The Politics of Postmodernity: An Introduction to Contemporary Politics and Culture
Publication Year: 1999
What happens to politics in the postmodern condition? The Politics of Postmodernity is a political tour de force that addresses this key contemporary question. Politics in postmodernity is carefully contextualized by relating its specific sphere - the polity - to those of the economic, social, technological and cultural. The authors confront globalization and the notion of postmodernity as disorganized capitalism. They analyze the role of the mass media, the changing ways in which politics is used, the role of the state and the progressive potential of politics in postmodern times. Closing with a postscript on the future of the discipline of political science, this book offers a profound yet highly accessible account
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: The Languages of Postmodernism
- Chapter 2: Postmodernization
- Chapter 3: Mass Media, Postmodernity and Everyday Life
- Chapter 4: The Postmodern Self
- Chapter 5: Lifestyle in Postmodernity
- Chapter 6: Values, New Politics and New Social Movements
- Chapter 7: The New State, Transnationalism and the International Order
- Chapter 8: Postmodern Political Futures
© John R. Gibbins and Bo Reimer 1999
First published 1999
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publishers.
SAGE Publications Ltd
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications Inc
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
32, M-Block Market
Greater Kailash - I
New Delhi 110 048
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0 7619 5222 5
ISBN 0 7619 5223 3 (pbk)
Library of Congress catalog available
Typeset in Palatino by M Rules
Printed in Great Britain by Biddles Ltd, Guildford, Surrey
We wish to thank the European Science Foundation for providing us with the opportunity to converse during participation in the Beliefs in Government Project (1989–1995), to Max Kaase and Ken Newton, the directors of the project, and to Jan Van Deth and Elinor Scarbrough, convenors of the Impact of Values working group. Support for John Gibbins also came from the Ferran Requejo, the doctoral students, Anita Noguera, Angel Guevara Casanovas, and the Facultat de Ciencies Socials i de la Communicacio, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona for the opportunities a visiting post gave, to draft chapters in Spring 1997. Thanks are due to the University of Teesside for the time and to its Centre for Social and Policy Research for encouragement. Bo Reimer wishes to express his gratitude to faculty and students at the Department of Communication, San Jose State University, as well as to colleagues at the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Göteborg University. A special thanks to Magnus Andersson, Andre Jansson and James Lull for stimulating discussions and valuable suggestions.
Postscript: The Future of Political Science[Page 167]
How can political science respond to the challenges posed by postmodernity? This question divides into two others: (1) How do we do political science in post-modernity? And (2) How do we organize the political science profession in postmodernity? Answers to these questions will depend upon how we define the key concepts ‘political’, ‘postmodern’, ‘political science’ and ‘professional’. The first two have been analysed extensively above, but we must comment on the latter two. By political science can be meant the narrow field of empirical and positivistic studies of politics that have blossomed since the 1950s in American and Western European political science and government departments, associated with such figures as Almond, Blondel, Dahl, Easton, Lasswell, Lipset, Parsons, Rokkan and Verba – all men. At the other end of the spectrum political science is the general term for the whole family of disciplines and approaches that study politics, in political theory, philosophy, sociology, psychology, history, management, geography, social policy, criminology, media and cultural studies – many led by women.
We intend to answer the question in regard to the second definition. By a profession we mean an occupational grouping established by its varying ability to monopolize a specialist skill and service provision; by the recognition that it can control entry, training, [Page 168]discipline and exit; and that it is allowed to regulate itself by having its own code of conduct, impose its own standards, and transmit a common culture to its members.
Postmodern discourse, we argued, arises both from changes in the way we look at the world and from changes in the world. We may summarize the new challenge for a postmodern political science by two arguments: the epistemological world of modern political science has changed, and so has that modern world it studies (Gibbins and Reimer 1995). In summary, many political scientists are somewhere along the line of abandoning empiricism, foundationalism, univer-salism and the idea of academic neutrality in epistemology, and they find themselves studying a world where the older practices, institutions and belief systems associated with modern liberal democracies seem to be undergoing radical and asystemic change.
Epistemologically, postmodernists are moving to explore how we can study this new world by embracing contemporary trends towards neo-idealist hermeneutic epistemologies, towards an array of anti-foundational hermeneutic or phenomenological methods, and by a commitment to study the diverse and the particular – alongside a realization that knowledge is connected to power in newer and deeper ways. We must also consider reinventions of old actors in politics, as well as acknowledging new actors, values, allegiances, behaviours, structures, parties, movements, processes and organizations – locally, nationally and globally.
A number of new directions for political science seem to be emerging from this encounter with postmodernism, all of which suggest that a restructuring or [Page 169]reinvention metaphor may be appropriate to characterize the situation. Although most of our examples are British, we consider that the restructurings to which we refer have applications to the wider Western world. At the heart is the abandonment of the idea that political science is a unitary study with a consensus on methods. Most departments today are recognizably multi-disciplinary and multi-paradigmatic and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Next, political science is today abandoning the enterprise of defending discipline boundaries and is entering the less chartered waters of inter- and multi-disciplinary study. It is now the norm for scholars to have to understand the languages of many, if not all, of the disciplines listed above, so political historians today, much to the chagrin of Oakeshott, must respond to the language and agenda of sociologists who study movements, professionalization and postmodernization; to media and cultural theorists studying construction and representation; to gender theorists studying feminism and masculinities; and to poststructuralist philosophers such as Foucault and Lyotard.
Whereas critical analysis is the basis of all modern political science, the art of deconstruction is newer and more profound. Here the minimal aim is to challenge and deny the binaries around which political science is constructed – binaries such as science/arts, public/private, political/moral, legal/criminal, legitimate/subversive – as have feminists and critical theorists, and then to explore various points inbetween. Concerted deconstruction would seek to challenge the whole vocabulary of political science in order to reveal implicit values, the power implied by knowledge, and the exclusionary effects of various discourses. As postmodernism [Page 170]is shaped so centrally by the new philosophies of language, we envisage that political science will be shaped in the future by the explicit rather than implicit application of linguistic devices, and by the study of discourses, voices, vocabularies, texts, authors, canons, genres, conversations and dialogical methods.
The acceptance of the relationship of knowledge/power in political science should lead to a rewriting of the history of the subject, and especially the unearthing of the economic, political and social contexts accompanying the development of its agenda, and of the manipulative role of intellectuals and other professionals. Just as feminists have unearthed the male nature of political science, and post-colonialists are unearthing the imperialistic character of Western political science, so will we need to go on and rewrite our history from the vantage point of other excluded minority groups. The changing of the political science canon should follow on from this endeavour so that minor pamphleteers, journalists, union officials and activists will gain the same status in the canon as members of representative assemblies and academics. We will need to look at the abuses as well as the uses of political science and its poor track record of assisting the already powerful and handicapping the excluded.
This will direct us to new sites for study, beyond those contained in the core subjects in most political science undergraduate programmes. We should expect the whole gamut of excluded groups, processes of exclusion and writing out of history to be made visible, such as modules on gay politics; animal rights; film, novels, art, music and the media; the study of the politics involved in school curriculum, newspapers and magazines; doctors' surgeries, shopping malls, supermarkets, [Page 171]public toilets; motor vehicles, the countryside, food production and reprocessing, tourism, sexuality, clothing and our bodies (Gibbins 1998b). It is likely that a vast amount of research will go into understanding the consumers of politics; the readers of the political texts presented by key actors.
We expect the study of political values and cultures will develop to provide insight into the way that both actors and consumers of politics are constructed and construct in turn. Political culture and the study of values, preferences and ethics should extrude formerly central concerns like political behaviour, class, ideology and power. Similarly, we expect the study of political aesthetics and style to become central in a world where simulation and the simulated are so intricately intertwined.
On methods we should expect the present explosion of types and styles so effectively found in feminism and cultural studies to continue. Methods formerly considered mutually exclusive, such as the empirical and theoretical, the comparative and the psychological, the qualitative and the quantitative, will be bound together in eclectic mixes that will survive if they work in hermeneutic terms. We should expect that just as the language and methods of literary studies and discourse analysis have now penetrated political science successfully, we may expect the same from other disciplines and fields of study, each taking turns to nourish or strangle the other.
Sceptical postmodernists will contend that as there is no correct method for political research and researching the political, we must adopt an ‘anti-rules’ method, while the affirmatives may adopt an ‘anything goes’ approach. Feyerabend's book title Against Method: [Page 172]Outlines of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (1975), seems to be the best example of the former approach, while Giddens' New Rules of Sociological Method (1976) and the eclectic collection Theory and Methods in Political Science (1995), edited by Marsh and Stoker, illustrate the second. For ourselves we promote an approach best described as ‘horses for courses’, the idea that several methodologies may well need to be blended together to provide the best method to researching a problem. We should embrace this – along with openness and reflexivity – and reject all demands that research and researchers conform to any one research strategy. This amounts to more than ‘anything goes’ (Heller 1986; Rorty 1979: 318; Rosenau 1992: 116–127). We argue that ‘more goes’ better captures the postmodern attitude to methodology.
A key conceptual link between postmodern method and theory is the tendency towards subjectivity, particularity and relativism, and away from objectivism, universalism and absolutism in their most extreme forms. Postmodernists are inclined to start with the particular forms of life and life-worlds of particular individuals and groups, and to favour methods of introspection, ethnography and interpretation. That an infinite number of life-worlds and interpretations are possible prevents ascription to any idea of final or ultimate knowledge as advanced in the Enlightenment, and by positivists and Fukuyama (1992) since. The lessons of literary studies dominate much of modern social sciences at present – notions of authors, readers, readings, texts, genres, narratives and canons – and we expect the import of methods from other fields to continue. That this may amount to a method itself is hard to contest, but it is a different, more open, critical and [Page 173]reflexive method. What it rejects is the grounding of a research project in one methodology or paradigm, such as positivism, Marxism or feminism. Postmodern feminists were the first postmodernists to reject the essentialist foundations of other variants of feminism and have shown the way forward (Fraser 1989; Fraser and Nicholson 1988; Nicholson 1990; Shildrich 1997). As well as deconstructing theories, multi-theories will be constructed. That it will not be a purely destructive method should become apparent (Habermas 1987: 161).
Political theory is already fully immersed in the experience of pluralization, differentiation and eclecticism found in cultural studies. Conference agendas and programmes will continue these trends and will see the incorporation of new theories from other disciplines and fields of study. However, theory will be entwined in a different way with practice, prescription and prognosis than was acceptable in modern political science. Whereas the founding Directors of the London School of Economics, such as Tawney, Laski and Beveridge, were promoting modernist and Fordist political projects such as the welfare state, the present incumbent, Anthony Giddens, plays a very different role, entrepreneurial, mercurial, journalistic – in short postmodern (Giddens 1998). A postmodern political scientist will not play at neutrality, but his or her loyalties and engagements will not be predictable and stable over time. Postmodernists will prescribe, but not necessarily for the good of central interests. Above all, political scientists must respond to the question of why they buy into the theories, explanations, understandings and languages they do, and need to look for non-structuralist and non-determinist answers that may allow for more engaged practices.
[Page 174]This brings us finally to question (2) around organization of the profession of political science, its research centres, departments, schools, professional bodies, journals, training, codes of conduct and culture. University academics had a monopoly on the political science profession until the late nineteenth century in Britain, but since then, under the impact of state policy to expand higher education, this has slowly been eroded. A process of de-professionalization was engendered as the state imposed control on the universities via funding bodies; conditions of entry, curriculum and training, fees and salaries, quality assessment of teaching and research, control on budgets and the research agendas via the activities of Research Councils. At the same time, university academics have fought to re-professionalize, using all the techniques listed by Foucault in aid of this project of knowledge/power: monopolization; creation of an episteme, mentality and discourse; surveillance, discipline and control (MacDonald 1995: 174–186). The rise of the big national professional associations of political scientists, with their annual conventions, bureaucracies, journals and lines of communication, their professional codes and political advocacy, illustrates this process. While the conflict between these processes of de- and re-professionalization is not and perhaps will not be resolved, we may provide an interpretation from a postmodern perspective.
Modernization, as Weber informs us, was premised upon rationalization of life, including the professions. The aspects of professions that modern states hated the most have been the pervasive and residual traditionalism at their centres. The professionalization of law, teaching, banking, the civil service, the police, army, [Page 175]clergy and architecture in the nineteenth century was conducted in a way that allowed culture and friendship to dominate. Commercialism, utilitarianism and instru-mentalism took second place to these factors. The contemporary attack on professions by New Right politicians, under the guise of an attack upon commercial monopoly, can be interpreted as a late modern attempt to rationalize the professions and impose a competitive entrepreneurial commercial ethos upon them. Alternatively, it can be interpreted as a necessary deconstructive attack on the knowledge/power processes that postmodernists encourage. The critical work by feminists such as Witz (1992) on exposing the patriarchal tenets of professions may act as a precursor of what may come in future work on the professions. We expect that the role, status and power of excluded groups, the part-time lecturers, post-graduate students, contract researchers will be renegotiated to provide greater inclusion (Doyle and McGregor-Riley 1996).
For us the fact that professions did not conform to Weber's notion of rationalization is evidence that no unilinear or universalistic account of professions will stand up to rigorous study. The current attack by The New Right on professions illustrates one effect of post-modernization: the demand that all services become able to operate in a flexible global commercial and consumer market. The work of feminists illustrates some future directions for postmodern research on professions focusing on the exclusory regimes and impacts of the operation on professional bodies (Witz 1992).
What our work on expressivism suggests is that we need to make political science a more open, reflexive and dialogical profession. Pyramidal organizations are giving way either to flatter alternatives or, as Rhodes [Page 176](1996) suggests, to interlinked and self-managed networks that need less central governance. Political scientists in postmodernity will not take easily to old-style Fordist management and will prefer some more post-Fordist alternatives (Burrows and Loader 1994; Rhodes 1996). Within academic departments it is becoming obvious that common collegiate culture and practice is harder to evoke. Most departments are loose confederations of individuals more or less internally and externally networked. Networking and being networked are now perhaps the most important determinants of the success of both academics and their departments – if we overlook the presentation, representation and reproduction of signs of prestige and achievement. University departments may wish to recognize and facilitate this in their own management of affairs. The provision of resources, resource allocation, policy making and implementation should reflect the global/local nature of political science and allow a variety of sub-organizations to bloom with self-managed budgets, all co-ordinated via regular reviews of missions and achievements and conformity to ethical standards, rather than direct and permanent regulation.
Allowing self-management should be accompanied by a recognition of differences and distinctions in organizations. That there is no right way to run a department or research centre should allow and encourage a variety of types and styles of management rather than impose a corporate model. Plurality, not monopoly, and a concern to establish and practise a code of ethics should inform the corporate strategy. Networking will be facilitated by the use of all available types of information transfer, and political organizations must ensure they [Page 177]are well placed to reflect the kind of information- or cyber-democracy that is planned for the public world. Being networked by user groups, mailing lists, web sites and subject mail groups are just some of the tools departments must ensure political scientists can access, utilize and set up for others.
Such a strategy would allow the bringing of new groups and formerly excluded groups of users into departments and debates. The opening of departments and centres to the community in its widest sense is a strategy to encourage, and will need a particular type of organization to accommodate. The modernist dichotomies of professional/practitioner, professional/client and profession/public will have to be permeated to facilitate the revised and wider role of political science conjectured above. Political activists and practitioners should be able to use political scientists as a resource. Departments will need to be networked with the movements and bodies they formerly stood outside to explain. Already this is happening around areas concerned with energy, the environment and feminism, but needs to be extended to voluntary associations, new age groups and movements around sexualities (Heelas 1996).
Within professional bodies, several lines of organizational change are indicated by a postmodern approach. National bodies should become more like new states, devolving power and budgets to small sub-groups and networks and sharing national remits and agendas with other national and international bodies, such as the Association of Learned Societies in the Social Sciences (ALSSS) and the Academy for Social Sciences (ASS) in Britain. Centrifugal pressures are resulting in the mushrooming of smaller specialist professional [Page 178]organizations, journals and networks, such as the Political Theory Collective at Oxford with its links to the Conference for the Study of Political Thought centred now at the University of Colorado, with the attendant danger that generalist national bodies will lose legitimacy. In Britain the Political Science Association recognizes this trend and has responded by expanding the list of specialist study groups, and by its co-operation with a transnational body like the European Consortium for Political Research, other national bodies such as the American Political Science Association, and international bodies such as the International Political Science Association.
Sharing, co-operating and joint funding rather than protecting, competing and budgetary sovereignty seem better ways towards realizing a postmodern political science profession. Political science needs to be a world-wide profession, and it has to make its discursive practices more widely available. Making it world-wide while encouraging access and responsiveness to the agenda of expressive individuals and groups, to practitioner groupings and the formerly excluded, all within a customer service policy that is highly inclusive, is the agenda for the future postmodern profession of political science.
References[Page 179]1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. (Revised edition.) London: Verso.(1997) ‘Media Use and Cultural Identity: Results and Reflections from an Interview Study in Two Different Parts of Gothenburg’. Paper Presented at the 13th Nordic Conference on Mass Communication Research, Jyväskylä, Finland.and (1985) Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. London: Methuen.(1969) Machiavelli: A Dissection. London: Gollancz.(1990) ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’, in M.Featherstone (ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity. London: Sage.(1992) Communitarianism and Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.and (1979) Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. London: Sage.and (1981) For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. St Louis, MO: Telos Press.(1983) Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e).(1984) ‘On Nihilism’, On the Beach, 6: 38–39.(1988) America. London: Verso.(1991) Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1992) Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge.(1993) Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.(1997) Postmodernity and its Discontents. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1984) ‘Media, Technology and Daily Life’, Media, Culture and Society, 6: 343–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344378400600403(1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.(1996) The Reinvention of Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1997) Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1994) Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press., and ([Page 180]1995) Theorizing Citizenship. Albany: State University of New York Press.(1960) The End of Ideology. New York: Free Press.(1973) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books.(1985) Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press., , and (1992) Liberalism and Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1992) Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1974) The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness. New York: Vintage Books., and (1969) Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1982) All That is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. New York: Simon and Schuster.(1995) The Idea of the Postmodern. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203359327(1991) Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations. London: Macmillan.and (1996) ‘New Developments in Deliberative Democracy’, Politics, 16: 71–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.1996.tb00023.x(1995) The Crisis of Public Communication. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203181775and (Blumler, Jay G. and ElihuKatz (eds) (1974) The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage.1987) The Future of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1996) Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1997) Democracy and Dictatorship: The Nature and Limits of State Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1992) ‘Consumption and Lifestyles’, in R.Bocock and K.Thompson (eds), Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1995) ‘The History of High and Low Culture’, in J.Fornäs and G.Bolin (eds), Youth Culture in Late Modernity. London: Sage.([Page 181]Borre, Ole and ElinorScarbrough (eds.) (1995) The Scope of Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1993) Postmodernism and Democratic Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1995) Foucault and Derrida. London: Macmillan.(1977) The Economic Consequences of Democracy. London: Temple Smith.(1988) New Forces, Old Forces and the Future of World Politics. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.(Bryant, Jennings and DolfZillman (eds.) (1994) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.1996) The New Challenge of Direct Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1977) The Anarchical Society. London: Macmillan.(Bull, Hedley and AdamWatson (eds.) (1984) The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Clarendon.1996) The Global Jukebox: The International Music Industry in Transition. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203137772(Burrows, Roger and BrianLoader (eds.) (1994) Towards a Post-Fordist Welfare State. London: Routledge.1997) Excitable Speech: The Politics of the Performative. London: Routledge.(Cahoone, Lawrence (ed.) (1996) From Modern to Post-Modern: Postmodernism in Context. Oxford: Blackwell.1989) Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. London: Unwin Hyman.(Carter, John (ed.) (1998) Postmodernity and the Fragmentation of Welfare. London: Routledge.1997) Creating Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198292589.001.0001(1986) Corporatism and Political Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.(1990) The Changing Architecture of Politics: Structure, Agency and the Future of the State. London: Sage.(1984) The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.(1996) Lifestyles. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203137468(1998) ‘Globalization, Fragmentation and Local Welfare’, in J.Carter (ed.), Postmodernity and the Fragmentation of Welfare. London: Routledge.([Page 182]1983) The Terms of Political Discourse.(2nd edition. Oxford: Martin Robertson.1988) Political Theory and Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.(1991) Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.(1995) The Ethics of Pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.(1996) The Post-Modern State and the World Order. London: Demos.(1992) Postmodernization: Change in Advanced Society. London: Sage., and (Crouch, Colin and DavidMarquand (eds.) (1995) Reinventing Collective Action. Oxford: Blackwell.1997) Civic Virtues: Rights, Citizenship and Republican Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1988) Citizen Politics in Western Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.(1992) Media Events: The Live Broadcasting of History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.and (1996) Agenda-Setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243283and (1994) The Political Philosophy of Hannah Arendt. London: Routledge.(1982) Margins of Philosophy. Brighton: Harvester.(1995) Our Politics, Our Selves? Liberalism, Identity, and Harm. Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1996) ‘Political Science: A Look at the Discipline from a Postgraduate Perspective’, Politics, 16: 113–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.1996.tb00029.xand (Dunn, John (ed.) (1994) ‘Contemporary Crisis of the Nation State, Special Issue’, Political Studies, 42: 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1994.tb00002.x1988) Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1987) ‘Introduction: Historical Traditions, Modernization and Development’, in S.N.Eisenstadt (ed.), Patterns of Modernity: Volume 1. The West. London: Frances Pinter.(1998) Virtual States: Globalization, Inequality and the Internet. London: Routledge.(1985) ‘The Fate of Modernity: An Introduction’, Theory, Culture & Society, 2(3): 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276485002003002([Page 183]1988) ‘In Pursuit of the Postmodern’, Theory, Culture & Society, 5(2–3): 195–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276488005002001(1991) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446212424(Featherstone, Mike, ScottLash and RolandRobertson (eds.) (1995) Global Modernities. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/97814462505631975) Against Method. London: New Left Books.(1987) Television Culture. London: Methuen.(1989) Understanding Popular Culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman.(1996) Media Matters: Race and Gender in US Politics. Revised edition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1987) ‘Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory’, Signs, 12: 621–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/494359(1993) Disputed Subjects: Essays on Psychoanalysis, Politics and Philosophy. London: Routledge.(1967) ‘Moral Beliefs’, in P.Foot (ed.), Theories of Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1995) Cultural Theory and Late Modernity. London: Sage.(1995) ‘Expressionism’, in F.Frascini and J.Harris (eds.), Art in Modern Culture. London: Phaidon.(1995) Postmodern Public Administration: Towards Discourse. London: Sage.and (1989) Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1988) ‘Social Criticism without Philosophy: An Encounter between Feminism and Postmodernism’, Theory, Culture & Society, 5: 374–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276488005002009and (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1955–1956/1962) ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, in M.Black (ed.), The Importance of Language. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.(1994) Female Fetishism: A New Look. London: Lawrence and Wishart.and (1995) Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(1989a) ‘Contemporary Political Culture: An Introduction’, in J.Gibbins (ed.), Contemporary Political Culture: Politics in a Postmodern Age. London: Sage.(Gibbins, John (ed.) (1989b) Contemporary Political Culture: Politics in a Postmodern Age. London: Sage.[Page 184]1990) ‘The New State and the Impact of Values’. Unpublished paper, European Science Foundation.(1998a) ‘Postmodernism, Poststructuralism and Social Policy’, in J.Carter (ed.), Postmodernity and the Fragmentation of Welfare. London: Routledge.(1998b) ‘Sexuality and the Law: The Body in Politics’, in T.Carver and V.Mottier (eds), Politics of Sexuality. London: Routledge.(1995) ‘Postmodernism’, in J.van Deth and E.Scarbrough (eds), The Impact of Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.and (1998) ‘Lifestyles’, Working Paper. Gothenburg: Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Gothenburg University.and (1993) Dirty Looks: Women, Pornography, Power. London: British Film Institute.and (1976) New Rules of Sociological Method. London: Hutchinson.(1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1992) The Transformation of Intimacy. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1994) Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1997) Critical Assessments. London: Heinemann.(1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1994) ‘The Theory and Politics of Contemporary Social Movements’, Politics, 14: 59–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.1994.tb00118.x(1996) Enlightenments Wake: Politics and Culture at the End of the Modern Age. London: Routledge.(1997) Endgames: Questions in Late Modern Political Thought. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1995) Sexy Bodies: The Strange Carnalities of Feminism. London: Routledge.and (1870) An Examination of the Utilitarian Philosophy. Cambridge: Deighton and Bell.(1876) A Treatise on the Moral Ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.([Page 185]1992) ‘Recent Value Changes in Western Europe’, Futures, May, 301–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287%2892%2990060-S(1994) Beyond Postmodern Politics: Lyotard, Rorty, Foucault. London: Routledge.(1962/1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1976) Legitimation Crisis. London: Heinemann.(1987) The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2. Boston: Beacon Press.(1990) The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1989) The State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(Hall, John (ed.) (1995) Civil Society: Theory, History, Comparison. Oxford: Polity Press.1992) ‘The Question of Cultural Identity’, in S.Hall, D.Held and T.McGrew (eds) Modernity and its Futures. Cambridge: Polity Press.(Hall, Stuart and BramGieben (eds) (1992) Formations of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805116280921983) Cultural Autonomy in Global Communications. New York: Longman.(1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.(1971/1982) The Dismemberment of Orpheus: Towards a Postmodern Literature.(2nd edition. London: University of Wisconsin Press.1985) ‘The Culture of Postmodernism’, Theory, Culture & Society, 2: 119–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276485002003010(1990) Elements of a Postmodern Feminism. Boston: Northeastern University Press.(1996) New Age Movements. Oxford: Blackwell.(1995) Detraditionalization. Oxford: Blackwell., and (1989) Political Theory and the Modern State. Cambridge: Polity Press.(Held, David (ed.) (1993) Prospects for Democracy: North, South, East, West. Cambridge: Polity Press.1995a) ‘Democracy and the New World Order’, in D.Held and D.Archibugi (eds), Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1995b) Democracy and the Global Order: From Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.([Page 186]Held, David and DanielleArchibugi (eds) (1995) Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.1989) The Postmodern Political Condition. Oxford: Blackwell.and (Heller, Ferenc (ed.) (1986) The Use and Abuse of Social Science. London: Sage.1994) Associative Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.(Hirst, Paul and SunilKhilnani (eds) (1996) Reinventing Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.1995) Beyond the State. Oxford: Polity Press.(1945) ‘The Postmodern House’, Architectural Record, 97: 70–75.(1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Democracies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1994) ‘Economic Security and Value Change’, American Political Science Review, 88: 336–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2944708and (1995) ‘Religious and Ethical Pluralism’, in J.van Deth and E.Scarbrough (eds), The Impact of Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.and (1989) ‘Changes in the Political Culture – Challenges to the Trade Union Movement: The Debate on Nuclear Energy in Swedish and German Trade Unions’, in J.Gibbins (ed.), Contemporary Political Culture: Politics in a Postmodern Age. London: Sage.(1989) ‘Marxism and Postmodernism’, New Left Review, 176: 31–45.(1991) Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Verso.(1998) Contested Meanings: Audience Studies and the Concept of Cultural Identity. Paper Presented at the 2nd Crossroads in Cultural Studies Conference, Tampere, Finland.(1989) Continuities in Political Action. Berlin: de Gruyter.and et al. (1982) The Capitalist State. Oxford: Martin Robertson.(1981) ‘Radio and Everyday Life: The Early Years of Broadcasting’, Media, Culture and Society, 3: 167–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344378100300206(1995) Beliefs in Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.and ([Page 187]King, Anthony D. (ed.) (1991) Culture, Globalization and the World-System. Binghamton: Dept of Art and Art History, State University of New York at Binghamton.1995) ‘The Times and Spaces of Modernity (or Who Needs Postmodernism?)’, in M.Featherstone, S.Lash and R.Robertson (eds), Global Modernities. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250563(1983) Wertorientierung und Staatsbezug: Untersuchungen zur Politischen Kultur in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frankfurt: Campus.and (1996) The Ethics of Policing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139172851(Klingemann, Hans-Dieter and DieterFuchs (eds) (1995) Citizens and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1998) ‘Fashion in the Face of Postmodernity’, in A.A.Berger (ed.), The Postmodern Presence: Readings on Postmodernism in American Culture and Society. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.and (1988) The Postmodern Scene: Excremental Culture and Hyper-Aesthetics. London: Macmillan.and (1978) Prophecy and Progress: The Sociology of Industrial and Post-Industrial Society. Harmondsworth: Pelican.(1995) From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society: New Theories of the Contemporary World. Oxford: Blackwell.(1990) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1995) Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon.(1997) ‘Do We Need a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights? Reply to Carens, Young, Parekh and Forst’, New Constellation, 4: 72–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00038(1994) ‘Communitarianism’, Politics, 14: 75–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.1994.tb00120.xand (1990) New Reflections on the Revolution of our Times. London: Verso.(1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.and (1992) In der greet van De moderne tijd, Modernisering En verzuiling: Evoluies binner de ACU – Vormingsorganisaties. Leuven: Appeldoorn Garant.(1987) The End of Organized Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.and (1994) Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.and ([Page 188]1992) ‘General Social Theory, Irony, Postmodernism’, in S.Seidman and D.G.Wagner (eds), Postmodernism and Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.(1997) Postmodern Welfare: Reconstructing an Emancipatory Project. London: Sage.(1990) The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of Dallas. New York: Oxford University Press.and (1996) ‘On the Continuing Problem of Media Effects’, in J.Curran and M.Gurevitch (eds), Mass Media and Society.(2nd edition. London: Arnold.Loader, Brian (ed.) (1997) The Governance of Cyberspace: Politics, Technology and Global Restructuring. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203360408Loader, Brian (ed.) (1998) Cyberspace Divide: Agency, Equality and Autonomy in the Information Society. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/97802031695371990) Inside Family Viewing: Ethnographic Research on Televisions Audiences. London: Routledge.(1995) Media, Communication, Culture: A Global Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1995) ‘Feminist Political Orientations’, in J.van Deth and E.Scarbrough (eds), The Impact of Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1994) Postmodernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.(1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.(1995) The Sociology of the Professions. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446222188(1992) ‘A Global Society?’, in S.Hall, D.Held and T.McGrew (eds), Modernity and its Futures. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1997) ‘Rorty, Literary Narratives and Political Philosophy’, History of the Human Sciences, 10: 29–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/095269519701000402(1994) Mass Communication Theory.(3rd edition. London: Sage.1917) Ancient Law. London: Dent.(Marsh, David and GerryStoker (eds) (1995) Theory and Methods in Political Science. London: Macmillan.1980) ‘New Social Movements: A Theoretical Approach’, Social Science Information, 19: 199–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/053901848001900201(1988) ‘Social Movements and the Democratization of Everyday Life’, in J.Keane (ed.), Civil Society and the State. London: Verso.(1989) Nomads of the Present. London: Hutchinson.([Page 189]1989) Toleration and the Limits of Liberalism. London: Macmillan.(1996) ‘Some Mistakes in Impartiality’, Political Studies, 44: 319–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00332.x(1985) No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.(1979) Politics in Industrial Society: The Experience of the British Political System since 1911. London: Andre Deutsch.(1965) Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally.(1995) ‘Citizenship and Pluralism’, Political Studies, 43: 432–450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1995.tb00313.x(1959) The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1996) Trust in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1990) Psychoanalysis and Feminism.(2nd edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Mohammadi, Ali (ed.) (1997) International Communication and Globalization. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/97814462503101903) Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1988) ‘“The Box on the Dresser”: Memories of Early Radio and Everyday Life’, Media, Culture and Society, 10: 23–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344388010001003(1995) ‘Media, Modernity, and Lived Experience’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 19: 5–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019685999501900101(1996) Satellite Television and Everyday Life: Articulating Technology. Luton: John Libbey Media.(1986) Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure. London: Comedia.(1989) ‘The Politics of Consumption’, in S.Hall and M.Jacques (eds), New Times: The Changing Face of Politics in the 1990s. London: Lawrence and Wishart.(1996) The Culture of Consumption: Masculinities and Social Space in Late Twentieth-Century Britain. London: Routledge.(1988) ‘Radical Democracy: Modern or Postmodern?’, in A.Ross (ed.), Universalism Abandoned? The Politics of Postmodernism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.(Mouffe, Chantal (ed.) (1992) Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. London: Verso.1993) ‘Liberal Socialism and Pluralism: Which Citizenship?’, in J.Squires (ed.), Principled Positions. London: Lawrence and Wishart.([Page 190]1992) Liberals and Communitarians. Oxford: Blackwell.and (1989) ‘Fordism and Post-Fordism’, in S.Hall and M.Jacques (eds), New Times: The Changing Face of Politics in the 1990s. London: Lawrence and Wishart.(1987) ‘Television as a Cultural Forum’, in H.Newcomb (ed.), Television: The Critical View.and (4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Nicholson, Linda J. (ed.) (1990) Feminism/Postmodernism. London: Routledge.Niedermayer, Oskar and RichardSinnott (eds) (1995) Public Opinion and Internationalized Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1933) Experience and its Modes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.(1973) The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St Martins Press.(1984) Accumulation Crisis. New York: Blackwell.(1984) Contradictions of the Welfare State. London: Hutchinson.(1985) Disorganized Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1995) Modernity and the State. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1990) Citizenship and Community: Civic Republicanism and the Modern World. London: Routledge.(1973) ‘The Time Motif in Machiavelli’, in M.Fleisher (ed.), Machiavelli and the Nature of Modern Political Thought. London: Croom Helm.(1917) Die Krisis der Europäischen Kultur. Nuremberg: Hans Carl.(1993) ‘The Cultural Particularity of Liberal Democracy’, in D.Held (ed.), Prospects for Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1997) ‘Minority Practices and Principles of Toleration’, International Migration Review, 30: 251–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2547469(1989) ‘Symbols and Politics as Culture in the Modern Situation: The Problem and Prospects of the “New”’, in J.Gibbins (ed.), Contemporary Political Culture: Politics in a Postmodern Age. London: Sage.(1997) Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1993) Democracy and Difference. Cambridge: Polity Press.([Page 191]1994) ‘Pluralism, Solidarity and Change’, in J.Weeks (ed.), The Lesser Evil and the Greater Good. London: River Oram Press.(1995) The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Clarendon.(1997) ‘The Sleeping Night-Watchman and Some Alternatives: Citizenship, Participation and Bases for Democratic Legislation in Britain’, Government and Opposition, 32: 340–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1997.tb00774.x(1973) Politics, Language and Time. New York: Athenaeum.(1975) The Machiavellian Moment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1990) The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1984) Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. London: Verso.(1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.(1989) ‘Postmodern Structures of Feeling. Values and Life Style in the Postmodern Age’, in J.Gibbins (ed.), Contemporary Political Culture: Politics in a Postmodern Age. London: Sage.(1994) The Most Common of Practices: On Mass Media Use in Late Modernity. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.(1995) ‘The Media in Public and Private Spheres’, in J.Fornäs and G.Bolin (eds), Youth Culture in Late Modernity. London: Sage.(1997) ‘Texts, Contexts, Structures. Audience Studies and the Micro-Macro Link’, in U.Carlsson (ed.), Beyond Media Uses and Effects. Gothenburg: Nordicom.(1998) ‘Diversity and Polarization: On Mediazation Processes in Late Modernity’, in H.W.Giessen (ed.), Long-Term Consequences on Social Structures through Mass Media Impact. Berlin: Vistas.(1989) ‘Incommensurability, International Theory and the Fragmentation of Western Culture’, in J.Gibbins (ed.), Contemporary Political Culture: Politics in a Postmodern Age. London: Sage.(1995) Political Theory, Modernity and Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.(1996) ‘The New Governance: Governing without Government’, Political Studies, 44: 652–667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x(1992) Globalization. Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.([Page 192]1995) ‘Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity’, in M.Featherstone, S.Lash and R.Robertson (eds), Global Modernities. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250563(1985) ‘Modernization, Globalization and the Problem of Culture in World-Systems Theory’, Theory, Culture & Society, 2: 103–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276485002003009and (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Blackwell.(1983) ‘Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism’, Journal of Philosophy, 80: 583–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2026153(1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804397(1991) The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1992) Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1992) Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521775and (Rosengren, Karl Erik, LawrenceA. Wenner and PhilipPalmgreen (eds) (1985) Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage.1972) Relative Deprivation and Social Justice. Harmondsworth: Pelican.(1988) Culture and Politics. London: Macmillan.(1982) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1996) Democracys Discontent: America in Search of a Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1985) ‘Corporatism and Urban Service Provision’, in W.Grant (ed.), The Political Economy of Corporatism. London: Macmillan.(1995) ‘Materialist-Postmaterialist Value Orientations’, in J.van Deth and E.Scarbrough (eds), The Impact of Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1976) Communication and Cultural Domination. New York: M.E. Sharpe.(1996) Information Inequality: The Deepening Social Crisis in America. New York: Routledge.(1989) ‘From “Old Politics” to “New Politics”: Three Decades of Peace Protest in Western Germany’, in J.Gibbins (ed.), Contemporary Political Culture: Politics in a Postmodern Age. London: Sage.([Page 193]1973) The Structures of the Life-World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.and (1967) ‘How to Derive “Ought” from “Is”’, in P.Foot (ed.), Theories of Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.(Segal, Lyn (ed.) (1997) The New Sexual Agenda. London: Macmillan.1996) ‘Richard Rorty and the Problem of the Person’, Politics, 16: 39–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.1996.tb00145.x(1998) Contested Knowledge: Social Theory in the Postmodern Era.(2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.1995) The Trace of Political Representation. Albany: State University of New York Press.(1992) Lifestyle Shopping: The Subject of Consumption. London: Routledge.(1997) Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)Ethics. London: Routledge.(1994) Television and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.(1993) Postmodernity. London: Routledge.(1945) Place, Taste and Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(Somervell, D.C. (ed.) (1946) A Study of History by Arnold J. Toynbee, Oxford: Oxford University Press.1993) ‘Postmodernism, Subjectivity and the Question of Value’, in J.Squires (ed.), Principled Positions: Postmodernism and the Rediscovery of Values. London: Lawrence and Wishart.(Squires, Judith (ed.) (1993) Principled Positions: Postmodernism and the Rediscovery of Values. London: Lawrence and Wishart.1994) ‘Ordering the City: Public Space and Political Representation’, in J.Weeks (ed.), The Lesser Evil and the Greater Good. London: River Oram Press.(1996) ‘The Global and the Local in International Communications’, in J.Curran and M.Gurevitch (eds), Mass Media and Society.(2nd edition. London: Arnold.1989) Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1992) Civil Society. London: Routledge.(1997) Thinking Politics: Perspectives in Ancient, Modern, and Postmodern Political Theory. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.(1995a) European Modernity and Beyond: The Trajectory of European Societies 1945–2000. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446222317(1995b) ‘Routes to/Through Modernity’, in M.Featherstone, S.Lash and R.Robertson (eds), Global Modernities. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250563([Page 194]1996) ‘The New State and International Capital Flows’, Government and Opposition, 32: 84–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1997.tb01211.x(1995) The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.(Tomlinson, Alan (ed.) (1990) Consumption, Identity and Style: Marketings, Meanings, and the Packaging of Leisure. London: Routledge.1991) Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.(1974) The Post-Industrial Society. London: Wildwood House.(1997) What is Democracy?Boulder, CO: Westview.(1939) A Study of History. Vols 1–6. London: Oxford University Press.(Tsagarousianou, Roza, DamienTambini and CathyByran (eds) (1997) Cyberdemocracy. London: Routledge.1995) ‘Introduction: The Impact of Values’, in J.van Deth and E.Scarbrough (eds), The Impact of Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(van Deth, Jan and ElinorScarbrough (eds) (1995) The Impact of Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1988) The End of Modernity: Nihilism and Hermeneutics in Post-Modern Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1992) The Transparent Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1899/1949) The Theory of the Leisure Class. London: George Allen and Unwin.(1990) L'Inertie polaire. Paris: Christian Bourgeois.(1983) Spheres of Justice. Oxford: Martin Robertson.(1997) On Tolerance, London: Yale University Press.(1995) Globalization. London: Routledge.(1994) Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559167(1968) Economy and Society. New York: Free Press.(1993) ‘Rediscovering Values’, in J.Squires (ed.), Principled Positions: Postmodernism and the Rediscovery of Values. London: Lawrence and Wishart.(1995) Invented Moralities: Sexual Values in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.(Weintraub, Jeff and KrishanKumar (eds) (1997) Public and Private in Thought and Practice. London: University of Chicago Press.[Page 195]1993) Political Theory and Postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1961) The Long Revolution: An Analysis of the Democratic, Industrial and Cultural Changes Transforming Our Society. London: Chatto and Windus.(1974) ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’, in B.Wilson (ed.), Rationality. Oxford: Blackwell.(1958) Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.(1992) Professions and Patriarchy. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203167786(1994) Postmodern Revisionings of the Political. London: Routledge.(1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1993) ‘Together in Difference: Transforming the Logic of Group Political Conflict’, in J.Squires (ed.), Principled Positions: Postmodernism and the Rediscovery of Values. London: Lawrence and Wishart.(1997) ‘On Norberto Bobbios Theory of Democracy’, Political Theory, 25: 377–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591797025003003(1986) Ny ungdom: Om ovanliga läroprocesser. Stockholm: Norstedts.(