Reading Information

Bernard S. Cohn, “Chapter One: Introduction,” Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge

Overview

In this chapter, Cohn describes the way in which the British secured and maintained control over their colonial territories, specifically in regards to India. Cohn explains the methods of research and study the British carried out in India with the goal of governing over India more effectively. Cohn explains the specific investigative modalities used in this “colonial project” to collect information, which were either very general or very specific. Cohn goes on to list the different modalities the British used to organize and categorize Indian society to retain their authority in India, which were as follows: historiographic modality, observational/travel modality, survey modality, enumerative modality, museological modality, and the surveillance modality. At the end of the chapter Cohn outlines the investigative modalities in the postcolonial world and details the role anthropologists play in relating information regarding indigenous cultures without colonial influence. Cohn describes anthropologists and their epistemic approach, which was carried out in places like America. For example, social scientist were very involved in government projects during the Depression, specifically with social welfare projects. The creation of the Human Relations Area File (HRAF) was a significant development in the field of anthropology in that it provided a wealth of ethnographic anthropologic data. The HRAF’s first task was to outline a universal criteria for outlining cultural units and identifying which social groups should be considered to be a cultural unit.  Cohn finally addresses the role of anthropology in the postwar years when anthropologists emerged with field experience and the need to deal with the “imperfect information” gained from the war. In the postwar years, new nation states also had to evaluated in “modern” terms as national development was compared to Western development.

Keywords

1. Investigative modality: the methodology in which appropriate information/knowledge is collected and how it is transformed into usable forms such as published reports.
2. Historiographic modality: most complex, pervasive, and powerful; the collection of knowledge of the history and practices of Indian states
3. Observational/Travel modality: related to creation of repertoire of images and typifications that determined what was significant to the European eye.
4. Survey modality: form of exploration of the natural and social landscape (e.g. mapping of India, collecting botanical specimens).
5. Enumerative modality: collection of statistical information (e.g. census).
6. Museological modality: generation and transmission of knowledge of antiquities of India.
7. Surveillance modality: recording and classifying a set of permanent features that distinguish an individual (e.g. criminal ethnography).

Argument

Knowledge of India’s language, culture, and history would “enable the British to classify, categorize, and bound the vast social world that was India so that it could be controlled” (5).

Evidence

Cohn refers to primary sources such as historical writings of other authors like Alexander Dow, Robert Orme, Charles Grant, Mark Wilks, James Mill, and James Tod to support his argument of how the British used such writings to study the historiographic modality in India. Cohn also makes use of statistical documents such as censuses the British carried out in India to show what kind of information and conclusions the British were able to develop when researching the enumerative modality. Cohn also references mappings of India’s landscape during British rule to explain how the British researched the survey modality.

Historiographical Debate

I am not sure how the author is situating him/herself in a wider scholarly debate.

Contribution to Our Understanding of Colonial Rule

This chapter aids our understanding of colonial rule by detailing one way in which colonial rulers/countries sought to gain and maintain control over their colonial territories. This chapter specifically addresses a distinctive form of power used to control colonial territories that is epistemic based. Cohn’s outline of the different investigative modalities allows insight into the extent of the power that knowledge has in the maintenance of control in regards to colonial rule. The British are using pre existing models of Indian law and practices to translate their own ideas of law and practices, which is different from many of the relationships between the colonizers and colonized that Osterhammel describes in his work; there is a lack of assimilation and compromise on the part of the colonizers. In comparison to Osterhammel’s work, Cohn provides a specific and focused account of colonialism in India while Osterhammel’s work provides a more general overview of colonialism. Osterhammel’s work can help us understand Cohn’s by examining British rule in India within the framework of Osterhammel’s definitions of modern colonialism and imperialism.