<\/p>
Alexander Motyl attempts to discern the definition of empire implicit in Niall Ferguson\u2019s Empire <\/em> : \u201c <\/span> <\/span> 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 \u2018actually ruling a colony\u2019 by means of \u2018colonial structures.\u2019 <\/span> Ruling stands in sharp contrast to the \u2018American approach [which] has too often been to fire some shells, march in, hold elections and then get the hell out\u2014until the next crisis.\u2019 Ferguson also believes that, while America\u2019s \u2018informal empire\u2019 is an \u2018empire of multinational corporations, of Hollywood movies and even of TV evangelists,\u2019 the United States \u2018lacks 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.\u2019 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 \u2018drive\u2019 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: \u2018It is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is an empire in denial.\u2019\u201d <\/span> <\/p>\n Motyl argues that distinction between hegemon and empire is essential for understanding international relations: \u201cAll 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.\u201d <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n But Ferguson doesn\u2019t accept this distinction, and if he did, Motyl argues, his argument would collapse: \u201cFerguson cannot countenance the eminently sensible distinction between empire and hegemony for a more practical reason. If he accepted that distinction, his claim\u2014that the United States is an empire but refuses to act like one\u2014would be absurd. Ferguson\u2019s entire effort rests on the so-called paradox of America\u2019s 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\u2019etre <\/em> of Ferguson\u2019s books.\u201d <\/span> <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Alexander Motyl attempts to discern the definition of empire implicit in Niall Ferguson\u2019s Empire : \u201c 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 \u2018actually ruling a colony\u2019 by means of \u2018colonial structures.\u2019 Ruling stands in sharp […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-history"],"yoast_head":"\n