Mountstuart Elphinstone, Colonial Knowledge and ‘Frontier Governmentality’ in Northwest India, 1849–1878

Martin J. Bayly
{"title":"Mountstuart Elphinstone, Colonial Knowledge and ‘Frontier Governmentality’ in Northwest India, 1849–1878","authors":"Martin J. Bayly","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190914400.003.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the British annexation of the Punjab in 1849 following the disasters of the First Anglo-Afghan War, Mountstuart Elphinstone's \"An Account of the Kingdom of Caubul\", and those of his intellectual successors, became \"useful knowledge\", and found a fertile administrative environment in the management of India's northwest frontier. According to this logic of government, frontier spaces could be tamed through adequate knowledge and understanding of their indigenous populations, part of a wider assemblage of power that has been referred to in Foucauldian terms as \"frontier governmentality\". Taking this concept as its starting point, this chapter turns its attention to the procurement, evolution, and use of colonial knowledge as part of this wider project of frontier governance. If \"frontier governmentality\" differed from \"colonial governmentality\", then what made it distinct? By studying the trajectories of the body of colonial knowledge initiated by Mountstuart Elphinstone and his intellectual successors, new understandings of colonial power in frontier spaces start to emerge through the lens of \"governmentality\", offering key insights into the modalities of colonial government in so-called \"peripheral\" areas, and the role played by \"colonial knowledge\" as part of this assemblage of power.","PeriodicalId":403338,"journal":{"name":"Mountstuart Elphinstone in South Asia","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mountstuart Elphinstone in South Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190914400.003.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the British annexation of the Punjab in 1849 following the disasters of the First Anglo-Afghan War, Mountstuart Elphinstone's "An Account of the Kingdom of Caubul", and those of his intellectual successors, became "useful knowledge", and found a fertile administrative environment in the management of India's northwest frontier. According to this logic of government, frontier spaces could be tamed through adequate knowledge and understanding of their indigenous populations, part of a wider assemblage of power that has been referred to in Foucauldian terms as "frontier governmentality". Taking this concept as its starting point, this chapter turns its attention to the procurement, evolution, and use of colonial knowledge as part of this wider project of frontier governance. If "frontier governmentality" differed from "colonial governmentality", then what made it distinct? By studying the trajectories of the body of colonial knowledge initiated by Mountstuart Elphinstone and his intellectual successors, new understandings of colonial power in frontier spaces start to emerge through the lens of "governmentality", offering key insights into the modalities of colonial government in so-called "peripheral" areas, and the role played by "colonial knowledge" as part of this assemblage of power.
芒斯图尔·埃尔芬斯通:《1849-1878年印度西北部的殖民知识和“边疆治理”》
1849年,在第一次英阿战争的灾难之后,英国吞并了旁遮普,Mountstuart Elphinstone的《喀布尔王国的记录》和他的知识继承者的著作成为了“有用的知识”,并在印度西北边境的管理中找到了一个肥沃的行政环境。根据这种政府逻辑,边境空间可以通过对其土著居民的充分了解和理解来驯服,这是福柯所说的“边境治理”的更广泛的权力组合的一部分。以这一概念为出发点,本章将注意力转向殖民知识的获取、演变和使用,作为这一更广泛的边境治理项目的一部分。如果“边疆治理”不同于“殖民治理”,那么是什么使它们不同呢?通过对埃尔芬斯通(Mountstuart Elphinstone)及其后继者所开创的殖民知识体轨迹的研究,通过“治理”的视角开始出现对边境空间殖民权力的新理解,为了解所谓“外围”地区的殖民政府模式以及“殖民知识”作为这种权力组合的一部分所发挥的作用提供了关键见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信