The problem of globality for the social sciences is not, as most debates have suggested, just how to understand global change. The defining issue is how to understand society, culture and politics in the global revolution. As Mann noted of an earlier period, ‘In major transitions the fundamental interrelations, and very identities, of organizations such as “economies” or “states” become metamorphosed. Even the very definition of “society” may change.’ What is at stake is no less than whether and how we should reconstitute the central concepts of social science in global terms.

In the existing literature, the need for such a reconceptualization has hardly been recognized, let alone realized. In no area of social thought, probably, is this problem greater than in the understanding of the state. Despite some limited recognition of the internationalization of the state, the state of the globalization debate remains (as we have seen) overwhelmingly the nation-state. Hence the focus on the ultimately sterile issue of whether state and nation have or have not been ‘undermined’ by global change. The key issue has barely been part of the discussion: could what these categories refer to itself have changed?

In this chapter, my goal is to explore what state means in the context of global transformation. However, the category of state cannot be understood apart from other social categories. If we are to grasp the contemporary significance of Mann's point, it will help if we begin with some of the most fundamental of the categories of social science.