Still the American Empire

Over the past few years there has been an intellectually controversial, strategically significant and politically charged debate as to whether America should – or should not – be characterised as an empire. More recently, it has become equally fashionable to argue that this empire is either now failing or in steep decline. This essay examines the background to the original 'empire debate', suggests that the notion of empire is one that can (with care) be applied to the United States, and that in spite of recent setbacks – like Iraq – we should take care not to underestimate the US capacity to shape world politics. The American Empire may be in trouble, but it is not about to fall.     

Empire and Exception

Imperial power, and the policies of the Bush administration, are widely perceived as a distinct break with the modern world and the American past. In fact, elements of imperial power have been present since early modernity. The distinct nature of imperial sovereignty remains unclear. Negri and Hardt insist that imperial sovereignty constitutes a sharp break from modern nation-state sovereignty. However, if modern sovereignty is read from the standpoint of the exception, not liberalism, its ground and operation are the same as those of empire. What is new in empire is that global restraints still present in the nation-state order have disappeared. As a result, the state of exception today has become the rule. Only by recognizing that this relation is a product of imperial power, and not an external factor it seeks to counter, can we challenge the legitimating discourse of empire.     

Global Britain and the Narrative of Empire

Since 2016, the UK government has outlined plans for ‘Global Britain’ as a framework for post‐Brexit foreign policy. Some criticise the idea as a vision of ‘Empire 2.0’, but it is rarely made clear exactly what form it takes or what its wider political implications are. This article argues that Global Britain constitutes not just an idea or a slogan, but a foreign policy narrative and, more specifically, the narrative of empire. Indeed, to appear reasonable its grand ambitions require pre‐existing knowledges of past imperial ‘successes’ and accepting images of empire among the British public. Yet Global Britain lacks efficacy: as a domestic rather than an international narrative, by being inherently regressive in its worldview, and for contradicting the preferences of international partners on which the UK heavily relies. These narrative flaws, it is argued, make Global Britain an actively problematic, rather than merely ineffective, component of UK foreign policy.     

Global Citizenship and Empire

Global citizenship is a concept that has been both propounded and critiqued on a number of grounds in recent scholarship, but little attention has been paid to what it might mean in an age of empire. Beginning with an analysis of American empire, the author argues that there has been an important shift in the meaning of imperial rule from what was initially a “realpolitik” version of empire in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to what has become a more “liberal” form of imperial power since late 2003. Whereas the former sought national security in a seemingly anarchical and hostile world, the latter has sought to spread a particular kind of globalized citizenship to the world, particularly in the Middle East. The author argues that the ideological grounding for such an imperial “civilizing mission” needs to be challenged through an alternative theorization of global citizenship. Thus, the second half of the article suggests a new theory of global citizenship rooted in two basic principles: social rights (in order to address the least well off) and shared fate (in order to draw the links between the north/south and east/west). Taken together, they provide a starting point for an alternative theory of global citizenship that speaks not simply against empire but to it.     

Empire,Rifondazione Comunista,and the politics of spontaneity

Hardt and Negri's Empire has emerged as an ambitious and influential attempt to theorize some of the most pressing political concerns of our time. I examine Empire's reach into contemporary politics—a hitherto neglected aspect of its influence—by explaining how it came to be at the center of fierce debates at the last national congress of Rifondazione Comunista, a political party of the Italian left. I then develop a critique of Empire as a failed attempt to transcend the theoretical and political horizons of Marxism. While Empire presents itself as a radically new theory, it is better understood as the latest of incarnation of spontaneity, a conspicuously old orientation. Finally, I recover Lenin's critique of spontaneity, using it to make sense of some of the most peculiar ambiguities in Empire and to critique it as neither original nor adequate to face the political challenges of our time.     

Hardt and Negri's Empire : A New Communist Manifesto or a Reformist Welcome to Neoliberal Globalisation?

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's Empire (Harvard University Press, 2000) has generally been characterised by the establishment press, but also by some in the Left, as a kind of new 'Communist Manifesto'. However, a careful examination of the content of the book makes it clear that, far from having any radical implications similar to those of the original Manifesto , Empire should better be characterised as an 'objective' welcome to neoliberal globalisation.