Introduction: How to Do Things with Empires

Abstract

The Demise of Empire(s) and Post-Empire ImaginariesOne of momentous outcomes of First World War was demise of empires. As historians contributing to current commemoration of this first global conflict of twentieth century do not fail to emphasize, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-cultural polities of Ottoman Empire, Russia, and Austro-Hungarian double monarchy, powerful dominions over centuries, were swept away by calamitous events of 1914-18.1 From their ashes, new nation-states were formed that, albeit far from homogeneous themselves, were vastly different from those seemingly superannuated empires in their governmental structure, topographical dimension, and political style. The German Kaiserreich, of fairly recent formation (founded in 1871) but in some ways self-styled inheritor of venerable Heiliges Romisches Reich Deutscher Nation, equally crumbled and was replaced by republic. The modern age of empires seemed at an end. Alternative forms of empire that avoided explicit recourses to imperialist ideology only confirmed that era of capitalized Empires had ended.2 The across-the-board development from empire to nation-state and its liberal, democracy-based forms of hegemony and domination was of course less uniform and inescapably teleological than it appeared to contemporaneous observers. As David Reynolds argued, for France and Great Britain Great War proved to be an imperial moment in which their empires lurched to their zenith,3 expanding their spheres of influence particularly in Middle East and Africa. But, one could in turn object, demise of French and British empires was only postponed, and sweeping historical movement from empire to nation-state finally completed in decolonizing processes after Second World War. Ever since, not only political existence of empires but very concept seems to have been in decline, celebratory yearnings of public commentators like Robert D. Kaplan and critical defences of scholars like Niall Ferguson notwithstanding.4As contributors to this volume argue, general idea of empire as well as concrete histories, cultural heritage, and rules and rites of different empires continue to provide rich symbolic repertoire for present. In face of persistent ethnic and religious conflicts, enduring capacity of empires to pacify their different populations and to enable internal exchange of goods, technologies, cultural practices, and ideas has recently been explored as possible model for transnational polities such as European Union (the public debates surrounding 2014 Scottish independence referendum, for example, resonated strongly with considerations of post-imperial possibilities).5 In many cases, empires developed great tolerance, capacity to integrate different cultures and religions, and even an exemplary cosmopolitan stance that fostered flourishing of literature and arts.6 One of keenest critics of British Empire, Pankaj Mishra, referred to its Ottoman counterpart approvingly as the most cosmopolitan state in world and a vast, sophisticated political organism, capable of accommodating much ethnic and religious diversity and adjudicating disputes between different regions and communities.7 Imperial metropolises became centres of learning and cultural refinement, but they were closely interlinked with, and fed by, realm's provinces in their enormous cultural diversity.8 The relative security within borders of an empire enabled travel, and thus stimulated ethnographic observation and communication between different groups9 On negative side, however, this cultural diversity came at price of different populations' unequal participation in commonwealth's material prosperity and political power, and often downright oppression of religious or ethnic groups, accompanied by their cultural and racial assimilation and denigration. …