Revisiting Sex and the Family

IF 0.4 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
D. Ghosh
{"title":"Revisiting Sex and the Family","authors":"D. Ghosh","doi":"10.7560/jhs32105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"T h e r e i s a d o c u m e n T f r o m my first book, Sex and the Family in Colonial India, that continues to haunt me because it represents an important omission in how I explained sexuality in colonial India. The document I am thinking of is the will of a woman named Elizabeth who died in 1803 leaving three children fathered by three European men who had come to India as soldiers in the army.1 She left a substantial estate, as well as a list of debts that she was owed. She asked her executors to distribute her estate to her three children. She named her children and their respective fathers in the will, while she identified herself as “a native woman.” Whether Elizabeth was her “real” name or the name given to her by her English partners is unclear. She has no last name, nor do we know if Elizabeth was her only name, a problem that plagued my research on enslaved and subjugated populations.2 I had an aha moment when I found this will in a bound volume of Bengal wills at the British Library in London, because texts written by women who identified as “native” were extremely rare at the turn of the nineteenth century. One of the continuing dissatisfactions I have with my early work is how quickly I gave up on researching families with gay, queer, and trans* subjects.3 Elizabeth’s reproductive biography is relatively easy to track—there were offspring who “proved” the predominance of sexual relationships between white men and brown women, which was the goal of my first book. As I reflect on my adherence to the logics of the archive, I know that","PeriodicalId":45704,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Sexuality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of Sexuality","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7560/jhs32105","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

T h e r e i s a d o c u m e n T f r o m my first book, Sex and the Family in Colonial India, that continues to haunt me because it represents an important omission in how I explained sexuality in colonial India. The document I am thinking of is the will of a woman named Elizabeth who died in 1803 leaving three children fathered by three European men who had come to India as soldiers in the army.1 She left a substantial estate, as well as a list of debts that she was owed. She asked her executors to distribute her estate to her three children. She named her children and their respective fathers in the will, while she identified herself as “a native woman.” Whether Elizabeth was her “real” name or the name given to her by her English partners is unclear. She has no last name, nor do we know if Elizabeth was her only name, a problem that plagued my research on enslaved and subjugated populations.2 I had an aha moment when I found this will in a bound volume of Bengal wills at the British Library in London, because texts written by women who identified as “native” were extremely rare at the turn of the nineteenth century. One of the continuing dissatisfactions I have with my early work is how quickly I gave up on researching families with gay, queer, and trans* subjects.3 Elizabeth’s reproductive biography is relatively easy to track—there were offspring who “proved” the predominance of sexual relationships between white men and brown women, which was the goal of my first book. As I reflect on my adherence to the logics of the archive, I know that
重温性与家庭
我的第一本书《殖民地印度的性与家庭》一直困扰着我,因为它代表了我在解释殖民地印度性行为时的一个重要遗漏。我想到的文件是一位名叫伊丽莎白的妇女的遗嘱,她于1803年去世,留下三个孩子,他们的父亲是三名欧洲男子,他们是作为军队士兵来到印度的。她要求遗嘱执行人将她的遗产分配给她的三个孩子。她在遗嘱中为自己的孩子和他们各自的父亲命名,而她自称为“本地女性”。伊丽莎白是她的“真名”还是她的英国伴侣给她的名字尚不清楚。她没有姓氏,我们也不知道伊丽莎白是否是她唯一的名字,这个问题一直困扰着我对被奴役和被征服人口的研究。2当我在伦敦大英图书馆的一本孟加拉遗嘱合订本中发现这份遗嘱时,我有一个顿悟的时刻,因为在19世纪之交,被认定为“本地人”的女性所写的文本极为罕见。我对早期工作的一个持续不满是,我很快就放弃了研究同性恋、酷儿和跨性别家庭。3伊丽莎白的生殖传记相对容易追踪——有一些后代“证明”了白人男性和棕色人种女性之间的性关系占主导地位,这是我第一本书的目标。当我反思我对档案逻辑的坚持时,我知道
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
16.70%
发文量
15
×
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