{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020263901979264844, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.394578313253012, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Daniel Chernilo, A Social Theory of the Nation State: The Political Forms of Modernity Beyond Methodological Nationalism

The division of intellectual life into separate academic disciplines has not emerged out of some divine plan, or as a consequence of conscious human ingenuity. Indeed, although there may be a plausible and intuitive rationale to many of the disciplinary divisions, in the social sciences, at least, the academic divisions of labour are largely accidental and may well act as a barrier to intellectual and academic progress. My own disciplinary location is in international relations, whilst my research interests span social theory, philosophy of social science, philosophy of science, and political theory. Add to this a necessary concern with ethics, economics, and philosophy more generally, and our institutional and intellectual locations appear even more spurious and chaotic. However, once embedded within a particular academic community, we tend to approach all problems from the standpoint of that discipline. This can make it difficult to understand the particular way in which alternative disciplines approach a problem, even if that problem is itself well embedded within one’s own disciplinary imagination. This issue became highly pertinent to me when reading Daniel Chernilo’s excellent Social Theory of the Nation State. The nation-state is at the heart of my discipline. Indeed, many would argue it is the most important actor in terms of that discipline’s viewpoint. Equally, the concept of a society, albeit an international, or perhaps global, one plays a major role in my discipline. According to some in international relations there is a sharp demarcation line between international politics and domestic politics, the boundaries of which are set by the nation-state. Many in international relations also believe that domestic politics plays no role in the understanding of international politics. Many others, however, myself included, have never accepted this view and have always considered the division between domestic and international politics to be spurious distraction