POST-IMPERIAL TRAJECTORIES IN WORLD POLITICS

Introduction: The article deals with the notion of post-empire, which implies numerous situations and practices that arise after the collapse of empires. The post-empires have long been the object of close attention of researchers, which, however, did not lead to the development of an adequate categorical apparatus. Having said that, the article analyzes the concept by determining the main directions for the development of post-empires rather than by formulating a strict definition. Materials and methods: From the theoretical and methodological point of view, the authors rely on the hermeneutic approach, which allows combining descriptive techniques and analysis of subjective aspects of the given phenomenon. The authors also turn to a comparative-historical method for understanding the correlation and interrelation of specific post-imperial historical situations. The material of the study mainly consists of European states’ historical experience (including Turkey). The reason for that is the structure and the content of the scientific discourse in the study of post-empires. The authors also draw attention to the experience of South Africa and Venezuela, which to some extent compensates for the original Eurocentrism presented in scientific generalizations. Research results: As a result of the research, it was revealed that the post-empires can develop in three main ways (trajectories). The first one implies the reproduction of imperial practices by states that are no longer part of or are not empires themselves. An important element of this behavior is the “myth of the empire”, which legitimizes the non-cooperative behavior of such a state. The second trajectory of the post-imperial behavior is to return to the imperial stage. Despite the optimism about the globalization and ultimate collapse of empires in the scientific discourse, the authors note that there is a significant political and socio-economic infrastructure for the revival of empires. Finally, the third way of postempires’ development is the trans-nationalization of imperial practices. This trajectory implies a combination of the potential of non-state and quasi-state actors in the world politics with well-established imperial practices, including ideocratic ones. Discussions and conclusions: The authors came to the conclusion about the multiplicity of ways of development as a basis for understanding the phenomenon of post-empire. The further attention of researchers can be focused on revealing the post-imperial trajectories that are not specified in the article (for example, within the framework of theories of democratic transit).

post-empire, myth of empire, imperial nostalgia, imperial revival

1. Alekseeva T.A., 2007. Rossija v prostranstve global’nogo vosprijatija [Russia in the space of global perception ]. Mezhdunarodnye process [International Trends]. Vol. 5. № 14.

2. Vodolazov G.G.. 2015. Real’nyj gumanizm kak ideologija sovremennosti [Real humanism as the ideology for current times]. Vestnik Rossijskogo gosudarstvennogo gumanitarnogo universiteta [Russian State Humanitaruan University Review]. № 13.

3. Kaspje S.I., 1997. Imperii: genezis, struktura, funkcii [Empires: origin, structure, functions]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija [Polis. Political Studies]. № 5.

4. Appadurai A., 1990. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Theory, Culture & Society. № 7.

5. Barkey K., 1997. Thinking About Consequences of Empire. After Empire. Multiethnic societies and nation-building. The Soviet Union and the Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires. Ed. by K. Barkey, M. von Hagen. Boulder: Westview Press.

6. Barton G.A., 2014. Informal Empire and the Rise of One World Culture. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

7. Brubaker R., 2009. Accidental diasporas and external ‘homelands’ in Central and Eastern Europe: Past and present. Transnationalism: Diasporas and the Advent of a New (Dis)order. Ed. by Ben-Rafael E. and Sternberg Y. Leiden and Boston.

8. Centeno M.A., Enriquez E., 2010. Legacies of empire? Theory and Society. Vol. 39. № 3/4.

9. Gilroy P., 2004. After Empire: Melancholia or convivial culture? Abingdon: Routledge.

10. Metzler I., 2011. Between church and state: Stem cells, embryos and citizens in Italian politics. Reframing rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the genetic age. Cambridge: MIT Press.

11. Motyl A.J., 1999. Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Politics. Vol. 31. No. 2.

12. Snyder J., 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca&London: Cornell University Press.

13. Tutino S., 2011. Empire of Souls Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14. Wimmer А., MinSource В., 2006. From Empire to Nation-State: Explaining Wars in the Modern World, 1816-2001. American Sociological Review. Vol. 71. № 6.