Empire and hegemon

Alexander Motyl attempts to discern the definition of empire implicit in Niall Ferguson’s Empire : “ As Ferguson does not even bother to define the concept, at most we can surmise from his discussion of British and American power that empire entails ‘actually ruling a colony’ by means of ‘colonial structures.’ Ruling stands in sharp contrast to the ‘American approach [which] has too often been to fire some shells, march in, hold elections and then get the hell out—until the next crisis.’ Ferguson also believes that, while America’s ‘informal empire’ is an ‘empire of multinational corporations, of Hollywood movies and even of TV evangelists,’ the United States ‘lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which, if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security.’ But if multinational corporations, Hollywood, and TV evangelists export capital, people, and culture wherever there are markets for their products, then talk of some absent ‘drive’ is either misplaced or wrong. To muddy the waters even more, Ferguson concludes the book with a ringing call to the United States to admit that it already is an empire: ‘It is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is an empire in denial.’”

Motyl argues that distinction between hegemon and empire is essential for understanding international relations: “All big and powerful states exert power and force other entities to bend to their will. When metropoles rule directly and indirectly, however, their colonies are administrative territories and not formally sovereign states. In contrast, when great powers exert hegemony, the objects of that hegemony are formally sovereign states that adjust their behavior accordingly. The point is that, while both empire (direct and indirect rule) and hegemony involve power, the imperial relationship implicating a center and a periphery is qualitatively different from a hegemonic relationship implicating two states.”

But Ferguson doesn’t accept this distinction, and if he did, Motyl argues, his argument would collapse: “Ferguson cannot countenance the eminently sensible distinction between empire and hegemony for a more practical reason. If he accepted that distinction, his claim—that the United States is an empire but refuses to act like one—would be absurd. Ferguson’s entire effort rests on the so-called paradox of America’s both being and refusing to behave like an empire. If there is no paradox, there is no argument and no policy prescription. And if the United States really is a hegemon, then it logically follows that it cannot be faulted for not acting like an empire. This painfully commonsensical conclusion destroys the raison d’etre of Ferguson’s books.”