In Strange's reply to May's article (Strange Fruit: Susan Strange's theory of Structural-Power in the International Political Economy Global Society 10, 2 (May 1996): 167 -189), she engages with two criticisms made of her theory of structural power. Firstly she suggests that the knowledge structure itself is not necessarily prior as is suggested it might be considered to be if her process of agenda setting power is regarded as central. Furthermore my reworking of the knowledge structure while suggestive was overly dependent on a de-contextualised reading of Schumacher, whom she knew personally and whose views are misrepresented. Secondly, while agreeing with the criticism that she lacks a general theory of change she asserts that such a general theory is not possible, noting that she is however sensitive to particular forms of change. Finally, she concludes by agreeing that Paul Feyerabend's 'methodological anarchism' is helpful in giving epistemological grounds for her eclectic approach.