Articles in vol. 21(2) and later of this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 United States 

License. 
 

This journal is published by the University Library System, University of Pittsburgh as part of 

its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. 

 
  

  JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Pre-Emptive Decline 
 
 
Robert Denemark 

University of Delaware 

denemark@udel.edu 

 

 

 

The decline of U.S. hegemony signals a change in the nature of relations in the modern world-

system. States at the apex of productive, commercial, and financial efficiency may turn the 

resulting resources into politico-military power such that they can unilaterally dictate the rules of 

the global system. The rules are generally designed to facilitate transmission of resources toward 

Abstract 

Why do hegemonic powers appear to have so few viable policy levers with which to cope with their fears of decline, 

and often adopt policies that are least well-suited, if not antithetical to the task? In this work I suggest that status 

threat generates a set of typical and quite maladaptive responses at both the individual/organizational level, and in 

the context of popular political culture, that exacerbate decline. This phenomenon, “pre-emptive decline,” is evident 

in both elite-driven policy and mass political responses and is reviewed here in maladaptive courses of action 

adopted in 19th century Britain, and in the contemporary United States. 

 

 

Keywords:  Decline, Fear, Great Powers, Hegemony, Rivalry 

ISSN: 1076-156X  |  Vol. 27  Issue 1  |  DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030  |  jwsr.pitt.edu 

 

Vol. 1 |  DOI 10.5195/JWSR.1 

http://www.library.pitt.edu/
http://www.pitt.edu/
http://www.library.pitt.edu/articles/digpubtype/index.html
http://upress.pitt.edu/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 150 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

the core. Great power mobilization and war declines, and violence in the system is often described 

as “low intensity” or “anti-systemic.” Barriers to trade and finance are reduced through the 

imposition of rules that allow central actors to benefit, albeit unequally. Decline emerges as a result 

of some mix of waning internal advantages, coalescing external opposition, and alterations in 

conducive global environments. But the ferocity of the decline raises questions. What helps us 

understand the inability of the greatest powers to recognize, analyze, and learn to cope with such 

deterioration? Why do we not see the safeguarding of key resources or the adoption of policies to 

soften the impact?  

This work suggests that social units whose leaders and populations fear decline tend to adopt 

policies that exacerbate their situations and hasten their deterioration. Decline becomes self-

fulfilling and emerges earlier than it might have otherwise. Hence the label “pre-emptive.”   

The argument of this paper, drawn from literatures in psychology, sociology, history, and 

politics, is that perceptions of decline generate fear and a drive to recapture dominance, particularly 

in those with high self-esteem. Such fear generates in-group solidarity and an overemphasis on 

positive group traits and abilities. These lead to over-commitment to initial (and often poorly 

functioning) strategies, even when alternatives are available. Increased defensiveness, poor 

preparation, and ill-conceived bargaining strategies follow. So too does a reduction of norms 

against the use of violence. This increases chances for all manner of conflict. Finally, self-

censoring, constriction of control, and a tendency to revert to over-learned (traditional) behaviors 

lead a drive toward the search for foundation myths. This “reversion to tradition” features stories 

about the allegedly exceptional characteristics that facilitated the rise of a nation in the first place. 

Policy directions derived from such myths are unlikely to be helpful in the face of contemporary 

challenges and are rendered even less useful by the fact that their reinterpretation in periods when 

there is fear of decline is likely to overemphasize the utility of force. Evidence suggests that this 

process was at work in (formerly hegemonic) Britain as early as the 1850s, as illustrated by 

educational policies, and is currently operant in the United States.   

 Pre-Emptive Decline is not meant to compete with or replace existing theories of hegemonic 

deterioration. It is a precursor phenomenon, generating a fear-based response that renders decline 

more likely, regardless of other generative processes. If not universal, this phenomenon is certainly 

widespread among the greatest powers throughout history, though it is easier to fully trace among 

modern polities. In the first short section of this work, I will identify some of the historical evidence 

of such a process, then turn briefly to theories of hegemonic decline, ending with the recent effort 

of Richard Lachmann who identifies a different reason for the types of policy failures identified 

here. Like the more structural theories we will review, Lachmann’s excellent work still begs an 

explanation of the perceptual changes that drive policy paralysis and exacerbate the processes of 

hegemonic decline. 

 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 151 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

Historical Examples and Theoretical Efforts 

The lack of ability to act effectively when fear of decline emerges is an oft noted but little 

considered chapter in various great power histories. Edward Gibbon ([1781] 1994: 731) comments 

on efforts in the late Roman Empire under Justinian to enlarge the empire when its ancient 

boundaries were already impossible to maintain. He concludes “the wars, the conquests, and the 

triumphs…are the feeble and pernicious efforts of old age, which exhaust the remains of strength, 

and accelerate the decay of the powers of life.” The literature on Byzantine decline features an 

argument about the failure of economic structural adaptation, and an argument about weak 

leadership. One element of that weak leadership was a tendency to hold to traditions and maintain 

policy continuity even as the empire grew weaker (Kazhdan and Cutler 1982; Anderson 1974). 

Thomson (1998: 88) concludes “the impact of imperial power became negative, the state reverting 

or slowing down the adjustments which were necessary to enable Byzantine society to cope.” 

Similar arguments are found regarding Venice. After a long discussion, Braudel (1984: 132) 

concludes that “leadership of a world-economy is an experience of power that may one day blind 

the victor to the march of history.” Though fidelity to a set of increasingly maladaptive internal 

policies is noted, the real issue is a terribly uncharacteristic over-extension of Venetian military 

activity (Toynbee 1934-1961, v.4: 278). 

Analogous process emerged in Holland. By 1655, after about 65 years of European economic 

dominance, the Dutch were sponsoring extensive patriotic parades, commissioning special 

medallions, and undertaking monumental public architecture, largely in response to insecurities 

about their global position (Cottrell 1972). Taylor (1996: 168-170, emphasis added) concludes that 

“it is only when the exalted position is perceived as being under threat that it has to be so brazenly 

broadcast to the world.” In 1672 the Dutch won a war with France, and the subsequent celebrations 

were incommensurate with the victory, (as in the case of U.S. festivities following the invasion of 

Grenada or the first war against Iraq that lasted longer than the hostilities themselves) (Taylor 

1996: 171-173). Taylor labels such conflicts “bad wars” not because they were lost, but because 

they signal decline given the uncharacteristic effort it took to win, or their overblown victory 

celebrations. 

There are numerous arguments in the general literature about the dynamics of the decline of 

hegemonic powers, especially from within the world-systems perspective and related 

understandings. Braudel ([1949] 1976) offers an early model of great power decline when he 

compares the impact of resource depletion, the transition to a rentier state, and the rise of 

contenders, in Italy and Iberia.  

For Wallerstein (1983), hegemony emerges from systemic advantages in production, 

commerce, and finance, and is solidified by systemic war and new rules. New rules are usually 

liberal and there is a tendency for the free flow of factors of production to undercut economic and 

political advantages. In Wallerstein’s 2003 discussion of the decline of American power he 

identifies a toxic cocktail of coalescing internal and external challenges: the limits of military 

power are reached, growing anti-Americanism is noted, relative economic decline sets in, as does 

a reduction in civil liberties, and the negative impact of maladaptive nationalism emerge. 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 152 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

Hegemons decline as none of the traditional mechanisms for restoring order are capable of dealing 

with such a conjunction. 

Giovanni Arrighi’s formulation of hegemonic decline begins with the contradictory 

interaction of the two key elements of hegemony: power resources and ideational leadership. 

Hegemonic systems expand, but as divisions of labor, specialization, and emulation of the 

hegemon increase, the extent and form of interaction eclipse the capacity of regulatory institutions 

to assure stability. Competition increases among states and enterprises, social conflicts increase, 

and novel power configurations emerge (Arrighi and Silver 1999: 28-31). This is true not just in 

the west but between western and non-western civilizations as well (Arrighi 1994; 2007). The 

outcome of this complex structural process is impossible to predict, though the deep and 

widespread crisis in the current era suggests a systemic or epochal level crisis as opposed to an 

adjustment (Arrighi and Silver 1999: 21).  

In earlier and related work, Modelski and Thompson (1996) offer a complex model of the rise 

and decline of leading powers based on the development of lead economic sectors that bring great 

wealth and global leadership in their wake. But there is eventual diffusion and exhaustion, systemic 

challenge, and global instability re-emerges.  

In a more recent work, Peter Turchin (2016) adopts his Structural-Demographic Theory to 

the history of the United States. He divides society into laboring classes, who undercut their own 

position when times are good by increasing their numbers and therefore reducing their wages, and 

elite classes, who enrich themselves on both the upswing and downswing; but in the latter are 

prone to overproduction and therefore increasingly bloodthirsty competition. The results are a 

complex set of dynamic elements, including worker immiseration, elite polarization, and often 

state bankruptcy. U.S. society destabilizes and is plunged into an “age of discord” that signals 

hegemonic decline. 

These structural and empirical explanations offer an array of fascinating and legitimate 

analyses of decline, but hegemonic power itself remains difficult to track given its perceptual 

foundations. Hegemonic states act the way they do given both their resources and the recognition 

their leaders have regarding what such resources can accomplish if appropriately managed. As 

such, advantages are rapidly recognized and put to work. But periods of hegemony are best 

recognized in retrospect. Even at its height policy makers feel themselves beset with numerous 

challenges and often fear that resources will be insufficient. Opponents may suffer from somewhat 

similar uncertainties as they rise to challenge a hegemonic power on local or global grounds.  

This work asks about what happens when leaders and populations of hegemonic states 

generally fear that the internal and external challenges are too great, and their status is in real peril. 

Such fear can be debilitating, leading to selective retrenchment, or to a variety of maladaptive 

responses that can confound matters further. The latter is more likely and more dangerous. Actions 

that might ameliorate shortcomings are often overlooked in favor of policy decisions that 

exacerbate the situation. The structural analyses of world-systems are less able to apprehend such 

processes. One recent attempt by Richard Lachmann makes an attempt to do so. 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 153 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

Lachmann (2020) takes up historian Robert Brenner’s argument that if similar structural 

conditions generate different local outcomes, the local structure must be the deciding variable. 

Variations in the length and form of modern hegemonic states should signal a move to study local 

structures. He also adopts Arrighi’s arguments on the global context in which domestic class 

interactions are located and must be understood. Lachmann argues that the same phenomena that 

lead to the rise of hegemony must lead to its demise when they disappear, which is likely to be the 

result of the unique stresses that hegemony itself creates. Modern European hegemons all grew 

from empires (formal or informal) and emerge as a result of four additional conditions. The first 

is the existence of an elite class that is competitive and therefore not unitary; the second is the 

existence of agreements and compromises among elite class factions that minimize domestic 

conflict; the third is the lack of autonomy of colonial elites such that the metropole could set 

extractive policies without undue difficulty; and the last is that colonial elites fail to attain the 

ability to increase inter-elite conflict in the metropole. All four of these attributes had to be present 

for an empire to become a hegemon. Any deviation would stop an empire from doing so.  

Lachmann sees hegemonic decline as the loss of any of these 4 attributes and seeks to trace 

the manner in which hegemony created wealth or tensions that fostered such changes in the 

Netherlands, the UK and the United States. The volume is particularly rich in its analysis of how 

internal class factions and related colonial pressures undercut various element of hegemonic 

power. To his credit, he notes where key elements of his analysis of decline are missing, as in the 

UK example (Lachmann 2020). Acknowledged, but less well noted are the separate global-level 

changes in technology, organization, or competition that might generate decline as well, as they 

are not the focus of the volume (Lachmann 2020). And the move from agriculture and industry to 

finance seems to be both based upon and blamed for the lack of resources devoted to the former 

as a result of financialization, setting up a problematic chronology.  

From the perspective of preemptive decline, this work is especially interesting as it asserts 

that class factionalization built on sophisticated global and domestic changes may explain the 

inability to pursue policies necessary to salvage power resources or pursue necessary reforms. 

When Lachmann (2020: 287) suggests, however, that “political actors are motivated by ideas and 

interests, but political accomplishments arrive at particular moments because opponents have been 

weakened, alliances strengthened, and structural impediments cleared away” we should wonder 

what role perceptions of change and instability play in the process. Political and economic actors 

are unlikely to wait for concrete indicators of decline and rely instead on their perception that these 

alterations are in process. Key general attributes, like the move of business leadership away from 

liberal policies, or the decline of the government’s ability to maintain popularity while acting 

progressively, seem as vulnerable to perception (and misperception) as concrete alterations in elite 

interests. This is especially true if early movements of these sorts emerge long before more 

objective measures of decline, as I trace in the UK. Likewise missing is an explanation for the 

similar elite and mass psychologies late in the hegemonic cycles of the Netherlands, the UK, and 

the United States when fear of decline appears to trigger inward-looking questions of national 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 154 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

identity, backward-looking policy preferences, and the veneration of (expensive and often 

unhelpful) violent solutions to contemporary problems.  

 

The Psychology of Pre-Emptive Decline 

This work interrogates two categories of responses to “fear of decline.” The first concerns 

individuals and their roles in organizations. Counter-productive responses to fear are well 

understood in individual and organizational psychology, and in parts of the foreign policy 

literature. The second set of challenges concern the process known as “reversion to tradition” in 

the face of crisis. This predisposition can emerge in leadership circles, but it may also be noted in 

popular culture. Relevant tradition is constituted in the midst of contention over which social myths 

are thought to have once led to dominance. The content of these beliefs is more cultural or mytho-

historic in nature. 

The result of these two responses is a form of overcompensation that leads to maladaptive 

policies that squander time and resources. Instead of dealing in a purposeful manner with either 

the anxiety regarding decline, or oncoming elements of decline itself, fear leads to responses that 

foster ever more self-defeating policy choices. Fear of decline becomes self-fulfilling. 

 

High Self-Esteem, Status Threats, and Poor Decisions 

Fear of decline generates a desire to regain dominance, especially among individuals with high 

levels of self-esteem. Great power leaders and their upper echelon staffs have risen to the top of 

highly competitive national political processes that afford them extraordinary power. But 

individuals with high self-esteem are susceptible to behavioral miscalculations in situations when 

their status, or that of their organizations, comes under threat. They tend to become inappropriately 

optimistic, increase levels of persistence without altering their strategy, and when their behaviors 

do change, they tend toward self-defeating patterns of over-compensatory action. 

Overly optimistic predictions regarding future performance are likely given three related 

individual-level tendencies. First, individuals who are members of a high-status group tend to view 

themselves as part of a coherent unit, and threats to the group are perceived as personal (Simon, 

Aufderheide, and Kampmeier 2001). Second, individuals possess a tendency to over-emphasize 

their positive traits. This remains a useful element of mental health providing the overestimation 

does not stray too far from genuine abilities (Taylor et al. 1989). For those with organizational 

power there is special danger. Constant flattery and special levels of support tend to move self-

perception out of the realm of acceptable exaggeration. Baumeister (1989: 186) identifies a set of 

historical examples when exaggeration led to policy disaster and warns that “Initially…the 

expansion of the margin of illusion may generate excitement and attract additional supporters. But 

as the margin of illusion continues to expand, it renders the individual or group increasingly prone 

to make nonoptimal decisions…and these may contain the danger of self-destructive 

consequences.” Psychological studies establish that among those with high self-esteem, this 

illusion persists even in the context of repeated failures (McFarlin and Blascovich 1981). 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 155 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

Not only do high self-esteem individuals predict success in the face challenges, but their 

predictions tend to be exaggerated relative to their best prior levels of performance. This may be 

caused in part by the tendency of high-status group members to enhance their levels of 

discrimination against opponents, whose abilities they often belittle (Turner and Reynolds 2001). 

Goleman (1989: 196) concludes “relying on those illusions creates a self-fulfilling prophecy…we 

do nothing that might make a difference for the better.” 

Increasingly poor decision-making by those with high self-esteem who face status threats 

emerges in three parts. First, there is a tendency to over-commit. Attempts to overcome an obstacle 

with repetitive and unsuccessful tactics persist, even in the context of trustworthy alternative 

advice (McFarlin, Baumesiter, and Blascovich 1984). Self-defeating behaviors include reduced 

preparation and the adoption of ill-designed bargaining strategies that increase the chance of failure 

(Baumesiter and Scher 1988; Tice 1991). In general, judgment declines as “people with high self-

esteem tend to respond with extreme, irrational patterns to an ego threat” (Baumesiter, Heatherton, 

and Tice 1993: 156). 

 

Toward Violence 

Perceived threats to group status generate a desire for the re-imposition of dominance (Baumesiter 

et al. 1988). From the perspective of research on identity, negative feedback that is inconsistent 

with a given “standard of identity” may generate “more extreme versions of behavior associated 

with that identity” (Willer et al. 2013: 985). This is exacerbated by our natural evolutionary 

responses to threats, including a release of hormones that increase aggression, regardless of the 

utility of aggression in a particular situation (Archer 2006). 

High status groups are protected by a multi-step tendency to enforce the highest possible level 

of unity even in instances where there exist serious concerns about the continued capacity of the 

group. In-group pressure leads to conformity, but since there is a desire to be viewed as more than 

a simple conformist, actors overcompensate to enhance their status as “true believers.” This 

includes enforcing the norms of the group, trumpeting its power, value and dominance, and 

demanding that others do the same (Willer, Kuwabara, and Macy 2009). 

There are additional mechanisms that help generate resentment, increase misunderstanding, 

and justify violence in the face of fear of decline. Status challenges engender defensiveness, even 

if actions taken by others are aimed at unrelated actors. Another source of tension emerges because 

high status and low status groups adopt very different preferences regarding how they should be 

treated, reducing the efficacy of diplomatic efforts (Dovidio et al. 2012). Since dominant groups 

deploy hierarchy-enhancing myths, the source of the threat may be blamed for acting in (what the 

myths identify as) an illegitimate manner (Cohrs 2012). Perceptions of these “illegitimate” actions 

serve as the initial release of ethnical restraints on the use of violence. Once the process of 

delegitimation is in operation, every form of violence is facilitated—from attacks against 

individuals to genocide (Bar-Tal and Hammack 2012). 

The findings of prospect theory are consistent with enhanced risk-taking when expected levels 

of success by high-status groups are not met (Kahneman and Tversky 1979).  Applications of 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 156 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

prospect theory to international relations stress the greater tendency of risky behavior in the context 

of potential losses, rather than in search of gains. Taliaferro (2004) applies the insights of prospect 

theory to global politics and finds increasing levels of coercive diplomacy and a greater tendency 

toward the use of expensive military intervention in the affected contexts. 

The maladaptive tendencies related to status threats are not unique to individuals with high 

self-esteem. A number of literatures identify similar processes in mass political culture. 

Responding to status threat with maladaptive political choices and violence is well known in ethnic 

conflict studies. Horowitz (1985) ties the drive to protect group status to an increase in prejudice 

that legitimizes violence, all as a prelude to outbreaks of ethnic conflict. The use of traditional 

symbols to generate hatred is illustrated by Kapferer (1988), and its broader application, especially 

in generating new “traditional hatreds,” is traced in a pair of important volumes by Kaufman (2001; 

2015). 

Threats to the status of a group are internalized by group members, often as a result of the 

actions of leaders bent of fostering ethnic violence. These leaders seek to restrict the focus of group 

identity to ethnicity, concentrate social and economic competition around that ethnic identity, and 

manipulate myths and symbols to generate hatred and legitimize violence (Gagnon 1994-1995). 

Ethnic myths and symbols are particularly vulnerable to this form of manipulation given the 

psychological dynamics of identity and threat perception (Kaufman 2015). A similar conclusion 

may be reached in the case of national, as opposed to ethnic formulations, though the relationship 

between national status and individual responses is not as straightforward (Spinner-Halev and 

Theiss-Morse 2003). 

Taken together, group status threats are personalized, increase in-group cohesion, facilitate 

discrimination, drive delegitimation, maladaptive decision-making, poorly calculated risk-taking, 

and a propensity to violence. 

 

Increasingly Traditional Responses 

In an early work titled Victims of Groupthink, Irving Janis (1972) outlines the organizational 

pathologies that emerge in times of crisis. Particularly problematic responses include self-

censorship of unwelcome facts and enhanced centralization of decision-making. Staw, Sandelands, 

and Dutton (1981) argue that the result of these processes will be policy rigidity. Several studies 

from the 1950s and 1960s (reviewed in Staw et al. 1981) link stress with restricted attention, 

anxiety, and arousal, which together act to narrow perception, reduce flexibility, and generate well-

learned and very traditional responses. Staw et al. (1981: 502) argue that threat rigidity generates 

increased cohesiveness, constriction of control, and increased expectations of uniformity: “thus, 

maladaptive cycles are predicted to follow from threats which encompass major environmental 

changes since prior, well-learned responses are inappropriate under new conditions.” 

There is also support for both the “information restriction” and “control monopolization” 

elements of the threat-rigidity argument. Gladstein and Reilly (1985) find major restrictions in 

information processing in the context of increasing threats to a group. Less information is accepted, 

shared, processed, or used. Groups of talented individuals with long histories of successful 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 157 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

problem-solving may be just as vulnerable as new and untested units (Gladstein and Reilly 1985). 

Boulding (1975) argues that threats of decline can cause us to turn away from cooperative 

interactions just as they become most potentially useful. 

The restriction of control is a key symptom. Centralization emerges as a robust outcome in 

empirical studies on the impact of institutional decline (Cameron, Whetten, and Kim 1987). Ocasio 

(1993), in studying economic downturns, notes that if power is highly institutionalized, economic 

adversity will lead to greater entrenchment and a decrease in the rate of executive succession. 

Authority becomes more concentrated and entrenched. Hierarchy becomes more pronounced. 

Loss of flexibility is considered by Plotnick, Turoff, and Van Den Eede (2009) and Muurlink 

et al. (2012: S74-S76). When stress generates responses in terms of “over-learned behaviours” the 

“rigidity is a non-adaptive response to threat, and can lead to a recursive increase in threat or 

stress.” Threat leads to rigidity, rigidity leads to the use of traditional responses that are 

unsuccessful, the lack of success leads to more perceptions of threat, in a recursive dynamic of 

self-reinforcing failure. 

Whatever the hypothesized genesis of the reversion to tradition under stress, several studies 

have confirmed the relationship. The work of Shaham, Singer, and Schaeffer (1992), as well as 

Klein (1996), establish the tendency of individuals to adopt well-worn responses when subjected 

to stress. Schwabe and Wolf (2009) review the history of research on stress and reversion to 

tradition that has evolved in the fields of brain chemistry and neuroscience. The condition is well-

enough understood to be treated with medications. Prescriptions are available for musicians who 

suffer from the fear that they cannot avoid repeating the same errors (stage fright). The neuro-

chemical foundations of the tendency to revert to tradition when under stress are made clear by 

Hermans et al. (2011), in a physiological study that mapped the relevant human neural networks. 

George et al. (2006) suggest that group threats generate the need to reestablish control over 

conditions, and such control may be perceived if the threatened group behaves as expected in given 

circumstances. This is true whether those behaviors are productive or not. In corporations, such 

behaviors “kept their key constituencies at bay through conforming to normative expectations” or 

even simply by “mimicking the organizing templates…that are viewed as legitimate” (George et 

al. 2006: 355)  In one of the most interesting studies, Ocasio (1993: 33) suggests with regard to 

economic crisis that “adversity increases reliance on core cultural assumptions, values, and beliefs, 

as interpreted by participants in organizational decision-making, increases the rate of adoption of 

solutions that are consistent with the core cultural assumptions and decreases the rate of 

assumptions of other forms of organizational change,” and concludes that “the narrowing of 

attention and reliance on cultural assumptions and beliefs is likely to continue as long as economic 

adversity prevails” (Ocasio 1993: 43). Form and not function is what matters.  

 

Maladaptive Tradition 

A second problematic element building upon reversion to tradition is more generally cultural, 

manifests as mass political behavior, and functions through the manipulation of social myths and 

identity. Social myths are “emotionally charged beliefs that reflect the way in which people 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 158 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

experience formative periods in their history” (Girling 1993: 2). They are the “deep stories” with 

which people organize their understanding of the “specific emphases and moral highlights” of their 

own past (Doty 2004: 13). They serve as “rallying signs,” especially in periods of stress (Girling 

1993: 11). These ideas require no further legitimation. Social myths are especially relevant in the 

political realm as they form the safest and most popular anchors to which political personalities 

and platforms can tie themselves.  

The creation and interpretation of myths varies over time for three reasons. First, myths are 

symbolic representations that may contain inaccuracies, but the stories told and the emotions they 

elicit are not products of rational modes of thinking. Their meanings are immune to logical 

argument and may be molded to conform to whatever vision the purveyors of newly strengthened 

emotions point to. Second, their meanings are contested, and they can be played off against one 

another. For example, the veneration of individualism may be deployed to justify leaving others 

alone, or excuse intervening in their affairs. The result is a constant rebalancing of their meanings. 

Finally, myths adapt to social change. The humility and frugality of members of the Protestant 

sects that fled Britain for the American colonies were wholly consistent with the democratic 

freedoms that allowed dissenters to flourish. Over time, the economic growth sometimes credited 

to the Protestant Ethic allowed those with vast wealth to undercut democracy until it is today “a 

shadow of its former self” (Girling 1993: 5). Myths also overlap and condition one another. If the 

social unit is large enough, differences may appear regionally (Langman and Lundskow 2016). 

Inconsistency is not a problem as myths elicit emotions, and emotion is a human response that 

emerges prior to, and may cancel, rationality (Kaufman 2015). 

The traditions and interpretations that are most likely to be favored in times of crisis are those 

that promise the quickest and most assured reassertion of control. Traditions or norms that enhance 

longer-term competitive abilities or leverage cooperative interactions are less likely to be 

embraced. This is true even if the longer-term policies are clearly superior strategies and the more 

immediate proposals are illogical or obviously fallacious. The tendency for social frustration to be 

translated into cultural tendencies is discussed in both peripheral and core societies (Fanon 1979; 

Bergesen 2006). In the former, frustration may lead to hyper-violence within the community. In 

the latter, Don Quixote, James Bond, and John Rambo emerge as important fictional characters 

that carry vast audiences into violence-filled parodies of pre-decline capabilities. 

Fear of decline thus leads to a desire to regain dominance that includes overly optimistic 

estimates of capacity built around exaggerated perceptions of positive group abilities and in-group 

coherence. There is an over-commitment to initial strategies and reduced or cursory preparatory 

measures. Weakening of normative restraints against violence, enhanced defensiveness, and poor 

bargaining strategies increase the tendency toward conflict. We also see reversion to traditional 

responses via constriction of control, use of over-learned behaviors, and self-censoring. 

The following sections offer two examples of political processes that illustrate pre-emptive 

decline. The first concerns the surprising decision to downplay scientific and technical education 

reforms in Britain in the 1860s even though such reforms were understood to be vital for continued 

global economic and political leadership, and had significant logical, popular, and official support. 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 159 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

The second concerns the welcome accorded to an electoral platform promising a return to greatness 

for the United States. 

 

Pre-Emptive Decline, Education, and Competitiveness in 19th Century Britain 

The impact of pre-emptive decline is reflected in decisions on education in Britain beginning in 

the 1850s. The characteristic backward-looking orientation, short term perspective, and tendency 

toward more aggressive behaviors are all manifest; and help explain why a curriculum that was 

oriented toward continued economic productivity via scientific and technical advantage was 

proposed, popular, officially supported, and even legally mandated but was in the end ignored in 

favor of a regressive and conflict prone alternative. Traditional indicators and dates for the decline 

of British hegemony did not follow until shortly thereafter. 

 

A Recipe for Concern 

Starting in the 1850s, the British began to perceive challenges to their way of life and global status. 

Though no appreciable decline had taken place, heretofore secure bastions of social and economic 

stability began to emanate subtle signs of change. The official position of the Anglican Church 

had long afforded it a significant role in the life of town and country. By 1851, however, the 

population identifying with official doctrine fell below 50%. The growing urban working class 

was especially indifferent, and the census of 1851 “revealed an alarming number of people who 

practiced no religion” (Bedarida 1990: 90-92). Personal Christian doctrines did not disappear 

among the majority, but the official church with its role in education and social control appeared 

to be weakening (Kumar 2003). 

Liberalism and industrialization were also losing their luster. Inequality spiraled (Bedarida 

1990). The repealing of the protectionist Corn Laws in 1846 signaled a move away from the 

political dominance of landowners, but also undercut the conditions of about one million 

agricultural laborers. Many fled to ill-prepared urban areas (Hobsbawm 1968). Liberal orthodoxy 

came under political pressure as widespread poverty and social instability were blamed “above all 

[on] the malfunctioning of an industrial system” (Bedarida 1990: 107). 

Britain’s place in the world also showed subtle signs of strain. In 1850 Britain had no serious 

great power competition, but officials feared the rise of major competitors in the coming decades 

(Rubinstein 1990). Most of the focus was on Germany's rapid and well-organized rise (Saffin 

1973). Prominent educators, such as Matthew Arnold (quoted in Wiener 1981: 35), were among 

those who warned the populace “that the preservation of their position in the world demanded the 

cultivation of intelligence.”  

British science and technology had been showcased proudly at the Exhibition of 1851. Public 

attention was drawn to the link between science and industry (Saffin 1973). Only eleven years 

later the relative position of British technology at the Exhibition of 1862 suggested impending 

encroachment. This image was reinforced with high-profile coverage of the Exhibitions of 1867 

and 1870 (Pollard 1989; Sanderson 1995; Sanderson 1999). 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 160 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

Several scholars argue that concerns over decline emerge as early as the 1850s, well before 

the economic downturn of the 1870s, or the threats of contending great powers in the 1880s and 

1890s (Briggs 1987; Newsome 1961; Pollard 1989; Rubinstein 1990; Sanderson 1995; 1999; 

Silver 1983). The idea of decline proved to be very powerful and was reinforced every time some 

weakness was perceived. Such perceptions were quick to be adopted in popular literature and as a 

topic for academic debate. More critically, perceptions of decline were adopted as political issues. 

The shrill tones of the political parties magnified concerns (Tomlinson 2009). 

There then emerges a search for “What went wrong?” and “Who is to blame?” that engages 

all manner of interest groups. Solutions are offered to badly mis-specified problems or long-

extinguished challenges. As Taylor (1996: 158) concludes, in seeking to restore “the glories of the 

past, chances of a better future are eroded.” Much of this is illustrated in policymaking on 

education. 

 

Criticisms of Education 

Scholars of various perspectives have seen fit to lay Britain’s economic woes at the schoolhouse 

door. Education has often been viewed as crucial to long-term development (Sanderson 1995). No 

less than Adam Smith argued that a publicly provided education would be necessary to help deal 

with the dislocations of marketization and urbanization (Dobbs 1919). Smith was not heeded. 

Education remained a private matter. Literacy declined in the early industrial cities (Sanderson 

1995). Misery increased. 

Several specific criticisms of the British educational system emerged with regard to its 

support of economic and social goals in mid-century. The first concerned the lack of science and 

technology in the curriculum. This criticism is often joined by the related argument that useful 

subjects like English, French, mathematics, and history, were similarly ignored (Saffin 1973). 

Science and technology remained outside the curriculum even though 1.) industrialization had 

captured the attention of the whole of society; 2.) trade advantages rested upon advances in science; 

3.) defense of the empire was more and more driven by technology; and 4.) the growing middle 

class wanted to educate their sons in subjects that were more relevant than the classics. Inertia 

played a role. Education was often private or religious, and designed to nurture aristocrats and 

good Christians. No expensive laboratories, new books, or scarce science teachers had to be 

acquired. 

On the other side of the equation, social groups of all ideological stripes lamented the lack of 

educational opportunities in modern subjects. The industrial products and processes of the pervious 

century required little in the way of formal learning, and this instilled the unfortunate idea that 

such training was therefore unnecessary (Pollard 1989). But the leading sectors of the period after 

1830 (electro-magnetism and organic chemistry) required more systematic education and research 

(Hobsbawm 1968). 

In various debates over economic decline, neo-classical liberals like McCloskey (1970) 

argued that it made no sense to devote public resources to increasing education in science and 

technology. Wages for those with science and technology backgrounds were neither high nor 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 161 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

rising. There was no change in the social status of those with such skills. Science was slow to gain 

acceptance at the university level for lack of demand by students or donations from possible future 

employers. Only certain industries were among the forces lobbying for more science and 

technology in the schools. McCloskey (1970) concludes that British entrepreneurs did not adopt 

the latest technology given their accurate assessment of demand conditions relative to costs. 

Contemporary analysis is not generous to McCloskey’s position. Use of the term 

“entrepreneur” in her work is a misnomer. “Management” is the term that should be used to define 

those who seek an optimal match between existing resources, markets, and output, while an 

entrepreneur re-makes that environment, “bursting out of organizational constraints” (Payne 1990: 

43, see also 29). Rubinstein (1990) is concerned that while management was sound, the quality of 

entrepreneurship had declined. Innovation and increased productivity were rare (Payne 1990; 

Pollard 1989; Robbins 1990). Payne (1990: 29) sees little if any innovation of an entrepreneurial 

nature in this period and concludes that management “was unaware of their own inadequacies and 

unconscious of the poverty of information upon which they based their decisions.” Their concerns 

started and stopped with controlling major costs like wages, while supplying existing markets. 

Pollard (1989) argues that business failed to recognize their need for science and suffered as a 

result. 

A closely related criticism of the educational system was its alleged bias against industry and 

innovation. Upper middle-class industrialists and professionals sent their sons to school for both 

educational and social purposes, and Wiener (1981) argues that the result was gentrification. 

Taylor (1996: 163) echoes Toynbee in suggesting that “It is not so much the resulting lack of a 

science-trained labour force that is important, but the way elite education imbued the whole social 

fabric with anti-industrial values.” Daunton (1989: 120-121) concludes: “A conception of 

‘Englishness’ emerged which virtually excluded industrialism, and bourgeois culture was 

‘gentrified’, leading to a dampening of economic endeavor as businessmen shunned industrial 

entrepreneurship for the more socially acceptable role of a gentleman.” Making money was 

acceptable, if not flaunted or acquired by getting one’s hands dirty, and especially if it was 

accomplished at arm’s length. A career in finance might be thought of as the model of 

“gentlemanly” capitalism (Daunton 1989). Wiener makes much of the tendency of industrial elites 

to both send their sons to the great universities and turn themselves into country gentlemen by 

purchasing rural estates. The result, he argues, was that “Industry after industry exhibited the 

pattern of gentrification accompanied by changes in strategy and structure that hampered future 

growth” (Wiener 1981: 145-146). Gentlemanly pursuits, rural estates, or the financial sector 

siphoned talent and attention from industry. 

Such criticisms are not uncontested. Where Wiener lamented the premature retirement of 

founders, and the flight of the second generation, Rubinstein (1990) shows that children did not 

flee their father’s businesses, nor did profits decline. Sanderson (1999) notes an increase in 

nepotism. The belief in science and technology, part of a broader faith in progress, remained at the 

center of late Victorian middle-class values (Kumar 2003). State funding for science increased by 

18 times between 1839 and 1859 (Pollard 1989). This suggests the slow erosion of tradition and 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 162 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

growing support for change at the highest social and political levels. Tendencies toward inertia 

appeared weakened. 

 

The Educational Environment 

Calls for educational reform did not appear in a vacuum. Broad social experimentation emerged, 

including Adam Smith’s call for education as a palliative to the ills of urbanization, the growing 

middle-class demand for education, the rise of itinerate lecturers on the sciences and mathematics, 

the hope that schools might deter crime, the proliferation of private academies, various 

experiments with night schools, trade schools, factory schools, and Sunday schools, and the decline 

of religious leadership on education. 

In the more established and traditional public school sector, the reforms of the 1840s and 

1850s pioneered by Thomas Arnold were most important. Arnold became headmaster of Rugby 

and was the most prominent of the Benson Circle of reformers (Newsome 1961). The residential 

academies of Arnold’s time taught classics and generally allowed students autonomy in their non-

class hours, leading to a virtual law of the jungle (Newsome 1961). The results, made famous in 

novels of the period, included vicious competition among students for everything from spare funds 

to sexual favors. Tensions between students and staff did not fall much short of physical violence. 

The overall environment was dominated by a sense of mob rule. Arnold introduced more structured 

activities during non-class hours, formal leadership positions for the oldest class, and modern 

subjects like history, mathematics, and contemporary languages. This educational paradigm went 

by the name of “Godliness and Good Learning” and was expected to turn students away from the 

feral behavior of past eras and into more capable citizens and leaders. This was in line with the 

highest principles of the Victorian era in its attempt to cultivate gentlemen (Daunton 1998). 

Nonetheless, these reforms fell short of middle-class expectations. Arnold opposed the 

introduction of science into the curriculum, ostensibly on the grounds that there was insufficient 

time. He argued that since science could not be taught properly, it should not be offered at all 

(Strachey 1918). Arnold was also famously opposed to the materialism of his age, and his well-

known concerns with the degrading aspects of modernity might have extended to science as well 

(Mack 1941). This adherence to the classics left him less popular than his achievements might 

have warranted. 

The anarchy of the British educational establishment, rising calls for reform, and ongoing 

social change, provided both incentive and latitude for government intervention (Saffin 1973). The 

drive to put science into the curriculum lay at the heart of many reform efforts that emerged around 

mid-century, and was a central pillar of the findings of a series of Parliamentary Commissions 

formed in response to popular calls for action (Pollard 1989). In 1846 a science teacher training 

scheme was initiated (Saffin 1973). Through the 1860s a great number of pro-science lobbies 

emerged in support of curricular reform, the creation of textbooks, and additional teacher training 

(Saffin 1973). 

While industrialists were not universally favorable to such efforts given concerns over 

taxation, those in research-heavy and high skill sectors supported change (Pollard 1989). By about 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 163 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

1850 natural sciences were introduced at Oxford and Cambridge, laboratories were built, and 

curricula were established to delineate disciplines (Saffin 1973; Sanderson 1995). Science was 

also integrated into the curriculum of the Royal Military Academy. 

All three of the major Parliamentary Commissions on secondary education that met between 

1858 and 1864 (The Newcastle Commission on general education; the Clarendon Commission on 

elite institutions; and the Taunton Commission on “other” schools) highlighted the issue of science 

and technology. The Newcastle Commission urged the creation and adoption of science across all 

secondary schools. The Clarendon Commission, the most important as many schools copied the 

curricula of the elite institutions, labeled the neglect of science in the curriculum “a great practical 

evil” (Pollard 1989: 118) and went so far as to urge that science be adopted as an alternative to the 

classics for purposes of the general training of the intellect. The Taunton Commission called for a 

major increase in science offerings, emphasizing that it was simply wrong to ignore science in the 

curriculum (Saffin 1973). These commissions concluded that “the neglect of the natural sciences 

is the most lamentable feature of the public school syllabus” (Newsome 1961: 68). This all led to 

the legal requirement that science enter the curriculum in the Public School Act of 1868 (Sanderson 

1995). Later commissions reiterated calls for science in the curriculum and lamented the slow pace 

of change (Pollard 1989).  

 

The Surprising Defeat of a Science Oriented Curriculum 

The central role that education played in the debate over economic growth, the extent of popular 

support, high status lobbying efforts in favor of science, and Parliamentary success, would suggest 

a major reform in the British educational system was forthcoming (Mack 1941). The reform took 

place, but science was not included. Part of the demand for change was based on fear of global 

status threats, which prompted a more general call to rethink society and education (Wiener 1981). 

It is the argument of this work that the fear of decline elicited a backward looking, short term, 

and aggressive response, as opposed to the more fundamental but less viscerally appealing policies 

proposed by various social groups and educational commissions. Education is a long-term solution 

to social problems, and these tend to be less popular than tough-sounding policies that follow 

traditional guidelines, even when the latter are highly questionable (Sanderson 1995). Newsome 

(1961: 3) concludes: “the cry had gone up for educational reform. Those who were in a position 

to carry out reform responded by looking to the past for their ideal. They strove to return to first 

principles…either by devising new methods or by breathing new life into the old.” 

 

The Traditions of Decline 

Nearly all of so-called the “ancient traditions” that were thrust into the debate on educational 

philosophy were contested, and both the push for science and technology, and its failure, can be 

traced to the arguments over identity that emerged in the context of fear of decline. Britain faced 

a particularly daunting task. As an empire (both on its home island and abroad), Britain’s self-

appointed imperial mission was to bring harmony and civilization to its domain, hence particular 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 164 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

national identities were a threat. Especially after union with Scotland in 1707, the leadership 

realized that the key issue was to hold the empire together. Kumar (2003: 37) notes “when you are 

securely in charge it is best not to remind others of this fact too often or too insistently. It is insecure 

nations…who most stridently assert their nationalism.” It is at this point that we find the growth 

of English (not British) nationalism, setting intellectuals in search of unique character traits and a 

special collective destiny. 

The genesis of English nationalism is highly contested (Colley 1992; Kumar 2003). So much 

of English identity was tied to cosmopolitan visions of empire and progress that it was only after 

those notions began to be questioned that there began a search for any truly unique national 

attributes. A key feature in this process “was the invention of ‘old traditions’ in the late 19th 

century” (Dodd 1986). Horne (1969) outlines an important argument about two contending 

metaphors for English nationalism. The “Northern Metaphor” was pragmatic and calculating. It 

was the cultural image of the urban industrial heartland, the site of England's creation of industrial 

Europe. The “Southern Metaphor” was the aristocratic and traditional rural image of the Crown 

Heartland, sans London (Horne 1969). Its historic origins offered a set of social norms that 

promised stability and security (Dobbs 1919). Traditional rural relations were less infected by the 

endless debates of churchman or urban cynicism (Bedarida 1990). Popular authors, like Kipling 

“worrying that England’s days of predominance were numbered, turned for reassurance from the 

overseas setting of his imperial stories to the contemplation of England’s own rural past” (Wiener 

1981: 56). He was joined by the works of several popular authors like Thomas Hardy. Art, poetry, 

and music also generated a picture of English rural bliss (Kumar 2003). Taylor (1991: 151-153) 

concludes “the pioneer of industrialization and the most urbanized country in the world is idealized 

in rural terms....the Anglo-British became a non-rural people with an ideal rural image...[and 

Northern England]...was relegated not just to peripheral status but to an alien existence in the 

national scene.”  

Traditional rural ideals that emerged in art, literature, and the popular press are enumerated 

by a variety of scholars including Girling (1993), Newsome (1961), and Mandler (2006). Most are 

captured in the work of Bedarida (1990) and Saffin (1973).  Bedarida identified these traditional 

rural traits as 1) A Culture of Self-Help; 2) Monarchy; 3) Patriotism; 4) Christianity; and 5) Social 

Hierarchy. For Saffin the traits and skills to be translated through the educational system were 1) 

Defense of the Empire; 2) Good Policy Making; 3) War Fighting Ability; and 4) Building 

Character. Traits of the Northern Metaphor like rationality, progress, and pragmatism, were 

peripheralized. 

The Southern Metaphor has its dark side. Industrial cities, their factory owners, and their 

working classes, were marginalized (Thompson 1965). National status came to be further 

cemented with decisions to standardize English pronunciation that adopted the southern dialect 

used by only 3% of the population (Taylor 1991). The study of history in the lower schools was 

focused on transmitting this Southern Metaphor to younger students (Kumar 2003). From this new 

nationalist and southern perspective, British superiority was not the result of either innovation or 

exploitation, but of an exceptional English character that extolled faith, service, and the “right of 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 165 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

success” (Girling 1993: 138). Being thusly blessed, it was not just an expedient policy, but the 

sacred duty of England to bring civilization to others. Defense of the empire became a moral 

necessity, and Rome was the model. This exercise in exceptionalism quickly finds “satisfaction 

turned to self-satisfaction, pride to national pride, confidence to chauvinism tinged with 

xenophobia” (Bedarida 1990: 93). Over half of Bedarida’s and Saffin’s lists of popularly accepted 

national character traits have martial connotations. 

Scholars debate the level of actual economic and political decline, but ignore the way that 

early fears emerge and play a role in both official and popular circles. Reverting to foundation 

myths, and rising to meet enemies foreign and domestic, provides a handy means of taking action; 

but the action is likely to be myopic, aggressive, and counter-productive. 

 

Pre-emptive Decline and Education 

The impact that fear of decline had on educational reform would not have been predicted from the 

debates at the time, popular demands, or the conclusions of the various Parliamentary 

Commissions. With its renewed emphases on nation and empire, the emerging educational 

paradigm was known as “Muscular Christianity” and was constructed around a simplified 

Southern Metaphor that sought to avoid complex debates over social change or curricular needs. 

Education was to serve the allegedly traditional purpose of service to society, and now also of 

global mission (Saffin 1973; Newsome 1961). The key was a shift away from either Arnold’s 

“Godliness and Good Learning” or the training of Victorian Gentlemen, and toward martial 

preparedness and individual character development (Sanderson 1995). Daunton (1989: 132) 

argues “the value system was remade between [the Reform Act of] 1832 and [the Reform Act of] 

1867…The emphasis was on character rather than virtue, and character was tested by striving, self-

reliance and mastering of circumstances.” 

One of the most obvious changes sparked by Arnold’s insistence that free time at school be 

managed was the introduction of competitive games, often newly designed, first at the elite private 

institutions—like Rugby—and then more generally. Games became a serious part of the 

curriculum in the 1860s. Players were not differentiated by age or size, leading to a painful 

toleration of organized violence by younger students. A “cult of manliness” emerged that rewarded 

stoic disregard for harm and a lack of exhibited emotions (Newsome 1961: 81-83). 

Sanderson (1995: 35-36) concludes that education “aimed to produce the physically fit, 

patriotic and basically honorable young men with leadership qualities necessary for the Army, the 

Empire, and the City, on which the strength of Britain depended.” One Wellington headmaster 

bragged that the new system would transform students into “handy rifle skirmishers” and lauded 

the school as “a splendid institution for turning out Army officer material” (Newsome 1961: 198) 

while another noted that the rise of organized games meant the end of some of the few existing 

scientific activities like the study of botany or entomology during free time (Newsome 1961). 

The new emphasis was a welcome move away from classics, and it promised at least some 

contemporary applications (Mack 1941; Newsome 1961). It was also consistent with the desires 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 166 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

of aristocrats for a suitable education, and to clerics who sought the continued propagation of their 

creed. It emerged in the context of fear of decline and a concomitant debate about national 

character, long before actual decline set in (Sanderson 1999; Bedarida 1990). That timing gave 

rise to calls for resurgence and a focus on resurrected and reconstructed myths regarding the 

national character (Sanderson 1995). Increased aggressiveness punctuated these myths and became 

a way to show that while there were challenges, there was no decline. As a result, the British held 

off incorporating more science and technology into their curricula, and it is no coincidence that 

chemical and other highly technical key industries in Germany and the United States took the lead. 

Britain declined. The irony is that while decline may be inevitable, policies derived in an 

atmosphere of fear have a tendency to hasten its onset and sharpen its bite. 

 

Pre-Emptive Decline in the 21st Century United States 

Anxiety among members of high status groups is an important element in generating the processes 

of pre-emptive decline, since individuals in that category are both more predisposed to suffer the 

negative effects of status decline and most capable of pursuing a policy agenda in response. In the 

wake of Donald Trump, and in the continuing shadow of Boris Johnson’s Brexit, it is easy to 

believe that populist mobilization is the result of cynical exacerbation and manipulation of 

economic changes generated by globalization on lower status citizenry. It can easily be suggested 

that high status leaders pounded their duplicitous message to create and energize their base; taking 

advantage of existing status fears, while not themselves affected (Diamond 2018). There are both 

theoretical and empirical reasons for believing, instead, that the high status population strata most 

susceptible to the dynamics of pre-emptive decline are themselves motivated by status threats. 

Though globalization (in the form of both increased trade and more open finance) is well 

understood to generate significant inequalities favoring holders of capital, they may do so 

regionally and not just along existing economic cleavages, or they may generate demands for 

compensatory tax systems that would impose real costs on high earners and their corporations 

(Rodrik 2018). Chase-Dunn et al. (2019), following Goldfrank (1978), note that while fascism is 

understood as a movement created and led by non-elites, contemporary neo-fascism, also called 

“populist nationalism,” is an offshoot of authoritarianism, created by members of the existing 

political and economic elite and dependent upon them for funding, political latitude, message, 

organization, and leadership. This is a top-down movement fostered by existing political classes 

as they see their positions, or the positions of their organizations, deteriorating (Goldfrank 1978; 

Chase-Dunn et al. 2019). Rodrik notes that immigration or drives for equality provide a foundation 

for right-wing movements. Economic threats in the absence of cultural “others” provide a 

foundation for left-wing movements. Both are led by existing members of elite groups who craft 

the messages and lead the mobilizations (Rodrik 2018). 

Careful empirical analysis by Diana Mutz (2018: E4330, emphasis added) confirms that 

“candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increased anxiety among high-status groups rather than 

complaints about past treatment among low status groups. Both growing domestic racial diversity 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 167 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

and globalization contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege.” Perceived threats 

to dominant groups generates a need to regain a sense of security that drives “nostalgia for the 

stable hierarchies of the past,” along with “defense of the dominant in-group, a greater emphasis 

on the importance of conformity to group norms, and out-group negativity” (Mutz 2018: E4331). 

More critically, concern over decline led to a renewed questioning of the fundamental identity and 

national character of the United States, which was then reconstituted in the context of fear and 

constant partisan hammering. The result was the resurrection of traditional sets of myths—myth 

complexes—with more aggressive messages. 

It is beyond the scope of this work to review the vast literature on such myth complexes in 

the United States, but we will focus briefly on three consistent elements of discussions of the U.S. 

national character: individualism, pragmatism, and exceptionalism. These are widely accepted 

central elements of U.S. tradition. It is no coincidence that we can see an efflorescence of 

statements and policies consistent with the fear-driven elements of these myth complexes. 

 

Individualism 

Individualism, a trait identified with the United States since de Tocqueville, is supported by the 

related values of self-help, egalitarianism, and self-reliance (Hofstadter 1963: Langman and 

Lundskow 2016). In a system that privileges individual liberty, the state must leave economic 

interactions private. Those who are deemed worthy, whether by God or the market, will rise. 

Success in this realm is not contestable, and it is further legitimized by the popular “prosperity 

theology,” which teaches that the blessings of health and wealth are bestowed by God upon those 

who have proven themselves worthy (Bowler 2013; Luce 2019). As a result, this myth ties 

individualism, laissez faire economics, self-help, and religious belief, into a tight knot. 

When reconstituted under stress, the ugly side of this myth complex presents as disdain for 

failure, distrust of the state, belief that Others have advanced only as a result of illegitimate actions, 

and an acceptance of policies suggested by those whose interests are tied to market 

fundamentalism: campaign contributions become free speech; tax cuts are expected to provide 

employment; those lacking adequate health care should oppose its provision by the state; and 

“Our” economic challenges are caused by “Others” whose indolence or criminality has been 

facilitated by traitorous globalist elites (Girling 1993; Langman and Lundskow 2016). 

 

Pragmatism 

Pragmatism plays an important role at the head of a second myth complex. Individuals who interact 

in a just, self-help-based system are expected to take actions that move them ahead. de Tocqueville 

highlighted what he saw as a unique American industriousness. It is the purposeful activity of 

individuals that should determine levels of relative success. Individuals should be allowed to do 

what works (or whatever works) to get ahead. 

The focus of pragmatism is on action, not thought. As early as 1750, and in subsequent great 

religious awakenings, conflict surrounded the value of action vs. knowledge. Even having an 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 168 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

educated clergy was challenged by an evangelical movement that featured charismatic but 

uneducated lay preachers (Murphy 2009). Feelings and emotions were regularly pitted against 

knowledge and thought. Hofstadter speaks of the “cult of the practical” that viewed success as a 

matter of character and authenticity, not education or preparation. The life of the mind was suspect 

(Hofstadter 1963). Anti-intellectualism emerges as a key element of the myth of pragmatism. 

Under stress, this myth complex presents as active disrespect for knowledge, facts, and the 

individuals who create or marshal them. Edelman (1971) notes that only facts that support a 

broader myth are likely to be accepted, and Girling (1993) highlights the non-rational (and 

therefore essentially irrefutable) nature of myths. Hofstadter notes the low levels of respect 

accorded teachers, high clergy, and progressive intellectuals. American education was generally 

considered little more than a necessary evil, not a process for fostering the intellect (Hofstadter 

1963). The tension this creates with the need to foster science and technology for national security 

purposes has not escaped scholarly notice (Gauchat 2012; Jelen and Lockett 2014). 

 

Exceptionalism 

Exceptionalism underpins a third typically American myth complex that is closely associated with 

a discomforting admixture of strong religion and violence. American exceptionalism predates the 

founding of the republic. A new land offering new freedoms beckoned to religious dissenters who 

established a prosperous society and interpreted their experience through the lens of their faith. 

Their Nation, notes Murphy (2009: 50, 101) was “chosen” and came to be viewed as an intimate 

part of “God’s unfolding plan for human history.” As early as the Civil War we find editorials, 

sermons, and campaign platforms suggesting that the wars the United States fights, and others that 

the United States should fight (as against slavery, German imperialism, and later communism and 

Islam), are a “climactic test of the redeemer nation and its millennial role” (cited in Murphy 2009: 

63-64). American hesitation, failure, decadence, or decline, would be bad not only for its citizens, 

but would signal the defeat of God on earth. 

It is a short step from here to the justification of all necessary means to defeat evil. This 

legitimizes the use of violence, torture, and underpins the culture of firearms. God’s mission 

transcends moral norms, overrules domestic interests, and rejects the idea that we should be 

tolerant of others. Scholars speak to the existence of the “monomyth” or “hero’s journey” that is 

found among a number of cultures, and signals exceptionality (Green 1997). This begins with a 

call to adventure, recognition of supernatural assistance (chosen-ness), challenges and temptations, 

revelation at the point of greatest danger, transformation, atonement, and return. These challenges 

require the use of righteous violence in pursuit of moral redemption, purification, justice, and the 

bringing of others to their ultimate salvation (Schlesinger [1981] 2004). 

Exceptionalism requires little in the way of stress to be dangerous. Violence against enemies 

foreign or domestic is justified by the exceptional position of the United States, covering 

everything from the pacification of the frontier (“the only good Indian is a dead Indian”), 

opposition to “godless communism” (“Kill a Commie for Christ”), the spreading of “The Good 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 169 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

News,” (an evangelical message opposed to social mobilization and liberation theology in Latin 

America), to upholding the unlimited rights of personal gun ownership and “self” defense (Deiros 

1991). Questioning exceptionality, or admitting to reduced national capacity, is not an option. Nor 

is planning for an unexceptional, if viable and sustainable future. Langman and Lundskow (2016) 

conclude: 

 
If American exceptionalism, anchored by its peculiar social character once 
facilitated the rise of American economic and political power, the same 
characterological traits now limit self-awareness, obscure objective considerations, 
discourage self-examination and indeed foreclose the possibilities of changing 
directions to halt the downward spiral of the great Colossus that is now tipping 
toward its collapse (Langman and Lundskow 2016: 210). 

 

The Ceding of Authority 

The result of these psychological propensities in the face of fear of decline, and the myth 

complexes that are turned to as we revert to tradition, is a populace with a propensity to cede 

authority to strong leaders. Driskell et al. (1988) find that lower echelon individuals in a social unit 

are more likely to voluntarily yield control of a situation to their superiors when under stress, just 

as leaders are likely to demand greater control. As a result, hierarchy becomes more pronounced. 

In times of stress, authority is most likely to devolve to leaders perceived as being free of the usual 

constraints, and ready to take any and all necessary action (Gills, Morgan, and Patomäki 2018). 

Langman and Lundskow review this literature and conclude, if immoderately: 

 
The openly racist, sexist, ethnocentric and rude reality TV star and billionaire 
Donald Trump talks like a Brooklyn tough guy, with his in-your-face persona, 
[and] represents a fusion of the classical American social character…Trump, the 
social dominator is individualistic, phallic aggressive tough with a streak of 
sadism, narcissism, authoritarianism, xenophobia, and anti-intellectualism.  
What’s not to like? (Langman and Lundskow 2016: 237). 

 

From this perspective, Donald Trump is essentially the poster child for pre-emptive decline. 

 

Conclusion 

Perhaps the most disheartening element of pre-emptive decline is its self-reinforcing character. A 

population’s attempt to deal with perceived decline finds them putting their trust in both 

maladaptive historic myths and allegedly strong leaders. Such leaders are called forth at the exact 

time that they are least suited to making good choices and are, if anything, more likely to fall prey 

to this pathology. Poor decisions and poor policies then reinforce perceptions of decline and offer 

little but another round of failure and frustration. The dynamics of pre-emptive decline may help 

us understand the processes by which poor decisions have been made historically, and the 

underlying nature of some current concerns in the world-system. 

 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 170 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

 

About the Author: Robert A. Denemark is professor of Political Science and International 

Relations at the University of Delaware (Newark DE 19716).  His work considers the long-term 

evolution of the world-system, and the ability of theories of global politics to apprehend those 

changes. 

 

 

Acknowledgements 

I am grateful to Al Bergesen, Chris Chase-Dunn, Yale Ferguson, Jonathan Friedman, Dan Green, 

Phil Jones, Stuart Kaufman, Dick Mansbach, Peter Taylor, Bill Thompson, David Wilkinson, 

and several colleagues who served as discussants on panels where parts of this analysis were 

presented.   

 

 

Disclosure Statement: Any conflicts of interest are reported in the acknowledgments section of 

the article’s text. Otherwise, authors have indicated that they have no conflict of interests upon 

submission of the article to the journal. 

 

 

 

 

References 

Anderson, Perry. 1974. Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. London: New Left Books.  

Archer, John. 2006. “Testosterone and Human Aggression: An Evaluation of the Challenge 

Hypothesis.” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 30(3): 319-345. 

Arrighi, Giovanni. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century. London: Verso. 

______. 2007. Adam Smith in Beijing. London: Verso. 

Arrighi, Giovanni and Beverly Silver (eds). 1999. Chaos and Governance in the Modern World 

System. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 

Bar-Tal, Daniel and Phillip Hammack. 2012. “Conflict, Delegitimization, and Violence.” Pp 29-

52 in The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict, edited by Linda Tropp. Oxford: 

Oxford University Press. 

Baumeister, Roy. 1989. “The Optimal Margin of Illusion.” Journal of Social and Clinical 

Psychology 8(2): 176-189. 

Baumeister, Roy and Steven Scher. 1988. “Self-Defeating Behavior Patterns Among Normal 

Individuals: Review and Analysis of Common Self-Destructive Tendencies.” 

Psychological Bulletin 104(1): 3-22. 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 171 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

Baumeister, Roy, Todd Heatherton, and Diane Tice. 1993. “When Ego Threats Lead to Self-

Regulation Failure: Negative Consequences of High Self-Esteem.” Journal of Personality 

and Social Psychology 64(1): 141-156. 

Baumeister, Roy, Karen Dale, and Kristen Sommer. 1988. “Freudian Defense Mechanisms and 

Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology.” Journal of Personality 66(6): 1081-

1124. 

Bédarida, François. 1990. A Social History of England 1851-1990. London: Routledge. 

Bergesen, Albert. 2006. The Depth of Shallow Culture. Boulder: Paradigm. 

Bowler, Kate. 2013. Blessed: A History of the American Prosperity Gospel. Oxford: Oxford 

University Press. 

Boulding, Kenneth. 1975. “The Management of Decline.” Change 7(5): 8-9; 64. 

Braudel, Fernand. [1949] 1976. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of 

Philip II. New York: Harper Colophon. 

______. 1984. Civilization and Capitalism 15th–18th Century. Volume III. New York: Harper 

and Row. 

Briggs, Asa. 1987. A Social History of England. New York: Penguin. 

Cameron, Kim, David Whetten, and Myung Kim. 1987. “Organizational Dysfunctions of 

Decline.” Academy of Management Journal 30(1): 126-138. 

Chase-Dunn, Christopher, Peter Grimes and E.N. Anderson. 2019. “Cyclical Evolution of the 

Global Right.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 56(4): 529-555. 

Cohrs, J. Christopher. 2012. “Ideological Bases of Violent Conflict.” Pp 53-71 in The Oxford 

Handbook of Intergroup Conflict, edited by Linda Tropp. Oxford: Oxford University 

Press.  

Cottrell Geoffrey. 1972. Amsterdam: The Life of a City. Boston: Little Brown. 

Daunton, Martin. 1989. “‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’ and British Industry 1820-1914.” Past and 

Present 122(February): 119-158. 

Deiros, Pablo. 1991. “Protestant Fundamentalism in Latin America.” Pp 142-96 in 

Fundamentalisms Observed, edited by Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press. 

Diamond, Larry. 2018. “Illiberal, Nativist Populism: Is Economic Security the Cause?” Paper 

presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, 

April 2018. 

Dobbs, Archibald. 1919. Education and Social Movements 1700-1850. London: Longmans. 

Dodd, Philip. 1986. “Englishness and the national culture.” Pp 1-28 in Englishness: Politics and 

Culture, 1880-1920, edited by Robert Colls and Philip Dodd. London: Croom Helm. 

Doty, William. 2004. Myth: A Handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 172 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

Dovidio, John, Tamar Saguy, Tessa West, and Samuel Gaertner. 2012. “Divergent Intergroup 

Perspectives.” Pp 158-175 in The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict, edited by 

Linda Tropp. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Driskell, J., R. Carson, and P. Moskal. 1988. “Stress and Human Performance: Final Report.” 

Orlando FL: Naval Training Systems Center, (August). 

Edelman, Murray. 1971. Politics as Symbolic Action. New York: Academic Press. 

Fanon, Frantz. 1979. The Wretched of the Earth, trans. C. Farrington.  New York: Grove Press. 

Gagnon, V.P. 1994-1995.  “Ethnic Nationalism and International Violence: The Case of Serbia.” 

International Security 19(3): 130-166. 

Gauchat, Gordon. 2012.  “Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust 

in the United States, 1974-2010.” American Sociological Review 77(2): 67-87. 

George, Elizabeth, Prithviraj Chattopadhyay, Sim Sitkin, and Jeff Barden. 2006. “Cognitive 

Underpinnings of Institutional Persistence and Change: A Framing Perspective.” 

Academy of Management Review 31(2): 355. 

Gibbon, Edward. [1781] 1994. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. London: Penguin.  

Gills, Barry, Jamie Morgan, and Heikki Patomäki. 2018. “President Trump as Status 

Dysfunction.” Organization 26(2): 291-301.  

Girling, John. 1993. Myths and Politics in Western Societies. New Brunswick: Transaction. 

Gladstein Deborah and Nora Reilly. 1985. “Group Decision Making Under Threat: The Tycoon 

Game.” Academy of Management Journal 28(3): 613-627. 

Goldfrank, Walter. 1978. “Fascism and World Economy.” Pp 75-117 in Social Change in the 

Capitalist World Economy, edited by Barbara Hockey Kaplan. Beverly Hills: CA: Sage. 

Goleman, Daniel. 1989. “What is Negative about Positive Illusions? When Benefits for the 

Individual Harm the Collective.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 8(2): 190-

197. 

Green, Thomas. 1997.  Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art. 

Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.  

Hermans, Erno, Hein J. F. van Marle, Lindsey Ossewaarde, Marloes J. A. G. Henckens, 

Shaozheng Qin, Marlieke T. R. van Kesteren, Vincent C. Schoots, Helena Cousijin, Mark 

Rijpkema, Robert Oostenveld, and Guillén Fernández. 2011. "Stress-Related 

Noradrenergic Activity Prompts Large-Scale Neural Network Reconfiguration." Science 

334(6059): 1151-1153. 

Hobsbawm, Eric. 1968. Industry and Empire. Suffolk: Chaucer Press. 

Hofstadter, Richard. 1963. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Knopf.  

Horne, Donald. 1969. God is an Englishman. Sydney: Angus and Robertson. 

Horowitz, Donald. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press. 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 173 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

Janis, Irving. 1972. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions 

and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

Jelen, Ted and Linda Lockett. 2014. “Religion, Partisanship, and Attitudes Toward Science 

Policy.” SAGEOpen (Jan-March 2014): 1-8. DOI 2158244013518932 

Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under 

Rise.” Econometrica, 47(2): 263-291. 

Kapferer, Bruce. 1988. Legends of People, Myths of State: Violence, Intolerance, and Political 

Culture in Sri Lanka and Australia. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Kaufman, Stuart. 2001. Modern Hatreds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 

______. 2015. Nationalist Passions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 

Kazhdan, Alexander and Arthur Cutler. 1982. “Continuity and Discontinuity in Bizantine 

History.” Byzantion 52: 460. 

Klein, Gary. 1996. “The Effects of Acute Stressors on Decision-Making.” Pp 49-88 in Stress and 

Human Performance, edited by James Driskell and Eduardo Salas. Hillsdale, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Kumar, Krishan. 2003. The Making of English National Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Lachmann, Richard. 2020. First Class Passengers on a Sinking Ship: Elite Politics and the 

Decline of Great Powers. London: Verso. 

Langman, Lauren and George Lundskow. 2016. God, Guns, Gold and Glory: American 

Character and its Discontents. Leiden: Brill. 

Luce, Edward. 2019. “Blessed are the Wealthy.” Financial Times, Life and Arts (Saturday 20 

April/Sunday 21 April). 

McCloskey, Donald. 1970. “Did Victorian Britain Fail?” Economic History Review 23: 446-459. 

McFarlin, D. and J. Blascovich. 1981. “Effects of Self-Esteem and Performance Feedback on 

Future Affective Preferences and Cognitive Expectations.” Journal of Personality and 

Social Psychology 40(3): 521-531. 

McFarlin, Dean, Roy Baumesiter, and Jim Blascovich. 1984. “On Knowing when to Quit: Task 

Failure, Self-esteem, Advice, and Nonproductive Persistence." Journal of Personality 

52(2): 138-155. 

Mack, Edward. 1941. Public Schools and British Opinion Since 1860. New York: Columbia 

University Press. 

Mandler, Peter. 2006. The English National Character. New Haven: Yale University Press.  

Modelski, George and William R. Thompson. 1996. Leading Sectors and World Powers: The 

Coevolution of Global Politics and Economics. Columbia, SC: University of South 

Carolina Press. 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 174 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

Murphy, Andrew. 2009. Prodigal Nation: Moral Decline and Divine Punishment from New 

England to 9/11. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Mutz, Diana.  2018.  “Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential 

Vote.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19): E4330-E4339; DOI: 

pnas.1718155115. 

Muurlink, Olav, Adrian Wilkinson, David Peetz, and Keith Townsend. 2012. “Managerial 

Autism: Threat-Rigidity and Rigidity’s Threat.” British Journal of Management 23(S1): 

S74-S87. 

Newsome, David. 1961. Godliness and Good Learning: Four Studies on a Victorian Ideal. 

London: Murray. 

Ocasio, William. 1993. “The Structuring of Organizational Attention and the Enactment of 

Economic Adversity: A Reconciliation of Theories of Failure-Induced Change and 

Threat-Rigidity.” MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper 3577-93. 

Payne, Peter. 1990. "Entrepreneurship and British Economic Decline." Pp 25-58 in British 

Culture and Economic Decline, edited by Brian Collins and Keith Robbins. London: 

Weidenfield and Nicolson. 

Plotnick, Linda, Murray Turoff and Gert Van Den Eede. 2009. “Reexamining Threat Rigidity: 

Implications for Design.” Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on 

System Sciences, 10 pages. 

Pollard, Sidney. 1989. Britain’s Prime and Britain’s Decline: The British Economy 1870-1914. 

London: Edward Arnold. 

Rodrik, Dani. 2018. “Populism and the Economics of Globalization.” Journal of International 

Business Policy 1: 12-33. 

Robbins, Keith. 1990. “British Culture vs. British Industry.” Pp. 1-23 in British Culture and 

Economic Decline, edited by B. Collins and K. Robbins. London: Weidenfield and 

Nicolson. 

Rubinstein, W. 1990. “Cultural Explanations for Britain’s Economic Decline: How True?” Pp. 

59-90 in British Culture and Economic Decline, edited by Brian Collins and Keith 

Robbins. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson. 

Saffin, N.W. 1973. Science, Religion and Education in Britain 1804-1904. Kilmore Australia: 

Lowden Publishing. 

Sanderlands, Lloyd, Joel Brockner, and Mary Glynn. 1988. "If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try, 

Try Again: Effects of Persistence-performance Contingencies, Ego Involvement, and 

Self-esteem on Task Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology 73(2): 208-16. 

Sanderson, Michael. 1995. Education, Economic Change, and Society in England 1780-1870. 

(Second Edition)  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Denemark 175 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu   |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

______. 1999.  Education and Economic Decline in Britain, 1870 to the 1990s. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Schlesinger, Arthur. [1981] 2004. The Imperial Presidency. New York: Mariner Books Reprint. 

Schwabe, Lars and Oliver Wolf. 2009. “Stress Prompts Habit Behavior in Humans.” The Journal 

of Neuroscience 29(22): 7191-7198. 

Shaham, Yarvin, Jerome Singer and Monica Schaeffer. 1992. “Stability/Instability of Cognitive 

Strategies Across Tasks Determine Whether Stress Will Affect Judgmental Processes.” 

Journal of Applied Psychology 22(9): 691-713. 

Silver, Harold. 1983. Education as History. London: Methuen. 

Simon, Bernd, Birgit Aufderheide and Claudia Kampmeier. 2001. “The Social Psychology of 

Minority-Majority Relations.” Pp 303-323 in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: 

Intergroup Processes, edited by Rupert Brown and Samuel Gaertner. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Spinner-Halev, Jeff, and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2003. “National Identity and Self-Esteem.” 

Perspectives on Politics 1(3): 515-532. 

Staw, Barry, Lance Sandelands and Jane Dutton. 1981. “Threat-Rigidity Effects in 

Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis.” Administrative Science Quarterly 

26(4): 501- 524. 

Strachey, Lytton. 1918, Eminent Victorians. London: Chatto and Windus. 

Taliaferro, Jeffrey. 2010. “Prospect Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis.” Pp 5943-5962 in The 

International Studies Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Denemark. Oxford: 

Wiley/Blackwell. 

Taylor, Peter. 1991. "The English and their Englishness: "A Curiously Mysterious, Elusive and 

Little Understood People"." Scottish Geographical Magazine 107(3): 146-161. 

______. 1996. The Way the Modern World Works: World Hegemony to World Impasse. 

Chichester: Wiley. 

Taylor, Shelley, Rebecca Collins, Laurie Skokan, and Lisa Aspinwall. 1989. “Maintaining 

Positive Illusions in the Face of Negative Information.” Journal of Social and Clinical 

Psychology 8(2): 114-129. 

Thompson, E.P. 1965. “The Peculiarities of the English,” Socialist Register: 311-362. 

Thomson, J.K.J. 1998. Decline in History. Cambridge: Polity.  

Tomlinson, Jim. 2009. “Thrice Denied: ‘Declinism’ as a Recurrent Theme in British History in 

the Long Twentieth Century.” Twentieth Century British History 20(2): 227-251. 

Toynbee, Arnold. 1934-1961. The Study of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  

Tice, Diane.  1991.  “Esteem Protection or Enhancement? Self-Handicapping Motives and 

Attributions Differ by Trait Self-Esteem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 

60(5): 711-725. 



 

Journal of World-Systems Research   |   Vol. 27   Issue 1   |   Pre-Emptive Decline 176 

 

jwsr.pitt.edu  |   DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2021.1030 

Turchin, Peter. 2016. Ages of Discord. Chaplin Connecticut, Beresta Books.  

Turner, John and Katherine Reynolds.  2001. “The Social Identity Perspective in Intergroup 

Relations: Theories, Themes, and Controversies.” Pp 134-152 in Blackwell Handbook of 

Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes, edited by Rupert Brown and Samuel Gaertner. 

Oxford: Blackwell. 

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1983. “Three Instances of Hegemony in the History of the Capitalist 

World-Economy,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 24: 1-2. 

______. 2003. The Decline of American Power. New York: The New Press. 

Wiener, Martin. 1981. English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit 1850-1980. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Willer, Robb, Christabel Rogalin, Bridget Conlon and Michael Wojnowicz. 2013. “Overdoing 

Gender: A Test of the Masculine Overcompensation Thesis.” American Journal of 

Sociology 118(4): 980-1022. 

Willer, Robb, Ko Kuwabara and Michael Macy. 2009. “The False Enforcement of Unpopular 

Norms.” American Journal of Sociology 115(2): 451-490.