Temporality, sovereignty, and imperialism: When is imperialism?
| DOI | 10.1177/0263395716644941 |
| Date | 01 November 2016 |
| Published date | 01 November 2016 |
| Author | Justin Mueller |
| Subject Matter | Special Section: Resurrecting IR TheoryGuest Edited by Kyle Grayson (Newcastle University, UK), Martin Coward (The University of Manchester), and Robert Oprisko (Independent Scholar) |
Politics
2016, Vol. 36(4) 428 –440
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0263395716644941
pol.sagepub.com
Temporality, sovereignty,
and imperialism: When is
imperialism?
Justin Mueller
Department of Political Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Abstract
Scholars of modern imperialism have conventionally defined it in clear contrast against the ostensibly
legitimate rule of the sovereign territorial state. From this conventional perspective, the theoretical
distinctiveness of imperialism as a phenomenon appears in juxtaposition against normal sovereign
state rule and effectively ‘begins’ at the transgressions of state power beyond some accepted space
of normalized sovereign dominion. While the spatial and temporal dimensions of sovereignty have
been well explored and the spatial distinctiveness of imperialism has mirrored that of sovereignty, the
temporality of imperialism has not been as carefully considered. While the problems of what imperialism
‘is’ and what it ‘does’ have been thoroughly examined, ‘when’ imperialism is has not. This article aims
to correct this by offering a critique of the conventional temporality of imperialism and its subjection to
a spatial ideology, and instead articulating a critical temporality of imperialism that avoids some of the
conventional conception’s limitations, especially that of naturalizing state rule and its claims to legitimacy.
Keywords
imperialism, sovereignty, the state, time, legitimacy
Received: 12th March 2015; Revised version received: 4th February 2016; Accepted: 10th February 2016
Introduction
In a time marked by vast disparities in global power and wealth, frequent military inter-
ventions, and seemingly endless asymmetrical war against ill-defined and mutable offi-
cial enemies, discussion and charges of ‘imperialism’ have been in no short supply. As a
concept, however, imperialism has been interpreted in many different ways, resulting in
a persistent ambiguity regarding its basic features. This has been magnified through its
historic use as both an analytical and polemical term, often simultaneously. How scholars
understand what exactly constitutes modern imperialism and especially when it occurs is
largely contingent upon implicit theoretical, ideological, and meta-political assumptions,
especially regarding the nature of state sovereignty.
Corresponding author:
Justin Mueller, Department of Political Science, Purdue University, Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and
Education, Room BRNG 2299, 100 North University Street, West Lafayette, IN 02138, USA.
Email: jcmuelle@purdue.edu
644941POL0010.1177/0263395716644941PoliticsMueller
research-article2016
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial