Roy & Sejpalas: While this volume is called Evil Empire, a term borrowed from Ron-
ald Reagan’s description of the Soviet Union, there are many who think
of empire as the only sustainable administrative and political mechanism
to manage large populations. How might we challenge dominant voices,
such as Niall Ferguson, who put so much faith in thinking with the
grain of empire? On the flipside, how might we speak to liberals who
put their faith in American empire’s militarism in a post–9/11 era? Do
you see any way out of the current grip of imperial thinking?
ar: The “managed populations” don’t necessarily think from Ferguson’s
managerial perspective. What the managers see as stability, the man-
aged see as violence upon themselves. It is not stability that underpins
empire. It is violence. And I don’t just mean wars in which humans fight
humans. I also mean the psychotic violence against our dying planet.
I don’t believe that the current supporters of empire are supporters
of empire in general. They support the American empire. In truth, cap-
italism is the new empire. Capitalism run by white capitalists. Perhaps
a Chinese empire or an Iranian empire or an African empire would not
inspire the same warm feelings? “Imperial thinking,” as you call it, arises
in the hearts of those who are happy to benefit from it. It is resisted by
those who are not. And those who do not wish to be.
Empire is not just an idea. It is a kind of momentum. An impetus to
dominate that contains within its circuitry the inevitability of overreach
and self-destruction. When the tide changes, and a new empire rises,
the managers will change, too. As will the rhetoric of the old managers.
And then we will have new managers, with new rhetoric. And there
will be new populations who rise up and refuse to be managed.