Motyl's Conception of an Empire and its Global Implications

Admittedly, I haven't read my professor's book "Imperial Ends." But it supposedly deals with the rise and fall of empires through theory. Wikipedia writes:

 "This relationship he describes as an incomplete wheel: there are hubs and spokes, but no rim. Empires, in this theoretical concept, depend on this relative absence of relationships in the periphery, the core's power partly dependent on its role as a neuralgic center...
Motyl also posits varying degrees of empire: formal, informal, and hegemonic. In a formal imperial relationship, the core can appoint and dismiss peripheral elites, obviate any external agenda or policies, and directly control the internal agenda and policies. In an informal imperial relationship, the core has influence but not control over appointing and dismissing peripheral elites, direct control over the external agenda and policies, and influence over the internal agenda and policies. Finally, in a hegemonic relationship, the core has no control over appointing or dismissing peripheral elites, control over the external agenda, influence over external policies, and no control over the internal agenda or policies.
Empire ends when significant peripheral interaction begins, not necessarily when the core ceases its domination of the peripheries. The core-periphery relationship can be as strong or weak as possible and remain an empire as long as there is only insignificant interaction between periphery and periphery. Many empire observers make the distinction that most of them end through some policies or strategies based on arrogance or national hubris, accounting for a popular opinion that empires implode on themselves as opposed to suffering defeat from an outside enemy." 

 I was curious - so I asked, "how's this relate to the British Raj?" In regards to the core-periphery relationship vis-a-vis the Raj, say we mean the whole Empire. By asserting - and, of course, keeping in mind these aren't Dr. Motyl's exact words - "[e]mpire ends when significant peripheral interaction begins," does that mean the whole empire must fall once "peripheral interaction begins?" If so, how do we explain the gradual deterioration of empires - a deterioration that all of the European colonial empires underwent at one time or another?

If this is what Dr. Motyl's theory implies, then it contradicts history. Consider the British Empire. The Americans won their independence in 1783, the Egyptians in 1867, the South Africans in 1910, India/Pakistan (Bangaldesh) 1947/8, and Nigeria 1960. There are, however, certain observations that are to be made. First, these latter colonies weren't British colonies at the time of America's colonial period. There couldn't have been any "peripheral interaction," and, even if there could have been, it wouldn't be of much use. Second, there was very little interaction between African and non-African colonies, yet, it seems, the British empire fell with the toppling of Hong-Kong, the only British colony in that part of the world albeit Malaysia and Fiji.

But, based on this brief synopsis of "Imperial Ends," there seem to be at least two elements missing - what is interaction between peripheries and what is a periphery. Even if peripheries exist in continuous empires just as they do in discontinuous or hybrid ones, then the peripheries of the British Empire (even if you'd like to make a distinction between the American-age one, call it the first empire, and the Indian-age one, call it the second one) do not seem to be abiding by this rule. Motyl's theory makes more sense if it is interpreted to mean empire ends when continuous peripheries - meaning, peripheries that share borders - interact. Or, in the case of India, when distinct peripheries are made.

As we all know, India during its colonial era wasn't considered by mainstream opinion to be dual or to contain0 two British peripheries. Nonetheless, these peripheries were made - be it by British policy, nationalist politics, or communal opinion. Bose and Jalal in "Modern South Asia" go so far as to say the British became desperate to quit India before nationalist demands become more radical or communal violence becomes more dangerous. Indeed, these things can successfully be traced to a distinct divide, the cultural creation of two nations - Hindustan aka India and the new periphery Pakistan.

That's not to say, however, that these two peripheries hadn't been interacted all that time before the violence and the nationalist politics. Upon the arrival of the British, paintings of Rama and Krishna were being done in the Persian styles practiced in the Mughal court. The only thing that the 20th century added to this relationship was an overdose of violence, an antagonism instead of cooperation.

This might just be a "fair enough" conclusion to Dr. Motyl's lofty conclusions, but Empires end not when the wheel invests in a hub - though this might be a companion development. Empires end when those in the driving seat (the core) fear that its days of dominance are limited or are unnecessary. Certainly the Americans, the people of the former Soviet Union, and the Indians interacted with their respective continuous peripheries; however, they interacted in different ways.

All of them brought down the Empire in question. The Americans fought a war. The non-Russian members of the Soviet Union de-legitimated Moscow and the central party. The Indians fought within themselves into such a state of chaos that the British no longer saw this land as the land of plenty. But what describes England's revoking its African empires? It certainly was not an interaction between peripheries. The British had political issues that needed to be dealt with and, more importantly, Nigeria just was more of an expediture than an income. Indeed, Empires fall when their core is in danger, finds no need in continuing the empire, and, third, when it simply is unable to rule - as was the case of the Russian Empire in the 20th century.