China and the United States: a succession of hegemonies?
China and the United States: a succession of hegemonies?
复制标题
中美：霸权接连？
DOI：
10.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.00957.x
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
CLARK I
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
CLARK I
这篇文章批判性地回顾了我们正在经历从美国到中国的“霸权继承”的建议。它发展了马丁·怀特关于霸权的著作，并介绍了权力过渡和霸权继承之间的根本区别（不是由怀特提出的）。怀特对权力的本质持有复杂的观点，有时似乎赞同纯粹的唯物主义观点。在其他地方，他更加微妙，并呼吁占主导地位的国家的目的作为他的论点的一部分，即影响力与质量和重量并不完全相关。这一建议是在作者的霸权观中发展起来的-与首要地位不同-霸权是指国际社会中的一种合法做法。然后，这些想法被叠加在当前关于权力过渡或霸权继承的辩论中，如美国和中国之间。目前的辩论将这两个问题混为一谈。因此，虽然可以很容易地承认，有一些重要的迹象表明，权力的物质分配发生了变化，但这绝不是任何形式的霸权继承。要实现后者，就需要有明确的证据表明，有野心的霸权者的目的和对其偏好秩序的支持得到了有效的社会化。相反，到目前为止，中国基本上满足于在现有框架内运作，而不是煽动修改这些框架，而且尚未提出一个供其他地方效仿的模式。在没有任何霸权继承的情况下进行权力交接可能会腐蚀全球治理。
This article critically reviews the suggestion that we are experiencing a ‘succession of hegemonies’ from the United States to China. It develops Martin Wight's writings on hegemony, and introduces a fundamental distinction (not made by Wight) between a power transition and a hegemonic succession. Wight held complex views about the nature of power and at times seemed to subscribe to a purely materialist account. Elsewhere he was more nuanced and appealed to the purpose of dominant states as part of his argument that influence does not correlate exactly with mass and weight. This suggestion is developed in the author's view of hegemony—as distinct from primacy—as denoting a legitimate practice within international society. These ideas are then superimposed upon current debates about a power transition, or a succession of hegemonies, as between the United States and China. The existing debate conflates those two issues. Accordingly, while it can readily be acknowledged that there are important indicators of a shift in the material distribution of power, this in no way amounts, as yet, to any kind of hegemonic succession. For the latter to occur, there would need to be clear evidence of an effective socialization of the aspirant hegemon's purpose and support for its preferred order. On the contrary, to date China has been largely content to operate within existing frameworks, rather than instigate a revision of them, and does not yet present a model for emulation elsewhere. It is possible that a power transition, without any hegemonic succession, could be corrosive of global governance.