SUMMARY:

Alexander Kamenskii starts his commentary with a reflection on the “post-modern” research situation, which is characterized by a high degree of reciprocity between theoretical reflection and empirical research and by synthetic treatment of different research methods. He continues to explicate the impact of this research situation on the field of imperial studies, in which there is a great deal of polyphony of analytical models and approaches, and warns against aspirations to find a single interpretative scheme for the varieties of imperial and national experience. This apprehension is even more important for Kamenskii due to the growing politicization of the concept of empire in contemporary Russia, which might result in the perception that imperial studies advocate empire as a model for solving ethnic conflict and the problems of globalization. Kamenskii criticizes the authors of the introduction to “New Imperial History” for their neglect of the added value of empirical research and asserts that a more precise definition of empire would result from a typological analysis of imperial experience. In this respect he defends the rationale behind the comparative study of the history of continental empires and opines that it has achieved tangible results in the form of a typology of national and imperial historical experience.