Content area
Full Text
Conventional wisdom maintains that since 1648 the international system has comprised states-as-like units endowed with Westphalian sovereignty under anarchy. And while radical globalization theorists certainly dispute the centrality of the state in modern world politics, nevertheless most assume that the state retains its sovereignty under globalization. In contrast we argue that hierarchical sub-systems (and hence unlike units) have been common since 1648, and that the international system continues to be characterized by hierarchical (as well as anarchic) relations. The article goes on to reveal the existence of these multiple hierarchic formations and uncovers the differing social logics connected with identity-formation processes that govern their reproduction. Successive religious, racial, socialist and democratic social logics not only constitute their reproduction, but the emergence of new norms, social ideas and identities have to an important extent accounted for the rise and decay of successive hierarchies.
KEY WORDS * anarchy * change *hierarchy * historical sociology * identity-formation * socialization * sovereignty
1. Introduction
Recently the concept of Westphalian state sovereignty has received renewed attention in the field of International Relations. While this attention is welcome and has produced many new insights, it has surprisingly left largely unchanged the conventional picture as portrayed by mainstream theorists. The conventional view holds that in the period since 1648 European, and subsequently world, politics can be characterized as an anarchical system comprising the interactions of like units (states), in turn selected and socialized in accordance with Westphalian sovereignty. Indeed, despite the rise of constructivism, this standard view has remained intact (e.g. Reus-Smit, 1999; Wendt, 1999). And to the extent that some (though by no means all) radical scholars view the anarchy/sovereign state couplet as fundamentally challenged by globalization, they nevertheless assume that its existence can be taken for granted in the 1648-1970s era (e.g. Burton, 1972; Camilleri and Falk, 1992). Moreover, as we shall explain below, the fact is that the vast majority of radical globalization theorists argue that the state retains its sovereignty, even if its control over economic outcomes is greatly diminished.
This article takes issue with each element of this conventional picture, challenging the orthodoxy on its conceptual and empirical home ground, with sovereignty defined as juridical authority. In the period since 1648 neither the European nor the...