Anthropology and Colonialism - Literature review Example

Anthropological Perspectives on the Processes of Colonialism Introduction Some scholars have argued that colonialism was the genesis of anthropology since the urge to study other cultures – which is the basis of anthropology – stemmed from the West’s interaction with other cultures. Although different authorities offer divergent views on the relationship between the two concepts, there is a universal consensus that colonialism and anthropology influenced and continue to define each other. This paper will examine anthropological perspectives on the processes of colonialism and support evidence and arguments presented using ethnological illustrations from various sources. Discussion In The Anthropology of Colonialism: Culture, History, and the Emergence of Western Governmentality, Pels states that anthropologists mainly view colonialism in three dimensions: as the “universal, evolutionary development of modernisation; as a specific strategy or exercise in domination and exploitation; and as the incomplete venture of struggle and negotiation” (Pels 1997: 164). According to Pels, all three dimensions were popular colonial policies in both positive and negative types (Pels 1997: 164). Interestingly, it turns out that most anthropological perspectives revolve around these three dimensions. Based on Pels’ perspective and existing literature, it could be argued that although all three views are valid to a certain degree, the second outlook (a specific strategy or exercise in domination and exploitation) represents anthropology’s stance on colonialism. The interpretation that colonialism was a ubiquitous, evolutionary byproduct of modernisation conveniently ignores the fact that colonialism was not universal and that it was not an inevitable result of modernisation. This line of argument assumes that colonialism was a natural occurrence that could not be avoided, when the truth is that it was planned and instigated by Western powers as a tool for domination and enrichment (Kuper 2014: 37). Such a position is flawed because of its subtle equation of colonialism to processes like evolution and, to an extent, human development. The fact that colonised countries had to lose part of their identities renders the anthropological notion that colonialism was an inherent aspect of modernisation irrelevant (Kuper 2014: 52). Considering that anthropology was, more or less, a result of colonialism, it is hard to envision it as a component of modernisation. In retrospect, it is safe to say that colonialism sparked Western powers’ interest in other cultures (Lewis 2013: 43). This could be aided by the fact that the history of anthropology prior to the colonial era is essentially nonexistent. The third perspective presented by Pels (colonialism as the incomplete venture of struggle and negotiation) does not explain what this “struggle and negotiation” was for and who participated in it. Such a perspective leads to the view that colonialism did not really end (Kuper 2014: 105). This is not and should not be an acceptable definition of colonialism by anthropology. Of the three outlooks, it appears that position two offers the most credible description of colonialism from an anthropological angle. Colonialism was a deliberate policy in domination and exploitation. Ethnological evidence shows that during the colonial era, a majority of the people placed under colonial rule lost touch with their cultures. Western powers sought cheap and available resources to support their industrialisation efforts and saw poor countries as prime targets for resource exploitation (Lewis 2013: 59). To make resource exploitation legitimate and sustainable, colonial powers used Christianity and education to erode the cultures of poor countries and convert the people into adherents of their methods. For example, although a majority of Africans spoke indigenous languages before their countries were colonised, very few retained this aspect by the time independence was granted. World over, colonies lost their identities to Western powers greed for resources (Kuper 2014: 61). In Latin America, centuries-old traditions were sacrificed to accommodate the conversion of “natives” from primitive beings to more sophisticated global citizens. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the modernisation element was used as an excuse to dominate and force stable societies into distractive ways. The current ethnographic features of former colonies (food, clothing, language, and customs) are a far cry from what they were before the 19th century. In The Empire’s Old Clothes: Fashioning the Colonial Subject, Jean Comaroff discusses one of the colonial processes that falls under Pels’ second description of the anthropological view of colonialism: clothing. Clothes have always been a basic human need, but until the start of the colonial era, there was no common standard used to determine the type and number of clothes a human being should wear. In the modern era, clothing is a major component of ethnographic studies; this was not the case before the colonial period. For example, prior to the advent of colonialism, the Tswana peoples of Southern Africa wore minimalist clothing that left them mostly naked (Comaroff & Comaroff 2009: 20). In reality, they were not in desperate need of better clothes because their culture made them feel comfortable in their ways. British colonialists used clothing as a platform for commoditising the Tswana community by creating the impression that acceptable attire had to be bought, not fashioned out of basic materials and worn (Comaroff & Comaroff 2009: 21). In addition, the Tswana were compelled to move away from a liberalised way of dressing to a one-dimensional style that was restricted to suit colonialists’ commercial interests. From having free clothes that they could make and repair with basic tools, the Tswana were forced to acquire British currency and use it to purchase clothes (Comaroff & Comaroff 2009: 23). This was a purposeful and specific strategy used to enslave and rule an indigenous people under the pretext of civilisation, and is congruent with Pels’ claim that anthropology perceives the processes of colonialism to be a deliberately exploitative and interfering endeavor. According to Comaroff and Comaroff (2009: 21), “mission activities suggested that, at least in the Christian culture, clothedness was next to godliness: it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the ill-clad to enter the Kingdom of God.” This shows that the Tswana were compelled by colonialists and missionaries promoting the colonial agenda to abandon their traditional dress sense and follow a foreign, industrially-inspired identity. According to Stoler, Bronislaw Malinowski challenged anthropology to deviate from what he referred to as its “one-column entries” on African countries and to research instead the “no mans land of change,” to pay attention to the “aggressive and conquering” European societies in addition to the native ones, and to know that “European interests and intentions” were seldom amalgamated but usually “at war” (Stoler 1989: 319). Stoler continues by stating that after forty years, few researchers have critically appraised Malinowski’s assertion or followed his cue. More importantly, Stoler states that anthropologists have treated “colonialism and its European agents as a theoretical idea; as a structure forced on a local application. Finally, Stoler claims that after becoming more exposed to the class, racial and gender differences among colonial subjects, anthropologists have assumed the politically engineered conflict between the coloniser and the colonised as a fact instead of a historically evolving duality of social categories that demands explanation. It appears that Stoler introduces an entirely new interpretation of anthropology’s perspective of colonial processes. In her view, anthropology has restricted the processes of colonialism to two sides: the colonised and the coloniser (Stoler 1989: 320). This implies that, thus far, anthropologists have exhibited limited understanding of colonial processes apart from the obvious case of Europe’s historical domination of poor countries. In Time, Sugar, and Sweetness, Mintz suggests that from an anthropological standpoint, colonialism played a key role in driving industrial growth, increasing food availability and variety, and reducing the prices of basic food commodities (Mintz 1980: 359). Mintz adopts an economic approach to colonial processes and then proceeds to link colonialism to a change in Europeans’ eating habits and awareness about certain foods. Food and food production is one of the most important aspects of ethnography, and from Mintz’s article it appears that there is a positive correlation between colonial processes and food-oriented ethnographic developments. The assertion that sugar is one of the most consumed, produced, and traded products in the European continent instead of the historically favored honey is evidence of the ethnographic impact of the processes of colonialism and how anthropology considers them (Mintz 1980: 361). According to Mintz (1980: 360), “sugar gradually changed from a medicine for royalty into a preservative and confectionery ingredient and, finally, into a basic commodity.” Conclusion This paper has presented six different anthropological views of the processes of colonialism and reinforced them using ethnographic illustrations. The arguments made by Mintz, Stoler, Pels, and Comaroff prove that there has always been a relationship between anthropology and colonialism. In fact, some of the claims show that the notion that colonialism spawned anthropology has sufficient truth to it. However, the most significant aspect of this paper has to be the revelation of different colonial processes, their connection to anthropology, and their ethnographic impacts. In spite of this, it is clear that more research is needed to enable anthropologists to acquire a better comprehension of colonialism. References Comaroff, L. & Comaroff, J. (2009) "The empire’s old clothes: fashioning the colonial subject," Of revelation and revolution, volume 2 the dialectics of modernity on a South African frontier, Chicago, University of Chicago. Kuper, A. (2014) Anthropology and anthropologists: the modern British school, London, Taylor and Francis. Lewis, H. (2013) In defense of anthropology: an investigation of the critique of anthropology, Bristol, Transaction Publishers, 2013. Mintz, S. (1980) "Time, sugar and sweetness," Marx Perspective, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 56-73. Pels, P. (1997) "The anthropology of colonialism: culture, history, and the emergence of Western governmentality," Annual Review of Anthropology vol. 26, 1997, pp. 163-83. Stoler, A.L. (1989) "Rethinking colonial categories: European communities and the boundaries of rule," Comparative Studies in Society and History vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 319-52. Read More