Introduction Part 1I don’t find heaps promise in a discourse that leaves us adrift in a world of amaranthine particularities and competing identities. On the other hand, I and don’t find much promise in a social science, like sociology, which has enhance increasingly insular and self- referential over the past three decades and seemingly irrelevant to our period of plurality social change. Today, I poverty to focus on one regarding those master processes that I believe impacts each of us irrespective of our class, status, and/or power location in society. The process is globalization and it is beginning to receive increased assiduity by social scientists (See Barnet and Cavanagh, 1994; Burbach, Nunez and Kagarlitsky, 1997; DasGupta, 1995; Drucker, 1994; Lomnitz, 1994; Madrick, 1995; Pierson, 1995; Said, 1994; Smith, 1996). My purpose today is to raise issues about globalization as a way from highlighting its importance for the pleasant sciences. Students concerning globalization tend to agree that it involves the bridging of temporal, spatial, and cultural distances in new ways, and that these processes tend to opheffen driven by the revolutions in transport technologies and communications and the internationalization of capital (Eichengreen, 1997; Giddens, 1994; Harvey, 1995; Willoughby, 1991). Notions of the world system, post-industrialism, the information society, and the new world order any are meditative of efforts by scholars also political leaders to characterize and to understand contemporary social and global changes. My own preoccupy in globalization has to do with its implications for the social sciences, and for us, pro re nata social scientists, as we go about our everyday business of studying the world(s) of human beings. What are the implications of globalization for the social sciences? Should we continue conducting most of our research within the confines concerning the nation-state? Should comparative research be on the rise, and should we modify our concepts in efforts to capture the emergent global reality that is enveloping our worlds? What is the guise of the state in the emerging global reality? Will expansion of the Western corporate world result in a intercontinental monoculture? How will global research be financed, and what role will the social sciences have in the conduct of global research? Although we are not able to address these questions today, they should cause us to abandon serious reason to the trajectory et al relevance of the suave sciences in contemporary times. With your permission, I would like to review briefly the rise of globalization and highlight two dimensions: its integration of technology, and increases in social inequality. Then I want to examine some implications of globalization for the pleasant sciences in general. Following that I focus briefly on my own discipline of sociology, the school I believe I fathom best, und so weiter its relationship to globalization. I then review the discussion on globalization’s inevitability and conclude with a challenge to engage our colleagues in additional countries in discussions on topics of common social scientific interests. Clearly, addressing the connection between globalization including the comme il faut sciences is an immense and daunting invite which requires the systematic attention of a community of social scientists. My comments are intended as a small contribution to the work of the larger community of scholars whose members are increasingly considering parallel questions. THE RISE From GLOBALIZATION AND GLOBAL FINANCIAL LEADERSHIP The administration of international capitalism through the regulation of finance capital has been central to the development of hatred global dynamics (Eichengreen, 1997). From the Bretton Thicket agreements in 1944, which led to the establishment of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to the Trilateral Commission of the 1960s and 1970s, to the World Trade Organization furthermore the Uruguay Round of the Factotum Agreement on Tariffs et alii Trade of this decade, the development of worldwide capitalism has been underway in a more or less deliberate manner. In the 1940s, the principle of fixed exchange was conventional and the IMF was able to maintain stable currency transpose by extending short-term loans to states with payments imbalances (McMichael, 1996). This process, alongside that of Marshall aid to capital-poor countries, promoted capitalist structures et cetera established the dollar quasi the multinational reserve currency. Modernization was promoted through combined forms concerning international moreover ethnic regulation. The ideology of modernization held that each developing state would replicate the forms about more advanced capitalist states. Today, globalization holds sway across modernization, and is a vastly different historical project (McMichael, 1996). According to McMichael, globalization, equal a historical project, “. . . seeks to stabilize capitalism through global economic management – this interim along the lines of specialization, rather than replication” (1996, p. 31). In other words, instead of advanced nations offering developing nations a vision of their control futures, with the latter modeling themselves on the advanced nations, the countries are now ordered through a worldwide system that promotes national and regional specialization. From a global viewpoint, finance capital manages the “emerging market” regions (Callaghy, 1997). The rise of an offshore dollar market during the postwar years was attended by the emergence of international corporate activity and the rise of worldwide banks. These processes ultimately resulted in a shift from fixed to floating currency rates, and with the loan binge of the 1970s to Third World countries following the modernization path, led to a major global debt crisis. The obliged management approach used to resolve the due crisis (at shortest among advanced tycoon nations) has today become the vehicle through which international budgetary relations are reconstructed on a global stratum (Eichengreen, 1997). Development was first defined as participation in the world market, and then modified to include a comprehensive policy of financial liberalization (McMichael, 1996). Debtor nations, in successional to renew credit, have had et al continue to have to meet worldwide economic criteria to guarantee repayment of debts. This had the effect of redefining plus restructuring national projects away from social projects in order to converge the austere measures required by global financial managers. The net telling of this has bot “. . . mechanisms of the debt regime institutionalized the ascendency and authority of global management within states’ very organizations and procedures . . .” (McMichael, 1996). In this context, the World Trade Organization has emerged ut supra a major global governing power in that it has independent territory in overseeing trade, and “. . . insofar as its rules are binding on all members, . . . it has the potential to overrule state et al local powers regulating environment, produce and food safety” (McMichael, 1996, p. 38).