The Eurocentrism of neo-Roman republicanism and the neglect of republican empire

Introduction

Republicanism is a theory of liberty that is distinguished by its central desire for ‘political freedom’ (Buttle, 2001: 331). It is a tradition which argues that liberty can only be enjoyed by securing the rights and liberties of citizens within a free polis. Citizens can be considered free when they have the right to participate in the life of the polis without fear of tyrannical control (Skinner, 2010: 96–7). A central tenet of republican thought is therefore focused on how free citizens must partake in the civic life of the polis in order to secure their own liberty. The active participation of citizens acts as a check against the corrupting influence of power. It is the accumulation of unrestrained power that has traditionally been seen by republican thought as a tyrannical form of government. In making a distinction between a free citizen and a slave, republicanism presents an older language of liberty, which views liberty as antithetical to slavery. Freedom within republican thought rests on political participation and independence from any ‘master’ with powers that go unchallenged and unrestrained. As Philip Pettit (2001: 35) has argued, the republican approach is based on freedom as non-domination because ‘even the slave of a kindly master – the slave who suffers no interference – is unfree’. A slave may be free of interference, but they remain unfree because their position is dependent on the benign goodwill of an arbitrary master who would be able to restrict the freedom of the slave at will.

In making this distinction between a slave and a citizen, Pettit’s definition of freedom as non-domination has shaped our current understanding of the republican tradition. Defined as ‘neo-Roman’, Pettit’s approach has proved an insightful way to understand the republican ideal of liberty. Contemporary political theorists have used the republican normative ideal of non-domination as a way to critique an expansive array of policies and political institutions. It has become a way to call for social justice, to prescribe new forms of political policies and to understand modern global forms of domination. This strand of modern republican thought centres on an ideal of communal liberty that can be used to critique the excessive market fundamentalism and individualism of neoliberalism (Pettit, 2016). Heavily inspired by early modern thought, the neo-Roman approach has developed by focusing on the discursive ideals of republican literary debates. Less well recognized is that republicanism is a historical practice and that it has been adapted and drawn upon by a diverse range of actors and polities. Republicanism therefore exists as both a philosophical tradition and concurrently through the historical practice of veritable polities, such as the city states of Renaissance Italy, the Dutch, Genevan, and Venetian republics, and the early United States. Looking at the historical examples of actual republics can show how it has been adopted in practice, and the difference between the theory and the actual application of republican liberty.

The neo-Roman approach is a normative project to explore the possibilities of the republican tradition. It attempts to theorize a contemporary vision of an ideal society based on the premises of non-domination and influencing public policy. In taking this approach, the neo-Roman school is neglecting how a history of empire and slavery is intertwined with the normative ideals of republican thought. In constructing a contemporary republican ideal, the neo-Roman school has under-explored the dichotomy between a slave and a free citizen in historical practice. Republics such as the United States and the Dutch Republic developed through trading and owning slaves. The practice of owning slaves shaped their republican thought and resistance to slavery defined how republicanism has understood political liberty. These practices of domination and slavery are not accidental moments in the history of republican regimes but occurred concurrently with the development of republicanism. Contemporary theorists view republicanism as a way to overcome domination at the international level and as a way to approach transnational issues. But this argument rests on a Eurocentric claim in which early modern republicanism is seen as arising within a mono-civilizational view of Europe. As this paper shows, the neo-Roman school needs to engage more with the actual history of republican polities. Section one begins by arguing that the neo-Roman school is overly focused on republicanism as a literary tradition. Section two then shows that transnational approaches to non-domination rest on problematic assumptions of liberty arising within Europe before expanding outwards. The third section therefore revises this narrative by looking to the history of republics as merchant empires. The final part to this paper then presents a more critical approach to republicanism which looks to the actual practice of slavery.

I Republicanism as a theory of liberty

The revival of republicanism has been influenced by a diverse array of scholars. From historians of political thought, such as J.G.A. Pocock (1975), Maurizio Viroli (2002) and Quentin Skinner (1998, 2006), to normative political theorists, such as Philip Pettit (2001, 2013) and Michael Sandel (1996). Current understandings of republicanism as a theory of non-domination have developed from the work of Pettit and have sought to identify a republican tradition stretching from the Roman Republic, to Machiavelli, to the English Civil War before finally crossing the Atlantic and residing within the early United States (Pettit, 2001: 19; 2013: 18–19). This ‘neo-Roman’ approach to republicanism holds promise in providing a theory of freedom, which can be traced across history from figures such as Cicero to the early humanists of the Renaissance and the period leading up to the American Revolution. The neo-Roman approach to republicanism has also succeeded in highlighting how a diverse body of authors from Machiavelli to James Harrington, Baron de Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville were all influenced by the same ‘textual authorities’ and ‘the lessons of republican Rome’ (Pettit, 2001: 20). The following section therefore examines the normative political ideals of republicanism. In doing so, this section will build upon the central argument to consider the gap between republican theory and republicanism in practice.

Although definitions of republicanism are diverse and open to contestation, there is a common theme of focusing on the liberty of the res publica. The republican polis is commonly understood as developing from a free public sphere built on the liberty of self-governing citizens (Dagger, 2011: 701). As a tradition, it prescribes normative principles of self-government and citizen participation for the ‘common good’, based on communal solidarity, the importance of virtue and political freedom (Viroli, 2002: 6). Its influence can be traced to historical figures such as Polybius, whose support for a mixed constitution, checks and balances shows that ‘liberty’ in the republican sense means freedom from an ‘arbitrary’ power (Von Fritz, 1975: 349). The neo-Roman school has expanded upon this by advancing a modern theory of republicanism centred on ideals of active citizenship and non-domination. The republican tradition is therefore transposed into a modern context and aims to act as a corrective to atomistic conceptions of neoliberalism. For contemporary political theorists, non-domination can be universal and there is a presupposed commitment to ‘both moral and political equality’ (Dagger, 2011: 702).

The neo-Roman school of thought aims to critique contemporary problems within society and use republican ideals to develop a platform for advocating forms of domestic and transnational policy. Neo-Roman scholars seek to address issues such as social justice, transnational citizen rights and the legitimacy of international institutions (Laborde, 2010; Bachvarova, 2013; Slaughter, 2018). It has become an all-encompassing theoretical approach to develop normative ideals to contemporary problems. The theory of non-domination is also used by contemporary scholars to focus on a bewildering array of political and social problems from acting as a corrective to a ‘winner-takes-all-society’ (Casassas and De Wispelaere, 2016), to health care (Costa, 2015), religion in education (Daly and Hickey, 2011), migration issues (Owen, 2014), democracy in the workplace (Breen, 2015), and discrimination and disabilities (O’Shea, 2015). The explicit goal of neo-Roman republicanism for Pettit is to ‘rethink issues of legitimacy and democracy, welfare and justice, public policy and institutional design’ (Lovett and Pettit, 2009). The focus of this agenda is unequivocal in setting out a stated aim to develop the neo-Roman republican ‘policy portfolio’ and its ‘policy implications’ (Lovett and Pettit, 2009: 19). This body of work shows promise in arguing for the continuing relevance of republican ideas and in demonstrating that republican ideas have continued to evolve. It is problematic, however, in pushing forward its own agenda at the expense of understanding the republican tradition and history in greater detail.

Much of the neo-Roman school has focused on transposing a historical tradition to tackle contemporary policy challenges. Whatever the merits of this normative scholarship, it has sought to distance itself from the actual history of republican domination. Instead, republicanism is celebrated for its tradition of a shared political language. It is seen as arising from a diverse array of early modern scholars united by a common support for a free polis built on the liberty of self-governing citizens. However, the focus on republicanism as a discursive language overlooks that ideal republics have only existed in philosophical texts. Republican thinkers have, as Nicholas Onuf (1994: 315) observes, often imagined ‘polities offered as alternatives to the ones we live in’. Early modern republicanism developed through a discourse of ‘imaginary republics’ where republican ideals developed through focusing on an ‘imagined past or future’ (Edelstein, 2009: 45). Contemporary republican thought has developed in part by focusing on the good life of ‘imagined communities’ created by the republican philosophers of early modern thought. These imagined communities sought to idealize the way a republican polity could be constructed and how republican citizens should live virtuous lives. James Harrington, for example, is seen as a major figure in the development of republican thought (Pocock, 1977), but his commonwealth of Oceana was entirely fictional. The imaginary republics of historical authors have only existed as fragments of the imagination or within the discussions of literary texts. Early modern republican theorists were rarely in a position of power in actual republican states. Within republican polities such as the English Commonwealth, the ideals of republicanism were not widely held outside of London (Brenner, 2003: 539), and within the republic of Florence republican thinkers held no significant positions of power (Jurdjevic, 2008: 170). Less acknowledged by contemporary neo-Romans is that actual existing republics were ‘forged by historical experience’, in which political ideals were developed in conjunction with historical action (Honohan and Jennings, 2015: 8).

Early modern republicanism developed as a practice against specific historical contexts. The republicanism of the Dutch republic, for example, was a reflection on a specific set of contexts in seeking to defend the liberties of local historic privileges. The Dutch lacked any ‘overarching theories’ of political liberty and the republicanism of the Dutch was the ‘fruit of practical reflections’ (Secretan, 2010). To focus on practical reflections is to recognize that the ideal republican domestic society can never be formed in isolation without a consideration of the international sphere. As the following examines, modern neo-Romans seek to apply republican ideals from the polis to the cosmopolis without recognizing the Eurocentrism inherent in this approach.

II The ideal of transnational republicanism

Contemporary neo-Roman republicanism aims to reimagine the ‘good life’ of the polis at a global level. It is an approach that aims to act as a corrective to an impoverished civic life (Connelly, 2015: 10). For modern republicanism, the virtue of the republican ideal is its ability to speak for the ‘general will’ of the community (Dagger, 1997: 85). But as the following explains, contemporary neo-Romans presuppose the existence of a transnational community and seek to apply the normative ideal of non-domination on a global level.

The approach of neo-Roman political theorists is to use republican thought as a guide to extending a universalized ideal based on equal citizenship for all. In building upon an idealized polis, contemporary republican thought has been ‘domesticated’ by neo-Roman scholars as a theory ‘within a state’ (Wood, 2015: 51). Neo-Roman scholars have sought to fashion these republican ideas into a theory which is ‘explicitly tailored for a statist view of domestic society’ (Weinstock and Nadeau, 2004: 148). It is an approach which emphasizes the need to focus on achieving the ‘common good’ within the polis. But for some neo-Roman scholars, the ideal of non-domination can even be universalized to address political issues on a global scale (Laborde and Maynor, 2008: 14). This reflects an ambitious attempt to directly extend the ideal of non-domination ‘from the domestic to the international political order’ (Bachvarova, 2013: 174). For Pettit (2001: 6), it has also become part of an aspirational and normative approach to make republican freedoms ‘universal’. Republican political theorists, such as Bohman (2004: 352), argue freedom from domination cannot be achieved without ‘extending’ the ‘political ideals’ of modern Western states to a universal level. For this strand of contemporary thought, republicanism can act as a progressive approach towards global governance and international order. Political theorists present republicanism as offering a model for European integration (Bellamy and Castiglione, 2000; Lavdas, 2001; Chryssochoou, 2011; Bellamy, 2013) and as a call to create a ‘global public sphere’ (Southwood, 2002: 39). The ideal of non-domination is then used to advocate a universalized programme of emancipation that can be presented to support an aspiration of creating a republican ‘civic’ global community. It is an approach that also aims to apply republican normative ideals in support of ‘global justice’ (Laborde, 2010; Bacvarova, 2013) and changing international institutions (Slaughter, 2005, 2013) to reflect the goal of non-domination. These republican inspired authors see republican thought as a way of minimizing domination and social injustice across the globe. Bohman (2004, 2007, 2015) has sought to argue the case for a transnational democracy that follows republican principles of non-domination. This approach aims to guide the democratization of globalization and foster a global cosmopolitan community (Slaughter, 2014). But such arguments superimpose the ideals of a domesticated polis onto the international (Walker, 2010). It is a reading of republicanism which effectively ignores the international sphere and presupposes the existence of a global political community.

The importance of the international sphere, if it is considered by modern republican scholars, is reduced to a focus on an ‘Euro-Atlantic political heritage’ (Laborde, 2013: 513–35). Republicanism has been developed by the neo-Roman school to a near exclusive focus on a ‘European’ tradition (Skinner and Van Gelderen, 2005; Isaac, 2005). But as Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler (1997: 1) argue, European politics did not evolve in isolation and Europeans were not ‘self-contained entities’. Freedom and self-government have often been ‘articulated in light of’ and in ‘response to’ the justification of imperial and commercial expansion beyond Europe (Pitts, 2010: 215). The development of republican liberties is intertwined with early modern conceptions of racial status and the exclusivity of political liberty. In viewing republicanism as a Euro-Atlantic tradition that can expand to a global level, neo-Roman authors treat European history as arising from a unitary cultural context. This downplays the co-constitutive relationship between republicanism and the international sphere. As the following section will show, early modern republics expanded internationally through developing colonies and creating slave trading networks.

III Republics as merchant empires

In seeking to apply a universal account of republicanism to the modern day, neo-Roman republicanism assumes an existence of the common good and downplays the historically restricted citizenship of republican polities. This presents a ‘static’ account of republican governance that is universal and ahistorical (Hamilton, 2014: 11). The lack of historical context therefore disguises how republican freedoms arise from the contestation of power (Maddox, 2002). If domination of those outside Europe is considered by modern republican theorists it is generally as an afterthought rather than a central theme in the development of republicanism (Ramgotra, 2014: 796). Political liberty, freedom and liberal ideals of democracy are conventionally understood as ‘emancipatory ideals’, but as critical theorists recognize, they also ‘facilitate’ and ‘legitimate exploitation and inequality’ (Tully, 2014: 1). The historical experience of republicanism and its relationship to imperial practices has often been neglected because republicanism and empire are ‘taken to be antithetical’ (Andrew, 2011: ix). But while republicans have often sought to avoid martial imperialism, early modern republics expanded aggressively for mercantilist gains. As the following argues, early modern republics developed their ideals of freedom and political liberty in juxtaposition to those considered outside the public sphere of the polis and without political liberty.

Republicanism developed within polities which explicitly sought to secure private property and commercial expansion across the globe. The Dutch, English and American republics were fundamental in developing a world based on transnational exchanges built on slavery and empire. The history of early modern republics to expand internationally in the name of trade and commerce is rarely considered within political theory. The normative political theory of Pettit, Viroli and Sandel present ‘prescriptive’ accounts of republican freedom that take ‘for granted’ modern capitalist democracies (Balot, 2010: 486). The republicanism of Pettit, Bohman and Sellers also holds republicanism and imperialism as diametrically opposed (Andrew, 2011: ix-x). This neglects the imperial history of republican polities in the name of commercial expansion. The neo-Roman school has often neglected the merchant imperialism of early modern republican expansion beyond Europe because theorists, such as Gordon Wood and J.G.A. Pocock, argued that republicanism perceived commerce as a threat to republican liberty (Jurdjevic, 2001: 723). Within the neo-Roman discussion of political liberty, the relationship between the polis and the economy has often come as an ‘afterthought’ (Gourevitch, 2011: 431). This approach has attacked commerce through arguing that the accumulation of wealth leads to a loss of virtue and political liberty (Skinner, 1979: 42; Onuf, 1998: 45-7), whilst others have argued that the idea of a commercial republic is a ‘contradiction in terms’ (Kimpbell, 2012). In ignoring the actual historical practice of republics as merchant empires the history of slavery and colonization is not seen as critically intertwined or constitutive of the republican value of non-domination.

There is a disconnect within contemporary interpretations of republicanism between the neglect of commerce and the actual historical practice of republican commercial expansion. The English, Dutch and Venetian republics were all based on maritime trade whilst the Massachusetts polity, which could be considered as an early republican experiment within America, was even founded by joint stock companies (Kupperman, 1989: 18). The republic of Florence was also dependent on a merchant elite who acted as patrons to republican thinkers, whilst the Florentine government was financed by commercial profits and led by financiers (Jurdjevic, 2001). The Dutch political theorist Pieter de la Court (1972: 313) argued that republican forms of governance were inherently more acceptable for merchants. In an examination of the history of ancient Rome, Greece and Italian states such as Venice and Genoa, Pieter de la Court (1972: 366) also argued that their trade flourished ‘so long as they enjoyed their liberty’. His argument saw republican freedoms as intimately linked to commercial success, but what is less acknowledged is that crucial to the development of Dutch political and economic expansion was ‘forced labour’ (Van Rossum and Fatah-Black, 2015: 55). The neglect of this history therefore leaves neo-Romans with little to say on European expansion and its connection to republican thought.

Early modern republics had a central role in the development of European trade around the globe. Republican thinkers have therefore always debated the nature of commerce and its effect on the liberties of the polis. The debate within republicanism surrounding commerce and trade is not an anti-capitalist approach; rather the concern is with the way capitalism and consumerism impact the role of citizenship in a free society (White, 2011). The classical republicanism of Sparta and republican Rome have long been celebrated for fashioning ‘a political economy appropriate for an agrarian society’. Early modern republicans, such as James Harrington and John Milton, referred to these examples in attacking the challenges posed by a commercial culture and large discrepancies of wealth for a virtuous citizenry (Pincus, 1998). But equally, republicans have also argued how ownership and defence of private property is seen as a means to secure oneself from dependence on and domination by others (Dagger, 2006: 160). It was not commerce that was a problem for early modern republics. Early modern republican polities developed through a period of transformation as growing international trade impacted society. It was the excessiveness of opulence and corruption caused by luxury, which leads to a decline in virtue, that republicans have feared (Douglass, 2012: 714).

To understand this debate within republicanism we can see the way the early American republic approached these issues. Historians and modern republican theorists have often viewed early American approaches towards commerce through a ‘Jeffersonian’ lens, as ‘backward looking, suspicious of trade and banking’ (Breen, 1993: 478). This presents a flawed understanding of the Jeffersonian agrarian ideal of landed citizens tied to farmsteads. The Jeffersonian ideal follows a strand of republican thought suspicious of the dependency of wage labour as a form of domination (Ashworth, 1984: 431). The development of this ideal was tied in the classical republican doctrine to autonomous self-sufficiency and avoiding dependency on others. In actual practice, the spreading of landed citizens was not an approach against markets or trade. The agrarian ideal of spreading citizen farmsteads was also far from economically stagnant. In advocating this ideal, the principle of citizen farmsteads was an expansionist approach in seeking to ‘incorporate more land to the American empire of liberty’ (Latner, 1996: 203). The history of the expanding American frontier to provide land for a virtuous landed citizenry was based on capitalist land speculation and the exploration and expansion of settlements led by corporations (Gilje, 1996; Onuf, 1986). The agrarian ideal itself was also not an autonomous sphere of virtuous labour but intimately tied with early forms of international capitalist markets, as plantation owners in the South depended on international markets for slaves as well as seeking the best prices on products such as indigo, tobacco and rice (Longaker and Lucaites, 2007: 21).

Republican freedoms have always been juxtaposed with reference to the ‘other’, outside of the realm of the body politic. Republican polities expanded internationally through trade and developing colonies which legitimized their hierarchical views on race. The English republic developed through subjugating and uniting three kingdoms, defeating the Dutch in naval warfare and the acquisition of territory in both Europe and the Caribbean (Scott, 2004). Defenders of the English republic also saw Dutch commercial expansion and its success as a model for uniting republican principles within a commercial society (Leng, 2005: 962). In expanding commercial opportunities the Dutch developed colonies in the New World as well as an ‘informal’ empire across the Indian Ocean from Cape Town in South Africa to Dejima in Japan (Van Welie, 2008: 80), while the United States spread westwards across the continent through genocide and its development was deeply interconnected with global slave trading networks (Rothman, 2007). The desire for access to trade and slaves was built on practices of domination because republican theorists developed their ideas within a context of racial superiority. The Dutch republican theorist Pieter de la Court argued that nations in Africa and Asia as well as less developed parts of Europe were naturally of a ‘temper and disposition’ that they could not govern themselves (Scott, 1988: 212). He argued the Dutch should expand to occupy unused lands (De la Court, 1972: 122) as the temperament of the Dutch people made them more suitable ‘than any nation in the world to erect colonies and to live on them’ (De la Court, 1972: 130). As Manjeet Kaur Ramgotra (2014: 800) acknowledges in his study of Montesquieu, republicanism saw absolute monarchies as seeking conquest and domination, whilst the trade and colonies of republican polities had a beneficial effect in developing ‘backward societies’ and the preservation of political liberty domestically. Early modern republicans also understood liberty by comparing domination to ‘Asiatic servitude’ (Boesche, 1990). Republican polities expanded internationally through trade and developing colonies, which legitimized their hierarchical views on race. But this history of republican domination was also intimately connected to developing ideas about freedom and political liberty. Arthur Weststeijn (2012: 509) observes in his study of empire and colonialism in the Dutch Golden Age that ‘republican liberty could be maintained not despite, but because of the pursuit of commercial riches overseas’. The dependence on external riches and imperial colonialism may not be essential for contemporary forms of republicanism, but it challenges the idea that republicanism can be universal on a global scale.

Treating republicanism as part of a story of European exceptionalism implicitly disavows the narrative of colonialism and empire in the development of early modern republicanism. European colonialism was not subsequent to the development of republicanism but was intertwined in a co-constitutive process. The following expands upon these connections to examine the practices of American slavery and its links to the development of republican freedom.

IV The history and practice of slavery

Neo-Roman theorists call for a republican approach based on a ‘distorted historiographic framework’ which focuses on the ideal of republicanism and not on republican polities in practice (Springborg, 1990: 85). The school of neo-Roman republicanism views slavery as central to the understanding of freedom, but Pettit has taken a monistic view of domination that says little about actual historical examples of slavery (Watkins, 2016). Edmund Morgan (1972) made the powerful argument that the development of American freedom was directly possible because of the institution of slavery. Both critics and supporters of liberal thought have also recognized that in historical practice political liberties have developed in parallel with practices of domination (Shklar, 1989; Tully, 2005). Modern understandings of republicanism, however, have relatively neglected this paradox. Contemporary republican theorists seek to construct prescriptive accounts based on the equality of ‘single-status communities’. In practice, ancient and early modern republics were ‘layered’ and strictly ‘hierarchical’ orders (Goodin, 2003: 62). The discursive focus of political theorists celebrates the ‘self-congratulatory language’ of liberty only to ignore the history of empire building through warfare, commercial and colonial plantations. As this section shows, republican liberty was intimately connected to actual practices of slavery.

The neo-Roman school is correct to highlight how republican freedom developed in contrasting liberty to non-domination, but the central focus on republican discourse alone ignores the practicalities that these debates were shaped through trade, slavery and conquest, and within a society in which imperial expansion to build slave colonies was a central focus of their concern. J. G. A. Pocock (1987: 708), in a discussion of the American Declaration of Independence, touches upon the notion that African slaves were excluded by the reference to the ‘people’ of the United States. But contemporary republican theory leaves this idea unexplored rather than central to the understanding of republicanism. Early American colonists developed their ideas about liberty in contrast to conquest over Native Americans. Colonists defended their rights by pointing to how Native Americans were ‘stateless’, making the land ‘legally vacant’. In occupying the land, white settlers could establish their ‘own political authority’ independent from British domination (Yirush, 2011: 3). This paradox for modern republican thought is central to understanding the experience of the American republic in which ideals of classical republicanism shaped the experience of the American revolution but did not directly challenge racial slavery. Anthony Bogues (2013) argues the distinction between slave and non-slave within the republican discourse of freedom is not a ‘normative ideal’ but that its ‘meanings are embedded within a series of practices’ of slave relations’. The classical republican ideas that influenced the American founding rested on the idea of a free citizen who is free from both wage dependence and is independent as the head of a household or estate (Rigsby, 2002). Property rights were ‘essential’ to this republican theory of liberty because the freedom associated with land ownership and rejection of dependence on wage labour defined the status of a free citizen in classical republicanism (MacGilvray, 2011: 29; Festa, 2014: 413). The promise of settler freedom within colonial America was therefore tied to ‘practices of subordination’, as the classical republican understanding of domination meant that American settlers saw their own freedom and property as directly linked to the coercive use of slaves (Rana, 2010: 3). In rejecting the British empire, the American development of republicanism tied freedom to resistance. People proved their virtue by maintaining their freedom; to be a slave was to prove your lack of virtue (Furstenberg, 2003: 1303). This is not an apparition of republican thought but a recurrent theme. In 15th-century Florence, Leonardi Bruni had previously argued that ‘Florence can justify her empire in Tuscany because she surpassed all other Tuscan peoples in virtue’ (Haskins, 2010: 116).

Historians of intellectual thought recognize that the freedom of political liberty is not a natural attribute (Skinner, 1998). But, for contemporary neo-Roman scholars who seek to advocate a normative and global ideal of non-domination, there is little consideration for who is doing the dominating and how republican liberty is intertwined with empire.

Conclusion

Republicanism has long been ‘characterized by a combination of realistic foundations and utopian initiatives’ (Hardt and Negri, 2000: 184). Contemporary approaches to republicanism centre on ideals of non-domination, creating a depoliticized account of republican liberty. As this paper has shown, the aspiration of creating a transnational republicanism rests on a Eurocentric view which lacks an engagement with the historical context. In constructing a contemporary republican ideal, the neo-Roman school has under-explored the dichotomy between a slave and a free citizen in historical practice. Republics such as the United States and the Dutch republic developed through trading and owning slaves. The practice of owning slaves shaped republican thought and resistance to slavery defined how republicanism has understood political liberty. The contemporary neo-Roman approach has created an attitude which regards liberty as an abstract ideal that arises from the absence of power and domination (Kennedy, 2014: 499; Hamilton, 2014: 36). In taking this approach, the neo-Roman school is neglecting how a history of empire and slavery is intertwined in the normative ideals of republican thought (Ando, 2010). The practices of domination and slavery occurred concurrently with the development of republican polities.

In resisting slavery, early modern republicanism was built within a context of thinkers who celebrated racial superiority and where developing colonies was a central concern. This critical analysis argues for the importance of deepening our understanding of non-domination by looking to the concept of power. The slave-liber dichotomy rests on the practice and exercise of power and citizenship. A republican citizen is required to exercise power in order to be able to participate in the debates of the polis. Once an individual is free of domination they ‘must decide how to articulate and develop that freedom’ (Pocock, 2004: 545). Participating in a free debate within the polis requires the ‘institutions of voice’ to be able to ‘appeal to the judgement of others’ (Brennan and Lomasky, 2006: 246). The history of early modern republics is therefore also an account of those who were considered outside of the polis and lacking in a voice. Thus, freedom and liberty are not forms of ‘anti-power’ but are rooted in power relations in which republican liberty is possessed by those who can express a voice within the polis (Barthas, 2016: 56). Recognizing the fractious nature of republican politics can also shed light on why republicans have historically resisted slavery for themselves while dominating others. Republican thinkers have historically tied their understanding of liberty to resistance. If a person did not resist domination then they could be considered a slave because they expressed no character of virtue. Looking to the history of republican polities therefore raises serious doubts on the viability of the neo-Roman approach to create a transnational and cosmopolitan res publica. The Eurocentrism of these normative approaches overlooks the co-constitutive relationship of early modern republics and European expansion.