No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Imperialism of Status: A Synthetic Review
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Extract
Since World War II, a spate of interpretations of empire and imperialism has issued from the press. In part the interest stems from the progressive decolonization of much of what had previously been part of European empires. In part it arises from a present-minded concern with expansion by the modern superpowers, the United States, the Soviet Union and, more recently, China. Nor does the decline of the former great powers of western Europe lessen interest, for their loss of empire seems, for some, a manifestation of Spenglerian theory and for others, a causal factor in that decline. Certainly Great Britain's plummet from first-rate-power rank to a considerably lesser plane has been most spectacularly accompanied by a recessional from palm and pine. Not surprisingly, given the context of their writing, the new sociological and psychological studies and assessments are markedly critical of and variant from the old. New perspectives presented by an epoch seemingly finished and new techniques drawn from the behavioral sciences have molded historians’ assessment of the old “new imperialism's” apogee between 1870 and 1914.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1970
References
1 Thornton, A. P., For the File on Empire: Essays and Reviews (New York, 1968), p. 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Strachey, John, The End of Empire (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Hobsbawm, E. J., Industry and Empire: The Making of Modern English Society, Vol. II (New York, 1968)Google Scholar.
2 Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York, 1959)Google Scholar.
3 Arendt, Hannah, “Expansion and the Philosophy of Power,” Sewanee Review, LIV (01, 1946), 608, 601Google Scholar.
4 Winslow, Earle M., The Patterns of Imperialism (New York, 1948), pp. 222, 60Google Scholar.
5 Panikkar, K. M., Asia and Western Dominance: A Survey of the Vasco Da Gama Epoch of Asian History, 1498–1945 (New York, 1952), pp. 11–19Google Scholar.
6 Robinson, Ronald and Gallagher, John with Denny, Alice, Africa and the Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism (London, 1961), pp. 156–159, 409, 251Google Scholar. By contrast Fieldhouse, D. K., “Imperialism: An Historiographical Revision,” Economic History Review, Series II, XIV (12, 1961), pp. 187–209,Google Scholar argues that the new imperialism was but a continuation of the old in a virtually seamless web of imperial history. Thornton, A. P., For the File, pp. 252–257Google Scholar, challenges Robinson and Gallagher's emphasis that the threat to India was the greatest at the Suez Canal. Danger came rather from Russia in Persia and Afghanistan.
7 Much of the recent work has been in detailed examination of trade and diplomacy which have not yet been fully assimilated in many of the more interpretive studies.
8 Schumpeter, Joseph A., Imperialism and Social Classes, Norton, Heinz, tr. (New York, 1919, 1951)Google Scholar. That much of his argument overlaps Hobson's, John A.Psychology of Jingoism (London, 1901)Google Scholar is pointed out in Mitchell, Harvey, “Hobson Revisited,” Journal of the History of Ideas, XXVI (07, 1965), 405–407Google Scholar.
9 Semmel, Bernard, Imperialism and Social Reform: English Social Imperial Thought, 1895–1914 (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 234–238, 133Google Scholar. Semmel makes a distinct departure from Hobson, John A., Imperialism: A Study (London, 1902, 1961), p. 141,Google Scholar one of whose major criticisms of imperialism was that it consumed money which might have gone to social reform. Thornton, A. P. contends in The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies: A Study in British Power (New York, 1963), p. 269,Google Scholar that when Great Britain really became interested in social reform, it withdrew its paternalism from the empire and applied it at home. There was, of course, a line of paternal imperialists who objected to any paternalism at home. See, for instance, Tignor, Robert L., “Lord Cromer: Practitioner and Philosophy of Imperialism,” The Journal of British Studies, II (05, 1963), 158Google Scholar.
10 Koebner, Richard and Schmidt, Helmut D., Imperialism: The Story and Significance of a Political Word, 1840–1960 (Cambridge [England], 1965), pp. 166–203, 216–218Google Scholar.
11 Thornton, A. P., Doctrines of Imperialism in History (New York, 1965) and The Imperial Idea.Google Scholar
12 Lichtheim, George, “Power and Ideology,” Partisan Review, XXX (Summer, 1963), 248Google Scholar.
13 Arendt, Hannah, “The Imperialist Character,” Review of Politics, XII (07, 1950), 303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Mannoni, O., Prospero and Caliban: the Psychology of Colonization (New York, 1950, 1964), pp. 97–109, 199–200, 66Google Scholar.
15 Niebuhr, Reinhold, Structure of Nations and Empires: a Study of the Recurring Patterns and Problems of the Political Order in Relation to the Unique Problems of the Nuclear Age (New York, 1959), p. 214Google Scholar.
16 Hobson, , Imperialism, p. 159Google Scholar; Barbu, Zevedei, “The Origins of English Character,” in Problems of Historical Psychology (London, 1960), p. 207Google Scholar.
17 Robinson, and Gallagher, , Africa, pp. 2–3Google Scholar.
18 Faber, Richard, The Vision and the Need: Late Victorian Imperialist Aims (London, 1966), p. 122Google Scholar.
19 Quoted in Langer, William, The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1890–1914 (New York, 1935, 1960), I, 92Google Scholar.
20 Thornton, , Imperial Idea, pp. 37–38Google Scholar; and Doctrines, p. 41. Thornton compares the confiscation of property in slaves “in the name of humanitarian liberalism” with the threat to property in Rhodesia, “a country built by white men,” which prompted its move to independence in 1965. For the File, p. 368.
21 Robinson, and Gallagher, , Africa, pp. 11, 199Google Scholar; Panikkar, , Asia, p. 146Google Scholar.
22 Koebner, and Schmidt, , Imperialism, pp. 204–205Google Scholar; Robinson, and Gallagher, , Africa, p. 308Google Scholar; Thornton, , Imperial Idea, p. 105Google Scholar.
23 Thornton, , For the File, pp. 330, 333–334Google Scholar; Thornton, , Doctrines, pp. 59–62Google Scholar; Thornton, , Imperial Idea, p. 24Google Scholar; Panikkar, , Asia, p. 151Google Scholar.
24 Hobson, , Imperialism, p. 282Google Scholar; Thornton, , Doctrines, pp. 196–197Google Scholar.
25 See also Thornton, A. P., The Habit of Authority (Toronto, 1966)Google Scholar for his examination of paternalism in all facets of English history.
26 Koebner, and Schmidt, , Imperialism, p. 75Google Scholar.
27 Thornton, , Imperial Idea, p. 72Google Scholar.
28 Crankshaw, Edward, The Forsaken Idea: A Study of Viscount Milner (New York, 1952), p. 125Google Scholar.
29 Indicative of the strength which such mission has had on British thought is Thornton's application of it to contemporary Britain. In 1953 he wrote: “We constitute a great nation that ought to be busy in the world. … We have things to do in Africa; we are in fact the only people who can do anything in Africa that stands a chance” (Thornton, A. P., “Colonial Policy and Colonial Politics,” Fortnightly, 179 [06, 1953], 381)Google Scholar. In 1960 he agreed with John Strachey that “the highest mission of Britain” was “to help the underdeveloped world” (Thornton, A. P., “Long Shadow of Empire,” Nation, 190 [03 5, 1960], 210–211)Google Scholar. And, in 1968: “That the British have a role— first to find, then to play—is taken for granted, by public, politicians, and publicists alike. Is not this the most tenacious imperial idea of them all?” (Thornton, , For the File, p. 6)Google Scholar.
30 Barker, Ernest, Ideas and Ideals of the British Empire (Cambridge, 1941), pp. 145–147.Google Scholar
31 Thornton, , For the File, pp. 24–25Google Scholar.
32 Ibid., pp. 352–353; Thornton, , Doctrines, p. 161Google Scholar.
33 Arendt, Hannah, “Imperialism, Nationalism, Chauvinism,” Review of Politics, VII (10, 1945), 443–444, 447.Google Scholar
34 Tignor, , “Lord Cromer,” p. 146Google Scholar; Hobson, , Imperialism, pp. 119, 122Google Scholar.
35 Arendt, , “Imperialism, Nationalism, Chauvinism,” p. 457Google Scholar; Thornton, , Imperial Idea, pp. 73–74, 89, 71Google Scholar.
36 Semmel, , Imperialism and Social Reform, p. 237Google Scholar; Thornton, , Imperial Idea, pp. 209, 214Google Scholar.
37 Koebner, and Schmidt, , Imperialism, p. 229Google Scholar; Mitchell, , “Hobson Revisited,” pp. 397–405Google Scholar.
38 Arendt, , “Imperialist Character,” p. 309Google Scholar. Halford Mackinder has seen somewhat the same result of imperialism as the “supreme rule of the organiser and blind efficiency” (Semmel, Bernard, “Sir Halford Mackinder: Theorist of Imperialism,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXIV [11, 1958], 560–561.)Google Scholar
39 Thornton, , Doctrines, p. 187Google Scholar. Mannoni was a colonial who used his own psychoanalysis to probe the psychology of colonization. It is possible that he could not face the burden of a deliberate colonial destruction of African personality and so developed a theory of African need for dependence. This mission may also be tainted with economic interest. In Rhodesia in 1898 Joseph Chamberlain favored a hut tax as “an inducement, stimulus or pressure … absolutely necessary if you are to secure a result which is desirable in the interests of humanity and civilization”—essentially to get the indigenous population to work in the mines for wages wherewith to pay the tax (Hobson, , Imperialism, 270)Google Scholar. But, as Robinson and Gallagher point out, the measure also served to insure more efficient use of land and produced funds to further “scientific development” in pacifying tribes, opening up the interior, and attracting more European capital and thus African production (pp. 398, 400–401). But Milner's assent to South African importation of coolie labor after the Boer War reinforces suspicion about the degree to which these two most committed imperial administrators adjusted the imperial idea to accommodate special economic interests (Thornton, , Imperial Idea., p. 108)Google Scholar.
40 Thornton, , Imperial Idea, p. 67.Google Scholar
41 Robinson, and Gallagher, , Africa, p. 85Google Scholar.
42 Faber, , Vision and Need, p. 63Google Scholar.
43 Lichtheim, , “Power and Ideology,” pp. 249, 251Google Scholar.
44 Robinson, and Gallagher, , Africa, pp. 20, 25Google Scholar. Cecil Rhodes constitutes an interesting combination of empire-builder and administrator and a distinct aberration from the pattern here drawn.
45 Arendt, , “Imperialism, Nationalism, Chauvinism,” p. 456Google Scholar.
46 Koebner, and Schmidt, , Imperialism, p. 226Google Scholar.