strong support from others)^11 that unipolarity is a global reality.^12 However, this
view has also faced opposition: Mearsheimer and Huntington, for example, argued
against the notion of unipolarity, based essentially on a disagreement as to the
definition of the term. Neither disputed the reality of the United States as materially
the most dominant power, but they opposed understanding it as the only materially
powerful state. The existence of other great powers – notably China, the European
Union, India, Russia, Japan and Brazil – even if comparatively minor to the United
States in terms of capability, was sufficient for them to argue that the current
international system is multi-polar.^13 That said, it has to be stated in support of Waltz
that though China’s growth rates have been striking,^14 it does not match the United
States in either GDP^15 or military power. Russia can compete to any extent only in
the military dimension and in natural resources.^16 In its combination of the most
important material factors, the United States still dominates internationally^17 and is
widely predicted – depending in part on the outcome of the current economic
disturbances – to be likely to do so through the coming decades.^18
Yet, it is not only material factors that can explain US dominance in international
affairs: ideational factors also have to be considered, as a tool and resource of power.
The United States has not only been seen by many observers to be a unipolar power,
but also a hegemon.^19 ‘Hegemony’ implies more than just having preponderant
material capabilities at one’s disposal; additional factors also play a role, such as the
capacity to exercise power (based on these material capabilities) and ‘soft power’ or
ideological power, meaning the capability to change others’ behaviours by influ-
encing their belief system, their way of thinking, and even their rationality.^20 It can
be argued that hegemonic influence has been apparent, for example, as ideological
power which led to the EU’s compliant and cooperative approach to relations with
the United States in the Global War on Terrorism.^21 This cooperation was hard to
explain only in material or other terms.^22 Mere material considerations would lead
usto expect balancing of the European Union towards the United States.^23 Thus,
wehave to understand current US dominance in international affairs in many more
dimensions than simply viewing it just through the materialist lens.^24 The whole
discourse about ‘new imperialism’, for example, discusses the exercise of this power
through foreign policy;^25 while constructivists and some critical scholars focus on
‘soft power’^26 – ideas, discourse and norms^27 – as the basis of US power.
Hegemony in mind and matter
In this section, I will argue that we have to reconcile realist and constructivist
approaches if we are to understand the multi-dimensional reality of US
predominance.^28 In my view, the opposition between a focus on ideas or on material
factors is an unnecessary one:^29 whereas realism argues for ‘reality’ being presented
in material terms, such as military strength and economic power, constructivism
highlights the importance and shaping power of ideas, with norms being particularly
significant. The opposition between the ‘material’ and the ‘ideational’, however, is
a false one: human affairs are structured by both; each is ‘real’, ‘true’ and ‘important’.
234 Hegemony, equilibrium and counterpower