TRANSFORMATION OF FOREIGN POLICIES 379 a time when great powers were separated from other powers by the degree to which their governments could control events external to them as well as by the domestic effects of their external activities.Today that distinction is made either on the basis of destructive power alone, or with regard to nonmilitary areas.Because of the added complexity of the problems of control under modernized conditions,or at least in contemporary international society,no state can now be said to be a great power in the old sense of the term. In addition,however,what is special about foreign policies as they are conducted in modern states today is the scalc of the problem of control.The loss of control both domestically and in terms of foreign affairs,at a time when interdependencies among modernized societies are rising,will prove to be the central problem of international politics in the coming years.This central problem has several implications,not the least important of which is the future of the nation-state and the kinds of functional equivalents that can be deviscd to substitute for the state in those areas where the state can no longer be effective. A.The Transformation of Policy Objectives.Preoccupation with high policics and traditional foreign policy objectives and instrumen- talitics has drawn the attention of scholars away from the changes in policy goals that have accompanied modernization,and specifically from the increased salience of low policies and the merging of goals of power and goals of plenty. Most general discussions of foreign policy objectives focus on the goals of high policies,which in the past were generally conceived as ultimate ends and were transcendental.The classical goals of statecraft that Wolfers has defined as goals of"self-extension"or goals of"self-pres- ervation"were such transcendental goals,2 as were the goals known as “imperialism,”“curity,”“prestigc,,”and the ideal or postulated "position"or"role"of a state in the international system.For example, some transcendental goal of security may be identified with stature in the international system,or with a certain sct of role-premises such as 'mediator'"or“balancer.” I suggested with regard to transcendental goals that the classical goals of power and security have been expanded to,or superseded by, goals of wealth and welfare.This change has been accompanied by a change in the empirical referents used to identify transcendental goals. Transcendental goals always have some empirical referent,but they are 12 Arnold Wolfers.Discord and Collaboration:Essavs on International Politics (Balti- more 1g62),91-102.Wolfers adds a third category "self-abnegation,"which fits a logical but not an empirical gap