Response to Jennifer Mitzen’s Review of <i>The Global Transformation History: Modernity and the Making of International Relations</i>

Buzan, Barry; Lawson, George

doi:10.1017/s1537592715003503

Cited by 10 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This premise made some sense as long as the West was the center of the modern world. But that is no longer the case ( [81], see also [20]). In the future, to understand local affairs anywhere in the world will increasingly require adopting a global perspective because these affairs are ever more enmeshed in global flows and networks of activities that affect them.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If growing fractions of (what used to be) the workforce become unemployable through no fault of their own, and/or find themselves subject to the volatility and insecurity of Balternative work arrangements^ [44] in the fast-evolving contracted-out economy, 20 then the normative basis for tying eligibility for welfare benefits to life-long formal employment and for dividing the citizenry into Bdeserving^and Bundeserving^categories of claimants loses much of its credibility. Given the limited scope for raising taxes in a globalized economy, it also means that new sources of revenue for funding transfers and services have to be found.…”

Section: The Future Of Social Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disquieting uncertainty. Three glimpses into the future

Schmidt

2017

Eur J Futures Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article sketches three major realms -the realm of world order, the realm of work, and the realm of social policy -that will in all likelihood undergo fundamental change in the years and decades ahead, raising deeply unsettling questions about their future. The account is framed by the concept of global modernity, which, while not spelled out in detail, guides the presentation of data and other secondary materials in the aim to demonstrate connections between, and, at least to some extent, common roots of, phenomena and developments that might otherwise appear to be quite disparate. The author does not present any solutions for the problems and challenges discussed in the article, but hopes to sensitize readers to their urgency and to stimulate fruitful ideas for what will ultimately have to be a collective endeavor involving not only scholars from around the world but also the general public.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Future Of Social Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Disquieting uncertainty. Three glimpses into the future

Schmidt

2017

Eur J Futures Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Osterhammel's (2014) history of the long 19th century finds an abundance of transformative events and processes, firing in multiple directions. These accounts feed into Buzan and Lawson's (2015) recent account of the 19th century as a polyvalent 'global transformation'. Buzan and Lawson also draw on Rosenberg's (2006) conception (in turn from Trotsky) of 'uneven and combined development', whereby the existence of an international system results in part from uneven economic development globally.…”

Section: Multilinear and Familiarmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lawson and his collaborators (Hobson and Lawson 2008;Lawson 2010;Buzan and Lawson 2015) have been concerned at length and in detail with historical methods in IR. A related revival of interest in historical sociology in IR (Hobden and Hobson 2002) might be understood as methodologically motivated, but also as something more.…”

Section: International Relations and The Problem Of Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

The conduct of history in International Relations: rethinking philosophy of history in IR theory

MacKay

LaRoche

2017

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IR scholars have made increasingly sophisticated use of historical analysis in the last two decades. To do so, they have appealed to theories or philosophies of history, tacitly or explicitly. However, the plurality of approaches to these theories has gone largely unsystematized. Nor have their implications been compared. Such historical-theoretic orientations concern the 'problem of history': the theoretical question of how to make the facts of the past coherently intelligible. We aim to make these assumptions explicit, and to contrast them systematically. In so doing, we show theories of history are necessary: IR-theoretic research unavoidably has tacit or overt historical-theoretic commitments. We locate the field's current historical commitments in a typology, along two axes. Theories of history may be either familiar to the observer or unfamiliar. They may also be linear, having a long-term trajectory, nonlinear, lacking such directionality, or multilinear, proceeding along multiple trajectories. This comparative exercise both excavates the field's sometimes-obscured commitments and shows some IR theorists unexpectedly share commitments, while others unexpectedly do not. We argue that better awareness of historical-theoretic reasoning, embedded in all IR uses and invocations of history, may encourage the discipline become more genuinely plural.

show abstract

“…This theoretical approach from the perspective of Buzan and Lawson (2015) leads to assume in the national security agenda of each power, intervene in the name of security with and no longer security against, with common threats to climate change, the cyberspace and all of its surrounding hackers to cyberwar, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, space and, above all, the global economy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%