Looking forward to it. Is this connected in any way to Spurr's work?N
N,No; I don't think I'm familiar with Spurr. Want to give me a cite or two?Or I can look Spurr up myself, of course.p.s. The planned post will draw mainly (though not exclusively) on one aspect of Mazower's No Enchanted Palace. But I don't want to give too much away, lest the thousands (cough) of this blog's devoted followers protest. :-)
OK, just looked up Spurr's The Rhetoric of Empire. Thanks
LFCLooking forward to it.You saw Dan Nixon’s article? One of the more useful and commonsense discussions I have seen on the subject.
Hank,To save me the time of tracking the citation down, which Dan Nexon article are you referring to?
If you mean Nexon's co-authored Am. Pol. Sci. Review article of a few years ago ("What's at stake in the American empire debate?"), I'm familiar with that one. If you mean a more recent article, I'd like the cite. Thanks.
Apart from the fact that I erroneously added a question mark to their title, that is the Nexon/Wright 2007 article. Since you like their approach, perhaps we can have a discussion of it some time. It won't come up in the previewed post, but maybe I will do one on it after that. (I have more mixed feelings about the Nexon/Wright article than you do.)
In my view one of the problems with the Nexon/Wright approach is that they don't -- or, more precisely, they can't, given their assumptions -- see the end of colonialism as a major event in modern int'l history. Because their focus is on ideal-typical imperial "dynamics" and "structures," and b/c such "dynamics" can be found in both formal and informal "imperial orders," the divide between the colonial and post-colonial world is relegated to the margins. (This would have to be the subject of a longer discussion.)
Looking forward to your upcoming post. Glad you found the Spurr cite. N
Post a Comment