MODERNITY, MATERIAL CULTURE AND INFORMAL EMPIRES

Introduction

An empire is defined as a group of states that are ruled by one authority or by a monarch that possesses a great degree of centralised power and one in which a particular group or individual wields great power there. Throughout history, certain empires have made a name for themselves owing to their respective sizes. On such example is the Roman Empire, another is the British Empire, Spanish empire or the Byzantine Empire. Usually, an empire is able to maintain its political structures through the utilisation of coercion as is the case with other nations within the world when establishing their political structures.

Characteristics of an informal empire
For an empire to exist then the ruled must be such that they posses different nationalities or ethnicities from the central power. For instance, Britain established an empire through a series of colonies such as Asian countries, African ones and even some from New Zealand and Australia. All these nations were completely different from the central country which was Great Britain. Given the latter assertions, it should be noted that the constituents of an empire have been the object of many debates in scholarly books and journals. Some experts assert that any state can qualify as an empire if they pursue imperial polices (the latter definition is what will constitute latter sections of the essay owing to the fact that it is one of the closest definitions in modern society). Others claim that empires should be treated in the traditional manner as political structures. In certain scenarios, some people may call their territories empires merely because their ruler has granted himself/ herself the title of an emperor. (Jenks, 1990)

It should also be noted that the latter definition can be classified as a formal definition of an empire. In modern times, such empires are no longer in existence and the notion of an informal empire is what has gained greater precedence in political circles. Informal empires fall in line with the former mentioned description of constituents of an empire.

Modernity, material culture and informal empires
Formal empires have lost their favour during modern times. This is largely seen by the fact that constitutional monarchs are the only existing concepts in existence currently. In fact, Japan is the only nation that is still ruled by an emperor but it still does not fall within the strict definitions owing to the fact that ninety seven percent of the people ruled are ethnic Japanese. In this day and age, the term empire refers to an anachronism in which economic and cultural hegemony is depicted. In other circumstances, the latter term may refer to existence of Leninist ideas within a certain nation or exertion of global capitalism that is often imperialist in nature. (Galtung, 1996)


Numerous states with diverse ethnicities have formed unions or federations as is the case with the United Kingdom and Belgium respectively on a voluntary basis. Usually, the latter unions are governed by democratic structures and they normally allow the existence of federal or state jurisdiction. However, there may be certain states in which any separate attempt may lead to violent or non violent attacks upon that latter group. Examples of countries that have highlighted such tendencies include Myanmar, India, Indonesia, Russia, Spain and China.

Some analysts asserted that the European Union is one such example. They claim that this area emerged as a modern empire during the Post Cold war era. At that time, there was a need to look into military and economic interests of the Western European block. Consequently, it can be said that labelling the EU as an informal empire is a valid label owing to the fact that Western Europe has managed to exercise hegemony against their Eastern European counterparts. The EU’s neighbours have been coerced into adopting some of the legal, political and economic structures that are synonymous with the EU. Through its common currency and shared economy, this is one of the depictions of a modern informal empire. The material culture does come into the picture when one examines the benefits that western European block countries stood to benefit if they liaised with their counterparts in the East. It can therefore be asserted that this arrangement possesses all the ingredients that would make it an informal empire. (Boot, 2003)

Perhaps one of the most appropriate countries to epitomise this concept of an informal modern empire affected by modernity is through examination of the United States as an empire. This issue has brought about a lot of controversy with most Americans (including the Secretary of defence – Donald Rumsfeld) claiming that the latter country is not imperialistic in nature and that it is not interested in looking for spheres of influence. However, international analysts assert that the United States of America has been interested in dominating other countries from the time it gained its independence. This argument is also supported by the issue of surrogate nations. The former country has been supporting countries that would otherwise collapse if it was not of their influence. On the other hand, the US itself benefits tremendously from such an arrangement in its own way.

The issue of calling the United States an informal empire has not been a new concept. This is something that has been the centre of international politics for a long time with claims that the sort of power which the US wields cannot be compared to the Roman empire during its peak season or during the period when the British empire had great economic influence. These assertions have been put forward because of the fact that the US has been pervasive and at the same time direct power over a number of people throughout the world. (Howard, 2003)

Most US foreign policy relations have been governed by the issue of idealism. In other words, the latter country has been interested in restoring democracy and liberty within a series of nations throughout the world. However, this pursuit of idealism has been tainted by power pursuits and greed. Many foreign relations experts claim that the US’s domination of other states is synonymous with what goes on in traditional empire states. The latter factors have been identified as some of the most important ones in explaining this domination
• High capacities
• High interests
• High ideals

International relations are governed by the existence of a monopoly of power within internal borders for any country under consideration. On the other hand, for international stability, diffusion of power is necessary. However, for every rule there is an exception – the US can be regarded as such owing to the fact that it possesses one of the most heavy influences or abilities to use force in the international area. Additionally, many countries of the world have adopted an open mind to scrutiny of their economic, political or social systems. But the most interesting aspect about this issue of scrutiny is that the country doing most of the scrutiny is the United States. There is a monopoly on military intervention within the international arena and this is what international analysts are using as one of the reasons why the latter country has a monopoly for power.

As asserted earlier, an empire refers to the exertion of power by a dominant country over another country that can be deemed as a weaker one. During the nineteenth century, the European colonialists such as France, Belgium and Britain were able to form empires through direct force in the form of colonialism. In the Soviet, the Eastern European area was an informal empire due to coercion but less direct ways of doing it. When one treats an informal empire as a hierarchical system that is largely political and one in which the most with the highest form of power exercises decisive influence, then chances are that the United States would qualify as an informal empire. (Sluglett, 1999)

It should also be noted that unlike many other informal empires, the US signifies a paradigm shift in the kind of issues that constitute a modern empire. Usually, the United States requires that the participating countries should have mutually agreeable terms. First of all, the US makes offerings in which it can exchange security or open trade support in exchange for cooperation form them. Besides this, there is some power politics that is exercised between these groups where certain rules exist between the US and the country under consideration. It can therefore be said that this is an empire of concession that is founded by the need for military and economic power on the part of the less powerful nation and the need for power and control in the dominating country. These needs are serviced by capitalism and democracy.

Conclusion
In the modern world, material culture has fuelled the rise of the most powerful nations in the world. This is further compounded by the need to poses strong economic influence by them. Examples of informal empire s are the United Kingdom, EU and the United States who have all dominated weaker nations by their foreign polices

References

Jenks, E. (1990): The Government of the British Empire; Little, Brown & Co, 87
Sluglett, P. (1999): Formal and Informal Empire in the Middle East; Oxford University Press, 422
Galtung, J. (1996): The Decline and Fall of Empires: A Theory of De-Development; United Nations Research Institute on Development
Howard, S. (2003): The Forging of the American Empire; Plkuto press
Boot, M. (2003): American Imperialism - No Need to Run Away from Label; Council on Foreign Relations

The author of this article is a holder of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) from Harvard University and currently pursing PhD Program. He is also a professional academic writer. ResearchPapers247.Com>