Last night I was delighted to host a
domestic café scientifique on US foreign policy and the politics of liberal imperialism following up a special edition of
Prospect Magazine (UK).
The well-attended debate was constructive and comprehensively covered a range of issues ranging from the semantics and the history of 'empire' to the values of the 'American Dream' to the role of the EU vis-à-vis the US. As coffee was replaced by wine the discussion became more and more passionate focusing on traditional divisions such as modernism/post-modernism, materialism/spiritualism and passion/reason.
However, the evening may well end up being remembered for several quotes that became instant classics such as:
"The Roman empire is alive in my toilet" [salon participant referring to the argument that empires don't die but remain alive, evolve and transform through their historical contributions, e.g. Roman sanitation]
I have tried to aggregate a 3 hour discussion into a couple of paragraphs. In summary the main issues considered and some of the opinions expressed are the following:
1. Is the United States an empire?
There was a consensual reluctance to use the term 'empire' lightly, although it could be argued that some form of it applies to the American case. Several discussants raised a semantic problem, in that the term 'empire' as used in everyday speech has very specific (and negative) connotations and, even if we accept that the US
is an empire then it's different from previous examples.
2. What are the bases of imperialism and what means is the US using to secure its interests at home and abroad?
There was an extensive consensus about the fact that there is a variety of factors shaping an empire's course: these range from reaction to isolated events and localised circumstances, to the management of energy resources and geo-strategic factors, to the use of military force.
Still, for the sake of analysis, the discussion focused around two key factors upon which empires are based: economic imperialism (a specific mode of managing resources, especially foreign ones) and cultural imperialism (a more 'transcendental' form of moral values and lifestyle). However, there was disagreement on which of these two is more critical for the american project. One participant argued that "America is and always has been an economic imperialist"; "they don't dominate in the traditional, military sense ... it's more economic, subtle".
However, others felt that the image of Americal life consistently constructed through the media and arts, especially in the second half of the 20th century, was critical in spreading the discourse and values of individualism, consumerism and a love of 'stars and stripes' that transcends the US borders. According to a senior discussant, "the modern embodiment of sexuality, the sexualisation of identity", especially through 1950s and 60s pop culture had a profound impact on the psyche of individuals around the world. In fact another commentator went as far as to imply that the success of the American dream in the Western world may say more about us rather than about the US itself.
Yet, one expert argued that the US seems to only fulfill the 'economic' criterion, rather than the more metaphysical/cultural one and contrasted the current status quo to the Byzantium's metaphysical domination.
Perhaps the point where those two elements (the economic/resource-management one and the cultural/lifestyle one) meet is consumerism and individualism, which define both a mode of production/consumption and a metaphysical attitude towards the self, others and the community.
In terms of the tactics/rhetoric used the salon agreed with a contributor's view that "America as a nation-state will always define - and has always defined - itself through external threats. It
needs to create external threats" so as to legitimise the politics of intervention.
It is very interesting that, while empires are mostly recognised by their military dominance over an extended territory, neither the economic nor the cultural elements in the US case are military-related
per se. In other words, it may actually be that - although vital for the success of any imperial project - the success of military intervention/occupation
itself ultimately depends upon economic and metaphysical factors, more than anything else.
3. Is empire-building something inevitable, or can it even be considered as positive?
According to one of last night's contributors, "empire as a paradigm or as a system of governance is not
in itself a bad thing". Another expert argued that "good things can be brought to the world by people of mixed motives". Everyone agreed that British and Roman empires also brought good things so it may be that despite current concerns about the role of neo-conservative elements in the Bush Administration there is ultimately a "net benefit".
However not everyone agreed that empires are a necessary part of human life. One panellist challenged the conventional wisdom that "there have been empires before, there will always be empires etc" arguing that empires are actually the exception rather than the rule.
Others were much more sceptical about the benefits of the American project, challenging especially the notion of US-provided 'freedom' and 'democracy'; they argued that the recent examples of Afghanistan and Iraq and the previous ones in Central and Latin America make it clear that these alleged benefits are merely a façade for the exploitation of natural resources and the optimisation of geo-strategic positions.
4. Individualism v. Communitarianism
One of the most extensive parts of the debate focused on that issue of individualism and the alleged collapse of altruism. A discussant argued that "people have become individualistic because they don't trust ideologies and close-knit communities", they have been traumatised by previous ideologies and now focus on their own benefit. There was a lively discussion on whether a devotion to a broader ideal (whether that is a community, a religion, a nation-state) is necessary - and under which circumstances. An even livelier discussion followed that up with the issue of whether the 'collective' and the 'institutional' (again regardless of whether these refer to an organisation, a neighbourhood or a government) are virtual/imagined/constructed perceptions or real experiences. According to a contributor "virtual perception in individuals' minds evolves and builds up over time - why do we pay taxes? All those things that become part of society".
5. Reason v. Passion
That previous debate on the role of the individual as an agency of change, and its motivations and stimuli, led to a useful exchange on the role of emotional v. rational factors, with several participants challenging that divide itself. In fact one expert implied that that distinction is an artificially constructed one through the rhetoric of the Western world and may be exclusive to Anglo-Saxon cultures. Which provoked another contributor to respond that "it's only a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the heart" (!) Yet, that very logic may be constructed through subtle -hearty- influences in the first place.
6. Choice - Can we "unsubscribe" from an empire?
The final, and probably most passionate (given that 3 bottles of wine had gone by then) leg of the debate focused on that very question of whether we have the choice to "opt out" of imperialism. A range of fascinating views was presented: One invitee argued quite strongly that "individual people
can withdraw from imperialism. The individual can withdraw through just the power of the mind". Yet that notion was challenged by another commentator who argued that "we, in the Western world, have the
luxury and the
choice of reading and formulating our own opinion" but that may not be true for others who are currently being exploited.
That exchange led to a broad, passionate discussion on the merits and weaknesses of postmodernism, with several participants strongly arguing that:
- the concept of empire is a construct anyway
- there can be no limits (beginning and end) in empires
- these concepts and limits are our own (constructed, weak) analytical tools and have nothing to do with real life.
However not everyone was convinced by that line of argument. Speaking of real life, one cannot be sure how exploited and oppressed victims of imperialism (through the centuries) would react against the idea that they are
not subject to a specific and finite imperialistic project. That led to a quest for a 'starting date' of the US empire, which (somehow - it was impossible to follow all strands of conversation at that point) led a leading expert to argue that "America is the caretaker of capitalism; capitalism is the result of a theological fuck-up in 12th century theology".
And on that note my little summary concludes, taking into account that i have probably misrepresented and misquoted every single individual involved. Thank God for the
Chatham House Rule then...
Ah. And a Norman Rockwell painting. Get the point?
