I'm not sure what you ask-- I mean, of course PE and "theory" are linked (and can be seen as whole cloth-- both are "theoretical discourse" or human sciences) , and one reason why I like Amin and the WS folks in general, is precisely that they always yoke together both types of "discourses" -- PE and social/sociological theory -- in what I think is best seen as work (notes, steps even) towards a history and theory of imperialism. Or do you mean ideology and discourse being linked (a different and interesting issue), or that the quality of Amin's work is partly explained by his distance from contemporary theory/philosophy (which is not really a falsifiable or meaningful issue in itself is it?) I could go on about why I think the bk, Eurocentrism, could have benefited from an engagement with contempo. "theory" but Im not sure that is what you're looking for. PS Ive lost your original post to me in re strong vs. weak states, so send it to me again, if you've the impulse.]
--Dan
At 04:39 PM 1/3/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 15:26:36 -0600
>From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at mail.ilstu.edu>
>
>"Daniel F. Vukovich" wrote:
>
>> One wishes Amin were a bit more into
>> contemporary theories of ideology and discourse, but its an excellent
>> book. And Amin of course (imho) is perhaps the most important
>> theorist/political economist taking breath.
>
>Would you consider the hypothesis that these two features are
>inter-connected?
>
>Carrol
------------------------------------------------------ Daniel F. Vukovich Dept. of English; The Unit for Criticism University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 ------------------------------------------------------