Ecole des Haute E tudes en Sciences Sociales and University of California, San Diego
KAJSA EKHOLM FRIEDMAN
Lund University
Globalization as a discourse of
hegemonic crisis:
A global systemic analysis
A B S T R A C T
Globalization discourse is deeply flawed in its very
conception, expressing a gratuitous assumption of
the emergence of a new era that is discontinuous
with the past and whose conflicts are primarily the
product of those who resist this development:
nationalists, racists, localists. This discourse is itself
an ideological product of a cosmopolitan elite
identity that has emerged (again) in recent years
and which can be accounted for, in turn, by another
approach. A global systemic perspective situates
cosmopolitan discourses in periods of hegemonic
decline, which are also periods of economic, social,
and cultural fragmentation in the hegemonic zones
as well as of vertical polarization that creates a new
rootedness at the bottom and a
cosmopolitanization at the top. While these
processes are underway today in the West,
something quite the opposite is occurring in the
emergent new hegemonic centers to the East. A
global systemic approach also offers a model of
todays crisis that is absent in globalization
discourse. [globalization, global system, class,
culturalism, neoliberalism, cosmopolitanism]
ollowing an American Ethnological SocietyCanadian Anthropological Society panel in which people so kindly discussed and
critiqued our then-recent publication The Anthropology of Global
Systems (Ekholm Friedman and Friedman 2008a, 2008b) and after
we decided to publish those proceedings, colleagues suggested
that we put more emphasis on the need to create a new understanding of
the contemporary world, especially in this era of crisis. We first embarked
on the project of charting a global systemic anthropology more than three
decades ago, more than ten years before the global became popular.
Our engagement was not with what became the keyword assumptions of
globalization discourse but with the more general argument that social
orders are reproduced within larger complexes of relations on which
their very form and existence are dependent. This was an argument for
a global framework of analysis, a general proposition about the nature of
social reproduction. While globalization is indeed a real phenomenon,
our contention has been that it is not some world-historical stage at
which we have finally arrived but a phase phenomenon within the life
cycles of global systems.1 In this approach, globalization as an empirical
phenomenon is an aspect of more-encompassing processes, which also
include de-globalization. Thus, globalization, as we argue below, is not an
evolutionary stage, not any more than modernization or what we, again,
after 50 years, call modernityterms that globalization discourse inherited uncritically and that it has included in the replication of what appears
as the old developmentalist framework. This evolution toward the global
was already present in Julian Stewards work on the contemporary world,
as a level of socio-cultural integration. In the work of Karl Marx and some
Marxists, the global was also understood as a limit case of capitalist accumulation, not so much in world-historical terms but as a tendency within
capitalist development itself.2 Imperialism was also a fundamental concept in 20th-century Marxist analysis, a notion that, since the fifties, has
AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 244257, ISSN 0094-0496, online
C 2013 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.
ISSN 1548-1425.
DOI: 10.1111/amet.12017
American Ethnologist
global system (hierarchically organized and largely controlled politically by the United States) to another system
that was more decentralized and coordinated through the
market, making the financial conditions of capitalism far
more volatile and far more unstable (2005:8). This is certainly not an argument for evolution.
Cultural sociology ran something similar to a global diffusionist argument in relation to the cultural imperialism
approach of the 1970s (Ritzer 1996; Robertson 1992). With
the work of Manuel Castells (2000), we witnessed a generalized theoretical approach to globalization linking technological change to a new social order. There is also the related
and important work of Saskia Sassen (1994, 1996) on global
cities, but her analysis encompasses much more than globalization even if she does pay heed to the concept. We have
argued that the concept ought to be an object rather than a
framework of analysis (Friedman 2007b). The common assumption in the above approaches is the evolutionary notion that new forms of technology, not least those related to
the Internet but also the increase in the speed of transport
in general, have led to a compression of global space. This
is, of course, a notion invoked by Braudel, as expressed in
Harveys timespace compression, but technological acceleration has occurred quite a few times in the past, so it is
difficult to gauge its differential significance today.
Globalization in anthropology, as in cultural studies,
which also partakes of the evolutionary bias, is quite different in content from the above approaches. We argue below that it is less a question of the analysis of an empirical process and more a normative discourse requiring a reconfiguration of the field of understanding, a moral more
than an intellectual critique of what are understood as traditional and culturally imperial categories and an attempt
to establish (intellectually) a new globalized and hybridized
world. An adequate understanding of the emergence of
cultural globalization discourse, unlike that of the geographers, sociologists, and political scientists, is, as we argue
below, related to the emergence of a new cosmopolitanization. The allure of the cosmopolitan and the reidentification
of elites and wannabe elites is about the formation of an
ideological vortex rather than a theoretical matrix. We have
suggested in several publications that the contents of globalization discourse replicate the content of cosmopolitan
identity in Western societies, in which national boundaries are treated with scorn by self-identified citizens of the
world, who explain in interviews that they feel at home
everywhere largely because they have property in many
places. Work on Freemasonry discusses this aspect of a
particular identity that combines a liberal anti-nation-state
ideology with an ideology of humanism, that sees the world
as one, under its aegis. Recent work by Michel Pincon
and Monique Pincon-Charlot (1996, 2001) and by AnneCatherine Wagner (1998, 2007) has developed these arguments empirically. Globalization ideology is, in social
terms, a variety of this discourse and can be found among
245
American Ethnologist
246
American Ethnologist
247
American Ethnologist
Another perspective
We (Ekholm Friedman and Friedman 1980, 2008a, 2008b;
Friedman 2007b) have gone to some lengths in contextualizing the differences between globalization discourse and
our own global systemic approach. The latter is concerned
with the historical dynamics of expansion and contraction
of imperialhegemonic centers, the shift of such centers,
and the articulation between such processes and social, political, and cultural orders in both centers and peripheries.
Our work developed in parallel with that of authors such
as Eric Wolf (1982) and, especially, Jane and Peter Schneider (see Schneider 1977; Schneider and Schneider 1976),
although our perspective developed somewhat differently,
since we extended our research to ancient world systems
and arrived at somewhat different interpretations, especially of historical capitalism, if closer to the Schneiders
than to either Wolf or Immanuel Wallerstein. We have argued on the basis of a number of empirical investigations
that globalizations occur in specific historical conjunctures
and that they are neither permanent nor evolutionary phenomena (Ekholm Friedman 2008b; Friedman 1994, 1995).
They have occurred previously, and the inverse process,
deglobalization, is equally well documented, for example,
248
Globalization is a historical phenomenon that is reversible rather than a stage in a unilinear development.
In the systemic approach, globalization is part of a larger
transformation in the global arena. The globalization
approach, which has today assimilated assumptions of
neoliberalism, cannot account for the simple fact that
while post-Fordism and flexibilization associated with neoliberalism are rampant in the West, China seems to
be dominated by an old-fashioned Fordist configuration
(Appelbaum 2006). So the concomitants of globalization
are not across-the-board phenomena, and the regional differentiation linked to the decline of the West and the rise
of the East cannot be accounted for in this framework.
Whereas quite a few African states have declined into ethnic violence and been transmuted into gangs or privatized states (Bayart et al. 1999; Ekholm Friedman 2008a), in
China and most of East Asia, states have become stronger in
terms of centralized governance. China, an absolutist state
capitalism (see, e.g., Arrighi 2007), succeeded in introducing liberalized markets (not neoliberalism) and foreign investment coupled to rapid growth rather than flight capital, to massive overexploitation of workers and productive
expansion, all as a product of what is called the era of
globalization. But the recipe is extraordinarily similar (except for the direct intervention of the state) to the transformation England underwent in the 18th and 19th centuries from rural impoverishment and migration to Dickensian urban poverty coupled to industrialization and empire
building.
Similarly, the set of phenomena including ethnicization (autochthonization in the sense used by Geschiere
[2009]), the proliferation of sorcery accusations (Comaroff
and Comaroff 1999), and the emergence of religious fundamentalisms and smaller-scale religious cults in large parts
of the world is not a reaction to globalization but related
to the articulation of global process and local social orders, their cosmological and ontological schemes. Ethnicization is very much related to the decline in the assimilative or ordering power of central hegemonic states in
economic decline, just as neoliberalism is nothing more
than an adaptation to a decentralization of the organization of capitalist accumulation in chronic crisis. Sorcery accusations, in Central Africa, at least, are related to the collapse of incomes, the disintegration of public sectors as
well as kin groups, and the increasing competition for the
breadcrumbs left behind by rentier state-classes (Ekholm
Friedman 1994, 2008a). But this occurs in terms of local social logics that are not deducible from the global, just as antiwitchcraft cults and magic emerge to fend off the sorcery
itself. The conditions in which these phenomena develop
are related to the increasing precariousness of human existence and quite variable cultures of fear that are elaborated
in such conditions. The rise of neonationalist parties in Europe is also directly related to economic downturn, to the
American Ethnologist
decline of the state-based public sector and of the assimilation machine that was dominant in the previous period of
expansion, associated with the golden age of the welfare
state. But the local logics in Europe are quite different from
those in Central Africa.10 The reconfiguration of cultural
identification specific to such a period is one in which alternative identities emerge, in which the loss of the modernist
future ignites a scramble after roots that seem more enduring in a world in which the modernist agenda has evaporated. Re-identification in cultural terms is rehabilitating
for those so engaged, but it also implies the multiplication
of new borders and potential conflicts among groups who
have taken up the new or renewed identities. It is not merely
an ethnic issue but a more general phenomenon that pervades the entire field of potential collective identity formation. An account that interprets such phenomena as reactions to globalization itself is very different from one that
situates the phenomena within systemically altered conditions of existence of people and their culturally specific
strategies of survival. No glossing as alternative modernity
can erase this crucial difference. Ordinary lives do not confront the global as such. They face more immediate issues.
249
American Ethnologist
Hegemonic decline ignites a proliferation of disintegrative processes with respect to the state and the rampant growth of networks of violence, to trafficking in people, arms, and terror. And this, in a geopolitical shift away
from the centrality of the West, feeds internally and externally orchestrated occidentalisms in which progressives
are filled with self-loathing and even praise for brutal ideologies as long as they are directed against the beast-is-us.
Some Islamists look forward in both East and West to an
imagined new caliphate that includes Europe and to the
establishment of global sharia. At the same time, morepowerful states farther to the east are growing ever more
rapidly into the future workshops of the world and engaging
(especially China) in a new colonization of former Western
peripheries. And, in interviews, we have encountered statements of the type, I dont care how bad they are, let them
rule us because we are even worse and deserve it.11 The
content of these developments can hardly be understood as
globalization.
Issues of culture in globalization discourse are concerned with flows and mixture, with border crossing and
the critique of boundedness, pace CNN.12 This has become
one of its central themes in relation to the debates concerning the nation, the core of essentialism. Globalization in relation to migration is not an opening up of borders to allow people to move more freely. It is the result of the disintegration of political regimes in the Third World, to increasing conflict and violence and a resultant emigration
of peoples from zones of violence and collapsed conditions
of existence to the declining yet still wealthier zones of the
West. And even this is also only a very partial truth, since
most of this movement is confined to the local regions involved. In any case, to characterize it as the advent of an
epoch of nomadism that has replaced a more static past is
an immense and cynical misrepresentation of underlying
realities.
It is difficult to reconcile the tragedy of this movement
with the liberating discourse of what can only be understood as a new-fashioned liberalism celebrating the joys
and virtues of migration. This discourse entails a shocking disinterest in the reasons for mass migration and in
a politics that might serve to ameliorate peoples conditions of existence in such a way as to ultimately curb such
migration.13 Can such discourse be characterized as progressive? In any case, it includes a predisposition to rubbish any conception of cultural or political unity in that
ghastly phenomenon the nation-state, which is, as indicated above, redefined here as an essentialization machine
responsible for most of the woes of the contemporary
world.
Here we should recall that what is homogenized in the
nation-state is the public sphere, not individual subjects.
Cultural difference is not eliminated at all but relegated to
the private lives of its inhabitants. This situation does imply
250
American Ethnologist
Cultural process
What happens to culture in this framework? Many are critical of an approach like ours that is occupied by politicaleconomic processes, as if such a concern were a kind of betrayal of the field. Our argument here, however, is that it is
precisely the cultural orders within which capitalism develops that promote the political economy to a dominant position. We have proposed that there are two major aspects
of the cultural. The first refers to the mere distinctiveness of
social processes and is not a representation of those processes or a scheme that organizes them. It is, rather, the
properties of the processes themselves, that is, particular
ways of producing, dominating, accumulating, and so on.
The second is culture as representation, code, or scheme,
as structures of meaning produced on the basis of social
experience in historical conditions that articulate preexisting historical configurations with particular existential
situations. Thus culture is never ex nihilo but appears always as a historical transformation. Its significance within a
population is related to the fact that it makes sense in particular circumstances as it connects to historically constituted shared social experiences. Cultural production involves objectification, and in this process it can become determinant in the sense that it can be used to socialize subjects or organize social situations. As the locus of meaning
production, it is dependent on the existential conditions
from which meaning originates, but it can take on a life of its
own in the sense attributed to it by Marshall Sahlins (1976),
as a scheme of meaningful organization.15
Particular schemes in this view must always be understood in their larger context, and it is this larger context that
conditions such schemes in the long run. In such terms,
capitalism, for example, is a cultural phenomenon in the
trivial sense that all social phenomena are simultaneously
cultural, simply because they are specific in form. But the
discourses of capitalism, whether Keynesian, neoliberal, or
socialist, are produced out of the differential experiential
conditions of life within capitalist processes. The forms of
the capitalist state are historically variable transformations
of earlier state forms in articulation with capitalist processes. The categories that we discuss herecosmopolitan,
251
American Ethnologist
indigenous, ethnic, class, diaspora, migrantare all generated within processes of constitution of states and governance, and this extends to NGOs, the United Nations, the
World Bank, and other similar global forms. All of these categories have a historical existence and display properties
that are part of a longue duree of the global systems that we
have discussed.
As we have also suggested, globalization as reality and
as discourse is also a derivative set of forms in relation to
the reproductive logics of global systems. This does not imply that culture is a global product in the sense that globalization theorists might have it. On the contrary, since
the global is itself derivative of local interactions, it is always embedded in social fields that are local in experiential and practical terms. The life of the most high-end
global populations is encapsulated within forms of sociality that, even if they cross national borders, are quite
local as social fields. These populations are characterized
by endosocialityshared forums, clubs, hotels, vacation
spots, schoolsand often display a pronounced degree of
endogamy. This form of globalism does not require the existence of modern individuals in the usual sense of the word
since what is shared need not be the specific distancing that
is characteristic of the individualized self. However, it might
be suggested that cosmopolitanization does tend to lift persons out of whatever social networks they were formerly
embedded in.
If cosmopolitan culture or cultures are local, then all
the other cultures must be local as well. A diaspora is local in social terms. As such, it generates an identifiable set
of repertoires that its members can practice. And indigenous populations who are accused of being inauthentic are
just as authentic as any other populations, no matter how
much they might deviate from some anthropologically established norm. Culture is about the structures of existence
and the imaginaries and representations that weave themselves around such structures. This is why a global systemic
approach does not eliminate the local or place it on a lower
level where it is generated by the global, which is assumed
to be a different, higher, sphere. The global is not a separate
sphere or the abode of prophets of the future. It is nothing
more than the structural properties of the field of interaction of local social actors. But the fact that these properties are structural implies that they harbor logics that are
not reducible to those of the actors themselves. On the contrary, they refer precisely to the nonintentional properties
of systemic processes of social reproduction that escape individual intentionality. They constitute, instead, the field of
possible interactions and their outcomes.
252
Conclusion
Globalization is a historical phase within a global system
and not a stage of world-historical development. The connectivity of the world may have increased in the long term,
but it is not clear to what extent this is qualitative change or
mere speedup or timespace compression. No one, in any
case, has made a concerted effort to produce an argument
for qualitative change, one that requires more than simple
correlations and labels.
The critique of the closed model of society was the basis of the global systemic approach, but it was a general critique. It did not claim that now that the world has become
globalized, the older single-society models no longer work.
On the contrary, it claimed that such models have never
worked because all societies are constituted and reproduced within larger complexes of relations and processes.18
Thus, the entire critique of local bias, as presented, for instance, in the work of Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson
(1997), is already present in the global systemic critique of
the 1980s, in which the nation-state in formation is seen
as the locus of production of closed social models of function, dynamics, and transformation (Ekholm Friedman and
Friedman 1980; Friedman 1997).
Similarly, the issue of borders, which has been
broached in recent literature, needs to be inverted, since
the production of borders has to be accounted for to begin to understand their transgression. We note again that
this approach never reduced the local to the global. The local was always understood as simply the social fields within
which historical processes work themselves out. The historical processes are simply, or, rather, complexly, the articulation between global and local processes, but the local is
the locus of transformational history, no matter how large it
might be, whether a village or a continent. It is the processes
that count and not the locality as such. Thus, the global is
not a higher level even if it refers to a specific set (thus, localized in theoretical space) of properties. The latter are aspects of interlocal relations rather than a higher spatial order of reality. Their character as such is what enables ethnographic research on global processes. The World Bank and
the World Economic Forum are just as local as the village
pub, but the properties of their activities are quite different
in terms of their scope.
Our insistence on such a framework is not new, but it
is baffling to us that there have been no related discussions
or debates. Thus, when Appadurai stresses (above) the newness of globalization as the dominance of financial capital,
the rapidity of transaction speed, and the massive movement of people, he cannot be unaware that these are precisely the phenomena that are used to mark the period from
1880 to 1920 in Europe and the United States. Maybe there is
more financialization today, maybe the transactions are infinitely more rapid, and maybe migration is greater in percentage terms (hardly the case). But are these quantitative
changes enough to define a new world? Is there any concerted effort to make this point? Or is such a conclusion,
as Bertrand Russell put it, intuitively obvious to the most
casual observer? It would seem that there is no such effort because there is no field of debate, and the new ideas
in academe are not, as previously defined, hypotheses to
be falsified but truths to be sanctified. This new doxa is
what we have sought to challenge in our work by suggesting a more encompassing account. This doxa is the direct
American Ethnologist
253
American Ethnologist
254
Notes
1. We are not referring to the mere existence of either connections or diffusion, which have no specific structural properties.
Such properties are crucial for this approach, since they account
for the differences between colonization, diffusion, and globalization, even if these processes all result, superficially, in some similar
outcomes.
2. The evolutionism in Marx was not about the ultimate unification of the world but the progression of forms of production and
reproduction.
3. Diffusionism, whatever its defects and in whatever guise, has
at least the virtue of allowing everyone the possibility of exposure
to a world larger than their current locale (Appadurai 1988:39). See
also Hannerz 1992:218.
4. For example, Appadurai notes, The global relationship
among ethnoscapes, technoscapes, and financescapes is deeply
disjunctive and profoundly unpredictable (1996:35). Or as Josiah
Heyman and Howard Campbell put it, He [Appadurai] believes that focusing on disjuncture provides a powerful criticism
of Marxist models that give ordered causal priority to capital
References cited
Agamben, Giorgio
2005 State of Exception. Kevin Attell, trans. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
American Ethnologist
Anderson, Elijah
2011 The Cosmopolitan Canopy: Race and Civility in Everyday
Life. New York: W. W. Norton.
Appadurai, Arjun
1988 Putting Hierarchy in Its Place? Cultural Anthropology
3(1):3649.
1990 Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Economy. Public
Culture 2(2):124.
1996 Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2006 Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of
Anger. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Appelbaum, Richard P.
2006 Giant Factories, Militant Labor: The Rise of Fordism in
China? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Studies Association, Oakland, CA, October 1215.
Arrighi, Giovanni
2007 Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century. London: Verso.
Barber, Benjamin R.
1995 Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Times Books.
Bayart, Jean-Francois, Steven Ellis, and Beatrice Hibou
1999 The Criminalization of the State in Africa. London: International African Institute in association with James Currey.
Bluestone, Barry, and Bennett Harrison
1982 The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry.
New York: Basic Books.
Braudel, Fernand
1977 Afterthoughts on Material Civilization and Capitalism. Patricia M. Ranum, trans. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
1979 Civilisation materielle, e conomie et capitalism, XVeXVIIIe
si`ecle. Paris: Colin.
Castells, Manuel
2000 Economy, Society and Culture, vol. 1: The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Comaroff, Jean, and John Comaroff
1999 Occult Economies and the Violence of Abstraction: Notes
from the South African Postcolony. American Ethnologist
26(2):279303.
De Landa, Manuel
2006 A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social
Complexity. London: Continuum.
Dumenil, Gerard, and Dominque Levy
2011 The Crisis of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Economist
1997 1897 and 1997: The Century the Earth Stood Still.
Economist, December 20: 7779.
Ekholm Friedman, Kajsa
1994 Den magiska varldsbilden: Statens frigorelse fran folket i
Folkrepubliken Kongo. Stockholm: Carlssons Bokforlag.
2005 Stucture, Dyanamics, and the Final Collapse of Bronze
Age Civilizations in the Second Millenium B.C. In Hegemonic Declines: Present and Past. Jonathan Friedman and
Christopher Chase-Dunn, eds. Pp. 5188. Boulder, CO:
Paradigm.
2008a State Classes, the Logic of Rentier Power, and Social Disintegration: Global Parameters and Local Structures of the Decline of the Congo. In The Anthropology of Global Systems, vol.
2: Modernities, Class, and the Contradictions of Globalization.
Kajsa Ekholm Friedman and Jonathan Friedman. Pp. 179201.
Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
255
American Ethnologist
2008b[1987] The Study of Risk in Social Systems: An Anthropological Perspective. In The Anthropology of Global Systems,
vol. 1: Historical Transformations. Kajsa Ekholm Friedman and
Jonathan Friedman. Pp. 6186. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Ekholm Friedman, Kajsa, and Jonathan Friedman
1979 Capital, Imperialism and Exploitation in Ancient World
Systems. In Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient
Empires. Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. Pp. 4158. Copenhagen:
Akademisk Forlag.
1980 Towards a Global Anthropology. In History and Underdevelopment: Essays on Underdevelopment and European Expansion in Asia and Africa. L. Blusse, H. L. Wesseling, and G. D.
Winius, eds. Pp. 6176. Leiden: Centre for the History of European Expansion.
2008a The Anthropology of Global Systems, vol. 1: Historical
Transformations. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
2008b The Anthropology of Global Systems, vol. 2: Modernities,
Class, and the Contradictions of Globalization. Lanham, MD:
AltaMira Press.
English-Lueck, Jan
2011 Prototyping Self in Silicon Valley: Deep Diversity as a
Framework for Anthropological Inquiry. Anthropological Theory 11(1):89106.
Flaten, Ola, and Shuji Hisano
2007 Food Security in a Food Importing Country: The Case
of Norway. Nougyou to Keizai (Agriculture and Economy)
73(8):129136. [Japanese]
Fourest, Caroline
2004 Fr`ere Tariq: Discours, strategie et methode de Tariq Ra
madan. Paris: Editions
Grasset.
Friedman, Jonathan
1992 General Historical and Culturally Specific Properties of
Global Systems. Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 15(3):335
372.
1994 Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage.
1995 Global System, Globalization and the Parameters of Modernity. In Global Modernities. Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, and
Roland Robertson, eds. Pp. 6990. London: Sage.
1997 Global Crises, the Struggle for Cultural Identity and Intellectual Pork-Barreling: Cosmopolitans, Nationals and Locals in
an Era of De-Hegemonization. In Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism.
Pnina Werbner and Tariq Modood, eds. Pp. 7989. London:
Zed Press.
1998 Transnationalization, Socio-Political Disorder, and Ethnification as Expressions of Declining Global Hegemony. International Political Science Review 19(3):233250.
1999a Class Formation, Hybridity and Ethnification in Declining Global Hegemonies. In Globalisation and the Asia-Pacific:
Contested Territories. Kris Olds, Peter Dicken, Philip F. Kelly,
Lily Kong, and Henry Wai-chung Yeung, eds. Pp. 174192. London: Routledge.
1999b The Hybridization of Roots and the Abhorrence of the
Bush. In Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World. Mike Featherstone and Scott Lash, eds. Pp. 230256. London: Sage.
2000 Concretizing the Continuity Argument in Global Systems
Analysis. World System History: The Social Science of LongTerm Change. Robert A. Denemark, Jonathan Friedman, Barry
K. Gills, and George Modelski, eds. Pp. 133152. London: Routledge.
2002 Champagne Liberals and the New Dangerous Classes:
Reconfigurations of Class, Identity and Cultural Production
in the Contemporary Global System. Social Analysis 46(2):
3355.
256
2005 Plus C
a Change: On Not Learning from History. In
Hegemonic Declines: Past and Present. Jonathan Friedman
and Christopher Chase-Dunn, eds. Pp. 89114. Boulder, CO:
Paradigm Press.
2007a Cosmopolitan Elites, Organic Intellectuals and the ReConfiguration of the State. In Figures croisees dintellectuels:
Trajectoires, modes daction, productions. Abdel Kouvouama,
Abdoulaye Gueye, Anne Piriou, and Anne-Catherine Wagner,
eds. Pp. 431454. Paris: Karthala.
2007b Globalization, Global Systems and Anthropological Theory. In Frontiers of Globalization Research: Theoretical and
Methodological Approaches. Ino Rossi, ed. Pp. 109132. New
York: Springer.
2012 The Dialectic of Cosmopolitanization and Indigenization in the Contemporary World System: Contradictory Configurations of Class and Culture. In The Scope of Anthropology: Maurice Godeliers Work in Context. Laurent Dousset and Serge Tcherkezoff, eds. Pp. 212245. New York:
Berghahn.
Furnivall, John Sydenham
1948 Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of
Burma and Netherlands India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geschiere, Peter
1997 The Modernity of Witchcraft: Politics and the Occult in Postcolonial Africa. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
2009 The Perils of Belonging: Autochthony, Citizenship, and Exclusion in Africa and Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson
1997 Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a
Field Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hannerz, Ulf
1992 Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of
Meaning. New York: Columbia University Press.
1999 Reflexions on Variations of Culturespeak. European Journal
of Cultural Studies 2(3):393407.
Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri
2000 Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harvey, David
2005 A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heyman, Josiah McC., and Howard Campbell
2009 The Anthropology of Global Flows: A Critical Reading of Appadurais Disjuncture and Difference in the
Global Cultural Economy. Anthropological Theory 9(2):
131148.
Hilferding, Rudolf
1981 Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development. T. B. Bottomore, ed. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Kalra, Virinder S., Raminder Kaur, and John Hutnyk
2005 Diaspora and Hybridity. London: Sage.
Kotz, David M., Terrence McDonough, and Michael Reich, eds.
1994 Social Structures of Accumulation: The Political Economy
of Growth and Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ohmae, Keniche
1989 The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional
Economies. New York: Free Press.
Pincon, Michel, and Monique Pincon-Charlot
1996 Grandes fortunes: Dynasties familiales et formes de
richesse en France. Paris: Editions Payot et Rivages.
2001 Paris mosaque: Promenades urbaines. Paris: CalmannLevy.
Ritzer, George
1996 The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the
Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Robertson, Roland
1992 Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London:
Sage.
Sahlins, Marshall David
1976 Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Sassen, Saskia
1994 Cities in a World Economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
Press.
1996 Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Schneider, Jane
1977 Was There a Pre-Capitalist World-System? Peasant Studies
6(1):2029.
Schneider, Jane, and Peter Schneider
1976 Culture and Political Economy in Western Sicily. New York:
Academic Press.
Shiller, Robert
2001 Irrational Exuberance. New York: Broadway Books.
Smith, Neil
2005 The Endgame of Globalization. New York: Routledge.
Vernon, Raymond
1971 Sovereignty at Bay: The Multinational Spread of U.S. Enterprises. New York: Basic Books.
American Ethnologist
Wagner, Anne-Catherine
1998 Les nouvelles e lites de la mondialisation: Une immigration
doree en France. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
2007 Les classes sociales dans la mondialisation. Paris:
Decouverte.
Wolf, Eric
1982 Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Jonathan Friedman
Directeur detudes
EHESS (IRIS)
96 boulevard Raspail
75006 Paris, France
Jonathan.friedman@ehess.fr
Dist. Professor
Department of Anthropology
UCSD, 9500 Gilman Dr.
La Jolla, CA 92093
jafriedman@ucsd.edu
Kajsa Ekholm Friedman
Professor Emerita
Lund University
Lilla Fiskaregatan 8A
222 22 Lund, Sweden
Kajsa.ekholm-friedman@soc.lu.se
257