Talk:Empire (Hardt and Negri book)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Empire (Hardt and Negri book) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Request for expansion[edit]

I have tagged this article to request expansion. Empire counts as a major text in globalization studies, particularly for scholars in the humanities, and as such deserves more attention. The current version of the article (3 Dec. 2006) notably omits any discussion of labor and production—and Hardt and Negri's discussion of immaterial labor is among the most important aspects of the book.

I suggest expanding this article wholesale, perhaps using section headings corresponding to the numbered parts of the book. Job L 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of expansion: The influence of Carl Schmitt should be noted here as well. One possible source for this is the Balakrishnan review in the link section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.140 (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

The statement: the Empire is constituted by a monarchy (the United States and the G8, and international organizations such as NATO, the IMF or the WTO), an oligarchy (the multinational corporations and other nation-states) and a democracy (the various NGOs and the United Nations). Seems at best misleading or even a falsification of Negri's concept of Empire.

Empire is neither localized, nor fixed in a given geographic area. He claimed it is decentralized. this is found within the first pages of the book. So claimed that Empire is constitued by a monarch (the United States) infers that the united States is Empire, and Negri says this is hardly the case. The US however occupies a priviledge position within Empire. So, I think this needs to be cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.41.123 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The statement is actually a quote from the book (chapter 3.5) and thus very relevant towards explaining the main concept behind the book

In addition, I would point out that the inclusion not just of the US but also of the G8, the IMF, NATO, etc. preclude the reading that the US "is Empire"--Empire as a whole is not localizable and has no single center, but its multiple and diffuse centers (in the plural) of control are geographically localizable. Job L 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Title should be changed to [[Empire (2000 book)]], so as not to be confused with the 2006 Orson Scott Card novel of the same name. --Anon.

Sure? Currently the other novels (not just by OSC) have disambiguations of "(DATE novel)", not "(book)". As this Empire is not a novel, it seems accurate to me. --Gwern (contribs) 17:15 1 December 2006 (GMT)

Specific movement[edit]

Changed "Marxist" to "Autonomist Marxist" as Hardt and Negri's political theory is properly categorized and widely held. --jonnylocks

Reverted. Autonomous Marxism is a specific movement, to which Negri took part in, but Empire was written in 2000... It's not the 1970s anymore. --Lapaz 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generated a different page for Motyl's theory[edit]

Being this an ecyclopedic article about the concept of an empire, I think that an entire section dedicated to the theory of one author on the subject, wich was also mistitled "imperial systems", violates both intent of neutrality and universal view. As such, I have created a different page that encompasses the author's views on the matter; Motyl's Theory of the Empire.--T.S.Boncompte 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing sources?[edit]

This book has been both heavily praised and harshly criticised, but the article doesn't seem to include much of that. I would like to start building a proper reception section soon, just for the information of any watchers. —Zujine|talk 14:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Empire (1987 novel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negri and Hardt?[edit]

In my experience, the authors are consistently referred to as Hardt and Negri, and not the other way around (at the very least, this is how it appears on the cover of Empire). Should we rename the article to reflect that? Mtgaffney56 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 December 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empire (Negri and Hardt book) → Empire (Hardt and Negri book) – As the above editor noted from 2014, "the authors are consistently referred to as Hardt and Negri" and not Negri and Hardt. Google scholar has 890 hits for "Hardt and Negri argue" and only 45 for "Negri and Hardt argue". The names alone show a similar skewing with "Hardt and Negri" getting 17000 hits and "Negri and Hardt" with only 1500 hits. The parenthetical citations have "Hardt and Negri (2000)" with 5260 and "Negri and Hardt (2000)" with 150. In addition, the author on the cover and official listing of the book lists the authors in the order Hardt and Negri. And books that analyze the book use "Hardt and Negri" in that order. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article was moved from Empire (book) in 2014, following a suggestion by Tbhotch, which I suppose was based on the order of authors in the lead? This order in turn goes back to the very first version of the article in 2005 by an IP editor, and should also be changed when the article is moved. ‑‑Yodin^T 00:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism section needed[edit]

This article would benefit from a criticism section, assuming there are reliable sources that criticize the book (if there are no reliable sources criticizing the book's ideas then the book would seem to be so non-notable as to hardly deserve a Wikipedia article). I have no plans to produce such a section myself, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO. And per WP:NOTFORUM I have no wish to discuss the ideas here myself. But in order to possibly help other editors with relevant keywords for searches, I will briefly say that I suspect at least some criticisms might be along the lines that the book appears to be yet more of the 'End of history' and 'America as the sole Superpower' ideas that appeared after the collapse of the USSR, ideas which are arguably far less plausible than rival ideas such as Clash of Civilizations, or In Search of Enemies, or New Cold War against Russia and/or China and/or Islam and/or the EU and/or less traditional opponents such as Artificial SuperIntelligence and/or whatever, and so on. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]