From: "S. Legg" <sil21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 09 Jan 2006 09:27:30 +0000
This is a fascinating, if relatively under-developed, aspect of Foucault
studies. The translation/difference of colonial rule is much open to debate
and sensitive to context and period. Not only that, but the type of power
relation one is examining usually dictates different forms of translation.
For instance, sovereign power in colonial contexts differed between the
extreme violence and racial objectification of Africa, and the ceremonial
and more democratised/less undemocratic colonialisms of settler colonies.
Similarly, the difference of colonial discipline and government cannot be
assumed to be the same (ie more extreme/violent versions) due to the
financial restrictions placed on governing the spaces of colonialism. As
such, the difference of colonial rule must be taken beyond Chatterjee's
assertion of the centrality of "race" and into the intricate and lived
reality of rule.
I have a chapter on "Foucault and postcolonialism" and journal article on
"colonial governmentality" as explored in Delhi forthcoming if you'd like
me to pass them on.
Dr Stephen Legg
Department of Geography
University of Cambridge
On Jan 7 2006, nadeem omar wrote:
My interest in Foucault has sparked by archival research into the
disciplinary discourses of the colonial state in India, esp. Punjab. One
can see a full scale deployment of human sciences in the construction of
colonial subject. But question remains, to what extend the forms of
subjectification and the project of knowlege production diverge. With
Foucault never entering a direct analysis of colonialism, how one is to
understand the specificity of colonial domination in the non-western world?
Nadeem Omar Tarar
Department of Communication and Cultural Studies
National College of Arts
Foucault-L mailing list