an in from 1250-1350, or whether they are dominated by a world power - "the undisputed hegemonic power of the United States " as she put it.
             I do not think of globalization as a world [trade] system; it is far more. Consequently, history may not supply examples that support the idea of impermanence, but rather indicate how previous systems do not prepare us for understanding globality. As a phenomenon, globality may now have entered the time scale of deep, persistent cultural developments not transient political change. I currently think of globality as a bundle of phenomena not a theory, and the bundle seems to me unevenly distributed, relatively permanent, and still unfolding.
             Much as I admire Scholte's approach, I feel there are problems with globalization as globality. Globality cannot be separated from the history of global exchanges of biota, people, goods, capital. Scholte's history of the growth of globality is fine, but those of us working with the past can perform a service to the project by looking for connections between t
             ...