Key Concepts in Historical Geography

John Morrissey, David Nally, Ulf Strohmayer, Yvonne Whelan, Author

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781412930444, 9781412930437
• eBook ISBN: 9781446297247
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Physical Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

"This ambitious volume reviews the best recent work in historical geography... It demonstrates how a dual sense of history and geography is necessary to understand such key areas of contemporary debate as the inter-relationship between class, race and gender; the character of nations and nationalism; the nature and challenges of urban life; the legacies of colonialism; and the meaning and values attributed to places, landscapes and environments."
- Mike Heffernan, University of Nottingham

Key Concepts in Historical Geography forms part of an innovative set of companion texts for the Human Geography sub-disciplines. Organized around 24 short essays, it provides a cutting edge introduction to the central concepts that define contemporary research in Historical Geography. Involving detailed and expansive discussions, the book includes:

• An introductory chapter providing a succinct overview of the recent developments in the field
• 24 key concepts entries with comprehensive explanations, definitions and evolutions of the subject
• Pedagogic features that enhance understanding including a glossary, figures, diagrams and further reading

Key Concepts in Historical Geography is an ideal companion text for upper-level undergraduate and postgraduate students and covers the expected staples from the discipline - from people, space and place to colonialism and geopolitics - in an accessible style. Written by an internationally recognized set of authors, it is is an essential addition to any human geography student?s library.

Section 1

Colonial and Postcolonial Geographies

1 IMPERIALISM AND EMPIRE

John Morrissey

Introduction

From the expeditions to the Americas in the fifteenth century through to the interventions in the Middle East in the twenty-first century, imperialism has indelibly marked modern times, forging human geographies on every continent and leaving legacies still seen and lived to this day. As Robert Young notes, the ‘entire world now operates within the economic system primarily developed and controlled by the West, and it is the continued dominance of the West, in terms of political, economic, military and cultural power that gives this history a continuing significance’ (2001: 5). Moreover, given the ongoing wars prosecuted in the name of Western civilization in the world today, Derek Gregory prompts us to recognize ‘the ways in which so many of us continue to think and act in ways that are dyed in the colors of colonial power’ (2004: xv). This chapter initially sets out the ideologies and discursive mobilities of imperialism before reflecting on approaches to its study in historical geography, while the subsequent chapter examines the complex geographies of colonialism and anti-colonialism forged and contested throughout the world as a result.

Defining Imperialism

Imperialism can be defined as a system of power, political economic ascendancy and cultural subordination, envisioned from the centre of expanding nation-states and differentially operationalized in colonized spaces throughout the world. Definitions are always fraught with difficulties, of course, and it is important to recognize the complexities of the terms empire, imperial and imperialism, which have been shown to have connoted different historical cultural meanings and political realities through time (Loomba, 1998). In general terms, imperialism has historically operated in various forms. As Dan Clayton outlines, there have been ‘over 70 empires in history’ (2009a: 189). Temporally, these comprise ancient, medieval, early modern, modern and contemporary, and geographically include, for example, the former Inca, Greek, Roman, Chinese, Ottoman, Spanish, British, Japanese and Soviet empires. Differentiating models of empire is hugely problematic; there has been considerable debate concerning the extent to which colonial expansion was state-driven and centred, for example (Hardt and Negri, 2000). That said, three key variants of state-driven imperialism on a global scale are: (a) the early modern Spanish imperial model; (b) the more globalized and advanced version of the major European powers of the late nineteenth century; and (c) the new imperialism or neo-imperialism of US military and economic ascendancy in the present (Johnson, 2000; Young, 2001; Harvey, 2003; Smith, 2003; Gregory, 2004).

Colonizations took place in Europe, Asia and elsewhere in the medieval and earlier periods, when the Greek, Roman, Chinese and Islamic empires advanced in geographically contiguous territories but largely without specific mercantile or state-driven logics of expansion. The first modern, transoceanic and state-driven global empire, however, was forged in the New World of the Americas by the conquering armies of the Spanish conquistadors from the late fifteenth century. The bureaucratic Spanish administrations in these new worlds were typically dependent on isolated military power and direct taxation on indigenous peoples and were not initially at least integrated into an imperial network of capitalist overseas endeavours like later European empires (Young, 2001).

Imperialism in its nineteenth-century design was developed by the French via the notion of a mission civilisatrice, which was an ideological justification for aggressive territorial expansion enabled by technological innovation. The mission civilisatrice invoked the idea of bringing French civilization, culture and language, together with Christianity, to the uncivilized and unenlightened, who were to be assimilated. This neat justification for superimposing the cultures and values of us on them was also a key feature in the contemporary British notion of a civilizing mission. However, both ideologies of empire had previous antecedents in early modern Spanish and English colonial discourses in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that centred on notions of reform and assimilation.

By the late nineteenth century, the French, British and other European imperial powers were ‘increasingly drawn into a competitive global economic and political system’, whose central underlying objective was to ‘combine the provision of domestic political and economic stability with the production of national prestige and closed markets in the international arena through conquest’ (Young, 2001: 30–31). According to Young, the imperial scramble for Africa in the early twentieth century by the British, French, Germans and others represented the high point of imperial state rivalries and reflected an expanded capitalist world economy, typified by increased production and consumption. Young’s tendency to see imperial growth as almost exclusively state-driven, however, ignores the multiplicity of interests and projects pursued by Europeans that might ultimately result in formal or indeed informal imperialism. For example, there was no state logic to the Puritan colonization of America, the missionary-led colonization of the Pacific, or (directly at least) the East India Company’s activities in India (Lambert and Lester, 2004).

Imperialism in its formal sense effectively ended with the retreat of the European empires as the twentieth century progressed, and this was due to a number of factors including: the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and the emergence of a powerful state opposed to Western imperialism; resistance to empire from colonized peoples throughout the world; the growing inability of European powers to administer their colonies effectively after the exhaustions and expense of World War II; and finally the subsequent appearance of a new superpower on the world stage, the USA, which viewed existing imperial trading structures as an impediment to its own economic activities overseas (Young, 2001; Larsen, 2005). The last reason cited here points to the fact that the new world order that replaced imperialism was in many ways a more subtle, informal version of the same favourable economic power structures dictated by the West – often referred to as neo-imperialism.

Imperialism and Discourse

Imperialism was legitimized and sustained through purposeful discursive imaginings, identifications and ascriptions, referred to as colonial discourse (also typically referred to as imperial discourse, but for the purposes of clarity in this chapter and the next, the term colonial discourse is used). Its analysis is critical to our understanding of how imperialism works (see the next chapter for its overarching relations to colonial practice). Colonial discourse equates to the prevailing representations of imperial power that sought to normalize imperial mindsets and the legitimacy of colonial intervention and domination. Imperialism should not be understood as only driven by political and economic logics, as Nicholas Thomas reminds us; rather, it ‘has always, equally importantly and deeply, been a cultural process’ in which ‘discoveries and trespasses are imagined and energized through signs, metaphors and narratives’ (1994: 2). In other words, imperialism’s cultural discourses served not simply to ‘mask, mystify or rationalize forms of oppression that are external to them’ but were ‘constitutive of colonial relationships in themselves’ (ibid.: 2). This is what Loomba means when she asserts that ‘power works through language, literature, culture and the institutions which regulate our daily lives’ (1998: 47).

In exploring questions of colonial discourse, a fundamental starting point is Edward Said’s illuminating and seminal work Orientalism (1978). Inspired by Michel Foucault’s work on the intrinsic relationship between power and knowledge, Orientalism examined a wide range of Western representations of the East by novelists, academics and others during the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which Said showed to create a collective, powerful European imaginary of the Orient in which the West is posited via a series of binaries as a superior, civilized and rational authority over an inferior, barbaric and irrational subordinate. For Said, imperialism was underpinned by these powerful discourses or representations of what he called Otherness. Said’s notion of imaginative geographies (see also Chapter 6), which he revealed to be inherent in the colonial discourse of Orientalism, was further elaborated in his work Culture and Imperialism in 1993. As Karen Morin highlights, this key concept has revealed the ‘invention and construction of geographical space’ that ‘constructs boundaries around our very consciousness and attitudes, often by inattention to or the obscuring of local realities’, and to this end the concept has been hugely significant in drawing careful attention to ‘spatial sensitivity’ in colonial and postcolonial studies (2004: 239).

In thinking through how discursive modalities function in the identification of Otherness, Said’s notion of cultural ascription is particularly useful. He has shown how the prioritization and networking of the language and representational practices of Orientalism, for example, serves to collectively naturalize human ‘types’ via ‘scholarly idioms and methodologies’, which literally ‘ascribes reality and reference’ (1978: 321). Colonial discourse generates and sustains dominant and colonizing knowledges (knowledges that in turn facilitate power) by ascribing identity and difference to distinct spaces, places and peoples (Gregory, 2001; see also Chapter 5). Colonial discourse’s binaries of Self and Other are ultimately cemented by institutional ascriptions of human types to specific environmental and cultural settings (see Chapter 23 for a discussion of map-making and geography’s role as a discipline in colonial history).

Inspired and informed by Said’s postcolonial critique, various geographers have alerted us to the subtle mechanisms of differentiation and purposeful relations of power, race, gender and sexuality inherent in the colonial discourses of former imperial powers (Blunt and Rose, 1994; Lester, 2001; Morrissey, 2003; Clayton, 2004; Kumar, 2006). The histories of geography have also been examined in recent years, highlighting the role of geographical institutions, methods and academics themselves in imperial practices of ‘exploration, mapping and landscape representation, and divisive discourses on climate and race’ (Clayton, 2009a: 190; see also Ploszajska, 2000 and Heffernan, 2003). Many geographers have sought particularly to ‘decolonize the geographical constitution and articulation of colonial discourses in both the past and the present, [and] also to decolonize the production of geographical knowledge both in and beyond the academy’ (Blunt and McEwan, 2002: 1). In addition, however, they have also ‘warned against reducing imperialism to discourse’ and have insisted on ‘the need to materially ground understanding of imperialism’s operations’ (Clayton, 2009b: 374; this is the focus of the next chapter).

Approaches to Understanding Imperialism

One of the challenges in studying colonial geographies is that of drawing the sometimes problematic conceptual distinction between imperialism and colonialism. Robert Young’s luminous work Postcolonialism is particularly instructive on this primary point. Young makes the useful argument that imperialism can be equated to a concept or ideology of territorial expansion, economic control and cultural superiority, while colonialism is best understood as the practice of domination of alien peoples, frequently though not always underpinned by imperialism. For Young, imperialism was ‘typically driven by ideology from the metropolitan centre and concerned with the [systematic] assertion and expansion of state power’, whereas colonialism was primarily ‘economically driven’ by migrant settler communities, speculators or trading companies and was concerned with more ad hoc, localized matters of territorial and economic administration (Young, 2001: 16–17). Putting the distinction between imperialism and colonialism another way, Ania Loomba prompts us to think of the difference between them in ‘spatial terms’, where imperialism ‘originates in the metropolis’ and leads to the process of ‘domination and control’, while its effect, colonialism, is what ‘happens in the colonies as a consequence of imperial domination’ (Loomba, 1998: 6). Of course, like all models, Loomba’s albeit useful working distinction is complicated by the ‘local’. The study and writing of historical geography requires a careful attentiveness to context, and it is not just the ‘local’ that requires theorising; paying attention to the ‘transnational’ elements of imperialism can also be crucial, and this adds a further conceptual challenge, as Stephen Legg (2010) reminds us.

In historical geography, the study of imperialism has been critically approached in at least three main ways, as Dan Clayton (2009b: 373–374) has shown: first, imperialism has ‘been analysed in economic and political terms – as central to the evolution of capitalism and the nation-state’ (Lenin theorized imperialism as the ‘highest stage of capitalism’ (Lenin, 1969)); second, since the 1980s, imperialism ‘has been studied as a discourse – or grammar – of domination fuelled by images, narratives and representations, and shaped by categories of gender, sexuality, race, nation and religion, as well as capital and class’; and finally, imperialism has more recently been examined via an ‘“imperial networks” approach’, which ‘treats metropole and col...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Halftitle
• Key Concepts
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• About the Authors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Historical Geographies in the Present
• Section 1 Colonial and Postcolonial Geographies
• Section 2 Nation-building and Geopolitics
• Section 3 Historical Hierarchies
• Section 4 The Built Environment
• Section 5 Place and Meaning
• Section 6 Modernity and Modernization
• Section 7 Beyond the Border
• Section 8 The Production of Historical Geographical Knowledge
• Index