His distinction between crime and insurgency is a case in point p. Guha argues, altogether convincingly, that it was part of the design of colonialism to assimilate insurgency into the broader category of crime: to do this was not only to strip insurgency of its political salience, but it was to render rebels into ordinary criminals, and consequently to rightly place them under the disciplinary regime of the stage.
Yet, when Guha begins to enumerate the precise modes of distinction between crime and insurgency, he falters. These are, of course, the very attributes of the violence characteristically deployed by the modern nation-state.
What name shall we give to that violence? Surely not insurgency? Negation 18 3. Ambiguity 77 4. Modality 5. Solidarity 6. Transmission 7. Territorality 8. Epilogue Glossary Bibliography Index Rights Back to Top. Awards Back to Top. Additional Information Back to Top. Paper ISBN: Publicity material Bk Cover Image Full. Also Viewed. The Intimacies of Four Continents. Designs for the Pluriverse.
Mohawk Interruptus. Absolute Erotic, Absolute Grotesque. This new group of essays from the Collective's founders chart the course of subaltern history from early peasant revolts and insurgency to more complex processes of domination and subordination in a variety of changing institutions and practices.
Emerging from a decade of work and debates generated by a collective known as the Latin American Studies Group, the volume privileges the category of the subaltern over that of class, as contributors focus on the possibilities of investigating history from below.
Providing a radical critique of elite culture and of liberal, bourgeois, and modern epistemologies and projects, the essays included here prove that Latin American Subaltern Studies is much more than the mere translation of subaltern studies from South Asia to Latin America.
Drawing on Indian and Bengali practices and philosophies from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Banerjee identifies four elements of the political: the self, action, the idea, and the people. She examines selfhood in light of precolonial Indic traditions of renunciation and realpolitik; action in the constitutive tension between traditional conceptions of karma and modern ideas of labor; the idea of equality as it emerges in the dialectic between spirituality and economics; and people in the friction between the structure of the political party and the atmospherics of fiction and theater.
Throughout, Banerjee reasserts the historical specificity of political thought and challenges modern assumptions about the universality, primacy, and self-evidence of the political. In formulating a new theory of the political, Banerjee gestures toward a globally salient political philosophy that displaces prevailing Western notions of the political masquerading as universal. In exploring these questions, Ranajit Guha points out that the South Asian colonial state was a historical paradox.
Britain may have ruled India as a colony, but it never achieved hegemony over most of the population, collaborating with the nationalist elite but never persuading the masses.
0コメント