Anthropology of Colonialism Pels

7/30/2019 Anthropology of Colonialism Pels

1/20

Anna. Rev. Anthropol. 1997. 26:163-113Copyright 'C 1997 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

THE ANTHROPOLOGY OFCOLONIALISM: Culture, History,and the Emergence of WesternGovernmentalityPeter PelsResearch C entre Religion and Society, U ni v er s i t y o f Ams t e r d a m, 1012 DK Ams t e r d a m,The Netherlands; e-mail: [email protected] Y W O R D S : ethnography, literary theory, modernity, travel, reflexive anthropology

ABSTRACTThe study of colonialism erases the boundaries between anthropology and his-tory or l i terary studies, and betwee n the postcolo nial present and the col on ialpast . From the standpoint of anthropology, i t i s also reflex ive , addressing thecol oni al use and formation of ethnography and i ts support ing pract ices oft r av el . S i n c e th e 1960s, th e study of c o l o n i a l i s m h as i n c r e a s in g l y p r e s e n t e d avi e w of colonial ism as struggle and negotiation, analyzing how the dichoto-m o u s representat ions that Westerners use for colonial rule are the outcome ofm u c h mo r e mu r k y an d complex pract ical interact ions. By thus t reat ing West-ern governmental i ry as e me r g e n t an d part icular , it is r e w r i t i n g ou r histories ofthe present .

The art of g o vern men t lies in knowing nothing at the proper moment.Edgar Wallace (1912)[T]here is too much hypocrisy in East Africa today. Th e European official and theEu ro p ean settler ru l e an d maintain their prestige mainly by hypocrisy, their inner mo -tives would hardly stand ex amin atio n ; the Indian trader makes hi s l iv ing b y d o wn rig htdishonesty or at best by sheer cunning which is hypocrisy; th e African clerk or laboreroften disregards f u l f i l l i n g hi s part of a contract an d even a very educated African w i l lpretend to love the European whereas hi s heart is nearly bur s t ing with envy and ha-tred. J ul ius Kam barage N yerere (1952)

1630084-6570/97/1015-0163S08.00


2/20

164 PELS

Allcs Verstehen 1st daher immer zugleich ei n Nicht-Verstehen, alle O bereinstim m ungin Ged an k en un d G e fu h l e n zugleich ein Au sein an d erg ehen .

W i l h e l m vo n Humboldt ( q uoted in Fabian 1995)

INTRODUCTIONThe anthropology of colonialism is neither the exclusive province of anthro-pologists nor restricted to colo nialism. Therefore, this review often penetratesnoncolonial territory and colonizes te rrain first settled by historians and liter-ary theo rists by indu lgin g in the conceit that a subdiscip line such as the anthro-pology of colonialism can be outlined. This conceit can be legitimized be-cause, from the point of view of anthropology, the study of colonialism pres-ents a unique view an d commands a peculiar sense of engagement. Fo r anthro-pologists, more than for any other type of scholar, colonialism is not a histori-cal object that remain s external to the observer. The discipline descends fromand is still struggling with techniques of observation and control that emergedfrom th e colonial dialectic of Western gov emmentality.Anthropo logists m ostly think of coloni alism in three ways: as the unive rsal,evolutionary progress of moderniz ation; as a particular strategy or ex perimen tin domination an d exploitation; and as the unfinished business of struggle an dnegotiation. All these views, in both positive and negative versions, were com-mo n colonial currency. Anthropological views of colonialism commonlystressed a combination of the three. A standard conception of professionaliz-ing anthropology between th e wars was that, to avoid colonial struggleraceconflict, indigenous revoltone should follow a colonial strategy based onanthropological knowledge an d planning to achieve the desired evolutionaryprogress cheaply and without bloodshed (e.g. Malinowski 1929). Around1970, a nthropologists often told their colleague s to shun collaboration with th epowerful in neocolonial planning an d strategy. Instead, they were supposed tosupport "indigenous" peoples in their struggles, to help the latter achieve themodernization that the legacy of colonialisma perfidious combination of anideology of modernization and a strategy of exploitationdenied them.That is, reinventions of anthropology often used images of colonialism astheir cutting edge. Only in the past 25 years, how ever, have such critique andreflexivity become structural, owing to the increasing stress on the third viewof co lonialism , as a struggle that constantly renegotiates the b alance of domi-nation and resistance (Dirks 1992b, Guha 1989, Staler & Cooper 1997). Be -cause one cannot simply demarcate a past colonialism from struggles in thepresent (Dirks 1992b, Thomas 1994), the anthropology of colonialism system-atically interrogates contemporary anthropology as well as the colonial cir-cumstances from which it emerged. The anthropology of colonialism is also


3/20

ANTHROPOLOGY OF C OLONIALISM 165always an anthropology of anthropolog y, because in man y methodological, or-ganizational, and profe ssional aspects the discipline retains the shape it re-ceived when it emerged f r o m i f partly in opposition toearly twentieth-century colonial circumstances. Studying colonialism implies studying an -thropology 's context , a broader field of ethnographic activity that existed bef-ore the boundaries of the discipline emerged an d that continues to influencethe way they ar e drawn (Pels & Salemink 1994).Anthropology, therefore, needs to be conceptualized in terms of govern-mentali ty (Wright 1995), as an academic offshoot of a set of universalist tech-nologies of domination a Statistik or "state-craft" at least partly based on eth-nography-that develop ed in a dialectic between colonial and European states( C o h n 1 9 8 7 , 1 9 9 6 ; S t a g l 1995). These forms of identification, registration, an ddiscipline emerged in tension and in tandem with technologies of self-controlthat fostered notions of cleanliness, domesticity, ethnicity, and civilization(C hakrabarty 1994, Stoler 1995a). Anthropology, in negotiating ethnic, civi-lized, an d savage identities, was at the juncture of these technologies of domi-nation an d self-control . It precariously straddled a world of paradox an d con-tradiction in which no tions of race were u niversa listically shunne d at the samet ime that they particularistically helped constitute the nation-state's civilit ies(Stoler 1995a, Stoler & C ooper 1997). Both anthropology an d colonialismprojected seemingly universal an d Manichean essentializations of Us andThem, which in practice had to give way to much more complex and particu-larist negotiations of rule (Pels & Salemink 1994, Stoler & Co o p e r 1997).ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM: GENEALOGIESTh e social-scientific study of colonial society predates th e 1960s (Balandier1963, Mair 1938, Malinowski 1945). After decolonization, however, a set ofinterests started to converge that can now be regarded as consti tuting a new de-parture. Ethnohistory questioned th e boundaries between anthropology an dhistory (C ohn 1968, Sturtevant 1966). Those who had been colonized raiseddoubts about th e relevance of anthropology (Deloria 1969, p 'B itek 1970).Neo-Marxist and feminist approaches to peasant societies an d their modes ofproduction and the economy of the household fueled an interest in economicchange, an d consequent ly in colonialism (Etienne & Leacock 1980, Hafkin &Bay 1976, Meillassoux 1964, Wolf 1982; fo r an overview, se e Stoler 1995b).Crit ical approaches to classical anthropology questioned th e nature of theknowledg e req uired for colonial rule and the involve me nt of anthropologists inits product ion an d paved the way for some of the analytics of knowledge an dpower that matured later on (Asad 1973, Gough 1968, Hymes 1974). The his-torical an d sociological turn of the Kuhnian philosophy of science helped raise


4/20

166 PELS

doubts about th e claim to scientific independence from colonial circumstancesthat had been made by anthropologists since th e early twe ntieth century.From th e late 1970s onward, this set of interests w as further developed bythe increas ing realization tha t many features of the discourses developed underand for colonial rule were still operative in present-day anthropology. A criti-ca l hermeneutics, sometimes informed by a more epistemologically inclinedneo-Marxism, elaborated the continuities between colonial and postcolonialconstructions of anthropology's object (Clifford 1982, Fabian 1983, Webster1982). Analyses of the political role of textua l representation, developed by lit-erary theorists (W illiam s 1977), entered anthropology through th e critique oforientalism and other forms of colonial discourse (Barker et al 1985, Bhabha1994, Clifford & Marcus 1986, Clifford 1983, Said 1978). By the 1990s, thesedevelopments resulted in a paradoxical situation: While the historicizing po-litical econom y approaches of the 1970s were critic ized becau se of their lackof a cultural critique (C oronil 1996, Stoler & Cooper 1997, Taussig 1989), th enotions of "culture" and "ethnography" themselves were also criticized fortheir contr ibution to colonial an d postcolonial essentializations of ethnic enti-ties (Dirks 1992b, Fabian 1983, Pels & Salemink 1994, Thomas 1994).Since th e early 1990s, anthropologists have moved away from th e 1980simpact of literary theory, feeling that colonial discourse inadequa tely defineshistorical anthropology's object of critique (Dirks 1992b, Stoler & Cooper1997, Thomas 1994). The analysis of the textual strategies of colonial dis-course is increasingly replaced by an effort at contextualization that impliesreading ethnographic texts and colonial archives as sites of struggle, and set-ting them ag ainst the practical conditions of the encounter that produced thesetexts and archives (Dirks 1993a, Stoler 1992, Pels & Salemink 1994, Stocking1991, Taussig 1992). The publication of a number of textbooks shows that theanthropology of colonialism has settled down (C ooper & Stoler 1997, Dirks1992b, Schwartz 1994, Thomas 1994). But however settled it may be in itsow n terms, it is often unsettling to other anthropologists, for it tends to destabi-lize disciplinary identity by questioning anthropology's methods an d redefin-in g it s contexts.METHODS AND C O N TE X TS ; C U L T U R E AND HISTORYC lassical anthro polog ists already suggested that one should study culture con-tact holistically (Malinowski, in Mair 1938) an d study colonizers in the sameway as the colonized (Schapera, in Mair 1938). Their emphasis, however, re -mained on the study of "the changing native," betraying that anthropologists 'theories and fieldwork methods were predominantly meant to serve as instru-ments of governmental planning (Malinowski, in Mair 1938). The culture of


5/20

ANTHROPOLOGY OF C OLONIALISM 167the colonizer became systematically subject to anthropological scrutiny onlyafter the opportunities for fieldwork among colonizers had disappeared. Nowthat anthropologists of colonialism find themselves in the realm of history,their notions of method and culture themselves turn out to have had specificcolonial uses. To the dismay of some and the delight of others, the concepts ofethnography, fieldwork, participant observation, an d even culture an d historythemselves have to be put in historical context.Such methodological inquiry has, despite some promising departures,barely b egun. M ethod has, since the late 1960s, silently dropped off the agendaof academic anthropology. Most innovations have come from other disci-plines, from history an d literary theory in particular. Investigation into th e cul-tural history of method and the political tasks it performed has, despite th eearly efforts of Walter Ong, only recently gained momentum (C ohn 1996, Fa -bian 1983, Ludden 1993, Ong 1958, Stagl 1995). Yet it has already made anumber of unsettling suggestions. Professional ethnography, for instance, maybe better regarded as a specific offshoot of a wider field of colonial intelligencerather than, as most historians of anthropology implicitly assumed, the fulfill-ment of an intellectual goal to which colonial ethnographies vainly aspired(Pels & Salemink 1994). Fieldwork is subject to the way local colonial circurn-

i'l stances shaped the field (Schumaker 199\) but also to a history of colonial sci-/ ences such as geography, botany, and ethnography, which set up the exotic as afield to be observed (Grove 1995; see below). Observation, participant or not,reflects centuries of so-called visualist bias in the culture of Western science,to whi ch the role of other sensory registers in producin g knowledge was subor-dinated (Fabian 1983). In fact, empiricism in general may be seen to have a po-litical agenda (L udden 1993), and colonialism is also a set of empirica l "inves-

tigative modalities" (Cohn 1996).If ethnography as method is something subject to historical critique, thenthe conc ept of culture itself can also be contex tualized. As ind icate d above, theanthropological concept of culturewhich enables us to say that colonialismneeds to be analyzed as culture has at least partly emerged as an instrumentof colonial control (Dirks 1992b). This argument can, of course, be turnedaround: Not o nly can the concept of culture be decon structed by setting it in thecontext of a history of colonial control, "history" itself needs to be decon-structed by asking which stories it culturally privileges (C hakraba rty 1992,Prakash 1992). History and culture stand in a supplemental relationship wherethe one is both necessary for and subversive of the thrust of the other (N BDirks, unpublished manuscript). To actually realize ho w culture supplementshistory and vice versa, we need not only to find out how classifications of cul-ture functioned within strategies of colonial governmentality but how histori-ography provided governmentality with an ontological underpinning (Cohn


6/20

168 PELS1996). We require more analyses of alternative histories, no t just those "frombelow" (Fabian 1990, Stoler 1995b) or those analyzing non-European coloni-alism (Robertson 1995) but those that challenge historiographical "hierarchiesof credibility" (Stoler 1992) because they derive from street art, spirit posses-sion, oral tradition, rumor, gossip, an d other popular or subaltern forms ofknowledge production (Fabian 1996, Kramer 1993, Lambek 1995, Vansina1985, White 1993).Much of the search fo r othe r histories ha s been pioneered by historians ofAsian, African, or European workers an d peasants, an d their methodologicalarsenal has been assiduously plundered by historical anthropologists. Espe-cially th e historians of the Subaltern Studies collective (Arnold 1993; Chak-rabarty 1992, 1994; Chatterjee 1989, 1993; Guha 1983; Guhaetal 1982-1994;Pandey 1990; Prakash 1992) and their Africanist colleagues (Boahen 1987;C ooper 1992, 1996; Feierman 1990, 1993; Kimambo 1991; Ranger 1983,1989/) have provided anthropologists of colonialism with analytics and exem-plars: A new phase in the debate between anthropologists and historians hasbeen achieved by the predominantly anthropological argument that the histori-ans' inclin ation to remain close to the ground of a specific archive needs to becountered by more attention to the archive's cultural construction in past orpresent (C omaroff & C omaroff 1992, Dirks 1993a, Stoler 1992).Historians and anthropologists often agree on the holistic intuition that,above all, one should be sensitive to contex t. Here, literary theory introduced apeculiar methodological innovation that may last longer than the brief vogueof textual experimentation it bequeathed on anthropology in the 1980s: theneed to "[bracket] particular questions of historical accuracy an d reliability inorder to see the tex t whole, to gauge the structure of its narrative, and chart theinterplay of its lingu istic registers an d rhetorical modalities" (Hulme 1992). Tounderstand a discourse, on e must step back an d compare tropes an d topoi de -rived from disparate times an d places, that is , decontextualize first to better un -derstand the re leva nt contex t of a specific set of utterances or sym bols (see alsoDirks 1996, Fabian 1995, Thornton 1988, White 1987).This is indeed a "scandalous" operation (Hulme 1992). It violates the disci-plinary boundaries by which many orientalists, historians, or anthropologistsfelt protected from political challenges. It brings together cultural stereotypesfrom different contextspolitical domination, popular prejudice, academicscholarshipto inquire whether and to what ex tent they ar e founded on a simi-lar history of colonial violence. Often such political challenges are fended offby the argument tha t the likes of Edward Said commit the sin of historical, cul-tural, or literary de(con)textualization (Boyarin & Boyarin 1989, Lewis 1993,Otterspeer 1989, Shokeid 1992). Yet the power of discourse analysis is pre-cisely to show the extraordinary redundancies produce d by colonial common-


7/20

A N T H R O P O L O G Y O F C O L O N I A L I S M 16 9places across th e lines that divide po litical, economic, religious, an d culturalcontexts and the disciplines that study them. These redundancies not on ly ex-plain some of the self-evidence acq uired by Western governmentality in its de-velopment, their study also gives a new lease of life to cultural analysis [some-thing not always appreciated by anthropologists (see Rosaldo 1994)]. They al-lo w one to trace continuities that go beyond the W est's occidental self-images(Carrier 1995): continuities between past colonial and today's professionalethnography (Fabian 1983;Pels & Salemink 1994;Pratt 1985, 1992; Stewart1994), or between nineteenth-century reinventions of ethnicity and theirpresent-day deployment (Appiah 1993; Dirks 1992a, 1995; Mudimbe 1988) .In recent years, however, some anthropologists have become impatientwith the historical and literary preoccupation with texts, and they have turnedaway from an ex clusively textual notion of culture. Some suspect the culture ofliteracy that informed Western representations of self and other (Fabian 1983).While studies of the textual strategy of colonial representation have signifi-cantly advanced our understanding of its grassroots operation (Mitchell 1991),they insufficiently grasp the contradictions and paradoxes of specific micro-physics of colonial struggle, encounter, (knowledge) production, and ex-change (Hirschkind 1991; Pels 1996a/199/; Stoler & Cooper 1997). Analysesof colonialism increasingly stress the nonverbal, tactile dimensions of socialpractice: the exchange of objects, the arrangement and disposition of bodies,clothes, buildings, and tools in agricultural practices medical and religiousperformances, regimes of domesticity and kinship, physical discipline, and theconstruction of landscape (Arnold 1993, C o n n 1996,Comaroff 1985,C o ma -roff & C o m ar o ff 1997, Eves 1996, Mangan 1986, Pels 1996b, Schumaker199\, Stoler 1995aj. This makes the study of colonialism more anthropologi-cal, as older methdds of museum studies, physical anthropology and archae-ology, or the classical British functionalist injunction to add what people do towhat they say about it are reinvented and made re levant to new pursuits.HOMES, FIELDS, AND THE TRAVELS IN BETWEENIf, however, the study of nonverbal practices makes the analysis of colonialismmore anthropological, it will also challenge the dichotomous image oftwentieth-century anthropology. The dyad of anthropologist and informantsand of an academic home juxtaposed to a "field" of research breaks down onceone brings the physical work necessary to maintain these dichotomies into theanalysisthe work of traveling, making a temporary dw elling, or constructingethnographic occasions or a "field" in colonial circumstances (Clifford 1992,Pels & Salemink 1994, Schumaker 199\, Stocking 1991). Th e erasure of thesepractical conditions also deleted colonial and postcolonial governments and


8/20

170 PELSmade them external to the self-conception of anthropology. Just such an era-sure of a much more multisided, contradictory, and paradoxical practice by adichotomous world view characterized colonialism in general (Stoler & Coo-pe r 1997). The study o f colonial discourse may hav e done much to outline theambiv alent dichotomies between self and other, its tendency to reduce colonialstruggle to a form of governmentality that marks out a subject nation in pejora-tive terms (Bhabha 1994) ignores many of the contradictions, paradoxes, an dnegotiations that accompany colonial rule (Thomas 1994). Fo r every imagi-nary opposition of home and field, one must study the hybrid work of travelthat links them up.Conquests and ExpeditionsGiven that the view of colonialism as struggle has only recently come to pre-dominate its study, it is not surprising that anthropologists, unlike historians,rarely researched the violent beginnings of colonial occupation. Yet con-quests, oth er colonial wars, and their routines of reconnaissance have a pecu-liar re la t ionship to colonial mythology and the subsequent structuration of co-lonial rule. Studies of "first contact" often produced remarkable instances ofdiverging cultural interpretations of the same events (Connoly & Anderson1987, Sahlins 1985, Schieffelin & C rittenden 1991). Military intelligence em-ployed most colorful and ruthless anthropologists (such as Richard Burton,Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, or Colonel Creighton in Kipling's Kim). Thecultural organization of military prowess and its relative lack of success vis-a-vis colonial armies often left a legacy of ethnic distinctiveness under laterphases of colonial rule (Forster 1994, West 1994).It is well kno wn that indigenous religious and magical conceptions played acrucial role in the process and subsequent reinterpretation of successful con-quests by Europeans (Connoly & Anderson 1987; Reid 1994; Sahlins 1985,1995; Wiener 1995). Such images, how ever, of the European as god or power-ful magician were also recurrent themes of colonial mythology and have, atleast in the history of Mexico and Peru, been "unmasked" as second-and third-generation ( re)inven tions of tradition (Adorno 1994, Gillespie 1989, Lockhart1994). Do images of cultural difference between conqueror an d conquered ob -scure rather than illuminate the outcome of violent exchanges (the issue of de-bate between Obeyesekere 1992, Sahlins 1995)? Some cases suggest differentconceptualizations of otherness on the part of the conquered (Lockhart 1994).Further accounts suggest that the main difference between Europeans and oth-ers was the former's extreme capacity for violen ce, whethe r technological(Reid 1994) or cultural and emotional (D e Silva 1994). The study of colonialconquest will be crucial in rethinking th e relationship of culture an d violence.


9/20

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM 171Military or other expeditions often forged novel oriental and occidental

identities, for the simple reason that the two parties in the encounter were accu-mulating the experiences that wou ld make them decide w hether and how to ap-ply a self/O ther dichotomy to a much more m ultisided set of relationsh ips(Thornton 1995). W e have as yet, however, no clear view of the precise socio-historical conditions within which a bricolage of tactical engagemen ts gaveway to colonial strategies based on fairly stable conceptions of otherness. W ehave very few anthropologically informed studies of the tactical engagementsthemselves (but se e Byrnes 1994, C onnoly & Anderson 1987). Anth ropolo-gists of colonialism seem to have taken th e military struggle fo r granted as amaterial event, forgetting that even a single blow requires cultural prepara-tions. Sim ilarly , barring one excellent exception, we have very few studies ofthe symbolic process that accompanies colonial violence (Taussig 1992).Other expeditions, which depend on a similar tactical bricolage as militaryones, have also yet to receive the attention they deserve, though the study ofsome of their aspects, such as the circulation of objects (Thomas 1991) or thecreation of linguistic knowledge (Fabian 1986) provide tantalizing insights .Translation, Conversion, and MissionThe study of C hristian m issionaries has been a majo r area of inno vation in theanthropology of colonialism. Initial interest, however, w as raised by the suspi-cion of missionaries cultivated by anthropologists since th e 1930s. The anthro-pological Feindbild of missionaries as exemplary colon ialist indo ctrinator sdefined the former 's activity as an essentially harmless curiosity, and this viewinformed some of the earliest work on the topic (Beidelman 1981). The studyof missions, however, soon complicated that image and contributed some ofth e more exciting approaches in the anthropology of colonialism.Much of this work concentrates on how the different worlds of missionaryand potential convert are related through language. Urged by the necessity tocommunicate th e Gospel, missionaries did probably more substantial record- j/in g of unknown languages than al l anthropologistJaken together. Because "ITlearning a language implies learning cultural competence, they also had tocope w ith the relations of power that are constructed by and ex pressed in hier-archies b etween languages, their notatio n and translation, and the conversa-tions that occurred on that basis. All colonial relationships require a languageof command, and often its dictionary and grammar were provided by mission-aries ( C o nn 1996, Fabian 1986). While the indeterminacies of translation gavemissionaries m uch troub le, they also provided potential converts w ith a certainliberty of meaning (Rafael 1988, 1992). The conversation that developed onthis basis was essential for the development of a colonial structure from hith-


10/20

172 PELS

erto separate European and indigenous routines (Comaroff 1985; Comaroff &Comaroff 1991, 1997).These studies have shown that it is impossible to separate the missionarymovement from broader processes of propagating modernity, anthropology in-cluded. Missionaries were central to the emergence and professionalization ofethnology and anthropology in Britain and in the way Britain envisaged its rolein the colonies (Dirks 19 95, Pels & Salemink 1994). Missiona ry education wasa crucial factor in the emergence of secularizing strategies in colonial India(Viswanathan 1989), and it often spread the language on which, later, thestate' s iden tification of ethnic identities was based (Dirks 1995, Ranger 1989 ).Religious and secular coloniz ation, therefo re, occupy comm on ground (Fabian1986, Van der Veer 1995). Yet it is possible to identify differences in attitudebetween missionaries and colonial administrators. Because of their generallyassimilationist attitude , missionaries are less pro ne to essentialize, becau se forthem, otherness is preferably already in the past. Moreover, they ar e often en -gaged with individual converts rather than whole groups, an d ethnic an d racialessentializations do not occupy th e structural position in their texts that on esees in other colonizers' (Pels 1994, Thomas 1994).Thus, th e combination of religious teaching, massive in volvem ent in colo-nial education, an d relative autonomy from th e practice of colonial controlgave m issionaries a special position at the juncture of colonial technologies ofdomination and self-control. Indivi dually , missionaries often resisted collabo-ration with colonial a uthorities, but they supported them by educ ation and con-version. For the colonized, education and conversion became technologies ofself-control that enabled su bordin ation at the same time that they structured re-sistance to C hristianity, colonialism, and their trappings. "Conversion to mod-ernity" was the prime locus where technologies of the self and of colo nialdomination converged (Van de r Veer 1995). One should treat the concept ofconversion with caution, however. Earlier uses of the term within a theory ofmodernization (e.g. Horton 1971) carry the idealist connotatio ns of the Protes-tantism from which it emerged, an d this may cause us to ignore th e media an dalternative cultural interpretations of the transformation (C omaroff & C oma-roff 1991). Such transformations are also accomplished by changes in family ; /and gender patterning; corporeal regimesl like clothy, dances, an d initiation^; 4 j \jyan d agricultural an d domestic objects an d spaces (Comaroff & Comaroff ^ ^1997, Eves 1996, Jolly & Maclntyre 1989, Pels 1996b).Settlers, Plantations, and LaborThe study of settler culture was also central to the anthropology of colonialism,partly because plantation economies featured prominently in the marxisant an-


11/20

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLON IALIS M 17 3thropology of the 1970s (see Stoler 1995b), but more imp ortantly because suchstudies subsequently deepened ou r understanding of the composit ion of colo-nial culture. Caused, on the one hand, by a largely feminist-inspired discoveryof colonial domesticity and, on the other, by rethinking th e organization ofplantation labor violence, th is highlightin g of the "tensions of empire" m u c hadvanced the interp retation of colonialism as a constant struggle rather than asa sing ular and coherent strategy (Co oper & Stoler 1989).By the mid-1980s, feminists had added the study of European women tothat of the study of the consequences of colonialism for the colonized (C alla-w ay 1987, Strobel 1991). The study of colonial domesticity showed that tomaintain co lonial author ity along th e lines of race, European women had tosubmit to far stricter rules than was common in the metropole. The colonialstate engaged in the racial policing of class boundaries as well (Stoler 1991,1995a). Similarly, gender distinctions were m onitored in the attempt of colo-nial states to regulate working classes, though such constructions may havebeen beyond the limits of colonial and in the sphere of self-control (Cooper1992, Wh ite 1990). C olonial a u t h o r i t y was bolstered by the often mistakenassumption that European women were less oppressed than indigenous ones,m a k i n g so-called eman cipation a legitimation for intervention (Hafkin & B a y1976, Mani 1990). Miscegenation was a major preoccupation of colonial dis-course (Wolfe 1994). Occide ntalist distinctions between public and private be-came technologies of self wh en the colonized introduced them into the pu blicperformance of domestic life (C hakrabarty 1994), wh ile in the metropo le suchtechnologies of self were develo ped in reference to the colonies (D avin 1978).Settler colonialism was, of course, based on expropriation of land, and re-cent inn ovativ e wo rk shows that the cultural consequences of conco mitantdoctrines of terra nullius have not yet been sufficiently researched (Wolfe199 1,1994 ). Because of their attempts at perman ent establishment, settlers leftsome of the most lasting legacies of colonialism (Thomas 1994), legacies thatw e often fail to recognize as colonial because they are the product of an inter-na l colonialism in which discussion of the colonized has given way to discus-sion of minority ethnic groups (Barth 1969, Hechter 1975 ). Plant ation s andforced labor were at the root of European colonialism and provided the modelfor other, non-European practices of exploitation by slavery (Sheriff 1987).Settlers' desire for cheap labor often led them to argue that indigenous workersneeded different t reatmentby forcethan those back in the metropole. Thiswas a crucial feature of the development of late colonial rule (Cooper 1996)and often led to opposition to settlers' concerns by the administrative interestin a colony's strategic stability (Salemink 1991). Ethnology itself emergedfrom the protest against ethnocidal policies of settler colonies and the conse-quent need for salvage ethnography (Rainger 1980, Stocking 1971).


12/20

174 PELSTo further study colonial culture, it seems especially important to continue

interrogating how the boundaries an d relationships between pu blic an d privatewere constructedwhere they required th e rescheduling of rhythms of domes-tic and work time (C ooper 1992), the redrawing o f standards of public per-formance [a s evidenced by colonial notions of corruption (Pels I 99 6a)j, the re-building of towns an d cities (Al Sayyad 1992), or the redecorating of the homeand the self through consumption (Comaroff & Co m a r o f f 1997). Public andprivate are also invo lved in the forms of classificatory kinship peculiar to colo-nialismas yet rarely studied in themselvessuch as the Indian colonial ad-ministra tor ' s ma-bap or father-mother role, die ubiquitous infantilizing of thecolonized, and the pecu liar role of so-called universal brotherhood of diverseforms of colonial and anticolonial propaganda and protest. We have only justbegun to study th e culture of labor regimes an d their ascriptions of edinic es-sences to coolies, migr ant laborers, and former slaves (b ut see Breman 1989,Thomas 1994J).ETHNICIZATION AND ITS FRAGMENTSIn the preceding section, trade was not addressed. Mercantile capitalism pre-figured Western technologies of government and their ethnic categorizationsin general. William Pietz shows how Dutch merchants were among the firstethnograp hers to produce non-C hristian alterities, articulated on the norm aland abnormal exchange of objects. He shows how the concept of fetish, for-merly functional within the hybrid relationships of global trade, was made todefine the essence of African society. His work should be made paradigmaticfor th e study of the processes of essentialization that characterize th e produc-tion of ethnography (Pietz 1985, 1987, 1988). Mercantile ethnicizations alsopioneered the imagination of European self and nation-state. Here, too, mer-chants prefigured modern govemmentality by creating the first images of na-t ional commun ity (Helgerson 1992) and pioneering the insurance technologiesfrom which probability and statistics would emerge (Hacking 1990). Theirmetaphors of the ship and the island/ helped to shift the notion of economyfrom family relationships to the more abstract concept of population, a devel-opment that is the major marker of the new discourse on government (Foucau lt1991; Grove 1995). Although the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries wereconstitutive of botii empires and nations and their tensions and fragments(Cooper & Staler 1997, Chatterjee 1993), they have rarely been researched byanthropologists of colonialism.


13/20

A N T H R O P O L O G Y O F C O L O N I A L I S M 1 7 5Statistics an d EthnographyStatistics an d ethnography were th e carriers of modern classifications of race,nation, and ethnicity, and fortunately we have an excellent account of thetransformations of the art of travel from which they emerged (Stagl 1995). Theepistemological shift from the incorporating cosmology of crusade, pilgrim-age, and mission to the distancing cosmology of exploration made implicitpractices of traveling subject to explicit , written classifications of knowledgethat were the methodological predecessors o f statistical questionnaires and theanthropologists' Notes an d Queries (Fabian 1983). Human beings were simul-taneously red efined as analogous to animal and plant species, as ethnic types tobe slotted in the pigeonholes of such questionnaires (Thomas 1994). Taxon-om y was also at the heart of the new "art of government," based, as La Perrieresaid, on the "right disposition of things, arranged to lead to a convenient end"(cited in Foucault 1991). Europeans seem to have learned th e taxonomic man-agement of "things" particularly in governing bounded, isolated units of goodsan d personnel such as ships (Foucault 1991) an d islands (Grove 1995). Sucha culture of objects to be managed characterized early trading relationships(Pietz 1985, 1987, 1988) as well as later forms of exploration (Thomas 1991)and becam e a basic feature of European self-conceptions by laying the ground-work for a museum culture through th e curiosity cabinetwhere it , again, tiesin with the history of anthropology. If, however, the outlines of such a reinter-pretation of European colonial culrure(s) ar e there, much more research needsto be done.W h a t line such research can take can partly be understood from the historyof botany, which was both a revolutionary activity in scientific terms and amost pract ical one in terms of researching th e possibilit ies fo r colonial revenuefrom agriculture. From the time of the La C ondamine scientific expedition of1735 onward, Linnean botany had helped to create an international network ofscientists (Pratt 1992). It provided, for instance, Dutch, British, or Russian ex-peditions with German naturalists, creating a circuit for the exchange ofknowledge in which much colonial intelligence could be passed on from oneempire to another (Slezkine 1994, Thomas 1991). Th e network of scientific so -cieties and botanical gardens w as specifically colonial rather than me tropoli-t a n a n d even the knowledge it disseminated was a hybrid of, among otherthings, Indian an d European botanical classifications (Grove 1995). Botanistspioneered the colonial deployment of statistics (Vicziany 1986). Anthropolo-gists of colonialism, however, still need to catch up with the recent advancesmade in the (colonial) history of science and research its significance for thedevelopment of colonial rule. Since most colonial naturalists were medicalmen, this is obviously also a history of colonial conceptions of the body and


14/20

176 PELS

disease, the more important because before the rise of the clinic in the nine-teenth century the confrontation of European and other medical systems wasone between more or less equally effective practices of curing.The study of colonial statistics can also yield more results. It is clear thatgovernmental notions of population and economy, and the "numbering" theynecessarily imply, were pioneered in the colonies (Appadurai 1993, Hacking1990). While some of the best work in the anthropology of colonialism hasshown the importance of census and statistics in establishing colonialism andmodern governmentality (Anderson 1991, Cohn 1987), much research isneeded on how they emerged from colonial insurance and po litical arithmetic.Moreover, while we assume that ethnography and statistics, after having beencoined together in the late eighteenth century (Stagl 1995), parted company atth e beginning of the twentieth century (Asad 1994), little research has beendone on how this happened , on the role colonial ex perience played in this de -velopment (see Dirks 1996), and on the possibility of comparing nineteenth-century ethnography an d statistics with twentieth-centuryanthropological sur-veys such as the Human Relations Area Files (C ohn 1996).Inventions of Tradition and ModernitySeventeenth- an d eighteenth-century exemplars developed technologies ofdomination that have recently been studied: the regime of representation( M i t c h e l l 1991, Rabinow 1989); the rise of environmentalism, crucial to utili-tarianism and functionalism (Grove 1995) as well as to the emergence of sani-tation (Arnold 1993, Thomas 1994); colonial map-making (Noyes 1992); th eagricultural and social impro vemen t of villages necessary for colonial revenue(Breman 1988, Dewey 1972, Guha 1989); or the development of colonial po-licing (Arnold 1993, Dirks 1996). It is still unusual for researchers to fully es -cape the dichotom y of colonial state and oppressed and/or resistant others, andrealize how much colonial empires were fragmented by other tensions (Stoler& C ooper 1997). Empires were maintained by ethnic soldiers that fought th ecolonized at the same time that they colonized themselves (Fox 1985), or bywhite women subordinating their domestic staff while they were acting outtheir ow n subordination (Stoler & Cooper 1997). The present emphasis ongovernmentality as a pervasive form of power should not obscure that one'shegemony w as often th e other 's coercion. Surely, governmentality should beunderstoo d as a power dispersed through the social body. It cannot be regardedas a singular colonial strategy, and we should study the struggles going onamong groups of colonizers and the colonized and between them, not onlyover the con trol of gove rnm ental technologies but also over their appropriate-ness, application, an d desirability.


15/20

A N T H R O P O L O G Y O F C O L O N I A L I S M 177The most influential argument in this respect is that of the invention of tra-dition under colonial circumstances: the use of an image of tribal or traditionalgovernment within strategies of indirect rule (Ranger 1983). Such an image ofother governm ent a nd its tension with ethnocentric defi nitio ns of modern gov-ernment were crucial to any form of colonia l rule (Mamdani 1996). The con-tradiction between other an d modern government was founded on a similar in-frastructure of representation (Mitchell 1991). However, the notion of in-vented tradition privileged European agency and regarded the tradition toomuch as an ideology imposed on, rather than coauthored with or resisted by,section s of colon ized groups (Dirk s 1993b, Pels 1996a, Thomas 1992).More over, we can not restrict ourselves to inventions of tradition; moder-nity itself needs to be imagined and constructed as well. It is here that analyticperspectives on alternative imaginings of history, of the public/private or

work/home dichotomies, or of C hristianity (Chakrabarty 1994, Cooper 1992,Mbembe 1992, Pels 1996b, White 1993) may prove to be important to futuredevelopments in the anthropology of colonialism. They shall, fo r instance,raise th e question of the extent to which governmentality is synonymous withWestern cult ure as such, whe ther it can be regarded as a whole, or wh ethe r it isa set of technologies that lend themselves to selective adoption into alternativegovernmentalities. Simila rly, they should address to what ex tent colonialismhas triggered subaltern processes of global communication such as black cul-ture, rumor, art, or possession (Appiah 1993, Kramer 1993, Pels 1992).C O N C L U S I O N : HISTORIES OF THE PRESENTThe mottoes at the beginning of this review argue that colonialism was a con-tradictory project. Like modern anthropology, it tends to bracket ou t part of theself to know and/or rule the other, or vice versa. If Mr. C omm issioner Sandersshould know nothing of the cruel measures his African "indirect ruler" neededto keep Sanders's peace, it is clear from Nyerere's s tatement that this hypoc-risy of domination penetrated th e self-control of all participants in the colonialprocess. Anthropo logy, too, ha s often denied that it knew anything of colonial-ism, to the point of making colonialism into th e definition of what anthropol-ogy is not (e.g. Beidelman 1981). If we are now in a position to overcome thatdenial by doing the anthropology of colonialism as an anthropology of anthro-pology, this indicates that, after Humboldt, we are capable or in need of sepa-rating ourselves from a phase in which anthropology and colonial rule werepart of the same social formation: the world of modernity, development, an dthe we lfare state.This makes the anthropology of colonialism a historiograph y of the present.After colonialism comes the postmodern; the latter cannot be understood ex-


16/20

178 PELScept as postc olon ial (Ap piah 19 93, Thomas 1994). Postcolon ial societies aremainly based on development regimes constructed under colonial rule (Lud-den 1992), regimes that inherited th e colonial inclination to excise politicsfrom economic an d admin istrative practice (Ferguson 1990, Fields 1985, Pels1996a). Governmentality was, like social science, a political technology meantto prevent coercion andpolitics (Malinowski 1929; Rabinow 1989). The bifur-cation, however, of colonial polities into traditional and modern often func-t ioned to facilitate coercive practices such as forced labor (C ooper 1996) or tri-bal ism, communalism, and apartheid (Mamdani 1996, Pandey 1990). We areno t only in need of more studies of the simultaneous emergence of modernityand colonial ism in the seventeenth an d eighteenth centuries, but of more eth-nographies of decolonizat ion, focusing on the continuity between present an dpast practices of development, welfare, and good governance, and the waythey were constituted by anthropology, economics, andpolitical science. If weare ever going to be capable of disengaging anthropology from colonialism,we first need to reflexively blur the boundaries between colonialism and ourpresent anthropology.A C K N O W L E D G M E N T SI thank Peter van der Veer and the Editoria l C ommittee of the Annual Reviewof Anthropology fo r encouraging me to write this review. Much of its inspira-tion ha s been derived from several years of conversation on the topic with O s-ca r Salemink, an d from a sojourn among staff an d students of the Universi ty ofMichigan 's anthrohistory program in 1995, made possible by UM's Interna-tional Institute and the Dutch Royal Academy of Sciences. I am grateful toNicholas Dirks, Johannes Fabian, Lynette Schumaker, Nicholas Thomas, andPeter van der Veer fo r their comments on an earlier draft of the review.

V i s i t th e Annual Reviews homepage a t h t t p : / / w w w . a n n u r e v . o r g .

Literature CitedA dorno R. 1994. Th e indigenous ethnogra- Ap p ad u rai A. 1993. Number in the C o lo n ia lpher: th e "indip ladino" as historian an d I maginat ion. See Breckenridge & Van dercultural med iatio n . See Schwartz 1994, pp. Veer 1993, pp . 314-39378-402 Appiah K A. 1993. In My father's House. Af-Al Sayyad N, ed. 1992. Forms of Dominance. rica in the Philosophy of Culture. L o n d o n :On the Architecture and Urbanism of the MethuenColonial Enterprise. Aldershot : Aveb u ry Arno ld D. 1993. Colonizing the Body. StateA nderson B. 1991. Imagined Comm unities. Medicine and Epidemic Disease inReflections on the Origin and Spread of Nineteenth- Century India. Berkeley:Nationalism. Londo n: Verso. 2nd ed. Un iv. C alif. Press


17/20

A N T H R O P O L O G Y O F C O L O N I A L I Si M 1 7 9AsadT, ed. 1973. Anthropology and the Colo-

nial Encounter. Londo n: Ithaca PressAsad T, 1994. Ethnography and statistical rep-resentation. Soc. Res. 6:55-88Balandier G, ed. 1963. (1955). Sociologie Ac-titelle de I'Afrique Noire. Paris: Press.Un iv. FranceBarker F, Hulme P, Iversen M , Loxley D, eds.1985. Europe and Its Others. Colchester:Un iv. EssexBarth F, ed. 1969. Ethnic Croups and Bounda-ries. Bergen/London: Univ. Forlaget/AI-len & U n w i nBeidelman TO . 1981. Colonial Evangelism.Bloomington: Indiana Univ. PressBhabha H I C . 1994. The Location of Culture.London/New Y o r k : RoutledgeBoahen AA. 1987. African Perspectives onColonialism, Baltimore: J o h n s HopkinsU n i v . PressBoyarin D, Boyarin J. 1989. Toward a dia-logue with Edward Said. Crit. Inq. 15 :626-33Breckenridge C A, Van der Veer P, cds. 1993.Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predica-ment. Perspectives on South Asia. Phila-delphia: Univ. Pa . PressBreman JC. 1988, The Shattered Image: Con-strucion and Deconstruct ion of the Villagein Colonial Asia. Dordrecht: Foris/C ASABreman JC. 1989. Taming the Coolie Beast.Plantation Society and the Colonial Orderin Southeast Asia. Delhi: Oxford Un iv.PressBurchell G, Gordon C , Miller P, eds. 1991.The Foucault E f f e c t . Studies in Govern-mentality. Chicago: Un iv. C hicago PressByrnes G. 1994. Th e imperfect authority ofth e eye ': Shortland's southern journey and

the calligraphy of colonialism. Se e Pels &Salemink 1994, pp. 207-35Callaway H. 1987. Gender, Culture and Em-pire. European Women in Colonial Nige-ria. Oxford: MacmillanC arrier JG, ed. 1995. Occidentalism. Imageso f the West. Oxford: ClarendonC hakrabarty D. 1992. Postcoloniality and theartifice of history: Who speaks fo r ' Indian 'pasts? Representations 37:1-26Chakrabarty D. 1994. The difference-deferralof a colonial modernity: public debates ondomesticity in British India. SubalternStud. 8:50-88Chatterjee P. 1989. Nationalist Thought andthe Colonial World: A Derivative Dis-course? London: Zed BooksChatterjee P. 1993. The Nation and Its Frag-ments. Colonial and Postcolonial Histo-ries. Princeton, NJ : Princeton Un iv. PressClifford J. 1982. Person and Myth: Maurice

Leenhardt in the Melanesian World. Ber-keley: Univ. C alif. PressClifford J. 1983. On ethnographic authority.Representations 2:11846Clifford J. 1992. Trav eling C ultures. Cult.Stud. Ne w York/London: RoutledgeClifford J, Marcus G, eds. 1986. Writing Cul-ture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnogra-phy. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressCohn BS. 1968. Ethnohistory. Int. Enc. Soc.Sci. 5:440-48. Ne w York: MacMillan, FreePressC o h n BS. 1987. An Anthropologist Among theHistorians and Other Essays. Delhi: Ox -ford Univ. PressC ohn BS. 1996. Colonialism and Its Forms ofKnowledge. The British in India. Prince-ton, NJ : Princeton Un iv. PressComaroff J. 1985. Body of Power, Spiritof Re-sistance. The Culture and History of aSouth African People. Chicago: Un iv. C h i -cago PressComaroff J, Comaroff J. 1 9 9 1 . Of Revelationand Revolution, Vol. 1. Chicago: U n i v .C hicago PressComaroff J, Comaroff J. 1992. Ethnographyand the Historical Imagination. Chicago:Univ. C hicago PressComaroff J, Comaroff J. 1997. Of Revelationand Revolution, Vol. 2. Chicago: Univ.Chicago PressConnoly B, Anderson R. 1987. First Contact.New Guinea's Highlanders Encounterthe Outside World. Harmondsworth: Pen-guinCooper F. 1992. C olonizing time: workrhythms and labour conflict in colonialMombasa. See Dirks 1992b, pp. 209^*5Cooper F. 1996. Development and African So-ciety. Th e Labor Question in French andBritish Africa. C ambridge: C ambridgeUn iv. PressCooper F, Stoler AL, eds. 1997. Tensions ofEmpire. Colonial Cultures in a BourgeoisWorld. Berkeley: Un iv. Calif . PressCooper F, Stoler AL , eds. 1997. Tensions ofEmpire. Colonial Cultures in a BourgeoisWorld. Berkeley: Univ. California PressCoronil F. 1996. Beyond Occidentalism: to-ward nonimperial geohistorical categories.Cult. Anthropol. l l ( l ) : l - 3 7Davin A. 1978. Imperialism and motherhood.Hist. Workshop 5:9-57Deloria V. 1969. Custer Died For Your Sins.An Indian Manifesto. New Y ork: AvonDe Silv aC R. 1994. Beyond the Cape: the Por-tuguese encounter with the peoples ofSouth Asia. See Schwartz 1994, pp.295-322D e w e y C . 1 9 7 2 . I m a g e s o f t h e v i l l a g e c o m m u -


18/20

180 PELSnity: a study in Anglo-Indian ideology.Mod. Asian Stud. 6:291-328Dirks N B. 1992a. Castes of mind. Representa-tions 37:56-78Dirks NB, ed. 1992b. Colonialism and Cul-ture. A nn Arbor: Univ. Mich. PressDirks N B. 1993a. Colonial histories an d nativeinformants: biography of an archive. Se eBreckenridge & Van der Veer 1993, pp .279-313Dirk s NB . 1993b. The Hollow Crown. Elhno-history of an Indian Kingdom. An n Arbor:U n i v . Michigan Press. 2nd ed.Dirks NB . 1995. Th e conversion of caste: lo -catio n , translation and appropriation. Se eV an de r V e e r 1995, pp . 115-36Dirk s NB . 1996. Reading C u ltu re . A nthropol-ogy and the Textualization of India. InCulture/Contexture. Explorations in An-thropology and Literary Studies, ed. EVDaniel, J M Peck. Berkeley: U niv. C alif.PressEtien n e M, Leacock E, eds. 1980. Women andColonization. Anthropological Perspec-tives. N ew York: PraegerEves R. 1996. C olonialism , corporeality an dcharacter: Methodist missions and the re-fashioning of bodies in the Pacific. Hist.Anthropol. 10:85-138Fabian ). 1983. Time and the Other: How An-thropology Makes It s Object. Ne w York:C o l u m b i a U n i v . PressFabian J. 1986. Language an d ColonialPower: Th e Appropriation of Swahili inthe Former Belgian Congo, 1880-1938.C ambridge: Cambridge Un iv. PressF ab ian J. 1990. History from Below: Th e "Vo-cabulary of Elisabelhville " by Andre Yav.Texts, Translation, and Interpretive Essay.A m sterdam /Philadelphia: Ben jamin sFabian J . 1995. Ethnographic misunderstand-ing and the perils of context Am . Anthro-pol. 97:41-50Fabian J. 1996. Remembering the Present.Painting an d Popular History in Zaire.Berkeley: U n i v . C alif . PressFeierm an S. 1990. Peasant Intellectuals. An -thropology and History in Tanzania.Madison: U n i v . W i s . PressFeierman S. 1993. African histories and thedissolution of wo rld history. In Africa an dthe Disciplines. Th e Contribution of Re-search in Africa to the Social Sciences an dHumanities, ed. R Bates, V M u d i m b e , JO'Barr, pp . 167-212. Chicago: Un iv. C h i -cago PressFerguson J. 1990. Th e Anti-Politics Machine:"Developm ent", D epoliticization and Bu-reaucratic Power in Lesotho. C a m b r i d g e :C a m b r i d g e U n i v . Press

Fields I C E . 1985. Revival and Rebellion in Co-lonial Central Africa. Princeton, NJ :Princeton U n i v . PressForster P. 1994. Politics, ethnography and the' in ven tio n of tradition ' : th e case of T. C ul-len Young of Livingstonia Mission, Ma-lawi. Se e Pels & Salemin k 1994, pp .299-320Foucault M. 1991. Go vern men tal i ty . Se eB u r c h e l l e t a l 1991, pp . 87-104Fo x R B. 1985. Lions of the Punjab. Culture inth e Making. Berkeley: U n i v . C alif . PressG i l l e s p i e S D . 1989. Th e Aztec Kings. Th e Con-struction of Ruler ship in Mexico History.Tucson: U n i v . A rizona PressGough K. 1968. Anthropo logy: child of impe-r ial is m. Man. Rev. 19(11): 12-27Grove R. 1995. Green Imperialism. ColonialExpansion, Tropical Island Edens and theOrigin of Environmentalism, 16001860.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. PressG u h a R . 1983. Elementary Aspects of PeasantInsurgency in Colonial India. Delhi: O x -ford Univ. PressG uha R. 1989. Dom inance witho u t hegemonyan d it s historiography. In Subaltern Stud-ies, ed. R Guha, 6:210-309. Delhi: OxfordUniv. PressGuha R, Arnold D, Chatterjee P, Hardiman D,Pandey G, eds. 1982-1994. SubalternStudies. Delhi: O xford Un iv. PressHacking I . 1990. Th e Taming of Chance. C a m -bridge: C a m b r i d g e U n i v . Press.Haf kin NJ, Bay EG, eds. 1976. Women in Af-rica. Studies in Social and EconomicChange. Stanford: Stanford U n i v . PressHechter M. 1975. Internal Colonialism. Th eCeltic Fringe in British National Develop-ment, 1536-1966. Berkeley: Un iv. C alif .PressHelgerson R . 1992. Camoes, Hakluyt, and theVoyages of Two Nations. Se e Dirks1992b, pp . 27-63H i r s c h k i n d C . 1991. 'Egypt at th e exhibition ' :reflections on the optics of co lo n ia l ism.Crit. Anthropol. 11:279-98Horton R. 1971. Af r ican conversion. Africa41:85-108H u l m e P. 1992. Colonial Encounters. Europeand the Native Caribbean 1492-1797.London/New York: RoutledgeHymes D, ed. 1974. Reinventing Anthropol-ogy. Ne w York: VintageJo lly M , Maclntyre M , eds. 1989. Family an dGender in the Pacific. C a m b r i d ge : C a m -bridge U n i v . PressKimambo I. 1991. Penetration an d Protest inTanzania. London/Dar es Salaam /N airobi/A thens: Currey/Tanzania Pu b l. House/Heincm ann/O hio Un iv. Press


19/20

A N T H R O P O L O G Y O F C O L O N I A L I S M 18 1Kramer F. 1993. 7 V ; e flerf fez. Art and Spirit

Possession in Africa. London: VersoLambek M. 1995. Th e poiesis of Sakalava his-tory. Presented at l l t h SatterthwaiteSymp. Afr. Rel. Ritual, Satterthwaite, U KLewis B. 1993. Islamandthe West. Oxford:^Lockhart J. 1994. Sightings: initial Nahua re-actions to Spanish culture. Se e Schwartz1994, pp . 218-48Ludden D. 1992. India 's development regime.Se e Dirks 1992b, pp . 247-87Ludden D. 1993. Orientalist empiricism. SeeBreckenridge & Van der Veer 1993, pp.250-78Mair L, ed. 1938. Methods in the Study o f Cul-ture Contact. Oxford: Oxford U niv. PressMalinowski B. 1929. Practical anthropology.Africa 2\22-nMalinowski B. 1945. The Dynamics o f CultureChange. New Haven: Yale Univ. PressMamdani M. 1996. Citizen and Subject. Con-temporary Africa and the Legacy of LateColonialism. Princeton, NJ : PrincetonUniv. PressManganJ A. 1986. The Games Ethic and Impe-rialism. New York: Viking PenguinMan! L. 1990. C ontenti ous tradition s: the de-bate on sati in colonial India. In RecastingWomen: Essays in Indian Colonial His-tory, ed. K Sangari, S Vaid. New Bruns-wick: Rutgers Univ. PressMbembe A. 1992. Provisional notes on thepostcolony. Africa 62:3-37Meillassoux C . 1964. Anthropologie econo-mique des Gouro de Cote d'lvoire. Paris:MoutonMitchell T. 1991. Colonizing Egypt. Berkeley:U n i v . C alif. Press. 2nd ed.Mudimbe V. 1988. The Invention of Africa.Bloomington: Indiana Univ. PressNoyes J. 1992. Colonial Space. Spatiality inthe discourse of German South West Af-rica, 1884-1914. Chur , Reading: HarwoodNyerere JK . 1966. (1952). Freedom andUnity. D a r e s Salaam: Oxford Univ. PressObeyesekere G. 1992. The Apotheosis of Cap-tain Cook: European Mythmaking in thePacific. Princeton, NJ : Princeton Un ivPressOng W. 1958. Ramus: Method and the Decayof Dialogue. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.PressOtterspeer W. 1989. Th e ethical imperative.InLeiden Oriental Connections, 1850-1940,ed. W Otterspeer. Leiden j;Pandey G. 1990. The Construction ofCommu-nalism in Colonial North India. Delhi: Ox-

ford Univ . Pressp'Bi tek O. 1970. African Religions in WesternScholarship. Nairobi: Kenya L it. Bur.

Pels P. 1992. Mumiani: the wh ite vampire. Aneo-diffusionist analysis of rumour. Etno-foor 5( 1-2): 165-87Pels P. 1994. The construction of ethnographicoccasions in late colonial Uluguru. Se ePels & Salemink 1994, pp. 321-51Pels P. 1996a. The pidginization of Lugurupolitics. Administrative ethnography an dth e paradoxes of indirect rule. Am . Ethnol.23(4):738-6IPels P. 1996b. Kizungu rhythms. LuguruChristianity as Ngoma. J. Relft. Afr. 26(2):163-201Pels P, Salemink O, eds. 1994. Colonial Eth-nographies. Hist. Anthropol. 8:1-352Pietz W. 1985. The problem of the fetish. I.Res9:5-nPietz W. 1987. The problem of the fetish. II.Th e origin of the fetish. Res 13:23^45Pietz W. 1988. The problem of the fetish. III .Bosnian's Guinea and the enlightenmenttheory of fetishism. Res 16:105-123PrakashG. 1992. Writing post-Orientalist his-tories of th e Third World: Indian historiog-raphy is good to think. Se e Dirks 1992b,pp. 353-88Pratt ML. 1985. Scratches on the face of thecountry, or : W h a t Mr . Barrow saw in theland of the bushmen. Crit. Inq. 12:119-43Pratt ML . \992.1mperialEyes. Travel Writingand Transculturation. London/New York:RoutledgeRabinowP. 1989. French Modern. Norms andForms of the Social Environment. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT PressRafael V L. 1988. Contracting Colonialism.Translation and Christian Conversion inTagalog Society under Early SpanishRule. Ithaca, NY: C ornell Uni v. PressRafael V L. 1992. C onfession, conversion andreciprocity in early Tagalog colonial soci-ety. Se e Dirks 1992b, pp . 65-88Rainger R. 1980. Philanthropy and science inthe 1830s: the British and Foreign Aborigi-nes' prote ction society. Man (NS) 15 :702-17Ranger TO . 1983. The invention of tradition incolonial Africa. In Th e Invention o f Tradi-tion, ed. E Hobsbawm, TO Ranger. Cam-bridge: Cambridge Univ. PressRanger TO. 1989. Missionaries, migrants andthe Manyika: the invention of ethnicity inZimbabwe. In Th e Creation of Tribalismin Southern Africa, ed. L Vail, pp. 118-50.London/Berkeley: Currey/Univ. Calif .PressReid A. 1994. Early Southeast Asian catego-ries of Europeans. Se e Schwartz 1994, pp .268-94Robertson J. 1995. Mon Japon: the revue thea-


20/20

182 PELStcr as a technology of Japanese imper ial -ism. Am. Etlmol. 22:970-96Rosaldo R. 1994. Who se cultural studies? Am .Anthropol. 96:524-29Sahlins M. 1985. Islands of History. Chicago/London: Un iv. C hicago PressSahlins M. 1995. How "natives" think. AboutCaptain C ook, for example. Chicago:U n i v . C hicago PressSaid E. 1978. Orientalism. Harm ondsw orth:PenguinSalem ink O . 1991. Mois an d Maquis. The in-vention and appropria t ion of V i e t n a m ' sMontagnards from Sabatier to the C IA.See Stocking 1991, pp. 243-84Schieffelin EL , Cri t tenden R, eds. 1991. LikePeople Yo u See in a Dream. First Contactin Six Papuan Societies. Stanford: Stan-ford Univ. PressSchumaker L. 199\ A tent with a view: colo-nial officers, anthropologists, and the mak-ing of the field in Northern Rhodesia.8 Osiris, ^pnadSchwartz SB, ed. 1994. Implicit Understand-ings. Observing, Reporting, and Reflectingon the Encounters Behveen Europeans an dOther Peoples in the Early Modern Era.C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v . PressSheriff A. 1987. Slaves, Spices and Ivory inZanzibar. Integration of an East AfricanCommercial Enterprise into the WorldEconomy. 1770-1873. London/N airobi/Da r es Salaam/Athens: Currey/Hetne-mann/Tanzania Publ . House/Ohio U n i v .PressShokeid M. 1992. C om mitm ent and contex-tual study in anthropology. Cult. Anthro-pol. 7:464-77Slezkine Y. 1994. Naturalists versus nations:eighteenth-century Russian scholars con-front ethnic diversity. Representations 4 7 :170-95Stagl J. 1995. A History of Curiosity. The The-ory of Travel 1550-1800. C hur: HarwoodA cad.Stewart S. 1994. Crimes of Writing. D u r h a m :D u k e U n i v . PressStocking GW . 1971. What's in a name? Th eo rig in s of the Royal A nthropological Inst.Man (NS) 6:369-90Stocking GW, ed. 1991. Colonial Situations.Essays on the Contextualization of Ethno-graphic Knowledge. History of Anthropol-og y Vol. 7. Madison: U n i v . Wis. PressStoler AL. 1991. C arnal knowledge an d impe-rial power, gender, race, an d moral i ty incolonial Asia. In Gender at the Crossroadsof Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology inthe Postmodern Era, ed. M Di Leonardo,pp . 51-101. Berkeley: U n i v . C alif . Press

Stoler A L. 1992. ' In cold blood': hierarchiesof credibility and the politics of colonialnarratives. Representations 37:151-89Stoler AL. 1995a. Race and the Education ofDesire. Foucault's History of Sexualityand the Colonial Order of Things. Dur-h a m , N C : D u k e U n i v . PressStoler AL. 1995b. [Prefacing capitalism andconfrontation in 1995. In Capitalism an dConfrontation in Sumatra's PlantationBell, 1870-1979, ed. AL Stoler, pp.v i i - x x x i v . An n Arbor: U n i v . Mich . Press.2n d ed .Stoler AL , Cooper F. 1997. Between metro-pole and colony. Rethinking a researchagenda. In C o o p e r & Stoler 1997, pp .1-56Strobel M. 1991. European W omen and theSecond British Empire. Bloomington: In -diana U n i v . Press

Sturtevant W B. 1966. Anthropology, historyand ethnohistory. Ethnohistory 13:1-51Taussig M. 1989. History as commodity insome recent American (anthropological)literature. Crit. Anthropol. 9:70-23Taussig M. 1992. C ultur e of terrorspace ofdeath: Roger Casement's Putumayo reportan d the exp lanation of torture. See Dirks1992b, pp . 135-73Thomas N. 1991. Entangled Objects. Ex-change, Material Culture an d Colonialismin the Pacific. Cambridge, M A: HarvardU n i v . PressThomas N. 1992. The inv ersion of tradition.Am.Ethnol. 19:213-32Thomas N . 1994. Colonialism's Culture. An -thropology, Travel and Government. Lon-don: Polity PressThornton RJ. 1988. The r hetoric of ethno-graphic holism. Cult. Anthropol. 3:285-303Thornton RJ. 1995. The colonial, the impe rial,and the creation of the ' E u r o p e a n ' inSouthern Africa. Se e Carrier 1995, pp .192-217Vansina J. 1985. Oral Tradition as History.London: C u r r e yVan der Veer P, ed. 1995. Conversion to Mod-ernities: The Globalization of Christianity.N ew Y ork/London: RoutledgeVaughan M . 1991. Curing T heir Ills: ColonialPower and African Illness. Cambridge /Stanford: Polity Press & Stanford U n i v .PressVaughan M. 1994. C olonial discourse theoryand African history, or has postmodernismpassed us by? Soc. Dyn. 20(2): 1-23V iczian y M . 1986. Imp erialism , botany an dstatistics in early nineteenth-century India:th e surveys of Francis Buchanan

Anthropology of Colonialism Pels

Documents

Transcript of Anthropology of Colonialism Pels