skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

The Duplicity of Paper: Counterfeit, Discretion, and Bureaucratic Authority in Early Colonial Madras

Comparative studies in society and history, 2012-04, Vol.54 (2), p.229-250 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 2012 ;Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 2012 ;ISSN: 0010-4175 ;EISSN: 1475-2999 ;DOI: 10.1017/S0010417512000023 ;CODEN: CSSHAN

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    The Duplicity of Paper: Counterfeit, Discretion, and Bureaucratic Authority in Early Colonial Madras
  • Author: Raman, Bhavani
  • Subjects: Articulation ; Attestations ; Bureaucracy ; Bureaucratic Anxieties ; Business structures ; Careers ; Colonial government ; Colonialism ; Colonies & territories ; Comparative analysis ; Counterfeiting ; Cultural change ; Discretion ; Documentation ; Dominance ; Forgery ; Governance ; Government regulation ; Historical text analysis ; History ; India ; Innovations ; Law ; Legal evidence ; Muslims ; Perjury ; Police ; Printing ; Public Officials ; Revenue ; Rule of Law ; Semiotics ; Signatures ; Subordinates ; Tamil Nadu ; Technological change ; Technology ; Weber, Max ; Writing
  • Is Part Of: Comparative studies in society and history, 2012-04, Vol.54 (2), p.229-250
  • Description: Shifts in writing technology are usually taken to mark a shift from discretionary to rule-bound, impersonal forms of government. Equating writing technology with rules, however, obscures how counterfeiting, both alleged and real, and the exertion of official discretion can consolidate a government of writing. In his important study of Yemeni scribal culture, The Calligraphic State: Textual Domination and History in a Muslim Society, Brinkley Messick modifies Weberian models of domination by calling for the study of textual domination that intersects in diverse ways with other dimensions of authority. Messick relates the demise of the calligraphic state to the advent of legal codification and print technology. With the arrival of impersonal documents of government and a form of rational law, he argues, writing itself ceased to be the “non-arbitrary mark of the person” and the relationship between the sign and signified was no longer connected by an intermediary figure. Similarly, the notion that the innovations of disciplinary writing constituted a new assemblage of control exercised through the “unavoidable visibility of subjects” has been extremely productive in delineating the colonial career of modern infrastructural power. Following the work of Bernard Cohn, the colonial state's “investigative modalities” have been shown to be integral to colonial command and the production of an ever-accumulating corpus of reports. Statistical surveys, reports, and censuses in colonies did not create a uniform template of rule but did enable the operation of inherently selective, targeted, and differentially articulated projects of governance. These gains notwithstanding, the debates over colonial governance have remained limited to differing estimations of the state's successful mastery of information, and whether its taxonomies were collaboratively authored by intermediaries or imposed upon the colonized. We need to give more attention to the complex articulation of records and reports with the law under conditions of exogenous rule.
  • Publisher: New York, USA: Cambridge University Press
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 0010-4175
    EISSN: 1475-2999
    DOI: 10.1017/S0010417512000023
    CODEN: CSSHAN
  • Source: AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait