Empire

The Nature and Evolution of Empire

Such an understanding of empire is ahistorical and biased. Empire has been a characteristic form of political organization since early antiquity and predates colonial rule by several centuries. The colonial era may be over, but this does not imply the end of empire (although it is important to emphasize that the colonial legacy still haunts former colonial empires and their erstwhile colonies). Moreover, many empires were symbols of peace and prosperity, rather than of oppression and exploitation. Studies of empires show that control within them can be based on incentives rather than coercion or on a combination of both. It can be exercised through a variety of military, economic, and cultural means. It can be formal or informal to varying degrees. Periphery status within an empire can also differ. Some peripheral actors are given access to the decision making and resources of the metropolis, while others are kept at a distance or even subject to open discrimination and exploitation. The relationship between metropolis and periphery can certainly be hierarchical and conflict ridden, but it can also be harmonious and based on mutual dependency. Some empires are organized in concentric circles or even form quite loose multiple independencies.

The nature of both metropolis and peripheral actors can also differ. In most cases, the metropolis has a centralized government, differentiated economy, and shared political loyalties, while the “imperializable peripheries” (to use Michael Doyle's term) have weak government, undifferentiated economies, and highly divided political loyalties (Doyle, 1986, p. 19). However, the imperial metropolis can also have a relatively weak, limited, and decentralized government; an inefficient economic system; and multiple cultural identities. For instance, medieval empires are known for having limited and decentralized government performing only a few basic governmental functions. They were ridden by internal conflicts between king (or emperor) and the lower aristocracy (whether feudal or bureaucratic), [Page 771]while the persistent divergence of local cultures, religions, and traditions implied a highly divided political loyalty.

The metropolis does not always have a master plan of imperial conquest. States can become empires by default because they try to bring some order to unstable neighbors or try to convert barbarians into “good” citizens or into a specific religion. Likewise, an empire does not necessarily come into being through outright aggression. Some empires emerge quietly or even surreptitiously through uneven modernization and social differentiation. They may not even see themselves as empires.

...