We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter opens the exploration of imperial popular sovereignty by developing W. E. B. Du Bois’s notion of democratic despotism, which recasts popular sovereignty in wealthy democracies as an impulse to partake of the wealth and resources of empire. Rather than a self-contained unit, the popular politics of the metropole issued claims to determine themselves (democratically), as well as others (despotically). This entanglement between popular sovereignty and empire works through affective attachments to possessions that require an excessive form of western self-determination that I call “self-and-other-determination.” Racial affective attachments bind citizens to material possessions and each other, but racialized ideologies restrict the range of mutual concern to a limited community, which allows for the imperial exploitation of racialized others, whose work is the basis of the commonwealth. I then engage Saidiya Hartman and Frantz Fanon to show that – despite the transition from formal imperial arrangements toward neoliberalism – affective attachments mutate to allow white polities to remain democratically despotic. I discuss the absence of these questions in the critical literature on self-determination and, in concluding, reflect on the implications of this framework for understanding contemporary right-wing populism.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.