Suchergebnisse

Until deep into the 20th century, empire remained a source of pride for European states and their politicians. The 21st century, however, has seen the unexpected emergence of certain European states apologising to their former colonies. Analysing apologies from Germany, Belgium, Britain and Italy, this book explores the shifting ways in which these countries represent their colonial pasts and investigates what this reveals about contemporary international politics, particularly relations between (former) coloniser and colonised. It is argued that, far from renouncing colonialism in its entirety, the apologies are replete with discourses that are reminiscent of the core legitimising tenets of empire. Specifically, the book traces how the apologies both illuminate and recycle many of the inequalities, mind-sets and ambivalences that circulated at the height of empire.

This article builds on Gramscian conceptualisations of power. It does so by introducing `Hegemonic Excess Theory' as a tool for understanding political crises. For Antonio Gramsci and his adherents, the political and economic establishment fosters consent and allegiance amongst subordinate classes through the dissemination, inculcation and appropriation of seductive and pacifying ideologies. In this article, I argue that subordinate groups may adopt such ideals too well and to such an extent that it undermines key objectives of the establishment. As such, Hegemonic Excess Theory encapsulates the idea that the leading class's very success in imparting certain ideals among the population can magnify, become unwieldly, backfire and cause crisis for the political elite. I illustrate this through the 2016 Brexit vote, with a particular focus on how xenophobia and anti-migrant narratives and policy, including from the Remain campaign, played a pivotal role in sections of the electorate voting against the interests of the domestic and transnational establishment's commitment to the neoliberal enterprise of the EU. While not necessarily insurmountable, this has caused a significant crisis for the ruling class. In the conclusion, I contend that Hegemonic Excess Theory has considerable analytical value in understanding political crises far beyond Brexit.

Abstract
In this article, I analyze two recent diplomatic agreements between a colonizing state and a post-colonial state that address grave historical wrongdoings: the 2021 Germany–Namibia "Joint Declaration" regarding the colonial past and the 2015 Japan–South Korea "Joint Press Occasion" regarding Imperial Japan's use of so-called comfort women. These agreements point to an emerging trend of states openly negotiating, coordinating, offering, and accepting apologies. In analyzing these agreements, I re-pose Gayatri Spivak's classic question: Can the subaltern speak? Where Spivak demonstrates that the colonized subject is spoken for by both the colonizer and indigenous elites (and Western intellectuals), I demonstrate a similar process within these agreements. Specifically, a "double ventriloquism" occurs whereby both the (former) colonizing state and the post-colonial government collude to speak for the colonized in respect to offering a narrative of the wrongdoing, determining remedial measures, and agreeing that the issue is "closed." Such collusion frames the state as the sole interlocutor in the transitional justice process and is an exercise in marginalizing subaltern voices in addressing the past. Nevertheless, where Spivak is pessimistic about the prospects of the subaltern speaking, I demonstrate that apologies inadvertently afford the colonized an opportunity to publicly disrupt official narratives and restate demands for justice.

This article explores the political, strategic and emotional issue of victim groups deciding to continue or discontinue central components of a justice campaign in the aftermath of receiving 'truth'. Drawing on in-depth interviews, the article focuses on relatives and other stakeholders' varying positions on (dis)continuing the annual Bloody Sunday commemoration march after the publication of the Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry and the UK Prime Minister's apology for the massacre. I demonstrate that there has emerged an, at times, acrimonious schism between those who feel the apology and report were sufficient to stop the march and those who believe them to be insufficient. Thus, while much of the literature on political apology evaluates its effects on the dyadic relationship between victim and perpetrator, this article develops Sara Ahmed's concept of 'overing' to demonstrate that the ostensible moment of truth can create unanticipated and deleterious intra-victim tensions. The article concludes by suggesting practical measures emerging from the findings that other justice campaigns may consider.

Unexpectedly, several prominent European countries have begun to issue official state apologies to their former colonies. What does this proliferation of official colonial sorrow from such countries as Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Britain reveal about the normative tenets of the contemporary international order? This article analyses colonial apologies as crucial symbolic and ritualistic sites where state elites project liberal credentials and affirm liberal normative tenets in the international system. Specifically, the article demonstrates how these apologies for colonial atrocity appear to reinforce liberal conceptions of human rights, the renunciation of violence, cordial relations with formerly colonised states, and commitments to state accountability and transparency. Yet, textual analysis of several state apologies reveals that these performatives simultaneously contradict each of these liberal tenets. It finds that - even in apology - political elites reflect ambivalence about certain human rights violations; persist in glorifying or sanitising the violent colonial past; recycle paternalistic and hierarchical discourses and policies towards the apology's recipients; and offer contradictory notions of the state's historical responsibility. In exposing these performative contradictions of empirical sorrow, the article seeks to expand the discipline's understandings of, and dilemmas within, a key performative and ritualistic legitimation strategy whereby liberalism reproduces itself in the international system. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractUnexpectedly, several prominent European countries have begun to issue official state apologies to their former colonies. What does this proliferation of official colonial sorrow from such countries as Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Britain reveal about the normative tenets of the contemporary international order? This article analyses colonial apologies as crucial symbolic and ritualistic sites where state elites project liberal credentials and affirm liberal normative tenets in the international system. Specifically, the article demonstrates how these apologies for colonial atrocity appear to reinforce liberal conceptions of human rights, the renunciation of violence, cordial relations with formerly colonised states, and commitments to state accountability and transparency. Yet, textual analysis of several state apologies reveals that these performatives simultaneously contradict each of these liberal tenets. It finds that – even in apology – political elites reflect ambivalence about certain human rights violations; persist in glorifying or sanitising the violent colonial past; recycle paternalistic and hierarchical discourses and policies towards the apology's recipients; and offer contradictory notions of the state's historical responsibility. In exposing these performative contradictions of empirical sorrow, the article seeks to expand the discipline's understandings of, and dilemmas within, a key performative and ritualistic legitimation strategy whereby liberalism reproduces itself in the international system.