...The idea and language of “paradigm shift” actually comes from the history of science rather than social or political history. In his canonical 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn shows that the major breakthroughs in science constitute such a paradigm shift, when new evidence or experiments simply don't fit the established theory any more. A new theory is designed to accommodate the new data, and “an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one.” The theory of evolution and natural selection, for example, emerged when Darwin's meticulous collection of data during his voyage on the Beagle did not fit into the existing—most Biblical—notions of the emergence of species. His theories—a revolutionary overthrow of the old—became the fundamental basis of the biological sciences. The theory of Evolution not only survived, but was reinforced, by the wealth of new evidence as the discovery of DNA and the development of genetics.
A similar paradigm shift occurs during systemic revolutions in the political and economic sphere. Perhaps the best way to explain this is to use some historical examples. I will focus on modern Europe, but there are plenty of examples from other times and places as well. Systemic revolutions in modern Europe include not only the Darwinian Revolution of the mid 19th Century, but also The French Revolution of 1789, the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th century, and the Russian Revolution of 1917. The French and Russian revolutions are, arguably, primarily “political” revolutions, in that they effected the overthrow of one ruling system and class with another. The Industrial Revolution and the Darwinian Revolution are different creatures altogether. They certainly affected politics in important ways, but their impact was much more diffuse, with the Industrial Revolution laying the ground for mass production, capitalism, urbanization, and social change; and Darwinism shaking the foundations of both science and religion, and even of the way we think about ourselves as human beings.
[ ... ]
The decline of the U.S. has potentially revolutionary implications both at home and around the world; though it is the global impact of American decline that leads me to group it with the “systemic revolutions” of recent history. But let me first briefly address the remote—though real—possibility of a political revolution here in the U.S. The intensity and speed of U.S. economic decline certainly creates some of the preconditions for revolution. Think about the U.S. situation in light of some of the most prevalent theories of the causes of revolution: the growing “immiseration” of the working class (Marx); “rising expectations”—after a period of growing affluence, people expect more, but the improvements slow down or reverse; increasing inequality and a growing gap between rich and poor; the weakening and breakdown of state organizations (Skocpol). All of these things are happening now, in varying degrees, and these processes seem unlikely to reverse anytime soon. Whether they are sufficient to lead to political revolution, however, is a separate issue from that of systemic revolution.
Whether or not there is an internal revolution in the U.S., the global changes caused by America's decline by themselves constitute a transformation on the scale of a systemic revolution. The U.S. has dominated the globe for at least a half century and, one could argue, even longer. The country had the biggest economy, the wealthiest citizenry, the strongest military, and the most admired political system; its language and its money were considered the global standards; its popular culture, fads, trademarks and consumer goods were coveted and mimicked around the globe. No country in history has so dominated the world as the U.S. did during the American Century.
With the disappearance of U.S. hegemony, all that has changed. The U.S. economy—of free-market capitalism—is no longer the standard or the model—especially now that its weaknesses are so manifest. American-style democracy, so corrupted by money and special interests, is no longer the “beacon on the hill.” Many foreigners see American individualism and exceptionalism as a weakness rather than a strength, and even a kind of perversion. Americans' appetite for consumer goods, it is now becoming clear, has hurt the planet and its people by exhausting its resources and polluting its environment.
So the collapse of the U.S. as a global hegemon creates a big hole in the center of the economic and political universe. Some analysts, mostly Anglo-Americans, worry that the world will be less stable and less peaceful without the dominating presence of the U.S. The British historian Niall Ferguson frets about “apolarity”—a global vacuum of power leading to “a new Dark Age” that will be both chaotic and violent.[3] Such a view, however, is overly generous in its assessment of America's recent role in the world, which has had as many negative as positive consequences. The global economic meltdown—originating on Wall Street—is just the most recent example.
While Ferguson's apocalyptic view may be too extreme, it does point to the extensive nature of global changes occasioned by the withering of the American superpower. These changes will be momentous and wrenching both for American citizens and for the rest of the world. A more “natural” U.S. GDP—one that matches more closely the size, wealth and productivity of the U.S. compared to the rest of the world—would be about half the size of the present one. An economic decline of this scale—50%--would be close to that of the Depression and will be extraordinarily traumatic for Americans, and probably result in a truly revolutionary transformation of the economy—if not an actual revolution...
~ more... ~
