Imperialism: Political Aspects Erarchical Relationships

Imperialism, History of Said E W 1978 Orientalism. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London emerge that creates a relationship of imperialism. Said E W 1993 Culture and Imperialism. Chatto & Windus, Without the possession of a distinct political identity, London however, class conflict or unequal political opportun- Seton-Watson H 1961 The New Imperialism. Bodley Head, ities may exist but not imperialism. Second, the colony London Stokes E 1969 Late nineteenth-century colonial expansion lacks an international political ‘personality’; that is, and the attack on the theory of economic imperialism: A while it possesses an identity as a distinct polity, it does case of mistaken identity. Historical Journal 12: 285–301 not interact with other states as a sovereign equal. Wehler H-U 1969 Bismarck und der Imperialismus. Kiepenheuer Finally, exploitation of the weak by the strong is not & Witsch, Cologne, Germany essential to imperialism, but it is an often natural Wesseling H L 1997 Imperialism and Colonialism. Essays on the outgrowth of effective domination. The affinity be- History of European Expansion. Greenwood Press, Westport tween domination and exploitation explains the CT typically pejorative status of the term. Imperialism is an extreme form of international H. L. Wesseling hierarchy in which the colony is, in principle, a subject of the dominant state. If imperialism forms one end of a continuum of international hierarchies, and ‘an- archic’ relations between sovereign equals forms the other, we can identity a range of increasingly hi- Imperialism: Political Aspects erarchical relationships. In spheres-of-influence, the subordinate members remain independent but are Imperialism is a form of international hierarchy in constrained by dominant powers from forming rela- which one political unit, or polity, effectively governs tionships such as alliances with other great powers. or controls another polity. It is one of the oldest Latin America under the Monroe doctrine is a classic known political institutions, characterizing relations example. In protectorates, subordinate states yield between peoples in ancient Mesopotamia, China, and control over their foreign and defense policies to Rome through modern Europe. It includes both rule dominant powers; although subordinates remain in- within relatively contiguous areas—as in the Habsburg dependent, they transfer control over specific areas of and Ottoman Empires—and the overseas colonies policy to other states. With continuing responsibility held by various European states after the age of for their defense, the United States today retains discovery. protectorates over the Federated States of Micronesia The term has a long and tortured history. It was and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. In informal apparently first used as an invective against the empires, subordinates are subject to imperial states expansionist policies of Napoleon I, and has been across wide ranges of policy but retain their inter- employed most frequently to refer to the colonial national personalities and interact with third parties practices of the European states in the late nineteenth on the basis of sovereign equality. Eastern Europe and early twentieth centuries, attempts to revise the under the Soviet Union is a particularly clear example. international territorial status quo, and the economic Protectorates and informal empires are often grouped domination of one country by another (also referred with formal empires as forms of imperialism. to as ‘neo-colonialism,’ see below). Used as a tool of Neocolonialism is a hierarchy produced through the political rhetoric, the term is highly malleable and functioning of an impersonal international market. In often devoid of any general meaning. this variant, the dominant state need not intend to As an analytic concept, imperialism refers to the control the subordinate but the latter is sufficiently effective domination of one political community by dependent upon the former economically that it has another. According to Michael Doyle (1986, p. 19), little choice other than to comply with (and even ‘(e)mpires are relationships of political control im- anticipate) the metropole’s desires. In this case, econ- posed by some political societies over the effective omic dependence produces political dominance—the sovereignty of other political societies … . Imperialism core of imperialism—but the mechanism of control is is the process of establishing and maintaining an indirect. For some, this is a virulent form of modern empire.’ By domination we mean the ability of the imperialism. For others, the absence of intent negates dominant polity, the metropole, to decide policy for the political relationship. Neocolonialism remains a the subordinate policy, the colony. This ability may contested concept. entail substantial delegation of decision-making authority to elite members of the colony, but the metropole retains the power to decide what gets delegated and how, and when this authority is revoked. 1. Theories of Imperialism Three corollaries are important. First, imperialism occurs only where distinct political communities exist. The major explanations for imperialism can be Subordinate communities may have a prior history of grouped into three general categories. Metrocentric independence or a new political consciousness may theories focus on the dispositions or internal charac- 7232 Imperialism: Political Aspects teristics of imperial states. Writing in 1902 (1965), for three sets of factors. The ‘state-of-the-art,’ therefore, instance, John Hobson grounded the motivation for recognizes and builds upon metrocentric, pericentric, overseas expansion in the necessity for advanced and systemic insights. capitalist states to export their surplus capital. This A fourth, nascent explanation is also being de- theme was later the foundation for V. I. Lenin’s veloped that draws upon neo-institutionalist theory, famous monograph, Imperialism: The Highest Stage and especially theories of relational contracting as of Capitalism, first published in 1917. Neo-Marxists developed in economics. In this approach, imperialism later argued that the military–industrial complex and is understood as simply another form of organiza- other features of capitalist states actually created a tional hierarchy. Emphasis is placed on explaining need for capital, leading states to create colonial and why hierarchy, in general, and this form, in particular, neocolonial relations with developing regions in order is superior for obtaining the goals of the actors rather to extract wealth (see Magdoff 1969). than alternative institutions, such as confederations, Pericentric theories emphasize conditions within the protectorates, and state-to-state relations. Three con- colonial polities. Where metrocentric theories focus on siderations are central. First, the larger the benefits the push behind expansion, pericentric theories draw from pooling resources and efforts between the units, attention to the forces that pull imperialists into in this case the metropole and colony, the more risks hierarchical relationships. John Gallagher and Ronald or costs the units are willing to accept in building a Robinson’s The Imperialism of Free Trade (1953) set relationship. Second, the greater the expected costs of the direction for much research in this tradition. opportunistic behavior by the subordinate polity, the Positing a constant drive for domination and a more important it is to the dominant state to control preference for indirect rule wherever possible, the actions of its partner. Especially significant here Gallagher and Robinson explained variations in im- are assets that are specific to the two parties and which perialist outcomes by conditions in the periphery. In would be costly to the metropole if they were with- particular, where peripheral polities possessed stable drawn. In the absence of some specific assets, we regimes and effective collaborators, they argued, would expect an ‘arms-length’ relationship between imperialists could govern indirectly through informal independent units, as the benefits of cooperation could empires. Only where the peripheral societies were then be captured through market exchange. Only unstable politically or lacked elites willing to protect where there are substantial assets that are specific to their interests would metropoles be forced to create the two parties is imperialism necessary. Finally, there formal empires and govern directly. As it was effective- are costs to governing any relationship, and these are ly ruled by landed interests tied to the British market, likely to escalate with greater hierarchy. Imperialism is in their view, Argentina escaped the need for re- typically costly both for the colony, which gives up colonization but was nonetheless caught within Brit- valued freedom, and for the metropole, which must ain’s free trade web. Later work on neocolonialism either bind its own hands to limit its ability to exploit further developed these insights. its partner or use coercion to impose its rule. Thus, Systemic theories of imperialism, typically part of states avoid empire if control is either unnecessary or larger realist theories of international relations, high- can be achieved in some less hierarchical fashion. In light competition between the great powers (see Cohen this approach, empire is most likely when there are 1973). The struggle for survival and influence between large benefits from pooling resources between the great powers creates an ever widening gyre

Load more