Anna. Rev. Anthropol. 1997. 26:163-113
Copyright 'C 1997 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF
COLONIALISM: Culture, History,
and the Emergence of Western
Governmentality
Peter Pels
Research Centre Religion and Society, University of Amsterdam, 1012 DK Amsterdam,
The Netherlands; e-mail: ppels@pscw.uva.nl
KEY WORDS: ethnography, literary theory, modernity, travel, reflexive anthropology

ABSTRACTThe study of colonialism erases the boundaries between anthropology and history or literary studies, and between the postcolonial present and the colonial
past. From the standpoint of anthropology, it is also reflexive, addressing thecolonial use and formation of ethnography and its supporting practices oftravel. Since the 1960s, the study of colonialism has increasingly presented aview of colonialism as struggle and negotiation, analyzing how the dichotomous representations that Westerners use for colonial rule are the outcome ofmuch more murky and complex practical interactions. By thus treating Western governmentaliry as emergent and particular, it is rewriting our histories ofthe present.

The art of government lies in knowing nothing at the proper moment.
Edgar Wallace (1912)[T]here is too much hypocrisy in East Africa today. The European official and theEuropean settler rule and maintain their prestige mainly by hypocrisy, their inner motives would hardly stand examination; the Indian trader makes his living by downrightdishonesty or at best by sheer cunning which is hypocrisy; the African clerk or laborer
often disregards fulfilling his part of a contract and even a very educated African will
pretend to love the European whereas his heart is nearly bursting with envy and hatred.
Julius Kambarage Nyerere (1952)

1630084-6570/97/1015-0163S08.00

164

PELS
Allcs Verstehen 1st daher immer zugleich ein Nicht-Verstehen, alle Obereinstimmung
in Gedanken und Gefuhlen zugleich ein Auseinandergehen.
Wilhelm von Humboldt (quoted in Fabian 1995)

INTRODUCTION
The anthropology of colonialism is neither the exclusive province of anthropologists nor restricted to colonialism. Therefore, 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 fromand 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 experimentin domination and exploitation; and as the unfinished business of struggle andnegotiation. 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 onanthropological knowledge and planning to achieve the desired evolutionary
progress cheaply and without bloodshed (e.g. Malinowski 1929). Around1970, anthropologists often told their colleagues to shun collaboration with thepowerful in neocolonial planning and strategy. Instead, they were supposed tosupport "indigenous" peoples in their struggles, to help the latter achieve themodernization 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 andreflexivity become structural, owing to the increasing stress on the third viewof colonialism, as a struggle that constantly renegotiates the balance of domination and resistance (Dirks 1992b, Guha 1989, Staler & Cooper 1997). Because one cannot simply demarcate a past colonialism from struggles in thepresent (Dirks 1992b, Thomas 1994), the anthropology of colonialism systematically interrogates contemporary anthropology as well as the colonial circumstances from which it emerged. The anthropology of colonialism is also

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM 165
always an anthropology of anthropology, because in many methodological, organizational, and professional aspects the discipline retains the shape it received when it emerged from—if partly in opposition to—early twentiethcentury colonial circumstances. Studying colonialism implies studying anthropology's context, a broader field of ethnographic activity that existed before the boundaries of the discipline emerged and that continues to influence
the way they are drawn (Pels & Salemink 1994).
Anthropology, therefore, needs to be conceptualized in terms of governmentality (Wright 1995), as an academic offshoot of a set of universalist technologies of domination—a Statistik or "state-craft" at least partly based on ethnography-—that developed in a dialectic between colonial and European states(Cohn 1987,1996;Stagl 1995). These forms of identification, registration, anddiscipline emerged in tension and in tandem with technologies of self-control
that fostered notions of cleanliness, domesticity, ethnicity, and civilization(Chakrabarty 1994, Stoler 1995a). Anthropology, in negotiating ethnic, civilized, and savage identities, was at the juncture of these technologies of domination and self-control. It precariously straddled a world of paradox and contradiction in which notions of race were universalistically shunned at the sametime that they particularistically helped constitute the nation-state's civilities(Stoler 1995a, Stoler & Cooper 1997). Both anthropology and colonialism
projected seemingly universal and Manichean essentializations of Us andThem, which in practice had to give way to much more complex and particularist negotiations of rule (Pels & Salemink 1994, Stoler & Cooper 1997).

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM: GENEALOGIESThe social-scientific study of colonial society predates the 1960s (Balandier
1963, Mair 1938, Malinowski 1945). After decolonization, however, a set ofinterests started to converge that can now be regarded as constituting a new departure. Ethnohistory questioned the boundaries between anthropology andhistory (Cohn 1968, Sturtevant 1966). Those who had been colonized raised
doubts about the relevance of anthropology (Deloria 1969, p'Bitek 1970).
Neo-Marxist and feminist approaches to peasant societies and their modes of
production and the economy of the household fueled an interest in economicchange, and consequently in colonialism (Etienne & Leacock 1980, Hafkin &Bay 1976, Meillassoux 1964, Wolf 1982; for an overview, see Stoler 1995b).
Critical approaches to classical anthropology questioned the nature of theknowledge required for colonial rule and the involvement of anthropologists in
its production and paved the way for some of the analytics of knowledge andpower that matured later on (Asad 1973, Gough 1968, Hymes 1974). The historical and sociological turn of the Kuhnian philosophy of science helped raise166 PELS
doubts about the claim to scientific independence from colonial circumstancesthat had been made by anthropologists since the early twentieth century.
From the late 1970s onward, this set of interests was further developed by
the increasing realization that many features of the discourses developed underand for colonial rule were still operative in present-day anthropology. A critical hermeneutics, sometimes informed by a more epistemologically inclined
neo-Marxism, elaborated the continuities between colonial and postcolonialconstructions of anthropology's object (Clifford 1982, Fabian 1983, Webster
1982). Analyses of the political role of textual representation, developed by literary theorists (Williams 1977), entered anthropology through the critique oforientalism and other forms of colonial discourse (Barker et al 1985, Bhabha
1994, Clifford & Marcus 1986, Clifford 1983, Said 1978). By the 1990s, thesedevelopments resulted in a paradoxical situation: While the historicizing political economy approaches of the 1970s were criticized because of their lackof a cultural critique (Coronil 1996, Stoler & Cooper 1997, Taussig 1989), thenotions of "culture" and "ethnography" themselves were also criticized fortheir contribution to colonial and postcolonial essentializations of ethnic entities (Dirks 1992b, Fabian 1983, Pels & Salemink 1994, Thomas 1994).
Since the early 1990s, anthropologists have moved away from the 1980s
impact of literary theory, feeling that colonial discourse inadequately defines
historical anthropology's object of critique (Dirks 1992b, Stoler & Cooper
1997, Thomas 1994). The analysis of the textual strategies of colonial discourse is increasingly replaced by an effort at contextualization that implies
reading ethnographic texts and colonial archives as sites of struggle, and setting them against the practical conditions of the encounter that produced thesetexts and archives (Dirks 1993a, Stoler 1992, Pels & Salemink 1994, Stocking
1991, Taussig 1992). The publication of a number of textbooks shows that theanthropology of colonialism has settled down (Cooper & Stoler 1997, Dirks
1992b, Schwartz 1994, Thomas 1994). But however settled it may be in its
own terms, it is often unsettling to other anthropologists, for it tends to destabilize disciplinary identity by questioning anthropology's methods and redefining its contexts.

METHODS AND CONTEXTS; CULTURE AND HISTORYClassical anthropologists already suggested that one should study culture contact holistically (Malinowski, in Mair 1938) and study colonizers in the same
way as the colonized (Schapera, in Mair 1938). Their emphasis, however, remained on the study of "the changing native," betraying that anthropologists'
theories and fieldwork methods were predominantly meant to serve as instruments of governmental planning (Malinowski, in Mair 1938). The culture of

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM 167

i'l/the colonizer became systematically subject to anthropological scrutiny only
after the opportunities for fieldwork among colonizers had disappeared. Now
that anthropologists of colonialism find themselves in the realm of history,
their notions of method and culture themselves turn out to have had specificcolonial uses. To the dismay of some and the delight of others, the concepts of
ethnography, fieldwork, participant observation, and even culture and history
themselves have to be put in historical context.
Such methodological inquiry has, despite some promising departures,
barely begun. Method has, since the late 1960s, silently dropped off the agendaof academic anthropology. Most innovations have come from other disciplines, from history and literary theory in particular. Investigation into the cultural history of method and the political tasks it performed has, despite theearly efforts of Walter Ong, only recently gained momentum (Cohn 1996, Fabian 1983, Ludden 1993, Ong 1958, Stagl 1995). Yet it has already made anumber of unsettling suggestions. Professional ethnography, for instance, may
be better regarded as a specific offshoot of a wider field of colonial intelligencerather than, as most historians of anthropology implicitly assumed, the fulfillment of an intellectual goal to which colonial ethnographies vainly aspired(Pels & Salemink 1994). Fieldwork is subject to the way local colonial circurnstances shaped the field (Schumaker 199\) but also to a history of colonial sciences such as geography, botany, and ethnography, which set up the exotic as afield to be observed (Grove 1995; see below). Observation, participant or not,reflects centuries of so-called visualist bias in the culture of Western science,
to which the role of other sensory registers in producing knowledge was subordinated (Fabian 1983). In fact, empiricism in general may be seen to have a political agenda (Ludden 1993), and colonialism is also a set of empirical "investigative modalities" (Cohn 1996).
If ethnography as method is something subject to historical critique, thenthe concept of culture itself can also be contextualized. As indicated above, theanthropological concept of culture—which enables us to say that colonialism
needs to be analyzed as culture—has at least partly emerged as an instrumentof colonial control (Dirks 1992b). This argument can, of course, be turned
around: Not only can the concept of culture be deconstructed by setting it in thecontext of a history of colonial control, "history" itself needs to be deconstructed by asking which stories it culturally privileges (Chakrabarty 1992,
Prakash 1992). History and culture stand in a supplemental relationship where
the one is both necessary for and subversive of the thrust of the other (NB
Dirks, unpublished manuscript). To actually realize how culture supplements
history and vice versa, we need not only to find out how classifications of culture functioned within strategies of colonial governmentality but how historiography provided governmentality with an ontological underpinning (Cohn168 PELS
1996). We require more analyses of alternative histories, not just those "frombelow" (Fabian 1990, Stoler 1995b) or those analyzing non-European colonialism (Robertson 1995) but those that challenge historiographical "hierarchiesof credibility" (Stoler 1992) because they derive from street art, spirit possession, oral tradition, rumor, gossip, and other popular or subaltern forms ofknowledge production (Fabian 1996, Kramer 1993, Lambek 1995, Vansina
1985, White 1993).
Much of the search for other histories has been pioneered by historians ofAsian, African, or European workers and peasants, and their methodologicalarsenal has been assiduously plundered by historical anthropologists. Especially the historians of the Subaltern Studies collective (Arnold 1993; Chakrabarty 1992, 1994; Chatterjee 1989, 1993; Guha 1983; Guhaetal 1982-1994;
Pandey 1990; Prakash 1992) and their Africanist colleagues (Boahen 1987;
Cooper 1992, 1996; Feierman 1990, 1993; Kimambo 1991; Ranger 1983,
1989/) have provided anthropologists of colonialism with analytics and exemplars: A new phase in the debate between anthropologists and historians has
been achieved by the predominantly anthropological argument that the historians' inclination to remain close to the ground of a specific archive needs to be
countered by more attention to the archive's cultural construction in past or
present (Comaroff & Comaroff 1992, Dirks 1993a, Stoler 1992).
Historians and anthropologists often agree on the holistic intuition that,above all, one should be sensitive to context. Here, literary theory introduced apeculiar methodological innovation that may last longer than the brief vogue
of textual experimentation it bequeathed on anthropology in the 1980s: theneed to "[bracket] particular questions of historical accuracy and reliability inorder to see the text whole, to gauge the structure of its narrative, and chart theinterplay of its linguistic registers and rhetorical modalities" (Hulme 1992). To
understand a discourse, one must step back and compare tropes and topoi derived from disparate times and places, that is, decontextualize first to better understand the relevant context of a specific set of utterances or symbols (see also
Dirks 1996, Fabian 1995, Thornton 1988, White 1987).
This is indeed a "scandalous" operation (Hulme 1992). It violates the disciplinary boundaries by which many orientalists, historians, or anthropologists
felt protected from political challenges. It brings together cultural stereotypes
from different contexts—political domination, popular prejudice, academic
scholarship—to inquire whether and to what extent they are founded on a similar history of colonial violence. Often such political challenges are fended off
by the argument that the likes of Edward Said commit the sin of historical, cultural, or literary de(con)textualization (Boyarin & Boyarin 1989, Lewis 1993,
Otterspeer 1989, Shokeid 1992). Yet the power of discourse analysis is precisely to show the extraordinary redundancies produced by colonial common-

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM

169

places across the lines that divide political, economic, religious, and culturalcontexts and the disciplines that study them. These redundancies not only explain some of the self-evidence acquired by Western governmentality in its development, their study also gives a new lease of life to cultural analysis [something not always appreciated by anthropologists (see Rosaldo 1994)]. They allow one to trace continuities that go beyond the West's occidental self-images(Carrier 1995): continuities between past colonial and today's professional
ethnography (Fabian 1983; Pels & Salemink 1994; Pratt 1985, 1992; Stewart
1994), or between nineteenth-century reinventions of ethnicity and theirpresent-day deployment (Appiah 1993; Dirks 1992a, 1995; Mudimbe 1988).
In recent years, however, some anthropologists have become impatientwith the historical and literary preoccupation with texts, and they have turned
away from an exclusively textual notion of culture. Some suspect the culture ofliteracy that informed Western representations of self and other (Fabian 1983).
While studies of the textual strategy of colonial representation have significantly advanced our understanding of its grassroots operation (Mitchell 1991),
they insufficiently grasp the contradictions and paradoxes of specific microphysics of colonial struggle, encounter, (knowledge) production, and exchange (Hirschkind 1991; Pels 1996a/199/; Stoler & Cooper 1997). Analysesof colonialism increasingly stress the nonverbal, tactile dimensions of social
practice: the exchange of objects, the arrangement and disposition of bodies,clothes, buildings, and tools in agricultural practices medical and religious
performances, regimes of domesticity and kinship, physical discipline, and theconstruction of landscape (Arnold 1993, Conn 1996, Comaroff 1985, Comaroff & Comaroff 1997, Eves 1996, Mangan 1986, Pels 1996b, Schumaker
199\, Stoler 1995aj. This makes the study of colonialism more anthropological, as older methdds of museum studies, physical anthropology and archaeology, or the classical British functionalist injunction to add what people do towhat they say about it are reinvented and made relevant to new pursuits.

HOMES, FIELDS, AND THE TRAVELS IN BETWEEN
If, however, the study of nonverbal practices makes the analysis of colonialism
more anthropological, it will also challenge the dichotomous image oftwentieth-century anthropology. The dyad of anthropologist and informants
and of an academic home juxtaposed to a "field" of research breaks down once
one brings the physical work necessary to maintain these dichotomies into theanalysis—the work of traveling, making a temporary dwelling, or constructing
ethnographic occasions or a "field" in colonial circumstances (Clifford 1992,
Pels & Salemink 1994, Schumaker 199\, Stocking 1991). The erasure of thesepractical conditions also deleted colonial and postcolonial governments and170 PELS
made them external to the self-conception of anthropology. Just such an erasure of a much more multisided, contradictory, and paradoxical practice by adichotomous world view characterized colonialism in general (Stoler & Cooper 1997). The study of colonial discourse may have done much to outline theambivalent dichotomies between self and other, its tendency to reduce colonial
struggle to a form of governmentality that marks out a subject nation in pejorative terms (Bhabha 1994) ignores many of the contradictions, paradoxes, andnegotiations that accompany colonial rule (Thomas 1994). For every imaginary opposition of home and field, one must study the hybrid work of travelthat links them up.

Conquests and Expeditions
Given that the view of colonialism as struggle has only recently come to predominate its study, it is not surprising that anthropologists, unlike historians,
rarely researched the violent beginnings of colonial occupation. Yet conquests, other colonial wars, and their routines of reconnaissance have a peculiar relationship to colonial mythology and the subsequent structuration of colonial rule. Studies of "first contact" often produced remarkable instances ofdiverging cultural interpretations of the same events (Connoly & Anderson
1987, Sahlins 1985, Schieffelin & Crittenden 1991). Military intelligence employed most colorful and ruthless anthropologists (such as Richard Burton,
Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, or Colonel Creighton in Kipling's Kim). The
cultural organization of military prowess and its relative lack of success vis-avis colonial armies often left a legacy of ethnic distinctiveness under later
phases of colonial rule (Forster 1994, West 1994).
It is well known that indigenous religious and magical conceptions played acrucial role in the process and subsequent reinterpretation of successful conquests by Europeans (Connoly & Anderson 1987; Reid 1994; Sahlins 1985,
1995; Wiener 1995). Such images, however, of the European as god or powerful magician were also recurrent themes of colonial mythology and have, atleast in the history of Mexico and Peru, been "unmasked" as second- and thirdgeneration (re)inventions of tradition (Adorno 1994, Gillespie 1989, Lockhart
1994). Do images of cultural difference between conqueror and conquered obscure rather than illuminate the outcome of violent exchanges (the issue of debate between Obeyesekere 1992, Sahlins 1995)? Some cases suggest different
conceptualizations of otherness on the part of the conquered (Lockhart 1994).
Further accounts suggest that the main difference between Europeans and others was the former's extreme capacity for violence, whether technological(Reid 1994) or cultural and emotional (De Silva 1994). The study of colonialconquest will be crucial in rethinking the relationship of culture and violence.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM

171

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 amaterial event, forgetting that even a single blow requires cultural preparations. Similarly, barring one excellent exception, we have very few studies ofthe symbolic process that accompanies colonial violence (Taussig 1992).
Other expeditions, which depend on a similar tactical bricolage as militaryones, have also yet to receive the attention they deserve, though the study ofsome of their aspects, such as the circulation of objects (Thomas 1991) or thecreation 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 theanthropology 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
defined the former's activity as an essentially harmless curiosity, and this view
informed some of the earliest work on the topic (Beidelman 1981). The studyof missions, however, soon complicated that image and contributed some of
the more exciting approaches in the anthropology of colonialism.
Much of this work concentrates on how the different worlds of missionary
and potential convert are related through language. Urged by the necessity tocommunicate the Gospel, missionaries did probably more substantial recording of unknown languages than all anthropologistJaken together. Because
learning a language implies learning cultural competence, they also had tocope 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 languageof 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 from hith-

j/
"IT

172

PELS

erto 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 rolein the colonies (Dirks 1995, Pels & Salemink 1994). Missionary education wasa crucial factor in the emergence of secularizing strategies in colonial India(Viswanathan 1989), and it often spread the language on which, later, thestate'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 forthem, 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 ofdomination 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 ofself-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 ofmodernization (e.g. Horton 1971) carry the idealist connotations of the Protestantism from which it emerged, and this may cause us to ignore the media andalternative 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^;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 an-;/^4 j \jy^^ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM 173
thropology of the 1970s (see Stoler 1995b), but more importantly because suchstudies subsequently deepened our understanding of the composition of colonial culture. Caused, on the one hand, by a largely feminist-inspired discoveryof colonial domesticity and, on the other, by rethinking the organization ofplantation labor violence, this highlighting of the "tensions of empire" muchadvanced the interpretation of colonialism as a constant struggle rather than asa singular and coherent strategy (Cooper & Stoler 1989).
By the mid-1980s, feminists had added the study of European women tothat of the study of the consequences of colonialism for the colonized (Callaway 1987, Strobel 1991). The study of colonial domesticity showed that tomaintain colonial authority along the lines of race, European women had tosubmit to far stricter rules than was common in the metropole. The colonialstate 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 havebeen 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 suchtechnologies 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 of minority ethnic groups (Barth 1969, Hechter 1975). Plantations andforced labor were at the root of European colonialism and provided the modelfor other, non-European practices of exploitation by slavery (Sheriff 1987).
Settlers' desire for cheap 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 interestin 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 (Rainger 1980, Stocking 1971).

174 PELS
To further study colonial culture, it seems especially important to continueinterrogating 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 andprivate 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 thecolonized, and the peculiar role of so-called universal brotherhood of diverse
forms of colonial and anticolonial propaganda and protest. We have only justbegun to study the culture of labor regimes and their ascriptions of edinic essences to coolies, migrant laborers, and former slaves (but see Breman 1989,
Thomas 1994J).

ETHNICIZATION AND ITS FRAGMENTS
In the preceding section, trade was not addressed. Mercantile capitalism prefigured Western technologies of government and their ethnic categorizations
in general. William Pietz shows how Dutch merchants were among the first
ethnographers to produce non-Christian alterities, articulated on the normal
and abnormal exchange of objects. He shows how the concept of fetish, formerly functional within the hybrid relationships of global trade, was made to
define the essence of African society. His work should be made paradigmaticfor the study of the processes of essentialization that characterize the production of ethnography (Pietz 1985, 1987, 1988). Mercantile ethnicizations also
pioneered the imagination of European self and nation-state. Here, too, merchants prefigured modern govemmentality by creating the first images of national community (Helgerson 1992) and pioneering the insurance technologies
from which probability and statistics would emerge (Hacking 1990). Their
metaphors of the ship and the island/ helped to shift the notion of economy
from family relationships to the more abstract concept of population, a development that is the major marker of the new discourse on government (Foucault
1991; Grove 1995). Although the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries wereconstitutive of botii empires and nations and their tensions and fragments(Cooper & Staler 1997, Chatterjee 1993), they have rarely been researched byanthropologists of colonialism.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM

175

Statistics and Ethnography
Statistics and ethnography were the carriers of modern classifications of race,
nation, and ethnicity, and fortunately we have an excellent account of thetransformations of the art of travel from which they emerged (Stagl 1995). The
epistemological shift from the incorporating cosmology of crusade, pilgrimage, and mission to the distancing cosmology of exploration made implicit
practices of traveling subject to explicit, written classifications of knowledge
that were the methodological predecessors of statistical questionnaires and theanthropologists' Notes and Queries (Fabian 1983). Human beings were simultaneously redefined as analogous to animal and plant species, as ethnic types tobe slotted in the pigeonholes of such questionnaires (Thomas 1994). Taxonomy was also at the heart of the new "art of government," based, as La Perrieresaid, on the "right disposition of things, arranged to lead to a convenient end"(cited in Foucault 1991). Europeans seem to have learned the taxonomic management of "things" particularly in governing bounded, isolated units of goods
and personnel such as ships (Foucault 1991) and islands (Grove 1995). Sucha culture of objects to be managed characterized early trading relationships(Pietz 1985, 1987, 1988) as well as later forms of exploration (Thomas 1991)
and became a basic feature of European self-conceptions by laying the groundwork for a museum culture through the curiosity cabinet—where it, again, ties
in with the history of anthropology. If, however, the outlines of such a reinterpretation of European colonial culrure(s) are there, much more research needs
to be done.
What line such research can take can partly be understood from the historyof botany, which was both a revolutionary activity in scientific terms and amost practical one in terms of researching the possibilities for colonial revenue
from agriculture. From the time of the La Condamine scientific expedition of1735 onward, Linnean botany had helped to create an international network ofscientists (Pratt 1992). It provided, for instance, Dutch, British, or Russian expeditions with German naturalists, creating a circuit for the exchange ofknowledge in which much colonial intelligence could be passed on from one
empire to another (Slezkine 1994, Thomas 1991). The network of scientific societies and botanical gardens was specifically colonial—rather than metropolitan—and even the knowledge it disseminated was a hybrid of, among otherthings, Indian and European botanical classifications (Grove 1995). Botanists
pioneered the colonial deployment of statistics (Vicziany 1986). Anthropologists of colonialism, however, still need to catch up with the recent advances
made in the (colonial) history of science and research its significance for thedevelopment of colonial rule. Since most colonial naturalists were medicalmen, this is obviously also a history of colonial conceptions of the body and176 PELS
disease, the more important because before the rise of the clinic in the nineteenth century the confrontation of European and other medical systems was
one between more or less equally effective practices of curing.
The study of colonial statistics can also yield more results. It is clear thatgovernmental notions of population and economy, and the "numbering" theynecessarily imply, were pioneered in the colonies (Appadurai 1993, Hacking1990). While some of the best work in the anthropology of colonialism has
shown the importance of census and statistics in establishing colonialism andmodern governmentality (Anderson 1991, Cohn 1987), much research isneeded on how they emerged from colonial insurance and political arithmetic.
Moreover, while we assume that ethnography and statistics, after having beencoined together in the late eighteenth century (Stagl 1995), parted company atthe beginning of the twentieth century (Asad 1994), little research has been
done on how this happened, on the role colonial experience played in this development (see Dirks 1996), and on the possibility of comparing nineteenthcentury ethnography and statistics with twentieth-century anthropological surveys such as the Human Relations Area Files (Cohn 1996).

Inventions of Tradition and Modernity
Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century exemplars developed technologies ofdomination that have recently been studied: the regime of representation(Mitchell 1991, Rabinow 1989); the rise of environmentalism, crucial to utilitarianism and functionalism (Grove 1995) as well as to the emergence of sanitation (Arnold 1993, Thomas 1994); colonial map-making (Noyes 1992); theagricultural and social improvement of villages necessary for colonial revenue(Breman 1988, Dewey 1972, Guha 1989); or the development of colonial policing (Arnold 1993, Dirks 1996). It is still unusual for researchers to fully escape the dichotomy of colonial state and oppressed and/or resistant others, andrealize how much colonial empires were fragmented by other tensions (Stoler& Cooper 1997). Empires were maintained by ethnic soldiers that fought thecolonized at the same time that they colonized themselves (Fox 1985), or bywhite women subordinating their domestic staff while they were acting out
their own subordination (Stoler & Cooper 1997). The present emphasis on
governmentality as a pervasive form of power should not obscure that one's
hegemony was often the other's coercion. Surely, governmentality should beunderstood as a power dispersed through the social body. It cannot be regarded
as a singular colonial strategy, and we should study the struggles going onamong groups of colonizers and the colonized and between them, not only
over the control of governmental technologies but also over their appropriateness, application, and desirability.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM

177

The most influential argument in this respect is that of the invention of tradition under colonial circumstances: the use of an image of tribal or traditional
government within strategies of indirect rule (Ranger 1983). Such an image ofother government and its tension with ethnocentric definitions of modern government were crucial to any form of colonial rule (Mamdani 1996). The contradiction between other and modern government was founded on a similar infrastructure of representation (Mitchell 1991). However, the notion of invented tradition privileged European agency and regarded the tradition too
much as an ideology imposed on, rather than coauthored with or resisted by,sections of colonized groups (Dirks 1993b, Pels 1996a, Thomas 1992).
Moreover, we cannot restrict ourselves to inventions of tradition; modernity itself needs to be imagined and constructed as well. It is here that analytic
perspectives on alternative imaginings of history, of the public/private or
work/home dichotomies, or of Christianity (Chakrabarty 1994, Cooper 1992,
Mbembe 1992, Pels 1996b, White 1993) may prove to be important to future
developments in the anthropology of colonialism. They shall, for instance,
raise the question of the extent to which governmentality is synonymous with
Western culture as such, whether it can be regarded as a whole, or whether it isa set of technologies that lend themselves to selective adoption into alternative
governmentalities. Similarly, they should address to what extent colonialism
has triggered subaltern processes of global communication such as black culture, rumor, art, or possession (Appiah 1993, Kramer 1993, Pels 1992).

CONCLUSION: HISTORIES OF THE PRESENTThe mottoes at the beginning of this review argue that colonialism was a contradictory project. Like modern anthropology, it tends to bracket out part of theself to know and/or rule the other, or vice versa. If Mr. Commissioner Sanders
should know nothing of the cruel measures his African "indirect ruler" needed
to keep Sanders's peace, it is clear from Nyerere's statement that this hypocrisy of domination penetrated the self-control of all participants in the colonial
process. Anthropology, too, has often denied that it knew anything of colonialism, to the point of making colonialism into the definition of what anthropology is not (e.g. Beidelman 1981). If we are now in a position to overcome thatdenial by doing the anthropology of colonialism as an anthropology of anthropology, this indicates that, after Humboldt, we are capable or in need of separating ourselves from a phase in which anthropology and colonial rule werepart of the same social formation: the world of modernity, development, andthe welfare state.
This makes the anthropology of colonialism a historiography of the present.
After colonialism comes the postmodern; the latter cannot be understood ex-

178 PELS
cept as postcolonial (Appiah 1993, Thomas 1994). Postcolonial societies aremainly based on development regimes constructed under colonial rule (Ludden 1992), regimes that inherited the colonial inclination to excise politics
from economic and administrative practice (Ferguson 1990, Fields 1985, Pels
1996a). Governmentality was, like social science, a political technology meant
to prevent coercion and politics (Malinowski 1929; Rabinow 1989). The bifurcation, however, of colonial polities into traditional and modern often functioned to facilitate coercive practices such as forced labor (Cooper 1996) or tribalism, communalism, and apartheid (Mamdani 1996, Pandey 1990). We are
not only in need of more studies of the simultaneous emergence of modernity
and colonialism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but of more ethnographies of decolonization, focusing on the continuity between present andpast practices of development, welfare, and good governance, and the way
they were constituted by anthropology, economics, and political science. If weare ever going to be capable of disengaging anthropology from colonialism,
we first need to reflexively blur the boundaries between colonialism and ourpresent anthropology.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Peter van der Veer and the Editorial Committee of the Annual Review
of Anthropology for encouraging me to write this review. Much of its inspiration has been derived from several years of conversation on the topic with Oscar Salemink, and from a sojourn among staff and students of the University ofMichigan's anthrohistory program in 1995, made possible by UM's International Institute and the Dutch Royal Academy of Sciences. I am grateful to
Nicholas Dirks, Johannes Fabian, Lynette Schumaker, Nicholas Thomas, andPeter van der Veer for their comments on an earlier draft of the review.
Visit the Annual Reviews homepage at http://www.annurev.org.

Literature Cited
Adorno R. 1994. The indigenous ethnographer: the "indip ladino" as historian andcultural mediation. See Schwartz 1994, pp.
378-402
Al Sayyad N, ed. 1992. Forms of Dominance.
On the Architecture and Urbanism of theColonial Enterprise. Aldershot: Avebury
Anderson B. 1991. Imagined Communities.
Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso. 2nd ed.

Appadurai A. 1993. Number in the Colonial
Imagination. See Breckenridge & Van derVeer 1993, pp. 314-39
Appiah KA. 1993. In My father's House. Africa in the Philosophy of Culture. London:
Methuen
Arnold D. 1993. Colonizing the Body. State
Medicine and Epidemic Disease in
Nineteenth-Century
India.
Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISiM

179

AsadT, ed. 1973. Anthropology and the ColoLeenhardt in the Melanesian World. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
nial Encounter. London: Ithaca Press
Asad T, 1994. Ethnography and statistical rep- Clifford J. 1983. On ethnographic authority.
Representations 2:118—46
resentation. Soc. Res. 6:55-88
Balandier G, ed. 1963. (1955). Sociologie Ac- Clifford J. 1992. Traveling Cultures. Cult.
Stud. New York/London: Routledge
titelle de I'Afrique Noire. Paris: Press.
Clifford J, Marcus G, eds. 1986. Writing CulUniv. France
ture. The Poetics and Politics of EthnograBarker F, Hulme P, Iversen M, Loxley D, eds.
phy. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
1985. Europe and Its Others. Colchester:
Cohn BS. 1968. Ethnohistory. Int. Enc. Soc.
Univ. Essex
Sci. 5:440-48. New York: MacMillan, Free
Barth F, ed. 1969. Ethnic Croups and Boundaries. Bergen/London: Univ. Forlaget/AIPresslen & Unwin
Cohn BS. 1987. An Anthropologist Among theHistorians and Other Essays. Delhi: OxBeidelman TO. 1981. Colonial Evangelism.
Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
ford Univ. Press
Bhabha HIC. 1994. The Location of Culture. Cohn BS. 1996. Colonialism and Its Forms of
London/New York: Routledge
Knowledge. The British in India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Boahen AA. 1987. African Perspectives on
Colonialism, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Comaroff J. 1985. Body of Power, Spiritof ReUniv. Press
sistance. The Culture and History of aBoyarin D, Boyarin J. 1989. Toward a diaSouth African People. Chicago: Univ. Chilogue with Edward Said. Crit. Inq. 15:
cago Press
Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1991. Of Revelation
626-33
Breckenridge CA, Van der Veer P, cds. 1993.
and Revolution, Vol. 1. Chicago: Univ.
Orientalism and the Postcolonial PredicaChicago Press
ment. Perspectives on South Asia. Phila- Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1992. Ethnography
delphia: Univ. Pa. Press
and the Historical Imagination. Chicago:
Breman JC. 1988, The Shattered Image: ConUniv. Chicago Press
strucion and Deconstruct ion of the Village Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1997. Of Revelationin Colonial Asia. Dordrecht: Foris/CASA
and Revolution, Vol. 2. Chicago: Univ.
Breman JC. 1989. Taming the Coolie Beast.
Chicago Press
Plantation Society and the Colonial Order Connoly B, Anderson R. 1987. First Contact.
in Southeast Asia. Delhi: Oxford Univ.
New Guinea's Highlanders Encounter
Press
the Outside World. Harmondsworth: PenBurchell G, Gordon C, Miller P, eds. 1991.
guin
The Foucault Effect. Studies in Govern- Cooper F. 1992. Colonizing time: work
mentality. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Pressrhythms and labour conflict in colonial
Byrnes G. 1994. The imperfect authority of
Mombasa. See Dirks 1992b, pp. 209^*5
the eye': Shortland's southern journey and Cooper F. 1996. Development and African Sothe calligraphy of colonialism. See Pels &ciety. The Labor Question in French andSalemink 1994, pp. 207-35
British Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge
Callaway H. 1987. Gender, Culture and EmUniv. Presspire. European Women in Colonial Nige- Cooper F, Stoler AL, eds. 1997. Tensions ofria. Oxford: Macmillan
Empire. Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois
Carrier JG, ed. 1995. Occidentalism. Images
World. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Cooper F, Stoler AL, eds. 1997. Tensions ofof the West. Oxford: Clarendon
Empire. Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois
Chakrabarty D. 1992. Postcoloniality and theWorld. Berkeley: Univ. California Press
artifice of history: Who speaks for 'Indian'Coronil F. 1996. Beyond Occidentalism: topasts? Representations 37:1-26
ward nonimperial geohistorical categories.
Chakrabarty D. 1994. The difference-deferral
Cult. Anthropol. ll(l):l-37
of a colonial modernity: public debates on
domesticity in British India. Subaltern Davin A. 1978. Imperialism and motherhood.
Stud. 8:50-88
Hist. Workshop 5:9-57
Chatterjee P. 1989. Nationalist Thought and Deloria V. 1969. Custer Died For Your Sins.
An Indian Manifesto. New York: Avon
the Colonial World: A Derivative DisDeSilvaCR. 1994. Beyond the Cape: the Porcourse? London: Zed Books
tuguese encounter with the peoples ofChatterjee P. 1993. The Nation and Its FragSouth Asia. See Schwartz 1994, pp.
ments. Colonial and Postcolonial Histo295-322
ries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Clifford J. 1982. Person and Myth: Maurice Dewey C. 1972. Images of the village commu-

180

PELS

nity: a study in Anglo-Indian ideology.
Mod. Asian Stud. 6:291-328
Dirks NB. 1992a. Castes of mind. Representations 37:56-78
Dirks NB, ed. 1992b. Colonialism and Culture. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
Dirks NB. 1993a. Colonial histories and native
informants: biography of an archive. See
Breckenridge & Van der Veer 1993, pp.
279-313
Dirks NB. 1993b. The Hollow Crown. Elhnohistory of an Indian Kingdom. Ann Arbor:
Univ. Michigan Press. 2nd ed.
Dirks NB. 1995. The conversion of caste: location, translation and appropriation. See
Van der Veer 1995, pp. 115-36
Dirks NB. 1996. Reading Culture. Anthropology and the Textualization of India. In
Culture/Contexture. Explorations in Anthropology and Literary Studies, ed. EV
Daniel, JM Peck. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Etienne M, Leacock E, eds. 1980. Women andColonization. Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Praeger
Eves R. 1996. Colonialism, corporeality andcharacter: Methodist missions and the refashioning of bodies in the Pacific. Hist.
Anthropol. 10:85-138
Fabian ). 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York:
Columbia Univ. Press
Fabian J. 1986. Language and Colonial
Power: The Appropriation of Swahili in
the Former Belgian Congo, 1880-1938.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Fabian J. 1990. History from Below: The "Vocabulary of Elisabelhville " by Andre Yav.
Texts, Translation, and Interpretive Essay.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
Fabian J. 1995. Ethnographic misunderstanding and the perils of context Am. Anthropol. 97:41-50
Fabian J. 1996. Remembering the Present.
Painting and Popular History in Zaire.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Feierman S. 1990. Peasant Intellectuals. Anthropology and History in Tanzania.
Madison: Univ. Wis. Press
Feierman S. 1993. African histories and thedissolution of world history. In Africa andthe Disciplines. The Contribution of Research in Africa to the Social Sciences andHumanities, ed. R Bates, V Mudimbe, J
O'Barr, pp. 167-212. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Ferguson J. 1990. The Anti-Politics Machine:"Development", Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press

Fields ICE. 1985. Revival and Rebellion in Colonial Central Africa. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press
Forster P. 1994. Politics, ethnography and the'invention of tradition': the case of T. Cullen Young of Livingstonia Mission, Malawi. See Pels & Salemink 1994, pp.
299-320
Foucault M. 1991. Governmentality. See
Burchelletal 1991, pp. 87-104
Fox RB. 1985. Lions of the Punjab. Culture in
the Making. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
GillespieSD. 1989. The Aztec Kings. The Construction of Rulership in Mexico History.
Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press
Gough K. 1968. Anthropology: child of imperialism. Man. Rev. 19(11): 12-27
Grove R. 1995. Green Imperialism. Colonial
Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and theOrigin of Environmentalism, 1600—1860.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
GuhaR. 1983. Elementary Aspects of PeasantInsurgency in Colonial India. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press
Guha R. 1989. Dominance without hegemony
and its historiography. In Subaltern Studies, ed. R Guha, 6:210-309. Delhi: Oxford
Univ. Press
Guha R, Arnold D, Chatterjee P, Hardiman D,
Pandey G, eds. 1982-1994. Subaltern
Studies. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press
Hacking I. 1990. The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Hafkin NJ, Bay EG, eds. 1976. Women in Africa. Studies in Social and Economic
Change. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press
Hechter M. 1975. Internal Colonialism. The
Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536-1966. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Helgerson R. 1992. Camoes, Hakluyt, and the
Voyages of Two Nations. See Dirks
1992b, pp. 27-63
HirschkindC. 1991. 'Egypt at the exhibition':reflections on the optics of colonialism.
Crit. Anthropol. 11:279-98
Horton R. 1971. African conversion. Africa
41:85-108
Hulme P. 1992. Colonial Encounters. Europe
and the Native Caribbean 1492-1797.
London/New York: Routledge
Hymes D, ed. 1974. Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Vintage
Jolly M, Maclntyre M, eds. 1989. Family andGender in the Pacific. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Kimambo I. 1991. Penetration and Protest in
Tanzania. London/Dar es Salaam/Nairobi/
Athens: Currey/Tanzania Publ. House/
Heincmann/Ohio Univ. Press

ANTHROPOLOGY OF COLONIALISM
Kramer F. 1993. 7V;e flerf fez. Art and Spirit
Possession in Africa. London: Verso
Lambek M. 1995. The poiesis of Sakalava history. Presented at llth Satterthwaite
Symp. Afr. Rel. Ritual, Satterthwaite, UK
Lewis B. 1993. Islamandthe West. Oxford:^
Lockhart J. 1994. Sightings: initial Nahua reactions to Spanish culture. See Schwartz
1994, pp. 218-48
Ludden D. 1992. India's development regime.
See Dirks 1992b, pp. 247-87
Ludden D. 1993. Orientalist empiricism. See
Breckenridge & Van der Veer 1993, pp.
250-78Mair L, ed. 1938. Methods in the Study of Culture Contact. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Malinowski B. 1929. Practical anthropology.
Africa 2\22-n
Malinowski B. 1945. The Dynamics of Culture
Change. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
Mamdani M. 1996. Citizen and Subject. Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late
Colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
ManganJA. 1986. The Games Ethic and Imperialism. New York: Viking Penguin
Man! L. 1990. Contentious traditions: the debate on sati in colonial India. In Recasting
Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History, ed. K Sangari, S Vaid. New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. Press
Mbembe A. 1992. Provisional notes on the
postcolony. Africa 62:3-37
Meillassoux C. 1964. Anthropologie economique des Gouro de Cote d'lvoire. Paris:
MoutonMitchell T. 1991. Colonizing Egypt. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press. 2nd ed.
Mudimbe V. 1988. The Invention of Africa.
Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
Noyes J. 1992. Colonial Space. Spatiality inthe discourse of German South West Africa, 1884-1914. Chur, Reading: Harwood
Nyerere JK. 1966. (1952). Freedom andUnity. Dares Salaam: Oxford Univ. Press
Obeyesekere G. 1992. The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the
Pacific. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ
Press
Ong W. 1958. Ramus: Method and the Decayof Dialogue. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.
Press
Otterspeer W. 1989. The ethical imperative. In
Leiden Oriental Connections, 1850-1940,
ed. W Otterspeer. Leiden j;
Pandey G. 1990. The Construction ofCommunalism in Colonial North India. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press
p'Bitek O. 1970. African Religions in Western
Scholarship. Nairobi: Kenya Lit. Bur.

181

Pels P. 1992. Mumiani: the white vampire. A
neo-diffusionist analysis of rumour. Etnofoor 5(1 -2): 165-87
Pels P. 1994. The construction of ethnographic
occasions in late colonial Uluguru. See
Pels & Salemink 1994, pp. 321-51
Pels P. 1996a. The pidginization of Luguru
politics. Administrative ethnography andthe paradoxes of indirect rule. Am. Ethnol.
23(4):738-6I
Pels P. 1996b. Kizungu rhythms. Luguru
Christianity as Ngoma. J. Relft. Afr. 26(2):163-201
Pels P, Salemink O, eds. 1994. Colonial Ethnographies. Hist. Anthropol. 8:1-352
Pietz W. 1985. The problem of the fetish. I.
Res9:5-nPietz W. 1987. The problem of the fetish. II.
The origin of the fetish. Res 13:23^45
Pietz W. 1988. The problem of the fetish. III.
Bosnian's Guinea and the enlightenment
theory of fetishism. Res 16:105-123
PrakashG. 1992. Writing post-Orientalist histories of the Third World: Indian historiography is good to think. See Dirks 1992b,
pp. 353-88
Pratt ML. 1985. Scratches on the face of thecountry, or: What Mr. Barrow saw in theland of the bushmen. Crit. Inq. 12:119-43
Pratt ML. \992.1mperialEyes. Travel Writing
and Transculturation. London/New York:
Routledge
RabinowP. 1989. French Modern. Norms andForms of the Social Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Rafael VL. 1988. Contracting Colonialism.
Translation and Christian Conversion in
Tagalog Society under Early Spanish
Rule. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Rafael VL. 1992. Confession, conversion andreciprocity in early Tagalog colonial society. See Dirks 1992b, pp. 65-88
Rainger R. 1980. Philanthropy and science inthe 1830s: the British and Foreign Aborigines' protection society. Man (NS) 15:
702-17
Ranger TO. 1983. The invention of tradition incolonial Africa. In The Invention of Tradition, ed. E Hobsbawm, TO Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Ranger TO. 1989. Missionaries, migrants andthe Manyika: the invention of ethnicity in
Zimbabwe. In The Creation of Tribalism
in Southern Africa, ed. L Vail, pp. 118-50.
London/Berkeley: Currey/Univ. Calif.
Press
Reid A. 1994. Early Southeast Asian categories of Europeans. See Schwartz 1994, pp.
268-94Robertson J. 1995. Mon Japon: the revue thea-

182

PELS

tcr as a technology of Japanese imperialism. Am. Etlmol. 22:970-96
Rosaldo R. 1994. Whose cultural studies? Am.
Anthropol. 96:524-29
Sahlins M. 1985. Islands of History. Chicago/
London: Univ. Chicago Press
Sahlins M. 1995. How "natives" think. About
Captain Cook, for example. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Said E. 1978. Orientalism. Harmondsworth:Penguin
Salemink O. 1991. Mois and Maquis. The invention and appropriation of Vietnam's
Montagnards from Sabatier to the CIA.
See Stocking 1991, pp. 243-84
Schieffelin EL, Crittenden R, eds. 1991. Like
People You See in a Dream. First Contact
in Six Papuan Societies. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press
Schumaker L. 199\ A tent with a view: colonial officers, anthropologists, and the making of the field in Northern Rhodesia.
8 Osiris, ^pnad
Schwartz SB, ed. 1994. Implicit Understandings. Observing, Reporting, and Reflecting
on the Encounters Behveen Europeans andOther Peoples in the Early Modern Era.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Sheriff A. 1987. Slaves, Spices and Ivory in
Zanzibar. Integration of an East African
Commercial Enterprise into the World
Economy. 1770-1873. London/Nairobi/
Dar es Salaam/Athens: Currey/Hetnemann/Tanzania Publ. House/Ohio Univ.
Press
Shokeid M. 1992. Commitment and contextual study in anthropology. Cult. Anthropol. 7:464-77
Slezkine Y. 1994. Naturalists versus nations:eighteenth-century Russian scholars confront ethnic diversity. Representations 47:
170-95
Stagl J. 1995. A History of Curiosity. The Theory of Travel 1550-1800. Chur: Harwood
Acad.
Stewart S. 1994. Crimes of Writing. Durham:
Duke Univ. Press
Stocking GW. 1971. What's in a name? The
origins of the Royal Anthropological Inst.
Man (NS) 6:369-90
Stocking GW, ed. 1991. Colonial Situations.
Essays on the Contextualization of Ethnographic Knowledge. History of Anthropology Vol. 7. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press
Stoler AL. 1991. Carnal knowledge and imperial power, gender, race, and morality incolonial Asia. In Gender at the Crossroadsof Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in
the Postmodern Era, ed. M Di Leonardo,
pp. 51-101. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Stoler AL. 1992. 'In cold blood': hierarchiesof credibility and the politics of colonial
narratives. Representations 37:151-89
Stoler AL. 1995a. Race and the Education of
Desire. Foucault's History of Sexuality
and the Colonial Order of Things. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Stoler AL. 1995b. [Prefacing capitalism andconfrontation in 1995. In Capitalism andConfrontation in Sumatra's Plantation
Bell, 1870-1979, ed. AL Stoler, pp.
vii-xxxiv. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press.
2nd ed.
Stoler AL, Cooper F. 1997. Between metropole and colony. Rethinking a research
agenda. In Cooper & Stoler 1997, pp.
1-56
Strobel M. 1991. European Women and theSecond British Empire. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
Sturtevant WB. 1966. Anthropology, history
and ethnohistory. Ethnohistory 13:1-51
Taussig M. 1989. History as commodity insome recent American (anthropological)
literature. Crit. Anthropol. 9:70-23
Taussig M. 1992. Culture of terror—space ofdeath: Roger Casement's Putumayo report
and the explanation of torture. See Dirks
1992b, pp. 135-73
Thomas N. 1991. Entangled Objects. Exchange, Material Culture and Colonialism
in the Pacific. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press
Thomas N. 1992. The inversion of tradition.
Am.Ethnol. 19:213-32
Thomas N. 1994. Colonialism's Culture. Anthropology, Travel and Government. London: Polity Press
Thornton RJ. 1988. The rhetoric of ethnographic holism. Cult. Anthropol. 3:
285-303
Thornton RJ. 1995. The colonial, the imperial,
and the creation of the 'European' inSouthern Africa. See Carrier 1995, pp.
192-217
Vansina J. 1985. Oral Tradition as History.
London: Currey
Van der Veer P, ed. 1995. Conversion to Modernities: The Globalization of Christianity.
New York/London: Routledge
Vaughan M. 1991. Curing Their Ills: Colonial
Power and African Illness. Cambridge/
Stanford: Polity Press & Stanford Univ.
Press
Vaughan M. 1994. Colonial discourse theory
and African history, or has postmodernism
passed us by? Soc. Dyn. 20(2): 1-23
Vicziany M. 1986. Imperialism, botany andstatistics in early nineteenth-century India:
the surveys of Francis Buchanan