Few dispute the notion that the rapid development of industrialising economies in Asia and Latin America, new information technologies, liberalisation of trade, and global financial markets have contributed to the emergence of a truly global economy in the past ten years. Neither do they dispute that national economies almost everywhere in the world have become increasingly less ‘national’. Most countries’ foreign trade has increased, and in many, foreign investment and payment on foreign debt have become more prevalent than in the past. Labour movements also appear to be increasing, especially the movement of highly skilled labour. But does this mean that nation-states have decreased influence over the definition of economic and social life? Does globalisation imply the demise of the nation-state?
Pınar Melis Yelsalı Parmaksız
modernization combined the modern political ideas leading to the formation of the nation-state. The Kemalist notion of women’s emancipation was grounded in social and political criticisms emanating from Western ideas as well as the concerns of anti
prayers for the dead will be an appeal, or a complaint, or a call to arms. There is no doubt that, after a long time, at least in the lives of those who are not stateless, the nation-state seems to matter and some fellow humans seem to be on a rebound
Thinking about the ‘identity crisis’ of the modern institution of the university, I was wondering about the following most general questions: does the current passage to late modernity and to the information age, the decline of the role of the nation-state and the increasing power of processes of globalisation mean the inevitability of the radical reformulation of the social mission and tasks of the institution of the university? Does the university (in North America and Central Europe alike) come through the transitory crisis of public trust and of its founding values or through the dramatic crisis of its own identity in a radically new global order? Is it so that in the face of globalisation and its social practices the process of the ‘corporatization’ of the university and the account of its activities in terms of business rather than education are irresistible? Is the response to the decreasing public trust in and decreasing financial support of higher education generally on the part of the state to be found in new ideas (by reformulating once again the philosophical foundations of the modern university) or in its new organisation (by following the explicit recommendations provided by such supranational organisations as the OECD, the World Bank, or UNESCO)? Surprisingly enough, these questions are of equal significance to North America and to a Central and Eastern Europe experiencing vast social and economic transformation. In both parts of the world the most common reflection upon the future functioning of higher education is the following: ‘things will never be the same’.
Norbert Elias on Globalization
Globalization presages an important new stage in the centuries-old 'civilizing process,' which Norbert Elias analyzed with such clarity and in such depth. At the root of the fundamental transformations of our world of nation-states are combined integrating and disintegrating tendencies, or centralization and individualization, which manifest themselves in a steady monopolization of the means of violence and taxation, an interventionist human rights discourse, and war as a means of democratizing and pacifying the planet. Elias' 'historical social psychological' approach offers new categories of analysis with which to both explain the effects of globalization and indicate how international interdependence fosters both control and resistance, both democratization and radicalization, and both integration and disintegration.
Ulrike Guérot and Michael Hunklinger
communitization of those areas of life in which solidarity was lacking in times of crisis. Even though the initial response from the EU looks unpromising and has been driven at the nation-state level, the crisis may yet lead to new forms of solidarity through
Five Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic
Afsoun Afsahi, Emily Beausoleil, Rikki Dean, Selen A. Ercan, and Jean-Paul Gagnon
the Nation State and its Limitations Though COVID-19 is a global problem, the primary actors in the policy response have been nation-states. As David Owen (this issue) notes, the answer to the question of “who is responsible to whom with regard to
The 9th Annual International Conceptual History Conference - Crossroads: Writing Conceptual History beyond the Nation-State. August 24-26, 2006, in Uppsala, Sweden. Registration will open in the afternoon of Wednesday, August 23.
A Transnational Reading of Women's Life Writing about Wartime Rape in Germany and Bosnia and Herzegovina
Agatha Schwartz and Tatjana Takševa
have both pointed to the exclusion of women's experiences, particularly in the context of sexual violence, and how large-scale traumatic events such as war implicate the nation-state as a masculinist structure with a vested interest in creating and then
The predominant vision of war, in the system of sovereign nation-states that evolved in the aftermath of the Treaty of Westphalia, has been one of violence used by nation-states, or alliances of nation-states, against one another. Indeed, as Martin van Creveld in The Rise and Decline of the State suggests, one of the principal functions of the modern state was to wage war. War, in von Clausewitz’s famous formulation, was an instrument of international statecraft that entailed the ‘continuation of politics by other means’. The great wars of the twentieth century to a large extent took this form. It might even be said that inter-state war came to be seen by some as a ‘natural’, if somewhat episodic and terrifying, feature of the modern nation-state system.