After Globalization: Classical, Hybrid, and Hypermodern Global Governance

Abstract Political scientists are often called on to interpret how society is changing. This is evident today with respect to globalization: with changes in security, trade, alliances, and norms, there is urgent effort to identify the forces, effects, and meaning of what is going on. This paper offers an empirical and a conceptual contribution to globalization scholars. Empirically, I suggest three views of globalization in the past that are useful for assessing trends today. These are the classical, hybrid, and hypermodern modes of governance. Classical refers to governance through inter-governmental arrangements. Hybrid emphasizes the mutual dependence of governments on private actors. Hypermodern acknowledges the innovations in governance that arise as the management of data becomes an effective means of social control. The conceptual contribution notes interpretive problems in treating history as ‘data.’ The interpretation of the past is inescapable in analysis of the present and projections of the future. The three concepts might be used by scholars to identify prevailing modes of globalization in the past and present - that is, as descriptions of historical facts - or as interpretive lenses that bring certain features into focus. The ontological difference between ‘facts’ and ‘lenses’ creates two distinct scholarly conversations on changing globalization whose differences cannot be bridged.