Imperialism describes the domination of a one society or group over another, but this can happen in many different forms beyond colonial territory expansion. The key is that it involves the subjugation of an entire indigenous population.
There are several reasons for this. Although Arendt addresses questions of law and constitution throughout her writings—her thoughts on Eichmann and the aporias of human rights in Origins of Totalitarianism are very well known examples—she does so in an episodic and sporadic, and less systematic manner.
As in none of her writings questions concerning the concept of law are explicitly addressed, they need to be carefully reconstructed. A new volume, edited by Marco Goldoni and Christopher McCorkindale, takes on this challenge and brings together new contributions and some reprints on Hannah Arendt and the law.
The volume is divided into four sections. However, in his eyes, Arendt ultimately fails. Although Breen agrees with Arendt that neither politics nor law can be reduced to relations of command and obedi ence, he claims that both, politics and law, cannot be completely divorced from these relations.
For her, the breakdown of public authority in the moment of revolution stresses the fact that, in the end, the alleged obedience to the law mainly depends on public opinion and general consent. This brings her to the conclusion that law should not be seen as an expression of command or as the legal will of the sovereign but rather as describing, revealing, and arranging the relations among people within a political community.
That is the reason why she compares law to the rules of a game which establish relations between people. Against this background, laws are the legally formalized expression of agreements—or at least of tacit consent.
Law as rapport can be traced back to Montesquieu. Only where people are reciprocally empowered to act can one speak of political freedom. To be reciprocally empowered to act means to regard each other as political persons.
According to Arendt the word person, persona, originates from the language of the theatre and denotes the mask of the actor. As such it always had two functions. On the one hand, the mask had to hide the natural face of the actor or rather replace it, but on the other hand, it had to be designed in such a way that the natural voice could be heard.
On the one hand, it shields the area of subjectivity, possession, cultural origin, private preferences, etc. On the other hand, and by means of the mask, this status enables one to speak as an equal to other equals.
Furthermore, in an illuminating contribution, Goldoni and McCorkindale assemble the scattered bits and pieces Arendt wrote about the role of the US Supreme Court and the function of judicial review and connect these remarks to her political thoughts. It is very likely, as says Klabbers, that Arendt can offer useful insights about the language and concepts used in discussing and analyzing global governance.
With an Arendtian mindset, Klabbers addresses first and foremost the human rights talk in global governance. For decades and only with some exceptions, Arendt has been considered as a thinker of revolutionary beginning. To be clear, authors like Albrecht Wellmer were not completely wrong. The revolutions in Eastern Europe were political new beginnings that no intellectuals, philosophers, scholars, or intellectual and academic schools have even expected or envisaged; no political philosopher and no political theory of that time could even think of it.
In the academic debates about system theory and questions of justice, there was no room for theorizing revolutionary and political new beginnings. Her theory of lawlessness as the first step in a long preparation process towards the annihilation of people was experienced reality for Arendt and shaped her own horizon.
Antisemitism, Imperialism, Total Domination] Hannah Arendt in the present], in Hannah Arendt: Fundamentals of a Philosophical Hermeneutic] The Causes of Imperialism: Geographic, Economic, Political and Social 1.
What is imperialism? 2. Why did European nations imperialize other places? What is Imperialism? •The domination by one country of the political, economic or cultural life of another country.
An Introduction to the Analysis of Imperialism the Total Domination of the Political, Economical and Cultural Aspects of a Nation. words. 1 page.
A Rampant Growth in Imperialism Seen in the 19th Century. 1, words. 4 pages. An Analysis of the Movie Sand Pebbles. words. 1 page. Types of Imperialism 2.
Protectorate: A country or territory with its own internal government but under the control of an outside power Example: Britain established a protectorate over the Niger River Delta 5.
Types of Imperialism 3.
Imperialism types can overlap with another and are often difficult to isolate. The George W. Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare in Iraq -- with the goal of establishing a democracy there -- is sometimes viewed as political imperialism. Imperialism is the total domination of the political, economical, or cultural aspects or a nation.
Imperial colonization has been occurring sense the beginning of time.
An imperialistic nation would increase its importance and power by winning an empire. For Arendt therefore, imperialism was a totally new political concept, which made infinite expansion a permanent political aim and an end in itself.
It came about with the political emancipation of the bourgeoisie, which “came up against national limits to its economic expansion” (Arendt , 24) and devoted politics to the service of the.