{"title":"行动自由还是工作自由?应对法属刚果棕榈油租界土著工人的流动性(1910-1940)","authors":"Ferruccio Ricciardi","doi":"10.1080/0023656x.2023.2268544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In colonial French Congo, one of the main challenges for labor relations was the need to reconcile contradictory efforts to promote the mobility of native workers while also stabilizing (or immobilizing) the workforce. As the interests of colonial employers and officials overlapped and merged, so did the status of indigenous workers evolve according to how administrative and economic leaders categorized indigenous work. Indigenous workers were therefore progressively categorized as migrant workers, deserters or vagrants. The political instruments which were supposed to ensure the circulation of migrant workers particularly (the laissez-passer, worker logbooks, orders regulating the flow of the workforce within the colony, etc.) were perversely used to constrain worker movement. Drawing on the archives of the French colonial administration and the private archives of the Compagnie Française du Haut-Congo, this article tries to grasp the relation between freedom and (im)mobility in the context of a colonial concession. In that context, colonial leaders sought to control of mobility for purposes relating to the construction of a local labor market, the consolidation of governmental rationality and the stabilization of colonial order.","PeriodicalId":45777,"journal":{"name":"Labor History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Freedom of movement <i>versus</i> freedom of work? Coping with the mobility of indigenous workers in a palm oil concession in French Congo (1910-1940)\",\"authors\":\"Ferruccio Ricciardi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0023656x.2023.2268544\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In colonial French Congo, one of the main challenges for labor relations was the need to reconcile contradictory efforts to promote the mobility of native workers while also stabilizing (or immobilizing) the workforce. As the interests of colonial employers and officials overlapped and merged, so did the status of indigenous workers evolve according to how administrative and economic leaders categorized indigenous work. Indigenous workers were therefore progressively categorized as migrant workers, deserters or vagrants. The political instruments which were supposed to ensure the circulation of migrant workers particularly (the laissez-passer, worker logbooks, orders regulating the flow of the workforce within the colony, etc.) were perversely used to constrain worker movement. Drawing on the archives of the French colonial administration and the private archives of the Compagnie Française du Haut-Congo, this article tries to grasp the relation between freedom and (im)mobility in the context of a colonial concession. In that context, colonial leaders sought to control of mobility for purposes relating to the construction of a local labor market, the consolidation of governmental rationality and the stabilization of colonial order.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Labor History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Labor History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656x.2023.2268544\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labor History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656x.2023.2268544","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Freedom of movement versus freedom of work? Coping with the mobility of indigenous workers in a palm oil concession in French Congo (1910-1940)
In colonial French Congo, one of the main challenges for labor relations was the need to reconcile contradictory efforts to promote the mobility of native workers while also stabilizing (or immobilizing) the workforce. As the interests of colonial employers and officials overlapped and merged, so did the status of indigenous workers evolve according to how administrative and economic leaders categorized indigenous work. Indigenous workers were therefore progressively categorized as migrant workers, deserters or vagrants. The political instruments which were supposed to ensure the circulation of migrant workers particularly (the laissez-passer, worker logbooks, orders regulating the flow of the workforce within the colony, etc.) were perversely used to constrain worker movement. Drawing on the archives of the French colonial administration and the private archives of the Compagnie Française du Haut-Congo, this article tries to grasp the relation between freedom and (im)mobility in the context of a colonial concession. In that context, colonial leaders sought to control of mobility for purposes relating to the construction of a local labor market, the consolidation of governmental rationality and the stabilization of colonial order.
期刊介绍:
Labor History is the pre-eminent journal for historical scholarship on labor. It is thoroughly ecumenical in its approach and showcases the work of labor historians, industrial relations scholars, labor economists, political scientists, sociologists, social movement theorists, business scholars and all others who write about labor issues. Labor History is also committed to geographical and chronological breadth. It publishes work on labor in the US and all other areas of the world. It is concerned with questions of labor in every time period, from the eighteenth century to contemporary events. Labor History provides a forum for all labor scholars, thus helping to bind together a large but fragmented area of study. By embracing all disciplines, time frames and locales, Labor History is the flagship journal of the entire field. All research articles published in the journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and refereeing by at least two anonymous referees.