Abstract
Michael Hechter does not respond to the basic issue of whether or not a social scientist, in seeking to demonstrate that ethnic rebellion in an internal periphery of an industrialized nation can be explained only in terms of ‘internal colonialism,’ ought first of all to equip himself with some adequate and explicit theory of imperialism itself. Rather than deal directly with the specific criticisms which follow from his neglect of such an approach, Hechter contents himself with the dismissal of a proposition—attributed in his first paragraph, without citation, to me—the simplistically fallacious character of which I never doubted or denied.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
