Colonialism versus Imperialism

• Published date: 01 February 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00905917231193107
• Author: Barbara Arneil
• Date: 01 February 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917231193107

Political Theory

2024, Vol. 52(1) 146 –176

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00905917231193107

journals.sagepub.com/home/ptx

Article

Colonialism versus

Imperialism

Barbara Arneil1

Abstract

Contemporary scholars routinely argue colonialism and imperialism are

indistinguishable. In this essay, I challenge this argument. While it is true the

“colonial” and “imperial” overlap and intersect historically, I argue there is

a central thread of modern colonialism as an ideology that can be traced

from the seventeenth century to mid-twentieth century that was not only

distinct from—but often championed in explicit opposition to—imperialism.

I advance my argument in four parts. First, I identify key ways in which the

colonial can be distinguished from the imperial, including most importantly

the specific kind of productive power inherent in colonialism. Second,

I examine how colonialism and imperialism evolve in meaning and are

redefined by both champions and critics, in relation to each other in the late

nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. Third, I examine the historical moment

when colonialism and imperialism fully conflate after WWII through the UN

process of decolonization as the “salt water thesis” delimits colonialism to

mean foreign racialized domination, and it thus becomes synonymous with

imperialism. I conclude with an analysis of why the distinction still matters

in both theory and practice.

Keywords

imperialism, colonialism, domestic colonies, history of political thought

1Political Science Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Barbara Arneil, Professor, Political Science Department, University of British Columbia, 1866

Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada.

Email: arneil@mail.ubc.ca

1193107PTXXXX10.1177/00905917231193107Political TheoryArneil

research-article2023

Arneil 147

1. Some scholars have pointed toward some kind of distinction. Said (1993) dis-

tinguishes the two but ultimately concludes colonialism “is almost always a

consequence of imperialism.” (9) Wakefield (1830), Seeley (1883) and Finley

(1976) argue British settler colonies are distinct from imperial dependencies.

Bell (2013, 2016), Armitage (2012), and I (Arneil 2017) have all argued the

colonial and imperial are distinct—from a more critical perspective.

2. “[The colony is] always unstable and precarious, plagued by . . . becoming

another sort of entity” (Stoler 2011, 2). “Attempts to establish general theories of

colonialism . . . encounter problems . . . rooted in the ‘experiential plurality’ . . .

overly stipulative definitions should be resisted” (Butt 2013, 893).

3. While the title of my article is “Colonialism versus Imperialism,” my focus is

really on colonialism as I see it as the misunderstood term—the analysis of impe-

rialism is really limited to identifying how it differs from colonialism and then

also overlaps and/or diverges as both evolve.

Contemporary scholars routinely argue colonialism and imperialism are dif-

ficult if not impossible to distinguish. Kohn (2012) argues colonialism is the

“practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to

another,” leading to “one of the difficulties in defining colonialism . . . it is

hard to distinguish it from imperialism. Frequently the two concepts are

treated as synonyms.” Pitts (2010) argues to “distinguish systematically

between the imperial and colonial” is close to impossible because even if

some argue the latter involves “extensive domination” and the former “sub-

stantial settlement,” the “official, popular, and even scholarly usage is unsta-

ble, and thus, the terms ‘colonies’ and ‘postcolonial’ are applied equally to

spaces of significant settlement and to those without.” (213–14) Kumar

(2021), in his article on possible differences between the colonial and impe-

rial, concludes: “Colonies . . . are a part of empire [and] only have existence

as manifestations of an imperial drive” (304).1

While these scholars are correct that contemporary scholarship views

them as indistinguishable, I argue colonialism not only can but should be

distinguished from imperialism, even as they overlap and intersect histori-

cally and conceptually. To distinguish the two, we first need to define

them. Some scholars2 correctly argue it is impossible to posit a single defi-

nition for either. So, to be clear, the definitions I propose below are not

definitive, exhaustive, or exclusive. Rather, I identify a central ideological

thread in each, because if we do not define them, something profound is

lost in our historical understanding of—specifically—colonialism since

they became fully conflated following WWII, as I shall discuss.3