Transimperial History – Connectivity, Cooperation and Competition This Forum article argues that a turn in empire history is needed, one which we label «transimperial». Whereas national history has been transnationalized in recent decades, the history of empires has, by and large, remained nationalized. Since transnational history, global history, postcolonial studies and new imperial history all offer an abundance of tools to tear down imperial borders and deconstruct nationalized narratives, the moment seems to have come for a shift, namely for what we call a transimperial approach to imperial history. We seek to show how such an approach makes it possible to dynamize and decentralize the history of empires both on the level of empirical research and historiographical narratives. By including marginalized empires we offer a way to overcome British centrism of empire studies. On the methodological level, this contribution seeks to discuss imperial competition, cooperation and connectivity not as separate phenomena but as entangled processes. The point is not to analytically isolate cooperation or competition but to shed light on how they reinforced each other and how connectivity plays into this. The article shows that a key to establishing a transimperial approach is to consider time and space together by focusing on the transformative aspect of competition, cooperation and connectivity in spaces in-between empires. In this article, we highlight transimperial histories avant la lettre, on which such an approach can rely. Finally, we discuss how this approach helps challenge essentializing master narratives in empire studies, be it the one in which the British Empire serves as a model for other empires or the one where the Japanese empire is seen as a mimicry of European imperialism.

There is a tendency within research on Japanese Colonialism to idealize Taiwan under Japanese rule as a "model colony." This paper questions such narratives and asks what implications this assumption has for historiographical studies on colonial Taiwan. Research based on the idea of Taiwan as a "model colony" promotes the idea of a linear modernization during colonial rule in Taiwan and leads to the assumption that uprisings or colonial violence occurred only at the beginning of colonial rule. With a few exceptions, most recent studies use cultural-historical approaches and focus on colonial modernity or colonial governmentality, agency, and hybridity on the basis of postcolonial studies and their theoretical agenda. Therefore, the so-called scientific colonialismoften seen as the specific characteristic of colonial rule in Taiwanis not linked to colonial violence. The thesis of this paper, however, is that scientific colonialism as a form of rule did not exhaust itself in 'civilizational achievements' such as the introduction of contemporary medical treatments or road construction. Rather, a reciprocal relationship emerged between knowledge production and the use of violence. On the one hand, the aim of knowledge production was to pacify the island and keep violence in check. On the other hand, however, the government instrumentalized the knowledge it had gained, subsequently using it to perpetrate further violence. Taiwan, therefore, did not see a linear civilizing progression and, moreover, violence did not decline steadily.

No abstract

No abstract