This book contains an accessible blend of previously published articles (revised) and new essays that examine the role of knowledge and ideology as the pivots of globalization's power in the twenty-first century. Expanding the central arguments of his previous study, The Globalization Syndrome (2000), James Mittelman defines globalization as “a triangulated structure” comprised of “the global division of labor and power, a new regionalism, and resistance politics” (p. 5). Shifting his analytic focus from issues in international political economy to the cultural production of identities, Mittelman locates his primary concern in this concise collection in the “subjective framework of globalization, namely, knowledge and ideology” (p. 3). Thus viewing globalization as a “cognitive map constituted by clusters of knowledge,” the author focuses particularly on the production of alternative forms of knowledge, ideas, and strategies of resistance to globalization—“alterglobalization” (p. 97).

The essays in the first half of the book not only provide a penetrating overview of the various academic discourses on globalization but also offer a useful discussion of emerging points of scholarly agreement and disciplinary realignments. Examining the impact of the ascending paradigm of global[ization] studies on the traditional field of international studies, Mittelman contends that neither the “para-keepers”—scholars who deny that globalization offers a fresh way of thinking about the world—nor the “para-makers”—academics who consider globalization studies a distinct theoretical innovation that is rapidly replacing the old paradigm—capture the complex transformation of power knowledge currently underway in international studies. The author ultimately posits a sensible synthesis that acknowledges the tremendous influence of globalization as an academic knowledge-set, while rejecting the radical view of those para-makers who contend that we are finding ourselves at the cusp of an intellectual overthrow that would quickly sweep away the reigning paradigm: “Given that systematic research on globalization is only slightly more than a decade in the making, it is more likely that international studies has entered an interregnum between the old and the new” (p. 33).

Connecting this theoretical middle ground to the practical task of developing new research projects, Mittelman urges globalization researchers to focus their intellectual energies on producing different kinds of knowledge about the ideological linkages and fissures between neoliberal globalization and alterglobalization. Referring to such a genre of knowledge as “critical globalization studies,” he envisions interdisciplinary teams of researchers and activists committed to methodological pluralism and anchored in the philosophical tradition of critical theorists like Max Weber, Antonio Gramsci, Karl Polanyi, Michel Foucault, and Sandra Harding (pp. 34–36). Insisting that contemporary critical globalization theorists ought to remain cognizant of the hierarchical power-knowledge relations that provide the structural framework for the ideological maneuvers of contemporary global power elites, Mittelman issues a passionate call for the construction of “grounded utopias”—ethical projects of alterglobalization rooted in real historical tendencies and centered on the embodied voices and practices of those who have been marginalized or excluded by the juggernaut of neoliberal globalization (pp. 36–39).

In the second half of the book, the author turns more concretely to matters of political ideology, by providing both qualitative and quantitative analyses of those perspectives of globalization circulating in the public sphere that sustain or undermine the dominant neoliberal worldview. He offers a useful typology that divides different sets of ideas and values about globalization into four contemporary “ideological currents”: 1) centrist neoliberal thinking (reflected in the dominant approach of the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization); 2) reformist neoliberalism (expressed by neoliberal dissidents such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, and George Soros); 3) historical-materialist transformism (propagated by such left critics of free-market capitalism as William Tabb); and 4) development transformism (often presented by cosmopolitan intellectuals in the global South such as Walden Bello or Martin Khor). While these four ideological currents represent very different views on the desirability of the dominant neoliberal globalization agenda, Mittelman claims that they are nonetheless united in their common assumption that “the contemporary era is marked by a bundling of neoliberalism and globalization” (p. 54). Defining neoliberalism in terms of its core agenda—deregulation, liberalization, and privatization—the remaining essays of the book discuss the potential of alterglobalization as an ideological-material project of delinking globalization and the dominant neoliberal framework.

No doubt, free-market ideas and values play a vital role in the construction of what I have referred to as the ideology of “globalism” (Manfred Steger, Globalism: Market Ideology Meets Terrorism, 2004). However, the conceptual link between neoliberalism and globalization does not capture the full dimensions of the dominant political belief system—especially in our post-9/11 world. Seemingly sensing that there might be more to globalism than neoliberalism, Mittelman discusses in very general terms the ideological ramifications of the meteoric ascent of neoconservativism and the concomitant “rise of military globalization” (pp. 38–43, 95–97). In the harsh political climate following the attacks of September 11, neoliberals have struggled to maintain the dominance of their economistic project. As the author recognizes, one obvious solution was to “toughen up” neoliberal ideological claims in order to fit the neoconservative vision of a unilateralist American empire backed by overwhelming military power. As a result, however, 1990s neoliberal globalism has morphed into the imperial globalism of the new century. The altered conceptual composition of globalism raises the crucial question of ideological continuity: How much of “neoliberalism” still remains in imperial globalism?

Finding an answer to this question requires a fundamental reappraisal of the ideological lansdcape of our time, one that would go far beyond the confines of Whither Globalization? Still, Mittelman's self-selected focus on ideology and knowledge requires a more detailed discussion of this gigantic ideological transformation in our global age. One obvious task would be to address the serious ideological contradictions arising from the newly forged link between globalization and militarization. After all, the globalists' reliance on the coercive powers of the state to secure their project undermines the neoliberal idea of the “self-regulating market.” Moreover, the Bush administration's belligerent vision of enforcing “democracy” and “freedom” at gunpoint in conflict areas around the world conflicts with the neoliberal emphasis of “negative liberty”—the absence of coercion. Finally, the Anglo-American unilateralism contradicts the cosmopolitan, universal spirit associated with the concept “globalization”—hence, the criticism of reformed neoliberals like Joseph Stiglitz. By relying too heavily on the neoliberalism-globalization link, Mittelman undertheorizes powerful neoconservative processes of knowledge production that critically impact ideological formations on the global stage. But this hardly takes away from the conceptual power of the book. Written in elegant prose, this study represents a remarkable intellectual achievement that will appeal to students and globalization researchers alike. Most of all, it fortifies James Mittelman's stature as one of the most luminous thinkers in the emerging interdisciplinary field of globalization studies.