困扰的种族隔离:好望角的统治范式

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
George Pavlich
{"title":"困扰的种族隔离:好望角的统治范式","authors":"George Pavlich","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Power, while fundamental to sociality, might be exercised with haphazard ferocity or more judiciously in legally constrained ways. Such constraint requires us first to understand how ruling paradigms work, and the effects of their powers, before entertaining suitable forms of legal limitation. Transposing Kuhn’s famous concept, this paper examines a ruling paradigm of biopolitical sovereignty at the Cape of Good Hope through two examples: the 1891 census’ racialized categorizations of the “population”; and a racialized segregation responding to the 1901 bubonic plague. Prefiguring apartheid, both examples indicate how colonial laws authorized discretionary biopowers and yet exempted themselves from monitoring how officials demarcated and governed racialized population groups. The paper touches on the growing maladroitness of positivist ideas about a sovereign “rule of law” in regulating arbitrary biopolitical forces. It concludes by briefly indicating the promise of legal pluralism and Indigenous legalities to check capricious biopowers while pursuing legitimate life-affirming forces.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"173 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Plaguing Segregations: Paradigms of Rule at The Cape of Good Hope\",\"authors\":\"George Pavlich\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cls.2023.25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Power, while fundamental to sociality, might be exercised with haphazard ferocity or more judiciously in legally constrained ways. Such constraint requires us first to understand how ruling paradigms work, and the effects of their powers, before entertaining suitable forms of legal limitation. Transposing Kuhn’s famous concept, this paper examines a ruling paradigm of biopolitical sovereignty at the Cape of Good Hope through two examples: the 1891 census’ racialized categorizations of the “population”; and a racialized segregation responding to the 1901 bubonic plague. Prefiguring apartheid, both examples indicate how colonial laws authorized discretionary biopowers and yet exempted themselves from monitoring how officials demarcated and governed racialized population groups. The paper touches on the growing maladroitness of positivist ideas about a sovereign “rule of law” in regulating arbitrary biopolitical forces. It concludes by briefly indicating the promise of legal pluralism and Indigenous legalities to check capricious biopowers while pursuing legitimate life-affirming forces.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Law and Society\",\"volume\":\"173 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Law and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

权力虽然是社会性的根本,但其行使方式可能是随意的、凶猛的,也可能是更明智的、受法律约束的。这种约束要求我们在考虑适当的法律限制形式之前,首先了解统治范式是如何运作的,以及其权力的影响。本文借用库恩的著名概念,通过两个例子研究了好望角的生物政治主权统治范式:1891 年人口普查对 "人口 "的种族分类;以及应对 1901 年鼠疫的种族隔离。这两个例子是种族隔离制度的前兆,表明殖民地法律如何授权生物权力的自由裁量权,却又免于监督官员如何划分和管理种族化的人口群体。本文论述了实证主义关于主权 "法治 "的观点在规范任意的生物政治力量方面日益严重的弊端。最后,本文简要说明了法律多元化和土著法律性在追求合法的生命力量的同时,对遏制任性的生物权力所做出的承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Plaguing Segregations: Paradigms of Rule at The Cape of Good Hope
Power, while fundamental to sociality, might be exercised with haphazard ferocity or more judiciously in legally constrained ways. Such constraint requires us first to understand how ruling paradigms work, and the effects of their powers, before entertaining suitable forms of legal limitation. Transposing Kuhn’s famous concept, this paper examines a ruling paradigm of biopolitical sovereignty at the Cape of Good Hope through two examples: the 1891 census’ racialized categorizations of the “population”; and a racialized segregation responding to the 1901 bubonic plague. Prefiguring apartheid, both examples indicate how colonial laws authorized discretionary biopowers and yet exempted themselves from monitoring how officials demarcated and governed racialized population groups. The paper touches on the growing maladroitness of positivist ideas about a sovereign “rule of law” in regulating arbitrary biopolitical forces. It concludes by briefly indicating the promise of legal pluralism and Indigenous legalities to check capricious biopowers while pursuing legitimate life-affirming forces.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Law and Society is pleased to announce that it has a new home and editorial board. As of January 2008, the Journal is housed in the Law Department at Carleton University. Michel Coutu and Mariana Valverde are the Journal’s new co-editors (in French and English respectively) and Dawn Moore is now serving as the Journal’s Managing Editor. As always, the journal is committed to publishing high caliber, original academic work in the field of law and society scholarship. CJLS/RCDS has wide circulation and an international reputation for showcasing quality scholarship that speaks to both theoretical and empirical issues in sociolegal studies.
×
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