Hobson on White Parasitism and Its Solutions

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Theory Pub Date : 2023-08-23 DOI:10.1177/00905917231192002
Benjamin R. Y. Tan
{"title":"Hobson on White Parasitism and Its Solutions","authors":"Benjamin R. Y. Tan","doi":"10.1177/00905917231192002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the publication of J. A. Hobson’s (1858–1940) Imperialism: A Study in 1902, the text has been studied—even celebrated—as a liberal or proto-Marxist critique of modern empires. This reputation stands in some tension with the text itself, which defends various forms of imperial domination. While scholars have addressed this tension, they remain divided over how best to understand Hobson’s imperial commitments. Offering a new response to this debate, I argue that a key dimension of Imperialism has been overlooked—namely, Hobson’s conception of humanity as stratified into a hierarchy of racial “souls.” This deeply committed view of human difference undergirded Hobson’s arguments about the moral and practical limits of Western imperial power. This article shows how Hobson articulated imperialism as the “parasitic” rule of whites over the nonwhite world—the solution to which was not the rejection of empire but the reform of white imperial power in accordance with his normative vision of global racial hierarchy. This recovery reveals the redemptive critique at the core of Imperialism and enables us to more readily grasp the text as a form of imperial apologetics. The article concludes with the suggestion that Hobson is better understood not as a liberal- or socialist-imperialist but as a proponent of racial capitalism on a global scale.","PeriodicalId":47788,"journal":{"name":"Political Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917231192002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the publication of J. A. Hobson’s (1858–1940) Imperialism: A Study in 1902, the text has been studied—even celebrated—as a liberal or proto-Marxist critique of modern empires. This reputation stands in some tension with the text itself, which defends various forms of imperial domination. While scholars have addressed this tension, they remain divided over how best to understand Hobson’s imperial commitments. Offering a new response to this debate, I argue that a key dimension of Imperialism has been overlooked—namely, Hobson’s conception of humanity as stratified into a hierarchy of racial “souls.” This deeply committed view of human difference undergirded Hobson’s arguments about the moral and practical limits of Western imperial power. This article shows how Hobson articulated imperialism as the “parasitic” rule of whites over the nonwhite world—the solution to which was not the rejection of empire but the reform of white imperial power in accordance with his normative vision of global racial hierarchy. This recovery reveals the redemptive critique at the core of Imperialism and enables us to more readily grasp the text as a form of imperial apologetics. The article concludes with the suggestion that Hobson is better understood not as a liberal- or socialist-imperialist but as a proponent of racial capitalism on a global scale.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Hobson关于白色寄生虫及其解决方案
自从j.a.霍布森(1858-1940)的《帝国主义:一项研究》于1902年出版以来,这本书就作为自由主义或原始马克思主义对现代帝国的批判而被研究——甚至被颂扬。这种声誉与文本本身存在一些紧张关系,文本为各种形式的帝国统治辩护。虽然学者们已经解决了这种矛盾,但对于如何最好地理解霍布森的帝国承诺,他们仍然存在分歧。对于这场争论,我提出了一个新的回应,我认为帝国主义的一个关键维度被忽视了——即霍布森关于人类被划分为种族“灵魂”等级的概念。这种关于人类差异的坚定观点,为霍布森关于西方帝国权力在道德和实践上的限制的论点奠定了基础。本文展示了霍布森如何将帝国主义表述为白人对非白人世界的“寄生”统治——解决这个问题的办法不是拒绝帝国,而是按照他对全球种族等级的规范看法改革白人帝国权力。这种恢复揭示了帝国主义核心的救赎批判,使我们能够更容易地将文本作为一种帝国的护教形式来理解。文章最后建议,最好不要把霍布森理解为自由主义或社会主义帝国主义者,而应该把他理解为全球范围内种族资本主义的支持者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Theory
Political Theory POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Political Theory is an international journal of political thought open to contributions from a wide range of methodological, philosophical, and ideological perspectives. Essays in contemporary and historical political thought, normative and cultural theory, history of ideas, and assessments of current work are welcome. The journal encourages essays that address pressing political and ethical issues or events.
期刊最新文献
Machiavelli Against Sovereignty: Emergency Powers and the Decemvirate Carl Schmitt’s Political Theology: Legitimizing Authority after Secularization “A New Kind of Death”: Rape, Sex, and Pornography as Violence in Andrea Dworkin’s Thought Neurotic Situations: A Critical Dialogue between Freud and Fanon “Parties Are the Supreme Mentors of the Nation”: Appreciations for Parties and Partisanship in China, 1895–1920
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1