The historiography of British imperialism has been dominated by two approaches: the Official Mind and Gentlemanly Capitalism. The Official Mind emphasises decisions made by key policymakers, focusing on decisions driven by crises in the periphery of the Empire that sped expansion in the nineteenth century. These officials were not dominated by sectional interests but guided by their own traditions in pursuit of the national interest. In contrast to the Official Mind, Gentlemanly Capitalism argues that British imperialism was not driven by peripheral forces but instead by the sectional interests of a political alliance between the aristocracy and the City of London at the heart of the British state. While the Official Mind and Gentlemanly Capitalism have been critiqued on historical terms, their theoretical problems have been neglected. This paper identifies key conceptual issues with both approaches, with a common problem being an absence of an account of the social origins of imperialism. Having outlined critiques of these theories, an alternative approach is offered that seeks to embed British imperialism in an understanding of its historically developed social relations.
Sutton, Alex
School of Law and Social Sciences
Year of publication: 2025Date of RADAR deposit: 2025-03-21