Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:38:52.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fixation of (Moral) Belief

Making Imperial Administration Modern

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2018

Nicholas Hoover Wilson
Nicholas Hoover Wilson*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University [[email protected]]
Get access

Abstract

This article argues that the transition between early-modern and modern organization of empires—especially the administrative outlooks and institutional logics used to govern them—revolved around how moral conflict was viewed within imperial organizations themselves and by metropolitan audiences. Early modern imperial organizations were deeply patrimonial, and hence relied on a style of embedded moral reasoning that distanced and segmented their affairs from the metropole. By contrast, modern empires order what they govern in hierarchies that are nominally objective and whose criteria seem universal. Using a case study of the British Empire’s crisis and transformation at the turn of the 19th century, I argue that modern imperial administration emerged because networks of moral justification, which provided the scaffolding for patrimonial early-modern empire, eroded in the face of “disinterested” metropolitan scrutiny. This scrutiny created an audience for bitter political and moral conflicts among imperial administrators, who then used disembedded moral claims to mobilize support.

Résumé

Cet article étudie le rôle de la perception publique du conflit moral pour la transition entre les organisations impériales de type pré-moderne et moderne, en particulier du point de vue des approches administratives et des logiques institutionnelles mobilisées pour les gouverner. Les premières organisations impériales modernes étaient profondément patrimoniales et s’appuyaient sur un style « implanté » (embedded) de raisonnement moral qui contribuait à éloigner et segmenter leurs affaires courantes des métropoles. À l’opposé, les empires modernes ordonnent ce qu’ils gouvernent dans des hiérarchies théoriquement objectives et sur la base de critères qui semblent universels. À l’aide d’une étude de cas consacrée à la crise et à la transformation de l’empire britannique au tournant du xixe siècle, cet article montre que l’émergence de l’administration impériale moderne repose sur l’affaiblissement des réseaux de justification morale, qui constituaient l’échafaudage de l’empire patrimonial, face à un contrôle métropolitain de type « désintéressé ». Ce contrôle a contribué à créer une audience pour les conflits politiques et moraux entre les administrateurs impériaux, qui ont ensuite utilisé des revendications morales « désimplantées » (disembedded) pour mobiliser leur soutien.

Zusammenfassung

Beim Übergang von vormodern zu modern organisierten Weltreichen, und hier insbesondere in puncto Verwaltungsperspektiven und institutionelle Logik, um sie zu regieren, wurde die Frage, wie moralische Konflikte innerhalb der Reichsverbände einerseits und im Mutterland andererseits gesehen wurden, zum Angelpunkt. Neuzeitliche Imperien waren vermögensrechtlich aufgestellt und stützten sich auf eine moralisch verankerte Argumentation, die zu einer Trennung ihrer Angelegenheiten vom Mutterland führte. Ganz anders moderne Weltreiche, die ihre Regierungsstruktur hierarchisch gliedern, die rein formal betrachtet objektiv sind und deren Kriterien universell erscheinen. Aufbauend auf einer Fallstudie, die sich mit der Krise und Umwandlung des britischen Empires Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts auseinandersetzt, behauptet dieser Artikel, dass die Entstehung der modernen Kolonialreichsverwaltung auf die Zerrüttung der moralischen Rechtfertigungsnetze, das ursprüngliche Gerüst der frühen, vermögensrechtlich organisierten Weltreiche, zurückzuführen ist, die sich wiederum durch eine “desinteressierte” Überprüfung durch das Mutterland erklären lässt. Diese Überprüfung führte zu harten politischen und moralischen Konflikten zwischen imperialen Verwaltern, die schließlich durch “unverankerte” moralische Anforderungen Unterstützung zu erwirken suchten.

Keywords

MoralityEmpirePublic administrationState formationMoralitéEmpireAdministration publiqueFormation de l’ÉtatMoralImperiumÖffentliche VerwaltungStaatsbildung
Type
On the Historical Sociology of Morality
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , April 2018 , pp. 13 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Andrew, 2005. “Linked Ecologies: States and Universities as Environments for Professions”, Sociological Theory, 23 (3): 245-274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abend, Gabriel, 2008. “Two Main Problems in the Sociology of Morality”, Theory and Society, 37 (2): 87-125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abend, Gabriel, 2014. The Moral Background: An Inquiry into the History of Business Ethics (Princeton, Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Julia, 1996. “Principals and Agents, Colonialists and Company Men: The Decay of Colonial Control in the Dutch East Indies”, American Sociological Review, 61 (1): 12-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Julia, 2007. The Familial State (Ithaca, Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Barkey, Karen, 2008. Empire of Difference (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayly, C. A., 1990. Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas, 1967. The Social Construction of Reality (New York, Doubleday).Google Scholar
Boltanski, Luc, 1999. Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics (Cambridge, UK/New York, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boltanski, Luc and Thévenot, Laurent. 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth, new edition, (Princeton, Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, 2004. “From the King’s House to the Reason of State: A Model of the Genesis of the Bureaucratic Field”, Constellations 11 (1): 16-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre and Wacquant, Loïc J. D.. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Bourne, John, 1977. “The Civil and Military Patronage of the East India Company 1784-1858”, Leicester, Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Bowen, H. V., 1991. Revenue and Reform: The Indian Problem in British Politics, 1757-1773 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, H. V., 2006. The Business of Empire: The East India Company and Imperial Britain, 1756-1833. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Bowen, John, 1955. “The East India Company’s Education of Its Own Servants”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 87 (3-4): 105-123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braddyll, John, 1746. The Vindication of Mr. John Braddyll, against Mr. Henry Lowther. In a Letter Humbly Adress’d to the Honourable the Court of Directors for Affairs of the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East-Indies. With a Proper Appendix. (Farmington Hills, Michigan, Gale Ecco).Google Scholar
Breiger, Ronald L., 1974. “The Duality of Persons and Groups”, Social Forces, 53 (2): 181-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, John, 1976. Party Ideology and Popular Politics at The Accession of George III (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, Partha, 1993. The Nation and Its Fragments (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Cohn, Bernard S., 1987. “The Recruitment and Training of British Civil Servants in India, 1600–1860”, in Cohn, B. S., An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays (New York, Oxford University Press: 500-553).Google Scholar
Compton, J. M., 1968. “Open Competition and the Indian Civil Service, 1854-1876”, The English Historical Review, 83 (327): 265-284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, C. J., 1973. “The Education of a Ruling Caste: The Indian Civil Service in the Era of Competitive Examination”, The English Historical Review, 88 (347): 262-285.Google Scholar
Dewey, Clive, 1993. Anglo-Indian Attitudes: The Mind of the Indian Civil Service (London, The Hambledon Press).Google Scholar
Dirks, Nicholas B., 2009. The Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodwell, Henry, 1920. Dupleix and Clive: The Beginning of Empire (London, Methuen).Google Scholar
Dodwell, Henry, 1926. The Nabobs of Madras (London, Williams and Norgate Ltd).Google Scholar
D’Oyly, Charles and Ackermann, Rudolph, 1828. Tom Raw, the Griffin: A Burlesque Poem, in Twelve Cantos: Illustrated by Twenty-Five Engravings, Descriptive of the Adventures of a Cadet in the East India Company’s Service, from the Period of His Quitting England to His Obtaining a Staff Situation in India (London, printed for R. Ackermann).Google Scholar
Emirbayer, Mustafa, 1997. “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology”, American Journal of Sociology, 103 (2): 281-317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Emily, 2014. Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company, 1600-1757 (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Fligstein, Neil, 2001. “Social Skill and the Theory of Fields”, Sociological Theory, 19 (2): 105-125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, Neil and McAdam, Doug, 2012. A Theory of Fields (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, Samuel and Colman, George, 1778. The Nabob; a Comedy, in Three Acts. As It Is Performed at the Theatre-Royal in the Haymarket (London, printed by T. Sherlock, for T. Cadell).Google Scholar
Fourcade, Marion and Healy, Kieran, 2017. “Seeing like a Market”, Socio-Economic Review, 15 (1): 9-29.Google Scholar
Ghosh, Suresh Chandra, 1970. The Social Condition of the British Community in Bengal: 1757-1800 Ann Arbor MI, University of Michigan).Google Scholar
Go, Julian, 2000. “Chains of Empire, Projects of State: Political Education and U.S. Colonial Rule in Puerto Rico and the Philippines”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 42 (2): 333-362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, Akhil, 1995. “Blurred Boundaries: The Discourse of Corruption, the Culture of Politics, and the Imagined State”, American Ethnologist, 22 (2): 375-402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian, 2004. Historical Ontology (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Graham, 1999. “Corruption as ‘Boundary Politics’: The State, Democratisation, and Mozambique’s Unstable Liberalisation”, Third World Quarterly, 20 (3): 537-550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hejeebu, Santhi, 2005. “Contract Enforcement in the English East India Company”, The Journal of Economic History, 65 (2): 496-523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, Daniel and Reed, Isaac Ariail, 2014. “Formation Stories and Causality in Sociology”, Sociological Theory, 32 (4): 259-282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitlin, Steven and Vaisey, Stephen, eds., 2010. Handbook of the Sociology of Morality (Berlin, Springer Science & Business Media).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasper, James M., 1999. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Lawson, Philip and Phillips, Jim, 1984. “‘Our Execrable Banditti’: Perceptions of Nabobs in Mid-Eighteenth Century Britain”, Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 16 (3): 225-241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenman, Bruce and Lawson, Philip, 1983. “Robert Clive, the ‘Black Jagir’, and British Politics”, The Historical Journal, 26 (4): 801-829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, Spencer, 2014. “‘A Theatre of Disputes’: The East India Company Election of 1764 as the Founding of British India”, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 42 (4): 593-624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, Spencer, 1965. The Impeachment of Warren Hastings, (London: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Leonard, Spencer, 1976. East Indian Fortunes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, Spencer, 1981. “Introduction”, in Marshall, P. J. and Todd, W., eds., The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke: India: Madras and Bengal, 1774-1785, vol. V. (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Leonard, Spencer, 1987. Bengal: The British Bridgehead (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Leonard, Spencer, 1997. “British Society in India under the East India Company”, Modern Asian Studies, 31 (1): 89-108.Google Scholar
Leonard, Spencer, 2005. The Making and Unmaking of Empires (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Martin, John Levi, 2009. Social Structures (Princeton, Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, Martha, 2001. British India & British Scotland, 1780-1830: Career Building, Empire Building, and a Scottish School of Thought on Indian Governance. 1st ed. (Akron, Ohio, University of Akron Press).Google Scholar
Menand, Louis, 1997. Pragmatism: A Reader (New York, Vintage Books).Google Scholar
Metcalf, Thomas, 1994. Ideologies of the Raj (London, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Metcalf, Thomas, 2015. Aftermath of Revolt: India 1857-1970 (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy, 1988. Colonising Egypt (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Moore, R. J., 1964. “The Abolition of Patronage in the Indian Civil Service and the Closure of Haileybury College”, The Historical Journal, 7 (2): 246-257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neild-Basu, Susan, 1984. “The Dubashes of Madras”, Modern Asian Studies, 18 (1): 1-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nightingale, Pamela, 1985. Fortune and Integrity (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Pickett, Catherine, 2011. Bibliography of the East India, annotated edition (London, British Library Publishing).Google Scholar
Polanyi, Karl, 1944. The Great Transformation (New York, Beacon Press).Google Scholar
Ricœur, Paul, 1995. Oneself as Another, reissue edition (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Rothschild, Emma, 2011. The Inner Life of Empires: An Eighteenth-Century History (Princeton, Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer Eric, 1975. The Semisovereign People (New York, Dryden Press).Google Scholar
Schutz, Alfred, 1967. Phenomenology of the Social World, first edition (Evanston, IL., Northwestern University Press).Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven, 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Arnold A., 1976. “Pressure from Leadenhall: The East India Company Lobby, 1660-1678”, The Business History Review, 50 (3): 329-355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Adam, 2002. The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spear, Percival, 1963. The Nabobs (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Steinmetz, George, 2007. The Devil’s Handwriting (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmetz, George, 2014. “The Sociology of Empires, Colonies, and Postcolonialism”, Annual Review of Sociology, 40 (1): 77-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Philip J., 2011. The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Eric, 1986. The Peasant Armed: The Indian Rebellion of 1857, First edition, edited by Bayly, C. A. (Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Stokes, Eric, 1989. The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Sutherland, Lucy S., 1952. The East India Company in Eighteenth-Century Politics (London, Hyperion Press).Google Scholar
Tavory, Iddo, 2011. “The Question of Moral Action: A Formalist Position”, Sociological Theory, 29 (4): 272-293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charles, 1985. Human Agency and Language (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trevelyan, Sir George Otto, 1864. The Competition Wallah (Basingstoke, Macmillan).Google Scholar
Wilson, Jon E., 2007. “Anxieties of Distance: Codification in Early Colonial Bengal”, Modern Intellectual History, 4 (1): 7-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Jon E., 2011. The Domination of Strangers. (London, Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Wilson, Kathleen, 1995. The Sense of the People: Politics, Culture, and Imperialism in England, 1715-1785. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Wilson, Nicholas Hoover, 2011. “From Reflection to Refraction: State Administration in British India, circa 1770-1855.” The American Journal of Sociology, 116 (5): 1437-1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Nicholas Hoover, 2015. “‘A State in Disguise of a Merchant’? The English East India Company as a Strategic Action Field, Ca. 1763?1834”, in Erikson, E., ed., Chartering Capitalism: Organizing Markets, States, and Publics, 29, Political Power and Social Theory (Emerald Group Publishing Limited: 257-285) Retrieved [http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S0198-871920150000029011].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Nicholas Hoover, 2016. “Moral Accounting as Field Foundation in an Early Modern Empire: The English East India Company in the Late Eighteenth Century”, The Sociological Review Monographs, 64 (2): 61-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuthnow, Robert, 1987. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar