1.

Record Nr.

UNINA9910798040603321

Autore

O'Neill Daniel

Titolo

Edmund Burke and the Conservative Logic of Empire / / Daniel O'Neill

Pubbl/distr/stampa

Berkeley, CA : , : University of California Press, , [2016]

©2016

ISBN

0-520-28783-5

0-520-96286-9

Descrizione fisica

1 online resource (266 p.)

Collana

Berkeley Series in British Studies ; ; 10

Disciplina

325/.32

Soggetti

Imperialism - 18th century

Great Britain Politics and government 18th century

Lingua di pubblicazione

Inglese

Formato

Materiale a stampa

Livello bibliografico

Monografia

Note generali

Description based upon print version of record.

Nota di bibliografia

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Nota di contenuto

Front matter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Chapter 1. Burke and Empire in Context -- Chapter 2. The New World -- Chapter 3. India -- Chapter 4. Ireland -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Works Cited -- Index

Sommario/riassunto

Edmund Burke, long considered modern conservatism's founding father, is also widely believed to be an opponent of empire. However, Daniel O'Neill turns that latter belief on its head. This fresh and innovative book shows that Burke was a passionate supporter and staunch defender of the British Empire in the eighteenth century, whether in the New World, India, or Ireland. Moreover-and against a growing body of contemporary scholarship that rejects the very notion that Burke was an exemplar of conservatism-O'Neill demonstrates that Burke's defense of empire was in fact ideologically consistent with his conservative opposition to the French Revolution. Burke's logic of empire relied on two opposing but complementary theoretical strategies: Ornamentalism, which stressed cultural similarities between "civilized" societies, as he understood them, and Orientalism, which stressed the putative cultural differences distinguishing "savage" societies from their "civilized" counterparts. This incisive book also shows that Burke's argument had lasting implications, as his development of these two justifications for empire prefigured later



intellectual defenses of British imperialism.