Introduction: Coming to Terms with America's Liberal Hegemony/Empire (original) (raw)
Related papers
Approaches to Defining “Empire” and Characterizing United States Influence in the Contemporary World
International Studies Perspectives, 2008
The militant unilateralism of the George W. Bush administration has revived interest in such closely related and contested terms as ''superpower,'' ''hegemon,'' ''empire,'' and ''imperialism.'' This article identifies four different but somewhat overlapping approaches to defining ''empire'': ideal type, self-consciously empirical, constructivist, and overtly normative. The author's personal view is that any notion of American Empire or indeed U.S. hegemony or even superpower is profoundly misleading. Although the United States still ranks high on the scale of most traditional realist power factors, United States capabilities appear to be gravely waning today and its exercise of both hard and soft power has recently been so inept as to limit its current influence and possibly future role in global politics.
Reflections on Empire, Imperialism and United States Hegemony
Historical Materialism, 2003
Empire poses a challenge to thinking about the changing nature of political power in the international capitalist system, the role of sovereign statehood in that order and, particularly, the character of American power. The key theses of Empire are simply stated: rst, the global order of capital is regulated by a new logic and structure of rule, a new form of sovereignty; and, second, this logic and structure of rule is glued together by the society of the spectacle, in which power resides ultimately in the multitude. 'Empire establishes no territorial centre of power and does not rely on xed boundaries or barriers'. 1 While US 'hegemony over the global use of force' stands at the top of the pyramid of the 'global constitution' that governs this order,
Empire Discourses : The »American Empire« in Decline ?
2009
»In all ages, the regular rise and fall of great nations has passed unperceived.« Sir John Glubb »America has never been so powerful, but its citizens have rarely felt so uneasy.« Charles S. Maier »We don't do empire !« Donald Rumsfeld 1. Empire Talk Discourses about »empire« have been fashionable in the past decade among American intellectuals, pundits and commentators. Like the »civil society« and the »ancient hatreds« of ethnic conflicts in the last decade of the twentieth century, the notion that the United States is an empire after all has fired up the imagination of academics and pundits alike, particularly after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York of 9/11. Nary a self-respecting man of letters in the United States who does not believe he must contribute his book on empire to this lively public debate. Yet most Americans, throughout their history, have been adverse to the idea »American empire« and leery to speak of »American imperialism«. Americans have used all kinds of euphemisms to circumscribe American superpower status during the Cold War and »hyper power« eminence after the Cold War-»Pax Americana«, »American preponderance«, »American primacy«, »American ascendancy«, and »hegemony«. President George W. Bush assured us : »America has never been an empire. We may be the only great power in history that had the chance, and refusedpreferring greatness to power, and justice to glory« (Ferguson 2004 : 6). In spite of his Yale degree, G.W. Bush's knowledge of American history seems to be spotty. If Americans thought in terms of empire it only occurred along the lines of the Jeffersonian notion of »empire of liberty«, or John L. O'Sullivan's idea of civilizing benevolent expansionism on the American continent, which he called the U.S. 's »manifest destiny« (Maier 2006 : 2ff). Prior to Bush ascendancy American President »American Empire« was a dirty word that did not dare to speak its name. This changed after the brutal 9/11 attacks. Many Americans, especially the neoconservative kamarilla that advised President Bush, eagerly embraced the notion that the United States constituted a »new empire« with global interests, even though arch-imperialist Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld confidently asserted that »we don't do empire«. Is the United States an empire in the traditional sense ? If yes, what kind of empire ? Scholars are very circumspect in defining empire. The best among them apply strict criteria to what constitutes an empire (
The American Empire in the New Century. Hegemony or Domination?
Journal of Developing Societies, 2005
This chapter analyzes the current position of United States supremacy, in light of the debate on hegemony and domination that acquires greater relevance after the formulation of the 'Bush Doctrine', which is systematized in the document 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'. Our approach will emphasize the following aspects: establishment of a parallel between the transition from the 19th to the 20th centuries, from studies that point out the characteristics of imperialism at different times; an analysis of the current foreign policies of the United States, focusing on the debate between unilateralism and multilateralism, emphasizing the reactions caused by the intervention in Iraq; a critical argument about the approaches that highlight in the security agenda of the Bush administration an indicator of a loss of hegemony, which would impose open domination over the search for consensus.
Hegemony or Empire? The Redefinition of US Power under George W. Bush
American power has been subjected to extensive analysis since September 11, 2001. While there is no consensus on the state of US hegemony or even on the precise meaning of the term, it is clear that under George W. Bush the US has not only remained the 'lone superpower' but has increased its global military supremacy. At the same time, the US has become more dependent on its economic, financial and geopolitical relationships with the rest of the world than at any other time in its history, markedly since the events of 9/11. Scholars in this volume critically interpret US hegemony from a range of theoretical and topical perspectives. They discuss the idea of empire in the age of globalization, critique the Bush doctrine, analyze the ideologies underpinning a new American imperialism and examine the influence of neo-conservatism on US foreign and domestic policy.
Political Studies Review, 2007
Over the past few years there has been an intellectually controversial, strategically significant and politically charged debate as to whether America should – or should not – be characterised as an empire. More recently, it has become equally fashionable to argue that this empire is either now failing or in steep decline. This essay examines the background to the original ‘empire debate', suggests that the notion of empire is one that can (with care) be applied to the United States, and that in spite of recent setbacks – like Iraq – we should take care not to underestimate the US capacity to shape world politics. The American Empire may be in trouble, but it is not about to fall.
American Liberalism and the Imperial Temptation
Empire and International Order, 2013
We offer an ideal-typical account of the structure of empires that allows us to spot the existence of imperial relations in international and domestic politics. This approach makes clear which aspects of international liberalism generate an impulse toward empire and which mitigate it. Neoconservatism creates an imperial temptation not because of its putatively illiberal characteristics but because of its emphasis on expanding the zone of democratic governance at the domestic level. To the extent that states pursue the aggressive democratization of other states, they inevitably form informal imperial relations with other states. Given that the core of imperial relations is a hierarchical relationship between the core and the periphery, the imposition of a new form of rule, even one that is quintessentially liberal, is inescapably imperial. By contrast, liberal internationalism of the type endorsed by Ikenberry emphasizes liberal global governance, which militates against the formation of informal empires among states. However, rather than replacing informal empire altogether, liberal internationalism displaces imperial relationships and functions into the hands of international organizations and multilateral coalitions.