Class: Empire (1 page)
posted by Courtney R. | 4/04/2007 12:39:00 PM
Contributors
- Carrie Nelson, MRG Jameson, Race Sexualities, Sexu...
- "Postmodernism" Essay: Class (1 page)
- Pack: Badiou Part 3 Evil
- Class: Badiou Part 3 Evil
- Pack: Badiou Parts 1 and 2 of 3
- Class: Badiou Part 1 and 2 of 3
- Bibliography 2 (of possible 2)
- Bibliography 1 (of possible 2)
- Pack: Porto Alegre
- Class: Porto Alegre
5 Comments:
My initial thought while reading the “Empire” essay was about the term empire. Why were we as a nation so reluctant to refer to ourselves as an empire pre-9/11? I think it was purely out of political correctness. No one wanted to make the United States appear as a monster who desires to control the world. However, post-9/11 views are drastically different. We want to be seen as an empire. An empire that is long standing and power. Now, we want to make it known to the world that America is not a country to “mess” with. I do not understand why people are so afraid to be part of an empire. It does not always have to be a negative thing. As long as a nation/country is not running around the world trying to over throw governments for the sake of the empire. It is not right to take land that is not yours or oppress others simply because they are different. One must not take the term empire and distort it for their own benefit. I think being an empire should be embraced because it is inevitable. Due to the capitalist nature of the world today, if a country profits greatly they will surely become an empire.
I agree with the concept “imperialism is over .” There is no way one country will rule the world as the European nations did. It is not possible. There is too much technology. Therefore, another world war would literally destroy the entire world due to advancement in weapons. Plus, there are to many world powers in today’s societies. No one nation can stand purely on its own. There is too much international importing and exporting for a nation to be completely self sufficient. However, I do feel that the United States is the strongest present Empire.
When finished reading Empire, the topic that was most intriguing for me was the authors’ early discussion of how the idea of empire has changed over the history of human-kind. In their discussions, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri stated that more contemporary theorists are becoming reluctant to accept that the globalization of a capitalist market is an entirely new concept, but rather these theorists believe globalization is an adaptation of what has always existed in society. They believe there has been a shift or a breach in capitalism as it was previously known it and it has reformed itself into what is known today. Hardt and Negri explain that theorists believe globalization has expanded from solely involving economical power to inclusions of judicial definitions of political power. In reference to today’s society, Hardt and Negri say that these contemporary theorists would say that dominant capitalist nation-states are perfecting Imperialism. This concept was a little difficult for me to understand, so maybe it is something we can discuss in class. The authors also go into detail in the beginning of the piece about how the reader should read their discussion of the idea of empire in regards to its new form. They describe this new form of empire consisting of a single entity that eliminates competition among several other entities by establishing “right” in such a way that is post colonialism and post imperialist. In relation to the judicial transformation, the authors state that it functions as a symptom of the modifications of the material biopolitical constitution of our societies. The authors state that by studying and critiquing the new forms of international and supranational law, thus illustrating the political theory of Empire, we can see the problems of supranational sovereignty, its source of legitimacy, and its exercise – which they said would bring the political, cultural, and ontological problems into focus.
Through reading the section of “The Mole and the Snake” of “Empire” by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, I could not help but to think about the Zapatistas Communiques and how they clearly identified the so-called enemy as the bad governments. In this section of Empire, one of the things that the places with the struggles like Beijing, Los Angeles, Nablus, Seoul, Paris and Chiapas, do is that they all directly attack the global order of Empire and seek real alternative. Also, I believe that Empire overlooks the fact that groups like the Zapatistas do use the media to transfer their message throughout the world as communiques. This helps create a common identity between this group and other around the world (specially in Latin America) which is overlapped by Negri and Hardt in this section. The text mentions that the struggle in Chiapas, is that focused primarily in local concerns and also against the social regime imposed by NAFTA. I also disagree with the authors, for that I do not agree with what they are saying in page 54. “None of these events inspired a cycle of struggles, because the desires and needs they expressed could not be translated into different contexts. In other words, (potential) revolutionaries in other parts of the world did not hear of the events in Beijing, Nablus, Los Angeles, Chiapas, Paris, or Seoul and immediately recognize them as their own struggle.” I believe that it depends on the ‘potential’ revolutionaries and on if those struggles apply to them. Nowadays, the internet is used as a tool to connect some of these people as well and its newly-found power, should not be ignored. This also brings me to my last point. In page 59, Hardt and Negri mention that the virtual center of Empire can be attacked from any point, given the fact that the construction of Empire and the globalization of economic and cultural relationships allows for this to happen. This last statement can not be more accurate. With the rapid spread of globalization, there is no longer a clear center of the Empire and this makes it, in some way, more vulnerable to be attacked.
When reading Empire, I think of Jameson’s essay Postmodernism. The discussion of the logic of late capitalism seems to fit in well with the discussion of Empire as a new form of global governance without the centralized power of imperialism. The new economic state provides for a flexible realm of power through globalization, Hardt and Negri argue that it is a new order of decentralization and deterritorialization which is progressively incorporating the world. Stating that “Empire manages hybrid identities, flexible hierarchies, and plural exchanges through modulating networks of command” they also make an argument centering on globalization. Rather than the domination of imperialism and general oppression of a ruling government, the new rule is that of economics, therefore the face of oppression is also changing. Similarly, as the imperialist rule was European, or the modern, the Empire is originating in America, the postmodern. They argue that imperialism is no longer necessary, and that the United States gains its leverage in the new era of Empire through its differences from the modern European states. I agree with this claim, and think of the Bush administration (regime, actually.) and their exploits in Iraq and the other oil centers in the Middle East. In modern imperialism, European states would establish a strong, centralized government for the locale. However, in the new Empire, the United States is creating an occupation such that they attempt control of the indigenous government (that the US is creating) so that they can control the economic dealings and profit. Empire in such form is equally violent and dangerous to the oppressed and oppressors as was the modern European imperialism. However, Empire faces a problem that imperialism did not have to face. When considering those who are oppressed, it is through globalization and a non-centralized governance, rather than a local government where the exploits are restricted. Globalization presents the problem, which is the mass oppression of other states where they are each aware of the other’s oppression by a common enemy, and therefore rebellion against the oppressor is easily organized. This is also made possible through the competition of the oppressors, who will aid the oppressed to obtain the chance to overthrow the oppressor and take their place. The oppressed also face the problem of battling a non-centralized enemy, but rather nations and corporations.
The authors, in the section “The Dialectics of Colonial Sovereignty”, claim that there was a utopian moment involved in each new colonial acquisition and discovery. Even though they further state that the utopian moment is superseded by the bloodshed and negative impacts of colonial rule, I suspect that most would disagree with their supposition. Renaissance ideals of universal human rights were not exported to colonial powers as the authors suggest - even in a passing sort of way. While they do cite that the Otherness of colonial peoples was only mitigated by the thought that one day they might become Europeanized or Christianized, I think that utopia may be the wrong word for their argument.
They do, however, claim that “The dark Other of European Enlightenment stands as its very foundation just as the productive relationship with the ‘dark continents’ serves as the economic foundation of the European nation-states” which I agree with. This claim supports the fact that European colonialism had its basis just as much in the need to elevate oneself and rally against an Other as it did in the economic basis of Empire.
Their narration of the story of the revolution in Haiti in the 18th century is an interesting conclusion to the export of European ideas of the “rights of man” and universal human rights. The irony that the French should be so abhorred at the products of their own revolution reveals the hypocrisy of the landed European aristocracy. After the French fought so hard against their own oppressors (in the form of Marie Antoinette and those of her class) it is almost like a black comedy (excuse the pun) that they should be so aghast at those they oppress taking after their example.
Post a Comment
<< Home