University of Illinois history professor Paul Schroeder is worried about the sloppiness involved in calling America an “empire.” America is said to be an empire “simply by being the world’s only superpower, by virtue of its military supremacy, economic power, global influence, technological and scientific prowess, and world-wide alliances. The term ‘empire,’ in short, describes America’s current condition and world status, and is equivalent to phrases like ‘unipolar moment’ or ‘unchallenged hegemony.’”
Schroeder finds this “a misleading, unhistorical understanding of empire, ignoring crucial distinctions between empire and other relationships in international affairs and obscuring vital truths about the fate of empires and bids for empire within the modern international system. A better understanding of empire can point us to historical generalizations we ignore at our peril.”
He offers this definition of “empire”:
“empire means political control exercised by one organized political unit over another unit separate from and alien to it. Many factors enter into empire—economics, technology, ideology, religion, above all military strategy and weaponry—but the essential core is political: the possession of final authority by one entity over the vital political decisions of another. This need not mean direct rule exercised by formal occupation and administration; most empires involve informal, indirect rule. But real empire requires that effective final authority, and states can enjoy various forms of superiority or even domination over others without being empires.”
He distinguishes between “empire” and “hegemony”: “Hegemony means clear, acknowledged leadership and dominant influence by one unit within a community of units not under a single authority. A hegemon is first among equals; an imperial power rules over subordinates. A hegemonic power is the one without whom no final decision can be reached within a given system; its responsibility is essentially managerial, to see that a decision is reached. An imperial power rules the system, imposes its decision when it wishes.”
Schroeder thinks that this distinction is critical for assessing America’s political choices. He argues that nations that have chosen the path of empire over a path of hegemony have invaraibly come to ruin, not to mention the ruin they’ve caused for the peoples they conquer. By contrast, “Where real advances in international order, stability, and peace have been achieved (and they have been), they have been connected with choices leading powers have made for durable, tolerable hegemony rather than empire.”
He was writing in 2003, and at that time suggested that America is only a “wannabe empire” not yet an empire. But, he warned, “If America goes down the path of empire, it will ultimately fail. How, when, and with what consequences, no one can tell—but fail it will, and harm itself and the world in the process. Not the least harm will come from thereby wrecking an American hegemony now clearly possible, needed, and potentially durable and beneficial.”