Can the United States Be Called an Empire? If So, Why? If Not, Why Not?

Question Five:

Can the United States be called an empire? If so, why? If not, why not?

Although American itself has long denied harboring imperial ambitions, as far back as 1941 George Taylor observed that ‘public discussions throughout the past few years have been more and more concerned with the problem of American imperialism’. Since then, there has been ongoing debate about precisely how America’s foreign policies and international relations may be labeled. Whilst the matter remains contested, this essay will argue that the United States can be called an empire. It will first analyze why America itself is so resistant to the ‘empire’ label. It will then draw on Paul Schroder’s definition of ‘empire’ and Joseph Nye’s notions of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power to argue that the United States wields a ‘global sphere of hegemonic influence’. It will conclude that this ‘sphere of influence’ effectively renders the United States a modern day ‘empire’.

As Perry Anderson notes, the United States is ‘Janice Faced’ with regards to their world-status; despite simultaneously wielding significant power in the global sphere, it has remained ‘stubbornly insular in self-conception’. Despite their global influence and extraterritorial activities, the American populace and politicians have continuously zealously opposed the ‘empire’ and ‘imperialism’ labels. As Robert Zevin notes, this is likely due to the negative connotations of the labels, which do not fit in with America’s image of itself.  He believes ‘“imperialism” is problematic within the implicit domain of meaning as it carries strong connotations of ethically undesirable behavior’. Combined with the historical image of ‘empire’ as the forceful building and maintaining of territorial domains, and influenced by popular beliefs in American exceptionalism, manifest destiny and benevolence, it is hence unsurprising that America has been reluctant to embrace the terms.

Despite America’s reluctance, however, a more modern conceptualization of what may constitute an ‘empire’ in contemporary society suggests that the empire label is in fact appropriate. Certainly, if one compares America’s international relations with the traditional ‘empires’ of the past, there is little physical similarity between the manifestation of power relations – for example and most simplistically, the United States does not attempt to settle its populace in other nations by force. However, as noted by Schroeder, the ‘core’ of the notion of ‘empire’ is in fact political control, in the sense that one nation possesses power over the vital political decisions of another. Further, this power does not necessarily need to be implemented via physical occupation – rather, modern day ‘imperialism’ may instead be understood more as a nation’s ‘spheres of non-territorial global influence’. Such a conceptualization is arguably far more applicable to the world today than traditional territorial-based notions due to the duel phenomena of globalization and the proliferation of free-market capitalism.

Such a conceptualization of ‘empire’ is also far more applicable to contemporary American activities than America itself may wish to admit – a fact that is made particularly evident when Nye’s concepts of ‘soft’ (cultural, political and economic) and ‘hard’ (military might) power are examined. In contrast to traditional conceptualizations of military-based empires in the British or Roman models, Nye argued that modern states ‘have been moving away from emphasis on military force and conquest’. Drawing on notions of soft power, he believes that ‘Americanization involves the power to influence… this application of power may not be limited to situations of observable or latent conflict’. For Nye, focusing on military and economic manifestations of influence neglects the indirect foreign influences that have long been the main geopolitical modus operandi of the US.