Oxford Handbook GSWhat Is Global Studies

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/331452885
What is global studies?
Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190630577.013.44
CITATIONS READS
9 307
1 author:
Manfred B. Steger
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
107 PUBLICATIONS 2,516 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Understanding Globalization View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Manfred B. Steger on 23 December 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

What Is Global Studies?
Oxford Handbooks Online

Manfred B. Steger
The Oxford Handbook of Global Studies
Edited by Mark Juergensmeyer, Saskia Sassen, Manfred B. Steger, and Victor Faessel
Print Publication Date: Dec 2018 Subject: Sociology, Political Sociology

Online Publication Date: Dec 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190630577.013.44
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter provides an overview of the emerging field of global studies by introducing
readers to its growing institutional significance in global higher education. Drawing on
influential arguments of major thinkers in global studies to their own framework, the
chapter discuss the “four pillars of global studies”: globalization, transdisciplinarity,
space and time, and critical thinking. Having presented the new field’s conceptual and
thematic framework, this chapter closes by considering its capacity for self-criticism.
After all, the critical thinking framing of global studies creates a special obligation for all
scholars working in the field to listen to and take seriously internal and external
criticisms with the intention of correcting existing shortcomings, illuminating blind spots,
and avoiding theoretical pitfalls and dead ends.
Keywords: global studies, globalization, global imaginary, transdisciplinary, critical thinking, global citizenship
ALTHOUGH scholars within the field of global studies (GS) debate over how to define the
term, most agree that it has emerged in the twenty-first century as a multidisciplinary
and transdisciplinary field of inquiry dedicated to the exploration of the many dimensions
of globalization and other transnational phenomena. Perhaps the most important keyword
of our time, “globalization” remains a contested and open-ended concept, especially with
respect to its normative implications. Although the phenomenon has been extensively
studied in sociology, economics, anthropology, geography, history, political science, and
other fields, it falls outside the established disciplinary framework. After all,
“globalization” is only of secondary concern in these traditional fields organized around
different master concepts: “society” in sociology, “resources” and “scarcity” in economics,
“culture” in anthropology, “space” in geography, “the past” in history, “power” and
“governance” in political science, and so on. By contrast, GS has placed the keyword
without a firm disciplinary home at the core of its intellectual enterprise. The rise of GS,
therefore, not only represents a clear sign of the proper recognition of new kinds of social
Page 1 of 23
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

interdependence and enhanced forms of mobility but also demonstrates that the
nineteenth-century realities that gave birth to the conventional disciplinary architecture
are no longer ours (Jameson 1998: xi). At the same time, however, GS is not hermetic, for
it welcomes various approaches and methods that contribute to a transnational analysis
of the world as a single interactive system.
The field of GS is sometimes compared to the disciplines of international relations (IR)

and international studies (IS). Still, their differences clearly outweigh their similarities.
Mainstream IR considers the state as the principal mover of world politics and thus the
central unit of analysis. This means that the actions of states—especially with regard to
security issues—are foregrounded at the expense of other crucial areas, such as
economics and culture. By contrast, GS researchers consider the state as but one actor in
today’s fluid web of material and ideational interdependencies that includes proliferating
non-state entities, nongovernmental organizations, transnational social movements, and
other social and political forces “beyond the state.”1 This multicentric and
multidimensional understanding of our globalizing world makes GS a porous field with
strong “applied” interests in public policy. GS scholars frequently seize upon issues that
are often excluded from IR—for example, issues connected to gender, poverty, global
media, public health, migration, and ecology. This problem-centered focus of GS
encourages the forging of strong links among (p. 4) the worlds of academia, political
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and social movements.
Most important, GS both embraces and exudes a certain mentalité, which I have called
the “global imaginary” (Steger 2008; Steger and James 2013). It refers to a sense of the
social whole that frames our age as one shaped by the intensifying forces of globalization.
Giving its objective and subjective aspects equal consideration, GS suggests that
enhanced interconnectivity does not merely happen in the world “out there” but also
operates through our consciousness “in here.” To recognize the significance of global
consciousness, however, does not support premature proclamations of the “death of the
nation-state.” Conventional national and local frameworks have retained significant
power as well as reconfigured those central functions. Although the nation-state is not
dying, globalization has forced it to accommodate an incipient and slowly evolving
architecture of “global governance.” Hence, it is not surprising that GS researchers show
great interest in transnational educational initiatives centered on the promotion of
“global citizenship” and other “embedded” cosmopolitan visions that link the local to the
global and vice versa.
In the roughly two decades of its existence, GS has attracted scores of unorthodox faculty
and unconventional students who share its sincere commitment to studying transnational
processes, interactions, and flows from multiple and transdisciplinary perspectives. Still,
there are large sections of the academic community that have either not heard of GS at
all or are still unclear about its scope and methods. So what, exactly, is GS and what does
it entail? Responding to these persistent demands for clarification, this chapter seeks to
provide a general overview of the main contours and central features of GS.2 Although
scores of globalization scholars still quarrel over what themes and approaches their field
Page 2 of 23

should or should not encompass, it would be a mistake to close one’s eyes to existing
agreements and common approaches that have become substantial enough to identify
four central “pillars” or “framings” of GS: globalization, transdisciplinarity, space and
time, and critical thinking. But before presenting the new field’s conceptual and thematic
framework in more detail, let us start by considering some important institutional
developments that have aided its rapid growth.
The Institutional Growth of Global Studies

Creating a special academic context for the study of globalization, GS has become
gradually institutionalized in the academy. Yet, GS does not view itself as just another cog
in the disciplinary machine of contemporary higher education. Despite today’s trendy talk
about “globalizing knowledge” and “systematic internationalization”—which is often more
about the neoliberal reinvention of the academy as “big business” than about creating
new spaces of epistemological diversity—the traditional Western academic framework of
knowledge specialization has survived largely intact into the twenty-first century. Often
forced to make compromises and find less than desirable accommodations with the
dominant academic order, GS challenges a fractured, Eurocentric mindset that
encourages the division of knowledge into sharply demarcated areas populated by
disciplinary “insiders.” Although it seeks to blaze new trails of social inquiry, GS is not
afraid of presenting itself as a fluid and porous intellectual terrain rather than a novel,
well-defined item on the dominant disciplinary (p. 5) menu. To use Fredric Jameson’s
(1998: xvi) felicitous term, the new field inhabits an academic “space of tension” framed
by multiple disagreements and agreements in which the very problematic of globalization
itself is being continuously produced and contested.
The educational imperative to grasp the complex spatial and social dynamics of
globalization animates the transdisciplinary efforts of GS to reorder human knowledge
and create innovate learning environments. Relying on conceptual and analytic
perspectives that are not anchored in a single discipline, the new field expands innovative
interdisciplinary approaches pioneered in the 1970s and 1980s, such as world-systems
analysis, postcolonial studies, cultural studies, environmental and sustainability studies,
and women’s studies. The power of the rising global imaginary and its affiliated new
ideologies of “market globalism,” justice globalism, and religious globalisms goes a long
way in explaining why GS programs, departments, research institutes, and professional
organizations have sprung up in major universities throughout the world, including in the
Global South (Steger 2013). Recognizing this trend, many existing IS programs have been
renamed “global studies.” Demand for courses and undergraduate and postgraduate
degrees in GS has dramatically risen. Increasingly, we see the inclusion of the terms
“global” or “globalization” in course titles, textbooks, academic job postings, and
extracurricular activities. Universities and colleges in the United States have supported
the creation of new GS initiatives that are often funded by major government institutions
Page 3 of 23

and philanthropists. For example, Northwestern University recently announced a

donation of $100 million—the largest single gift in its history—from the sister of the
prominent investor Warren Buffett for the establishment of the Roberta Buffett Institute
for Global Studies.
Drawing on thematic and methodological resources from the social sciences and
humanities, GS now encompasses approximately 300 undergraduate and graduate
programs in the United States alone.3 Some pioneering universities, such as the
University of California, Santa Barbara or the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
house programs that serve nearly 1,000 GS undergraduate majors. The Division of Global
Affairs at Rutgers University–Newark and RMIT University’s (Melbourne, Australia)
School of Global, Urban, and Social Studies accommodate hundreds of master’s and
doctoral students. In 2015, the University of California, Santa Barbara launched the first
doctoral program in GS at a tier 1 research university in the United States. In addition to
the creation of these successful degree-granting programs, there has been a phenomenal
growth of scholarly literature on globalization. New journals, book series, textbooks,
academic conferences, and professional associations such as the international Global
Studies Consortium or the Global Studies Association have embraced the novel umbrella
designation of “global studies.”
Clearly, the fledgling field and its associated global imaginary have come a long way in a
relatively short period of time. However, its success also depended to a significant extent
on the redirection of funding by US government and philanthropic organizations from
established IS and area studies programs to the newcomer “global studies.” Indeed, this
reorientation toward GS occurred in the ideological context of the rise of “neoliberalism,”
an economistic doctrine at the core of a comprehensive worldview I have called “market
globalism” (Steger and Roy 2010). As Isaac Kamola’s (2010) pioneering work on the
subject has demonstrated, starting in the mid-1990s, a number of important funders
announced plans to replace “area” structures with a “global” framework. For example,
the Social Science Research Council recommended defunding “discrete and separated
area committees” that were reluctant to support scholars interested in “global”
developments and policy-relevant (p. 6) “global issues.” When conventional area studies
experts realized that traditional sources of funding were quickly drying up, many joined
the newly emerging GS cohort of scholars centered on the study of “globalization.” Major
universities, too, reduced the level of support for area studies teaching and research
programs while developing new investment schemes and strategic plans that provided for
the creation of new “global studies” or “global affairs” programs and centers. Major
professional organizations such as the National Association of State Universities and
Land Grant Colleges and the American Association of Colleges and Universities eagerly
joined these instrumental efforts to synchronize the initiatives of “globalizing the
curriculum” and “recalibrating college learning” to the shifting economic landscape of
the “new global century” (Kamola 2010).
Page 4 of 23

Convinced that GS programs will earn a more prominent place within the quickly
changing twenty-first-century landscape of higher education characterized by shrinking
budgets and new modes of instruction, a growing number of academics—loosely referred
to in this chapter as “global studies scholars”—have begun to synthesize various common
theoretical perspectives and problem-oriented approaches. Their efforts have contributed
to the necessary mapping exercise without falling prey to the fetish of disciplinary
boundary making. Building on these efforts, I contend in this chapter that it is now
possible to present GS as a reasonably holistic transdisciplinary project dedicated to
exploring processes of globalization with the aim of engaging the complex global
problems the world is facing in the twenty-first century (McCarty 2014). To this purpose,
the next four sections of this chapter offer a general overview of the four major
conceptual framings that give coherence to the field.
The First Pillar of Global Studies: Globalization

Globalization is the principal subject of GS and thus constitutes the first pillar of the
emerging field. At the same time, the global also serves as the conceptual framework
through which GS scholars investigate the contemporary and historical dynamics of
thickening interdependence. The birth and rising fortunes of GS are inextricably linked to
the emergence of globalization as a prominent theme in late twentieth-century public
discourse. But the buzzword was not invented ex nihilo during the neoliberal Roaring
Nineties as shorthand for the liberalization and worldwide integration of markets. In fact,
it had been used as early as the 1930s in academic fields as varied as education and
psychology, society and culture, politics and IR, and economics and business (Steger and
James 2015). At the same time, the powerful ideological and political dynamics of the
1990s served as crucial catalysts for the cross-fertilization of public and academic
discourses on the subject. These raging globalization debates of the past decades attest
to enormous interest in the academic study of globalization as a multidimensional
phenomenon.
Attempts to develop objective, quantifiable assessments of the causes, contents, and

consequences of globalization have become a key issue for contemporary social science
research and social policy. Researchers have sought to develop empirical measures of
globalization based on various indicators. These efforts led to the rapid proliferation of
major (p. 7) globalization indices such as the KOF Index of Globalization.4 Today, readers
interested in globalization can select among thousands and thousands of pertinent books,
articles, and encyclopedia entries. In our digital age, these writings can be tracked down
with unprecedented speed and precision through new technologies such as the search
engine Ngram, Google’s mammoth database collated from more than 5 million digitized
books available free to the public for online searches. In 2015, the exceptionally rich
Factiva database listed 355,838 publications referencing the term “globalization.” The
Expanded Academic ASAP database produced 7,737 results with “globalization” in the
Page 5 of 23

title, including 5,976 journal articles, 1,404 magazine articles, and 355 news items. The
ISI Web of Knowledge listed a total of 8,970 references with “globalization,” the EBSCO
Host Database yielded 17,188 results, and the Proquest Newspaper Database showed
25,856 articles.
Despite continuing disagreements regarding how to define globalization, GS scholars

have put forward various definitions and collected them in comprehensive classification
tables (Al-Rodhan and Stoudmann 2006). One major obstacle in the way of producing
useful definitions of globalization is that the term has been variously used in both
academic literature and the popular press to describe a process, a condition, a system, a
force, and an age. Given that these concepts have very different meanings, their
indiscriminate usage is often obscure and invites confusion. For example, a sloppy
conflation of process and condition encourages circular definitions that explain little. The
familiar truism that globalization (the process) leads to more globalization (the condition)
does not allow us to draw meaningful analytical distinctions between causes and effects.
Hence, we ought to adopt the term globality to signify a social condition characterized by
extremely tight global economic, political, cultural, and environmental interconnections
across national borders and civilizational boundaries. The term globalization, by contrast,
applies not to a condition but a multidimensional set of social processes pushing toward
globality.
GS scholars exploring the dynamics of globalization are particularly keen on pursuing

research questions related to themes of social change, which connect the human and
natural sciences. How does globalization proceed? What is driving it? Is it one cause or a
combination of factors? Is globalization a continuation of modernity or is it a radical
break? Does it create new forms of inequality and hierarchy or is it lifting millions of
people out of poverty? Is it producing cultural homogeneity or diversity? What is the role
of new technologies in accelerating and intensifying global processes? Note that the
conceptualization of globalization as a dynamic process rather than as a static condition
also highlights the fact that it is an uneven process: People living in various parts of the
world are affected very differently by the transformation of social structures and cultural
zones.
The principal voices in the academic globalization debates can be divided into four
distinct intellectual camps: globalizers, rejectionists, skeptics, and modifiers. Most GS
scholars fall into the category of globalizers, who argue that globalization is a profoundly
transformative set of social processes that is moving human societies toward
unprecedented levels of interconnectivity (Held and McGrew 2002; Mittelman 2000;
Scholte 2005). While committed to a big picture approach, globalizers nonetheless tend
to focus their research efforts on one of the principal dimensions of globalization:
economics, politics, culture, or ecology. By contrast, rejectionists contend that most of the
accounts offered by globalizers are incorrect, imprecise, or exaggerated. Arguing that
such generalizations often amount to little more than “globaloney,” they dismiss the
utility of globalization for scientific academic discourse (Veseth 2010). Their contention
that just about everything that can be linked to (p. 8) some transnational process is often
Page 6 of 23

cited as evidence for globalization and its growing influence. The third camp in the
contemporary globalization debates consists of skeptics who acknowledge some forms
and manifestations of globalization while also emphasizing its limited nature (Hirst et al.
2009; Rugman 2001). Usually focusing on the economic aspects of the phenomenon,
skeptics claim that the world economy is not truly global but, rather, a regional dynamic
centered on Europe, East Asia, Australia, and North America. The fourth camp in these
academic debates consists of modifiers who acknowledge the power of globalization but
dispute its novelty and thus the innovate character of social theories focused on the
phenomenon. They seek to modify and assimilate globalization theories to traditional
approaches in IS, world-systems theory, or other related fields, claiming that a new
conceptual paradigm is unwarranted (Wallerstein 2004).
In recent years, it has become increasingly evident that neither modifiers nor
rejectionists have offered convincing arguments for their respective views. Although
objections to the overuse of the term have forced the participants in the globalization
debates to hone their analytic skills, the wholesale rejection of globalization as a
“vacuous concept” has often served as a convenient excuse to avoid dealing with the
actual phenomenon itself. Rather than constructing overly ambitious “grand narratives”
of globalization, many GS researchers in the globalizers and skeptics camps have instead
wisely opted for more modest approaches that employ mixed methodologies designed to
provide explanations of particular manifestations of the process.
Page 7 of 23

The Second Pillar of Global Studies:

Transdisciplinarity
The profound changes affecting social life in the global age require examinations of the
growing forms of complexity and reflexivity (Giddens 1990). This means that the global
dynamics of interconnectivity can no longer be approached from a single academic
discipline or area of knowledge. Emphasizing the analysis of global complexity and
reflexivity commits GS scholars to the development of more comprehensive explanations
of globalization, which highlight the complex intersection between a multiplicity of
driving forces, embracing economic, technological, cultural, and political change (Held et
al. 1999). Hence, the conceptual frameworks of influential GS researchers explore these
growing forms of interdependence through “domains,” “dimensions,” “networks,”
“flows,” “fluids,” and “hybrids”—the key terms behind their transdisciplinary attempts to
globalize the social science research imagination (Castells 2010; Kenway and Fahey 2008;
Urry 2003). Recognizing the importance of increasing complexity for their systematic
inquiries, they consciously embrace transdisciplinarity in their efforts to understand the
shifting dynamics of interconnectedness. Thus, their exploration of complex forms of
global interdependence not only combats knowledge fragmentation and scientific
reductionism but also facilitates an understanding of the “big picture,” which is
indispensable for stimulating the political commitment needed to tackle the pressing
global problems of our time. Multidimensional processes of globalization and their
associated global challenges, such as climate change, pandemics, terrorism, digital
technologies, marketization, migration, urbanization, and (p. 9) human rights, represent
examples of transnational issues that both cut across and reach beyond conventional
disciplinary boundaries.
Although university administrators in the United States and elsewhere have warmed up
to interdisciplinarity, most instructional activities in today’s institutions of higher
education still occur within an overarching framework of the disciplinary divisions. The
same holds true for academic research in the social sciences and humanities, where
scholars continue to produce specialized problems to which solutions can be found
primarily within their own disciplinary orientations.5 Critical of this tendency to
compartmentalize the complexity of social existence into discrete spheres of activity, GS
has evolved as a self-consciously transdisciplinary field committed to the engagement and
integration of multiple knowledge systems and research methodologies. Typically hailing
from traditional disciplinary backgrounds, faculty members are often attracted to GS
because they are deeply critical of the entrenched conventions of disciplinary
specialization inherent in the Eurocentric academic framework. Appreciative of a more
flexible intellectual environment that allows for the bundling of otherwise disparate
conceptual fields and geographical areas into a single object of study, GS scholars seek to
overcome such forms of disciplinary “silo thinking.”
Page 8 of 23

The concept of “transdisciplinarity” is configured around the Latin prefix

“trans” (“across” or “beyond”). It signifies the systemic and holistic integration of diverse
forms of knowledge by cutting across and through existing disciplinary boundaries and
paradigms in ways that reach beyond each individual discipline. If interdisciplinarity can
be characterized by the mixing of disciplinary perspectives involving little or moderate
integration, then transdisciplinarity should be thought of as a deep fusion of disciplinary
knowledge that produces new understandings capable of transforming or restructuring
existing disciplinary paradigms (Alvargonzalez 2011; Repko 2012). But the
transdisciplinary imperative to challenge, go beyond, transgress, and unify separate
orientations does not ignore the importance of attracting scholars with specific
disciplinary backgrounds. Moreover, transdisciplinarians put complex real-world
problems at the heart of their intellectual efforts. The formulation of possible resolutions
of these problems requires the deep integration of a broad range of perspectives from
multiple disciplinary backgrounds (Pohl 2010: 69; Pohl and Hadorn 2008: 112).
Yet, full transdisciplinarity—understood as activities that transcend, recombine, and

integrate separate disciplinary paradigms—remains an elusive goal for most academics.
This includes GS scholars associated with currently existing academic programs in the
field. Some have achieved a high degree of transdisciplinary integration, whereas others
rely more on multi- and interdisciplinary activities that benefit students and faculty alike.
For GS, the task is to expand its foothold in the dominant academic landscape while at the
same time continuing its work against the prevailing disciplinary order. To satisfy these
seemingly contradictory imperatives, GS has retained its ambition to project globalization
across the conventional disciplinary matrix while at the same time accepting with equal
determination the pragmatic task of finding some accommodation within the very
disciplinary structure it seeks to transform. Such necessary attempts to reconcile these
diverging impulses force scholars to play at least one, and preferably more, of three
distinct roles—depending on the concrete institutional opportunities and constraints they
encounter in their academic home environment.
First, GS scholars often assume the role of intrepid mavericks willing to establish GS as a
separate discipline—as a first but necessary step toward the more holistic goal of (p. 10)
comprehensive integration. To be sure, mavericks possess a certain spirit of adventure
that makes it easier for them to leave their original disciplinary setting behind to cover
new ground. But being a maverick also carries the considerable risk of failure. Second, a
number of GS scholars have embraced the role of radical insurgents seeking to globalize
established disciplines from within. This means working toward the goal of carving out a
GS dimension or status for specific disciplines such as political science or sociology.
Finally, some GS faculty have slipped into the role of tireless nomads traveling perpetually
across and beyond disciplines in order to reconfigure existing and new knowledge around
concrete globalization research questions and projects. The nomadic role, in particular,
demands that academics familiarize themselves with vast literatures on pertinent
subjects that are usually studied in isolation from each other. Indeed, one of the most
Page 9 of 23

formidable intellectual challenges lies in the integration and synthesis of multiple strands
of knowledge in a way that does justice to the complexity and fluidity of our globalizing
world.
The Third Pillar of Global Studies: Space and

Time
The development of GS has been crucially framed by new conceptions of space and time.
After all, globalization manifests in volatile dynamics of spatial integration and
differentiation. These give rise to new temporal frameworks dominated by notions of
instantaneity and simultaneity, which assume ever-greater significance in academic
investigations into globalization. Thus deeply resonating with spatio-temporal meanings,
the keyword unites two semantic parts: “global” and “ization.” The primary emphasis is
on “global,” which reflects people’s growing awareness of the increasing significance of
global-scale phenomena such as global economic institutions, transnational corporations,
global civil society, the World Wide Web, global climate change, and so on. Indeed, the
principal reason the term was coined in the first place had to do with people’s recognition
of intensifying spatio-temporal dynamics. Globalization processes create incessantly new
geographies and complex spatial arrangements. This is especially true for the latest
spatial frontier in human history: cyberspace. The dynamics of digital connectivity have
shown themselves to be quite capable of pushing human interaction deep into the “virtual
reality” of a world in which geography is no longer a factor.
Several GS pioneers developed approaches to globalization that put matters of time and
space at the very core of their research projects. Consider, for example, Roland
Robertson’s (1992: 6–7) snappy definition of globalization as “the compression of the
world into a single place.” It underpinned his efforts to develop a spatially sophisticated
concept of “glocalization” capable of counteracting the relative inattention paid to
spatiality in the social sciences. Commenting on the remarkable fluidity of spatial scales
in a globalizing world, Robertson focused on those complex and uneven processes “in
which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in
which people become increasingly aware that they are receding” (Robertson 2005).
Similarly, Arjun Appadurai (1996: 188) developed subtle insights into what he called the
“global production of locality”—a new spatial dynamic that was occurring more
frequently in “a world that has become deterritorialized, (p. 11) diasporic, and
transnational.” Or consider David Harvey’s (1989: 137, 265, 270–273) influential inquiry
into the spatial origins of contemporary cultural change centered on the uneven
geographic development of capitalism. His innovative account generated new concepts
such as “time–space compression” or “the implosion of space and time,” which affirmed
the centrality of spatio-temporal changes at the heart of neoliberal globalization and its
associated postmodern cultural sensibilities.
Page 10 of 23

GS scholars have explored a number of crucial spatio-temporal themes, such as the

ongoing debate concerning whether globalization represents the consequence of
modernity or a postmodern break, the changing role of the nation-state, the changing
relationship between territory and sovereignty, the growing significance of global cities,
the increasing fluidity of spatial scales, new periodization efforts around time and space,
and the emergence of global history as a transdisciplinary endeavor. Let us consider, for
example, the crucial dynamics of “deterritorialization.” “Territoriality” refers to the use of
territory for political, social, and economic ends. In modernity, the term has been
associated with a largely successful strategy for establishing the exclusive jurisdiction
implied by state “sovereignty” (Agnew 2009: 6). State control of bounded “national”
terrain promised citizens living on the “inside” the benefits of relative security and unity
in exchange for their exclusive loyalty and allegiance to the nation-state. By the second
half of the twentieth century, social existence in such relatively fixed spatial containers
had gone on for such a long time that it struck most people as the universal mode of
communal life in the world. However, the latest wave of globalization gathering
momentum in the 1980s and 1990s exposed the artificiality of territoriality as a social
construct and its historical role as a specific human technique for managing space and
time in the interests of modern state power.
The impact of globalization on conventional forms of territoriality and the related

changing nature of the “international system” have raised major questions concerning the
significance of the nation-state and the relevance of conventional notions of “territory”
and “sovereignty” in analyzing the new spatial practices associated with globalization.
This new spatial agenda also involves an important subset of issues pertaining to the
proliferation and growing impact of non-state actors; the emergence of a “global civil
society” no longer confined within the borders of the territorial state; the prospects for
global governance understood as the norms and institutions that define and mediate
relations between citizens, societies, markets, and states on a global scale; and the
pluralization and hybridization of individual and collective identities. Various
commentators have pointed to a growing gap between global space, where new problems
arise, and national space, which proves increasingly inadequate for managing these
transnational issues (Castells 2008; Thakur and Weiss 2011). These mounting spatial
incompatibilities combine with the increasing power of neoliberalism and the absence of
effective institutions of global governance to produce interrelated crises of state
legitimacy and economic equity that undermine democratic politics.
Although there is virtual agreement among GS scholars that today’s respatialization

dynamics are profound and accelerating, there remain significant differences between a
small band of thinkers comfortable with advancing an extreme thesis of “absolute”
deterritorialization and a much larger group holding more moderate, “relativist” views.
Absolutist views rose to prominence during the 1990s when spectacular neoliberal
market reforms diminished the role of the state in the economy. Politics anchored in
conventional forms of territoriality was seen as losing out to the transnational practices of
Page 11 of 23

global capitalism in (p. 12) which the state’s survival in diminished form depended on its
satisfactory performance of its new role as a handmaiden to global free-market forces
(Ohmae 1996).
While acknowledging the growing significance of deterritorialization dynamics in a

globalizing world, relativists argued for the continued relevance of sub-global territorial
units, albeit in reconfigured forms. The increasing inability of nation-states to manage the
globalization processes forced them to change into what Manuel Castells (2008: 88) calls
the “network state,” characterized by shared sovereignty and responsibility, flexibility of
procedures of governance, and greater diversity in the relationships between
governments and citizens in terms of time and space. Similarly, Saskia Sassen (2007) and
Neil Brenner (1999) suggest that globalization involves not only the growth of
supraterritoriality but also crucial processes and practices of “down-scaling” that occur
deep inside the local, national, and regional. Perhaps the most critical of these spatial
restructuring processes facilitated by states involves the localization of the control and
command centers of global capitalism in “global cities” that assume great significance as
pivotal places of spatial dispersal and global integration located at the intersection of
multiple global circuits and flows involving migrants, ideas, commodities, and money
(Sassen 2001).
As our discussion of the third pillar of GS has shown, the field owes much to the efforts of
innovative human geographers and urban studies experts to develop new theoretical
approaches that help us understand the changing spatial dynamics of our time. But GS is
equally indebted to the intellectual initiatives of sociologists and historians willing to
rethink the conceptual frameworks governing the temporal record of human activity. The
emergent field of global history, for example, is based on the central premise that
processes of globalization require more systematic historical treatments and, therefore,
that the study of globalization deserves a more prominent place on the agenda of
historical research (Clarence-Smith, Pomeranz, and Vries 2006; Hopkins 2002; Mazlish
2006; Mazlish and Iriye 2005). Parting with narratives centered on the development of
nations or Eurocentric “world histories,” global historians investigate the emergence of
our globalized world as the result of exchanges, flows, and interactions involving many
different cultures and societies—past and present. Recognizing the historical role of
powerful drivers of globalization, many GS scholars have integrated historical schemes in
their study of intensifying human interactions across geographical, conceptual, and
disciplinary boundaries.
Page 12 of 23

The Fourth Pillar of Global Studies: Critical

Thinking
Few GS scholars would object to the proposition that their field is significantly framed by
“critical thinking.” After all, GS constitutes an academic space of tension that generates
critical investigations into our age as one shaped by the intensifying forces of
globalization. Going beyond the purely cognitive understanding of “critical thinking” as
“balanced reasoning” propagated by leading Anglo-American educators during the
second half of the twentieth century, this fourth pillar reflects the field’s receptivity to the
activity of social criticism that problematizes unequal power relations and engages in
ongoing social struggles to bring about a more just global society.
Advancing various critical perspectives, GS scholars from throughout the world

(p. 13)
draw on different currents and methods of “critical theory”—an umbrella term for modes
of thought committed to the reduction of exploitation, commodification, violence, and
alienation. Such a “critical global studies” (CGS) calls for methodological skepticism
regarding positivistic dogmas and “objective facts”; the recognition that some facts are
socially constructed and serve particular power interests; the public contestation of
uncritical mainstream stories spun by corporate media; the decolonization of the Western
imagination; and an understanding of the global as a multipolar dynamic reflecting the
concerns of the marginalized Global South even more than those of the privileged North.
Taking sides with the interest of social justice, CGS thinkers exercise what William
Robinson (2005: 14) calls a “preferential option for the subordinate majority of global
society.”
There is much empirical evidence to suggest that dominant neoliberal modes of

globalization have produced growing disparities in wealth and well-being within and
among societies. They have also led to an acceleration of ecological degradation, new
forms of militarism and digitized surveillance, previously unthinkable levels of inequality,
and a chilling advance of consumerism and cultural commodification. The negative
consequences of such a corporate-led “globalization-from-above” became subject to
democratic contestation in the 1990s and impacted the evolution of critical theory in at
least two major ways. First, they created fertile conditions for the emergence of powerful
social movements advocating a people-led “globalization-from-below.” These
transnational activist networks, in turn, served as catalysts for the proliferation of new
critical theories developing within the novel framework of globalization.
Many CGS thinkers were inspired by local forms of social resistance to neoliberalism,
such as the 1994 Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, Mexico; the 1995 strikes in France and
other areas of Europe; and the powerful series of protests in major cities throughout the
world following in the wake of the iconic 1999 anti-World Trade Organization
demonstration in Seattle. Critical intellectuals interacted with the participants of these
alter-globalization movements at these large-scale protest events or at the massive
Page 13 of 23

meetings of the newly founded World Social Forum in the 2000s. They developed and
advanced their critiques of market globalism in tandem with constructive visions for
alternative global futures. Because the struggles over the meanings and manifestations of
globalization occurred in interlinked local settings throughout the world, they signified a
significant alteration in the geography of critical thinking. As French sociologist Razmig
Keucheyan (2013: 3) has emphasized, the academic center of gravity of these new forms
of critical thinking was shifting from the traditional centers of learning located in Old
Europe to the top universities of the New World. The United States, in particular, served
as a powerful economic magnet for job-seeking academics from throughout the world
while also posing as the obvious hegemonic target of their criticisms.
Indeed, during the past quarter century, America has managed to attract a large number
of talented postcolonial critical theorists to its highly reputed and well-paying universities
and colleges. A significant number of these politically progressive recruits, in turn,
promptly put their newly acquired positions of academic privilege into the service of their
socially engaged ideologies, which resulted in a vastly more effective production and
worldwide dissemination of their critical publications. Moreover, the global struggle
against neoliberalism that heated up in the 1990s and 2000s also contributed
significantly to the heightened international exposure of cutting-edge critical theorists
located in the vast terrains of Asia, (p. 14) Latin America, and Africa. In particular, the
permanent digital communication revolution centered on the World Wide Web and the
new social media made it easier for these voices of the Global South to be heard in the
dominant North. In fact, the “globalization of critical thinking” culminated in the
formation of a “world republic of critical theories” (Keucheyan 2013: 21, 73). Although
this global community of critical thinkers is far from homogeneous in its perspectives and
continues to be subjected to considerable geographic and social inequalities, it has had a
profound influence on the evolution of GS.
Still, we need to be careful not to exaggerate the extent to which such CGS perspectives
pervade the field. Our discussion of the developing links between the global justice
movement and CGS scholars should not seduce us into assuming that all academics
affiliated with GS programs support radical or even moderate socially engaged
perspectives on what constitutes their field and what it should accomplish. After all,
global thinking is not inherently “critical” in the socially engaged use of the term. An
informal perusal of influential globalization literature produced during the past fifteen
years suggests that nearly all authors express some appreciation for critical thinking
understood as a cognitive ability to “see multiple sides of an issue” (in this case, the issue
is “globalization”). But only approximately two-thirds of well-published globalization
scholars take their understanding of “critical” beyond the social-scientific ideal of
“balanced objectivity” and “value-free research” and thus challenge in writing the
dominant social arrangements of our time and/or promote emancipatory social change
(Steger 2009). This locates the remaining one-third of globalization authors within a
conceptual framework that transnational sociologist William Robinson (2005: 12) has
Page 14 of 23

provocatively characterized as “noncritical globalization studies.” Obviously, GS scholars

relegated to this category would object to Robinson’s classification on the basis of their
differing understanding of what “critical thinking” entails.
CGS scholars seek to produce globalization theory that is useful to emancipatory global
social movements, and this is what animates their “global activist thinking.” Most of them
could be characterized as “rooted cosmopolitans” who remain embedded in local
environments while at the same time cultivating a global consciousness as a result of
their vastly enhanced contacts to like-minded academics and social organizations across
national borders. Stimulated by the vitality of emergent global civil society, CGS scholar–
activists have thought of new ways of making their intellectual activities in the ivory
tower relevant to the happenings in the global public sphere. These novel permutations of
global activist thinking manifested themselves in the educational project of cultivating
what is increasingly referred to as “global citizenship.” The teaching of these new civic
values in GS has also been linked to the production of emancipatory knowledge that can
be used directly in the ongoing struggle of the global justice movement against the
dominant forces of globalization-from-above.
Concluding Remarks: Critiques of Global

Studies
Having presented the new field’s conceptual and thematic framework, we might want to
close this chapter by considering GS’s capacity for self-criticism. The critical thinking
(p. 15) framing of GS creates a special obligation for all scholars working in the field to
listen to and take seriously internal and external criticisms with the intention of
correcting existing shortcomings, illuminating blind spots, and avoiding theoretical
pitfalls and dead ends. As is the case for any newcomer bold enough to enter today’s
crowded and competitive arena of academia, GS, too, has been subjected to a wide range
of criticisms ranging from constructive interventions to ferocious attacks.
One influential criticism concerns the limited scope and status of “actual global studies as
it is researched and taught at universities around the world” (Pieterse 2013: 504). For
such critics, the crux of the problem lies with the field’s intellectual immaturity and lack
of focus. They allege that currently existing GS programs and conferences are still
relatively rare and haphazard; they resemble “scaffolding without a roof.” Finally, they
bemoan the supposed dearth of intellectual innovators willing and able to provide
necessary “programmatic perspectives on global studies” framed by those that are
“multicentered and multilevel thinking,” and, therefore, capable of “adding value” to the
field (Pieterse 2013: 505).
Page 15 of 23

Such criticism resonates with the often shocking discrepancy between the rich
conceptual promise of the field and the poor design and execution of “actual global
studies as it is researched and taught at universities around the world.” There is some
truth to complaints that a good number of GS programs lack focus and specificity, which
makes the field appear to be a rather nebulous study of “everything global.” Like most of
the other interdisciplinary efforts originating in the 1990s, GS programs sometimes invite
the impression of a rather confusing combination of wildly different approaches reifying
the global level of analysis. Another troubling development in recent years has been the
use of “global studies” as a convenient catchphrase by academic entrepreneurs eager to
cash in on its popularity with students. Thus, a desirable label has become attached to a
growing number of conventional area studies curricula, IS offerings, and diplomacy and
foreign affairs programs—primarily for the purpose of boosting their market appeal
without having to make substantive changes to the traditional teaching and research
agenda attached to such programs. Although some of these programs have in fact
become more global over time, in other cases these instrumental appropriations of the GS
label have not only caused much damage to the existing GS “brand” but also cast an
ominous shadow on the future of the field.
Despite its obvious insights, however, Pieterse’s (2013) account of “actually existing
global studies” strikes this writer as unbalanced and somewhat exaggerated. Much of the
available empirical data show that there are promising pedagogical and research efforts
underway in the field. These initiatives suggest that the instructive pessimism of the
critics must be matched by cautious optimism. To be sure, an empirically based
examination of the field shows GS as a project that is still very much in the making. Yet,
the field’s tender age and relative inexperience should not deter globalization scholars
from acknowledging the field’s considerable intellectual achievements and growing
institutional infrastructure. GS “as it actually exists” has come a long way from its rather
modest and eclectic origins in the 1990s. The regular meetings of the Global Studies
Associations (United Kingdom and North America) and the annual convention of the
Global Studies Consortium provide ample networking opportunities for globalization
scholars from throughout the world. Moreover, GS scholars are developing serious
initiatives to recenter the social sciences toward global systemic dynamics and
incorporate multilevel analyses. They are rethinking existing analytical frameworks that
expand critical reflexivity and methodologies unafraid of mixing various research
strategies.
Another important criticism of GS comes from postcolonial thinkers located both

(p. 16)
within and without the field of GS. As Robert Young (2003) explains, postcolonial theory is
a related set of perspectives and principles that involves a conceptual reorientation
toward the perspectives of knowledges developed outside the West—in Asia, Africa,
Oceania, and Latin America. By seeking to insert alternative knowledges into the
dominant power structures of the West as well as the non-West, postcolonial theorists
attempt to “change the way people think, the way they behave, to produce a more just
and equitable relation between the different people of the world” (p. 7). Emphasizing the
connection between theory and practice, postcolonial intellectuals consider themselves
Page 16 of 23

critical thinkers challenging the alleged superiority of Western cultures, racism and other
forms of ethnic bias, economic inequality separating the Global North from the South,
and the persistence of “Orientalism”—a discriminatory, Europe-derived mindset so
brilliantly dissected by late postcolonial theorist Edward Said (1979).
A number of postcolonial and indigenous theorists have examined the connections

between globalization and postcolonialism (Krishna 2009). While most have expressed
both their appreciation and their affinity for much of what GS stands for, they have also
offered incisive critiques of what they view as the field’s troubling geographic, ethnic,
and epistemic location within the hegemonic Western framework. The noted ethnic
studies scholar Ramón Grosfoguel (2005: 284), for example, offers a clear and
comprehensive summary of such postcolonial concerns: “Globalization studies, with a few
exceptions, have not derived the epistemological and theoretical implications of the
epistemic critique coming from subaltern locations in the colonial divide and . . . continue
to produce a knowledge from the Western man ‘point zero’ god’s-eye view.”
Such postcolonial criticisms of GS provide an invaluable service by highlighting some

remaining conceptual parochialisms behind its allegedly “global” theoretical and
practical concerns. Indeed, their intervention suggests that GS thinkers have not paid
enough attention to the postcolonial imperative of contesting the dominant Western ways
of seeing and knowing. Thus, they force scholars working in the field to confront crucial
questions that are often relegated to the margins of intellectual inquiry. Is critical theory
sufficiently global to represent the diverse voices of the multitude and speak to the
diverse experiences of disempowered people throughout the world? What sort of new and
innovative ideas have been produced by public intellectuals who do not necessarily travel
along the theoretical and geographical paths frequented by Western critical thinkers? Are
there pressing issues and promising intellectual approaches that have been neglected in
CGS? These questions also relate to the central role of the English language in GS. With
English expanding its status as the academic lingua franca, thinkers embedded in
Western universities still hold the monopoly on the production of critical theories.
Important contributions from the Global South in languages other than English often fall
through the cracks or only register in translated form on the radar of the supposedly
“global” academic publishing network years after their original publication.
As noted in the previous discussion of the fourth pillar of GS, however, it is essential to
acknowledge the progress that has been made in GS to expand its “space of tension” by
welcoming and incorporating Global South perspectives. As early as 2005, for example, a
quarter of the contributions featured in Appelbaum and Robinson’s (2005) Critical
Globalization Studies anthology came from authors located in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America. Since then, pertinent criticisms from within that demanded the inclusion
(p. 17) of multiple voices and perspectives from throughout the world have proliferated.
Consider, for example, Eve Darian-Smith’s (2015) recent critique of taken-for-granted

assumptions on the part of Western scholars to speak for others in the Global South.
Moreover, scores of public intellectuals hailing from the Global South have not only
produced influential studies on globalization but also stood in solidarity with movement
Page 17 of 23

activists struggling against the forces of globalization-from-above.6 As demonstrated by

the diversity of views and perspectives represented in this volume, many GS scholars are
paying attention to these important postcolonial interventions. Still, there is still plenty of
room for further improvement.
Let me end this chapter with a bit of speculation about the future of GS. Perhaps its most
pressing task for the next decade is to keep chipping away at the disciplinary walls that
still divide the academic landscape Animated by an ethical imperative to globalize
knowledge, such transdisciplinary efforts have the potential to reconfigure our discipline-
oriented academic infrastructure around issues of global public responsibility (Kennedy
2015: xv). This integrative endeavor must be undertaken steadily and tirelessly—but also
carefully and with the proper understanding that diverse and multiple forms of
knowledge are sorely needed to educate a global public. The necessary appreciation for
the interplay between specialists and generalists must contain a proper respect for the
crucial contributions of the conventional disciplines to our growing understanding of
globalization. But the time has come to take the next step.
References
Agnew, John A. 2009. Globalization and Sovereignty. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Al-Rodhan, Nayef R. F., and Gerard Stoudmann. 2006, June 19. “Definition of
Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed Definition.” In Program on
(p. 18) the Geopolitical Implication of Globalization and Transnational Security, GCSP
Policy Brief Series.
Alvargonzalez, David. 2011. “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity,

and the Sciences.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (4): 387–403.
Amin, Samir. 2014. Capitalism in the Age of Globalization: The Management of

Contemporary Society. London: Zed Books.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Appelbaum, Richard P., and William I. Robinson, eds. 2005. Critical Globalization Studies.
New York: Routledge.
Brenner, Neil. 1999. “Beyond State-Centrism? Space, Territoriality, and Geographical

Scale in Globalization Studies.” Theory and Society 28 (1): 39–78.
Castells, Manuel. 2008. “The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication
Networks, and Global Governance.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 616: 78–93.
Page 18 of 23

Castells, Manuel. 2010. The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy,
Society and Culture. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Clarence-Smith, William Gervase, Kenneth Pomeranz, and Peer Vries. 2006. “Editorial.”
Journal of Global History 1 (1): 1–2.
Darian-Smith, Eve. 2015. “Global Studies—The Handmaiden of Neoliberalism?”

Globalizations 12 (2): 164–168.
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.
Grosfoguel, Ramón. 2005. “The Implications of Subaltern Epistemologies for Global

Capitalism: Transmodernity, Border Thinking, and Global Coloniality.” In Critical
Globalization Studies, edited by R. Appelbaum and W. I. Robinson, 283–292. New York:
Routledge.
Harvey, David. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of
Cultural Change. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
Held, David, and Anthony McGrew. 2002. Globalization/Anti-Globalization. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.
Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. 1999. Global
Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Hirst, Paul, Grahame Thompson, and Simon Bromley. 2009. Globalization in Question: The
International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Hopkins, A. G., ed. 2002. Globalization in World History. New York: Norton.
Jameson, Fredric. 1998. “Preface.” In The Cultures of Globalization, edited by F. Jameson

and M. Miyoshi, xi–xvii. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Kamola, Isaac. 2010. “Producing the Global Imaginary: Academic Knowledge,

Globalization, and the Making of the World.” PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota,
Chapter 4.
Kennedy, Michael. 2015. Globalizing Knowledge: Intellectuals, Publics, and Universities in

Transition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kenway, Jane, and Johannah Fahey, eds. 2008. Globalizing the Research Imagination. New
York: Routledge.
Keucheyan, Razmig. 2013. Left Hemisphere: Mapping Critical Theory Today. London:
Verso.
Page 19 of 23

Krishna, Sankaran. 2009. Globalization and Postcolonialism: Hegemony and Resistance in

the Twenty-First Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Martens, Pim, Marco Caselli, Philippe de Lombarde, Lukas Figge, and Jan Aart
(p. 19)
Scholte. 2015. “New Directions in Globalization Indices.” Globalizations 12 (2): 217–228.
Mazlish, Bruce. 2006. The New Global History. London: Routledge.
Mazlish, Bruce, and Akira Iriye, eds. 2005. The Global History Reader. New York:
Routledge.
McCarty, Philip C. 2014. “Communicating Global Perspectives.” Basel Papers in European

Global Studies, 105. https://europa.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/europa/
PDFs_Basel_Papers/BS105.pdf.
Mendieta, Eduardo. 2008. Global Fragments: Globalizations, Latinamericanisms, and

Critical Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mittelman, James H. 2000. The Globalization Syndrome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 2000.
Nassar, Jamal R. 2010. Globalization and Terrorism: The Migration of Dreams and
Nightmares. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ohmae, Kenichi. 1996. The End of the Nation-State: The Rise of Regional Economies.
New York: Free Press.
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. 2013. “What Is Global Studies?” Globalizations 10 (4): 499–514.
Pohl, Christian. 2010. “From Transdisciplinarity to Transdisciplinary Research.”

Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science 1 (1): 65–73.
Pohl, Christian, and Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn. 2008. “Methodological Challenges of

Transdisciplinary Research.” Natures Sciences Sociétés, 16 (2): 111–121.
Repko, Allen F. 2012. Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robertson, Roland. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.
Robertson, Roland. 2005. “The Conceptual Promise of Glocalization: Commonality and

Diversity.” Art-e-Fact (4): http://artefact.mi2.hr/_a04/lang_en/
theory_robertson_en.htm.
Robinson, William I. 2005. “Critical Globalization Studies.” In Critical Globalization

Studies, edited by R. Appelbaum and W. I. Robinson, 11–18. New York: Routledge.
Rugman, Alan. 2001. The End of Globalization. New York: Random House.
Page 20 of 23

Said, Edward. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
Sassen, Saskia. 2001. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Sassen, Saskia. 2007. “The Places and Spaces of the Global: An Expanded Analytic
Terrain.” In Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies, edited by D. Held and
A. G. McGrew, 79–105. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Scholte, Jan Aart. 2005. Globalization: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. Houndmills, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Singh, Supriya. 2013. Globalization and Money: A Global South Perspective. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Steger, Manfred B. 2008. The Rise of the Global Imaginary: Political Ideologies from the
French Revolution to the Global War on Terror. New York: Oxford University Press.
Steger, Manfred B. 2009. Globalisms: The Great Ideological Struggle of the Twenty-First
Century. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Steger, Manfred B. 2013. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Steger, Manfred B., and Paul James. 2013. “Levels of Subjective Globalization: Ideologies,
Imaginaries, Ontologies.” Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 12 (1–2):
17–40.
Steger, Manfred B., and Ravi K. Roy. 2010. Neoliberalism: A Very Short
(p. 20)
Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Steger, Manfred B., and Amentahru Wahlrab. 2016. What Is Global Studies? Theory &
Practice. New York: Routledge.
Thakur, Ramesh, and Thomas G. Weiss. 2011. Thinking About Global Governance: Why
People and Ideas Matter. New York: Routledge.
Urry, John. 2003. Global Complexity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Veseth, Michael. 2010. Globaloney 2.0: The Crash of 2008 and the Future of
Globalization. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.
Young, Robert J. C. 2003. Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Page 21 of 23

Zeleza, Paul Tiyambe. 2003. Rethinking Africa’s Globalization. Trenton, NJ: Africa World
Press.
Further Reading
Anheier, Helmut K., and Mark Juergensmeyer, editors. 2012. Encyclopedia of Global
Studies. 4 vols. London: Sage.
Campbell, Patricia J., Aran MacKinnon, and Christy R. Stevens. 2010. Introduction to
Global Studies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Juergensmeyer, Mark, ed. 2014. Thinking Globally: A Global Studies Reader. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Smallman, Shawn C., and Kimberely Brown. 2015. Introduction to International and
Global Studies. 2nd ed. Raleigh: University of North Carolina Press.
Steger, Manfred B., ed. 2014. The Global Studies Reader. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Steger, Manfred B., and Paul James, ed. 2015. Globalization: The Career of a Concept.
London and New York: Routledge.
Steger, Manfred B., and Amentahru Wahlrab. 2016. What Is Global Studies? Theory &
Practice. New York: Routledge.
Notes:
(1.) Thus, GS is closer to social constructivism in IR, which deconstructs the unitary actor
model of the state in favor of a more complex conception that emphasizes an amalgam of
interests, identities, and contingency.
(2.) For a book-length treatment of this question, see Steger and Wahlrab (2016). This
chapter contains the principal arguments of the book in compressed form.
(3.) For a listing of these colleges and universities, see https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/

college-search.
(4.) For a recent discussion of “objective” measurements of globalization with a view

toward advancing the construction of new globalization indices, see Martens et al. (2015).
(5.) In this chapter, I employ a very broad definition of “science” that extends to the
humanities. The discussion of what does and what does not constitute science is certainly
Page 22 of 23

germane with respect to transdisciplinarity, but it extends well beyond the scope of this
chapter.
(6.) See, for example, Zeleza (2003), Mendieta (2008), Krishna (2009), Nassar (2010),
Singh (2013), and Amin (2014).
Manfred B. Steger
Professor Manfred B. Steger, Director, Globalism Research Centre, RMIT University,

Melbourne, Australia
Page 23 of 23
View publication stats

Oxford Handbook GSWhat Is Global Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oxford Handbook GSWhat Is Global Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oxford Handbook GSWhat Is Global Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

What is global studies?

Chapter · January 2018

Understanding Globalization View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Oxford Handbooks Online

Print Publication Date: Dec 2018 Subject: Sociology, Political Sociology

Abstract and Keywords

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

The field of GS is sometimes compared to the disciplines of international relations (IR)

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

The Institutional Growth of Global Studies

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

and philanthropists. For example, Northwestern University recently announced a

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

The First Pillar of Global Studies: Globalization

Attempts to develop objective, quantifiable assessments of the causes, contents, and

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

Despite continuing disagreements regarding how to define globalization, GS scholars

GS scholars exploring the dynamics of globalization are particularly keen on pursuing

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

The Second Pillar of Global Studies:

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

The concept of “transdisciplinarity” is configured around the Latin prefix

Yet, full transdisciplinarity—understood as activities that transcend, recombine, and

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

The Third Pillar of Global Studies: Space and

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

GS scholars have explored a number of crucial spatio-temporal themes, such as the

The impact of globalization on conventional forms of territoriality and the related

Although there is virtual agreement among GS scholars that today’s respatialization

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

While acknowledging the growing significance of deterritorialization dynamics in a

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

The Fourth Pillar of Global Studies: Critical

Advancing various critical perspectives, GS scholars from throughout the world

There is much empirical evidence to suggest that dominant neoliberal modes of

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

provocatively characterized as “noncritical globalization studies.” Obviously, GS scholars

Concluding Remarks: Critiques of Global

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

Another important criticism of GS comes from postcolonial thinkers located both

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

A number of postcolonial and indigenous theorists have examined the connections

Such postcolonial criticisms of GS provide an invaluable service by highlighting some

Consider, for example, Eve Darian-Smith’s (2015) recent critique of taken-for-granted

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

activists struggling against the forces of globalization-from-above.6 As demonstrated by

Policy Brief Series.

Alvargonzalez, David. 2011. “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity,

Amin, Samir. 2014. Capitalism in the Age of Globalization: The Management of

Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.

Brenner, Neil. 1999. “Beyond State-Centrism? Space, Territoriality, and Geographical

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 19 December 2018

Darian-Smith, Eve. 2015. “Global Studies—The Handmaiden of Neoliberalism?”

Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford

Grosfoguel, Ramón. 2005. “The Implications of Subaltern Epistemologies for Global