Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Political Culture and Hegemony Author(s): Jorge Hernndez Martnez and Mariana Ortega Brea Reviewed work(s): Source: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 34, No. 1, The Crisis of U.S. Hegemony in the Twenty-First Century (Jan., 2007), pp. 46-52 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27647993 . Accessed: 10/12/2012 14:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American Perspectives.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:41:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
by
certain
changes
in character States
and
direction,
culture
that is now
's lost hegemony of the cold war. once held. has The resur both at
intolerant, abroad.
violent
atmosphere is used
that characterized
today and
of violence
Keywords:
Hegemony,
political
culture,
national
security,
United
States,
imperialism
The United States, leader of global capitalism, has entered the twenty-firstcentury undergoing a process of hegemonic transition with a variety of contradictions. This has resulted in a more aggressive implementation of its imperialistic policies at both
Republican Ronald Reagan. During the preceding decade the country had undergone an upsurge of problems, including the Watergate scandal, the economic recession of Vietnam War, as well as domestic conflicts and freedom move and the the mid-1970s,
national and international levels. During the past 25 years, theUnited States has had to rearticulate its hegemony (see Ay erbe, 2001; Salinas, 2004; Hern?ndez Mart?nez, 2003a). The 1980 national crisis can be seen as a milestone in this process, determin ing the electoral race of that year and the establishment of the administration of the
ments that eroded its international image and influence. At the beginning of the 1980s, U.S. politicians sought to recover the nation's lost hegemony through a process that became known as the "conservative revolution." This ideological and political move ment, emerging from a variety of rightist tendencies rooted in national history and political culture, fashioned itself as a crusade against communism and all other ten dencies considered radical or contrary toU.S. interests,which were often presented as
threats to national security. A political culture based on historical traditions and values that ideologically ben efited the recovery of hegemony was thus consolidated. Generally speaking, it could be said that this political disposition is as useful nowadays as itwas more than two decades ago. After all, it legitimizes the nation's aggressive behavior both at home and abroad. Thus, to a great extent and despite certain changes in character and direction, contemporary U.S. politics is reproducing the themes and tools of the cold war (Hern?ndez Mart?nez, n.d.; Escurra, 2004).
is head researcher and director at the Center for Studies on the United States Jorge Hern?ndez Mart?nez is a freelance translator based in Ithaca, NY. Some of of the University of Havana. Mariana Ortega Bre?a the hypotheses mentioned works cited in the text. here have been explored previously and more extensively by the author in
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:41:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hern?ndez
/ U.S.
POLITICAL
CULTURE
47
this still appears to be a viable approach in the complex, changing, and contradictory world of the twenty-firstcentury. Looking at the aforementioned political culture as a
The contemporary history of the United States shows that the framework of the country's capitalist and imperialist development possesses great adaptive capacity. The ideological components of its predominant political culture have become impor tant tools in absorbing and overcoming the costs of its recurrent crises. What ismore,
continuum and examining it in its contemporary context along with itshistorical roots and expressions, I shall analyze the role of this culture in theUnited States's power scheme?its internally legitimizing function and its doctrinal implementation. These are crucial to the understanding of the country's ideological position during aspects times of change or crisis, a position that responds to national hegemonic interests and ambitions. When
key to the understanding of the doctrinal content and ideological bases of the political system?its portrayal of national interests, its discourse about national security, public perceptions of the national leadership, and the arguments that fuel foreign policy. The notion of "hegemony" is based on the definition given it by specialists such as Atilio Boron. It emphasizes theGramscian concept of an ideology-based dominance that is exercised by the state and enjoys consensus, thus legitimating the interests of the upper classes. From this point of view, it can be said that "after the crisis of the seventies, we are witnessing a military, economic, political and social re-constitution of U.S. hege My (Boron, 2004: 148). analysis is based on the following hypotheses:
I speak of "political culture" I am referring to the synthesis of trends, con ventions, and relatively stable values that characterize the relationships between vari ous social groups and political power, conditioning the political development of the society as a whole (Almond and Verba, 1980; Pye, 1971). In other words, I see it as a
mony"
tary power during theGulf War; it strove to attain a "new" kind of leadership in the midst of global change and to assume control of a "new" world order. 2. Since the fall of European socialism and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and, more important, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
tional alliances of that period, during which its hegemonic position was indisputable,1 and it has failed tomaintain the power it enjoyed at the beginning of the 1990s. Back then, the country had overcome the crisis of the 1980s and displayed enormous mili
1. The United States no longer enjoys the privileged economic, political, and mili World War II. It also lacks the national consensus and interna taryposition ithad after
world has been undergoing a transitionmarked by turbulence, conflicts, and contra dictions. In the case of theUnited States, thismanifests itself as a readjustment that affects the country's international position and behavior.2 3. The events of September 11 propitiated the consolidation of a new ideological platform that, although it focuses on a new kind of enemy, repeats elements that are
moted by external agents, it ignored the roots of the domestic violence and intolerance that mark its society's political culture. These roots are not derived from immigrants or hostile groups or ThirdWorld nations; they are part of a tradition that, stimulated by the ideology and practices of the extreme right,has produced expressions of domestic ter rorism thathave become an organic part of the national political spectrum.
rooted inU.S. political culture and are used to legitimize domestic policy. Terrorism has come to occupy the place that international communism held during the cold war. But when theGeorge W. Bush administration launched itswar on a kind of terrorism pro
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:41:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48
LATINAMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
4. The intransigence, racism, repression, and xenophobia that have become state policy are by no means new. They create a conspiratorial environment thatportrays the country as a fortress under siege thatmust protect itself against anti-American feel ings. The U.S.A. Patriot Act of October 26, 2001, invests federal agencies with new powers to combat internal terrorism; President Bush's June 1, 2002, speech atWest Point addressed a preventive war against the "axis of evil," and national security strat purportedly legitimate tool in the development of colonialism, ularly, imperialism. by a lack of legitimacy arising from the 2000 electoral process, the nature of the administration of George W. Bush had already been prefigured during the final part of the Clinton administration with a hardening of U.S. policies and the first glimpses of an economic recession. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Shadowed as a resulted in a conservative political turn. Some were reminded ofMcCarthyism war on terrorismwas instituted in place of the fight against communism. The vague old and oft-manipulated concept of "national security" would be invoked once more, this timemore vehemently than ever. egy evidences the country's interventionist goals. Violence has been an often-used and capitalism, and, partic
The historical process described above has been not linear but a mixture of pro gressive and conservative values, developments and regressions, moments of light and shadow. Some values based on the traditions and rhetoric of the founding fathers, such
as democracy, liberty,human rights, and justice, have become relative or been denied throughout the history of the United States, usually as a counterpoint between the actions and the discourses employed by national administrations.
Conservative tendencies in general and of the extreme right in particular have filled a niche inU.S. politics and society. Although they frequently manifest themselves in visible acts of intolerance, theymay also lie dormant and submerged. This culture of violence is superimposed on or supported by notions of national security. The notions that constitute ithave been present inU.S. political discourse for a very long time and are connected to the country's historical development. Specifically, they are related to the development of the capitalist society thatbegan forming during the colonial period and was consolidated after thewar of independence. Since then, theUnited States has
known only a capitalist system, and this explains both the solid presence of these ideas in the contemporary era and the consensus (regardless of class) with regard to their legitimacy and validity. As a function of hegemony, the notion ofU.S. national security operates on two lev els: it legitimates national policies on a domestic level and uses them as doctrine in the field of foreign policy. It is a slippery concept employed in a multiplicity of ways,
Third World,
always seeking to counteract anything requiring immediate action on the part of the government and involving military, economic, and/or political costs. With regard to foreign affairs, this is carried out on a transnational level that involves parts of the in which case what theUnited States seeks to defend is its hegemony rather than its national security. On the domestic front, this notion is used in a variety
of ways to justify any kind of repression. The most complex and dangerous aspect of these notions is that they transcend the narrow framework of imperialist political logic (i.e., the interests of a financial oli garchy and hegemonic power groups) and its conscious expression in terms of class awareness. They branch out from national political culture as a result of a psycho-soci ological mechanism that operates unconsciously throughout U.S. society. A system
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:41:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hern?ndez
/ U.S.
POLITICAL
CULTURE
49
established by a monopolizing bourgeoisie that exercises its power not only econom ically but also via the mass media can spread its political ideology to the deepest recesses of its culture. What is customarily presented as national security and por a means to secure the interests of trayed as a common national interest is really only those in power. Changes inU.S. domestic policy after September 11 follow this kind of rationale, reinforcing the president's central role and the legislature's full support of executive
decisions. The war on terrorism has led, for example, to themonitoring of personal communications, a violation of civil and legal rights.Old practices such as the autho rized murder of foreign leaders have been brought back to support the supposed war on terrorism (see Castro Marino, 2002a; 2002b; 2005). The legacy of September 11 has been crucial for the creation of this "new" dimension of national security, strength ening domestic consensus on theBush administration's domestic and foreign policies.
in rying about half a ton of explosives destroyed the Alfred Murrah Building Oklahoma City, a state facility that contained numerous offices and a child-care center and on normal days was staffed by about 500 employees. The attack killed 168 people.
nomic, military, and even cultural power, and took place during a time when the nation's foreign policies were becoming increasingly arrogant and unilateral. They have therefore had a profound impact on daily life, national psychology, and political culture in theUnited States. Here it is important to remember some other fairly recent incidents thatwould seem to have been forgotten despite the trauma they occasioned. In April 1995 a truck car
The events of September 11 shocked U.S. society, generated worldwide sympathy, and became a landmark in contemporary history. They were witnessed by millions of astounded, frightened human beings, were aimed at worldwide symbols of U.S. eco
That same day, 17 other government buildings in the United States received bomb A threats. few years before, on February 29, 1993, another terroristact had taken place at the symbolic World Trade Center, the heart of financial capital; 5 people had been killed and many others injured. Of course, neither of these events is comparable to those of September 11, but they indicate a pattern in U.S. society. In the Oklahoma a City case, the terroristswere U.S. citizens linked to extreme-right groups that have historical tradition. This evidenced, on both the domestic and the international long level, the existence of domestic terrorism and its destructive capacity. The ideological components of theUnited States date back to its birth as a nation: liberalism, individualism, idealism, the exaltation of private property, a perceived mes sianic role, a dislike of the state, and the importance of tradition are some of them.The
"American creed," as some writers have called it,would develop out of these values, creating a blueprint for the political and economic organization of the country, along with a national identity.Mixtures of elements such as liberalism and conservatism, which in European history have worked as opposed tendencies, have come together
under this "creed" (see Myrdal, 1972; Hodgson, 1976; Huntington, 1981). These notions culturally and ideologically feed the only mode of production the nation has ever known: a capitalist system stimulated by a self-perceived superiority, individualism, chauvinist nationalism, intolerance, and a predisposition toward the use
of violence under purportedly legitimate conditions. The latter is rooted in thefirst set tlers' necessary validation of violence first as a way of resisting hostile tribes and then as tool against theEnglish crown. It is in this context that conservatism flowers within the liberal matrix of U.S. elitist model society, affirming a Puritan, traditionalist, intransigent, and that underpins the national culture and manifests itself as a reactionary
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:41:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50
LATINAMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
tendency. The fundamental values of U.S. society are contained within a complex net. The ideology of themiddle class transcends its own sphere to cover the other classes and sectors of the social pyramid. This mechanism appeals to cherished myths and tra ditions that are rooted in national psychology and shared by the financial oligarchy, the rural population, and blue-collar workers in urban areas.
It could be said that ideological orientations described above have determined the character of extreme right groups such as theKu Klux Klan, the John Birch Society, theNational Rifle Association, theCuban American National Foundation, "born-again Christians" and the "religious right" and governments such as those of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. In all these cases, intolerance and the political culture of vio lence are themain tenets and are expressed through aberrant shows of racism, xeno
phobia, and aggression. The definition of "national security" occupies a crucial role inU.S. political cul ture. This discourse can be traced back to the first five years after World War II, and its development took place during the 1950s and 1960s. As I have said, it ismade up of a series of ideological traditions that are inherent in the evolution of U.S. capital ism and national history. The conditions that characterized theRevolutionary War and the historical background created by theCivil War (the completion of a bourgeois rev
olution followed by a process of national reconstruction) frame contemporary U.S. cultural and political orientations. The theoretical sources that support the concept of national security are to be found not in the postwar period, the 1950s, or theGreat Depression but in the very founding
of the nation (see Hern?ndez Mart?nez, 1990). These sources are organically linked to the aforementioned social roots and production system, which interactwith a particu lar geography, population, economy, and culture.While certain traditions sustain the doctrine of national security and legitimize the use of violence, theoretical elements
movements
1920s and 1950s). Usually this violence takes the form of organized extreme-right that seek to defend theirmembers' perceived rights or social positions. are fueled by factors such as dogmatic Puritanism, intolerance, religious preju They
provide content, structure, and functionality. Ideologically and culturally speaking, it is not uncommon to find acts inU.S. history that contravene moral and social norms in addition to flouting the law. This is certainly the case for the period immediately after the Civil War and, more visibly, the aftermath of the twoWorld Wars (i.e., the
dice, racism, ethnic prejudice, and xenophobia. They include religious and white supremacist movements, a rejection of immigrants and anyone who is perceived as a threat to national culture, and opposition to the perceived excesses of the federal gov ernment, which is seen as a hindrance to individual freedom and inspires people to
governability. They hardly ever pose a political alternative or contain political mean ing. Rather, they are an expression of a historically rooted culture of violence. However, they have never been explicitly categorized as a national security problem or targeted by the antiterrorist programs designed since September 11. As I have pointed out, the repressive, intolerant, and violent atmosphere that char acterized the cold war has resurfaced today. Quite a few political analysts, politicians,
cases, armed violence is considered legitimate. These actions can be said to qualify as domestic terrorism and affect the conventional meaning given to the phrase "national security" in that they disrupt internal order and impinge on social stability, peace, and
take justice into theirown hands. The Ku Klux Klan, theChristian Identitymovement, the neo-Nazi and skinhead organizations, the so-called militias, and other groups that form part of the vigilante movement can be counted among these factions. In all these
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:41:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hern?ndez
/ U.S.
POLITICAL
CULTURE
51
1992 triumph as the possible end to the conservative era theReagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. However, George symbolized by W. Bush's second termhas served to institutionalize the political culture thathas char acterized the country's historic development. This political culture has played a very and academics
saw Clinton's
important role in the nation's hegemonic transition and has been used to legitimize the use of violence both at home and abroad.
NOTES
concept of hegemony is still being debated, both as a theoretical notion and as an aspect of U.S. In this particular, the work of Antonio Gramsci has gained new relevance. Boron has worked on this subject for the past 20 years. The wealth of views on U.S. hegemony was evidenced in the debates 1. The at the Twenty-first FLACSO of Social General Assembly and the Third Latin American and Caribbean in October 2003. See also Ikenberry (1989). Sciences, held in Havana on this subject are varied and even contradictory. While some writers think that the United
studies.
is a strong as ever,Wallerstein (2005) says that, despite its undisputed military power, its economic, social, political, cultural, and geopolitical decline began three decades ago. I agree with Maira (2002) that to take into account processes of transi it is necessary "we live in a world of increasingly rapid changes; a fallen world order is not immediately replaced by a new one. There is tion because always a period of readjustment, short-lived or not, in which the old and new orders coexist."
REFERENCES
Almond, Gabriel and Sydney Verba (eds.) 1980 The Civic Culture Revisited. London: Luis Fernando Unidos y la Am?rica Latina: de Cultura. Ministerio La construcci?n de la hegemon?a. Havana: Casa de las
Little, Brown.
Am?ricas-Cuba/Cali:
e imperialismo en el sistema internacional," 2004 "Hegemon?a mon?a mundial: Alternativas de cambio y movimientos sociales. Castro Marino, Soraya 2002a Las elecciones de medio Unidos: t?rmino del 2002 electoral en Estados parcial). 2002b "Los Estados Havana: CESEU. din?mica y reajustes
Unidos:
An?lisis Cuadernos
{Informe Am?rica
pol?ticos."
30 (July-December): 100-128. 2005 El proceso electoral del 2004 Escurra, Ana Mar?a 2004 Estados Hern?ndez Unidos: Una y Acci?n Instituto de Estudios Mart?nez, 1990 Seguridad 2003a "Estados nacional." Nuestra
y el neoconservadurismo naciente
en Estados
Unidos.
CESEU. Aires:
en proceso
de consolidaci?n.
Buenos
de Estados Unidos. Havana: Ediciones ENPES. y pol?tica latinoamericana Unidos-Am?rica latina: el contrapunteo hist?rico entre la hegemon?a y la seguridad de Nuestra Am?rica 32 (August-December). Cuadernos de la guerra fr?a: lo que el viento no se llev?." Cuadernos de
Jorge nacional
Hodgson, Godfrey inOur Time: From World War 1976 America Books. Huntington, Samuel P. 1981 American Politics: Ikenberry, G. John 1989 "Rethinking The Promise
of Disharmony. hegemony."
Cambridge: Political
Press.
104: 375-400.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:41:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52
Maira,
LATINAMERICAN PERSPECTIVES
Luis "Estados Unidos ante 1-42. The Negro Problem and Modern New York: Pantheon el cambio del escenario internacional." Revista Mexicana de Pol?tica 65 (February): Gunnar
2002
Exterior
Myrdal, 1972 An American Books. Pye, L. 1971 Salinas, 2004 "Political Dar?o "Terrorismo
Dilemma:
Democracy.
culture
and
national
character,"
in Social
Psychology
and
Political
Behavior.
Columbus,
Ohio: Merrill
y seguridad:
145-164. (January-June): Immanuel Wallerstein, 2005 "La decadencia de EE.UU.: el ?guila se estrell? al aterrizar." Jornadas de Resistencia, September 11.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:41:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions