Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Colonial Knowledge/Archives - Coggle Diagram
Colonial Knowledge/Archives
Orientalism
Edward Said,
Orientalism
(1978)
influenced postcolonial scholarship: the colonial archive as misrepresenting colonised societies; unreliable other than for telling us how colonial officials thought
a system of knowledge and way of representing the 'East', developed in European literature, travel writing and art; influenced how colonial officials perceived Asian and North African/Middle Eastern societies
features of orientalist discourse
exociticisation/romanticisation
the 'East' as feminine
irrational/superstitious
governed by religion and tradition
backwards/stagnant/timeless
homogenising/essentialising; all society defined by common, supposedly inherent characteristics
states incompetent in administration and financial matters; overspenders; ignorant of economics
the East as previously advanced but fallen into decline
the 'East' as awaiting European intervention/saviour to inaugurate modernity
forms of knowledge production
land: cadastral surveys; identifying property that could be taxed; knowledge of who biggest landlords are to co-opt
censuses: calculating and classifying the population; knowledge of the different groups in society to divide and rule
maps: knowledge of territories to be governed from afar; knowledge of where resources/commoditie
language/culture
knowledge of local religion, custom, law etc in the attempt to understand how 'indigenous population' think
use of 'tradition' to govern e.g use of local elites and social hierarchies; often these pre-existed colonialism but were codified in colonial law e.g. caste in India
knowledge in this area shaped by Orientalist discourse e.g. the idea that Muslim subjects were solely governed by Islamic faith, religious leaders, and shari'a
Reading strategies for the colonial archive
'along the grain' (Stoler): reading the archive to understand colonial power
what did colonial officials deem important? what did they report on a lot?
how is information presented? what categories are used?
what purpose might the information have served? was it even read by anyone?
are there any inconsistencies, contradictions etc that indicate uncertainty and the limits of colonial knowledge?
where can we identify orientalist discourse? what does this say about the circulation of imperial knowledge between different different spaces, and between the metropole and colony?
does the abundance of information indicate weakness and 'information panics' (Bayly)? is the archive performative of security and stability?
'against the grain' (subaltern studies school): repurposing the archive against the designs of its creators
finding 'indigenous' voices and agency, even if mediated
identifying what the archive excludes, simplifies or
what is present in the archive but is seemingly important to its creators?
can orientalist stereotypes be read as evidence of resistance or non-compliance with colonial policies?
how did the archive creators get their information? did it depend on 'native informants'? did this give space for 'indigenous agency' to shape colonial knowledge?
does the archive contain information about social life
critique: 'indigenous agency' only enters the archive when it concerns colonial officials, reducing agency to resistance (Spivak)
we need to recognise what degree of indigenous agency can be found e.g. it might be easier to detect acts of resistance, without knowing the motivations behind them
other source bases might be required e.g. vernacular sources, oral histories; but what if these do not exist or are not possible?