PRASHON PENDYALA (L6)
Introduction
The Oxford dictionary definition of the lexeme "good" is an object "to be desired of or approved of". This argument hinges on the adjective so it is important to clarify and understand the vast, ambiguous definition it has. While something may be "good" for one party, it may hold negative consequences for another party. This give-and-take basis structures the very foundations of colonialist ideology, and also for possibly the greatest display of this form of hegemony is the British Empire.
To discuss the consequences of Imperial Britain and label them as objectively "good" or "bad" would be irrelevant. While a repercussion may appear as "bad" for a group, it may have resulted in advanced progressions for another set of people of a different denomination. This causes a disparity which would make it extremely arduous to determine if they are impartially "good" or "bad".
However, another approach that may be taken to classify would be to place the repercussions in a framework (e.g, through a Marxist/Feminist/Romantic lens etc.). Through this method, it is possible to observe if the consequence would be considered "good" or "bad" in the ideology. With a fine-toothed comb, this would allow an observation into how different theories would approach the question and perhaps gauge an understanding of the answers each group may present.
Colonialism: Definition, Outline
"Colonialism is not a modern phenomenon" (Kohn M and Reddy K - "Colonialism": Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Archaic Greece colonized territories in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea to gain access to raw materials and to deal with their overpopulation crisis. However, modern colonialism stems from improvements and new technologies to better weather the seas. Initially, modern ships were manufactured to create direct routes between East and West for expensive spices such as pepper. However, sailors such as Christopher Columbus "discovered" lands which were soon to be exploited for their raw materials.
However, it is important to remember for the argument that modern colonization by the West was not carried out for political domination, and the policy for Natural Law was passed by the Pope. It stated that anyone that did not hold faith in Christianity could not be conquered on that fact alone, and only if deemed unable to govern themselves should governance be passed over to those who could govern (e.g. Western Colonisers). This did however lead to the formation of the idea of the "White Man's Burden''.
"White Man's Burden" - a poem by British poet Rudyard Kipling perfectly depicts the perspective that was held towards countries that were colonised. It telegraphed the idea that it was the responsibility of colonists to "civilise" tribes and settlements. This is the major driving force in the cultural shifts in colonised nations, as trade companies (most famously the East Indian Trade Company) introduced Western schooling systems and Western government and altered society in nations which needed to be "civilised". This implementation of a "civilised, progressive" Western culture on top of "strange, alien" Eastern culture produces enormous reverberations which still affect post-colonial countries to this day, whether these are "good" or "bad" is to be discussed.
Colonialism through a Marxist and Leninist Lens
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a German philosopher, famous for his works "The Communist Manifesto" (1848) and "Das Kapital" (1867-1883). His economic critique of the system that is Capitalism is one of the most influential works in the modern era and was fertile ground for the blossoms of the battle that is Capitalism versus Communism. Marxism dictates that the "bourgeoisie"(ruling class) controlled the means of production of the "proletariat'' (working class) and this manifested as class conflict which eventually led to the self-destruction of the economic system. Marx proposed a socialist mode of production that was classless, so there would be no conflict between the two as they wouldn't exist. This created steady equality for all - a characteristic which was very contradictory to the British Empire.
Marx himself held no explicit theory on colonialism. However, a thorough extrapolation of his criticism of capitalism spotlights that Marx believed it was in the very nature of capitalism to seek new markets and expand already existing global markets. In works such as "Grundrisee'' and "Capital", Marx emphasized the bourgeoisie would attempt to expand globally to suppress the domestic industry and create a flow of income. To this extent, it can seem that imperialism is synonymous with capitalism, an idea that would appear subjectively "bad" from a Marxist prism.
Alternatively, imperialism may be seen as inevitable and a necessary part of the economic evolution of a country - rationalising the British Empire. Marx viewed colonialism as an essential part of bringing modernism into "backwards" countries that held a feudal system. This brings to light a different opinion that a Communist may hold upon the Empire. While introducing a capitalist system into a new country may be seen as subjectively "bad", it advances a nation economically. This starts the struggle of anti-capitalist movements and Marxist sects in that nation, and the introduction of a foreign regime that imposes a right-sided system allowed the fight against the system to begin.
Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) was a revolutionary and served as the first and founding President of the Soviet Union. Initially a Marxist, he applied some changes and created another branch of ideology called Leninism. A key figure in the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Lenin brought the ideology of Marxism to practice, which resulted in the creation of the Soviet Union, a one-party socialist state governed by the Communist Party. However, as part of the changes Lenin made to Marxism, he took a much harsher stance on Colonialism.
The Former President of the Soviet Union argued that colonialism and the British Empire was a method of delaying the inevitable revolutions that would form from the self-destructive nature of Capitalism by essentially pushing domestic crises onto other countries. This inherently perhaps damaged the country being colonised (of the many that were occupied by Imperial Britain) by inflicting problems that are not able to be dealt with by that country onto it. Conversely, the logical drive which formed the harsh critique of colonialism stems from the same thought process as Marxism; hegemony over other countries is an essential and inescapable fragment of capitalism.
In contrast, Marxist theorist Karl Kautsky would argue differently. Kautsky challenges the idea that imperialism leads to development, and rather that it leads to a steady relationship between the exploiters and the exploited. While initial colonialism increased due to competition from opposing capitalist nations, the ideology grew to create a steady relationship so the used could continue to be used. This perhaps may be seen as subjectively "bad", as there is no growth for the proletariat, the working class may not revolt against the" bourgeoisie", and there is no realization that through a Marxist or Leninist prism, the extended capitalist behaviour that is the Empire is self-destructive and a socialist perspective is never considered.
Colonialism through a Romantic Lens
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) is a French philosopher in the Romantic period and was influential in the development of both the Romantic ideology and Enlightenment. His most famous work is "On Education", reflecting the Romantic outlook on the art of raising infants. To summarise, the "Father of Romanticism" stated that children must be raised without the social constraints of society so they can flourish both academically and morally. Rousseau believed that society itself was corrupt and the invention of private property is the main cause of jealousy. This led to an immense drive for the "State of Nature". This is a state in which the social restraints of society are no longer present and there is no sense of envy, only unison.
It is possible to place the concept of the British Empire in the box that is Rousseau's framework. This may yield that subjectively, Rousseau may find the idea of colonialism or an Empire as "bad". A main-stay point of the Empire is "civilising the uncivilised". This would mean placing shackles of society on those living in the "State of Nature" - the desired state that Rousseau mentions. This would perhaps hot seat that Rousseau's theories would disagree with the consequence of placing more countries in a eurocentric version of "society" - a subjectively "bad" idea from this prism.
However, if observed from a different angle, it may seem that the idea of hegemony may present itself as favourable, as it eliminates the jealousy manufactured by opposing colonies. The concept of private property is something that Rousseau challenged, and from a broader viewpoint, colonisation may be seen as a country's "private property". This creates envy between states which is demonstrated in the buildup to World War One. German desire for English colonies after the Scramble for Africa in the late 19th Century caused harsh competition between both nations - a major factor in the build-up to the Great War. The elimination of this jealousy through countries being taken under a single banner may have prevented further conflict. However, as this was not achieved by the British Empire, a Rousseau-tainted lens may conclude that the colonisation and the British Empire was subjectively "bad".
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is an English philosopher (often seen in opposition to Rousseau's theories) and is regarded as one of the founders of political philosophy. His most famous work, Leviathan (1651), was greatly influential in governmental theory and proposed that subjects of a leader had no right to rebel against the leader unless their life was in imminent danger. Hobbes lived through the English Civil War, in which Parliamentarians rebelled against the Royalists as Charles I spent an exorbitant amount of taxes placing the country in severe debt. However, during this period, there was severe instability in rule, which crippled the country further. Hobbes also insisted that a leader must be indisputably strong, and their leadership should be unquestioned for a stable reign.
By placing imperialist ideology inside Hobbes' framework, it can be observed that Hobbes may consider the British Empire as subjectively "good". Hobbes desires strong leadership, one that cannot be weakened easily. Imperial Britain provides strong leadership globally and Hobbes would argue this creates global stability. This sense of calm internationally allows for the expansion of markets, and larger trade routes and facilitates the growth of the Industrial Revolution, something that can be considered critical for the modern world.
Conversely, alternative applications of Hobbes's theories may result in a different perspective. When the British Empire occupies another nation, it usurps power and there is a dramatic shift in control. This may be considered subjectively "bad" by Hobbes as it could be unnecessary and create a period of instability without a strong, justified leader. Similarly, when colonists leave a country they conquered, there is another dramatic power shift, which may create a worse period of uncertainty afterwards. This can be noticed in the divide between the Indian Subcontinent or African nations after the British departed in the 20th Century. Depending on the length and severity of insecurity in the country, Hobbes' argument varies. If the period of stability with the British Empire in power lasts for longer than the period of instability, and the state can recover a strong leader to control quickly and effectively, Hobbes may argue that the occupation by the British is necessary. Alternatively. If the period of stability provided by Imperial Britain or the period of uncertainty after throws the country into civil war or has multiple coups and shifts in leaders over the coming decade, then Hobbes may argue against colonial theory and the British Empire.
Conclusion
The Oxford dictionary definition of the lexeme "good" is an object "to be desired of or approved of". While many aspects of the British Empire subjectively negatively affected those that were colonised and positively affected the colonists, there also may be some lenses in which a subjectively "good" consequence occurred for the development of the globe, and some lenses shed light on subjectively "bad" consequences for various nations.
Bibliography
- Kohn M and Reddy K - "Colonialism": Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- An Introduction to Post-Colonial Theory - Peter Childs, Patrick Williams
- Marx on Colonialism and Imperialism - Postcolonialism - Wiley Library
- Karl Marx - Wikipedia
- Vladmir Lenin - Wikipedia
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Wikipedia
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/3232993
- Thomas Hobbes - Wikipedia