D. J.

Mattingly (2011), Imperialism Power and Identity, Princeton University Press

An empire is the geopolitical manifestation of relationships of control imposed by a state on

the sovereignty of others. Empires generally combine a core, often metropolitan- controlled
territory, with peripheral territories and have multiethnic or multinational dimensions. Empire
can thus be defined as rule over very wide territories and many peoples largely without their
consent. While ancient societies did not have as developed a sense of self-determination as
modern states, the fact that incorporation was often fiercely contested militarily is symptomatic
of the fundamentally nonconsensual nature of imperialism.

Imperialism refers to both the process and attitudes by which an empire is established and
maintained. Some have argued that imperialism is essentially a modern phenomenon, though I
would counter that the process existed in antiquity even if less explicitly developed in
conceptual terms. However, just as empires evolve over time, imperialism need not be static or
uniform. When we look at the dynamics of the Roman Empire, we perhaps need to look beyond
the rather monolithic definitions of most accounts and to consider several distinctive phases of
imperialism. We also need to beware of the tendency of both modern and ancient com-
mentators to explain earlier phases in the light of institutions and ideolo-gies that developed
only in later phases. Imperialism should be seen as a dynamic and shape-shifting process.

Imperialism is a term closely linked to, but distinguishable from, empire and colonialism.
Empire is derived from the Latin term imperium, and was originally used to refer to the capacity
to make laws within a territory. As the size of such a territory grew in the Roman empire,
imperium became Imperium, which ‘came to mean rule over extensive, far-flung territories, far
beyond the original “homeland” of the rulers’. This definition of empire relates to that of
colonialism, a term used in the nineteenth century to refer to ‘systems of rule, by one group
over another, where the first claims a right (a “right” again usually established by conquest) to
exercise exclusive sovereignty over the second and to shape its destiny’ ... imperialism
essentially came to be defined as ‘the exercise of power either through direct conquest or
(latterly) through political and economic influence that effectively amounts to a similar form of
domination’.

Colonialism is a more restricted term that defines the system of rule of one people over
another, in which sovereignty is operated over the colonized at a distance, often through the
installation of settlements of colonists in the related process of colonization. Both words, of
course, derive from the Roman term colonia, initially definable as a settlement of citizens in
conquered territory
 A brief history of imperialism

Period Main features of imperialism

Pre-1830s Mercantile imperialism: Associated with the rise of early capitalist social relations in
Britain, but also non-capitalist relations in other core territories. Core-periphery linkages
contributed to, but did not cause, capitalist development.

1840s to Free trade imperialism. Associated with trade liberalization in 1870s Europe and British
hegemony, and de-industrialization in the periphery.

1880s to ‘Classical imperialism’. Associated with new geo-political 1945 rivalries among core
countries, culminating in two world wars. Also sees the consolidation of the subordinate role of
the periphery in the international capitalist order, including a new era of colonial annexation.

1945 to Cold War imperialism between the superpowers based on 1989/91 divergent socio-
economic orders. In the capitalist world, increased cooperation between advanced capitalist
countries under US leadership. In the periphery, the end of colonialism and extension of state
sovereignty, but continued military intervention and continued economic subordination, even as
the Third World (unevenly) industrializes.

1989/91 End of the Cold War and intensification of (neo)liberal international order (from 1979
onwards). US hegemony reconfigured after crisis of 1970s. Cooperation between core- states
continues in the context of the globalization of production. This globalization does not however
erode global uneven development. For some this context is used to highlight continued geo-
political competition, while critics argue that cooperation between states remains more
significant, and that uneven and combined development can only explain inequalities that arise
out of global capital accumulation. In particular, the globalization of production does not erode
core-periphery distinctions. The end of the Cold War also gives rise to cases for umanitarian
military intervention on the cosmopolitan grounds that the rights of individuals are more
important than the sovereignty of (rogue or failed) states.

2001– Further intensification of liberal humanitarianism after onwards September 2001.

Possible challenges to US hegemony in face of Iraq war, possible hegemonic challengers and
global recession from 2007 onwards