EMPIRES and the Emergence of the Nation-State
The overarching purpose that Burbank and Cooper expound upon in both texts examines how political bodies are shaped across time, while taking into account a variety of sovereign frameworks, ruling strategies, political-cultural ideologies, and national identity/affiliations that both colonizers and the colonized groups belong to. One of the major themes that Burbank and Cooper underscore is the role that homogeneity plays in establishing an empire versus a nation-state. The two readings also stress another important concept, namely that the transition from an empire into a nation-state is not linear or sustainable. Both historians argue that this is justified by the longevity of empires and the development of sophisticated societies under its rule. This renders our conception of the modern nation-state as an necessary aftermath to other forms of government to be somewhat expendable. Both themes hold critical implications for history, where I focus on discussing the former in this response.
A critical idea that Burbank and Cooper highlights is the issue of homogeneity in the incorporation of diverse pockets of people, used when distinguishing between an empire versus nation-state. An empire is an extensive political unit that is often composed of an aggregate of many territories brought under by supreme power. Nation-states, in contrast, is a sovereign polity that underscores the commonality of its majority community, often by increasing nationalist sentiment at the exclusion of minority populations and marginalized groups. Burbank contends “both kinds of states are incorporative– they insist that people be ruled by their institutions– but the nation-state tends to homogenize those inside its borders and exclude those who do not belong, while the empire reaches outward and draws, usually coercively, peoples whose difference is made explicit under its rule” (25, Burbank). Empires often self-consciously maintain the diversity of people that they conquer when incorporating them into an existing colony, and govern different people according to different customs within the polity. For instance, the Mongols normalized the multiplicity of people and their varied customs as a useful asset by employing Buddhist, Confucianist, Christian, Daoist, and Islamic administrators. Thus, the imperial strategy that the Mongols leveraged allowed the empire to shelter diverse religions and inflect its repertoires of power across the world. Burbank & Cooper posit “all empires were to some degree reliant on both incorporation and differentiation,” where they could integrate, build upon, or pioneer new ways of authoritative rule/political governance (30, Burbank). Conversely, the empire is more incorporative in that it declares the non-equivalence of multiple populations and emphasizes multicultural differences amongst people that exist within a nation.
On the contrary, nation-states attempt to draw strict boundaries between “undifferentiated insiders and ‘barbarian’ outsiders" (29, Burbank). For example, the Roman empire attempted to establish a highly homogenous civilization by constructing a unified religious community founded on the worship of Roman gods and goddesses, and later under Christianity. Another way that the Romans fostered homogenization is by developing distinct artistic styles through architecture, fine arts (sculptures & paintings), literature, scholarship and other pedagogical practices. Moreover, the Roman empire encouraged homogeneity amongst its civilians by underscoring democratic rule and legal citizenship rights, c creating a sense of agency that were only extended to men. Women, slaves, barbarians, and other minorities outside of the main homogenous body were barred from political participation. The dangers of nationally homogeneous nation-states and polities is the possibility for tyranny to take place, which can result in political upheaval threatening to overthrow the regime.
A theme I want to investigate in the future is progress: in an economic-academic, ethical, and backward sense. The ability for empires to promulgate wide-sweeping political and economic transformations, propelling a nation to the global stage, to trade with other major players and global actors, and set into motion through competition. Technological innovations and scientific developments, such as European weaponry that allowed them to quickly access the Chinese and Persian Empire in addition to exploring ‘undiscovered’ territory such as the North Americas. Ethicality and the morality of personhood (status). Conversely, I would like to understand how weaknesses in imperial rule can lead to exploitation by foreign powers, such as China’s Opium Wars that lead to the fall of the great Qing Dynasty. Lapse into the indentured fetters of European powers.
(694 words)