Scholars have long argued over whether the 1648 Peace of Westphalia; which ended more than a century of religious conflict arising from the Protestant Reformations; inaugurated the modern sovereign-state system. But they largely ignore a more fundamental question: why did the emergence of new forms of religious heterodoxy during the Reformations spark such violent upheaval and nearly topple the old political order? In this book; Daniel Nexon demonstrates that the answer lies in understanding how the mobilization of transnational religious movements intersects with--and can destabilize--imperial forms of rule. Taking a fresh look at the pivotal events of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries--including the Schmalkaldic War; the Dutch Revolt; and the Thirty Years' War--Nexon argues that early modern "composite" political communities had more in common with empires than with modern states; and introduces a theory of imperial dynamics that explains how religious movements altered Europe's balance of power. He shows how the Reformations gave rise to crosscutting religious networks that undermined the ability of early modern European rulers to divide and contain local resistance to their authority. In doing so; the Reformations produced a series of crises in the European order and crippled the Habsburg bid for hegemony. Nexon's account of these processes provides a theoretical and analytic framework that not only challenges the way international relations scholars think about state formation and international change; but enables us to better understand global politics today.
#269051 in Books Alexei Yurchak 2005-10-23Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.18 x .88 x 6.12l; 1.11 #File Name: 0691121176352 pagesEverything Was Forever Until It Was No More The Last Soviet Generation
Review
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful. A brilliant account of the interior meaning of everyday life for ordinary soviet citizensBy Nils GilmanJust loved this -- a brilliant study of how everyday citizens (as opposed to active supporters or dissidents) cope with living in a decadent dictatorship; through strategies of ignoring the powerful; focusing on hyperlocal socialities; treating ritualized support for the regime as little more than an annoying chore; and withdrawal into subcultures. Yurchak demolishes the view that the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were either blind support (though his accounts of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling) or active resistance; while at the same time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet socialism (equality; education; friendship; community; etc) were in fact deeply held by many in the population. While his entire account is a tacit meditation on the manifold unpleasantnesses of living under the Soviet system; Yurchak also makes clear that it was not all unpleasantness and that indeed for some people (such as theoretical physicists) life under Soviet socialism was in some ways freer than for their peers in the West. All of which makes the book function (sotto voce) as an explanation for the nostalgia that many in Russia today feel for Soviet times - something inexplicable to those who claim that Communism was simply and nothing but an evil.The theoretical vehicle for Yurchak's investigation is the divergence between the performative rather than the constative dimensions of the "authoritative discourse" of the late Soviet regime. One might say that his basic thesis is that; for most Soviet people; the attitude toward the authorities was "They pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality; and we pretend to believe them." Yurchak rightly observes that one can neither interpret the decision to vote in favor of an official resolution or to display a pro-government slogan at a rally as being an unambiguous statement of regime support; nor assume that these actions were directly coerced. People were expected to perform these rituals; but they developed "a complexly differentiating relationship to the ideological meanings; norms; and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the context; they might reject a certain meaning; norm or value; be apathetic about another; continue actively subscribing to a third; creatively reinterpret a fourth; and so on." (28-29)The result was that; as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely formalist incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the 1950s onwards); Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because of fervent belief; which in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity and meaning. Soviet citizens would go to cafes and talk about music and literature; join a rock band or art collective; take silly jobs that required little effort and thus left room for them to pursue their "interests." The very drabness of the standardizations of Soviet life therefore created new sorts of (admittedly constrained) spaces within which people could define themselves and their (inter)subjective meanings. All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation of the "totalitarianism" thesis; demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the regime; citizens were continually able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative discourse.5 of 5 people found the following review helpful. Interesting; but not descriptive enoughBy antithesisI was born in Soviet union (not Russia) and was looking for a deeper insight into what the life was like back then (I only got to experience very few years of it). The book does give part of impression of this; however it is very focused on Russia and only looks at very few very specific topics. I missed more descriptive rather than analytical parts. Analysis is interesting; but sometimes comes too deep for somebody who has not have full background of what happened and what was the setting.I would only recommend this book for somebody who has deep knowledge and possible first-hand experience of the collapse of Soviet union.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Praise but a smidgeon of critique tooBy SonyaBeautiful; sensitive; and insightful. At times the analysis can be a bit wishy washy; with overstretched metaphors and repetition. However it is still a marvelous book; one which I strongly recommend for people whose societies have recently or are currently in the process of political transition.
