- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Colonial States, Colonial Rule, Colonial Governmentalities: Implications for the Study of Historical State Crime
Abstract
The colonial state has been an object of intense study and debate among historians and postcolonial scholars. In this special issue, devoted to questions of colonial state crime, I consider the utility of the colonial state as a conceptual and analytic category for state crime scholars. Focusing upon European colonialism in South Asia, the article first examines definitional problems: within what normative parameters might colonial state behaviour be understood and, thus, its transgressions and crimes registered? I then move to consider two contrasting schools of historiography and their difficulties in settling upon some agreed view of how colonizing foreigners connected with indigenous elites and masses to develop and implement strategies of rule. I suggest that the concept of a colonial state, to which culpability for state crimes may be ascribed, is a chimera and of limited use today. Instead, I describe a model of colonial governmentality and, through a case study of mass famine death, illustrate both its strengths and weaknesses for making sense of how such tragedies occurred and thus how insights from the historical field might improve our understanding of modern and postcolonial states today.
Content
Author and article information
Notes
This characterization draws from Cooper (2005) whose criticism was directed at historians and postcolonial scholars inclined to ignore that “the state” has no essence itself, but is merely the combined work of actual, once-living agents.
Despite the title of this work including the word “empire”, the empire of capital to which it refers could equally be described simply as global capital and the book does not engage meaningfully with either colonialism or empire in a way relevant to the current discussion.
For the history of interest, debt and land alienation in pre-colonial times, see Darling (1925). He observes that through to the end of the nineteenth century, much rural life was pre-capitalist and outside the money economy. Agricultural interest was levied in seed itself and prior to British times the rate of interest on seed was up to 60 per cent. Later in the British period, it reduced to around 25 per cent, but compounding interest would still double that debt in 2 years.