Michael Mann’s Theory of Globalizations

The paper presents analysis of Michael Mann’s theory of globalizations, arguing that globalization is not a singular but plural process, involved global extensions of overlapping but not coinciding networks of ideological, economic, political and military power. It's also complemented with Mann's critical analysis of «hyperglobalizers'» theories. Globalization was a delayed consequence of early modern empires' overseas expansion. Under the influence of its internal incoherence and infrastructural difficulties in good conditions global empires was tended to drift toward lighter forms of imperialism. Comparative and historical analysis of Britain, American and Japan empires shows it. Militarization of Japan empire was a result of concatenation of internal problems with three «half-global crises» – two world wars and Great Depression which discussed as phases of globalization rather than its ruptures. Thus the article shows that recent globalization in not historically unprecedented process. Globalizations of capitalism, of nation-state and the sole remaining global empire, American empire play critical role in shaping of contemporary world. The drift of American empire toward lighter forms of imperialism under the influence if its incoherence, was reversed at the eve of 21th century faced with global crises – neoliberal recession of 2008 and climate change combined with liberal-conservative ideological alliance within US. It appears that militarization and unproductive economic intensification of American imperialism/hegemony would lead to its prolonged decay. According to the british-american sociologist the situation may finished either with positive globalization intensifying transnational interdependency, or with «negative globalization», fracturing the world, reminding globalization of the of early 20th century.

1. Albrow M. (1996). The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 246 p.

2. Appadurai A. (1990). Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Culture Economy. Theory, Culture, and Society. No. 7. P. 295–310.

3. Baumann Z. (2008). Tekuchaya sovremennost [Liquid Modernity]. SPb.: Piter. 240 p.

4. Beck U. (2001). Chto takoye globalizatsiya? Oshibki globalizma – otvety na globalizatsiyu [What is Globalization?]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. 304 p.

5. Bogaturov A.D., Vinogradov A.V. (2002). Anklavno-konglomerativnyj tip razvitiua. Opyt transsistemnoj teorii [Enclave and Conglomerate Type of Development. Record of Trans-System Theory]. In: Vostok – Zapad – Rossiya. Sbornik statej. K 70-letiyu akademika N.A. Simonii. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. P. 1–12.

6. Campbell C. (2004). American Realism versus American Imperialism. World Politics. Vol. 57. No. 1. P. 143–171.

7. Castells M. (2000). Informatsionnaya epokha: ekonomika, obshchestvo i kultura [The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Fragments]. M.: GU-VShE. 606 p.

8. Chase-Dunn C., Kawano Y., Brewer B. (2000). Trade Globalization since 1795: Waves of Integration in the World-system. American Sociological Review. No. 65. P. 77–95.

9. Cox R. (1987). Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. Columbia University Press. 500 p.

10. Crosby A. (1993). Ecological Imperialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 368 p.

11. Eichengreen B. (2016). Zerkalnaya galereya. Velikaya depressiya, Velikaya retsessiya, usvoyennye i neusvoyennye uroki istorii [Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession, and the Usesand Misuses-of History]. Moscow: Izd-vo Instituta Gaydara. 700 p.

12. Giddens A. (2011). Posledstviya sovremennosti [The Consequences of Modernity]. M.: Praksis. 352 p.

13. Gill S. (1991). American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 304 p.

14. Hardt M., Negri A. (2004). Imperiya [Empire]. M.: Praksis. 440 p.

15. Harvey D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. London: Basil Blackwell. 378 p.

16. Holton R. (1998). Globalization and the Nation-State. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 222 p.

17. Karasev D.Yu. (2016). Istoricheskaya sotsiologiya vlasti M. Manna [M. Mann’s Historical Sociology of Power]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii. No. 4 (87). P. 5–23.

18. Kindleberger C. (1986). The World in Depression, 1929–1939. Berkeley & LosAngeles: University of California Press. 355 p.

19. Lash S., Urry J. (1994). Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage. 360 p.

20. Mann M. (1986). The Sources of Social Power, Volume I: A History from the Beginning to 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 578 p.

21. Mann M. (1997). Has Globalization Ended the Rise and Rise of the Nation-State? Review of International Political Economy. Vol. 4. No. 3. P. 472–496.

22. Mann M. (2001/2002). Globalization Is (Among Other Things) Transnational, Inter-National and American. Science & Society. Vol. 65. No. 4. P. 464–469.

23. Mann M. (2003). Incoherent Empire. London: Verso. 278 p.

24. Mann M. (2004). The First Failed Empire of the 21st Century. Review of International Studies. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 631–653.

25. Mann M. (2012). The Sources of Social Power, Volume III: Global Empires and Revolution, 1890–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 520 p.

26. Mann M. (2013a). The Sources of Social Power, Volume IV: Globalizations, 1945–2011. Cambridge University Press. 498 p.

27. Mann M. (2013b). The Sources of My Sources. Contemporary Sociology. 2013. Vol. 42. No. 4. Р. 499–502.

28. Mann M. (2015). Konets, mozhet, i blizok, tolko dlya kogo? [The End May be Nigh, But for Whom?]. In Wallerstein I., Сollins R., Mann M., Derluguian G., Calhoun C. Sb. Statey. Moscow: Izd-vo Instituta Gaydara. P. 113–155.

29. Mann M., Jeronimo M.B. (2013). Empires, Globalizations, and Historical Sociology: An Interview with ́ Michael Mann. Analise Social.́ Vol. 48. No. 209. P. 946–952.

30. Martinelli A. (2003) Global Order or Divided World? Introduction. Current Sociology. Vol. 51. No. 2. P. 95–100.

31. Meyer J., et al. (1997). World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology. No. 103. P. 144–181.

32. Milanovic B., Lindert P., Williamson J. (2011). Measuring Ancient Inequality. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 13550. URL: https://www.nber.org/papers/w13550.pdf

33. O’Rourke K., Williamson J.G. (2002). After Columbus: Explaining Europe’s Overseas Trade Boom, 1500–1800. Journal of Economic History. No. 62. P. 417–456.

34. Pietersee J.N. (1995). Globalization as Hybridization. In Featherstone M., Lash S., Robertson R. (eds.) Global Modernities. London: Sage. P. 45–68.

35. Riley D. (2013). Routes or Rivals? Social Citizenship, Capitalism, and War in the Twentieth Century. Review of The Sources of Social Power, Volume 3: Global Empires and Revolution, 1890–1945 by Michael Mann. Contemporary Sociology. Vol. 42. No. 4. P. 484–494.

36. Robertson R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. L.: Sage. 211 p.

37. Robinson W.L., Harris J. (2000). Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class. Science of Society. Vol. 64. No. 1. P. 11–54.

38. Sewell W. Jr. (2013). The Age of American Empire. Contemporary Sociology. Vol. 42. No. 4. P. 495–499.

39. Sklair L. (2000). The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell. 335 p.

40. Tilly Ch. (2009). Prinuzhdeniye, kapital i evropeyskiye gosudarstva. 990–1992 gg. [Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992]. Moscow: Territoriya budushchego. 328 p.

41. Tomlinson J. (1999). Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 238 p. Tooze A. (2018) Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World. N.Y.: Viking. 720 p. van der Pijl K. (1998). Transnational Classes and International Relations. L.: Routledge. 192 p.

42. Wallerstein I. (2015). Mirsistema Moderna. Tom. I. Kapitalisticheskoye selskoye khozyaystvo i istoki evropeyskogo mira-ekonomiki v XVI veke [The Modern World-System. Vol. I]. Moscow: Russky fond sodeystviya obrazovaniyu i nauke.

43. Waters M. (1995). Globalization. N.Y.: Routledge. 185 p.

44. Weiss L. (1999). Globalization and National Governance: Antinomy or Interdependence? Review of International Studies. No. 25. P. 59–88.