While Steinmetz must and should be credited for expanding the discussion, Glenn finds inconsistencies between the author’s perspective and that of his contributors. For example, Glenn states that while he (Steinmetz) “comes close to suggesting what he terms the “cultural turn” argues for an anthropological conception of culture as constitutive of society” (1528), other contributors such as Timothy Mitchell “do not follow suit” (1528).
To expand Glenn’s argument, author Mitchell, according to Glenn, takes a more “radical” (1528) approach, if one wishes to consider his interpretation of Mitchell as promoting the theory that former boundaries between the fields of humanity and the social sciences no longer exist (1528) and therefore somehow cast aspersions on Steinmetz and his goal to expand the study from a cultural perspective. While true that Steinmetz is looking at state formation “in light of the ongoing ‘cultural turn’ in social sciences,” he also alludes to and incorporates in his theories “a wide array of theoretical impulses” (Steinmetz 1), a generous stance that does not exclude Mitchell’s notion of state as both system and idea. (Mitchell in Steinmetz 76).
Regarding as contributors Julia Adams and Ann Orloff’s limiting view of culture as “compliment to the traditional literature” (Glenn 1528), it is a bit more difficult to argue that Glenn may be somewhat correct in his assessment that Steinmetz’s choice of contributors seem a bit odd in respect to his theory, which seeks to expand the discussion from a cultural perspective, not limit it. Yet in carefully analyzing Adams we see her willingness to tackle all aspects of state formation as “a sure sign of a [any] paradigms theoretical vitality (Adams in Steinmetz 98), include that of Steinmetz. In saying “we need to integrate theories of historical cultural meaning into our arguments about economic and political advantage [and thus state formation] (Adams in