User:Manuela.Irarraz/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/ Seminar Group 9/Imperialism

= Imperialism = Imperialism can be defined in multiple ways but summarised as the subjugation of a party to its own disadvantage, by a more dominant and powerful group. The term is most frequently used in the context of international power. A common mistake with the word imperialism, is its synonymous use with the word colonialism, as despite their similarities, they have distinct characteristics making them exclusive of one another. Being clear on the distinction of these terms is important when talking about imperialism, as colonialism focuses on the exertion of power by settlements whilst imperialism includes different forms of dominance and control.

Despite the most common connotations of Imperialism being those of socio-economic relevance, it is important to look at it in approaching knowledge and the disciplines because what we often think of as 'knowledge' is in fact a very Westernised concept. Due to the hundreds of years of European imperialism, whole social paradigms and schools of knowledge have been dismissed and replaced. As imperial countries dominated and sought to civilise the subjugated, they in turn taught them how to think, influencing and educating different cultures in the ways they saw superior. The way that disciplines and knowledge are often discussed depict primarily the thoughts of Western scholars and so it is necessary to look at how the global idea of knowledge may have been affected by this.

Definition
Imperialism refers to the subjugation of a weaker party by a dominant party to the disadvantage of the former and can be considered a type of dominance system. As such system it is very advanced as it generally involves a relation of dominance between nations. It is important to note that imperialism is a sub-type of dominance between nations and contains sub-types in itself as well; it consequently needs to be viewed in the context of a larger system of dominance systems. Johan Galtung defines imperialism as "a system that splits up collectivities and relates some of the parts to each other in relations of harmony of interest, and other parts in relations of disharmony of interest, or conflict of interest", which gives a more general structural definition that can be explored further by focusing on specific manifestations.

Imperialism vs. Colonialism
To understand imperialism, it is important to understand the difference between colonialism and imperialism. Both terms can be defined as gaining "political and economic control over a dependent territory". Although often used as synonyms, a clear distinction can be made. Whilst colonies historically refer to a group of people starting a settlement in a different part of the world and maintaining political ties to their country of origin, imperialism includes alternative methods of exercising and maintaining power in the subjugated country. Examples of these different forms would be settlement (direct) or remote influence (indirect).

Their etymology proves useful in determining a distinction among their confusing similarities. Imperialism comes from the Latin Imperium meaning to command, whilst Colonialism finds its roots in the word Colonus, meaning farmer. This highlights the key distinction between the two as being their intention. Imperialism has the intention from the outset to command and take over a weaker nation, spreading international power. Colonialism on the other hand originates in the intention to work in other lands, hence farmer, whilst still claiming allegiance to one's native country. Simply put, Imperialism seeks to exercise control over a preexisting society, whilst colonialism seeks to replace it.

The origin of imperialism
According to Leonard Woolf (1880-1969) modern imperialism began at the end of the 19th century when European governments consciously implemented policies that supported the economic gain of their subjects by means of controlling African states. Even though the gain in wealth due to exploitation of African states was limited for European countries, "the impact on the Africans themselves had been disastrous". In Woolf`s opinion the continued imperial policy employed by European states had little advantage but major disadvantages for Europe as it worsened the antagonism experienced in the First World War and increased vulnerability for states to attack.

Intellectual imperialism
Syed Hussein Alatas suggests that imperialism does not just affect political and economic structures but parallel to this development influences the way the dominated people think. This means in this type of imperialism the focus is not on the physical world but more on the world of thinking. This pattern of thinking can be traced back to intellectual imperialism, even thou intellectual imperialism is often underappreciated as a issue to consider in much depth. This form of imperialism often arises as an effect of direct imperialism or indirect power rooting in imperialism. Alatas suggests that the domination of the world of thinking arises as a parallel structure from the political and economic structural changes and domination.

This forced imitation of suppressed scholars leads to a lack of creativity as they cannot fully exercise their individuality and therefore are at a loss of original ideas. This comes with the phenomenon of Asian scholars, for example, linking their academic success in their minds to the fact of whether or not they are published in Western journals. Being independence and individualism are key to academic creativity as the anthropologists Malinowsky proved when making his theory of human behaviour.

One example of intellectual imperialism is the concept of "tutelage" and this governed the word of learning. Imperialistically governed countries were supposed to be dependent on the governing states and therefore it was accepted, for example, that education in knowledge had to take place either abroad or with resources from abroad. This was reasoned with in a similar way as the question of independence of colonies: they do have less knowledge just as they cannot be independent as they would not be able to maintain the country themselves. This illustrates the parallel structures in different forms of imperialism. In the world of academics, not only the location and source of education was linked to the dominating country, also the methods and topics and interests had to conform with the views and opinions native to the imperialistic country.

Intellectual imperialism can not only be found in now considered Third World countries but in many countries having been affected by imperialism, such as the US. An example of intellectual imperialism imposed by Europe can arguably be found in Higher Education. University courses often have Europe as the central subject and object of the content discussed: the conceptual mode and the subject matter. European thinkers preferably looked at and traditionally more popular, even though non-European thinkers also have a certain level of popularity. "'Intellectual imperialism assumes monopoly of, and dominance in, the affairs of science and wisdom.' - Syed Hussein Alatas, Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits, and Problems, 2000"Intellectual imperialism is not restricted to the world of education. It can be expanded onto other aspects of life if it connects to the think patterns of people. For instance, British sports were in some countries of the Empire considered the only option to be successful in this field, e.g. hockey and polo.

The challenges of imposed structures of thinking do need to be reconciled with the benefit of knowledge from different sources and input from other parts of the world. However, this process of accepting knowledge should not take place at the loss of independence or individuality and should neither happen in a manner of imitating personality.

Atalas suggests that intellectual imperialism imposed by the West continues to take place as the strongest and most developed form. One aspect critical of intellectual imperialism is, for instance racism and ethnocentrism, present in more underlying or more aggressive forms.

Linguistic Imperialism
"'Whereas once Britannia ruled the waves, now it is English which rules them' - Robert Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism, 1992" The imposition and enforcing of the language of the dominant country, upon the natives of the subjugated is known as linguistic imperialism and it is a phenomenon that has drastically changed the ways in which modern countries communicate. It is particularly noted through the extent at which English is spoken globally, however can also be seen in the spread of languages such as Spanish on both sides of the Atlantic. The global spread of language is necessitated by the spread of imperialist power, and so throughout history, as Empires have grown, as has the breadth of their native languages. This can be easily noted on analysing the most spoken global languages and in which regions they are spoken, almost mapping the historical spread of Empires. Unfortunately, many believe this form of imperialism to have led to a hierarchisation of language, prioritising those most spoken, or those of the dominant country Global statistics shed a harsh light on the extent of linguistic imperialism, particularly in Africa and the Americas. In the Americas, all 35 nations have an official state language rooted in Europe, Spanish being the most widely spoken among the majority of countries in Southern and Central America. This perhaps returns to the differentiation between colonisation and imperialism, as arguably this spread of languages is due to the violent colonisation of the Americas by European states in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Nonetheless it shows the extent of imperialist dominance regarding language as they replaced the plethora of native languages as the norm for public discourse. Similarly in Africa, although there is a larger density of tribal and native languages spoken, English, French, Dutch and Portuguese are all common official languages, particularly in Southern and Western Africa. 45 countries out of the continent's 54, have European languages as [one of] their official languages; a result of the large imperialist spread in Africa in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

For many, this form of imperialism is of great detriment to the world and the existence of indigenous languages. It is considered to impose a dominance that enforces the hierarchy of wealthier European and Western countries, above those less developed, and with slimmer opportunities. In fact, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas conceived the term linguicism, similar to terms like racism or sexism, of which linguistic imperialism is considered a sub-type. The extremity of this term is based on the implicit preference given to the education of, and ability to speak, imperial languages, most often English. This can be shown on the African continent where, as previously stated, the majority of countries have European official languages. However, these languages are not, by quite a significant margin, the most widely spoken. Furthermore, often in international aid programmes instigated in less developed countries, funding is only supplied for the education of the donor language. This can be largely seen in the education of English by Anglo-American aid programmes in countries like Kenya, and French in Nigeria. By process of natural selection, this leads to the discrimination (linguicism), and potential death of many of the hundreds of indigenous languages spoken globally, as they come second best to those of business and global understanding.

Conversely, many see the global spread of language as a positive thing and by no means a form of discrimination, rather a platform through which universal communication is aided. English is most commonly thought of as the global language of business, and French as that of law and diplomacy so making the education of these languages more universal expands opportunities for those who would have perhaps been more limited speaking their mother-tongue. Many argue that this is an implicit form of prejudice and that this linguistic imperialism reduces equal opportunity, but in retort it is suggested that the efforts made to expand dominant languages worldwide in fact advances the ideal of equal opportunity to a global scale. For example, following independence in Singapore, its government kept the imperial language of English as its official spoken language, in order to unite the respective ethnicities of its secondary languages Malay, Tamil and Mandarin. These three different groups were therefore able to communicate through this common language, as well as to the world's significant anglophone population. It is to this linguistic policy, a definite product of linguistic imperialism, that the economic success of Singapore is often accredited. Applied to a global scale, this serves the argument of linguistic imperialism as a positive presence, alongside the existence and retention of indigenous languages, as a way to trans-communicate, increase opportunity and unify citizens of different countries.

Imperialism in Geography and Cartography
Although maps have been produced, to some degree, since antiquity, attempts to produce accurate global maps coincide with the Age of Exploration, and the expansion of European imperialist countries into places further afield. With naval exploration, and technological advancements such as the compass, came the need to depict the world accurately in order for sailors to navigate their newfound lands and for countries to visually present their victories.

The Mercator project is the most famous and widely used global projection, designed originally in the 16th Century. It was designed by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator with the intention of making a map that could be very easily followed by sailors and explorers. In order to do this, Mercator turned all meridians and lines of latitude into straight lines, scaled to equal spacing so that a line of constant course could be followed at sea. The resulting projection largely distorted the size of countries based on their distance from the equator, with those further away appearing dramatically larger. As a result, countries such as Greenland appear to be equal in size to the entirety of Africa, despite actually being 14 times smaller. This projection is the most frequently used today, employed by even Google and Microsoft, and is the map thought of by most people when imagining the world. Critics frequently argue that this is due to Northern European countries appearing significantly larger than they actually are, and also depicted at the centre of the globe. Whether realised or not, this instils in people an innate imperialist attitude towards the size and placement of countries around the globe.

Many alternatives have been produced over the years, with the more precise Robinson and Peters projections becoming more and more commonplace. Despite not being entirely accurate, as this is an impossibility in creating a 2D projection of a 3D planet, they rescale the misrepresented countries to show their true relative size, a far more unusual and shocking sight to those eyes familiar with the Mercator projection. Even these projections have their controversies as they still depict a certain eurocentricity, and the Peters projection stretches vertically towards the North and South poles.

Imperialism of Art
The true definition of the word 'art' is something that has been much contested by art historians and critics since the rise of the discipline, however a new trend of belief is that in our modern use of the word 'art' we are in fact referring to a separate idea, namely 'fine art'. This term and way of viewing art is very much an 18th Century, Western ideal, arising with the ideologies of the Enlightenment. The idea of fine art refers to a relatively modern way of receiving it, treating it as something to be revered in itself rather than a talent and product of a craftsman. Larry Shiner neatly summarised this change as "separating artist from artisan, art from craft or entertainment, and aesthetic regard from mere enjoyment." Whilst before, an artist had been merely exercising his craft to the end of entertainment, it became far more of an intellectual endeavour to appreciate art during this time, largely associated with the rising 'worldly' ideologies of high society. John Stuart Mill even considered appreciation of high art such as opera or painting as 'higher pleasures' in his hierarchisation of pleasures with regard to utilitarianism.

The implication of this definition however, is that pre-18th Century societies, or those that weren't of the Western Enlightenment - namely the imperial nations - did create art, as it is acknowledged all the way back to 40,000BCE, but unintentionally. Therefore, this Western ideal is imposed onto works without the intention of being perceived as high art in the same way that Western art is. For example, AOA art (Africa, Oceania and the Americas), tending to be tribal craft such as masks or pottery, falls subject to the critical eye of the West, with the same criteria being applied in its consideration, and so they are made 'art by appropriation'. This could, in theory, be considered positively as art is then universally viewed from the same perspective, however in practice it actually creates a hierarchisation as this non-Western art cannot meet the same standards as the art produced with the intention of becoming 'fine art'. As a result it is then patronised and considered 'lesser' or 'other' than the canonical works of art history, inherently imposing a Eurocentric bias. Given that this definition of art, so universally implied in language today, arose in the golden-age of imperialism shows our innate imperialist agenda even in non-political matters. We rate Western art that meets the criteria devised in its own birthplace as higher than that produced without knowledge of this intention, despite both exercising skill and both having an intention to be enjoyed.

Economic imperialism
It has to be noted that the expression "economic imperialism" does not only refer to a relationship between countries but is also used to describe a behavior of the discipline of economics, which tends to "invade" other disciplines to deal with certain problems in that discipline without the "invitation" of that discipline.

Museums
Although museums, much like libraries, are often recognised as institutions set up to aid and strengthen knowledge of a variety of cultures and histories, the rise of 'The Museum' that we know today was largely a byproduct of the mass imperialism during the Enlightenment period, used as a tool to legitimise the spread of Empire by European countries. As a result of this, even today, the literature of museums and the way in which they present and curate their artefacts is often euphemistic, not necessarily hiding, but avoiding the truth of imperialism.

Stolen Artefacts
Looking at the history of many famous institutions is telling of this imperialist truth, and shows quite obviously the extent at which these museums were used to promote the strengths of imperialism to their national public. The British Museum, formed in 1753, was the first national public gallery in the world and was originally set up to house 71,000 objects of Sir Hans Sloane's collection, acquired throughout his years travelling and governing different nations of the British Empire. The most famous features of the institution's collection include the Elgin Marbles, acquired with ambiguous legality through the ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, and the Rosetta Stone, taken by the French during Napoleon's 1798 Egyptian campaign, and subsequently taken by the British in their victory. Both therefore stand as representatives for the global power and dominion that the British Empire held. In fact the building itself was designed with the architecture of the Parthenon in mind, along with many other buildings such as the Athenaeum Club and Marble Arch, in order to reflect a 'New Athens' in London; drawing a parallel to the ancient city in order to evoke the power of the Empire's capital. Similarly, whilst the Louvre existed long before Napoleon, it became what it is today, the largest museum in the world, under the first director of what was then the Napoleon Museum, displaying artefacts from the steals of Napoleon's campaigns and invasions.

Legitimisation of Imperialism Through Exhibition of 'The Other'
  Linda Colley said of the British Museum that it was a "conscious attempt to enshrine and glorify national culture", a quote that can be interpreted in many ways. Museums show the strength of national history and identity through historical artefacts located within the countries themselves, often showing their rise to global significance. Furthermore, the glorification of nations is also implicitly seen through the aforementioned artefacts, stolen through illegitimate means such as warfare, exhibiting their power. However, Colley's quote also shows the truth of museums justifying imperialism, enshrining national culture through its comparison with the 'other'. Foreign artefacts from the subjugated countries of imperialism are often shown as being somewhat primitive and subjects of an uncivilised culture. This tends not to be a negative depiction, as 'tribal' and 'primitive' collections are often exoticised and romanticised as those cultures with a stronger connection with nature and the mystical, in contrast with the scientific and rational ideals of the West. This depiction is unavoidably patronising, implying a cultural hierarchy, and implicitly justifying the means of Imperialism as a necessity in order to modernise and educate the primitive.

Furthermore, museums often entirely generalise and group together 'exotic' art solely based on its non-Western origins. Whilst Western artefacts will often be accompanied by literature explaining their respective context and meaning, the accompanying literature of artefacts of the 'other', tends only to explain in what country they were discovered (without mention to how they were acquired by the Imperial nation), and by whom they were donated. This again makes the art and its culture seem primitive as it is deemed unworthy of contextual consideration and its defining characteristic is the high standing, member of the Western public who previously owned it. This hierarchisation is further seen in the categorisation of collections in museums, grouping together unrelated locations and periods of time into generalised curations with titles such as 'Asia' or 'Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas' , sharing only in the fact that they are non-Western. Meanwhile, Western artefacts are separated into different media, epochs and more specific locations such as countries; again, an implicit inference that the civilisation of the West is more advanced than the imperial countries which it governs, therefore necessitating more specific categorisation.