Early Liberal Thinkers' Perspectives on Colonialism: The Limited Universality Paradox

Abstract

This article aims to identify the approaches of early liberal thinkers—Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Kant, Tocqueville, and Mill—regarding colonialism. The main finding of the article, which is conducted through a literature review, is that all of these thinkers, albeit for different reasons, put forward arguments that support and legitimise colonialism. Another common feature among them is that they described societies whose lands were occupied as "barbaric" or "savage". In line with this, it is noted that, with the exception of Tocqueville, the thinkers claimed that colonialism would bring benefits such as "civilisation", "prosperity", and "progress" to the colonised peoples. This claim helped mitigate the tension between advocating core liberal values—such as equality, justice, liberty, and democracy—and supporting colonial practices by European states that violated fundamental human rights. Although colonialism was attempted to be legitimised on the grounds that it would bring “benefits” to the colonies, it is evident that colonial practices infringed upon the basic human rights of indigenous peoples, including the right to life, property, freedom, and equality. The disparity between the rights granted to Europeans and those afforded to colonised peoples indicates that these thinkers defended key liberal values within a universality limited to European societies. This contradiction, a central debate in the history of liberal thought, is termed in this article the "paradox of limited universality". The paradox of limited universality is intended as a conceptual tool for analysing the relationship between the universal ideals of liberalism and the exclusionary practices of colonialism.

Keywords

• Colonialism
• Liberalism
• Universality
• Limited Universality Paradox
• History of Political Thought

Ethical Statement

During the writing process of the study “Early Liberal Thinkers' Perspectives on Colonialism: The Limited Universality Paradox” scientific rules, ethical and citation rules were followed. No falsification was made on the collected data and this study was not sent to any other academic publication medium for evaluation. Ethics Committee Permission is not required. Declaration of Conflict: There is no potential conflict of interest in the study. Funding: No funding was received from any institution or organization for this study. Statement of Use for Artificial Intelligence and Its Types: Artificial intelligence and its various types were not used in the writing of this article. Data Sharing Statement: I declare that, upon reasonable request for the purpose of verifying the findings, I can share the data of this study according to the conditions specified in the relevant section of the "ethical principles and publication policy".

Erken Dönem Liberal Düşünürlerin Sömürgeciliğe Bakışı: Sınırlı Evrensellik Paradoksu

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, erken dönem liberal düşünürler olarak kabul edilen Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Kant, Tocqueville ve Mill’in sömürgecilik konusundaki yaklaşımlarının tespit edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Kaynak tarama yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilen çalışmanın temel tespiti, bu düşünürlerin tamamının, farklı gerekçelerle de olsa, sömürgeciliği destekleyen ve meşrulaştıran tezlerinin bulunduğudur. İncelenen düşünürlerin bir diğer ortak tutumu, toprakları işgal edilen toplumları "barbar", "vahşi" gibi terimlerle nitelendirmeleridir. Bu yaklaşım paralelinde, Tocqueville dışındaki düşünürlerin sömürgeciliğin sömürge halklarına “uygarlık”, “zenginleşme”, “ilerleme” gibi faydalar getireceğini savundukları tespit edilmiştir. Bu iddia, bir yandan eşitlik, adalet, özgürlük, demokrasi gibi temel liberal değerleri savunurken diğer yandan Avrupalı devletlerin temel insan haklarını ihlal eden sömürgecilik uygulamalarını desteklemenin yarattığı gerilimi yumuşatıcı bir işlev görmüştür. Ancak sömürgelere “fayda” getireceği iddiasıyla meşrulaştırmaya da çalışılsa, sömürgeciliğin yerli halkların yaşam hakkı, mülkiyet hakkı, özgürlük ve eşitlik gibi temel insan haklarını ihlal ettiği açıktır. Avrupalılara tanınan haklarla sömürge halklarının layık görüldüğü hakların birbirinden farklı olması, söz konusu düşünürlerin eşitlik, demokrasi, özgürlük gibi temel liberal değerleri Avrupalı toplumlarla sınırlı bir evrensellik anlayışı içinde savunduğunu göstermektedir. Liberal düşünce tarihinin temel tartışma alanlarından birini oluşturan bu çelişki, bu çalışmada “sınırlı evrensellik paradoksu” olarak nitelendirilmiştir. "Sınırlı evrensellik paradoksu" ifadesinin liberalizmin evrensel idealleriyle sömürgeciliğin dışlayıcı pratikleri arasındaki ilişkiyi analiz etmeye yönelik kavramsal bir araç olarak kullanılması amaçlanmıştır.

Keywords

• Sömürgecilik
• Liberalizm
• Evrensellik
• Sınırlı Evrensellik Paradoksu
• Siyasi Düşünce Tarihi

Ethical Statement

“Erken Dönem Liberal Düşünürlerin Sömürgeciliğe Bakışı: Sınırlı Evrensellik Paradoksu” başlıklı çalışmanın yazım sürecinde bilimsel kurallara, etik ve alıntı kurallarına uyulmuş; toplanan veriler üzerinde herhangi bir tahrifat yapılmamış ve bu çalışma herhangi başka bir akademik yayın ortamına değerlendirme için gönderilmemiştir. Bu araştırma da etik kurul kararı zorunluluğu bulunmamaktadır. Çatışma Beyanı: Çalışmada herhangi bir potansiyel çıkar çatışması söz konusu değildir. Finansman: Bu çalışma için herhangi bir kurum veya kuruluştan destek alınmamıştır. Yapay Zeka ve Türleri Kullanım Beyanı: Bu makalenin yazımında yapay zeka ve türleri kullanılmamıştır. Veri Paylaşım Beyanı: Bu çalışmanın verilerini bulguların doğrulanması amacıyla makul bir talep üzerine “etik ilkeler ve yayın politikası”nın ilgili kısmında belirtilen şartlara göre paylaşabileceğimi beyan ederim.

References

1. Ajei, M., & Flikschuh, K. (2014). Colonial mentality: Kant's hospitality right then and now. In K. Flikschuh & L. Ypi (Eds.), Kant and colonialism (pp. 145–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Aravamudan, S. (2009). Hobbes and America. In D. Carey & L. Festa (Eds.), The postcolonial enlightenment: Eighteenth-century colonialism and postcolonial theory (pp. 37–70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Armitage, D. (2012). John Locke: Theorist of empire? In S. Muthu (Ed.), Empire and modern political thought (pp. 84–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Arneil, B. (1996). John Locke and America: The defence of English colonialism. Clarendon Press.
5. Atanassow, E. (2017). Colonization and democracy: Tocqueville reconsidered. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000630
6. Azzarà, S. (2011). Settling accounts with liberalism: On the work of Domenico Losurdo. Historical Materialism, 19(2), 92–112. doi: 10.1163/156920611X573815
7. Bell, D. (2009). Republican imperialism: J. A. Froude and the virtue of empire. History of Political Thought, 30, 166–191. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26224047
8. Bell, D. (2014). What is liberalism? Political Theory, 42(6), 682–715. doi: 10.1 177/0090591714535103

9. Bell, D. (2016). Reordering the world: Essays on liberalism and empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10. Berlin, I. (1950). Political ideas in the twentieth century. Foreign Affairs, 28(3), 351. https://doi.org/10.2307/20030256
11. Bernasconi, R., & Mann, A. M. (2005). The contradictions of racism: Locke, slavery, and the two treatises. In A. Valls (Ed.), Race and racism in modern philosophy (pp. 89–107). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
12. Bhambra, G. K., & Holmwood, J. (2021). Colonialism and modern social theory. Cambridge: Polity.
13. Blackburn, R. (1997). The making of New World slavery, from the baroque to the modern, 1492–1800. New York: Verso.
14. Boesche, R. C. (1981). The strange liberalism of Alexis de Tocqueville. History of Political Thought, 2(3), 495–524. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26212221
15. Boesche, R. (2006). Tocqueville's road map: Methodology, liberalism, revolution, and despotism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
16. Brower, B. (2009). A desert named peace: The violence of France’s empire in the Algerian Sahara, 1844–1902. New York: Columbia University Press.
17. Capaldi, N. (2011). John Stuart Mill (Çev: İ. H. Yılmaz). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
18. Curtis, M. (2009). Orientalism and Islam: European thinkers, Middle East and India. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. David, L. (2018). Human rights as an ideology? Obstacles and benefits. Critical Sociology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920518798015
20. Deane, S. (2004). Burke and Tocqueville: New worlds, new beings. boundary 2, 31(1), 1–23. Erişim adresi: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/54259
21. Downes, P. (2015). Hobbes, sovereignty, and early American literature. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Duan, D. (2010). Reconsidering Tocqueville’s imperialism. Ethical Perspectives, 17(3), 415–447. https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.17.3.2053890
23. Eze, E. C. (1997). The color of reason: The idea of “race” in Kant’s anthropology. In E. C. Eze (Ed.), Postcolonial African philosophy: A critical reader (pp. 103–140). USA: Blackwell Publishers.
24. Farr, J. (2008). Locke, natural law and New World slavery. Political Theory, 36(4), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591708317899
25. Greene, T. M. (1957). Liberalism, its theory and practice. Austin: The University of Texas Press.
26. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan, or the matter, forme, & power of a common-wealth ecclesiasticall and civill. London: Andrew Crooke.
27. Hobbes, T. (1983). De Cive (H. Warrender, Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
28. Hobbes, T. (2007). Leviathan veya bir din ve dünya devletinin içeriği, biçimi ve kudreti (6. Baskı, Çev: S. Lim). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
29. Hobson, J. M. (2012). The Eurocentric conception of world politics: Western international theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. İnce, O. U. (2013). Colonial capitalism and the dilemmas of liberalism: Locke, Burke, Wakefield and the British Empire (Doctoral Dissertation). Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
31. İnce, O. U. (2018). Colonial capitalism and the dilemmas of liberalism. Oxford University Press.
32. Jardin, A. (1988). Tocqueville: A biography (1805–5) (Trans: L. Davis, R. Hemenway, Ed.). London: Peter Halban.
33. Kant, I. (1970). Perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch. In H. Reiss (Ed.), Kant’s political writings (pp. 41–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Kant, I. (1991). The metaphysics of morals (Trans: M. Gregor). New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Kant, I. (1996). Practical philosophy (Trans: M. Gregor). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Kant, I. (1999). Of the different human races. In R. Bernasconi & T. L. Lott (Eds.), The idea of race (pp. 8–22). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
37. Kant, M. I. (2011). Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime. In P. Frierson & P. Guyer (Eds.), Immanuel Kant: Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime and other writings (pp. 13–62). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Kant, I. (2020). Ebedi barış üzerine felsefi bir tasarı (Çev: C. Yeşilçayır). Ankara: Fol Yayınları.
39. Kant, I. (2023). Ahlakın metafiziği: Hukuk öğretisinin metafizik temel ilkeleri (2. Baskı, Çev: A. Heper). Ankara: Fol Kitap.
40. Kekes, J. (1997). Against liberalism. New York: Cornell University Press.
41. Kleingeld, P. (2014). Kant's second thoughts on colonialism. In K. Flikschuh & L. Ypi (Eds.), Kant and colonialism: Historical and critical perspectives (pp. 43–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Koerner, K. F. (1985). Liberalism and its critics. New York: St. Martin's Press.
43. Kohn, M. (2008). Empire’s law: Alexis de Tocqueville on colonialism and the state of exception. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 255–278. doi:10.10170S0008423908080402
44. Kolia, Z. (2015). Colonial theology: John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Charles Darwin and the emergence of the colonial-capitalist world system, 1500–1900 (Doctoral Dissertation). York University, Toronto, Ontario.
45. Larrain, J. (1989). Theories of development: Capitalism, colonialism and dependency. Polity Press.
46. Larrain, J. (1991). Classical political economists and Marx on colonialism and 'backward' nations. World Development, 19(2/3), 225–243.
47. Laudani, R. (2014). Nova Totius Terrarum Orbis: Modern theory of sovereignty and the neutralization of Atlantic disobedience. Storicamente, 10. https://doi.org/10.12977/stor582
48. Locke, J. (2012). Yönetim üzerine ikinci inceleme: Sivil yönetimin gerçek kökeni, boyutu ve amacı üzerine bir deneme (2. Baskı, Çev: F. Bakırcı). Ebabil Yayınları.
49. Losurdo, D. (2011). Liberalism: A counter-history (Çev: G. Elliott). London: Verso.
50. Macpherson, C. B. (1990). The political theory of possessive individualism (13th ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
51. Malcolm, N. (1981). Hobbes, Sandys, and the Virginia Company. Historical Journal, 24(2), 297–321.
52. Malcolm, N. (2002). Aspects of Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Marwah, I. S. (2019). Liberalism, diversity and domination: Kant, Mill and the government of difference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54. McCabe, H. (2010). ‘Under the general designation of Socialist’: The many-sided radicalism of John Stuart Mill (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oxford.
55. McCarthy, T. (2009). Race, empire and the idea of human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Mehta, U. S. (1999). Liberalism and empire: A study in nineteenth-century British liberal thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
57. Mill, J. S. (1973). Civilization. In G. Himinelfarb (Ed.), Essays on politics and culture (p. 46). Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
58. Mill, J. S. (1974). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive (J. M. Robson, Ed.; Vols. 7–8). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
59. Mill, J. S. (1978). On liberty (G. R. G. Rapaport, Ed.). Hackett Publishing Company.
60. Mill, J. S. (2009). Considerations on representative government. Auckland, New Zealand: The Floating Press.
61. Nagel, T. (2003). Rawls and liberalism. In S. Freeman (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Rawls (p. 62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Pagden, A. (1998). The struggle for legitimacy and the image of empire in the Atlantic to c. 1700. In N. Canny (Ed.), The Oxford history of the British Empire: The origins of empire, Vol. 1 (pp. 34–55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Parekh, B. (1994). Decolonizing liberalism. In A. Stromas (Ed.), The end of "isms"? (pp. 85–103). Oxford: Blackwell.
64. Pitts, J. (2005). A turn to empire: The rise of imperial liberalism in Britain and France. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
65. Richter, M. (1963). Tocqueville on Algeria. Review of Politics, 25(3), 362–398.
66. Rodriguez, J. P. (2007). Slavery in the United States: A social, political, and historical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
67. Rosenblatt, H. (2018). The lost history of liberalism: From ancient Rome to the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
68. Ryan, A. (1996). Hobbes’s political philosophy. In T. Sorell (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Hobbes (pp. 208–245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69. Ryan, A. (2012). The making of modern liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70. Said, E. W. (2016). Kültür ve emperyalizm (Çev: N. Alpay). İstanbul: Hil Yayınları.
71. Samson, C. (2020). The colonialism of human rights. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
72. Selcraig, M. (2017). The enlightened colonist. Chronos, 11, 32-34. Erişim adresi: https://surface.syr.edu/chronos/vol11/iss1/5
73. Sessions, J. E. (2009). Unfortunate necessities: Violence and civilization in nineteenth-century French Algeria. In P. S. Bloom, D. J. Prochaska, & H. Tint (Eds.), France and its spaces of war: Experience, memory, image (pp. 17–42). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
74. Shklar, J. N. (1998). The liberalism of fear. In Political thought and political thinkers (pp. 3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
75. Smith, A. (2017). Ahlaki duygular kuramı (Çev: B. Tartıcı). İstanbul: Liber Plus Yayınları.
76. Smith, A. (2020). Milletlerin zenginliği (Çev: M. Acar). İstanbul: Liberus Yayınları.
77. Stafford, W. (1998). John Stuart Mill. London: Macmillan Press.
78. Stannard, D. E. (1992). American holocaust: The conquest of the New World. Oxford University Press.
79. Sunar, L. (2019). Alexis de Tocqueville: Modern çağın çelişkileri karşısında bir düşünür. İstanbul: Ketebe Yayınları.
80. Şahin, B. (2015). Liberalizm. In Ö. Çaha & B. Şahin (Eds.), Dünyada ve Türkiye'de siyasal ideolojiler (pp. 39–102). Ankara: Orion Kitabevi.
81. Tocqueville, A. de. (2001). Writings on empire and slavery (J. Pitts, Ed.). Baltimore/London: John Hopkins University Press.
82. Tocqueville, A. de. (2015). Amerika’da demokrasi – I (Çev: Ö. Doğan). Doğu Batı Yayınları.
83. Todorov, T. (1993). On human diversity: Nationalism, racism and exoticism in French thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
84. Traub, J. (2019). What was liberalism? The past, present, and promise of a noble idea. New York: Basic Books.
85. Tully, J. (1998). Aboriginal property and Western theory: Recovering a middle ground. In D. Armitage (Ed.), Theories of empire, 1450–1800. Ashgate Publishing.
86. Tully, J. (2008). Public philosophy in a new key, Vol. 2: Imperialism and civic freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
87. Welch, C. B. (2014). Out of Africa: Tocqueville’s imperial voyages. In J. Jennings (Ed.), Tocqueville: The last days of aristocracy (pp. 304–334). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
88. Whitehead, J. (2012). John Locke, accumulation by dispossession and the governance of colonial India. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42(1), 1–21.
89. Williams, D. (2020). Progress, pluralism, and politics: Liberalism and colonialism, past and present. Chicago: McGill-Queen's University Press.