Hello From Space

From the nursery to international government, the mechanism that runs the world could well be described as a search for power. It can be broken down effectively to those who have the power and those who do not. Power, when viewed as a resource harnesses the capacity to mobilize certain ends such as military strength, diplomatic relations, and economic stability. Power viewed as knowledge ascribes validity to people who then get to create what will be the normative behavior for a culture or cultures. Even ideas such as the lifestyles of such idolized families as the Kardashians can create symbols that later become the norm for a given culture. Power can be viewed from many angles including many we have not mentioned. Inscribed power is possessed by institutions depending on their relative position to other institutions (Flint & Taylor, 2011: p. 28-32). Using the nursery as an example, power is simply one infant taking a toy from another infant and being powerful enough to keep it.

From the foundation of how power is approached and defined we arrive at the notion of hegemonic power. According to our text (Flint & Taylor, 2011: p. 310) hegemony is defined as “a position held by a state or a class when it so dominates its sphere of operation that other states or classes are forced to comply with its wishes voluntarily. States are defined as hegemonic at the scale of the world-system, classes at the scale of the state.” A state becomes a hegemonic power when it achieves primacy in production over rivals, commercial advantage, and financial dominance in the world economy (Flint & Taylor, 2011: p. 50-51). A state as a hegemonic power must lead the world in production, profit, and cultural expressions. It is widely accepted that the United States is the most recent hegemonic power. However it is also widely speculated that the United States is in the B2 phase of Kondratieff’s cycles, otherwise known as declining hegemony (Flint & Taylor, 2011: p. 55: table 2.1). Wallerstein (2003) points out that a large portion of the world now harbors negative views toward the United States and that is largely affecting the US as a hegemonic power.

The question then arises if the United States is in fact a declining hegemonic state, who will the next hegemonic state be? There is however a far more intriguing question in the realm of political geography. Will there be another hegemonic state or will hegemonic power come from another source altogether? Perhaps, it will be a corporation and not a territorial state (Beer, 2009; Cox, 1992; Krasner, 1976; & Nye, 1990). This conversation has been entertained for decades within the scholarly discourse of political geography. The answer still has not made itself clear. Will the United States find its way back to the top of the world? Will it continue to decline and watch another state gain hegemonic power? Will we see a corporation or a multi-national individual with large funds and public sway become the next hegemon? Are we perhaps witnessing the end of hegemonic power all together (Callahan, 2008)?

The Pilgrims left Great Britain in search of many things. The tyranny of King George had to come to an end. They demanded space to be themselves, freedom to make their own laws and the right to worship as they saw fit (Fliegelman, 1985: p. 5-6). Perhaps, young America was truly sincere when the forefathers spoke of justice, freedom, and liberty for all. However, the exploration of the West, the thousands of acres of land stolen from the Native American and the gold rush of California (Paul, 1965) changed everything. It was not long before gold became currency and with the advent of this new currency, capitalism took off like a bird released from a cage.

A little more than a century after her birth, America began rising to her power as hegemonic state (Flint & Taylor, 2011: p. 55). She had come to be a rival with Germany and had become a master at mass-production. In the early 1900’s the world witnessed the collapse of Great Britain’s free trade and the decisive defeat of the German military. At the time, Lady Liberty was known to have open arms for the tired and hungry masses and thousands of immigrants flocked to American shores in waves. The United States rose to hegemonic maturity in the 1940’s and New York became the world’s center for financial trade.

Like a bully gone unchecked, the United States took what they wanted from the countries which held the resources they needed to collect the greatest profit. Between 1945 and 1960, the world shifted yet again and Big Oil became a large global focus challenging the United States in her hegemonic power and causing both public and private warfare all in the name of oil (Jezer, 1982). The fight for oil continues on. The fight for resources continues to lead one country or a group of countries to holding global power and leading the rest of the world as they see fit.

Wallerstein (1974) defines three structural geographic political positions: the core, the semi-periphery and the periphery. The core is defined as “one of three major zones of the world-economy…in world-systems analysis. It is characterized by core processes involving relatively high-wage and high-tech production (Flint & Taylor, 2011: p. 308).” The core is not always known for being friendly or supporting the periphery or the semi-periphery. The core is however known to take what it wants and thrive. Core countries are often known to take from the resources of the periphery and semi-periphery and bloodshed is often associated with this procurement of resources.

The semi-periphery is defined as “the middle category of the three-zone division of the world in world-systems analysis. It is characterized by a mix of both peripheral and core production processes (Flint & Taylor, 2011: p. 314).” The semi-periphery countries are middlemen. Some are known to take of the resources of the periphery to their own benefit. However, they are always forced to remain mindful of the core countries and the political and monetary dues they are constantly owed. The semi-periphery does not stand without the core; however, it does have some power and authority over the periphery.

The periphery is defined as “one of three major zones in world-economy…characterized by peripheral processes consisting of relatively low-wage and low-tech production (Flint & Taylor, 2011: p. 312).” Many periphery countries might stand on their own were they left alone. The constant involvement of the semi-periphery and especially core countries make the periphery living off their own natural resources problematic at best and often completely impossible. Periphery countries are often lands rich in natural resources that are stolen by the core countries especially and with no means of defending themselves must live at lower than subsistence levels while struggling to survive.

Capitalism is a very Westernized idea. It is a money-monger. It is selfish and obscene. Capitalism looks out for the wealth of the elite and cares not what pain and suffering it causes to those who struggle to survive. Capitalism is a beast that must be destroyed. It is vile and murderous. It is fueled by hatred and greed. It seeks only to satisfy its own momentum and worries not for the lives lost in its wake. There are plenty of resources on this planet for all her people and the only reason some suffer without nutrition and die is due to greed.

The core countries are strong in military power. The core countries are strong in production. The core countries are good at taking resources from the semi-periphery and periphery countries in order to sustain their high income lifestyles. Core countries do not always manage to get along. Each core country has the capitalistic ideal at being the best in the world, the richest in the globe, and the most unstoppable in warfare. However, sometimes core countries form alliances for political and/or financial reasons. These alliances only make the core countries that much more formidable.

The semi-periphery countries are forced into buying into the capitalistic model. They work hard to please the core and stay in good graces and just like the middle child, they turn toward the periphery and exact what they believe they deserve from those less fortunate. This is the largest problem with this model. Meanwhile, the periphery does what it can to survive. It does what it can to thrive. It may just be the periphery that truly has an idea of what life is meant to be.

Follow me to Guatemala. Four college students were determined to live at the subsistence level of poverty which is one dollar per day (Wagstaff, 2003). These college students travelled to Guatemala and set up an intense algorithm for randomization of the amount of money they were allowed to have each day (Huffington Post, 2012). They faced the same problems that the locals faced: days without money, worms and intestinal diseases, and poverty level standards of living that would shock an American-born citizen. The most amazing part of the documentary created around this story, was the vibrant nature of the lives of the citizens of Guatemala. Their lives focus on laughter. Their lives focus on joy. Their lives focus on family activities such as work, exercise, and meals.

Perhaps the greatest weapon the citizens of the world have against capitalism is to put down our material possessions, to stop buying into their model and to truly remember what it is like to enjoy life. Capitalism has no power without the wealth of the citizens. Capitalism has no power without the resources she sells. Capitalism has no power without the existence of greed. We feed the belly of the beast and it grows infinitesimally.

In his powerful story, The Story of B (Quinn, 2010), Daniel Quinn talks about those who take and those who give. He goes into great detail about the advent of agriculture and the departure of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. He discusses how it affected humanity and how a new culture arose around this new way of life. He challenges each reader to privately admit whether he is a taker or a giver. He challenges the culture based on a greed and accumulation of wealth. He speaks deep into each listening soul and asks them to see what this way will eventually do to our planet.

Flint and Radil (2009) make an astute observation regarding the connection between terrorist activity and the status of a country as a core, semi-periphery or periphery country (Flint & Taylor, 2011: p. 69). Those that suffer the most are the most powerless to defend themselves against the machine.

(www.tandfonline.com)

If the accumulation of wealth is the be-all, end-all of the capitalist model, and those that have the wealth, have the power, what do we see to be the outcome of this culture? If terrorism is connected to the stability of the core, where does the cycle end? If the nature of hegemonic power is changing, is it possible that the nature of power is changing as well?

The core has been fighting for resources for so long that they did not take the time to listen to the cries of the periphery. The semi-periphery has been stuck in the middle confused as to which way to align but knowing that they must take in order to gain status in this capitalistic world. As long as money is power and power is revered as the top of the world systems structure, we are raping a planet that has no method of defending herself against this parasitic species called Human.

What comes next? Since World War II, we have boomed in population. We have boomed in our use of resources. We have a continued and growing problem. We are depleting the Earth’s resources (Chichilnisky, 1996). While the core is busy stealing from the rest of the world; while core countries are at war with one another; while the periphery struggles to survive, we are ignoring a progressing problem of the depletion of our planet’s resources. Would it not be nice if the next hegemonic power was a multi-billion dollar corporation funded by an honestly global representation of her countries in order to come up with ideas for allowing the earth to thrive for many millennia to come? Would it not be nice if we formed a global council that actually met together to facilitate all of the earth’s residents the right to resources they need to survive? Would it not be nice if the current hegemonic power led the way in creating a sustainable future for all of Earth’s inhabitants? Go ahead! Call me a dreamer. “I’m not the only one (John Lennon).” The real question is: what will the next chapter on power be?

References:

Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985-1002.

Callahan, W. A. (2008). Chinese visions of world order: post‐hegemonic or a new hegemony? International Studies Review, 10(4), 749-761.

Chichilnisky, G. (1996). The economic value of the Earth's resources. Trends in ecology & evolution, 11(3), 135-140.

Cox, R. W. (1992). Towards a post-hegemonic conceptualization of world order: reflections on the relevancy of Ibn Khaldun. Governance without government: Order and change in world politics, 132.

Fliegelman, J. (1985). Prodigals and pilgrims: The American Revolution against patriarchal authority 1750-1800. Cambridge University Press.

Flint, C. & Taylor, P. (2011). Political geography: world-economy, nation-state and locality. Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Huffington Post, 2012: Living on a dollar: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/living-on-one-college-students-one-dollar-a-day_n_2034537.html.

Jezer, M. (1982). The dark ages, life in the United States, 1945-1960. South End Press.

Krasner, S. D. (1976). State power and the structure of international trade.World Politics, 28(03), 317-347.

Nye, J. S. (1990). The changing nature of world power. Political Science Quarterly, 177-192.

Paul, R. W. (1965). California gold: The beginning of mining in the Far West. University of Nebraska Press.

Wagstaff, A. (2003). Child health on a dollar a day: some tentative cross-country comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, 57(9), 1529-1538.

Wallerstein, I. (2003). The decline of American power: The US in a chaotic world. New Press, The.

Wallerstein, I. (1974). 3.3 The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: concepts for comparative analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4), 387-41.

Quinn, D. (2010). The story of B. Bantam.