After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order (European Perspectives: A Series in Social Thought and Cultural Criticism) Emmanuel Todd.
Sat 25th March, 2006 – Introduced by George Blecher
After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order (European Perspectives: A Series in Social Thought and Cultural Criticism) Emmanuel Todd.
BUY NOW AT
First review (of 2)
We tried to deal with this diffuse but provocative book by breaking the discussion down into three general areas: Todd’s thesis that American democracy has evolved toward oligarchy, and is no longer held up as a general standard by the rest of the world; the thesis put forth by Todd (and Francis Fukuyama) that modernity brings stability, and that the conflicts in transitional societies like the Middle East are actually short-term reactions to a more general movement toward democratization; and an examination of the US as a reluctant empire, and specifically in what sense it is or isn’t “universalist.”
Regarding the first point, the general sense of the participants was that perhaps US democracy had moved somewhat toward oligarchy, but this was also true of other democracies, and that within the “ruling” class there was little organization or even communication, and there was also a good deal of elasticity, as evidenced by the warring factions in the Republican party. The group seemed to think that Todd and Fukuyama were onto something in their view of the stability that modernism brings, and that beneath the sensationalistic headlines and Huntington Manicheanism there were indications of a general movement toward democracy even in the Middle East.
The point about universalism produced a number of interesting responses. One of the participants suggested that French universalism was only skin-deep, and that in terms of a “successful” empire, the British with their policy of indirect rule were more effective than the French and Russians. Also, one could make a case that multiculturalism was just as “universalist” as inclusiveness, and that the real problem with American hegemony was that it offered hollow slogans instead of the procedural apparatus for real change.
Review by George Blecher, Introducer
I am not as convinced that Todd’s analysis was very useful. It seemed severely lacking any methodological structure and rigour and seemed to cavalierly make statements that could not be corroborated. Unfortunately, it has become quite acceptable to make impressionistic declarations today – and often be trumpeted as ‘insightful’ or ‘thought provoking.’ While some of his empirical research on birth rates was interesting (and numerous people commented on his diagrams) the leaps he made to generalisations often fell short of explaining and understanding phenomena.
With regard to the first point, it seems that the elite of the western world and most certainly within the United States, has lost faith in what their own project is. Rather than the rest of the world losing faith necessarily in the standard of a ‘universal’ or exceptional ‘Americanism’, perhaps it is the leaders of America that are suffering from an existential crisis. No longer able to motivate the American project in terms of opposition to some Soviet threat, with the contesting ideas of Left and Right departed the political stage, what is left is TINA (There Is No Alternative) to the market, with very little inspiration. Worse, perhaps, a sense of anxiety and fear pervades the very culture in which we operate that presents the human project as almost pathological: humans are ‘mad, bad and dangerous’ and somewhat out of control.
The ‘culture wars’ in the US saw a protracted debate around the themes of western identity and the legacy of the enlightenment, with ‘Dead White Males’ being presented as responsible for much of the unsavoury activities of the colonial and imperial periods. However, alongside this, the ascendancy of post modernism and a broader unease with reason meant that many of the certainties that previous rulers could count on have disappeared. This has had significant ramifications for the ability to motivate the idea of ‘America’ both domestically and internationally.
While some agreed with the points Todd made with regard to the Middle East and emerging stability – contrary to populist presentations of an out of control central Asian region – the very nature of western disorientation often seems to lead to more problems than it solves. The ‘empty proceduralism’ which policy devoid of political intent, just managerial pragmatism can often be just as destructive (or perhaps, at times, more so) than a specific campaign of militarism with objectives and vision.
In paraphrasing Nietzsche towards the end of the book on (p.197) Todd suggests that we can ‘wrest ourselves from the hold of ideology, the illusion of the moment, and the media’s permanent false alarm.’ However, while Todd has attempted to dissect the anti American sentiments prevalent within the anti globalisation ‘discourse,’ he has missed the central point that the problem seems not so much to be needing to renounce old ideologies, but the fact that people generally have given up on the idea that politics can be a solution to the problems of the people. As one Salon member noted, the exiting of the people from the political stage has made it largely irrelevant. In effect that means suspending history, until we have decided that we can make it again.