2/2006 Conversations about Motherland: Individual and Collective Experiences of “Homeland”

Изменяя имперские ландшафты

Энн Стоулер, Кэрол МакГрэнэхан

SUMMARY:

Статья “Изменяя имперские ландшафты” является предварительной публикацией введения в сборник научных работ под названием “Imperial Formations and their Discontents”, над которым работал коллектив редакторов (Энн Стоулер, Кэрол МакГрэнэхан и Питер Пердью) и международный коллектив авторов. Выход сборника ожидается в издательстве “Школа американских исследований” (School of American Research) в 2007 году. Помимо представления этого сборника (его основной идеи, публикуемых в нем материалов), статья представляет самостоятельный интерес, так как содержит обзор основных историографических тенденций и критическую рефлексию над теоретическим аппаратом современных имперских исследований.
Авторы введения, Энн Стоулер и Кэрол МакГрэнэхан, вводят и обосновывают понятие “имперские формации”. Будучи взятым из арсенала неомарксистской философии, оно позволяет помыслить комплекс социальных, политических и культурных факторов в качестве единого целого и скорректировать фокус имперских исследований, традиционно анализирующих либо институты, либо дискурсы. Понятие формации также позволяет представить империю как динамически развивающуюся систему, которая в собственном языке самоописания претендует на то, чтобы выглядеть как завершенный и консолидированный феномен. Империя не как институт, а как формация демонстрирует разнообразие практик суверенитета, контроля, подчинения и освоения, которые варьируются и приспосабливаются к разным условиям имперского пространства. Авторы отмечают, что в основе имперских практик (западных колониальных империй) лежали системы категорий и рациональных дискурсов, позволяющие осмыслить имперское пространство как в позитивном смысле, так и в смысле исключения и изъятия из правила. Поэтому авторы призывают исследовать империю еще и как систему умолчаний, которая позволяет согласовать имперскую ситуацию с нормативным языком современности. Наконец, в понятии “формация” авторы публикуемого текста видят эпистемологическую претензию империи (имперского центра) на разработку универсальной системы категорий, которые придают смысл имперскому пространству через утверждение или снятие различий и, в конечном счете, претендуют на написание Истории.
В логике постструктуралистской философии Стоулер и МакГрэнэхан утверждают необходимость исследования связи между эпистемологией и идеологией (политическим действием) и, как следствие, необходимость критической генеалогии этой системы категорий, которая до сих пор влияет на современные социальные науки. Этот общий тезис они дополняют важным историзирующим замечанием: критическую генеалогию системы категорий имперских формаций необходимо начать с деконструкции пространственных аксиом мышления социальных наук. В основе этих пространственных аксиом находится отделение Европы (как нормативного опыта современности и универсальной модели) от остального мира. Однако, как показывают авторы на основании исследования этимологии и исторической семантики терминов “колония” и “колонист”, в действительности такого четкого пространственного разделения не существовало. Понятие “колония” применялось как к поселенцам, осваивающим земли “третьего мира”, так и к пенитенциарным учреждениям метрополии. Более того, категории имперского дискурса заимствовались поверх границ культур и континентов. В этом смысле авторы статьи призывают не столько покончить с европоцентричной моделью исследований имперского опыта, сколько открыть новую страницу в исследованиях феномена империи и обратиться к анализу взаимовлияния языков самоописания различных имперских опытов и взаимосвязи между описаниями империи и нации.

1.See Le Comte A. de Tourdonnet. Essais sur L’Education des Enfants Pauvres: Des Colonies Agricoles d’Education. Paris, l862. Vol. I. P. 26. The quote reads:
“Pour nous, une colonie agricole est une institution rurale qui étend ses beinfaits sur tous ceux qui y ont accès, à quelque titre que se soit, et dont les bénéfices leur appartiennent, dans less et dans les limites de la fondation, sou la condition d’un devoir à accomplir. Que ce devoir consiste dans un travial de défrichement ou de culture régulière, dans un service plus ou moins assujetissant, ou dans une simple obligation de séjour, peu importe au fond; la règle s’applique à tous, l’obéissance est de rigueur pour tous. Chacun contribue dans la mesure de sses forces det de ses aptitudes, selong la teneur de son contrat, s’il y en a, ou des obligations que lui impose son admission; chacun percoit porportionnellement aux droits communs à tous, ou aux droits spéciaux qui lui sont réservés. Tout individu qui habite la colonie est colon, quelque rôle qu’il y joue, quelque treavail qu’il doive exécuter, quelque droit particulier qui lui sont attribué.”↩

2.See Tourdonnet. Essais sur L’Education. Vol. I. P. 26.↩

3.On the Portuguese expansion of empire through “criminals, sinners, orphans and prostitutes as colonizers” see Timothy J. Coates. Convicts and Orphans: Forced and State-Sponsored Colonizers in the Portuguese Empire, 1550-1775. Stanford, 2001.↩

4.For two different treatments of the relationship between penal colonies, colonial expansion, and the people that inhabited them and moved between them see Richard Price. Convict and Colonel. Boston, 1998 and Peter Redfield. Space in the Tropics: From Convicts to Rockets in French Guiana. Berkeley, 2000.↩

5.While we highlight pauper, penal, and settler colonies here, another type of colony that was of equal importance in this frame of reference were leper colonies. See Warwick Anderson. States of Hygiene: Race “Improvement” and Biomedical Citizenship in Australia and Colonial Philippines // Ann Stoler (Ed.). Haunted by Empire. Durham, 2006. Pp. 94-115.↩

6.In using the term “social etymology,” we look toward Michel Foucault’s notion of “historical ontology” and Ian Hacking’s elaboration upon it in Ian Hacking. Historical Ontology. London, 2002. What intrigues Hacking about Foucault’s term is how it points to “the beings that become – things, classifications, ideas, kinds of people, people, institutions” with emphasis on knowledge, power, and ethics. (Hacking. Historical Ontology. P. 5). With “social etymology” we think particularly of the enduring social relationships of power that remain buried in and suspended in political terms.↩

7.On Russia’s new “framework of comparison,” see Willard Sunderland. Taming the Wild Field. Ithaca, 2004. P. 45.↩

8.Mark Bassin. Imperial Visions: Nationalist Imagination and Geographical Expansion in the Russian Far East, 1840-1865. Cambridge, 1999.↩

9.For a discussion of some circuits of knowledge production in the US context, see: Tense and Tender Ties: The Politics of Comparison in North American History and (Post) Colonial Studies // Journal of American History. 2002. Vol. 88. No. 3. Pp. 829-865.↩

10.Tourdonnet. Essais sur L’Education. Vol. I. Pp. 16-17.↩

11.Le Comte A. de Tourdonnet. Essais sur L’Education des Enfants Pauvres: Des Colonies Agricoles d’Education. Paris, l862. Vol. II. Pp. 179-180.↩

12.Tourdonnet. Essais sur L’Education. Vol. I. P. 17.↩

13.Jeannine Verdes-Leroux. Les Francais d’Algerie. Paris, 2001. P. 195.↩

14.Pierre Montagnon. Histoire d’Algerie. Paris, 1998. P. 180.↩

15.Jeannine Verdes-Leroux. Les Francais d’Algerie. Paris, 2001. P. 195 ; J. P. T. Bury’s count is 15,000 arrested, of which 450 were deported to Algeria. See J. P. T. Bury. France l8l4-l940. London, 1989. P. 77.↩

16.John Ruedy. Modern Algeria: The Origins and Development of a Nation. Bloomington, 1992. P. 69; and Catherine Belvaude. L’Algerie. Paris, 1991. P. 36.↩

17.See Ussama Makdisi. Bringing America Back into the Middle East: A History of the First American Missionary Encounter with the Ottoman Arab World // Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007.↩

18.Representative of much of this literature is Dipesh Chakrabarty. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, 2000.↩

19.One of the most widely used in mid-nineteenth century, to refer to the children housed in rural assistance programs, is wholly absent from the lists provided in the three etymological dictionaries consulted here. What remains as a possible vestige is the term colonie de vacances to refer to children’s (usually rural) summer camps.↩

20.Mark Bassin. Inventing Siberia: Visions of the Russian East in the Early Nineteenth Century // American Historical Review. 1991. Vol. 96. P. 771.↩

21.Louis Althusser and Etienne Balibar. Reading Capital. New York, 1971. P. 313.↩

22.Raymond Williams. Marxism and Literature. London, 1977. P. 117.↩

23.As an analytic that focuses on the formative and transformative aspects of empire, we see our notion of “imperial formation” as related to, but differing from Mrinalini Sinha’s concept of an “imperial social formation” as a “mode of analysis that is simultaneously global in its reach and conjunctural in its focus.” We thank an anonymous reviewer of an earlier version of this introduction for pointing out Sinha’s use of a similar vocabulary of which we were both unaware. See Mrinalini Sinha. Mapping the Imperial Social Formation: A Modest Proposal for Feminist History // Signs. 2000. Vol. 25. No. 4. Pp. 1078, 1082; see also Mrinalini Sinha. Teaching Imperialism as a Social Formation // Radical History Review. 1997. Vol. 67. Pp. 175-186; Eadem. Colonial Masculinity: The “Manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate Bengali” in the Late Nineteenth Century. Manchester, 1995.↩

24.The following section draws on Ann Laura Stoler. Degrees of Imperial Sovereignty // Public Culture. 2006. Winter. Pp. 125-146, which in turn drew on the insights of participants in this conference.↩

25.Thongchai Winichakul. Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation. Honolulu, 1994. P. 130.↩

26.Anthony Pagden makes a similar point that empires consist of and rely on mobility; see Anthony Pagden. Peoples and Empires: A Short History of European Migration, Exploration, and Conquest, from Greece to the Present. New York, 2001.↩

27.Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007.↩

28.As Carl Schmitt once noted, “every true empire around the world has claimed such a sphere of spatial sovereignty beyond its borders… a space far exceeding the boundaries of the state proper.” Carl Schmitt. The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum. New York, 2003. P. 281.↩

29.Nor, as Nicholas Dirks contends in our volume, was sovereignty safely located in London or even solely in England. Nicholas Dirks. Imperial Sovereignty // Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007.↩

30.David Armitage. The Ideological Origins of the British Empire. New York, 2000. Pp. 6-7.↩

31.Frederick Cooper. Provincializing France // Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007.↩

32.Stoler. On Degrees of Imperial Sovereignty. P. 138.↩

33.Alexander T. Aleinikoff. Semblances of Sovereignty: The Constitution, the State, and American Citizenship. Cambridge, 2002.↩

34.See, for example, C. T. Sandars. American’s Overseas Garrisons: The Leasehold Empire. Oxford, 2000, especially Pp. 142-145 on Guantanamo’s history; Ian Hernon. The Falklands // Massacre and Retribution: Forgotten Wars of the Nineteenth Century. Gloucestershire, UK, 1998. Pp. 43-48; Louise Richardson. When Allies Differ: Anglo-American Relations During the Suez and Falklands Crisis. New York, 1996.↩

35.For an argument that this is part of a new “new imperialism,” see Prasenjit Duara. The Imperialism of “Free Nations:” Japan, Manchukuo and the History of the Present // Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007.↩

36.For one protracted contest over degrees of sovereignty see Thomas J. Osborne. “Empire Can Wait”: American Opposition to Hawaiian Annexation, l893-1898. Kent, Ohio, 1981.↩

37.As Edward Said noted, “Every single empire in its official discourse has said that is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort.” Edward Said. Preface to the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition // E. Said. Orientalism. New York, 2003. P. xxi.↩

38.Stephen Rosen, professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard’s Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, makes a similar point when he argues that “the organizing principle of empire rest on the existence of an overarching power that creates and enforces the principle of hierarchy, but is not itself bound by such rules”. See Stephen Rosen. An Empire, If You Can Keep It // National Interest. 2003. Vol. 71. P. 53.↩

39.These are some of the attributes Ronald Suny provides in: Ronald Suny. Learning from Empire: Russia and the Soviet Union // Craig Calhoun, Frederick Cooper, and Kevin W. Moore (Eds.). Lessons of Empire: Imperial Histories and American Power. New York, 2006. Pp. 73-93.↩

40.Ussama Makdisi. Bringing America Back into the Middle East: A History of the First American Missionary Encounter with the Ottoman Arab World.↩

41.See also Partha Chatterjee. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World. Minneapolis, 1993↩

42.; The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton, 1993; Ranajit Guha. History at the Limit of World-History. New York, 2003; Walter Mignolo. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton, 2000.↩

43.See Fernando Coronil. After Empire: Reflections on Imperialism from the Amйricas // Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007.↩

44.See Laurent Dubois. A Colony of Citizens: Revolution and Slave Emancipation in the French Caribbean, 1787-1804. Chapel Hill, 2004 and Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution. Cambridge, 2004.↩

45.Imperial polities might also be imperial in some realms of their domain and not in others. As Adeeb Khalid argues, the Soviet Union can rightly be considered imperial in relation to its external empire, but not in his estimation to its internal domains.↩

46.For a volume that productively explores some of the definitional quandaries of empire in relationship to contemporary political interventions of the US, see Calhoun, Cooper, and Moore (Eds.). Lessons of Empire.↩

47.As Selim Deringil argues in the case of the Ottoman empire, imperial officials considered the Ottoman state “somehow sui generis and [therefore could not] … be compared to any other polity.” Selim Deringil. The Well Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876-1909. New York, 1998. P. 5; see also Selim Deringil. “They Live in a State of Nomadism and Slavery”: The Late Ottoman Empire and the Post-Colonial Debate // Comparative Studies in Society and History. 2003. Vol. 45. No. 2. Pp. 311-342. For a comprehensive review of American exceptionalism in a range of historical fields, see Ian Tyrell. American Exceptionalism in an Age of International History // American Historical Review. 1991. October. Pp. 1031-1055. Also see Paul Kramer. Empires, Exceptions, and Anglo-Saxons: Race and Rule between the British and United States Empires, l880-l910 // The Journal of American History. 2002. Vol. 88. No. 4. Pp. 1315-1353. An argument that “The Netherlands does not belong among the imperialistic powers” is discussed in J. van Goor. Imperialisme in de Marge? // Dr. J. van Goor (Ed.). Imperialisme in de Marge: De afronding van Nederlands-Indie. Utrecht, l986. P. 9-19.↩

48.For a description of some of the features that have defined understandings of European colonial empires see Ann Laura Stoler and Frederick Cooper. Between Metropole and Colony: Rethinking a Research Agenda // Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler. Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World. Berkeley, l997. Pp. 1-56; and Catherine Hall. Cultures of Empire: Colonizers in Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: A Reader. Manchester, 2000. Pp. 1-36. For a history of theoretical approaches to European colonialism, see Patrick Wolfe. History and Imperialism: A Century of Theory, from Marx to Postcolonialism // The American Historical Review. 1997. Vol. 102. No. 2. Pp. 388-402.↩

49.For a comparable approach, see the collected essays generated by the “Colonialism and its Discontents” conference at Academica Sinica in Taiwan in 1997. As conference organizer Allen Chun argues: “understanding colonialism as an abstraction must begin by understanding colonialism as a concrete, historical experience. Moreover, this is the only basis for understanding colonial experiences comparatively, as well as for understanding what may be considered colonial violence in political regimes not literally defined as colonial (given the conventional definitions of European colonialism).” See Allen Chun. Introduction: (Post)Colonialism and its Discontents, or the Future of Practice // Cultural Studies. 2000. Vol. 14. No. 3-4. P. 382.↩

50.On Edward Said’s own attention to the US, see Ann Laura Stoler with David Bond. Refractions off Empire: Untimely Comparisons in Harsh Times // Radical History Review. 2006. Vol. 95. Pp. 93-107.↩

51.We think here of a number of key monographs and edited volumes, that of Nicholas Dirk. Colonialism and Culture. Ann Arbor, 1992; Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler. Tensions of Empire; Gyan Prakash. After Colonialism: Imperial Histories and Postcolonial Displacements. Princeton, 1995, the later of which expands the purview to Latin America; and also the dense body of work in Subaltern Studies focused on South Asia and the British Empire, e.g., the Subaltern Studies volumes 1-11 (Vols. 1-10. Delhi, 1982-1999; Vol. 11. New York, 2000).↩

52.Homi Bhabha. The Location of Culture. London, 1994; Edward Said. Orientalism. New York, 1978 and Culture and Imperialism. New York, 1994; Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward A History of the Vanishing Present. Cambridge, 1999; Robert Young. White Mythologies: Writing History and the West. London and New York, 1990 and Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Culture, Theory, and Race. London and New York, 1995.↩

53.In addition to the cases highlighted in this volume, see also recent and forthcoming works on other European empires such as Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Mia Fuller (Eds.). Italian Colonialism. New York, 2005; Patrizia Palumbo (Ed.). A Place in the Sun: Africa in Italian Colonial Culture from Post-Unification to the Present. Berkeley, 2003; George Steinmetz. The Devil’s Handwriting: Precoloniality and the German Colonial State in Qingdao, Samoa, and Southwest Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming; Lora Wildenthal. German Women for Empire, 1884-1945. Durham, 2001.↩

54.See Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities. London, l983 and Ann Laura Stoler and Frederick Cooper. Between Metropole and Colony.↩

55.Ann Laura Stoler and Frederick Cooper. Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World.↩

56.While not advocating a formal comparative model, our project could be considered in dialogue with George Steinmetz’s notion of “critical realist” comparison. As he outlines it, “a critical realist comparative research strategy… [compares] across mechanisms and across events. Empirical phenomena may be selected for comparison for explicitly political or “interested” reasons or because they are believed to be relevant to uncovering or illuminating the causal mechanisms and structures of interest.” In George Steinmetz. Odious Comparisons: Incommensurability, the Case Study, and “Small N’s” in Sociology // Sociological Theory. 2004. Vol. 22. No. 3. P. 393.↩

57.For a fuller treatment of the politics of comparison see Ann Laura Stoler. “Intimidations of Empire: Predicaments of the Tactile and Unseen” and “Tense and Tender Ties: The Politics of Comparison in North American History and (Post) Colonial Studies,” in: Ann Laura Stoler (Ed.). Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History. Durham, 2006. Pp. 1-70.↩

58.Frederick Cooper. Provincializing France.↩

59.Prasenjit Duara. The Imperialism of “Free Nations:” Japan, Manchukuo and the History of the Present.↩

60.Irene Silverblatt. Modern Inquisitions // Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007.↩

61.For a rethinking of nation and empire in the British context, see also Nicholas Dirks. Imperial Sovereignty.↩

62.Jane Burbank. The Rights of Difference: Law and Citizenship in the Russian Empire // Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007.↩

63.Arjun Appadurai. Globalization and the Rush to History / Sawyer Seminar, Columbia University, 28 October 1999 (ms.).↩

64.Inderpal Grewal. Transnational America: Feminisms, Diasporas, Neoliberalisms. Durham NC, 2005. Pp. 21-22. Grewal defines “transnational connectivities” as constituting webs of “connections that move along historicized trajectories,” P. 22.↩

65.Ibid. P. 209.↩

66.Irene Silverblatt, for example, pushes us to reassess “our sense of modernity,” contending that we must “trace its elementary forms back from the nineteenth century to the seventeenth.” See Silverblatt. Modern Inquisitions.↩

67.On the Qing empire, see Pamela Kyle Crossley. A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. Berkeley, 1999; Mark Elliott. The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China. Stanford, 2001; Laura Hostetler. Qing Colonial Enterprise: Ethnography and Cartography in Early Modern China. Chicago, 2001; James A. Millward. Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864. Stanford, 1998; Peter C. Perdue. China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia. Cambridge, 2005; Emma Teng. Taiwan’s Imagined Geography: Chinese Colonial Travel Writing and Pictures, 1683-1895. Cambridge, 2004.↩

68.New work on the Russian empire includes Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen. After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building: the Soviet Union and the Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires. Boulder, 1997; Mark Bassin. Imperial Visions; Daniel Brower and Edward J. Lazzerini (Eds.). Russia’s Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700-1917. Bloomington, 1997; Jane Burbank and David L. Ransel (Eds.). Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire. Bloomington, 1998; Francine Hirsch. Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union. Ithaca, 2005; Adeeb Khalid. The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia. Berkeley, 1998; Douglas Northrop. Veiled Empire: Gender and Power in Stalinist Central Asia. Ithaca, 2004; and Willard Sunderland. Taming the Wild Field.↩

69.On Manchuria and Japan, see Prasenjit Duara. Sovereignty and Authenticity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern. Lanham, MD, 2003; Yoshihisa Tak Matsusaka. The Making of Japanese Manchuria, 1904-1932. Cambridge, 2001; Mariko Tamanoi. Dreaming Manchuria: Migration, Colonization, Repatriation and Nostalgia. Berkeley: University of California Press, forthcoming; Mariko Tamanoi (Ed.). Crossed Histories: A New Approach to Manchuria in the Age of Empires. Honolulu, 2005; Louise Young. Japan’s Total Empire: Manchuria and the Culture of Wartime Imperialism. Berkeley, 1998.↩

70.See Laura Lewis. Hall of Mirrors: Power, Witchcraft, and Caste in Colonial Mexico. Durham, 2003; Florencia Mallon. Peasant and Nation: The Making of Postcolonial Mexico and Peru. Berkeley, 1995; Walter Mignolo. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton, 2000; Patricia Seed. Taking Possession and Reading Texts: Establishing the Authority of Overseas Empires // William and Mary Quarterly. 1992. Vol. 49. Pp. 183-209; American Pentimento: The Invention of Indians and the Pursuit of Riches. Minneapolis, 2001 and Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World, 1492-1640. Cambridge, 1995; Irene Silverblatt. Modern Inquisitions: Peru and the Colonial Origins of the Civilized World. Durham, 2004; Mark Thurner. From Two Republics to One Divided: Contradictions of Postcolonial Nationmaking in Andean Peru. Durham, 1997; Mark Thurner and Andres Guerrero (Eds.). After Spanish Rule: Postcolonial Predicaments of the Americas. Durham, 2003.↩

71.Laura Hostetler. Qing Colonial Enterprise; Irene Silverblatt. Modern Inquisitions.↩

72.As argued by both Carole McGranahan and Peter Perdue. See Carole McGranahan. Empire Out of Bounds: Tibet in the Era of Decolonization // Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007; Peter Perdue. Erasing the Empire, Re-racing the Nation: Racialism and Culturalism in Imperial China // Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007.↩

73.See Amit Rai. The Rule of Sympathy. New York, 2002.↩

74.Dipesh Chakrabarty. Provincializing Europe.↩

75.Carole McGranahan. Empire Out of Bounds: Tibet in the Era of Decolonization.↩

76.Ibid.↩

77.Andre Schmid. Korea Between Empires, 1895-1919. New York, 2002. Gi-Wook Shin and Michael Robinson contend that colonial and postcolonial studies of Korea is a matter of “theory run[ning] ahead of history.” See their “Preface” and “Introduction: Rethinking Colonial Korea” along with accompanying essays in: Colonial Modernity in Korea. Cambridge, 2001.↩

78.Uradyn Bulag. The Mongols at China’s Edge: History and the Politics of National Unity. Lanham, MD, 2002.↩

79.The literature on British India is vast; starting points include Bernard S. Cohn. Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge. Princeton, 1996; Nicholas Dirks. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton, 2001; Ranajit Guha. Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India. Cambridge, 1997. In comparison, English-language scholarship on Portuguese and French colonies in India is still scant; see Timothy J. Coates. Convicts and Orphans; William F. S. Miles. Imperial Burdens: Countercolonialism in Former French India. Boulder, 1995; Alito Siqueira. Postcolonial Portugal, Postcolonial Goa: A Note on Portuguese Identity and its Resonance in Goa and India // Lusotopie. 2002. Vol. 2. Pp. 211-213.↩

80.On Italian colonialism in Africa, see Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Mia Fuller (Eds.). Italian Colonialism; Robert L. Hess. Italian Colonialism in Somalia. Chicago, 1966; Tekeste Negash. Italian Colonialism in Eritrea, 1882-1941: Policies, Praxis, and Impact. Uppsala, 1987 and Patrizia Palumbo (Ed.). A Place in the Sun.↩

81.Eve Troutt Powell. A Different Shade of Colonialism: Egypt, Great Britain, and the Mastery of the Sudan. Berkeley, 2003; Heather J. Sharkey. Living with Colonialism: Nationalism and Culture in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Berkeley, 2003.↩

82.Eve Troutt Powell. A Different Shade of Colonialism.↩

83.Carole McGranahan. Empire Out of Bounds: Tibet in the Era of Decolonization.↩

84.On these points see Emma Teng. Taiwan’s Imagined Geography.↩

85.Alexis Dudden. Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power. Honolulu, 2005.↩

86.For a detailed examination of the decolonization process of European colonies, see Muriel E. Chamberlain. The Longman Companion to European Decolonization in the Twentieth Century. London and New York, 1998 and Decolonization: The Fall of the European Empires. Oxford, 1999.↩

87.Leo T. S. Ching. Becoming “Japanese”: Colonial Taiwan and the Politics of Identity Formation. Berkeley, 2001; Emma Teng. Taiwan’s Imagined Geography.↩

88.Tani Barlow. Colonialism’s Career in Postwar China Studies // Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique. 1993. Vol. 1. No. 1. Pp. 224-267.↩

89.James Hevia. English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century China. Durham, 2003. P. 26.↩

90.Peter Perdue. Erasing the Empire, Re-racing the Nation: Racialism and Culturalism in Imperial China.↩

91.Ibid.↩

92.James Hevia. English Lessons, and Cherishing Men from Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793. Durham, 1995.↩

93.Nor was China outside of the US imperial realm at the time. See Eileen Scully. Bargaining with the State from Afar: American Citizenship in Treaty Port China, 1844-1942. New York, 2001.↩

94.Laura Hostetler. Qing Colonial Enterprise.↩

95.Moving beyond, or at the very least alongside, the story of European imposition and Chinese resistance, we find a series of relationships between Qing rulers and Europeans abroad. The Kangxi Emperor (1654-1722) was a cosmopolitan ruler in a non-cosmopolitan society, an intellectual drawn to global currents of technology and information in a society that prized Chinese cultural epistemes and scholarly pursuits. His coterie of advisors included Jesuit European as well as Han Chinese advisors and administrators.↩

96.Laura Hostetler. Qing Colonial Enterprise. P. 21.↩

97.The idea of “capture” is taken from Prasenjit Duara. Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China. Chicago, 1995. See also Partha Chatterjee. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial; Nicholas Dirks. History as a Sign of the Modern // Public Culture. 1990. Vol. 2. No. 2. Pp. 25-32.↩

98.Peter Perdue. Erasing the Empire, Re-racing the Nation: Racialism and Culturalism in Imperial China.↩

99.Fernando Coronil. After Empire: Reflections on Imperialism from the Amйricas.↩

100.Carole McGranahan. Empire Out of Bounds: Tibet in the Era of Decolonization.↩

101.Ibid. For a perspective that reaches back further in terms of “new” imperial projects see also Prasenjit Duara. The Imperialism of “Free Nations:” Japan, Manchukuo and the History of the Present.↩

102.Adeeb Khalid. The Soviet Union as an Imperial Formation: A View from Central Asia // Ann Stoler, Carole McGranahan, and Peter C. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations and their Discontents. Santa Fe: School of American Research, forthcoming, 2007.↩

103.George Steinmetz. Return to Empire: The New U.S. Imperialism in Comparative Historical Perspective // Sociological Theory. 2005. Vol. 23. No. 4. Pp. 339-367.↩

104.Carole McGranahan. Empire Out of Bounds: Tibet in the Era of Decolonization. For a discussion of the range of concerns with imperial citizenship in the French context see also Frederick Cooper. Provincializing France.↩

105.See Jane Burbank. The Rights of Difference: Law and Citizenship in the Russian Empire; and Ronald Suny. Learning from Empire.↩

106.Cf., Enrique Dussel who argues on the contrary that colonialism is the “underside of modernity:” Enrique D. Dussel. Essays: The Underside of Modernity: Apel, Ricouer, Rorty, and Taylor, and the Philosophy of Liberation. Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1996.↩

107.Carole McGranahan. Empire Out of Bounds: Tibet in the Era of Decolonization.↩

108.Fernando Coronil. After Empire: Reflections on Imperialism from the Amйricas.↩

109.Carole McGranahan. Empire Out of Bounds: Tibet in the Era of Decolonization.↩

110.Fernando Coronil. After Empire: Reflections on Imperialism from the Amйricas.↩

111.Gwendolyn Wright. Tradition in the Service of Modernity: Architecture and Urbanism in French Colonial Policy, 1900-1930 // Journal of Modern History. 1987. Vol. 59. Pp. 291-316.↩

112.On contested and continuing European colonies in the present, see Robert Aldrich and John Connell. The Last Colonies. Cambridge, 1998.↩

113.David Bond, personal communication.↩

114.As Duara argues, “the costs of direct colonial rule increased while the conditions for indirect rule were enhanced.”↩

115.See Thomas Bender (Ed.). Rethinking American History in a Global Age. Berkeley, 2002; Laura Briggs. Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rice. Berkeley, 2002; Julian Go and Anne L. Foster (Eds.). The American Colonial State in the Philippines: Global Perspectives. Durham, 2003; Amy Kaplan. The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of U.S. Culture. Cambridge, 2002; Amy Kaplan and Donald Pease (Eds.). Cultures of United States Imperialism. Durham, 2003; Eric T. L. Love. Race over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism, 1865-1900. Chapel Hill, 2004; Vicente L. Rafael. White Love and Other Events in Filipino History. Durham, 2000; Ann Laura Stoler. Tense and Tender Ties: The Politics of Comparison in U.S. History and [Post] Colonial Studies // Journal of American History. 2001. December. Pp. 829-865; Stoler et al. Haunted by Empire; and Haunani-Kay Trask. From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawai’i. Honolulu, 1999.↩

116.Frederick Cooper, personal correspondence.↩

117.Ann Laura Stoler. Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things. Durham, NC, 1995; Eadem. Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule. Berkeley, 2002; Eadem. (Ed.). Haunted by Empire.↩

118.Fernando Coronil. After Empire: Reflections on Imperialism from the Amйricas.↩

119.Carole McGranahan. Empire Out of Bounds: Tibet in the Era of Decolonization.↩

120.On the seductions of the ethnography of empire, see Lesley Gill. The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Durham, NC, 2004; Catherine Lutz. Homefront: A Military City and the American 20th Century. Boston, 2001.↩

121.Catherine Lutz. Empire is in the Details // American Ethnologist (forthcoming, November 2006).↩

122.See Ann Laura Stoler. Race and the Education of Desire; Eadem. Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power; Eadem (Ed.). Haunted by Empire.↩

123.Catherine Lutz. Empire is in the Details, and Ann Stoler. “Toward a Charmless Colonial History: Beyond the Analytics of Knowledge and Power,” New York Academy of Sciences, April 2006.↩

124.In Russia, for example, a new generation of scholars critiques conventional approaches to the Russian empire in favor of a critical, poststructural approach. See Ilya Gersimov, Serguei Glebov, Alexander Kaplunovski, Marina Mogilner, Alexander Semyonov. In Search of a New Imperial History // Ab Imperio. 2005. No. 1. Pp. 33-56.↩

Примечания