《《帝国》（英文版） .pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《《帝国》（英文版） .pdf（496页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、EMPIRE EMPIRE Michael HardtAntonio Negri HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England2000 Copyright ? 2000 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First Harvard University Press paperback edition, 2001 Library o
2、f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hardt, Michael. Empire / Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-674-25121-0 (cloth) ISBN 0-674-00671-2 (pbk.) 1. Imperialism.I. Negri, Antonio, 1933.II. Title. JC359.H2792000 325?.32?09045dc2199-39619 Fou
3、rth printing, 2001 Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right. Ani DiFranco Men fi ght and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and then it turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fi ght for what they meant under another name.
4、William Morris ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the friends and colleagues who read parts of this manuscript and from whose comments we benefi ted: Robert Adelman, E tienne Balibar, Denis Berger, Yann Moulier Boutang, Tom Conley, Arif Dirlik, Luciano Ferrari- Bravo, David Harvey, Fred Jameson,
5、 Rebecca Karl, Wahneema Lubiano, Saree Makdisi, Christian Marazzi, Valentin Mudimbe, Judith Revel, Ken Surin, Christine Thorsteinsson, Jean-Marie Vincent, Paolo Virno, Lindsay Waters, and Kathi Weeks. The quote by Ani DiFranco on page v is from My IQ, copyright ? 1993 Righteous Babe Music, all right
6、s reserved, and is used by permission. CONTENTS Prefacexi PART 1The Political Constitution of the Present1 1.1 World Order3 1.2 Biopolitical Production22 1.3 Alternatives within Empire42 PART 2Passages of Sovereignty67 2.1 Two Europes, Two Modernities69 2.2 Sovereignty of the Nation-State93 2.3 The
7、Dialectics of Colonial Sovereignty114 2.4 Symptoms of Passage137 2.5 Network Power: U.S. Sovereignty and the New Empire160 2.6 Imperial Sovereignty183 INTERMEZZO: COUNTER-EMPIRE205 PART 3Passages of Production219 3.1 The Limits of Imperialism221 3.2 Disciplinary Governability240 3.3 Resistance, Cris
8、is, Transformation260 3.4 Postmodernization, or The Informatization of Production280 3.5 Mixed Constitution304 3.6 Capitalist Sovereignty, or Administering the Global Society of Control325 xCON TENTS PART 4The Decline and Fall of Empire351 4.1 Virtualities353 4.2 Generation and Corruption370 4.3 The
9、 Multitude against Empire393 Notes415 Index473 PREFACE Empire is materializing before our very eyes. Over the past several decades, as colonial regimes were overthrown and then precipitously after the Soviet barriers to the capitalist world market fi nally collapsed, we have witnessed an irresistibl
10、e and irreversible globalization of economic and cultural exchanges. Along with the global market and global circuits of production has emerged a global order, a new logic and structure of rulein short, a new form of sovereignty. Empire is the political subject that effectively regulates theseglobal
11、 exchanges,thesovereign powerthatgoverns theworld. Many argue that the globalization of capitalist production and exchangemeansthateconomicrelationshavebecomemoreautono- mous from political controls, and consequently that political sover- eignty has declined. Some celebrate this new era as the liber
12、ation of the capitalist economy from the restrictions and distortions that political forces have imposed on it; others lament it as the closing of the institutional channels through which workers and citizens can infl uence or contest the cold logic of capitalist profi t. It is certainly true that,
13、in step with the processes of globalization, the sovereignty of nation-states, while still effective, has progressively declined. The primary factors of production and exchange money, technology,people, andgoodsmove withincreasing ease across national boundaries; hence the nation-state has less and
14、less power to regulate these fl ows and impose its authority over the economy. Even the most dominant nation-states should no longer be thought of as supreme and sovereign authorities, either outside or even within their own borders. The decline in sovereignty of nation- states, however, does not me
15、an that sovereignty as such has declined.1 xiiPRE FACE Throughout the contemporary transformations, political controls, state functions, and regulatory mechanisms have continued to rule the realm of economic and social production and exchange. Our basic hypothesis is that sovereignty has taken a new
16、 form, composed of a series of national and supranational organisms united under a single logic of rule. This new global form of sovereignty is what we call Empire. The declining sovereignty of nation-states and their increasing inability to regulate economic and cultural exchanges is in fact one of
17、 the primary symptoms of the coming of Empire. The sovereignty of the nation-state was the cornerstone of the imperialisms that Europeanpowersconstructedthroughoutthemodernera.ByEm- pire, however, we understand something altogether different from imperialism. The boundaries defi ned by the modern sy
18、stem of nation-states were fundamental to European colonialism and eco- nomic expansion: the territorial boundaries of the nation delimited the center of power from which rule was exerted over external foreign territories through a system of channels and barriers that alternately facilitated and obs
19、tructed the fl ows of production and circulation. Imperialism was really an extension of the sovereignty of the European nation-states beyond their own boundaries. Even- tually nearly all the worlds territories could be parceled out and the entire world map could be coded in European colors: red for
20、 British territory, blue for French, green for Portuguese, and so forth. Wherever modern sovereignty took root, it constructed a Leviathanthatoverarcheditssocialdomainandimposedhierarchical territorial boundaries, both to police the purity of its own identity and to exclude all that was other. The p
21、assage to Empire emerges from the twilight of modern sovereignty. In contrast to imperialism, Empire establishes no terri- torial center of power and does not rely on fi xed boundaries or barriers. It is a decentered and deterritorializing apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire
22、 global realm within its open, expandingfrontiers.Empiremanageshybrididentities,fl exiblehier- archies,andpluralexchangesthroughmodulatingnetworksofcom- PRE FACExiii mand. The distinct national colors of the imperialist map of the world have merged and blended in the imperial global rainbow. The tra
23、nsformation of the modern imperialist geography of the globe and the realization of the world market signal a passage within the capitalist mode of production. Most signifi cant, the spatial divisions of the three Worlds (First, Second, and Third) have been scrambled so that we continually fi nd the
24、 First World in the Third, the Third in the First, and the Second almost nowhere at all. Capital seems to be faced with a smooth worldor really, a world defi ned by new and complex regimes of differentiation and homogenization, deterritorialization and reterritorialization. The construction of the p
25、aths and limits of these new global fl ows has been accompanied by a transformation of the dominant productive processesthemselves,withtheresultthattheroleofindustrialfactory laborhasbeenreducedandprioritygiveninsteadtocommunicative, cooperative, and affective labor. In the postmodernization of the
26、global economy, the creation of wealth tends ever more toward what we will call biopolitical production, the production of social life itself, in which the economic, the political, and the cultural increasingly overlap and invest one another. Manylocatetheultimateauthoritythatrulesovertheprocesses o
27、f globalization and the new world order in the United States. Proponents praise the United States as the world leader and sole superpower, and detractors denounce it as an imperialist oppressor. Both these views rest on the assumption that the United States has simplydonnedthemantleofglobalpowerthat
28、theEuropeannations have now let fall. If the nineteenth century was a British century, then the twentieth century has been an American century; or really, if modernity was European, then postmodernity is American. The most damning charge critics can level, then, is that the United States is repeatin
29、g the practices of old European imperialists, while proponents celebrate the United States as a more effi cient and more benevolent world leader, getting right what the Europeans got wrong. Our basic hypothesis, however, that a new imperial form ofsovereigntyhasemerged,contradictsboththeseviews.TheU
30、nited xivPRE FACE States does not, and indeed no nation-state can today, form the center of an imperialist project. Imperialism is over. No nation will be world leader in the way modern European nations were. The United States does indeed occupy a privileged position in Empire, but this privilege de
31、rives not from its similarities to the old European imperialist powers, but from its differences. These differences can be recognized most clearly by focusing on the prop- erly imperial (not imperialist) foundations of the United States constitution, where by constitution we mean both the formal con
32、stitution, the written document along with its various amend- ments and legal apparatuses, and the material constitution, that is, the continuous formation and re-formation of the composition of social forces. Thomas Jefferson, the authors of the Federalist, and the other ideological founders of the
33、 United States were all inspired by the ancient imperial model; they believed they were creating on the other side of the Atlantic a new Empire with open, expanding frontiers,wherepowerwouldbeeffectivelydistributedinnetworks. This imperial idea has survived and matured throughout the history of the
34、United States constitution and has emerged now on a global scale in its fully realized form. We should emphasize that we use Empire here not as a metaphor, which would require demonstration of the resemblances between todays world order and the Empires of Rome, China, the Americas, and so forth, but
35、 rather as a concept, which calls primarily for a theoretical approach.2The concept of Empire is characterized fundamentally by a lack of boundaries: Empires rule has no limits. First and foremost, then, the concept of Empire posits a regime that effectively encompasses the spatial totality, or real
36、ly thatrulesovertheentirecivilizedworld.Noterritorialboundaries limit its reign. Second, the concept of Empire presents itself not as a historical regime originating in conquest, but rather as an order that effectively suspends history and thereby fi xes the existing state of affairs for eternity. F
37、rom the perspective of Empire, this is the way things will always be and the way they were always meant to be. In other words, Empire presents its rule not as a transitory PRE FACExv moment in the movement of history, but as a regime with no temporal boundaries and in this sense outside of history o
38、r at the end of history. Third, the rule of Empire operates on all registers of the social order extending down to the depths of the social world. Empire not only manages a territory and a population but also creates the very world it inhabits. It not only regulates human interactions but also seeks
39、 directly to rule over human nature. The object of its rule is social life in its entirety, and thus Empire presents the paradigmatic form of biopower. Finally, although the practice of Empire is continually bathed in blood, the concept of Empire is always dedicated to peacea perpetual and universal
40、 peace out- side of history. The Empire we are faced with wields enormous powers of oppression and destruction, but that fact should not make us nostal- gic in any way for the old forms of domination. The passage to Empire and its processes of globalization offer new possibilities to the forces of l
41、iberation. Globalization, of course, is not one thing, and the multiple processes that we recognize as globalization are not unifi ed or univocal. Our political task, we will argue, is not simply to resist these processes but to reorganize them and redirect them toward new ends. The creative forces
42、of the multitude that sustain Empire are also capable of autonomously constructing a counter-Empire, an alternative political organization of global fl ows and exchanges. The struggles to contest and subvert Empire, as well as those to construct a real alternative, will thus take place on the imperi
43、al terrain itselfindeed, such new struggles have already begun to emerge. Through these struggles and many more like them, the multitude will have to invent new democratic forms and a new constituent power that will one day take us through and beyond Empire. The genealogy we follow in our analysis o
44、f the passage from imperialism to Empire will be fi rst European and then Euro- American, not because we believe that these regions are the exclu- sive or privileged source of new ideas and historical innovation, but simply because this was the dominant geographical path along xviPRE FACE whichtheco
45、nceptsandpracticesthatanimatetodaysEmpiredevel- opedin step, as we will argue, with the development of the capitalist mode of production.3Whereas the genealogy of Empire is in this sense Eurocentric, however, its present powers are not limited to any region. Logics of rule that in some sense origina
46、ted in Europe and the United States now invest practices of domination throughout the globe. More important, the forces that contest Empire and effectively prefi gure an alternative global society are themselves not limited to any geographical region. The geography ofthesealternativepowers,thenewcar
47、tography,isstillwaitingtobe writtenor really, it is being written today through the resistances, struggles, and desires of the multitude. In writing this book we have tried to the best of our abilities to employ a broadly interdisciplinary approach.4Our argu- ment aims to be equally philosophical an
48、d historical, cultural and economic, political and anthropological. In part, our object of study demands this broad interdisciplinarity, since in Empire the bound- aries that might previously have justifi ed narrow disciplinary ap- proaches are increasingly breaking down. In the imperial world the e
49、conomist, for example, needs a basic knowledge of cultural production to understand the economy, and likewise the cultural critic needs a basic knowledge of economic processes to understand culture. That is a requirement that our project demands. What we hope to have contributed in this book is a general theoretical framework and a toolbox of concepts for theorizing and acting in and against Empire.5 Like most large books, this one can be read in many different ways: front to back, back to front, in pieces, in a hopscotch pattern, or through correspondenc