The Concept of Empire (original) (raw)

The disappearance of the concept of empire

The Empire is a wife without dowry, a resounding and majestic word that is neither of any use nor any advantage. Neither Ferdinand II nor any of his predecessors possessed any province, any fortress, or even a palace in the entire empire in his capacity as Emperor.

Empire and the state: a critical theoretical assessment

Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2006

In recent years there has been increasing use of the term 'empire' to describe US primacy in world affairs. This should not be viewed merely as an indictment of US power: there are genuine insights to be gained from the study of imperial formations in contemporary politics. Yet there remains confusion and disagreement over the true meaning of 'empire'. Progressive schools of thought in the academic discipline of international relations can facilitate a fresh understanding of 'empire'*/ one that is suited to the complexities of the contemporary global scene.

Empire as a Geopolitical Figure Empire as a Geopolitical Figure

This article analyses the ingredients of empire as a pattern of order with geopolitical effects. Noting the imperial form's proclivity for expansion from a critical reading of historical sociology, the article argues that the principal manifestation of earlier geopolitics lay not in the nation but in empire. That in turn has been driven by a view of the world as disorderly and open to the ordering will of empires (emanating, at the time of geopolitics' inception, from Europe). One implication is that empires are likely to figure in the geopolitical ordering of the globe at all times, in particular after all that has happened in the late twentieth century to undermine nationalism and the national state. Empire is indeed a probable, even for some an attractive form of regime for extending order over the disorder produced by globalisation. Geopolitics articulated in imperial expansion is likely to be found in the present and in the future-the EU, and still more obviously the USA exhibiting the form in contemporary guise. This does not mean that empires figure in geopolitics simply by extending their own order, however; they are at least as much purveyors of other dynamics and orders, which possess their own discrete effects. The article ends with stipulations regarding the variety of forms that empires may take: neither fully bounded nor centred; neither straightforwardly self-serving nor easily made legitimate.

Empire as a conceptual model of global governance

Сучасне суспільство (Modern society), 2016

The article is devoted to the analysis of classical and modern empires. The review of theoretical and methodological approaches to the category of «global governance» and their practical and functional limitations are given. The existence of a new type of empire «post-empire» is determined with post-empire described as a key player of our global governance. The concept of «global empire» is interpreted.

From the Radical Left to the New Right: Contemporary Notions of Empire

"According to Hardt and Negri, it is a mistake to identify the expansionist core of the Empire with the United States of America and its Western allies. Hardt's and Negri's argument is that neither the United States nor any national state whatever “forms the centre of the imperialist project”. The authors see the coming of Empire and the imperial order as good news much like Karl Marx felt that capitalism was a needed stage for the true communist revolution. For them, both the imperial world and capitalism are oppressive forms of power that are parasitic upon labour power, but the very conditions that define empire will enable the possibility of its overthrow and the self-organisation of democracy. In contrast, other authors such as Alain de Benoist and Aleksandr Dugin appeal to Carl Schmitt in order to legitimise an idea of empire which is diametrically opposed to American 'imperialism', said to be a supreme example of dehumanisation, vulgarity and stupidity. This essay will look at these two contrasting views, that of Negri's 'Empire' and Schmitt's 'great space' and will argue that the imperialism is currently represented both geographically and culturally by the United States."

Empire as a Conceptualization of ‘International’ in the Age of Globalisation

2019

The primary objective of this article is to present an up-to-date and analytically valid conception of contemporary international politics by mainly drawing on the seminal work of Hardt and Negri (2000) called Empire. In line with this objective, this study argues that Empire, as a theoretical framework, provides a more comprehensive analysis of today’s globalising world. However, rather than explaining the constitution of Empire in mainly juridical and political terms, as Hardt and Negri did, this study aims to present a slightly different reading of the conception of Empire by associating the matter with the transnationalization of capital, state and social relations of production widely labelled as globalization. To that end, the article puts the conception of Empire into a more concrete economic context by placing particular emphasis on factors such as capital accumulation process, class formation and state-capital relations as understood in the theory of Global Capitalism.