Hegemony and Empire: Two Different Organizational Forms and Logic
In the 20 years since the end of the Cold War, profound changes have taken place in international relations, and many commentators have put forward different interpretations. 10 years ago, at the end of the cold war, the author wrote an article summarizing people's speculations and judgments on the post-cold war era [1], and also sorted out various popular views in international academic circles and media in recent years into five interpretations of the contemporary world [2]. It turns out that no matter how people speculate and judge, no matter from what angle, they still can't get rid of "empire" and. It helps us to better understand and grasp the stages and continuity of the historical evolution of international relations, so as to better grasp the present situation and future of international relations. There are many arguments about empire and hegemony, so the author is only ignorant, and many views in the article are not mature, so I will pass them on to readers.
Hegemony: Various Definitions and Debates
China's ancient books have the concept of "the world", but there is no "empire", but the discussion on "hegemony" is very rich. China's Ci Yuan traces the word "ba" and says: "The length of the ancient princes: the emperor declined, and the princes prospered, so it was called ba", "He who won the world was king, and the length of the princes was ba". [3]1818-18/9 During the Spring and Autumn Period, Qi Huangong's Guanzi not only had a profound understanding of hegemony, but also analyzed the institutional environment in which hegemony operated: "A strong country and a strong people unite to attack a weak country in order to seek hegemony. There are few powerful countries, so we can attack big countries by uniting small countries in order to be king. "[4] 120. China scholars who study contemporary international relations believe that Xunzi in the Warring States period divided the country into three types according to its nature: kingship, hegemony and power, and believed that "hegemony is an international power lower than kingship, and it is an international sovereignty obtained through powerful strength and strategic integrity when the monarch's morality fails to reach the level of kingship" [5] 6438+04.
China people's understanding of hegemony is different from that of the West. According to China's Ci Hai, the word "hegemony" first appeared in western Greek history, which refers to the control of some big city-states (such as Sparta) over other city-states. Later, it generally refers to that big countries and powerful countries do not respect the sovereignty and independence of other countries and forcibly interfere, control and rule other countries. [6] In 2002, the previous interpretation of Ci Hai was basically the same as that of western scholars [7], and the latter interpretation increased China's experience in opposing the hegemony of the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, during the Cold War. Modern western academic circles believe that hegemony is rule, which refers to the non-mandatory aspect of class rule, that is, the ability of the ruling class to impose its values and beliefs on others by using social systems. [8]3 19 It seems that modern China people's understanding of hegemony is more inclined to the use of "hard power" by hegemonic countries, while western interpretation focuses on the content of "soft power". However, hegemony is an organizational form of international relations, both in China's Spring and Autumn Period and Warring States Period and in the Greek city-state period in Europe, which is similar to the history of China and Europe.
If the above is the "classic" definition of hegemony, combing the modern literature, at least four different "hegemony" theories will appear in front of us, namely Gramsci's hegemony theory, the world systematist's hegemony theory, the realistic hegemony theory and the liberal hegemony theory.
In 1970s and 1980s, when western scholars were discussing the rise and fall of American hegemony, they found the Italian Gramsci. Gramsci's exposition on hegemony became the starting point of theoretical research, criticism and contention at that time. Gramsci's hegemony theory is more understood as cultural hegemony theory. Different from the traditional description of hegemony in the west, Gramsci described hegemony as a class rule, a rule exercised by the ruling class accepted by the subordinate class or the masses, and the control and leadership of the ruling class on social ideology. Gramsci believes that the establishment of the ruling class is equivalent to the creation of the world outlook. [9]246 Gramsci was unable to systematically expound his hegemonic theory in prison before his death, and his views were scattered in prison notes. In prison notes and letters written in prison, Gramsci clearly distinguishes between "domination" (repression) and "leadership", and emphasizes that cultural hegemony is achieved through public consent to governance. Gramsci attributed the important role of maintaining "the ideological unity of the whole social group" to thoughts, not that the power of thoughts is enough to eliminate class struggle, but because he thinks that they can alleviate class struggle to the extent that capitalist society can continue, especially in the capitalist society with a high degree of Ko Min-Joo. He believes that in these countries, the ruling class is no longer ruled by violence, but by moral and spiritual leadership, through a legal system or world outlook. Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony has brought a brand-new situation to academic cultural research, especially popular culture research, changed people's extreme views on popular culture for a long time, and enabled people to re-understand and define popular culture. At the same time, perhaps more importantly, Gramsci's hegemonic theory has given greater enlightenment to the study of international relations after the Cold War. Gramsci pointed out at that time: "Every kind of' leadership' relationship is inevitably an education, which occurs not only within a nation, but also between different forces that make up this nation, internationally and internationally, as well as between civilizations of various nations and continents." [9]262 Canadian scholar robert cox said: "Only countries that have achieved or are achieving social hegemony at home can establish a world hegemonic order. While consolidating its own strength, an emerging social hegemony also develops its expanding energy to the outside world. " [ 10] 105
World system theorists believe that hegemony is a hierarchical cumulative structure that runs through the history of the world system for nearly 5000 years. Gilles and others believe: "The purpose of hegemony is to make the hegemonic center (country) and its ruling (property) class enjoy the privilege of accumulating surplus value exclusively." [1 1] 134 wallerstein believes that hegemony stems from the fact that big countries in the international system have mastered the material foundation of industry, agriculture, commerce and finance, so that they can "impose most of their laws and wishes (at least through effective veto) on economic, political, military, diplomatic and even cultural fields", thus making subordinate countries have to sneer at hegemonic countries. [12]306-307 The definition of hegemony in the world system theory is reduced to the accumulation and distribution of surplus value, which flows from the periphery to the center in the form of "legality" through private property rights, contracts and other means.
Realism theory pays attention to power politics. Robert gilpin's hegemonic viewpoint can be summarized as dynamic equilibrium theory. He believes that war is the only way to realize system reform. Due to the continuous development of economy, politics and science and technology, there has been a process of imbalance and adjustment within the system. When the power is out of balance, some countries try to change their institutional arrangements to obtain significant benefits, and the existing hegemonic system will be impacted. After a hegemonic war, the international system in line with the new hegemonic interests will be rearranged. [13] Keohan and Nye, the representatives of liberalism, believe that war or major changes in the overall power balance are the fundamental reasons for the collapse of hegemony. This situation stems from many changes: first, hegemonic countries provide public goods, and second-rate powers can hitchhike for free; Second, the ability of hegemonic countries to formulate and implement rules declined, and after the hegemonic balance was shaken, the hegemonic system entered the fast lane of disintegration and collapse. [ 14]46-47
After the Cold War, the discussion on hegemony in the field of international relations mostly originated from the debate on the rise and fall of American hegemony, and at the same time began to be related to the rise of emerging powers in recent years, especially the rise of China. Interestingly, hegemony is basically a neutral word in academic discourse. But in the reality of international politics, hegemony is more of a derogatory term that people don't like. No country wants to be crowned as a hegemonic country. In China, people basically equate hegemony with hegemonism, and think that hegemony is "the act of manipulating or controlling other countries with strength in international relations". "Hegemony means that big countries and powerful countries forcibly interfere and control the internal affairs and diplomacy of small countries and weak countries by virtue of their military and economic strength, and dominate the policies and behaviors of the world or regions" [15]22, and they associate hegemonism with power politics. This makes it easy to simplify the connotation of hegemony. Wang Jisi distinguished between "hegemonism" and "hegemonic position", emphasizing that the former refers to "the guiding ideology, behavior and policy of pursuing and maintaining hegemony by using power coercion and its means of harming the interests of other countries", while the latter refers to "a kind of ability and objective situation". [16] This division has deepened people's understanding of the connotation of hegemony. In fact, on the whole, China people's understanding of hegemony is closer to what we can see, while the academic definition, especially Gramsci's explanation, focuses on the content of "soft power" we are discussing. [ 17]
From the perspective of international relations, Gramsci's hegemony theory reveals the domestic foundation of hegemony, that is, the acceptable dominant position of the subordinate class and the control and leadership of the ruling class on social ideology. Although Gramsci's hegemonic theory is the result of his thinking in a fascist prison more than 80 years ago, it is a powerful impact and supplement to the hegemonic theory of international relations today. World systematists explain the rise and fall of hegemony from the center-periphery structure of the world system, emphasizing the control of hegemonic countries on industry, agriculture, commerce and finance. Realistic theorists in international relations put hegemony in the framework of power politics. Of course, power politics is not only military intervention, but also the responsibility of providing public goods for the world order. Throughout the history of international relations, the concept and behavior of hegemony has a long history. Brzezinski believes that "hegemony is as old as human beings" [18]3. So what kind of relationship will hegemony and empire be?
Empire and Hegemony: Difference and Similarity
Empire and hegemony are two different forms and logics of international order in the history of international relations. In modern times, empire gives way to hegemony. Empire is also a derogatory term in the eyes of China people, and it is even more unwilling to admit that ancient China is also a huge empire, because people often equate empire with imperialism, and a modern history of China is a history of aggression and humiliation by imperialist countries. Times have changed, and it is time for us to face these two historical phenomena and academic concepts objectively and calmly. Many scholars have made a distinction between empire and hegemony, and now the author combs this from the aspects of form, structure and continuation mechanism.
First, the empire is a self-sufficient world, while hegemony is an international system. The self-sufficiency of the empire is reflected in two aspects: objectively, the empire is a relatively closed space, ending in "barbarians". This empire has no clear boundaries. Without the challenge of barbarians, the empire will continue to expand. In the ancient world, empires often kept pace with the development of civilization. The huge space empire has left splendid civilizations, such as Roman civilization, Egyptian civilization, Chinese civilization and so on. Toynbee pointed out: "No unified country will contain the whole earth, nor will it be truly unified. But in terms of the subjective feelings of people living under their regime, these countries are indeed unified, and they look like the whole world. " [19] The mentality of the empire also includes the division between civilization and barbarism. Empire considers itself the center of civilization and shoulders the responsibility of educating barbarians.
Compared with the imperial self-sufficiency, hegemony came into being and existed in a system. The so-called system refers to "a collection of various entities connected by regular interaction in a certain control form" [13]32. Qin Yaqing believes that the hegemonic system is composed of various entities, and the hegemonic country is the boss, thus shaping an "international hegemonic system" [20]83. Adam Watson, a representative of the English school, believes that the hegemonic system is not necessarily dominated by a big country, but may be jointly exercised by a small group of big countries. In other words, the number of hegemonic countries is harmless, and the key lies in "the hegemonic authority keeps talking with other countries, which is convenient for both sides to some extent" [2 1] 15. Barry buzan and Richard Little borrowed Watson's theory when analyzing the "international" structure of the ancient empire, and pointed out that the degree of autonomy owned by a unit increased with the distance from the center of the empire. The units under sovereignty and suzerainty are different from the imperial center that dominates them in some functions. In contrast, the units under hegemony have no difference in function because they claim to be independent of the imperial center [22] 159.