Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article traces the way in which modern institutions emerged in one region of British-ruled India—the Godavari Delta of coastal Andhra—during the early nineteenth century. Rejecting recently popular cultural theories and the vague language of 'multiple modernities', it suggests that modernity can be defined as the practical effort to govern subjects perceived as strangers with abstract and general categories. But, arguing that our conception of modernity needs to be limited, the article suggests that modern institutions always rely on non-modern ways of life: the rule of law depends on ideas about individual honour; bureaucracy; on family connections and affective expressions of loyalty; and rational interests that are coordinated by archaic idioms of political leadership. The peculiarity of the history of modernity in imperial India was marked not by the limited or partial imposition of modern practices, but by the British regime's reluctance to accept the legitimacy of the very non-modern forms of power it relied on. Tracing this process in the Godavari Delta, the article shows how a regime with limited local resources asserted the monopolistic authority of its structures of government, but in doing so, corroded its own capacity to exercise power. Local institutions which had coordinated local productive resources were undermined, but alternative forms of local leadership were unable to emerge. The consequence was famine in the 1830s, and in the 1840s an effort to refound the imperial regime by imposing British power on the region's natural resources.

This article traces the way in which modern institutions emerged in one region of British-ruled India—the Godavari Delta of coastal Andhra—during the early nineteenth century. Rejecting recently popular cultural theories and the vague language of 'multiple modernities', it suggests that modernity can be defined as the practical effort to govern subjects perceived as strangers with abstract and general categories. But, arguing that our conception of modernity needs to be limited, the article suggests that modern institutions always rely on non-modern ways of life: the rule of law depends on ideas about individual honour; bureaucracy; on family connections and affective expressions of loyalty; and rational interests that are coordinated by archaic idioms of political leadership. The peculiarity of the history of modernity in imperial India was marked not by the limited or partial imposition of modern practices, but by the British regime's reluctance to accept the legitimacy of the very non-modern forms of power it relied on. Tracing this process in the Godavari Delta, the article shows how a regime with limited local resources asserted the monopolistic authority of its structures of government, but in doing so, corroded its own capacity to exercise power. Local institutions which had coordinated local productive resources were undermined, but alternative forms of local leadership were unable to emerge. The consequence was famine in the 1830s, and in the 1840s an effort to refound the imperial regime by imposing British power on the region's natural resources.

Historians of political thought tend to emphasize the continuous flow and transmission of concepts from one generation to the next, and from one place to another. Historians of Indian ideas suggest that India was governed with concepts imported from Europe. This article argues instead that the sense of rupture that British officials experienced, from both the intellectual history of Britain and Indian society, played a significant role in forming colonial political culture. It examines the practice of "Hindu" property law in late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Bengal. It suggests that the attempt to textualize and codify law in the 1810s and 1820s emerged from British doubts about their ability to construct viable forms of rule on the basis of existing intellectual and institutional traditions. The abstract and seemingly "utilitarian" tone of colonial political discourse was a practical response to British anxieties about their distance from Indian society. It was not a result of the "influence" of a particular school of British thinkers.

Abstract
This article traces changing styles of dress in Dunedin's underground music scene between the years 1985 and 1996, identifying themes, patterns and notable features, as represented in photographs by notable Dunedin identity Gaylene.1 Situating punk as an important foundation of a continuing Dunedin music scene, this article considers subcultural style as a means of expressing both individuality (against the perceived mainstream) and solidarity (within the subculture). This article presents a trajectory for the ways subsequent sartorial styles have been informed by punk in Dunedin. Recognizing Malcolm Barnard's suggestion that dress can 'challenge both bourgeois culture and the capitalist system' (Barnard 2002: 136), we position the subjects of Gaylene's photographs, and the manner of their dress, within the wider social, political and geographical context of the time. Analysis is presented from both subcultural and post-subcultural frameworks. This analysis is considered and supported through the testimonies of active participants in the scene, notably interviews with Gaylene herself and with reference to a locally produced documentary. While it is acknowledged that both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, we, the authors, suggest that these strengths and weaknesses must be recognized in relation to the context of time; the specific practices, beliefs and appearance of subcultures are context dependent and therefore lend themselves to specific analytical methodologies.