Out of the Mouths of Neobabes II
On the other hand, another passage from the same article is twaddle:
One cannot separate the so-called “soft power” of the United States–the global dominance of its culture, beginning with its language–from its military strength.
Rock fans around the world listen in English; so do fighter pilots. The same information technologies that make the Internet a decidedly American phenomenon provide the nervous systems of American military power. Free trade rests on common consent, to be sure, but would it exist absent America’s military dominance?
Cohen tries to make a nigh-Riemannian parallelism do the work of argument. He wants you to think that if we had fewer bombers, the kidz would be listening to Chinese rappers, or maybe Islamofascist ones. Curiously, the era when American (and British) bands started dominating global culture was the heyday of Team B, who insisted that the Communist bloc had the beleaguered West utterly outclassed militarily. Those where the days when a sequence of red and blue bar graphs could bring the insecure American a parapornographic thrill of doom. Look how tall the red bar is on the tanks graph! The missile graph! The fighter plane graph! “What did you scare yourself with before ‘dhimmitude,’ Grandpa?” “Commitude, children!”
Curiously, the kidz did not start listening to Russian bands. Because Russian bands sucked. Vaclav Havel got into Velvet Underground and brough the whole fraudulent arrangement down like a chainsmoking, diffident Samson. And the Velvets didn’t even sell!
Cohen can’t show that “American military power” causes the Internet, only that they both use “information technologies.” I am aware of the internet’s roots in DARPA, thank you. But Cohen can’t make the case that people grew the actual internet as it developed out of ARPANet because America has troops all over the place, so he doesn’t even try. Best not call attention to the fact that people glommed onto the internet instead of other candidates – e.g. Minitel – because people could make it into something cool, for a bunch of semi-compatible definitions of cool.
And of course he closes with a question trying to pretend it is its own answer. It’s not. And I daresay Pervez Musharraf would want to know just what Cohen means by “free trade.” Meantime the kidz love the manga, even though, mascot or no, the Japanese military is nothing to write home about.
What the neocons’ libertarian-inclined friends should have noticed about them early is just how little faith neoconservatives have always had in the market as such.
Comment by Leonard —
March 6, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Gosh, I didn’t realize that due to American gee-whiz know-how military strength, Chinese fighter pilots speak to each other in English.
But seriously, both cultural “power” and military power are things that grow from economic strength. But obviously the two things are quite different senses of power. The power of culture is based on its attractiveness, its capacity to enrich people. The power of the military is based on its destructiveness, its capacity to hurt people.
As for free trade: ha, ha, ha. The question is not can “free trade… exist absent America’s military dominance”? Rather it is can free trade ever exist, period? History is not encouraging on this point. But certainly the larger the state including military, the less closely whatever we do get will resemble free trade. If we are continually screwing with other countries internal affairs militarily, the temptation to use trade “sanctions” and “carrots”, etc., will be irresistable. After all, if we are willing to kill, and suffer the deaths of our own, then should we not be willing to pay little tarriffs and lose a little money?
Comment by Rob —
March 6, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Of course these are the same people who would have no problem banning rock music or Hollywood movies if they aren’t the right message.
Comment by Avram —
March 6, 2007 @ 12:53 am
As I understand it, a lot of Asia’s kids (and Asia has a lot of kids) are into Korean hiphop.
And would those decidedly American information technologies Cohen’s talking about include a Finnish operating system, or a hypertext protocol invented in a European physics lab?
Comment by wade —
March 6, 2007 @ 4:34 am
wow, you learn something every day – i never knew about Team B, but clicking the link brought up a host of familiar names. I hope someone is keeping a track of just how long these guys have been around, in case they turn out to be vampires or the undead or something.
Comment by ajay —
March 6, 2007 @ 5:17 am
“Curiously, the era when American (and British) bands started dominating global culture was the heyday of Team B”
Not really. Team B was set up in 1974. There were a few Anglophone artists and bands before then who were fairly successful on a global level. The Beatles, for example. In fact, when in the second half of the century was global culture not dominated by Anglophone bands? Or are you thinking of some weird alternate history in which Edith Piaf and Serge Gainsbourg bestride the narrow world like colossi?
Comment by Thoreau —
March 6, 2007 @ 6:44 am
I hope someone is keeping a track of just how long these guys have been around, in case they turn out to be vampires or the undead or something.
I would make a Highlander joke, but then the feds might start checking on records of sword sales.
OK, I will make a Highlander joke, but at the expense of the movies, not the politicians: The thing with Highlander movies is that there should be only one.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 6, 2007 @ 6:45 am
BTW, American pop culture rulez da world because no matter where you go it turns out that people just like that old kind of rock and roll. Seriously. This is how you get the phenomenon of “Yankee go home…and take me with you!”
Comment by mds —
March 6, 2007 @ 8:36 am
Um, this is not entirely on point (though it does likely coincide with Mr. Cohen’s mindset), but are the linked Gates of Vienna guys serious? I was too much of a coward to give the blog a thorough perusal. The Ottoman Empire’s wars of conquest are really just like the modern threat from Islam? That’s what we get for letting them have their own pop music over there.
Comment by Mona —
March 6, 2007 @ 8:46 am
Neocons have been overt in their disdain for free markets (too lazy to go get links right now). They recognize that free markets allow people to, well, freely produce and obtain what they want, and what they want is often most displeasing to the socially puritanical (frequently in a cynical, Straussian sense) neocons.
Comment by Eric Martin —
March 6, 2007 @ 9:52 am
“What did you scare yourself with before ‘dhimmitude,’ Grandpa?†“Commitude, children!â€
Curiously, the kidz did not start listening to Russian bands. Because Russian bands sucked. Vaclav Havel got into Velvet Underground and brough the whole fraudulent arrangement down like a chainsmoking, diffident Samson. And the Velvets didn’t even sell!
Pure gold Jim.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
March 6, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Meantime the kidz love the manga, even though, mascot or no, the Japanese military is nothing to write home about.
I made a delicious Szechuan-style beef & broccoli stir fry the other night, but only now do I understand that it was really an expression of my loyalty to, and admiration for, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.
Comment by Eric Martin —
March 6, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Commie.
Comment by JasonL —
March 6, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
I didn’t follow the link, but it seems to me that there is some trvializing in these here comments.
There is only one enforcement arm of any international agreement of consequence, and that is the US military. I know the standard line is that nobody really needs to be able to project power and enforce agreements worth enforcing, but at the end of the day such criticism mirrors the anarchist gripes about minarchy. Who needs a night watchman, right?
If you think a context of enforcement and consequences for negative behavior is not important, then by all means lets get rid of the cops and the army. If you think such context is nearly essential for liberty to be exercised, well, who is that watchman going to be? All negotiation is supported by a power structure. I don’t think it is an extraordinary obervation that it probably helps to be on the right side of the power distribution that underlies everything else you do.
To me, it is a pretty shocking claim that we’d all be just as well off if China were the only nation capable of projecting military power. I get that we might not want to be the only ones providing a force, but I think it a bit myopic to say that it doesn’t matter at all.
Comment by Avram —
March 6, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
But as the saying goes, JasonL, who watches that watchman?
As an American, it’s pretty nice for me that the world’s most powerful military is protecting the interests of wealthier people living in the same country as me, since every once in a while those interests line up with mine, and all they ask me to do is is pay a big lump of money each year and look the other way when those interests require torturing people or installing dictators somewhere I’m not likely to visit.
Asking the rest of the world (that’s the “all” in “we’d all”, right?) to also think it’s nice is a bit much.
Comment by RWB —
March 6, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
The idea that Anglo-American music rules the world may have once been true, but I don’t think it was ever as true as American patriots and rock and roll fans believed. It may seem more true because most of the truly international music stars were Anglo-American. The Beatles were popular all over the world, and no French or German or Brazilian artists could compete, especially in the U.S. where foreign music has historically been a novelty.
But seriously, if you look at the charts in other countries, most of the music is local and in a language locals understand. At http://www.los40.com.mx/lalista.asp this week, the top 10 Mexican pop songs include one English-speaking yankee, Justin Timberlake. In Japan, http://www.mnet.ne.jp/~hbr/JP/Jelatest.htm there are no ENglish language songs in the top 10. Continental European charts, on the other hand, tend to have a lot more U.S. and English hits. Which, of course, shows the strength of NATO.
Comment by Derek Copold —
March 6, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
The writer may not have as much of a point as he’d like, but he does have a point. Historically, cultural domination has been aided by military domination. The spread of Greco-Roman culture, for example, was due to Alexander, and then the Romans. Now, maybe the effective militaries arose because of culture (which is a chicken and egg question), but one does accompany the other.
The Japanese Manga counterexample really kind of proves the case for American domination, too. Its current form grew up under the shadow of American postwar occupation and dominance of Japan. A lot of Japan’s postwar growth can be attributed to the fact that U.S. took up a lot of Japans military burdens and ensured open access to export markets with its powerful Navy.
Comment by mds —
March 6, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
The spread of Greco-Roman culture, for example, was due to Alexander, and then the Romans.
Of course, the spread of Greco-Roman culture by the Romans suggests that one doesn’t necessarily accompany the other. Greek became the lingua franca of the Roman Empire even in areas unconquered by Alexander and his generals. Indeed, Greek culture was both glorified as the very highest, and condemned for its corrupting influence, by Romans, especially during the Republican period. Much of China’s history also suggests that one need not be leading the victorious army for one’s culture to stick.
Comment by Eric Martin —
March 6, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Historically, cultural domination has been aided by military domination. The spread of Greco-Roman culture, for example, was due to Alexander, and then the Romans.
Yes, but this mattered much more when communication, technology, travel and other means of information dissmenation were limited in scope. The disparaties were severe, in fact, when compared to modern standards. I mean, even on a basic level, what was the literacy rate in those days?
So culture moved with military conquest – although trade also served as an agent of dispersal to some extent as well (not entirely divorced from military might).
Which is to say that now, cultural expressions can be shared across the entire globe with relative ease – leaving the marketplace to determine value, not necessarily military might. Penetrating markets is infinitely easier, and so a singer from Colombia like Shakira can influence the world’s music scene despite Colombia’s relatively feeble military.
That doesn’t mean that we should disregard our military, or abandon it altogether. Some level of military power is often required to ensure that our society is free and unfettered to pursue creative endeavors and the like. Though, on the other hand, oppressed peoples have often had enormous impacts on culture absent access to power structures.
But really, if China emerges as the world’s premiere military power, will that suddenly make MTV less appealing? Rock and Roll will lose its luster? Hip hop sound trite?
Further, the point of Cohen’s piece isn’t that we must maintain our military prowess, but that we must shift our paradigm to an imperial footing despite our natural inclination against this posture.
That is clearly not necessary.
Comment by xheight —
March 6, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
well it’s Avram who gets though I’m sure not as he intended
Comment by Avram —
March 6, 2007 @ 12:53 am
As I understand it, a lot of Asia’s kids (and Asia has a lot of kids) are into Korean hiphop.
Back from China myself and i’ll testify that American soft-power is a phantom – because of market forces and national, regional, racial prejudice. Attention only drifts abroad when something isn’t available closer. Consider the Manga phenom here in the US. Hard power is the only thing left over when soft power is dissipated around the world.
Jim when are you going to tell us what you thought of Civil War #7?
Comment by Derek Copold —
March 6, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
In response to mds. I agree that you don’t have a linear link between military power and culture, but there is a link. Yes, Rome, having conquered Greece, was then conquered by her (as the saying goes), but it was Greek military power that spread the culture in the first place, and it never did entirely displace Latin culture. As late as Justinian, actually, the law codes in the East were still written in Latin, but as Latin hard power faded, so did Latin soft power.
As to the Chinese, again, yes and no. True, they’ve been conquered by outside powers, like the Mongols and Manchus, but they’ve also had a tremendous source of hard power in their large population. You sort of saw the same thing with Western Europe when it was conquered by the Germanic tribes. The large Latinate population managed over time to assimilate their conquerors, though the conquerors made their impact as well.
So, in sum, you’re right that there isn’t always a one-to-one correspondence, but I think dismissing the link between military power and cultural dominance is equally wrong.
Comment by srv —
March 6, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Spoken like a true Team B guy. The only international agreements of any real consequence today are trade agreements, and all your guns and ammo don’t amount to a hill of beans, particularly when they’re starving any chance of long-term economic competition/revitalization with your economic “adversaries”.
While many of you will insist it was the B1B or Star Wars that defeated Soviet Communism, It Was The Economy Stupid.
And now we’ve hit the tri-fecta. Screw your economy, destabalize the Middle-East, and simultaneously demonstrate to the world just exactly how impotent your “hard” power actually is. Who would have ever believed one man could do all that?
In the end, there can only be one moron.
Before AQ got in their way, the Neocons couldn’t outdo each other in their apocolyptic visions of the Chinese Military Threat. Their solution to Chinese power isn’t American culture, ingenuity or economics. It’s bomb, bomb, bomb, and bomb some more.
They realize they’ve lost the middle-east now, and are just starting to get back to Plan B.
Comment by JasonL —
March 6, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
You seem to be leaving out a lot that matters from where I’m sitting. There are no security agreements that matter. There are no non proliferation agreements that matter. Agreements that people won’t cross geopolitical boundaries don’t matter.
You are going to assert that the cold war was winnable in the absence of military deterrent? Are you serious?
Comment by Matt Weiner —
March 6, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
No one’s gonna defend Boris Grebenschikov, huh? (I sure ain’t. The Ganelin Trio was all right though.)
Comment by srv —
March 6, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
Where is any non-proliferation agreement that matters today? Can you say Khan? NK having any problems exporting SRBMs or technology? Is anyone who wants them bad enough really going to be stopped from getting chemical or bio weapons?
What security arrangement or geopolitical boundary is going to be overrun that we really need to be footing the blood and treasure for? Greece? Kuwait? Korea? Japan? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Give me a break, these people can afford their bills, and we foot it because that’s how you feed an empire. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with preserve, protect and defend the Constitution or our National Security.
Yeah, right. You’re either blindly for $1T defense budgets or you’re Chamberlain. Detente marked the victory over the Soviets, and not Star Wars. The hawks just didn’t want to accept that, and thus Team B. Most of that hard power (MX, 600 ship Navy, yada yada) was a complete and utter waste and most of us knew that at the time.
Comment by srv —
March 6, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
In sum, Team B cost us $5 Trillion that bought us nothing that mattered (at best, a few years less of the Warsaw Pact).
The War on Terror will probably cost 2-3X that, and we will be in a much, much more destabilized world.
The War on China will never happen, but all the treasure we waste on that neocon dream will leave your grandkids best options as a sacker at WalMart.
Comment by ajay —
March 7, 2007 @ 7:29 am
“The Beatles were popular all over the world, and no French or German or Brazilian artists could compete, especially in the U.S. where foreign music has historically been a novelty”
Foreign? I’m going to be charitable and assume you mean “foreign language”.
Comment by mds —
March 7, 2007 @ 8:35 am
As late as Justinian, actually, the law codes in the East were still written in Latin, but as Latin hard power faded, so did Latin soft power.
Perhaps there was another institution at work in the decline of Latin in the East, and its widespread retention and use as a new lingua franca in the West. This institution was apparently culturally influential, even if it wasn’t yet a major military power. Hmm, what could it have been?
There is also the point raised by Eric Martin, that conquering armies were once the primary vector for spreading culture because of fundamental limits on communication. Organized, proselytizing religion later served much of the same purpose, with or without conquest. And today we have the Internet.
Hmm, this has me thinking tangentially yet again about how Hellenistic and Muslim conquerors actually developed a higher intellectual culture which they spread along with armies, while the Romans brought legal institutions but lacked much in the way of other “culture” of their own.
Anyway, thanks for addressing my points, Mr. Copold.
Comment by JasonL —
March 7, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Eh? You said that deterrent had nothing meaningful to do with it, didn’t you?
Comment by srv —
March 7, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Nope. What I said:
Neither the B1B, Star Wars or the 80’s nuclear posture had anything to do with real deterence. The Cold War had been won already. The B1B “deterred” so much and so reliably that the B-52s (built in the 50’s) had to keep carrying all their nukes for them.
None of the hysteria that Team B brought, and the weapon systems that resulted, caused the Soviet empire to collapse. Capitalism beat them.
You’re wanting me to say pre-70s Cold War strategic policy deterred? Maybe. Did it help bring about Detente? Probably. Did it defeat the Soviet Empire? Nope.