Immigration. Tolerance. These concepts are political buzzwords right now, especially after the contentious and bitter presidential election of the previous year. However, these concepts are nothing new and have constantly been a source of debate practically since the beginning of human civilization. These problems, characteristic of a multicultural and multiethnic society, are particularly acute in what Amy Chua terms as "hyperpowers" (rare globally dominant empires) in her 2009 book Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance and Why They Fall (p. xxi). Meant as a critical examination of the evolution of these hyperpowers over time (from military and conquest-focused to the modern commercial focused) and their similarities in their rises and falls, Day of Empire also serves as a very timely lesson concerning America's present and potential future (either as a multicultural society or not).
Chua begins her critical examination by taking a bird's eye view snapshot of important past empires that were arguably world dominant (insofar as what the known borders of the world were to a particular power at the time), starting with Achaemenid Persia (Achaemenid refers to the dominant tribe at the time in what is now roughly modern day Iran). From Persia, Chua takes the reader briefly through history by chronicling the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, China's Tang Dynasty, the Mongol Empire, medieval Spain, the Dutch Empire (more commercial rather than territorial in nature), the Ottoman Empire, China's Ming Dynasty, the Mughal Empire, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, imperial Japan, and modern-day America. Additionally, modern day China, the European Union (EU), and India are given brief attention along with America in terms of each power's potential and the obstacles to achieving superpower or even hyperpower status in relation to America's current hyperpower status. Out of all these societies, what were deemed hyperpowers by Chua and which societies did not make the grade?
Chua names Achaemenid Persia, the Roman Empire, the Tang Dynasty, the Mongol Empire, the Dutch Empire, the British Empire and contemporaneous America as hyperpowers (having made a dominant influence on the world at some point in their societal development). The Spanish, Ottoman, Ming, Mughal, Nazi, and Japanese empires peaked at superpower status at best (regional power at the very least). Why? Chua argues that while there are myriad and variable factors depending on the historical case concerned, a huge factor that ties all the cases together is the degree of tolerance a society showed towards the peoples their societies ruled over or heavily influenced. In other words, diversity presented a double-edged sword for societies that emerged as the unipolar powers of their times, both giving societies the necessary population and economic, political (to some degree), cultural and social dynamism needed to vault to the top in the latter dimensions and also an underlying tension that threatened overall societal collusion. While getting the best and brightest of multiple societies (including their economic and technological know-how) vaulted these societies to the top of their power, it also became more difficult to provide the "glue" (a common identity or idea that links people to the state or empire and makes them more likely to give their allegiance to said centralized power) that the empire needed to retain its cohesion over time (Chua, 2009, p. xxix, 330).
Eventually, while all of the empires listed above (aside from present day America) declined for multiple reasons (all of the latter factors normally gradual reasons for societies at the top to necessarily decline including territorial, militaristic, or economic overreach, high debts, increasingly authoritarian political policies, the institution of official state religions or languages, etc.), undergirding it all (and often accelerating the decline) was often a corresponding rise in destabilizing xenophobia, intolerance, and violence. Therefore, past societies often balanced on a knife's edge in trying to both open their societies to as many diverse peoples as possible in order to further strategic ends (i.e. achieving as much power in as many areas as possible) while mitigating the destabilizing potential of their multicultural/multiethnic societies. The societies that were the most open staved off this decline for much longer than those societies that were never able to extend their "strategic tolerance" to as many of the peoples as possible that composed their society, with prominent examples being Spanish and the Nazis (Chua, 2009, p. 249-250).
So where does America fit into all of this? Chua implies that the United States could be on the decline from its hyperpower status it achieved post WWII, the culmination of centuries of being an immigrant nation and the only country relatively intact after the war. The oft-cited threats to American unipolar power (China, India, the EU, and potentially Russia and their rises relative to America) combined with a latent global resentment from failed interventions in the Middle East primarily designed to impose an American model of democracy and peace on the countries concerned (along with its overall dominant power in the international system) and a domestic trend towards gradual isolationism (of course including elements of xenophobia and racism prominently seen in the 2016 election rhetoric concerning immigration and national security) are formidable obstacles for America today.
Yet, these obstacles are ones that have been seen before. The good news for readers is, according to Chua, America can retain its dynamism and power by resisting the inwards turn that often accelerates a society's decline (whether or not it is an empire in the traditional or the modern sense, where societies become influential primarily through non-military means). Resisting isolationism includes critical but practical immigration policies that allow America to continue drawing the world's talent and use it for strategic benefit (as well as the other tangible benefits of a diverse society) as well as cementing America's informal influence over the international system by the reinforcing of existing multilateral institutions and the making of new multilateral, bilateral, and regional institutions. Therefore, I agree with Chua's assertion that the latter will help provide the necessary glue that binds America to the world and consequently help to retain both America's power and good image internationally. However, first we as a country have to come to a consensus and rediscover the values that initially bound (and continue to bind) America together. Yes, that includes immigration and tolerance. Can America do this? In her conclusion, Chua makes a convincing and hopeful case to the reader in the end of the book that yes, America can learn the lessons of the past and overcome these obstacles in the long-run.
All in all, I would recommend this book for all readers because of Chua's ability to present a clear big picture (despite being too concise and general in some parts of her historical analysis in order to build support for her thesis) and, while arguing for a positive outcome for America in the long-run, leaves it up to the reader to make up their own minds about the critical issues considered in Day of Empire.
Works Cited:
Chua, Amy. (2009). Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance and Why They Fall. New York: Anchor Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment