In the modern International System where does the balance of power stand? In the past, it had shifted from empire to empire, sometimes many empires held power at once. To explain the polarity of the world today we must first examine the definition of power in order to know what it means to have power and how it spreads. Then we must look at the polarity of the past to determine how the powers of today got to where they are now and what it took to be unipolar and how it is challenged today. Power, since the beginning of human history has been a force that drives man. Every civilization has aimed to increase its power, locally or globally. How is power defined? According to Dr. Robert Dahl, political science professor at Yale University, power is defined as “A’s ability to get B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do” (Lake, 2006, p. 24). Some political scientists believe that the ability to get someone to do something can be derived from two different types of power: hard power and soft power. Hard power is closely linked with the use of coercive tactics such as the use of military forces, economic pressure, and other forms of intimidation (Lake, 2006). The more liberal form of power, soft power, was coined by Harvard University political scientist Joseph S. Nye. Nye states that “soft power is a notion that non-traditional forces such as culture and commercial goods can exert influence in world affairs” (Ferguson, 2003, p 21). What he means by this is that through goods that are a part of a nation’s culture, a nation can spread its sphere of influence. An example being McDonalds, a company that is a big part of American culture, a giant multi-national cooperation spreading American capitalistic ideology in the nati... ... middle of paper ... ... International Relations. Third World Quarterly, 25(8), pp. 1359-1378. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993791 Cox, M. (2004). Empire, Imperialism and the Bush Doctrine. Review of International Studies, 30(4), pp. 583-608. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=251274&jid=RIS&volumeId=30&issueId=04&aid=251273 Ferguson, N (2004). A World without Power. Foreign Policy, 143, pp. 32-39. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4152908.pdf Walt, S. (Jan. 2009). Alliances in a Unipolar World. World Politics, 61(1), pp. 86-120. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics/v061/61.1.walt.pdf Nye, J. (1990). American Strategy after Bipolarity. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 66(3), pp. 513-521. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2623071.pdf
Nash, Gary and Julie Jeffrey. "Foreign Policy in a Global Age." The American People Volume Two: Since 1865. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2011. 743-744. Print.
Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. Print.
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
At this point, with an understanding of what power is, what it means, how it is created and the various means through which it is expressed, one can begin to conceptualise how it is that power functions within a given society. Symbolic, cultural, social and economic capital distribute and perpetuate power within a society, through a cycle of transformation whereby these capital resources can be interchanged and manipulated to the advantage of individuals who have
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
In this essay I examine so called ’American empire’ in order to find out if it exists and if it makes sense to call the USA an empire. In the first part of this essay I examine the hard power of the United States. Even though it is clear that the USA has a huge material preponderance, I come to the conclusion that it is unable to use it to fullfill its political goals in a way that an empire would be able to do. In the second part I proceed to take a look at the soft power of the USA, namely ideological, cultural and structural power. In the end I conclude that it does not make sense to speak of an American empire, because there has never been one and it is unlikely that there will be one in the near future.
With the shock of two destructive world wars and then the creation of the United Nations, whose aim is to preserve peace, it is unconceivable for these two nations to fight directly in order to promote their own ideology. But the US and the USSR end up to be in competition in numerous ways, particularly in technological and industrial fields. In the same time they start to spread their influence over their former allies. This phenomenon have led to the creation of a bipolar world, divided in two powerful blocs surrounded by buffer zones, and to the beginning of what we call the Cold War because of the absence of direct conflicts between the two nations.
Power was always perceived as a gauge by nations’ military might and ability to impose its will on others; however since taking this course, the perception has changed. There are multiple definitions of power. Power can be used to influence other nations to meet the host nation’s intent. Power can be interpreted through economic influence or old fashion brute force among many things. In essence, power is the means in which influence is bestowed unto nations, or in general in order to maintain order or get what is needed.
Since the beginning of recorded history Power, something that can't be put together in a single concrete definition, has been powering and accelerating human evolution and the growth of civilizations. To have control over... has been the main concern of all civilizations, since the early Sumerian hegemony all the way to the Powerful United States with a National Power Index of 0.90 by 2011.
Willetts, P. (2011), ‘Transnational actors and International Organisations in Global Politics’ in Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds) The Globalization of World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
Doyle, Michael W. and G. John Ikenberry, eds. (1997) New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Pres.
The oxford dictionary has attempted to define power as the “ability to influence people or control the behaviour of people”. Power has been related to different forms such as political economic, military and even psychological. Power has widely been considered to be the classic determinant of conflict between interstates. Realists view power as a source of state preference. Animosity is constantly caused around power relations which in turn determine why states go to war and why politicians emphasize the role of power in conditioning distance. There is a non-linear relationship of power between the plural perspectives of realism. Realists consider states to be the principal actors in international relations as they are deeply concerned with the security of their own nation especially for the pursuit of national interest. However with this perspective there has been some scepticism with regards to the relevancy of morality and ethi...
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.