dissabte, 3 de gener de 2015

Taxonomy OF EVIL AND GOOD DOERS & Ideology: On the Boundaries of Concept-Classification by Johannes Fabian THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM: Culture, History, and the Emergence of Western Governmentality this review often penetrates noncolonial territory and colonizes terrain first settled by historians and literary theorists by indulging in the conceit that a subdiscipline such as the anthropology of colonialism can be outlined. This conceit can be legitimized because, from the point of view of anthropology, the study of colonialism presents a unique view and commands a peculiar sense of engagement. For anthropologists, more than for any other type of scholar, colonialism is not a historical object that remains external to the observer. The discipline descends from and is still struggling with techniques of observation and control that emerged from the colonial dialectic of Western govemmentality. Anthropologists mostly think of colonialism in three ways: as the universal, evolutionary progress of modernization; as a particular strategy or experiment in domination and exploitation; and as the unfinished business of struggle and negotiation. All these views, in both positive and negative versions, were common colonial currency. Anthropological views of colonialism commonly stressed a combination of the three. A standard conception of professionalizing anthropology between the wars was that, to avoid colonial struggle—race conflict, indigenous revolt—one should follow a colonial strategy based on anthropological knowledge and planning to achieve the desired evolutionary progress cheaply and without bloodshed (e.g. Malinowski 1929). Around 1970, anthropologists often told their colleagues to shun collaboration with the powerful in neocolonial planning and strategy. Instead, they were supposed to support "indigenous" peoples in their struggles, to help the latter achieve the modernization that the legacy of colonialism—a perfidious combination of an ideology of modernization and a strategy of exploitation—denied them. That is, reinventions of anthropology often used images of colonialism as their cutting edge. Only in the past 25 years, however, have such critique and reflexivity become structural, owing to the increasing stress on the third view of colonialism, as a struggle that constantly renegotiates the balance of domination and resistance

Military or other expeditions often forged novel oriental and occidental
identities, for the simple reason that the two parties in the encounter were accumulating
the experiences that would make them decide whether and how to apply
a self/Other dichotomy to a much more multisided set of relationships
(Thornton 1995). We have as yet, however, no clear view of the precise sociohistorical
conditions within which a bricolage of tactical engagements gave
way to colonial strategies based on fairly stable conceptions of otherness. We
have very few anthropologically informed studies of the tactical engagements
themselves (but see Byrnes 1994, Connoly & Anderson 1987). Anthropologists
of colonialism seem to have taken the military struggle for granted as a
material event, forgetting that even a single blow requires cultural preparations.
Similarly, barring one excellent exception, we have very few studies of
the symbolic process that accompanies colonial violence (Taussig 1992).
Other expeditions, which depend on a similar tactical bricolage as military
ones, have also yet to receive the attention they deserve, though the study of
some of their aspects, such as the circulation of objects (Thomas 1991) or the
creation of linguistic knowledge (Fabian 1986) provide tantalizing insights.
Translation, Conversion, and Mission
The study of Christian missionaries has been a major area of innovation in the
anthropology of colonialism. Initial interest, however, was raised by the suspicion
of missionaries cultivated by anthropologists since the 1930s. The anthropological
Feindbild of missionaries as exemplary colonialist indoctrinators Much of this work concentrates on how the different worlds of missionary
and potential convert are related through language. Urged by the necessity to
communicate the Gospel, missionaries did probably more substantial record- j/
ing of unknown languages than all anthropologistJaken together. Because "IT
learning a language implies learning cultural competence, they also had to
cope with the relations of power that are constructed by and expressed in hierarchies
between languages, their notation and translation, and the conversations
that occurred on that basis. All colonial relationships require a language
of command, and often its dictionary and grammar were provided by missionaries
(Conn 1996, Fabian 1986). While the indeterminacies of translation gave
missionaries much trouble, they also provided potential converts with a certain
liberty of meaning (Rafael 1988, 1992). The conversation that developed on
this basis was essential for the development of a colonial structure separate European and indigenous routines (Comaroff 1985; Comaroff &
Comaroff 1991, 1997).
These studies have shown that it is impossible to separate the missionary
movement from broader processes of propagating modernity, anthropology included.
Missionaries were central to the emergence and professionalization of
ethnology and anthropology in Britain and in the way Britain envisaged its role
in the colonies (Dirks 1995, Pels & Salemink 1994). Missionary education was
a crucial factor in the emergence of secularizing strategies in colonial India
(Viswanathan 1989), and it often spread the language on which, later, the
state's identification of ethnic identities was based (Dirks 1995, Ranger 1989).
Religious and secular colonization, therefore, occupy common ground (Fabian
1986, Van der Veer 1995). Yet it is possible to identify differences in attitude
between missionaries and colonial administrators. Because of their generally
assimilationist attitude, missionaries are less prone to essentialize, because for
them, otherness is preferably already in the past. Moreover, they are often engaged
with individual converts rather than whole groups, and ethnic and racial
essentializations do not occupy the structural position in their texts that one
sees in other colonizers' (Pels 1994, Thomas 1994).
Thus, the combination of religious teaching, massive involvement in colonial
education, and relative autonomy from the practice of colonial control
gave missionaries a special position at the juncture of colonial technologies of
domination and self-control. Individually, missionaries often resisted collaboration
with colonial authorities, but they supported them by education and conversion.
For the colonized, education and conversion became technologies of
self-control that enabled subordination at the same time that they structured resistance
to Christianity, colonialism, and their trappings. "Conversion to modernity"
was the prime locus where technologies of the self and of colonial
domination converged (Van der Veer 1995). One should treat the concept of
conversion with caution, however. Earlier uses of the term within a theory of modernization (e.g. Horton 1971) carry the idealist connotations of the Protestantism
from which it emerged, and this may cause us to ignore the media and
alternative cultural interpretations of the transformation (Comaroff & Comaroff
1991). Such transformations are also accomplished by changes in family ; /
and gender patterning; corporeal regimesl like clothy, dances, and initiation^; ^4 j \jy
and agricultural and domestic objects and spaces (Comaroff & Comaroff ^ ^
1997, Eves 1996, Jolly & Maclntyre 1989, Pels 1996b).
Settlers, Plantations, and Labor
The study of settler culture was also central to the anthropology of colonialism,
partly because plantation economies featured prominently in the marxisant thropology of the 1970s (see Stoler 1995b), but more importantly because such
studies subsequently deepened our understanding of the composition of colonial
culture. Caused, on the one hand, by a largely feminist-inspired discovery
of colonial domesticity and, on the other, by rethinking the organization of
plantation labor violence, this highlighting of the "tensions of empire" much
advanced the interpretation of colonialism as a constant struggle rather than as
a singular and coherent strategy (Cooper & Stoler 1989).
By the mid-1980s, feminists had added the study of European women to
that of the study of the consequences of colonialism for the colonized (Callaway
1987, Strobel 1991). The study of colonial domesticity showed that to
maintain colonial authority along the lines of race, European women had to
submit to far stricter rules than was common in the metropole. The colonial
state engaged in the racial policing of class boundaries as well (Stoler 1991,
1995a). Similarly, gender distinctions were monitored in the attempt of colonial
states to regulate working classes, though such constructions may have
been beyond the limits of colonial and in the sphere of self-control (Cooper
1992, White 1990). Colonial authority was bolstered by the often mistaken
assumption that European women were less oppressed than indigenous ones,
making so-called emancipation a legitimation for intervention (Hafkin & Bay
1976, Mani 1990). Miscegenation was a major preoccupation of colonial discourse
(Wolfe 1994). Occidentalist distinctions between public and private became
technologies of self when the colonized introduced them into the public
performance of domestic life (Chakrabarty 1994), while in the metropole such
technologies of self were developed in reference to the colonies (Davin 1978).
Settler colonialism was, of course, based on expropriation of land, and recent
innovative work shows that the cultural consequences of concomitant
doctrines of terra nullius have not yet been sufficiently researched (Wolfe
1991,1994). Because of their attempts at permanent establishment, settlers left
some of the most lasting legacies of colonialism (Thomas 1994), legacies that
we often fail to recognize as colonial because they are the product of an internal
colonialism in which discussion of the colonized has given way to discussion  labor often led them to argue that indigenous workers
needed different treatment—by force—than those back in the metropole. This
was a crucial feature of the development of late colonial rule (Cooper 1996)
and often led to opposition to settlers' concerns by the administrative interest
in a colony's strategic stability (Salemink 1991). Ethnology itself emerged
from the protest against ethnocidal policies of settler colonies and the consequent
need for salvage ethnography To further study colonial culture, it seems especially important to continue
interrogating how the boundaries and relationships between public and private
were constructed—where they required the rescheduling of rhythms of domestic
and work time (Cooper 1992), the redrawing of standards of public performance
[as evidenced by colonial notions of corruption (Pels I996a)j, the rebuilding
of towns and cities (Al Sayyad 1992), or the redecorating of the home
and the self through consumption (Comaroff & Comaroff 1997). Public and
private are also involved in the forms of classificatory kinship peculiar to colonialism—as
yet rarely studied in themselves—such as the Indian colonial administrator's
ma-bap or father-mother role, die ubiquitous infantilizing of the
colonized, and the peculiar role of so-called universal brotherhood of diverse
forms of colonial and anticolonial propaganda and protest. We have only just
begun to study the culture of labor regimes and their ascriptions of edinic essences
to coolies, migrant laborers, and former slaves 

Cap comentari:

Publica un comentari a l'entrada