Bhambra - state sovereignty and imperialism

What does Bhambra argue about the emergence of modern states?

That it is inseparable from European imperialism, including colonization, conquest, and the subjugation of non-European populations.

According to Bhambra, what role did European imperialism play in state formation?

A key role in shaping modern states, as many states that emerged were imperial in nature during their formation.

What is the conventional narrative of state formation?

State formation usually occurs as an European internal developments, particularly the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), American Revolution, and French Revolution.

Treaty of Westphalia (1648)

Considered the origin of modern statehood, establishing sovereign nation-states with territorial borders and mutual recognition

What role does Weber’s definition of the state play in conventional state formation narratives?

highlights the state’s monopoly on legitimate violence, which is central to understanding state legitimacy in conventional narratives.

How does Bhambra critique Weber’s definition of the state?

Bhambra argues that Weber’s focus on internal violence ignores how the same coercive powers were applied externally to subjugate colonized populations.

What is institutional differentiation in state formation theory?

It is the process by which the internal organization of a state evolves to address social and political problems like territorial organization and population management.

Bhambra view the omission of colonial histories in state formation narratives?

She critiques the theories for excluding the role of imperialism, which played a crucial role in the development of modern states.

How does Bhambra challenge the idea of "imperial states" vs. "nation-states"?

That many modern states, often seen as "nation-states," were originally imperial in nature during their formation due to colonization and external dominance.

How does the traditional narrative treat European imperialism?

it is often erased or neglected focusing only on internal, national developments like territorial organization and governance.

What were the actions of European imperial powers during the 17th and 18th centuries?

European powers expanded their control through colonization, economic domination, and military conquest.

What does Bhambra say about sovereignty in modern state formation?

Should be understood not just as internal control but as historically intertwined with external domination through imperialism.

What is Bhambra’s critique of Bob Jessop’s state formation model?

it relies too heavily on national histories, excluding the imperial dimension that shaped state formation.

How does Antony Anghie challenge the traditional concept of sovereignty?

Anghie argues that the traditional notion of sovereignty was used to exclude non-European peoples from full sovereignty, reinforcing imperial domination.

What role does violence play in Weber’s definition of the state?

In Weber’s view, the state is defined by its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within its borders, which grants it the authority to enforce laws.

How does Bhambra suggest we rethink state sovereignty?

Bhambra suggests that state sovereignty should be viewed as a product of both internal legitimacy and external domination through colonial expansion.

What is the significance of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648)?

It is seen as the beginning of the modern state system, where sovereignty, territorial boundaries, and mutual recognition among states were formalized.

What is the concept of "institutional differentiation" in state formation?

It refers to the way states evolve internally to address issues like population management and territorial control, with a focus on social and political solutions.

How do imperial states differ from nation-states?

Imperial states, like Britain, were not purely national but controlled vast colonies, while nation-states focus on a cohesive identity tied to territory and governance.

What critique does Bhambra have of Jessop's model of the nation-state?

Jessop's model focuses on the territorialization of power but fails to incorporate the imperial activities that shaped the formation of many states.

How does the concept of state legitimacy change with the inclusion of imperial history?

State legitimacy should be understood not only in terms of internal political control but also how it was shaped by colonial domination and imperial power dynamics.

How does Bhambra view the link between citizenship and imperial histories?

Bhambra argues that citizenship in modern states, e.g Britain, is deeply shaped by imperial histories that racialize and segregate people based on national identity.

What are the broader political consequences of ignoring imperial histories?

leads to persistent inequalities, exclusionary practices, and unfair citizenship and migration policies in global politics.

What role do imperial histories play in shaping modern state politics?

Imperial histories are critical in shaping global political structures, especially in areas like citizenship, migration, and national identity.

What is Bhambra’s stance on the intellectual error of excluding imperial history?

Bhambra argues that it is an intellectual error with far-reaching political consequences, as it overlooks the roots of contemporary inequalities.

What transformation does Bhambra seek through her approach to state formation?

Bhambra seeks a transformative shift in how we understand statehood, emphasizing the need to incorporate imperial histories