In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

201 Notes introduction 1. “&‘America First,’ Wilson’s Slogan,” 1. 2. W. Wilson, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 38. 3. Ibid., 39. 4. See Patler, Jim Crow and the Wilson Administration. 5. Significant studies of how forms of racial, ethnic, and sexual exclusion shaped U.S. ideology and culture during the period I am examining include Warren, Black and White Strangers; Wald, Constituting Americans; and Kaplan, The Anarchy of Empire. 6. Addams, The Second Twenty Years at Hull-House, 7, 8. Dawley examines the same passage in Changing the World, 15–16. 7. Fisher, introduction, vii. 8. Ibid., xxi. 9. G. Murphy, Shadowing the White Man’s Burden, 5, 17. 10. Some of the historians whose work I engage self-identify as cultural historians. In their introduction, Cook and Glickman argue that American studies should “be understood as part of the larger genealogy of U.S. cultural history,” and they go on to describe cultural history as committed to the idea of “culture as a historical motor” and to such methods as “thick description, discourse analysis, close readings of visual imagery, . . . and so forth” (10, 16, 24). Literary scholars, of course, share these assumptions and methods. 11. Althusser explicitly lists literature among “the cultural ISA” in “Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatuses,” 143. 12. “America First,” 12. 13. “French Look to Us,” 2; “Dernburg Asserts Press Is Partial,” 3. 14. See The New York Times Current History; Robinson and West, The Foreign Policy of Woodrow Wilson; and Hart, Selected Addresses. 15. Tucker, “The Crux of the Peace Problem,” 453. 16. Ibid., 454. 17. See Wallerstein “The Three Instances of Hegemony.” See also Arrighi, The Long Twentieth Century, 60–63. 18. Arrighi, The Long Twentieth Century, 62. 19. Harvey, Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, 429. 20. Here, I am thinking of the Asian multiple-passport holders in Ong, Flexible Citizenships ; or the Taliban fighters who carry both Kalashnikovs and Nike sports bags in Legrain, “Cultural Globalization Is Not Americanization,” B7. 21. Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 64. 22. Robertson, Globalization, 8. 202 Notes to Pages 12–14 23. Cazdyn and Szeman, After Globalization, 17. 24. Ibid., 20. 25. Ibid., 58–59, 10. 26. Ibid., 50. 27. See R. Williams, Keywords. 28. The launching of the Journal of Global History, an important forum devoted to the exploration of the historical dimensions of globalization, in March 2006, suggests that these concerns are diminishing and that such research only continues to grow. 29. Bourne’s essay predates by five years the first instance of the word’s usage given in the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. See OED (1933), s.v. “transnational.” An even earlier appearance occurs in Coit, The Soul of America (1914), 88. Philosophers whose ideas were aligned with Bourne’s, such as John Dewey and Horace Kallen, quickly picked up on Bourne’s term; see Kallen, The Structure of Lasting Peace, 94; and Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy, 25. 30. See OED (1933), s.v. “imperialism”; and Koebner and Schmidt, Imperialism. For a significant challenge to the OED’s commentary, see Streeby, “Empire,” 98. 31. For a history of the term “globalization,” see Waters, Globalization, 1–3. Giddens traces the roots of global theory to “the literature of international relations” and the “&‘world-system theory’&” of Wallerstein; see The Consequences of Modernity, 65. (It is worth noting that the concept of core, periphery, and semi-periphery nations, so crucial to Wallerstein’s world-systems analysis, does indeed derive from the language of dependency theory, which emerged out of international relations.) Robertson goes back even further, identifying “early social theorists and sociologists, such as Comte, SaintSimon and Marx,” as well as “Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel and their contemporaries,” as the major thinkers who anticipated global theory; see Globalization , 15. 32. The classic account of these historical developments during the “long sixteenth century” is Wallerstein, The Modern World-System. Some scholars, in an attempt to challenge what they view as a Eurocentric model of world development, have traced the roots of globalization as far back as the trade practices of several ancient civilizations; see A. G. Frank, Reorient; and Frank and Gills, The World System. 33. See Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution; The Age of Capital; and The Age of Empire. 34. Wallerstein, “World-System Analysis,” 140. In Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Harvey reaches a similar conclusion: “The economic collapse and political revolutions that swept across the capitals of Europe [in 1848...

Share