Abstract
‘Imperialism’ has always been a diffuse and emotive subject, even when there is broad agreement on what is being considered. Recent writings have done little to dispel this problem, and any discussion almost immediately exposes a semantic minefield. Words like ‘political’, ‘social’, ‘cultural’ or ‘economic’ are unavoidable, but, ordinary though they may be, they are difficult to use precisely; the boundaries between the things they describe are rarely clear-cut. Of course, all historians face this problem. Although many solve it to their own satisfaction by labelling themselves ‘political’ or ‘economic’ historians, historians of imperialism cannot specialise in quite the same way. The interest of the subject, as well as its frustrations, lies in the fact that it embraces all these subdivisions. Its study involves historians in attempting both to define and disentangle a wide range of social, political or economic processes, in order to understand their distinct function and perhaps their importance relative to each other. These tasks of identification, disentanglement arid assessment are unavoidably contentious. Even the title of this essay will raise the hackles of at least some readers! However, the problem of definition seems as appropriate a spot as any at which to start.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Select Bibliography
Winfried Baumgart, Imperialism. The Idea and Reality of British and French Colonial Expansion, 1880 – 1914 (rev. edn, Oxford, 1982): with a narrow definition (acquisition of formal political control over territory) and focus (Africa), he has no difficulty in revealing drawbacks in theories including Wehler’s ‘social imperialism’.
Anthony Brewer, Marxist Theories of Imperialism. A Critical Survy (2nd edn, London, 1990): also includes chapters on J.A. Hobson and others.
Benjamin J. Cohen, The Question of Imperialism. The Political Economy of Dominance and Dependence (New York/London, 1974).
Michael W. Doyle, Empires (Ithaca/London, 1986).
Norman Etherington, ‘The Capitalist Theory of Capitalist Imperialism’, History of Political Economy, 15 (1983), 654 – 78: explores capitalist arguments c.1900 supporting imperialism as rational and necessary.
Norman Etherington, Theories of Imperialism. War, Conquest and Capital (Beckenham, 1984): a valuable survey of theories as they have developed against the background of twentieth-century events, and a plea for recognition of the distinctions between imperialism, colonialism, and the expansion of capitalism, in aid of effective explanation.
D.K. Fieldhouse, Colonialism 1870 – 1945. An Introduction (London, 1981).
John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, EcHR, 6 (1953), 1–15 (reprinted variously, and in [54]): immensely influential and justifiably famous essay which shifted attention from formal empire and its classic expression in Africa’s colonial partition to the varied patterns of imperialism consequent on Britain’s and Europe’s global economic expansion.
Michael Hechter, Internal Colonialism. The Celtic Fringe in British National Development 1536 – 1966 (London, 1975): with [59], provides illustrations of ‘imperialism’ as an internal European phenomenon.
J.A. Hobson, Imperialism. A Study (London, 1902).
Thomas Hodgkin, ‘Some African and Third World Theories of Imperialism’, in [317] pp. 93–116.
Paul Kennedy, ‘Continuity and Discontinuity in British Imperialism 1815–1914’ in [298] pp. 20–38.
R. Koebner, Empire (Cambridge, 1961): see [52].
R. Koebner and H.D. Schmidt, Imperialism. The Story and Significance of a Political Word, 1840–1960 (Cambridge, 1964): with [51], provides important study of semantic roots and changing usage.
V.I. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism [(1916) edition by Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1942].
Wm Roger Louis, Imperialism. The Robinson and Gallagher Controversy (New York, 1976): usefully surveys the often confusing debate which followed from [46] and [239].
Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Theories of Imperialism (London and New York, 1981): a usefully succinct, critical survey intended to provide a ‘bridge between English and continental thought on the nature of imperialism’.
Bernard Porter, Critics of Empire. British Radical Attitudes to Colonialism in Africa 1895–1914 (London, 1968): pathbreaking and highly illuminating study of contemporary debates, important for Hobson, Mary Kingsley and E.D. Morel.
Charles Reynolds, Modes of Imperialism (Oxford, 1981): useful discussion of the relationship between theory and effective explanation.
J.A. Schumpeter, Imperialism and Social Classes, ed. and with Introduction by Paul M. Sweezy (Oxford, 1951).
S. Sideri, Trade and Power: Informal Colonialism in Anglo-Portuguese Relations (Rotterdam, 1970): illustrates the difficulty of confining analyses of imperialism to the non-European world.
Eric Stokes, ‘Late Nineteenth-Century Colonial Expansion and the Attack on the Theory of Economic Imperialism: a case of mistaken identity?’, Ha, 12 (1969), 285–301: pinpoints the important distinction drawn by Lenin, but missed by many of his subsequent critics, between colonial expansion before 1900 and imperialism thereafter, and comments on its significance for historians now.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1994 Andrew Porter
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Porter, A. (1994). Definitions and Theories. In: European Imperialism, 1860–1914. Studies in European History. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10544-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10544-1_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-48104-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-10544-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)