Distinguishing four sources of power in human societies – ideological, economic, military and political – The Sources of Social Power traces their interrelations throughout human history In this first volume, Michael Mann examines interrelations between these elements from neolithic times, through ancient Near Eastern civilizations, the classical Mediterranean age and medieval Europe, up to just before the Industrial Revolution in England It offers explanations of the emergence of the state and social stratification; of city-states, militaristic empires and the persistent interaction between them; of the world salvation religions; and of the particular dynamism of medieval and early modern Europe It ends by generalizing about the nature of overall social development, the varying forms of social cohesion and the role of classes and class struggle in history First published in 1986, this new edition of Volume 1 includes a new preface by the author examining the impact and legacy of the work

The sources of social power

The emergence of global history has been one of the more notable features of academic history over the past three decades. Although historians of disease were among the pioneers of one of its earlier incarnations—world history—the recent “global turn” has made relatively little impact on histories of health, disease, and medicine. Most continue to be framed by familiar entities such as the colony or nation-state or are confined to particular medical “traditions.” This article aims to show what can be gained from taking a broader perspective. Its purpose is not to replace other ways of seeing or to write a new “grand narrative” but to show how transnational and transimperial approaches are vital to understanding some of the key issues with which historians of health, disease, and medicine are concerned. Moving on from an analysis of earlier periods of integration, the article offers some reflections on our own era of globalization and on the emerging field of global health.

/pdf/a-global-perspective-reframing-the-history-of-health-24gjsxnbh1.pdf

A Global Perspective: Reframing the History of Health, Medicine, and Disease.

Globalization - Social Theory and Global Culture

The question \"what causes alignment?\" is a central issue in debates on American foreign policy, and the choices that are made often turn on which hypotheses of alliance formation are endorsed. In general, those who believe that American security is fragile most often assume that Soviet allies are reliable and America's are prone to defect, while those who believe it is robust tend to view American allies as stronger and more reliable than those of the U.S.S.R. These divergent beliefs clash over a variety of specific issues. For example, should the U.S. increase its commitment to NATO, to prevent the growth of Soviet military power from leading to the \"Finlandization\" of Europe? Alternatively, should the U.S. do less in the expectation that its allies will do more? Should the U.S. oppose leftist regimes in the developing world because their domestic ideology will lead them to ally with the Soviet Union, or can a policy of accommodating radical nationalist regimes lead to good relations with them? Can Soviet or American military aid create reliable proxies in the Third World? Is it worth the effort and expense? Each of these questions carries important implications for American national security policy, and the answers ultimately turn upon which hypotheses of alliance formation are believed to be most valid. Despite the obvious importance of understanding how states select their partners, most scholarly research on alliances has ignored or obscured these questions.' This article is intended to, correct these omissions by outlining

Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power

Theories of the product cycle, hegemony, and the world system are used to analyze the creation and development of the Northeast Asian political economy in this century. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have each developed in a particular relationship with the others; the three taken together form a hierarchical, constantly interacting political-economic unit. During the period of colonial rule Japan was unique in building an imperial economic unit marked by a strong role for the state (whether in Tokyo or Taipei), by a tight, integral Unking of all three nations into a communications and transport network running toward the metropole, and by a strategy of both using the colonies for agricultural surpluses and then locating industries there. After 1945 a diffuse American hegemony replaced Japan's unilateral system, but elements of the prewar model have survived: strong states direct economic development in South Korea and Taiwan (here termed “bureaucratic-authoritarian industrializing regimes”); both countries are receptacles for Japan's declining industries; and both countries develop in tandem, if in competition, with each other. The most recent export-led competition has seen Taiwan succeed where South Korea has (temporarily?) failed, leaving Seoul in an export-led “trap,” burdened with rapidly increasing external debt. Taiwan, furthermore, has industrialized relatively free of social disruption, whereas Korean society resisted its transformation at Japanese hands and remains more rebellious today. There can be one Japan and one Taiwan, but not two or many of either, in the world economy.

The origins and development of the Northeast Asian political economy: industrial sectors, product cycles, and political consequences

Geschichte der Welt; 1945 bis heute

rent generation of cruise missiles to provide a convincing deterrent, either militarily or politically. Although, as Owen notes, work is being done in the United States to develop a long-range, hypersonic cruise missile, we are unlikely to know for another 10– 15 years whether that will be a credible deterrent—and, if so, at what cost. Nuclear Papers is an appropriate title for this book, which skips across several different nuclear issues. Fortunately, what the book lacks in coherence is more than compensated for by Owen’s account of the Chevaline debates and what can be learned from them.

Kuan-Hsing Chen, Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010. 321 pp.

The historical scholarship clearly lagged behind history in the sense of the world “realities” that began to change dramatically after the 1970s (some would say the 1960s.) The Cold War no longer shaped world affairs, if indeed it ever had. The pace of globalization began to accelerate, with the implication that US economic hegemony was increasingly challenged and undermined by the European community, Japan, and later by China and other countries. New developments such as transnational concerns with environmental disasters, energy shortages, and human rights abuses came to eclipse geopolitical vicissitudes. The authority of the central government began to diminish, as did the idea and practice of the modern welfare state. Multinational corporations and non-governmental organizations proliferated. Despite this, historians were very slow to recognize the passing of an ear. It took them two decades to bring these recent developments into their conceptions of history. Why was this time lag? The chapter suggests that it was due both to the continuing preoccupation of historians with national and international (geopolitical) affairs, and to the still predominant influence of the West in scholarly pursuits.

Akira Iriye

Papers

Geschichte der Welt; 1945 bis heute

Kuan-Hsing Chen, Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010. 321 pp.

Historians Falling Behind History

Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the United States, and the Modern Historical Experience

American, Chinese, and Japanese perspectives on wartime Asia, 1931-1949