confirmed): Gerard Delanty (University of Sussex), Kate Nash (Goldsmith’s College, University of London)

Call for papers:

The conference aims to critically interrogate the idea of cosmopolitanism. Whereas previously cosmopolitanism was associated with (abstract) ideas of world citizenship and universal brotherhood, more recent constructions emphasize the multiplicity of identities, belongings, and memberships that are possible across a plurality of communities. In addition to a rejection of a narrow nationalistic outlook cosmopolitanism can claim a new political content: the idea of world citizenship has been given substance through notions of environmental responsibility, the universality of human and personhood rights, and the drive for worldwide human development. For these and many other reasons cosmopolitanism provides an important perspective on processes of globalization and the interconnectedness of the world.

The conference organizers invite proposals for papers which address themes of relevance to the conference, including:

• The politics of cosmopolitanism
• Cosmopolitanism, global civil society and human rights
• Cosmopolitanism and identity
• The cosmopolitan city
• Cosmopolitan business practices and cross-cultural management
• Critical cosmopolitanism
• Cosmopolitan theory in global studies
• Cosmopolitanism and the media

 Proposals for papers should take the form of a 300 word abstract and may be submitted on any aspect of the conference theme. The organisers will allocate papers to an appropriate panel. The deadline for submission of abstracts is April 30 2013. Please send to conference organizer Darren O’Byrne at D.OByrne@roehampton.ac.uk

Conference registration:

Costs: Full registration £175 (includes accommodation, lunch and other refreshments, and conference fee).  Discounted student registration £150. Conference dinner £40 extra for all delegates. Registration includes automatic GSA membership.  A conference webpage will go live shortly giving details of how to register. For updates and news visit the GSA webpage http://globalstudiesassoc.wordpress.com/

First published twelve years ago a third edition of Global Sociology, co-authored with Paul Kennedy, has recently been published (Nov. 2^nd 2012). What are some of the enduring challenges of pursuing a global sociology as opposed to, for example, a sociology of globalization?

This is a helpful distinction. We saw our project as generating a multi-scalar and more complex sociology – covering local, national, regional and global levels. For us ‘national sociologies’ exemplified by such expressions as ‘British society’ or ‘French social history’ missed the lattice-work of relationships and connections that subvert and surmount the various levels of analysis. We were influenced in this view, inter alia, by Castells’s network society, by Giddens’s idea that the nation-state was just one power container among several, and by the sense that the intellectual frontiers between anthropology, sociology and international political economy were both fuzzy and dissolving. Paul Kennedy’s recent work showing how localism remains embedded in global transformations bears empirical testimony to this standpoint. As you imply, this is a different agenda from a ‘sociology of globalization’, which suggests that there is an exogenous phenomenon, called globalization, which can be differently understood by economists, geographers, sociologists or scholars in other disciplines. Of course, there is some convergence between the two exercises, but their different starting points provide distinctive perspectives.

 Since Global Sociology was first published in 2000 there have been many important events from economic crises to violent conflict to widespread political protests. Have any of these events challenged some of your earlier assumptions?

As you say we had to adjust to major shifts. Between the first and second edition (2007), we saw the rise of the anti-globalization movement, 9/11 (and all that implied), the collapse of Enron and the invasion of Iraq. Between the second and third edition (2012) we saw global shifts in power (notably to Brazil, Russia, India and China), the worldwide recession (centred in Europe and the USA), the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement’ and the Arab Spring. It’s tempting to mount the Zhou Enlai defense – when asked about the significance of the French revolution the first post-revolutionary Chinese premier purportedly replied ‘It’s too early to tell’. However, just taking two examples, I would stick my head above the parapet and say ‘we nearly got it right’. We understood that Enron was not just the collapse of an important US corporation but signified the start of a wider financial crisis and was a body-blow to neo-liberal ideology. But, writing in 2006/7, we had little sense of quite how deep the recession would be. We thought that the invasion of Iraq was likely to be a disaster, but again we did not spell that out sufficiently.

 Each edition of Global Sociology has included significant updates. For example, the second edition sees the addition of global civil society in place of social movements and INGOs. In the third edition you bring political activism into the same discussion. How have these changes been influenced by recent events?

Thanks for that recognition. We have tried in the successive editions to do a proper job of revision – not just tidying up a few sentences and updating the tables and charts. As you say, the 3^rd edition has seriously tried to address the issue of political activism. In the developed countries we have focused on the ‘Occupy’ movement and the movements against austerity measures. In the emergent world we have concentrated on the Arab Spring. In the early half of the twentieth century successful political movements (Bolshevism, Fascism, Peronism, Nazism) were characterized by a tight organizational structure and the top-down manipulation of popular sentiments. Now the renewed salience of social movements depends on bottom-up activism, with all the problems that comes with that. Though we tempered our analysis with all kinds of cautionary observations, perhaps we still are too over-optimistic about peoples’ power. Samuel Johnson said that second marriages are a triumph of hope over experience. Paul and I are seasoned political observers and we should arguably have been even more guarded in assessing the future of movements (like Occupy Wall Street) without organizational structures, effective leaderships and a coherent programme.

How do you situate the specifically political role of activism within global processes?

Let’s start by extending an old definition of politics. Politics is the capacity to coerce or persuade someone to do something they otherwise would not do. By extension, it is also the capacity to prevent somebody doing something to you that they wish to do. In our discussions of political activism we include many observations on the persuasive power of global social movements (on the environment and human rights and in defense of the interests of workers and women). We also talk about the effects of the Arab Spring, particularly the demonstration effect that led to such momentous changes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia (Syria is unresolved). In these cases popular action created new governments, though they are likely to revert to some old ways. But I would emphasize too that political activism is also about prevention – stopping the rebuilding of nuclear plants in Japan, preventing new ones in Germany, and trying to halt the imposition of austerity measures in Spain, Greece and elsewhere.

Another addition is a discussion of digital media. What impact has the increase in digital and social media had on thinking in terms of global sociology?

Understanding the functions, potential and limitations of digital and social media is crucial for our discussion. When I talked about surmounting and subverting the various levels of our analysis I had the digital media partly in mind. By effecting horizontal linkages without regard to the historical territorialization of power, the new media has creating all sorts of effects – destructive ones like the spread of pornography and the commoditization of  everything, but also progressive ones like the spread of discourses about human rights, accountability and democracy.

 Personally, your recent work focuses on migration, culture and creolization. How are these interests brought into the new edition?

I’ve tried not to overdo this – in fact Paul drafted much of the material on migration. Both of us have tried quite hard not to rewrite old books and present them as new material. We try to get out of our comfort zones to understand and synthesize material with which we are not that familiar. Having said that, I would like to persuade more sociologists to address the issue of converging and diverging cultures, whether they use the lenses of hybridity, syncretism, creolization, cosmopolitanism, or in some other way.  As Stuart Hall rightly remarked, the problem for the 21^st century is how are we going to rub along with one another?

 Are there any other features of the new edition about which you would like to comment?

I would like to draw attention to Chapter 13, written by Maud Perrier, who has assisted us in different ways. Using her knowledge of family sociology in different countries, she is able to show how intimacy itself becomes globalized. This adds yet another scale to our multi-scalar starting point.

For more information about the book, see the websitehttp://www.palgrave.com/sociology/cohen3e/index.asp

(interview by Alistair Brisbourne)