>It still sounds like an empty word to me. Chris raises a good point
>when he faults the term for conjuring up false images of power. For
>me, it's not as if the United States' power has suddenly
>_increased_, or that we've developed some new terror weapon. It's
>just that the main opposition doesn't exist anymore.
I agree with you that a new term isn't necessary, but, still and all, it seems important to grasp the significance of the disappearance of the main opposition. After all, new modern states -- beginning with the United States itself -- emerged in a world where several powers -- e.g., England and France -- were in competition with one another. Could American rebels have won independence in a hypothetical world in which England was a "hyperpower" with no challenger? The world dominated by a "hyperpower" is a world where an insurgent social force cannot pit two or more powers against each other in hopes of increasing its own bargaining power.
That said, the term "hyperpower" may conjure up false images as you say: too much self-confidence on the part of the American power elite, who forget that masses themselves can and do act as a counter-power; and a convenient alibi on the part of the European, Russian, Chinese, and other power elite, who complain of American dominance, trying to cover up their complicity. -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>