Social Fields, Subfields and Social Spaces at the Scale of Empires: Explaining the Colonial State and Colonial Sociology

Abstract

This article develops a series of arguments about social fields, subfields, and social spaces that can help us understand empires and colonies. First, we have to assume that the scale of fields is not always coextensive with the boundaries of the national state but is often much larger, or smaller. Imperial fields are among the most spatially extensive ones, though they may not be as territorially extensive as truly global fields. Second, we need to make a distinction between imperial fields and imperial social spaces (based on Bourdieu's distinction between social fields and social spaces). The third argument is that colonies in modern empires were characterized by two different kinds of fields: fields that were simply extended into the overseas territories, versus completely separate fields unique to one or more of the colonies. The colonial state is an example of a field that is specific to the colony. By contrast, scientific fields were often simply extended from the metropole into the colonies, encompassing both. The fourth argument concerns subfields. Transported into imperial realms, this distinction suggests that some colonial offshoots of fielded metropolitan practices do not constitute separate fields but are nonetheless differentiated from their main overarching field. These four points are illustrated with examples from British, French and German imperial policy, colonial statecraft and colonial sociology.

Puzzlement of a déjà vu: Illuminaries of the global South

“…Various histories of the emergence of British Sociology have often failed to mention the informative and even critical influence of empire on the discipline. George Steinmetz (2017a, 2017b) has researched the much neglected recognition of imperial sociologists to the very development of the discipline (2013a, 2013b, 2013c). He has outwardly stated that British Sociology was a child of the empire.…”

The Relation between Imperialism and Nationalism in the German Empire and its Aftermath: A Bourdieusian Field Theoretical Perspective

“…In what light does the defining moment for the relationship between empire and nationalism during the twentieth century appear from the perspective of these dispositions? In answering this question I focus on the political field, which could overlap with multiple fields of power and the states that existed under empire (Steinmetz :105–110, :374–387), but which in nation‐states became defined by statist capital of a specific national metacapital type.…”

“…Compared to other approaches such as governmentality, or what Go and Krause term new imperialism, BFT shifts the focus to the mediation of power through varying forms of capital (economic, cultural, symbolic, etc. ), logics of practice, and the reproduction of those forms of capital together with historical transformations (Gorski ; Steinmetz :100). Philip S. Gorski underlines Bourdieu's usefulness in analyzing historical transformation as continuity and rupture at the same time, which I believe is key to understanding the changing relations between nationalism, empire, and the state.…”

“…By anchoring my approach in the transformation of the relations of empire and nationalism through fielded comparisons of the organizing role of empire and nationalism, I show what BFT can bring to studies of nationalism. It helps us approach imperial actors as competing meaning‐makers in defining nationalism, rather than as parts of a larger overarching and determining imperial system (Steinmetz :99) based on economy (e.g. Pokrowski ; Koponen ), ideology/culture (e.g.…”

How Environmental Decline Restructures Indigenous Gender Practices: What Happens to Karuk Masculinity When There Are No Fish?

“…Although race and racism matter, we contend that the lens of race alone is insufficient to illustrate the dynamics of power-shaping indigenous communities. The state may be racial (Goldberg 2002), but sociologists of race and ethnicity have begun to note that it may be more appropriate to describe it as colonial (e.g., Steinmetz 2016). Theories of internal colonialism are nonetheless insufficient, in that they blend the experiences of multiple racial groups (Omi and Winant 2015), fail to theorize social and ecological relationships at large, and deploy the term colonialism as a metaphor rather than literal state structure.…”