DRAFT***DRAFT***DRAFT***DRAFT***DRAFT***DRAFT***DRAFT
Extra-territoriality,
reterritorialization and hegemonic power:
The “hegemonic
dilemma” and its implications for globalization.
Department of Geography,
The
Tel. #. (814) 865
2493.
To be presented at “Responding
to Globalization: Societies, Groups, and Individuals.”
Sponsored by the Globalization
and Democracy Research and Training Program, Program on Political and Economic
Change,
Draft version, not to be cited
without the permission of the author.
ABSTRACT
Hegemonic powers play a unique
role in the world-economy by reaching beyond their state boundaries and
imposing their will upon other sovereign entities. The purpose of much of this
extra-territorial power is to facilitate an “open” world-economy, as witnessed
especially during the period of the
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Catherine Adams,
Sebastian Castrechini, Douglas Grane, Neeta Maniar, Drew Schaub, and Taisa
Welhasch for collecting the quotes used in this essay. Thanks to Cory Forer for
finding and capturing the web-sites, and to Todd Heibel and Ian Oas for the cartographic work.
What is globalization? It is important to address this
question in order to identify the geopolitical processes that underpin
globalization, as well as the geopolitical implications that it produces.
But the geographic component is not enough to understand globalization, the timing is of utmost importance too.
Globalization is seen as a qualitative progression in the developmental
trajectory of capitalism that has ushered in a new from of social organization
(Hardt and Negri, 2000).
However, we are also warned that globalization is not necessarily a one-way
process – it was created, in part by the actions of states (Sassen, 1996: 22),
and hence states could decide to re-impose a regime more centered upon the
sovereignty of nation-states (Block, 1987). A more historically sensitive
interpretation of globalization places it within the cycle of the rise and fall
of great, or hegemonic, powers that has been a sporadic feature of the
capitalist world-economy since its inception in the mid-1400’s (Arrighi, 1994).
Defining the hegemonic dilemma
In this word-systems analysis interpretation of the current
economic processes, the one I adopt in this paper, the role of hegemonic powers
is vital in explaining what is diffused, and why, from where, and when. In
other words, it offers a geohistorical contextualization of contemporary
globalization (
This understanding of hegemony provides for the
multi-faceted nature of hegemony discussed by
The practice of hegemony, the diffusion of economic,
political, and socio-cultural practices and influence requires a geopolitics of extra-territoriality, namely the imposition
of power and influence by one nation-state into the sovereign spaces of other
nation-states (
Extra-territoriality is only one side of the coin, though.
As noted, the economic growth that is the required underlying basis of
hegemonic power is based upon the creation of a social compact (Silver and
Slater, 1999). The social compact includes and excludes particular groups from
the benefits of a particular hegemonic project. In the example of the
It is this tension that I have called here the hegemonic
dilemma – or the geopolitical need to promote extra-territoriality and
infiltrate the sovereignty of other nation-states while maintaining one’s own
territorial sovereignty. Emphasizing that hegemony is a process of
establishment, rule, and relative decline suggests that the balance between
territoriality and extra-territoriality will change over time. It follows that
the domestic and international aspects of hegemony are intertwined and their
separation in this article is for purely organizational and heuristic purposes.
Rather than taking a chronological approach, the current tensions of the
hegemonic dilemma are illustrated by reference to the political response to the
attacks of September 11. Then, resistance to the establishment and
disintegration of social compacts within the hegemonic country is analyzed by
reference to nativist politics in the state of
These empirical snapshots hope to illustrate the continuous
but changing tensions between extra-territoriality and territoriality that
faces the hegemonic power. They may also serve as an initial inquiry into two
competing visions of globalization held by world-systems analysts. On the one
hand, Peter Taylor (1993) and
The analysis of the
Rhetoric of extra-territoriality and
reterritorialization post 9/11
The twin
notions of hegemony (Wallerstein, 1984) and prime modernity (Taylor, 1999)
suggest that the United States of America has a role in diffusing particular
economic practices as well as a particular way of life across the spatial
extent of the capitalist world-economy. Economic leadership and dominant social
practices were at the forefront of
“Fearful
people, people who don't trust the ability of our entrepreneurs build walls
around
Re
The
relationship between economic hegemony and prime modernity was emphasized by
the treasury secretary:
“As trade flows from nation to nation, ideas
of freedom, creativity, and tolerance are part of the packaging.”
Re
As in previous manifestations of hegemony, the economic reach of
the
“It was
not hard to pull this coalition together because instantly, on the 11th of
September, every civilized nation looked and said this is an attack not just
against the
“And while
we are waging our campaign, you will still be out there in the world doing your
work. We know that for you, as for us in the State Department, staying home is
not an option.”
“From its
beginning in 1985 when Secretary Shultz met with a handful of CEOs, OSAC has
expanded to nearly 2,000 affiliated
Re
These ideas were reinforced
by Condoleeza Rice.
“We are committed to a world of
greater trade, of greater democracy and greater human rights for all the world's people wherever they live. September
11th makes this commitment more important, not less.”
Re
However,
the success of the hegemonic process depends upon maintaining a balance between
national self-interest and the perception that the hegemonic country is
bringing benefits to all.
“Our ideas, our know-how and our culture reach every
corner of the world, and is transforming the world as
we knew it.”
“Our economic engagement with the rest of the world is
an important part of our effort to maintain the secure international
environment within which Americans and American businesses prosper. It helps
spread to others the benefits that we ourselves enjoy.”
Secretary Colin L. Powell, Board of Directors Meeting.
With
regard to extra-territoriality, a (re)definition of prime modernity took center
stage over economic globalization. In response to a terrorist act, an immense
criminal event, tropes of civilization and justice were used to bring
A calculated, malignant, and
devastating evil has arisen in the world. Civilization cannot ignore the wrongs
that have been done.
John Ashcroft, Attorney General Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General Thompson
Announce, Reorganization and Mobilization of the Nation's Justice and Law
Enforcement Resource November 8, 2001 http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2001/agcrisisremarks11_08.htm
The
Taliban served, in an Orientalist fashion (Said, 1979),
to not only define the
“
John Ashcroft Attorney General Transcript John Walker Lindh Press
Conference DOJ Conference Center
The key
point, reflected in the following comments by President Bush, is that the
“We will rid
the world of the evil-doers. We will call together freedom loving
people to fight terrorism.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html
“Terrorists
try to operate in the shadows. They try to hide. But we're going to
shine the light of justice on them.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011010-3.html
Eventually,
no corner of the world will be dark enough to hide in.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011010-3.html
The
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011015-3.html
There is no
corner of the Earth distant or dark enough to protect them. However
long it takes, their hour of justice will come.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html
Such a
strategy requires not only the political might of the hegemonic country but
also the power that comes from being the prime modernity.
"We're
going to go after these terrorists with a global reach on our own time, but as
rigorously as possible. We're going to get them where they are in whatever
shape they are."
Richard
Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State. Interview:
PBS Web Site
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terrorism/interviews/armitage.html
September 2001 (the exact date wasn’t given)
“Our mission
today is not only to root out and eliminate the terrorists—we must also enlarge
the circle of human freedom to include that vast majority of Muslim people who
are seeking to enjoy the benefits of living in a free and prosperous society,
but do not yet do so.”
Re
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20011114-depsecdef.html
Even a “hawk”, or perhaps velocirapotar according to The Economist,
such as Wolfowitz can see that geopolitics requires a cultural component to aid
global dominance. The attacks of 9/11 were perceived by the Bush Administration
as a catalyst to a redefinition of the
I think the
best way to attack -- to handle the attacks of September the 11th is to fight
fear with friendship; is to fight fear with hope; is to remind people all
around the world we have much more in common than people might think; that we
share basic values -- the importance of family, and the importance of faith,
and the importance of friendship.
President
Bush, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011025-2.html
were echoed by more
explicit recognition of an historic mission.
“History has called us into action, here at home and
internationally. We've been given a chance to lead, and we're going to
seize the moment in this country. As we've mentioned more than once,
what we do here at home is going to have lasting impact for a long
time. And I want to tell you what we're doing abroad is going to
have lasting impact, as well.”
President
Bush,
But such
mission has to be given concrete ingredients, as specified by Condoleeza Rice.
“On every continent, in every land, this
President, the education President at home, wants to press the goal of
education for all abroad.”
Re
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020201-6.html
The
hegemonic commitment requires a global strategy of diplomacy, one driven by the
common sense assumptions of the unquestioned legitimacy and supremacy of
“The terrorist attacks of 9/11
underscore the urgency of implementing an effective public diplomacy campaign.”
“There is no part of the world that we are not interested
in. We are a country of countries. We are touched by every country, and we
touch every country.”
Testimony at
Budget Hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Colin
L. Powell, Washington, DC.
The comprehensiveness and multi-faceted nature of this
project were also made clear by the Secretary of State.
“But the war on terrorism starts within each
of our respective sovereign borders. It
will be fought with increased support for democracy programs, judicial reform,
conflict resolution, poverty alleviation, economic reform and health and
education programs. All of these
together deny the reason for terrorists to exist or to find safe havens within
those borders.”
Re
The emphasis placed upon the charitable and developmental
image of prime modernity should not prevent us from recognizing that it is
extra-territorial in its geographic expression and, hence, geopolitical.
History also suggests that the imposition of a way of life into other sovereign
spaces cannot be achieved without military force. Secretary of State Rumsfield
seemed aware of this history lesson when he stated
We talked
early on, the president did, about the opportunity to rearrange things in the
world in a way that would be beneficial to our country and to peace and to
stability and to free systems, and how as we're doing this do we do it in a way
that because it's such a fundamental shift in how people think about the world,
how do we do it in a way that benefits the world after this event is over.
Secretary
of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/t02052002_t0109wp.html
In
remembering how hegemony and prime modernity are connected, it should be
emphasized that Rumsfield recognizes national interest first and assumes its
global benefits. “Rearranging things in the world” has been the historic role
of hegemonic powers (
“Some will ask whether a civilized nation – a nation of law and
not of men – can use the law to defend itself from barbarians and remain
civilized. Our answer, unequivocally, is "yes." Yes, we will defend
civilization. And yes, we will preserve the rule of law because it makes us
civilized.”
Attorney General John Ashcroft Prepared Re
“At the
conclusion of World War II came the reckoning at Nuremburg. Former Attorney
General and Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson led the prosecution of 21 Nazi
defendants for crimes against their countrymen, against their neighbors -- indeed,
crimes against humanity. All pleaded not guilty. Some claimed that they were
merely following orders. Others
disputed the jurisdiction of the court. But
John
Ashcroft, Attorney
General Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General Thompson Announce, Reorganization
and Mobilization of the Nation's Justice and Law Enforcement Resource November
8, 2001 http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2001/agcrisisremarks11_08.htm
Of course, the reasons for such actions require,
perhaps, none of this talk of hegemony and prime modernity. It is after all a
simple matter of manifest destiny.
“Watch us,
we're
Re
But a
manifest destiny that is linked to a hegemonic project, that secures ownership
of the seas as previous hegemonic powers have done while speaking for the whole
world.
“And I know the President will
consult with our friends and allies in the world because it is not just a
danger to the
Interview on
CBS's Face the Nation, Secretary Colin L. Powell. Interview by Bob Schieffer and Gloria Borger,
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2002/7781.htm
And the
hegemonic project is diffused from a national base, over a specific period of
time, with perceived global benefits.
And it is
our national security, the
Secretary
of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld,
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/t02032002_t0203abc.html
The
tropes of justice and freedom are the key contemporary codewords
for the practices of American hegemony that are to be encouraged across the
globe.
“We act today to protect the lives and safety not just of
Americans but all of those who believe in this idea and ideal of freedom, and
all of those who have sacrificed to live amidst the blessings of freedom.”
Attorney General John Ashcroft and INS Commissioner Ziglar Announce
INS Restructuring Plan
The flip-side
of the hegemonic dilemma is that the necessary practices of
extra-territoriality, the expansion of influence into other sovereign spaces
may decrease the security of one’s own.
"The
only turf we should be worried about protecting is the turf we stand on."
Re
Becker, E.,
& Sciolino E. (2001, October 9) A Nation
Challenged: Homeland Security; A New Federal Office Opens Amid Concern That Its
Head Won't Have Enough Power. The New York Times. B11
The
establishment of a cabinet level Office of Homeland Security is a recognition that the flows of globalization are not
operating just one-way anymore, but that the sources of that insecurity are the
practices of American hegemony.
“…to deal
with a 21st century environment that says the challenges to American's
sovereignty and our security, which historically have been offshore, but
because of the 20th century environment we find that the challenges are here…”
Press Briefing on Homeland Security,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011018-1.html
Or to
put it another way, the geography of the current challenges is a spatiality of
networks that blurs any distinction between “domestic” and “foreign”
(O’Tuathail, 2000). Moreover, these networks are a product of historically
prior American hegemonic practices. However, the embedded statism of formal
foreign policy requires a separation of the two (Agnew; 1999; Taylor, 2000;
Walker, 1993).
“It's one
war, but there are two fronts. There's a battlefield outside this country and
there's a war and a battlefield inside this country.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/22/national/22CND-EXCE.html
In the
minds of policy makers the distinction between the domestic and political
arenas remains, and the key political-geographic prophylactic separating them
is the international border of the
But any time there are borders that are that open
and that substantial, there are risks that people
crossing the border could be individuals who are involved in very serious
activities that could be troublesome.”
John Ashcroft Taken from transcript of press
conference with John Ashcroft and Canadian Solicter General Lawrence MacAulay
on
“I had an opportunity
several times to testify before the Senate and the House, and to make the point
that what we're dealing with here is not immigration; we're dealing with
evil.”
Attorney General John
Ashcroft Outlines Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force
“I'd like to note that the
INS has been and continues to be a very vital player in this war on terrorism,
in this investigation, as well as the ongoing process of protecting the
American people from what we see as the forces of evil.”
Jim Ziglar, the commissioner
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, AG Outlines Foreign Terrorist
Tracking Task Force
These
quotes reinforce the foreign/domestic polarity underlying mainstream
understanding of international politics (Agnew and Corbridge,
1995: 86; Walker, 1993). But the balance is not as simple as keeping terrorists
and criminals outside of the
“You
know, we used to think of
NBC
Nightly news Tom Brokaw interview with
At the
very least, policy makers are discussing a balance between openness and
security, and raising the broader question of whether nation-states are seeking
to redefine the balance between globalization and state sovereignty.
“We need to do more with respect to tracking people within
a society that is an open society. And we have to do it in a way that protects
us but, at the same time, does not cause us to be a closed society, be the kind
of society that would not be reflective of American values.”
Interview on
CNN, Secretary Colin L. Powell.
”The attack on September 11 was not just an attack on the
John Ashcroft Taken from transcript
of press conference with John Ashcroft and Canadian Solicter General Lawrence
MacAulay on
The
policy commentary post 9/11 served to territorialize particular notions of
freedom and civilization, American versions that were perceived to be for the
benefit of all and so worthy of imposition by processes of
extra-territoriality.
“And it should be a testimony and inspiration to every
American everywhere, to understand that public safety is everybody's business,
and it's our opportunity to do those things that preserve our liberty and the
integrity of what it means to enjoy the freedoms we call America.”
Attorney General John Ashcroft, Attorney General Re
“British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently spoke of the fragility
of our borders in the face of transnational terrorists. Conflicts, he said,
rarely stay within national boundaries. Tremors in one country reverberate throughout
the world. The threat, Prime Minister Blair concluded, is chaos.”
John Ashcroft, Attorney General John Ashcroft ,
Financial Action Task Force,
The
attacks upon American symbols of hegemony were used to re-invigorate a
hegemonic message and mission. It must be emphasized that this invigoration has
both domestic and foreign components that are intertwined (
“We'll be resolute in our
determination to rout out terror wherever it exists -- in our neighborhood or
neighborhoods around the world.”
Re
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020116-13.html
“We still face a shadowy enemy who
dwells in the dark corners of the earth. Dangers and sacrifices lie
ahead. Yet,
Re
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020123-13.html
The series of quotes from
the Bush Administration have served to highlight a number of points. First,
extra-territoriality is a key component of the practices of hegemony. Second,
extra-territoriality is founded upon economic strength and self-interest.
Third, the economic reach is facilitated by the diffusion of a cultural or
“civilizational” model, the prime modernity that is American in definition but,
it is argued, benefits all. Fourth, the global diffusions initiated by the
hegemonic power are also disruptive of the social compact upon which hegemony
is built, hence the sovereign space of the hegemonic
power must be protected in a way that does not derail the hegemonic project.
This is the hegemonic dilemma currently facing the
Internal tensions and the rise and fall of
prime modernity
A singular focus on the
extra-territoriality of hegemony emphasizes a geopolitics
of inter-state conflict (Modelski, 1987). On the other hand, defining the
presence of the hegemonic dilemma recognizes that hegemonic powers must balance
“domestic” and “foreign” concerns that are normally separated by academic and
political bureaucratic institutions (Taylor, 2000; Walker, 1993). The
disruption or reorganization of sovereign spaces is also felt within the
borders of the hegemonic power, suggesting that notions of security based upon
a misperception of territorial sovereignty do not apply (Agnew and Corbridge, 1995; Walker, 1993). The establishment of a
prime modernity requires the peripheralization of other lifestyles, including
those within the hegemonic state. It also offers a model of what society is
and, most importantly, the promises it holds; promises that must be kept to
avoid disaffection.
This brief section is a summary of
previous work (
On the other hand, the pattern in
the 1990s is starkly different as hate crime activity is concentrated in the
suburban areas of the state (Figure 2). Suburbia was the epitome of
Together these snapshots illustrate
that the process of establishing a new prime modernity entailed conflict within
the borders of the
Defending the Nation-State
The recognition that globalization
is a matter of diffusion (
The first image (Figure 3) illustrates
that the reduction of state sovereignty that was a key component of hegemonic
extra-territoriality is now seen as a threat to the hegemonic state itself. The
blurring of distinction between the flags of the UN and the
In the rhetoric of the extreme
right, a secure, militarized, and non-porous border is required to reassert
state sovereignty. The following image being most notable for the militarized
violence deemed suitable and necessary for its protection (Figure 5). But what
is to be protected? Underlying the hegemonic social compact is the social
primacy of the white heterosexual male. The final image invokes a sense of
cultural loss as “foreign” cultures diffuse into sovereign
Conclusion
Reterritorialization, evident in
some of the quotes from policymakers at the beginning of the paper, is also to
be seen in the extreme depictions of right-wing groups. Extra-territorial
practices have generated challenges to the integrity of
Understanding globalization as a
suite of diffusion processes (
1.
The data for the number of klaverns (or Klan cells) per county in Pennsylvania
is recorded in the Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg, PA, in the State
Police Archives, RG 30. The frequency of klaverns per county was standardized
to the rate per 100,000 using 1920 census data. This standardized score was
then mapped. The number of acts of intimidation and alleged crimes against the
person or property between 1985 and 1999 was used to measure contemporary hate
activity. These data were gathered from the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission. The PHRC is a state government office with the mandate to collect
data on acts of ethnic and racial intimidation. For further details see
References
Agnew, J.
(1993). The
Agnew, J.
(1999). Mapping political power beyond state boundaries:
Territory, identity, and movement in world politics. Millenium 28, 499-521.
Annan, D. (1967). The Ku Klux Klan. In N. Mackenzie, Secret
Societies (pp. 266-297).
Arrighi, G. (1994). The Long twentieth century: Money, power,
and the origins of our times. London New York
Arrighi, G.
and Silver, B. (1999).
Chaos and governance in
the modern world system. Minneapolis London University of Minnesota
Baumgartner, M.P. (1988). The moral order of a suburb.
Oxford New York Oxford University
Bennett, D. H. (1988). The party of fear: From nativist
movements to the new right in American history.
Berlet, C. and M. N. Lyons (2000). Right-wing populism
in
Danielson,
M.N. (1976). The
politics of exclusion.
Block, F.
(1987). Revising state
theory: Essays in politics and postindustrialism.
Dobratz, B.A. And Shanks-Meile, S.L (2000). The white separatist movement in the
Fishman,
R. (1987). Bourgeois utopias: The rise
and fall of suburbia.
Gallaher, C. (2000).
Global change, local angst: Class and the American Patriot Movement. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 18, 667-692.
Garreau, J. (1991).
Hardt, M. and Negri,
A. (2000). Empire.
Higham, J. (1966). Strangers in the land: Patterns of American nativism, 1860-1925.
Johnson,
G.B. (1923). A sociological interpretation of the new Ku Klux
movement. Journal of Social Forces
I (4), 440-445.
Leuchtenburg, W.E.
(1958). The perils of
prosperity, 1914-32.
Modelski,
G. (1987). Long Cycles
of World Politics.
O’Tuathail,
G. (2000). The post modern geopolitical condition. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 90, 166-78.
Polanyi, K. (1957).
The great
transformation.
Said, E. (1979) Orientalism.
Sassen, S. (1996). Losing Control? Sovereignty
in an Age of Globalization.
Schwartz,
H. M. (1994). States versus
Shideler, J.H.
(1973). Flappers, and philosophers, and farmers: Rural-urban tensions of the
Twenties. Agricultural History XLVII (4), 283-299.
Silver, B. J. and E. Slater (1999). The social origins of world hegemonies.
In Arrighi, G. and Silver, B.J., editors, Chaos and Governance in the Modern World
System.
Stern, K.
(1996). A force upon the plain: The
American militia movement and the politics of hate.
Teaford, J.C.
(1997). Post-suburbia: Government and
politics in the edge cities.
Walker,
R. B. J. (1993). Inside/outside:
International relations as political theory.
Wallerstein,
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6