Hardt And Negri: A Comparative Analysis

The philosophers and political researchers Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri also have a philosophical theory about a type of human interaction which extends past globalization, which they call Empire. However, it does not adopt the same generally positive and optimistic tone that Appiah takes. Instead, their view is that this tend towards increased interdependency has began the creation of a homogeneous, monolithic power structure known as Empire. At the outset, this view of power relates to Thomas Hobbes’ views about the power of the state over the governed and the contract between the governed and the centralizing governing body (Hardt 7). Hardt and Negri give credit to earlier theorists who initially extrapolated Hobbes’ theories, assigning …show more content…
To begin their analysis of the concept of Empire, Hardt and Negri first begin with a historical recounting of the nature of previous Imperialist societies to which others may point to dispute the claim that post-modernity is somehow different from those of the past. The authors acknowledge that these past nations share characteristics in common: namely the combination of “judicial categories and universal ethical values” (Hardt 10). That is to say, previous nations affixed their actions to a particular set of values in order to justify them. This unifying ethic doesn’t necessarily need to be rooted in religion; rather, it can be based on any set of societal principles which the governing system particularly claims to be the creator and the ultimate embodiment …show more content…
This particular function of Empire is often characterized by the prevalence of “just war” (Hardt 12), or the idea that a sovereign nation has a right to wage war and because of a threat either to safety or to way of life. The authors contend that Empire is in some ways even more globalizing than the Imperialist ethos which preceded it. It incorporates the blurring of boundaries which traditionally delineated sovereign hosts of power. Hardt and Negri cite a resurgence of this kind of war in modern times, with a particular twist based on the new form of Empire: the new form of just war is based less on the “activity of defense or resistance” but has rather become an “activity that is justified in itself,” meaning that war conducted by those with power over those without power in pursuit of gain is characteristic of the new form of Empire (Hardt 13). This characterizes a certain disregard for sovereignty and individual nation’s authority, a signal of the dissolving borders and flow of power between previously established