Images of Empire, Contests of Conscience: Models of Colonial Domination in South Africa Author(S): John L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Images of Empire, Contests of Conscience: Models of Colonial Domination in South Africa Author(s): John L. Comaroff Reviewed work(s): Source: American Ethnologist, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Nov., 1989), pp. 661-685 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/645115 . Accessed: 01/03/2012 07:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Ethnologist. http://www.jstor.org images of empire, contests of conscience: models of colonial domination in South Africa JOHN L. COMAROFF-University of Chicago Thisargument, vaguely political in nature,took place as oftenas the two men met. Itwas a topsy-turvy affair,for the Englishmanwas bitterlyanti-English and the Indian[Dr. Veraswami] fanatically loyal ... "Mydear doctor," said Flory,"how can you makeout thatwe are in thiscountry for any purposeexcept to steal?It is so simple ... the BritishEmpire is a device for givingtrade monopolies to the English-or rathergangs of Jewsand Scotchmen." "Myfriend, it is patheticto hearyou talkso.... [W]hileyour businessmen develop the resourcesof our country,your officials are civilizing us, elevatingus to theirlevel, from pure public spirit ... [Y]ouhave broughtus law and order.The unswervingBritish Justice and Pax Britannica." "PoxBritannica, doctor, Pox Britannica. ." -George Orwell,Burmese Days, pp. 40-41 In the mid-1820s, John Philip, Superintendent of the London Missionary Society at the Cape, stepped up his controversial campaign for the right of "coloured peoples" to sell their labor in a free market(Ross 1986:77ff). His arguments, laid out in Researches in South Africa, called on no less an authority than Adam Smith: the "vassalage" of the coloureds, he declared (1828, 1:367), not only violated the "principles of political economy"; it also had a "depressing" moral effect on the entire population, making the "aborigines" into worthless miscreants and their masters into idle tyrants. Anticipating both Durkheim and Hegel, Philip, a technician of the soul, evoked the body corporeal to drive home his organic vision of colonialism: "The different members of a state [are] beautifully represented by the members of the human body: ... if one member suffers, all the members suffer"; a corollary being that "the peculiar vices of all ranksof the inhabitants are the vices of the system" (pp. 386, 388). Hence it was that, by freeing the coloureds, "the colonists and their families.. [would themselves] be converted into useful farmers." With a rhetorical, historical flourish the good reverend added: "To what does Englandowe the subversion of the feudal system, and its high rank among the nations of the world, but to the emancipation and elevation of its peasantry?"And that through self-pos- sessed labor, private property, and the removal of all forms of servitude. Such arguments had long been aired in Britain,of course. Questions about the morality and the control of free labor lay at the heart of the abolitionist debate-itself part of the reconstruc- The image of colonialism as a coherent, monolithic process can no longer be sus- tained: indeed, the very nature of colonial rule was, and is, often the subject of struggle among colonizers-as well as between ruler and ruled. This study exam- ines 19th-centurySouth Africa, where settlers, administrators,and evangelists con- tested the terms of European domination. It does so through the "gaze" of Prot- estant missionaries. Being the moral consciences of empire and the "dominated fraction of the dominant class," their perspective-shaped in the age of revolution in Britain-gives unusual insight into the tensions and contradictions of colonial- ism; contradictions that sometimes had the effect of revealing, to the colonized, the hidden structures of command. [South Africa, colonialism, consciousness, missionaries, representation, "imaginative sociology"] images of empire 661 tion, during the Age of Revolution, of bourgeois ideology in the image of industrialcapitalism. Consequently, Philip's position had wide support in Whitehall, Exeter Hall, and church halls all over England. But in South Africa the situation was different. The colonists were simply not used to being told that they would become a useful agrarian bourgeoisie if only they allowed their laborersto cultivate in freedom. Nor did the missionary stop at delivering sermons on the theory of political economy. He also confronted the colonial government with its practical fail- ings. Official policy might have spoken the language of free labor, but existing conditions, he alleged, encouraged administratorsto perpetuate sundry forms of vassalage. Take this example, from a passage titled "Interestof the Colonial Functionaries in the Oppression of the Aborig- ines": Thelanded proprietors of SouthAfrica depend on the priceof labour,and the numberof handsthey can command;and it is obvious,while thingsremain in thisstate, . .magistrates[and other functionaries] areunder... temptationto oppressthe peopleby enslavingthem, and keepingdown the priceof labour [1828, 1:346f]. And many of them did so on a regular basis, he added-naming names. Pax Britannica, for Philip as for the fictional Flory, left much to be desired. Not surprisingly,John Philip was sued by one of those censured in his Researches; the Su- preme Court at the Cape awarded William Mackay substantial damages-and seriously ad- monished the missionary for his impolitic behavior (Ross 1986:116ff; Macmillan 1927). In En- gland, however, the latter was seen as something of a martyrto a particularmodel of colonial- ism. His debt was paid by subscription among churchmen, philanthropists, and liberal politi- cians, and his crusade became a touchstone in the struggle, within the colonizing culture, to refashion the imperial project. For one thing became clear amidst all the legalities and loud acrimony: Philip had done more than call into question the deeds of a few of His Majesty's servantsat a remote Britishoutpost. Whether he intended it or not, he had opened up to scrutiny some of the less obvious contradictions of the colonial enterprise itself. Such was the effect of his oft-repeated claim that the tensions of empire flowed not from the idiosyncratic intentions of its agents, their "peculiar vices"; that they grew, rather, out of the "vices of the system" at large. The nature of South African colonialism had become, as it remains today, the subject of an argument of structuresand practices. images of colonialism The image of colonialism as a coherent, monolithic process seems, at last, to be wearing thin. That is why we are concerned here with the tensions of empire, not merely its triumphs; with the contradictions of colonialism, not just its crushing progress. This is not to diminish the brute domination suffered by the colonized peoples of the modern world, or to deny the Orwellian logic on which imperial projects are founded. Nor is it to deconstruct colonialism as a global movement. It is, instead, to broaden our analytic compass; to take in its moments of incoher- ence and inchoateness, its internal contortions and complexities. Above all, it is to treat as problematic the making of both colonizers and colonized in order to understand better the forces that, over time, have drawn them into an extraordinarilyintricate web of relations. This goes much furtherthan to restate the commonplace that the colonizing process is characterized by occasional conflict, as well as common interest, among its perpetrators-be they adminis- tratorsor industrialists,merchants or militia, the crown or the cloth. To be sure, its contradic- tions everywhere run far deeper than are suggested by the tensions visible on the surface planes of empire. In short, colonialism, as an object of historical anthropology, has reached a moment of new reckoning. My contribution to this moment is, by design, narrowly focused. I shall explore the making, as agents of empire, of the nonconformist missionaries to the Griqua and Tswana, the 662 american ethnologist peoples of the northern frontier of early 19th-century South Africa. The shaping of these his- torical figures-which began on the changing ideological and social scape of contemporary Britain-reveals much about the contradictions of colonialism, here and elsewhere. It goes without saying that the making of any historical actor is crucial to his or her actions in the making of history; that the latter cannot be fully understood except in relation to the former. In the case of the evangelists of the London Missionary Society (LMS)and Wesleyan Methodist MissionarySociety (WMMS)in South Africa, however, there are two unusually compelling rea- sons for this. First,these men, the vanguards of empire and its most active ideological agents, came from the interstices of a class structure undergoing reconstruction; many of them, as we shall see, were caught uneasily between a displaced peasantry, an expanding proletariat, and the lower reaches of the rising Britishbourgeoisie (Beidelman 1982:50). On the colonial stage itself, they were quite clearly a "dominated fraction of the dominant class" (Bourdieu 1984:421), the ruled among the rulers. This was exacerbated by the fact that most of them regarded themselves- and were regarded by their compatriots-as "friends and protectors of the natives" (see for example Wilson 1976). Itwas a position that often set them at odds with others in the colonial division of labor, particularlythose from different fractions of the dominant class (cf. Trapido 1980:passim; Legassick 1980:46; Newton-King 1980:198f; Bundy 1979).