Can the United States Be Called an Empire? If So, Why? If Not, Why Not?
Can the United States Be Called an Empire? If So, Why? If Not, Why Not?
Question Five:Can the United States be called an empire? If so, why? If not, why not?Although American itself has long denied harboring imperial ambitions, as far back as 1941 George Taylor observed that āpublic discussions throughout the past few years have been more and more concerned with the problem of American imperialismā.Ā Since then, there has been ongoing debate about precisely how Americaās foreign policies and international relations may be labeled. Whilst the matter remains contested, this essay will argue that the United States can be called an empire. It will first analyze why America itself is so resistant to the āempireā label. It will then draw on Paul Schroderās definition of āempireā and Joseph Nyeās notions of āhardā and āsoftā power to argue that the United States wields a āglobal sphere of hegemonic influenceā. It will conclude that this āsphere of influenceā effectively renders the United States a modern day āempireā. As Perry Anderson notes, the United States is āJanice Facedā with regards to their world-status; despite simultaneously wielding significant power in the global sphere, it has remained āstubbornly insular in self-conceptionā. Despite their global influence and extraterritorial activities, the American populace and politicians have continuously zealously opposed the āempireā and āimperialismā labels. As Robert Zevin notes, this is likely due to the negative connotations of the labels, which do not fit in with Americaās image of itself. Ā He believes āāimperialismā is problematic within the implicit domain of meaning as it carries strong connotations of ethically undesirable behaviorā. Combined with the historical image of āempireā as the forceful building and maintaining of territorial domains, and influenced by popular beliefs in American exceptionalism, manifest destiny and benevolence, it is hence unsurprising that America has been reluctant to embrace the terms.
Despite Americaās reluctance, however, a more modern conceptualization of what may constitute an āempireā in contemporary society suggests that the empire label is in fact appropriate. Certainly, if one compares Americaās international relations with the traditional āempiresā of the past, there is little physical similarity between the manifestation of power relations ā for example and most simplistically, the United States does not attempt to settle its populace in other nations by force. However, as noted by Schroeder, the ācoreā of the notion of āempireā is in fact political control, in the sense that one nation possesses power over the vital political decisions of another. Further, this power does not necessarily need to be implemented via physical occupation ā rather, modern day āimperialismā may instead be understood more as a nationās āspheres of non-territorial global influenceā. Such a conceptualization is arguably far more applicable to the world today than traditional territorial-based notions due to the duel phenomena of globalization and the proliferation of free-market capitalism.Such a conceptualization of āempireā is also far more applicable to contemporary American activities than America itself may wish to admit ā a fact that is made particularly evident when Nyeās concepts of āsoftā (cultural, political and economic) and āhardā (military might) power are examined. In contrast to traditional conceptualizations of military-based empires in the British or Roman models, Nye argued that modern states āhave been moving away from emphasis on military force and conquestā. Drawing on notions of soft power, he believes that āAmericanization involves the power to influenceā¦ this application of power may not be limited to situations of observable or latent conflictā. For Nye, focusing on military and economic manifestations of influence neglects the indirect foreign influences that have long been the main geopolitical modus operandi of the US.