Geopolitical Space or Civilization?
| Published date | 01 December 1995 |
| DOI | 10.1177/004711789501200604 |
| Date | 01 December 1995 |
| Author | Stephen Hobden |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
77
GEOPOLITICAL
SPACE
OR
CIVILIZATION?
THE
INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM
IN
THE
WORK
OF
MICHAEL
MANN
Stephen
Hobden
*
Introduction
Scholars
of
International
Relations
have
shown
considerable
interest
in
Historical
Sociology
over
the
last
few
years.
One
manifestation
of
this
is
the
increasing
frequency
of
references
to
the
works
of
writers
such
as
Skocpol,
Tilly
and
Mann
in
International
Relations
journals.
This
interest
has
concentrated
on
these
writers’
approaches
to
the
state,
and
this
is
generally
reflected
in
the
substance
of
these
references.’
I
Two
major
reviews
of
the
Historical
Sociology
literature
by
International
Relations
scholars
have
concentrated
on
this
aspect.
Jarvis
has
suggested
that
the
approach
to
the
state
in
Historical
Sociology
provides
a
challenge. which
International
Relations
needs
to
address.
He
notes
that
in
both
realist
and
interdependence
writings
the
state
becomes
a
derivative
of
the
international
system.
By
contrast,
Historical
Sociology
aims
to
provide
a
more
multi-causal
approach
which
’does
not
privilege
any
particular
relationship
between
societies,
states
and
geopolitics’ .2
He
suggests
that
this
gives
the
potential
for
a
richer
multi-logic
approach,
which
might
serve
as
the
foundation
for
a
critical
theory
of
international
relations.
Halliday
has
also
written
a
review
of
the
contribution
from
Historical
Sociology.
He
argues
that
the
approach
to
the
state
and
society
provides
a
second
agenda
for
International
Relations.3
He
points
to
the
variety
of
ques-
tions
and
research
avenues
opened
up
through
Historical
Sociology’s
approach
to
the
state,
and
outlines
several
ways
in
which
the
research
agenda
of
recent
writings
in
Historical
Sociology
has
implications
for
International
Relations.
Part
of the
attraction
of
Historical
Sociology
for
International
Relations
scholars
is
its
attempt
to
bridge
the
gap
between
domestic
and
international
society.
In
this
approach
there
is
no
dichotomy
between
the
national
and
the
international.
Such
an
approach
could
provide
the
foundation
that
would
*
I would
like
to
thank
Rodney
Bruce
Hall,
Michael
Mann,
Dominic
Marner,
Veronique
Pin-
Fat,
Steve
Smith,
Marysia
Zalewski,
the
participants
of
the
’Contemporary
Research
in
Interna-
tional
Political
Theory’
workshop
at
University
of
Bristol
29
October
1994,
and
the
’Critiques
of
Mainstream
International
Relations
Theory’
panel
at
the
ISA
Annual
Convention
held
in
Chicago
1995
for
their
very
encouraging
and
insightful
comments
on
earlier
drafts
of
this
article.
1
As
a
random
example see
the
reference
to
Tilly
in
R.
Powell,
’Anarchy
in
International
Rela-
tions
Theory:
The
Neorealist-Neoliberal
Debate’,
International
Organisation,
vol.
48,
no.
2,
1994,
pp.
313-44,
see
p.
344.
Here
the
reference
is
to
Tilly’s
work
on
state
formation.
2
A.
Jarvis,
’Societies,
States
and
Geopolitics:
Challenges
from
Historical
Sociology’,
Review
of International
Studies,
vol.
15,
no.
3,
1989,
pp.
281-93,
see
p.
284.
3
F.
Halliday,
’State
and
Society
in
International
Relations:
A
Second
Agenda’,
Millennium,
vol.
16,
no. 2,
1987,
pp. 215-30.
78
answer
Waltz’s
invitation
for
an
integrated
theory
uniting
the
internal,
and
external.4
4
Less
attention
has
been
paid
to
exactly
how
writers
such
as
Mann,
Tilly
and
Skocpol
envision
the
international
system.
All
make
reference
to
such
a
con-
cept,
or
some
form
of
equivalent,
but
given
the
diverse
ways
in
which
the
inter-
national
system
is
conceived
within
the
discipline
of
International
Relations,
5
it
would
not
be
surprising
if
the
views
held
in
another
discipline
did
not
coincide
or
were
fundamentally
different.
This
article
considers
the
concept
of
the
international
system
used
in
the
work
of
Michael
Mann.
Mann
is
inter-
nationally
famous
for his
work
on
the
history
of
social
power,6
a.
path-
breaking
study
of
how
different
combinations
of
power
relations
have
structured
human
societies.
His
earlier
work,
however,
reflected
more
tradi-
tional
sociological
concerns
such
as
work
and
class.’
He
has
also
written
on
the
subject
of
sociological
methodology.8
8
Mann’s
analysis
is
potentially
extremely
challenging
for
International
Rela-
tions.
This
challenge
takes
four
main
forms.
First,
he
attempts
to
integrate
an
analysis
of
the
domestic
and
the
international.
In
other
words
his
aim
is
to
break
down
the
national/international
dichotomy
prevalent
in
International
Relations
theory.
Secondly,
he
proposes
a
distinctive
theory
of
change
in
the
international
system.
Thirdly,
he
offers
a
new
theory
of
the
state.
Although
there
are
some
similarities
between
his
analysis
and
that
of
the
interdepend-
ence
theorists,
this
article
argues
that
Mann’s
theory
is
more
developed.
Finally,
he
argues
that
none
of
his
sources
of
social
power
is
ultimately
deter-
mining.
This
presents
problems
both
for
realists,
for
whom
political
power
is
ultimately
determining,
and
for
most
Marxists
who
award
that
distinction
to
economic
power.
Mann
has,
however,
failed,
so
far,
to
develop
his
theoretical
position.
The
4
K.
Waltz,
’Reflections
on
Theory
of
International
Politics:
A
Response
to
my
Critics’,
in
R.
Keohane
(ed),
Neorealism
and
its
Critics
(New
York:
Columbia
University
Press,
1986),
pp. 322-45,
see
p.
340.
5
As
has
been
pointed
out
in
a
recent
article:
B.
Buran
and
R.
Little,
’The
Idea
of
"Interna-
tional
System":
Theory
Meets
History’,
International
Political Science
Review,
vol.
15,
no.
3, 1994,
pp. 231-55.
6
Mann’s
work
on
the
world
history
of
social
power
is
primarily
found
in
M.
Mann,
The
Sources
of
Social
Power
vol.
1:
A
History
of
Power
from the
Beginning
to
AD
1760
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1986)
and
The
Sources
of
Social
Power
vol.
2:
The
Rise
of
Classes
and
Nation
States,
1760-1914
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1993).
However,
related
to
this
project
are
the
collected
articles in
M.
Mann,
States
War
and
Capitalism
(Oxford:
Basil
Blackwell,
1988),
and
the
following
articles
and
chapters:
M.
Mann,
’A
Crisis
in
Stratification
Theory?’,
in
R.
Cromp-
ton
&
M.
Mann
(eds),
Gender
and
Stratification
(Cambridge:
Polity
Press,
1986),
pp.
40-56;
M.
Mann,
’European
Development:
Approaching
a
Historical
Explanation’,
in J.
Baechler
et
al.,
Europe
and
the
Rise
of
Capatalism
(Oxford:
Basil
Blackwell,
1988)
pp.
6-19;
M.
Mann,
’Introduction:
Empires
with
Ends’,
in
M.
Mann
(ed),
The
Rise
and
Decline
of
the
Nation
State
(Oxford:
Basil
Blackwell,
1990),
pp.
1-11;
A.
Kane
&
M.
Mann,
’A
Theory
of
Early
Twentieth-Century
Agrarian
Politics’,
Social Science
History,
vol.
16,
no.
3,
1992,
pp. 421-54;
M.
Mann,
1993,
’Nation-States
in
Europe
and
Other
Continents:
Diversifying,
Developing,
Not
Dying’,
Daedalus,
vol.
122,
no.
3,
1993,
pp.
115-40.
7
See
M.
Mann,
Workers
on
the
Move:
The
Sociology
of
Relocation
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1973);
M.
Mann,
Consciousness
and
Action
Among
the
Western
Working
Class
(London:
Macmillan,
1973);
R.M.
Blackburn
&
M.
Mann, The
Working
Class
in
the
Labour Market
(London:
Macmillan,
1979).
8
M.
Mann,
’Socio-Logic’,
Sociology,
vol.
15,
no.
4,
1981,
pp.
544-50.
To continue reading
Request your trial