The New Imperialism

My current book is The New Imperialism by David Harvey, and it seems very interesting and well-written (in an academic tone, even!) but above all question raising. A number of things have caught my attention already.

In the course of examining hegemony and how hegemony is exercised, Harvey naturally examines the particular case of the United States as a hegemon. Harvey's conception of hegemony is "fashioned out of and expressed through and ever-shifting balance between coercion and consensus." (p. 38) He mentions a number of specifics that really made me stop and think of my own identity and self-image. He summarizes his examples with two brutal sentances: "The US has frequently relied upon domination and coercion and has not shrunk from the liquidation of opposition. Even internally, it has a history of ruthlessness that belies its attachment to its constitution and the rule of law."

Harvey explains the disparity between the examples and the perceptions of the American public by a combination of the American public living in denial and the American public passively saying c'est la vie. Of course, anyone with a personal connection to the United States has to ask him- or herself what personal implications this has, if Harvey is right.

I have heard criticism of US hegemony and imperialism for a long time. I have even had friends who found my emotional attachment to the US troubling in light of US foreign policy. Somehow, I still feel like I'm answering to them, because I'm reading similar things on the pages of Harvey's book.

Of course, there is one level of pure emotional attachment, an attachment of coincidence. When you've been part of a country, especially as a child, you can never divorce it completely. But actively regarding a country as good is a different thing altogether, and so I think that everyone with ties to the United States might benefit from thinking about the ethics of foreign policy. After all, if you support a regime across the board, you also support its foreign policy. If you do not know what your country is doing in other countries, you could be supporting a killer inadvertently. Extreme example, but it illustrates the principle.

I think I've been in denial at least to some extent, simply because it's not pleasant to discover that before you were born, your country was involved in staging coups to replace democratically elected leaders with a dictator more favorable to your country. That's not really the kind of history you want your country to have. I wanted to believe that the US had changed since then. Now that I'm presented with evidence to the contrary, that's becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Maybe it is essentially the same mechanism that creates the denial in the first place. It's just not something you want to be true about your country.

If Harvey only dwelled on these rather manipulative facets of hegemony, I would maybe not take him that seriously, since the world is never that black and white. However, he points out something else that I can see; namely, that consent and cooperation are also essential to hegemony. He goes on to cite a number of specifics where the US has gotten general warm fuzzies from other countries for its actions.

While all this plays an important role in understanding the informal empire of the US, I think that there is another thought that begs to be thought out. How do you know that you have a reasonable view of your country, both historically and in current politics? How do you know when schools leave out parts of history that made a difference or when schools overfocus on something, giving a distorted view? Of course, systematic erasure of politicians in the Soviet Union and in China are the extreme examples.

However, Harvey mentions a more subtle and therefore more worrisome example: apparently, the US would like to believe that "it and it alone liberated Europe from the Nazi yoke, and it erases entirely the much more important role of the Red Army and the seige of Stalingrad in turning the tables in the Second World War." (p. 40) I remember being vaguely surprised in history class that the US involvement was so small in Europe - so little and so late in the game. I had an image of much grander and more decisive help - an army of Americans rushing ashore in Normandie. Not so at all. But how would Americans know?

I believe there is an answer, an answer that has been tested in practice since the Cold War: Cross-checking between countries. Every country presents some things in a skewed way. If you compare other countries' perspectives to that of the country you're in, you can spot it. That in turn means that international news is essential to both information and education. If you only know the point of view of one country, you will never know if what people are telling you is reasonable. The best way to ensure you have the full picture of politics in proper historical context is to check from the point of view of another country.