Introduction: Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth Century

Porter, Andrew

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205654.003.0001

Cited by 14 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Joseph Chamberlain remarked in 1896: “We, in our colonial policy, as fast as we acquire new territory and develop it, develop it … for the commerce of the world” (Platt 1968:365). At the same time, annexation was necessary as a political process, that is, for maintaining security and order (Platt 1968:153; Porter 1999:10–11). Most British annexations began as enterprising merchants, landowners, and vanguard settlers pressed the home government to annex the territory in order to create stable conditions and provide protection in the frontier (Robinson 1972).…”

Section: Imperial Strategies and Field Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, Britain did not have this opportunity. The British indeed supported allied empires when and where they could: the Prussian empire as a check against France and Russia, the Ottoman empire as a defensive bulwark and for safe trade routes (Mandelbaum 1988:27; Porter 1999:11; Reddaway 1940:262–66). But these were exceptions.…”

Section: Imperial Strategies and Field Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

2008

Sociological Theory

191

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article develops a global fields approach for conceptualizing the global arena. The approach builds upon existing approaches to the world system and world society while articulating them with the field theory of Bourdieu and organizational sociology. It highlights particular structural configurations ("spaces of relations") and the specific cultural content ("rules of the game" and "symbolic capital") of global systems. The utility of the approach is demonstrated through an analysis of the different forms of the two hegemonic empires of the past centuries, Great Britain and the United States. The British state tended toward formal imperialism in the 19th century, characterized by direct territorial rule, while the United States since WWII has tended toward informal imperialism. The essay shows that the difference can be best explained by considering the different historical global fields in which the two empires operated.

show abstract

Section: Imperial Strategies and Field Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Imperial Strategies and Field Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

2008

Sociological Theory

191

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Porter, this belief was extremely influential because it was this belief that strengthened the ties of the different parts of a wide-ranging geopolitical empire. How the ordinary Victorian man perceived the savage individual, so-called, and, conversely, regarded the Empire's civilising mission, Porter (1999) describes as follows:…”

Section: : "Was the Mapping Of The World's Coastlines A Collective Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Classificatory Theories to Social Darwinism and Western Manipulation in the World

Göncüoğlu¹

2012

MJH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In order to understand how the expansion of an empire means more than geographical expansion, the whole process of both the eighteenth century classificatory system and nineteenth century Social Darwinism should be taken into account. We must therefore consider how the European viewed the non-European as the wild and 'the other'; how they legitimised the idea of the white man's superiority over 'the other'. Only then can some certain texts written under the influence of such thinking be perceived in a wider scope with certain causes and results as well. Such thinking regarding 'the other' related both to the scientific classification system of the eighteenth century and to Social Darwinism as the prevailing ideology of the late nineteenth century milieu. Therefore, the primary goal of this article is to clarify how such western thinking was first moulded and then galvanized through scientific proofs to make the idea of the inferiority of the non-European "other" common among Europeans.Keywords: Classification, Social-Darwinism, empire, 'the other' Özet: Bir imparatorluğun genişlemesinin coğrafi yayılımının ötesinde bir olgu olduğunu anlayabilmek için on sekizinci yüzyıla ait sınıflandırma sisteminin ve on dokuzuncu yüzyılda ortaya atılan Sosyal Darvinizm teorisinin dikkate alınması gerekir. Bununla beraber Avrupa'lının Avrupa'lı olmayanı nasıl 'yabani' ve 'öteki' olarak gördüğü ve buna paralel 'beyaz adam üstünlüğü'nü nasıl 'öteki' üzerinde meşrulaştırdığı da göz önüne alınmalıdır. Ancak o zaman, bu düşünce biçiminin etkisi altında kaleme alınmış metinlerin bağlamları, sebep ve sonuçları bakımından daha iyi analiz edilebilir. Bu sınıflandırma sistemi ve Sosyal Darvinizmin on dokuzuncu yüzyıla gelindiğinde 'öteki'ni değerleyen baskın ideoloji biçimini oluşturduğu görülmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu makalenin temel amacı batı merkezli böyle bir ideolojinin nasıl şekillendiğini göstermek ve batılı olmayan 'ötekiler'in daha aşağı türler olduğu zemininin bilimsel çarpıtmalarla nasıl oluşturulduğunu kanıtlamak olacaktır.Anahtar Sözcükler: Sınıflandırma, Sosyal-Darvinizm, imparatorluk, 'öteki' After the main steps taken in the sixteenth century with several discoveries in distant lands; the seventeenth century was, undoubtedly, the most determining period for Western and particularly, British imperialism. Therefore, the significance of the seventeenth century in terms of its providing a convenient basis for the establishment of a more self-aware and even more systematised British Empire requires no affirmation. In other words, the idea of a civilizing mission, the moral superiority of the white race, mercantilism and the use of martial force to triumph over new lands and to offer safety for the territories already occupied, were all fullydefined in the seventeenth century. According to P. J. Marshall (1998), during the period between 1689 and 1815, "both the area and the number of people under British rule increased greatly."  PhD., Ege University, English Language and Literature, İzmir,

show abstract

“…This leaves open the possibility that currency union dummy variables are proxying for omitted influences. A careful reading of the economics and history literatures suggests a variety of reasons why membership in an empire could have affected trade flows during the gold standard era (Bairoch, 1989;Ferguson, 2002;Frieden, 2006;Lal, 2004;Porter, 1999). These include preferential trade policies and other transaction costs, which arise from monetary arrangements, developing marketing or distribution networks, or sharing a common language.…”

Section: A Empirical Research On Bilateral Tradementioning

confidence: 99%

“…21 Frieden (2006, p.74) suggests that it is a matter of "continuing controversy how important foreign economic interests were in colonial expansion." by China (Porter, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade and Empire

Mitchener¹,

Weidenmier²

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many modern studies find large and significant effects of prior colonial status on bilateral trade, there is very little empirical research that has focused on the contemporaneous impact of empire on trade. We employ a new database of over 21,000 bilateral trade observations during the Age of High Imperialism, 1870-1913, to quantitatively assess the effect of empire on trade. Our augmented gravity model shows that belonging to an empire roughly doubled trade relative to those countries that were not part of an empire. The positive impact that empire exerts on trade does not appear to be sensitive to whether the metropole was Britain, France, Germany, Spain, or the United States or to the inclusion of other institutional factors such as being on the gold standard. In addition, we examine some of the channels through which colonial status impacted bilateral trade flows. The empirical analysis suggests that empires increased trade by lowering transactions costs and by establishing trade policies that promoted trade within empires. In particular, the use of a common language, the establishment of currency unions, the monetizing of recently acquired colonies, preferential trade arrangements, and customs unions help to account for the observed increase in trade associated with empire.

show abstract

Introduction: Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth Century

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

From Classificatory Theories to Social Darwinism and Western Manipulation in the World

Trade and Empire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About