We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
You know Hollywood, you are likely familiar with India’s Bollywood, and you may have heard of Nigeria’s Nollywood. There is also Chollywood in China, Wellywood in New Zealand, Lollywood in both Pakistan and Liberia, and several more in Africa. Such labeling of regional film industries reveals more than an attempt at a catchy gimmick. The reference to Hollywood in all these cases is clear, but so is the alternative desire to produce films that the Los Angeles-based studios are unable or unlikely to offer. Similar reinvention efforts have rebalancing consequences for the film industry, often beyond what their initiators intended. Each of the many “woods” caters to diverse tastes, some more and some less specific than those of Hollywood’s traditional target viewers. Most importantly, non-Hollywood film production undermines the pretense of control over cultural templates and meanings that move global audiences and even pushes traditionally powerful actors to abandon the assumptions of calculability.
Power is not ending, as the public intellectual and former editor of the journal Foreign Policy, Moisés Naím, argues.1 But it is true that in different political arenas big players are challenged by small ones who are using new playbooks that make power both more available and more evanescent. Naíim’s description of power dynamics is often on target; his exclusive focus on the erosion of control power is not. Otto von Bismarck, Germany’s “Iron Chancellor,” knew better. He did not aspire to “control the current of events, only occasionally to deflect them.”2 In a world of risk mixed with uncertainty it is the relations between protean and control power that shape the security of states, the competitiveness of economies, and the resilience of societies.
This book opened with an invitation to think afresh about power and uncertainty in world politics. This concluding chapter summarizes in its first section the findings of the twelve empirical case studies (in ten chapters). Since actors regularly have to tackle both risk and uncertainty, control and protean power are closely related. The efficacy of control power is not in question; the persistent neglect of protean power’s agility and potentiality is.
In its second section, this chapter probes the writings of ancient, modern, and contemporary political theorists on the issue of control and protean power. During the last half century, conceptual and explanatory inquiries into power have failed to plumb the insights of political theorists. International relation scholars are a partial exception to this generalization, but even their interest has been limited to a handful of theorists, such as Hobbes or Kant.