Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:01:58.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the “myth” of hegemonic stability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Isabelle Grunberg
Isabelle Grunberg
Affiliation:
Attaché d'Enseignement et de Recherche at the Institut d'EtudesPolitiques in Paris.
Get access

Abstract

There is a growing discrepancy between the popularity of the hegemonic stability theory and the amount of material pointing to the theory's shortcomings, both analytic and empirical. This article begins with a discussion of the theory's major weaknesses and then offers an analysis of the theory's discourse. Using methods of structural analogy and the study of imagery, the investigation proceeds from the most superficial to the most deep-seated and universal imagery found in the theory's discourse. It argues that the idea of hegemonic stability and the notion of the benevolent hegemon have their roots in powerful and interrelated myths, including myths of the golden age, the Savior, and the death of the sun. It also argues that the ability of these myths to sway human emotions has interfered with the process of theory-building and scientific investigation, of which intuition is a vital component. It concludes that the continuing popularity of the hegemonic stability theory is based on the timeless appeal of the myths that it incorporates.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , Autumn 1990 , pp. 431 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Gilpin, Robert. U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation: The Political Economy of Foreign Direct Investment (New York: Basic Books, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gilpin, Robert, The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967–1977,” in Holsti, Ole R., Siverson, Randolph M., and George, Alexander L., eds.. Change in the International System (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1980), pp. 131–62Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Kindleberger, Charles P., The World in Depression, 1929–1939 (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Pelican Books, 1987)Google Scholar; Kindleberger, Charles P., “Systems of Economic Organizations,” in Calleo, David P., ed., Money and the Coming World Order (New York: New York University Press, 1976), pp. 15–40Google Scholar; Kindleberger, Charles P., “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy: Exploitation, Public Goods and Free Riders,” International Studies Quarterly 25 (06 1981), pp. 242–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kindleberger, Charles P., “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986), pp. 841–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krasner, Stephen D., “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” World Politics 28 (04 1976), pp. 317–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

2. Gowa, Joanne, “Rational Hegemons, Excludable Goods and Small Groups: An Epitaph for Hegemonic Stability Theory?” World Politics 41 (04 1989), p. 310CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. See Lake, David A., “International Economic Structures and American Foreign Economic Policy, 1887–1934,” World Politics 35 (07 1983), p. 518CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keohane, , “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes,” p. 156Google Scholar; and Snidal, Duncan, “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” International Organization 39 (Autumn 1985), p. 579CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Haas, Ernst B., “Words Can Hurt You; or, Who Said What to Whom About Regimes,” in Krasner, , International Regimes, p. 26Google Scholar.

5. See Calleo, David P., Beyond American Hegemony: The Future of the Western Alliance (New York: Basic Books, 1987), pp. 218 and 220Google Scholar; and Calleo, David P. and Rowland, Benjamin, America and the World Political Economy: Atlantic Dreams and National Realities (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975), p. 17Google Scholar.

6. Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” pp. 289 and 304Google Scholar.

7. Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations, p. 364Google Scholar.

8. Keohane, , After Hegemony, p. 38Google Scholar.

9. See Gowa, Joanne, “Hegemons, International Organizations, and Markets: The Case of the Substitution Account,” International Organization 38 (Autumn 1984), pp. 661–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Evans, Peter B., “Declining Hegemony and Assertive Industrialization,” International Organization 43 (Spring 1989), pp. 207–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Regarding the ambiguities in After Hegemony, Snidal, makes a similar remark in “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” p. 581Google Scholar.

10. Strange, Susan, “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony,” International Organization 41 (Autumn 1987), pp. 551–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. See, for example, Rees-Mogg, William and Davidson, James Dale, “How the World Can Profit by the Crash of '87,” The Times, 9 02 1988Google Scholar.

12. Strange, “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony.”

13. Russett, Bruce, “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony; or. Is Mark Twain Really Dead?” International Organization 39 (Spring 1985), pp. 209 and 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. See Calleo, David P., The Atlantic Fantasy: The US, NATO and Europe (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970), p. 14Google Scholar; Gilpin, , U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation, p. 151Google Scholar; Lake, , “International Economic Structures and American Foreign Economic Policy,” pp. 540–42Google Scholar; Keohane, , After Hegemony, p. 37Google Scholar; Russett, , “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony,” p. 211Google Scholar; and Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (London: Allen & Unwin, 1988), pp. 689–90 and 694–95Google Scholar.

15. Strange, , “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony,” pp. 563–64Google Scholar.

16. Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, p. 156Google Scholar.

17. Ibid., p. 29.

18. Ibid., p. 109.

19. Ibid., p. 110.

20. Ibid., p. 111.

21. Ibid., p. 116.

22. Ibid., p. 144.

23. Ibid., p. 147.

24. Gilpin, , “The Richness of the Tradition of Realism,” International Organization 38 (Spring 1984), p. 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations, p. 72Google Scholar.

26. Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, p. 133Google Scholar.

27. Krasner, , “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” p. 337Google Scholar.

28. Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, p. 233Google Scholar.

29. Calleo, , Beyond American Hegemony, p. 137Google Scholar.

30. See, for example, Kaplan, Morton, System and Process in International Politics (New York: Wiley, 1957), pp. 22–36Google Scholar.

31. Krasner, , “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” pp. 338–43Google Scholar.

32. Van der Wee, Herman, Prosperity and Upheaval: The World Economy, 1945–1980 (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1986), pp. 380–82Google Scholar.

33. See Strange, , “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony,” pp. 559–62Google Scholar. See also Cowhey, Peter F. and Long, Edward, “Testing Theories of Regime Change: Hegemonic Decline or Surplus Capacity?” International Organization 37 (Spring 1983), pp. 157–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. Lawson, Fred H., “Hegemony and the Structure of International Trade Reassessed: A View from Arabia,” International Organization 37 (Spring 1983), p. 330CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. See, for example, Calleo, and Rowland, , America and the World Political Economy, p. 13Google Scholar; Krasner, , “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” p. 321Google Scholar; and Snidal, , “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” pp. 597–612Google Scholar.

36. Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” The Economic History Review, 2d series, vol. 6, 1953, p. 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. See Calleo, and Rowland, , America and the World Political Economy, pp. 7–13Google Scholar; and Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, pp. 137–40Google Scholar.

38. See, for example, Krugman, Paul R., ed.. Strategic Trade Policy and the New International Economics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

39. Evans, , “Declining Hegemony and Assertive Industrialization,” pp. 211–12Google Scholar.

40. Snidal, , “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” p. 586Google Scholar.

41. See James, Scott C. and Lake, David A.. “The Second Face of Hegemony: Britain's Repeal of the Corn Laws and the American Walker Tariff of 1946,” International Organization 43 (Winter 1989). pp. 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, pp. 156–57Google Scholar.

43. See ibid., pp. 75–105; and Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations, pp. 93–97Google Scholar.

44. See Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, pp. 173–80Google Scholar: Gilpin, . U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation, pp. 151, 197, and 260Google Scholar; and Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations, p. 89Google Scholar.

45. See Krasner, , “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” p. 322Google Scholar.

46. See. for example, Gilpin, . U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation, p. 48Google Scholar.

47. Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, pp. 138 and 145Google Scholar.

48. Gilpin, , U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation, p. 84Google Scholar.

49. Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, pp. 156–85Google Scholar.

50. Gilpin, , U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation, pp. 165–201Google Scholar.

51. Ibid., p. 33. Kindleberger makes the same remarks in “Systems of Economic Organizations,” p. 16.

52. See Eichengreen, Barry, “Hegemonic Stability Theories of the International Monetary System,” Brookings Papers on International Economics, vol. 54 (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1988)Google Scholar.

53. Ibid., p. 33.

54. This does not amount to a dismissal of normative judgments in international politics or economics. Perhaps states should be benevolent rather than rational (predatory) in situations in which the two seem incompatible, but the difficulty lies in keeping the description separate from the prescription.

55. See Kindleberger, , “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy,” pp. 243–44Google Scholar; and Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations, pp. 74–75Google Scholar.

56. See Conybeare, John A. C., “Public Goods, Prisoner's Dilemma and the International Political Economy,” International Studies Quarterly 28 (03 1984), pp. 6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Snidal, , ”The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” pp. 590–93Google Scholar.

57. See Kindleberger, , “Systems of Economic Organizations,” p. 32Google Scholar.

58. Conybeare, , “Public Goods, Prisoner's Dilemma and the International Political Economy,” p. 14Google Scholar.

59. For a discussion regarding the British case, see McKeown, Tim, “Hegemonic Stability Theory and the Nineteenth-Century Tariff Levels in Europe,” International Organization 37 (Winter 1983), pp. 73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a discussion regarding the U.S. case, see Mastanduno, Michael, “Trade as a Strategic Weapon: American and Alliance Export Control Policy in the Early Postwar Period,” International Organization 42 (Winter 1988), pp. 121–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Strange, , “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony,” especially pp. 209–14Google Scholar.

60. Russett, , “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony,” pp. 217–22 and 226–31Google Scholar.

61. See Strange, , “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony,” pp. 572–73Google Scholar; and Arrighi, Giovanni, quoted in Russett, , “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony,” p. 221Google Scholar.

62. See Calleo, and Rowland, , America and the World Political Economy, pp. 85–86Google Scholar; Calleo, , Money and the Coming World Order, p. xviGoogle Scholar; and Calleo, , Beyond American Hegemony, pp. 82–108 and 138Google Scholar.

63. See Gilpin, , U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation, p. 217Google Scholar: “The relative power of the U.S. has dramatically declined.… The U.S. has suffered a major decline in power. This undermining of American hegemony and its implications are fundamental facts of international relations in the 1970s.”

64. See Huntington, Samuel P., “The U.S.: Decline or Renewal?” Foreign Affairs 67 (Winter 1988), pp. 76–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nye, Joseph S. Jr, “America's Decline: A Myth,” The New York Times, 10 04 1988Google Scholar; Bator, Francis, “Must We Retrench?” Foreign Affairs 68 (Spring 1989), pp. 93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Strange, “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony.” Susan Strange's error in reproducing a chart in her article does not detract from the overall validity of her argument, which in this case rested heavily on the unqualified notion of structural power. See Helen Milner and Jack Snyder, “Lost Hegemony?” and Strange, Susan, “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony: Reply to Milner and Snyder,” International Organization 41 (Autumn 1988), pp. 749–51Google Scholar.

65. See, for example, Huntington, , “The U.S.: Decline or Renewal?” pp. 86–87Google Scholar; and Friedberg, Aaron, “The Political Economy of American Strategy,” World Politics 41 (04 1989), pp. 388–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66. Snidal, , “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” pp. 509 and 612Google Scholar.

67. See Strange, , “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony,” pp. 551–52Google Scholar; and Russett, , “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony,” p. 207Google Scholar.

68. See Kindleberger, , “Systems of Economic Organizations,” p. 19Google Scholar; and Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” p. 845Google Scholar.

69. See Kindleberger, , “Systems of Economic Organizations,” p. 19Google Scholar; and Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” pp. 841 and 845Google Scholar.

70. See Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” p. 841Google Scholar; and Kindleberger, , “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy,” pp. 246 and 251Google Scholar.

71. Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” p. 846Google Scholar.

72. See Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” p. 845Google Scholar; Kindleberger, , “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy,” p. 248Google Scholar; and Kindleberger, , “Systems of Economic Organizations,” p. 34Google Scholar.

73. Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” p. 845Google Scholar.

74. Kindleberger, , “Systems of Economic Organizations,” p. 19Google Scholar.

75. See Lake, , “International Economic Structures and American Foreign Economic Policy,” pp. 517–43Google Scholar; and Lake, David A., “Beneath the Commerce of Nations: ATheory of International Economic Structures,” International Studies Quarterly 28 (03 1984), pp. 143–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76. Lake, , “International Economic Structures and American Foreign Economic Policy,” p. 522Google Scholar.

77. Ibid.

78. Gowa, , “Rational Hegemons, Excludable Goods and Small Groups,” p. 312Google Scholar.

79. Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, p. 30Google Scholar.

80. Ibid., p. 129.

81. Ibid., p. 187.

82. Ibid., p. 198.

83. Kaiser, Karl, “A View from Europe: The U.S. Role in the Next Decade,” International Affairs 65 (Spring 1989), p. 209CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Moïsi, Dominique: “Force et faiblesse des Etats-Unis” (Strength and weakness of the United States), Politique Etrangère 1 (Spring 1989). pp. 45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84. François-Poncet, Jean, “Les Etats-Unis et I'Europe: Pour une nouvelle donne” (The United States and the world: For a new deal), Commentaire 46 (Summer 1989). pp. 280–81Google Scholar.

85. For a discussion of Europe's decline, see Stoffaes, Christian, Fins de monde: Declin et renouvean dans i'économie mondiale (Ends of worlds: Decline and renewal in the world economy) (Paris: Odile Jacob, 1987)Google Scholar: and de Montbrial, Thierry. ed., RAMSES, 1986–87 (Annual report on world systems and strategies, 1986–87) (Paris: Atlas Economica. 1986), pp. 291–366Google Scholar.

86. Mentré, Paul. L'Amériqne et nous: L'insontenable légèreté dufort (America and us: The unbearable lightness of the strong) (Paris: Dunod, 1989)Google Scholar.

87. See Krasner, International Regimes; and Keohane, After Hegemony.

88. See Gilpin, , U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation, pp. 64–72Google Scholar; and Kindleberger, , “Systems of Economic Organizations,” p. 38Google Scholar.

89. Keohane, Robert O., “U.S. Foreign Economic Policy Toward Other Advanced Capitalist States: The Struggle to Make Others Adjust,” in Oye, Kenneth, Rothschild, Donald, and Lieber, Robert, eds., Eagle Entangled: U.S. Foreign Policy in a Complex World (London: Longman, 1979), p. 96Google Scholar.

90. Calleo, , Beyond American Hegemony, p. 217Google Scholar.

91. Gould, Stephen Jay, Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: Myths and Metaphors in the Discovery of Geological Time (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

92. Holton, Gerald, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

93. Weart, Spencer R., Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988), p. ivGoogle Scholar.

94. Reich, Robert B., Tales of a New America: The Anxious Liberal's Guide to the Future (New York: Vintage Books, 1988)Google Scholar.

95. Bachelard, Gaston, La psychanalyse du feu (A psychoanalysis of fire) (Paris: Gallimard, 1949), p. 127Google Scholar. Translations of quotes by Bachelard (as well as quotes by other French authors) are my own. Some of the major works by Bachelard have been made available to the American public by Beacon Press in Boston. In addition, a short introduction to Bachelard's work in English can be found in Smith's, Charles RockGaston Bachelard (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1982)Google Scholar. La psychanalyse dufeu was translated in 1964 by Alan C. M. Ross, with a preface by Northrop Frye, and was published in London by Routledge & Kegan Paul.

96. Bachelard, Gaston, L'eau et les rěves: Essais sur I'imagination de la matière (Water and dreams: An essay on musing about matter) (Paris: José Corti, 1942), p. 127Google Scholar.

97. Bachelard, , La psychanalyse du feu, pp. 117, 16, and 8Google Scholar, respectively.

98. Bachelard, , L'eau et les rěves, p. 25Google Scholar.

99. Girardet, Raoul, Mythes et mythologies politiques (Political myths and mythologies) (Paris: Seuil, 1986), p. 15Google Scholar.

100. Lévi-Strauss, Claude, Anthropologie structurale (Structural anthropology) (Paris: Plon, 1974), pp. 232–33Google Scholar.

101. Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957), p. 218Google Scholar.

102. Manning, Charles A. W., The Nature of International Society (London: G. Bell & Sons, 1962), p. 5Google Scholar.

103. Vladimir Propp and the Russian formalists initiated the structuralist study of narratives, as discussed in Propp's Morphology of the Folktale, 2d ed. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968)Google Scholar. Greimas, A. J. coined the term “actant” and laid the groundwork for the use of structuralism in literary criticism in La semantique structurale (Structural semantics) (Paris: Larousse, 1966)Google Scholar. Northrop Frye elaborated on the link between mythology and structure in Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957)Google Scholar. And Roland Barthes studied the ideological function of social codes in Mythologies (Paris: Seuil, 1957)Google Scholar. For a good methodological introduction to the study of comparative narratives, see Coster, Michel de, L'analogie en sciences humaines (Analogy in social science) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979)Google Scholar.

104. See Richards, I. A., Principles of Literary Criticism, 3d ed. (London: Regan Paul, Trench, Trubner&Co., 1944)Google Scholar.

105. Kissinger, , quoted in Business Week, 13 01 1975Google Scholar.

106. Kindleberger, , The World in Depression, p. 304Google Scholar. Note the persuasive power achieved by the language itself in this sentence. The impression of logical consistency comes from the use of “stabilized” instead of “stable.” “Stabilization” (a process) presupposes an agent, whereas “stability” (a desired state) does not. The logic of the argument stems from pure semantics.

107. Snidal, , “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” p. 593Google Scholar.

108. Keohane, , “U.S. Foreign Economic Policy Toward Other Advanced Capitalist States,” p. 94Google Scholar.

109. This idea is borrowed from Robert Triffin's more general reflections on the paradoxes of the gold exchange standard, as set forth in Gold and the Dollar Crisis: The Future of Convertibility (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1960)Google Scholar. The so-called Triffin dilemma as used in the theory of hegemonic stability emphasizes the hegemon's point of view, rather than that of the system as a whole.

110. See Stein, Arthur A., “The Hegemon's Dilemma: Britain, the United States, and the International Economic Order,” International Organization 38 (Spring 1984), pp. 355–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations, p. 89Google Scholar.

111. See Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations, pp. 74–75 and 86–87Google Scholar.

112. The vision of the hegemon as a supplier is evident in the following passage by Gilpin: “The core is principally defined by its performance of certain functions in the international economy. In the first place, it performs the role of a central banker. The core supplies the international currency and liquidity; in effect it establishes and manages the international monetary system. Second, it plays a critical role in creating and organizing the international trading system.… Finally, through private investment or foreign aid or both, the core supplies investment capital and generates development throughout the system.” See U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation, p. 48.

113. Russett, , “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony,” pp. 226 and 223Google Scholar, respectively.

114. Lake, , “International Economic Structures and American Foreign Economic Policy,” p. 523Google Scholar.

115. See Goldfinger, Charles, La géofinance: Pour comprendre la mutation financière (Geofinance: Understanding the financial transformation) (Paris: Seuil, 1986), p. 325Google Scholar; and Bourguinat, Henri, Les vertiges de la finance Internationale (A dizzy international finance) (Paris: Economica, 1987)Google Scholar.

116. See Brender, Anton, Un choc de nations (Clashing nations) (Paris: Hatier, 1988)Google Scholar; and Bachelard, , L'eau et les reves, p. 18Google Scholar. The equivalence between money and water in the imagination is also established via the notion of language. “Fluency” characterizes a way of speaking. Bachelard, noting that “language wants to flow” and does “flow naturally,” argues that “liquidity is the very desire of language” (p. 250). Kindelberger, , in “The Politics of International Money and World Language,” Princeton Essays in International Finance, no. 51, 08 1967Google Scholar, closes the associative chain by drawing a parallel between language and the dollar as a world currency, with both seen as crucial media provided by the United States. One resulting equation is money = language = water, and perhaps another is language = knowledge/information = technology. In the future, the “information standard” may replace other standards, as Walt Wriston suggests in “The World's Replacement for the Gold Standard,” Wall Street Journal, 31 12 1985Google Scholar.

117. Keohane, , “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes,” p. 136Google Scholar; emphasis added.

118. Gallagher, and Robinson, , “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” p. 6Google Scholar; emphasis added.

119. Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations, p. 350Google Scholar.

120. Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” p. 847Google Scholar.

121. Stein, , “The Hegemon's Dilemma,” p. 383Google Scholar.

122. Manning, , The Nature of International Society, p. 8Google Scholar.

123. Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” pp. 842–43Google Scholar; emphasis added.

124. Kindleberger, , “Systems of Economic Organizations,” pp. 33 and 34Google Scholar.

125. See Huntington, , “The U.S.: Decline or Renewal?” p. 88Google Scholar; and Kennedy, , The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, p. 540Google Scholar.

126. See Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations, p. 78Google Scholar; and Kindleberger, , “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy,” p. 251Google Scholar.

127. Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, p. 169Google Scholar.

128. Freud, Sigmund, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921), in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 18 (London: Hogarth Press, 1964), p. 97Google Scholar.

129. Ibid., pp. 93–99.

130. Girardet, , Mythes et mythologies politiques, p. 96Google Scholar.

131. Gilpin, , “The Richness of the Tradition of Realism,” pp. 296–97Google Scholar.

132. Kindleberger, , The World in Depression, p. 294Google Scholar.

133. Kindleberger, , Manias, Panics and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises (New York: Macmillan, 1978), pp. 220–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

134. Kindleberger, , The World in Depression, p. 299Google Scholar.

135. See Rosenau, James N., “Before Cooperation: Hegemons, Regimes, and Habit-Driven Actors in World Politics,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986), pp. 849–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Kindleberger, , “Systems of Economic Organizations,” p. 38Google Scholar; and Kindleberger, Charles P., International Economics, 4th ed. (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1968), p. 215Google Scholar: “It is well known that benevolent despotism is the optimum form of government.” The influence of Plato's philosopher-king, occasionally mentioned by Kindleberger, may be felt in this statement.

136. Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” p. 844Google Scholar.

137. In his radio address of 17 June 1940, for example, Pétain stated, “I present France with the gift of my person, in order to alleviate her distress.”

138. Le Monde, 19 March 1988.

139. See Merle, Marcel, Les acteurs dans les relations Internationales (Actors in international relations) (Paris: Economica, 1986), p. 6Google Scholar; and Windsor, Philip, “An Introduction to the Special Issue,” Millennium 16 (Summer 1987), p. 186CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

140. For a discussion of the “socio-cosmological image,” see Manning, , The Nature of International Society, p. 4Google Scholar. Regarding the particular metaphors listed here, see Strange, , “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony,” p. 570Google Scholar; Mackintosh, Ian, Sunrise Europe: The Dynamics of Information Technology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986)Google Scholar; and Rosenau, , “Before Cooperation,” p. 10Google Scholar.

141. Bachelard, , L'eau et les reves, p. 134Google Scholar.

142. Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, pp. 1–2Google Scholar.

143. Ibid., p. 229.

144. Ibid., p. 232.

145. Bergsten, C. Fred, Keohane, Robert O., and Nye, Joseph S. Jr, “International Economics and International Politics: A Framework for Analysis,” in Bergsten, C. Fred and Krause, Lawrence B., eds., World Politics and International Economics (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1975), p. 17Google Scholar.

146. Ibid., p. 23.

147. Shakespeare, Macbeth, act 2, scene 2, lines 90–91 and 93–94.

148. Jobes, Gertrude, Dictionary of Mythology, Folklore and Symbols (New York: Scarecrow Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

149. Ibid.

150. For a study of the notion of cyclical time, see Eliade, Mircea, Le mythe de I'éternel retour: Archetypes el répétition (The myth of eternal return: Archetypes and repetition) (Paris: Gallimard, 1949)Google Scholar.

151. de Romilly, Jacqueline, “La notion de nécessité dans l'histoire de Thucydides” (The notion of necessity in Thucydides' history), in Casanova, Jean-Claude, ed., Science et conscience de la société: Mélanges en ihonneur de Raymond Aron (Science and conscience of society: Selected papers in honor of Raymond Aron) (Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1971), p. 118Google Scholar.

152. Gilpin, quotes Thucydides in War and Change in World Politics, notably on pp. 93 and 228Google Scholar. Calleo, discusses Gilpin's work in Beyond American Hegemony, p. 149Google Scholar.

153. Ginestier, Paul, La pensee de Bachelard (Bachelard's thinking) (Paris: Bordas, 1987), p. 178Google Scholar.

154. Chevalier, Jean and Gheerbrant, Alain, Dictionnaire des symboles (A dictionary of symbols) (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1982)Google Scholar.

155. Gilpin, , “The Richness of the Tradition of Realism,” pp. 296–97Google Scholar.

156. See Gallagher, and Robinson, , “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” p. 5Google Scholar; and Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, p. 176Google Scholar.

157. Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, pp. 49 and 198Google Scholar.

158. See Cohn, Norman, The Pursuit of the Millennium (London: Paladin, 1970)Google Scholar; and Freud, , Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, p. 96Google Scholar. “The mutual ties have ceased to exist,” writes Freud, “and a gigantic and senseless fear is set free.”

159. See Calleo, , Money and the Coming of World Order, p. xivGoogle Scholar.

160. See Tudor, Henry, Political Myth (London: Pall Mall, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Eliade, . Le mythe de I'éternel retour, pp. 188–89Google Scholar.

161. Eliade, , Le mythe de I'éternel retour, p. 162Google Scholar.

162. In “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony,” Russett uses these expressions ironically when reassuring those of his contemporaries who may be alarmed by such dire predictions. The entire quotes are as follows: “The sky has not fallen” (p. 220). “It is not quite a case where ‘all instruments agree’ it is a dark, cold day” (p. 210). According to the theory of hegemonic stability, the interregnum between two successive hegemonies (as in the 1930s and at the present time) is particularly fraught with danger and uncertainty. Within the daily sun cycle, this corresponds with nighttime; and within the yearly cycle, it has traditionally corresponded with the end of the year's fertility cycle, a time when demons and spirits rise from the dark (Halloween or All Saints' Day). Similarly, ghosts’ alleged favorite hour is midnight, the exact breaking point between two cycles.

163. Gardner, Richard N., Sterling-Dollar Diplomacy: Anglo-American Collaboration in the Reconstruction of Multilateral Trade (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956)Google Scholar.

164. Eichengreen, , “Hegemonic Stability Theories of the International Monetary System,” p. 57Google Scholar.

165. See Keohane, , “U.S. Foreign Economic Policy Toward Other Advanced Capitalist States.” p. 93Google Scholar; and Gilpin, , U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation, p. 97Google Scholar.

166. See Tudor, , Political Myth, pp. 95 and 109Google Scholar; and Girardet, , Mvthes et mythologies politiques, pp. 105, 119, 125, and 132Google Scholar.

167. Tudor, Political Myth.

168. Quoted in Cohn, , The Pursuit of the Millennium, p. 28Google Scholar.

169. Ibid.

170. Frye, Northrop, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982)Google Scholar.

171. Acheson, Dean, Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969)Google Scholar.

172. Eichengreen, , “Hegemonic Stability Theories of the International Monetary System,” pp. 16–18 and 23–24Google Scholar.

173. Rogowski, Ronald, “Structure, Growth, and Power: Three Rationalist Accounts,” International Organization 37 (Autumn 1983), p. 735CrossRefGoogle Scholar; emphasis added.

174. Bergsten, , Keohane, , and Nye, , “International Economics and International Politics,” p. 17Google Scholar.

175. Ibid., pp. 23–24. Note that in some textbooks, the world of pure economics is explicitly referred to as a “Garden of Eden,” and barriers to trade imposed by political authorities are considered the “original sin.” See the discussion on the second best argument in Lindert, Peter H., International Economics, 8th ed. (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1986), p. 148Google Scholar.

176. Kolakowski, Leszek, Metaphysical Horror (London: Basil Blackwell, 1988), p. 42Google Scholar.

177. See Enriquez, Eugène, De la horde à I'état: Psychanalyse du lien social (From horde to state: A psychoanalysis of the societal link) (Paris: Gallimard, 1983), pp. 141 and 145Google Scholar. One example of the “slain savior” motif can be found in C. S. Lewis's fairy tale, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, one of the most widely read stories in the English-speaking world. In this tale, a wicked witch casts a spell on the kingdom of Narnia. The king, the mighty and generous Asian, must undergo a ritual sacrifice in order to lift the spell and bring spring again to the country. He is eventually resurrected—in a splendid sunrise. In addition to its Christian symbolism, the tale, written in Britain in 1944, reflects the “beware of the spies” atmosphere and excitement surrounding the expectation of the landing of American troops in Europe. The historical parallel is striking at the beginning of the tale, and the religious parallel becomes most evident toward the end. Both point to the following equation, which is active in the Western mind: Asian = Christ = America. I am indebted to David Long for drawing this tale to my attention.

178. Frye, , The Great Code, pp. 147 and 148Google Scholar.

179. John 19:34.

180. Huntington, , “The U.S.: Decline or Renewal?” p. 81Google Scholar.

181. Eichengreen, , “Hegemonic Stability Theories of the International Monetary System,” p. 38Google Scholar.

182. Shakespeare, King Lear, act 3, scene 4, line 42.

183. See Portier, Lucienne, Le pelican: Histoire d'un symbole (The pelican: History of a symbol) (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1984), p. 11Google Scholar.

184. Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” p. 845Google Scholar.

185. See Keohane, , After Hegemony, p. 45Google Scholar; and Gilpin, , War and Change in World Politics, p. 174Google Scholar.

186. Freud, Sigmund, Totem and Taboo (1913)Google Scholar, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 13, p. 151Google Scholar.

187. Freud also, of course, recognized the impact of early childhood experiences. Everyone has heard of the Oedipus complex, which may be relevant here, especially since the name “Oedipus,” meaning “swollen feet,” is said to stand for the dilated, reddened, setting sun (see Ginestier, , La pensee de Bachelard, p. 178)Google Scholar. However, the works by Freud used here concentrate on phylogenesis rather than ontogenesis.

188. Keohane, , After Hegemony, p. 3Google Scholar.

189. Snidal, , “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” p. 80Google Scholar.

190. Bachelard, , La psychanalyse du feu, pp. 67–68Google Scholar.

191. Ibid., p. 87.

192. See Bergsten, , Keohane, , and Nye, , “International Economics and International Politics,” p. 17Google Scholar; and Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” p. 843Google Scholar.

193. Claudel, , quoted in Bachelard, L'eau et les rives, p. 181Google Scholar.

194. Bachelard, , L'eau et les rěves, pp. 157–58Google Scholar.

195. See the following works of Klein, Melanie: The Psychoanalysis of Children (London: Hogarth Press, 1932)Google Scholar; and “Love, Guilt and Reparation,” in Klein, Melanie and Riviere, Joan, eds., Love, Hate and Reparation (London: Hogarth Press, 1937), pp. 57–119Google Scholar.

196. Ròheim, Géza, La panique des dieux (Paris: Payot, 1972), p. 285Google Scholar; published in English as The Panic of the Gods (New York: Harper & Row, 1972)Google Scholar.

197. Bachelard, , L'eau et les rěves. p. 174Google Scholar.

198. Sometimes the free riders are divided into two types, the hungry weakeners and the ambitious challengers, as in this passage by Gilpin: “The Russians and OPEC have raised the price to the U.S. of maintaining its global commitments [weakeners] at the same time that European and Japanese economic competition [challengers] has decreased America's capacity to pay.” See U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation, p. 218.

199. Kindleberger, , “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy,” p. 249Google Scholar.

200. Kindleberger, , “Systems of Economic Organizations,” p. 21Google Scholar.

201. Barthes, , Mythologies, pp. 45–46Google Scholar.

202. See Girardet, Mythes et mythologies poliiiques.

203. Bachelard, Gaston, La formation de I'esprit scientifique: Contribution a une psychanalyse de la connaissance objective (The development of the scientific mind: Contribution to a psychoanalysis of objective knowledge) (Paris: Vrin, 1938), p. 16Google Scholar.

204. Freud, Sigmund, Moses and Monotheism: Three Essays (1939)Google Scholar, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 23, p. 134Google Scholar.

205. Millenarianism, the idea of America's moral superiority, and the notion of America's succession of England in the religious order are all enduring features of U.S. religious-political mythology. See Fitzgerald, Frances, “The American Millennium,” in Ungar, Sanford J., ed.. Estrangement: America and the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1985), pp. 253 and 276Google Scholar; and Eliade, Mircea, “La nostalgie du paradis et la naissance de l'Amérique” (The nostalgia for paradise and America's birth), in Pauwels, Louis, ed.. La fin du monde? (The end of the world?) (Paris: Retz, 1977), pp. 67–76Google Scholar. Similarly, according to Greenstein, American political culture makes for a widespread sensitivity to the benevolent leader figure, typically seen in children's political attitudes. See Greenstein, Fred I., “The Benevolent Leader: Children's Images of Political Authority,” in Dahl, Robert A., ed.. Readings in Modern Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968). pp. 341–55Google Scholar.

206. Lévi-Strauss, , Anthropologie structural, p. 231Google Scholar.

207. Bachelard, , La psychanalyse du feu, p. 80Google Scholar.

208. See, for example, Kelley, Harold, Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process (Morriston, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1972), p. 21Google Scholar.

209. Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976), pp. 128–45Google Scholar.

210. See, for example, Frank, Andre Gunder, “The Development of Underdevelopment,” Monthly Review 17 (09 1966), pp. 17 and 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “A whole chain of constellations of metropoles and satellites relates all parts of the system from its metropolitan centre in Europe or the U.S. to the farthest outposts in the Latin American countryside.… [This structure] serves to suck capital or economic surplus to the world metropolis.”

211. Snidal, , “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” pp. 580–81Google Scholar.

212. Kindleberger, , “Hierarchy Versus Inertial Cooperation,” p. 841Google Scholar.

213. Frohlich, Norman and Oppenheimer, Joe A., “I Get By with a Little Help from My Friends,” World Politics 23 (10 1970), p. 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

214. Ibid., p. 120.

215. Ibid.

216. Lake, , “International Economic Structures and American Foreign Economic Policy,” p. 522Google Scholar.

217. Gilpin, , The Political Economy of International Relations, p. 351Google Scholar.

218. Bachelard, , La formation de l' ésprit scientifique, p. 16Google Scholar.

219. Rosenau, , “Before Cooperation,” p. 5Google Scholar.

220. Stein, , “The Hegemon's Dilemma,” p. 602Google Scholar.

221. Eichengreen, , “Hegemonic Stability Theories of the International Monetary System,” p. 5Google Scholar.

222. See Lawson, , “Hegemony and the Structure of International Trade Reassessed,” p. 137Google Scholar; Keohane, , After Hegemony, p. 35Google Scholar; and Frieden, Jeff, “Sectoral Conflict and U.S. Foreign Economic Policy, 1914–1940,” International Organization 42 (Winter 1988), pp. 59–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

223. See, for example, Haggard, Stephan, “The Institutional Foundations of Hegemony: Explaining the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934,” International Organization 42 (Winter 1988), pp. 91–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

224. See Ikenberry, G. John, Lake, David A., and Mastanduno, Michael, “Introduction: Approaches to Explaining Foreign Economic Policy,” International Organization 42 (Winter 1988), pp. 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.