lecture 10 - civilization, race and international order Flashcards
4 General features of the long C19
- European empires transition from indirect rule by mercantile companies to direct rule and a ‘‘new imperialism’’ (late C19)
*1799: VOC dissolves, Dutch govs takes over
*British gov. takes control over EIC territories in 1858, EIC dissolves in 1874 - European empires become globally hegemonic + Britain emerges as superpower
- industrial capitalism extends to Continental Europe and North America; Great Divergence becomes obvious
- Rise of racial ideologies and race science as intellectual legitimation of Western imperialism
Method of intellectual history (e.g., Keene)
main thing = they analyse discourses (both written and spoken) + their is a canon of ‘‘great thinkers’’ + they focus on recovering forgotten thinkers
*the reading was by Keene, had this method
Enlightenment and modern science
- ancient and medieval ideas of ‘‘barbarians’’, othering of the East
- medieval and early modern ideas of ‘‘blood purity’’, Christian renquista of Iberia, discrimination against Muslims and Jews
- new world encounters; race-based caste system in the Americas late C15-C18
modern changes late C18-C19:
- integration of race into natural sciences = scientific racism
- application of racism in imperial administration = bureaucratic racism
some scientific sources
forerunners scientific racism
- Natural classification: Carl Linneaus classification of humans is racist (subdivided humans: European white, Asian brown, African black, American red (but didn’t think there was a biological ground for this; based on location))
- proto-nationalist philosophy of history: Johann Gottfried Herder (das Folk, each folk has own genuine tradition, organic structure = idea of cultural/national belonging)
*Herder’s interpreters pushed him into a nationalist frame (he wasn’t) - scientific race theory & racial civilization/degeneration: Arthur de Gobineau: empire and racial inequality determine civilization-level of a country (civilized nations can expand empire)
!all civilizations would degenerate and die: mixing of races
prenology and racial stereotyping
*now seen as pseudoscience, in the time were seen as real science
prenology = intellect/characteristics are determined by size/shape of the brain -> can be seen in skull
- broad, large skull = much intellect
- can be used to create ethnic stereotypes (e.g. cephalic index)
ideas from evolutionary biology
- evolution by natural selection
- dev. in context of British industrial revo. (eg. drew/based on Malthusianism: resource/nature bottleneck -> evolution) - society as organism: Social Darwinism (wanted to naturalize/fix the social within a biological frame = direct opposite of social history)
- e.g. Herbert Spencer (came up with ‘survival of the fittest’): evolutionary dev. that could explain rise and fall civilizations - eugenics: racial-social engineering
- Francis Galton, theory of racial types, genetically passing on features (wanted to create perfect people, wanted the state to carry this out)
-> was excepted as a modern science
antisemitism and the Dreyfus affair
1894-1906
demonstrates that racism did not only apply to colonized people, shaped social life in European states as well
Dreyfus affair = wrongful conviction of a French Jewish army officer + a coverup of this
- defended by Dreyfusard, author of ‘‘j’accuse’’
- anti-Dreyfusard antisemitists e.g. Charles Maurras
the liberal idea of civilization - Guizot
*French historian and statesman provided definition ‘‘civilization’’ (was highly used since C18, but had contested meaning)
civilization not something that is a tradition that needs to be protected, it is a progressive goal
- social progress: a condition of social progress, very often received in material terms
- individual progress: dev. of individual life, dev. of the human mind and its faculties
importance of variety:
- difference between ancient civilization and Modern European civilization = homogeneity vs variety
- historical experience of dealing with variety of cultures -> liberty and toleration within European countries
(wars -> Europeans learn to love liberty (Kant argues the same thing))
the liberal reception of Guizot
he synthezised warring discourses:
- enlightenment universalism + revolution (liberal goals defended by universal principles (not historical dev.))
- counter-enlightenment + conservative law and order (said enlightenment ignored history)
was useful for C19 liberals: he showed progress and liberty were concrete products of turbulent history of European civilization, no abstract principles
*liberals were committed to free trade (Benjamin Constant) + anxiety about democratic mass society
! liberals ignored Guizot’s point about internal variety (but still were committed to self-determination and non-intervention)
liberalism and IR / international order (the great double standard)
two groups of society
- the ‘‘family of nations’’ or ‘‘family of civilized nations’’
- those outside the family (or its immature members)
-> two different sets of rules applied in IR
- family of civilized nations: non-intervention + reciprocally recognized sovereign states
- world of ‘‘backward’’ or ‘‘barbaric’’ peoples:
- administer them despotically/paternalistically so they can learn to stand on their own
- this is a ‘‘sacred trust of civilization’’ (Convenant League of Nations)
!this model ignores other models (eg. of conservatives)
(alternative C19 models of IR)
- international anarchy (no rules, just power politics)
- hierarchy between Great powers and lesser powers
- hierarchy between more and less powerful dynastic houses (Habsburgs, Romanovs, Hohenzollerns)
- hierarchy between sovereign, semi-sovereign and non-sovereign territories
- gradual division of world into capital vs labor (states as executive committee of the bourgeoisie) + future of a state withering away, being replaced by international federations
