Americar Ideals versus American Institutions

Huntington, Samuel P.

doi:10.2307/2149312

Cited by 54 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The only explanations that can be found have highlighted metropolitan or domestic determinants. One such explanation draws upon American “exceptionalism” that insists that the United States has been unique for its enduring “liberal, democratic, individualistic, and egalitarian values” forged by the nation's founding moments (Huntington 1982; Kammen 1993:6; Lipset 1996). For explaining imperial forms, the argument is that the United States has been inherently unwilling to adopt formal empire because its “democratic culture and institutions” (Ikenberry 2002:204), “the nature of its political culture” (Pagden 2005:54), its “unalterable foundation” in anti‐colonial and liberal principles (Schwabe 1986:30), or its lack of an aristocratic class (Porter 2006; Pratt 1958:114; Schwabe 1986:30; Smith 1994:148).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

2008

Sociological Theory

186

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article develops a global fields approach for conceptualizing the global arena. The approach builds upon existing approaches to the world system and world society while articulating them with the field theory of Bourdieu and organizational sociology. It highlights particular structural configurations ("spaces of relations") and the specific cultural content ("rules of the game" and "symbolic capital") of global systems. The utility of the approach is demonstrated through an analysis of the different forms of the two hegemonic empires of the past centuries, Great Britain and the United States. The British state tended toward formal imperialism in the 19th century, characterized by direct territorial rule, while the United States since WWII has tended toward informal imperialism. The essay shows that the difference can be best explained by considering the different historical global fields in which the two empires operated.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

2008

Sociological Theory

186

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the Third Reich is another most‐likely case for a general democratic presumption of autocratic aggressiveness, by Barbara Farnham’s (2003) account, Franklin Roosevelt prior to September 1938 was not convinced that Hitler had aggressive intentions. Farnham (2003:402) in fact indicates that even after the September 1938 crisis with Hitler, Roosevelt shared with other democratic leaders “a brief spell of relief and optimism” that with the gain of the Sudetenland Hitler had finally been satiated (see also Huntington 1982:21).…”

Section: A Theoretical Critique Of the Extension Hypothesis And Its Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The hypothesis is attuned to the possibility that democracy carries less moral weight in joint democracy dyads that include non‐Western states, and to the possibility that imposing regime‐change by force can bring resentment and indignation that countervail respect deriving from joint democraticness. The hypothesis also is free of premises embodied in the extension hypothesis that encourage democracy militancy against nondemocracies, specifically, the presumptions of democratic moral superiority abroad and autocratic inclination toward aggression (see also Huntington 1982:21–22; Cohen 1994:223; Jahn 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying the Place of Democratic Norms in Democratic Peace¹

Friedman

2008

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay contributes two arguments on the place of democratic norms in democratic peace. First, the literature under‐appreciates the inter‐democracy moral constraint hypothesis: the hypothesis is ignored in the “critical test” of the most frequently cited article on democratic peace and research finding that joint democracy has consistently contributed to peace since the early twentieth century, particularly among developed states; fits with inter‐democracy fights in the ancient world; is attuned to the possibilities that democracy carries less moral weight in joint democracy dyads with non‐Western states and imposing regime‐change can bring resentment that countervails respect deriving from joint democraticness; and is free of the presumptions of democratic moral superiority abroad and autocratic inclination toward aggression. Second, the absence of a determinate correspondence between domestic and external agency, structure, and action makes inevitable that members of democracies will hold competing views on “extending” domestic norms abroad; yet, just as this diminishes the extension hypothesis as a general explanation of democratic peace, it makes government‐level orientation on the extension of domestic norms an important shaper of democracy war‐proneness and the ways in which democracies get involved in wars. Various democratic peace research designs are inconclusive if a government foreign policy orientation variable is omitted. The study’s two arguments provide insight into specifying foreign policy orientations.

show abstract

“…The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, both Communist ideological‐states, came apart because they existed on civilizational fault lines, a situation the U.S. faces because it is not a “nation‐state in the classical sense of the term” (Huntington, 1997a:35). It is, in political terminology, an “ideological‐state” (see Huntington, 1989). Therefore, his fear is that America will come “undone.”…”

Section: The Real Focus Of Huntington's Thesis: America's Exceptionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Samuel Huntington and the Geopolitics of American Identity: The Function of Foreign Policy in America's Domestic Clash of Civilizations

Aysha¹

2003

Int Studies Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The clash of civilizations thesis's true origins lie partly in problems Samuel Huntington sees brewing in his own country. His thesis is to a considerable extent an externalization of these troubles––an attempt to solve them through international means, while serving U.S. national interests in tandem. As a scholar of American exceptionalism Huntington is––explicitly and openly––concerned about the political unity and cultural homogeneity of his country in the absence of the existential threat of world Communism. He sees “multiculturalism” and excessive immigration threatening America's dominant Anglo‐Saxon, Protestant, English culture and its libertarian political values. Right‐wing “anti‐federalism” is threatening the authority and very existence of the federal government, while “commercialism,” the elevation of commercial interests above all else among economic and political elites, intensifies the class conflict roots of much anti‐federalism. The solution to these myriad problems is a foreign threat, whether real or perceived; hence, the clash of civilizations.

show abstract

Americar Ideals versus American Institutions

Cited by 54 publications

References 0 publications

Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

Identifying the Place of Democratic Norms in Democratic Peace¹

Samuel Huntington and the Geopolitics of American Identity: The Function of Foreign Policy in America's Domestic Clash of Civilizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Americar Ideals versus American Institutions

Cited by 54 publications

References 0 publications

Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

Identifying the Place of Democratic Norms in Democratic Peace1

Samuel Huntington and the Geopolitics of American Identity: The Function of Foreign Policy in America's Domestic Clash of Civilizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Identifying the Place of Democratic Norms in Democratic Peace¹