{"title":"Colonial Internationalism and the Governmentality of Empire, 1893–1982 by Florian Wagner","authors":"B. Coates","doi":"10.1162/jinh_r_01911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decolonization must be either “revolutionary or inexistent,” declared the Martinican poet and politician Aimé Césaire (356). So long as it enforces a relationship between domination and subjugation, colonialism cannot be “reformed” in any substantive way. The International Colonial Institute (ICI, 1893–1982)—the subject of Wagner’s penetrating volume—begged to differ. The ICI claimed that under the guidance of European experts, colonial subjects could become productive contributors to global capitalist society “voluntarily” and “without renouncing their culture and traditions” (354). It rejected modernization theory’s claims of liberal universalism, arguing instead for localized models. Nonetheless, ICI experts shared “best practices” from around the world, creating a “trans-colonial” sphere of knowledge. Its ideas shaped colonial policies before 1945 and neocolonial practices thereafter; famous colonizers like Frederick Lugard and Hubert Lyautey were among its members. Wagner argues that the very consistency of the ICI’s calls for reform reveals the hollowness of imperial apologetics. Despite the group’s significant influence, the ICI has received little study. By conducting research in twenty archives across six countries, Wagner provides an account of the group’s institutional history, engaging critically with its central ideas and tracing its impact on policy. His central argument? “The ICI is the smoking gun that proves the immobility of colonialism” (350). Wagner’s approach is mainly historical, though he has read relevant sources in other disciplines. Chapter 5 draws from law and sociology to show how ICI experts like Cornelis van Vollenhoven used codification to manipulate indigenous laws for the benefit of colonizers. He draws from social theory, especially Foucault’s, to frame his interpretation of colonial reform as the search for “governmentality”—the control of colonies through elite knowledge and with the voluntary cooperation of the colonized. Through the ICI’s minutes and publications, Wagner reconstructs the group’s discourse of reformist colonialism. Chapter 3 explains the group’s standard discursive method. Colonial “experts” would begin by identifying a “stereotype” of successful colonialism (usually in Dutch Southeast Asia), which could be juxtaposed with unsuccessful ventures (often","PeriodicalId":46755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01911","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Decolonization must be either “revolutionary or inexistent,” declared the Martinican poet and politician Aimé Césaire (356). So long as it enforces a relationship between domination and subjugation, colonialism cannot be “reformed” in any substantive way. The International Colonial Institute (ICI, 1893–1982)—the subject of Wagner’s penetrating volume—begged to differ. The ICI claimed that under the guidance of European experts, colonial subjects could become productive contributors to global capitalist society “voluntarily” and “without renouncing their culture and traditions” (354). It rejected modernization theory’s claims of liberal universalism, arguing instead for localized models. Nonetheless, ICI experts shared “best practices” from around the world, creating a “trans-colonial” sphere of knowledge. Its ideas shaped colonial policies before 1945 and neocolonial practices thereafter; famous colonizers like Frederick Lugard and Hubert Lyautey were among its members. Wagner argues that the very consistency of the ICI’s calls for reform reveals the hollowness of imperial apologetics. Despite the group’s significant influence, the ICI has received little study. By conducting research in twenty archives across six countries, Wagner provides an account of the group’s institutional history, engaging critically with its central ideas and tracing its impact on policy. His central argument? “The ICI is the smoking gun that proves the immobility of colonialism” (350). Wagner’s approach is mainly historical, though he has read relevant sources in other disciplines. Chapter 5 draws from law and sociology to show how ICI experts like Cornelis van Vollenhoven used codification to manipulate indigenous laws for the benefit of colonizers. He draws from social theory, especially Foucault’s, to frame his interpretation of colonial reform as the search for “governmentality”—the control of colonies through elite knowledge and with the voluntary cooperation of the colonized. Through the ICI’s minutes and publications, Wagner reconstructs the group’s discourse of reformist colonialism. Chapter 3 explains the group’s standard discursive method. Colonial “experts” would begin by identifying a “stereotype” of successful colonialism (usually in Dutch Southeast Asia), which could be juxtaposed with unsuccessful ventures (often
非殖民化必须“要么是革命性的,要么是不存在的”,马丁尼诗人和政治家艾姆斯·卡萨伊尔(aimise csamsaire)宣称。只要殖民主义还在实行统治和征服之间的关系,就不能以任何实质性的方式“改革”殖民主义。国际殖民研究所(ICI, 1893-1982)——瓦格纳那部极具穿穿力的著作的主题——却不这么认为。ICI声称,在欧洲专家的指导下,殖民主体可以“自愿地”和“不放弃他们的文化和传统”成为全球资本主义社会的生产性贡献者(354)。它拒绝了现代化理论的自由普遍主义主张,转而主张本地化模式。尽管如此,ICI的专家们分享了来自世界各地的“最佳实践”,创造了一个“跨殖民”的知识领域。其思想塑造了1945年之前的殖民政策和此后的新殖民主义实践;著名的殖民者如弗雷德里克·卢加德和休伯特·利奥特利都是其中的成员。瓦格纳认为,ICI对改革的一贯呼吁揭示了帝国辩护的空洞。尽管该组织有着巨大的影响力,但ICI得到的研究却很少。通过对6个国家的20份档案进行研究,瓦格纳提供了该组织制度历史的描述,批判性地参与其核心思想,并追踪其对政策的影响。他的中心论点是什么?“ICI是证明殖民主义不可动摇的确凿证据”(350)。瓦格纳的方法主要是历史的,尽管他也读过其他学科的相关资料。第五章从法律和社会学的角度展示了像Cornelis van Vollenhoven这样的ICI专家是如何为了殖民者的利益而使用编纂来操纵土著法律的。他借鉴社会理论,特别是福柯的理论,将他对殖民改革的解释框定为对“治理”的探索——通过精英知识和被殖民者的自愿合作来控制殖民地。通过ICI的会议记录和出版物,瓦格纳重构了该组织关于改良主义殖民主义的话语。第三章解释了该小组的标准话语方法。殖民“专家”会首先确定成功殖民主义(通常在荷属东南亚)的“刻板印象”,并将其与不成功的冒险(通常是在东南亚)相提并论
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Interdisciplinary History features substantive articles, research notes, review essays, and book reviews relating historical research and work in applied fields-such as economics and demographics. Spanning all geographical areas and periods of history, topics include: - social history - demographic history - psychohistory - political history - family history - economic history - cultural history - technological history