Enclosure as Internal Colonisation: The Subaltern Commoner, Terra Nullius and the Settling of England's ‘Wastes’

Q2 Arts and Humanities
C. Griffin
{"title":"Enclosure as Internal Colonisation: The Subaltern Commoner, Terra Nullius and the Settling of England's ‘Wastes’","authors":"C. Griffin","doi":"10.1017/s0080440123000014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In the past decade, scholars of the here-and-now have (re)discovered the concept of enclosure, applying it with considerable zeal and in a bewildering variety of situations: from the securitisation of the Internet, and patenting genes, to attempts to privatise urban ‘public’ spaces, the English ‘enclosure story’ is presented as a given, a narrative that is set in stone. One critical aspect of this account is that enclosure was exported to Britain's overseas colonies in a one-way process. This paper shows, however, that from the early sixteenth century – and insistently so from the late eighteenth century – arguments for the enclosure of English commons and wastes were framed using techniques and discourses deployed overseas: the languages and practices of colonialism. Commons and wastes, so the paper argues, were not just increasingly seen as empty spaces, but the peoples that inhabited them were written as if they were uncivilised and unable to manage the land. Further, arguments for the enclosure of wastes were made as an alternative to Britain's overseas imperialism. The paper traces a variety of debates and proposals that collectively constitute a coherent body of ‘internal colonial’ thought.","PeriodicalId":23231,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the Royal Historical Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the Royal Historical Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0080440123000014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the past decade, scholars of the here-and-now have (re)discovered the concept of enclosure, applying it with considerable zeal and in a bewildering variety of situations: from the securitisation of the Internet, and patenting genes, to attempts to privatise urban ‘public’ spaces, the English ‘enclosure story’ is presented as a given, a narrative that is set in stone. One critical aspect of this account is that enclosure was exported to Britain's overseas colonies in a one-way process. This paper shows, however, that from the early sixteenth century – and insistently so from the late eighteenth century – arguments for the enclosure of English commons and wastes were framed using techniques and discourses deployed overseas: the languages and practices of colonialism. Commons and wastes, so the paper argues, were not just increasingly seen as empty spaces, but the peoples that inhabited them were written as if they were uncivilised and unable to manage the land. Further, arguments for the enclosure of wastes were made as an alternative to Britain's overseas imperialism. The paper traces a variety of debates and proposals that collectively constitute a coherent body of ‘internal colonial’ thought.
封闭作为内部殖民:下层平民、Terra Nullius和英国“废物”的安置
在过去的十年里,现在和现在的学者们(重新)发现了封闭的概念,并以相当大的热情在各种令人困惑的情况下应用它:从互联网的证券化和基因专利,到城市“公共”空间私有化的尝试,英国的“封闭故事”被呈现为一个既定的、固定的叙事。这种说法的一个关键方面是,圈地是以单向过程出口到英国海外殖民地的。然而,这篇论文表明,从16世纪初开始,以及从18世纪末开始,围绕英国公地和废物的论点都是使用海外部署的技术和话语来构建的:殖民主义的语言和实践。该论文认为,公地和荒地不仅越来越被视为空地,而且居住在那里的人们被写得好像他们不文明,无法管理土地。此外,有人提出将废物封闭起来作为英国海外帝国主义的替代方案。本文追溯了各种各样的辩论和建议,这些辩论和建议共同构成了一个连贯的“内部殖民主义”思想体系。
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
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: The Royal Historical Society has published the highest quality scholarship in history for over 150 years. A subscription includes a substantial annual volume of the Society’s Transactions, which presents wide-ranging reports from the front lines of historical research by both senior and younger scholars, and two volumes from the Camden Fifth Series, which makes available to a wider audience valuable primary sources that have hitherto been available only in manuscript form.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信