Sovereign Bodies CiTIzENs, MIGRANTS, AND STATES IN THE PosTCOLONIAL WoRLD Edited by Thomas Blom Hansen and Finn Stepputat )N UNIVERSITY PRESS N AND OXFORDIntroduction Thomas Blom Hansen and Finn Stepputat (Ow Exerme anp SovEREIGNTY ‘The attack on the World ‘Trade Center in September 2001 aimed at what Al-Qaeda saw as the heart of America’s global empire. The subsequent reactions in America and the rest of the world demonstrated that sov- creignty and its ultimate expression—the ability and the will to employ overwhelming violence and to decide on life and death—have been re- configured in the last decades of the twentieth century. The “war on ter- ror’ and the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated that under- neath the complex structures of power in modem, liberal societies, territorial sovereignty, and the foundational violence that gave birth to it still remains the hard kernel of moder states—an intrinsically vio- Jent “truth” of the modern nation-state that remains its raison d’@tre in _Besods of crisis usa ello, the possibility of waging war against those ~ one declares as enemies remains a central dimension of how a state per- FMS its “stateness.” At the same time, these reactions also vindicated dt and Negri’s assertion that “imperial sovereignty” of the twenty- century differs from earlier forms of imperial power (Hardt and 2000, 161-204). As opposed to earlier eras, today’s empire of | network-power has no outside. The enemies, or “deviants,” inthis space of moral-political-economic domination are all “within,” often former allies of the U.S. government. In the simplified the Bush administration, these constitute an “axis of evil” that and disciplined in preemptive military strikes to se- peace in the United States and among its allies. The sover- tive is to declare who is an internal enemy, and the “war on ‘on internal enemies—within nation-states now policed gent security acts, and within the global empire where tights have been suspended for those declared “legal "and incarcerated in Afghan prisons, Guantanamo Bay, aces of exception.” nsformations of politics, economy, and culture have farious ways by theorists of globalization and inter-2. + Thomas Blom Hansen and Finn Stepputat ‘ational relations. Their obvious merits notwithstanding, these works still maintain an unbroken link betiveen state power, sovereignty, and teritory. Sovereignty resides in the state, or in institutions empowered by states, to exercise sovereign power in supra national institutions and within the nation-state defined by its teritory and the control ofits Populations. The emphasis inthis body of literature remains on sover. eignty asa formal, de jure property whose efficacy toa large extent is de> ived from being externally recognized by other states as both sover- eign and legitimate. This taking effective sovereignty for granted is questioned by Stephen Krasner (1999) in his influential work, “Sover. eignty: Organized Hypocracy.” Krasner shows how international sov- ereignty and the principles of nonintervention are being breached in ‘Bumerous ways by imposition as well as agreement, but int his account, Sovereignty remains inherently linked to tertory and the tate power states It seams that sovereignty cannot be imagined indepentienth cee ignty i pendently This volume questions the obviousness ofthe state-terstory-sover- eignty link In tune witha line of constructivist scholarship in Interna. tional Relations theory (e.g, Kratochwill 1986; Ruggie 1995; Biersteker and Weber 1996) we conceptualize the territorial state and sovereignty as social constructions. Furthermore, we suggest to shift the ground fox our understanding of sovereignty from issues of territory and external recognition by states, toward issues of intemal constitution of sover- eign power within slates through the exercise of violence aver bodies and populations In the Pilosophy of Right, Hegel remarks that during “the feudal monar- chy of earlier times, the state certainly had external sovereignty, but in ferally, nether the monarch nor the state was sovereign’ (Hegel (1821] 1991, 915). This “internal sovereignty” of the modem state was only possible under “lawful and constitutional conditions,” in a unitary “Rechtsstaat” whose “ideality” would show itself as “ends and modes of operation determined by, and dependent on, the en of the wile” (G16, emphasis as in origina). Hagel makes it clear that this modem, “ideality” of sovereignty can only be realized insofar as local and fa. zilialsolidaities of “civil society” are sublated to expressions of pati- otism through the state, particularly in situations of crisis (316). Even this, the most systematic thinker of the modem state, sovereignty is not the bedrock of state power but a precarious effect—and an objective = of state formation. Building on insights from a previous valume that sought to “denatu- zlize” the posteolonial state (Hansen and Stepputat 2001), and motivated {Notably Sassen (1996; Ong (1999); Jackson (1959); Brace and Hottinan (19 (2000), to mention but a few. Game Introduction + 3 by global events, we propose in this volume to take afresh and ethno- graphically informed look at the meanings and forms of sovereignty in ‘the same postcolonial zones ofthe world, Our aims are threefold, First, we suggest that sovereign power and the violence (or the threat thereof) that always mazk i, should be studied as practices dispersed ‘throughout, and across, societies. The unequivocal linking of sovereign [power to the state iS a historically contingent and peculiar outcome of ‘the evolution of the modem state system in Europe since the West- phalian peace in 1648. The discipline of International Relations has for ecades assumed states to be both normal, that is, with defacto legiti- mate control of their populations and territory, and identical, that is, ‘with similar interests strategies, and expected pattems of action To become a normal sovereign state with normal citizens continues tobe a powerful ideal, releasing considerable creative energy, and even more repressive force, precisely because its realization presupposed the dis: ciplining and subordination of other forms of authority. We suggest that sovereignty ofthe state isan aspiration that seeks fo create itself in the face of internally fragmented, unevenly distributed and unpre- dictable configurations of political authority that exercise more or less legitimate violence in a territory. Sovereign power, whether exercised by a state, in the name of the nation, or by a local despotic power or community court, is always a tentative and unstable project whose eff- cacy and legitimacy depend on repeated performances of violence and “will to rule.” These performances can be spectacular and publié, secret and menacing, and also can appear as scientific /technical ratio. nalities of management and punishment of bodies. Although the ‘meanings and forms of such performances of sovereignty always are historically specific, they are, however, always constructing their public authority through a capacity for visting violence on human bodies, Second, the chapters inthis volume foreground the ethnographic de- tail and the historical specificity in studies of sovereignty and its come- late, citizenship and other forms of institutionalized practices belong- ing to a state and/or a community defined by, but not delimited by, a tersitory All contributors, whether anthropologists or not, focus on the historically embedded practices and cultural meanings of sovereign power and violence, and the de facto practices of citizenship and be- longing in a wide range of contexts. The focus is unequivocally on the performaiice of sovereign power within nations, and on the precarious +. consteuétion and maintenance of localized sovereign power through Fora good eitiqu of these assumptions se Bartelson’s more philoeophical ritgue of reais (Batlson 1995, 12-5). Cynthia Weber’sInisiveerudy of sovereignty ass ‘ulation produced through acs of intematonal intervention (Weber 1999), and Dieter and Weber's volume onthe soil construction of soverelgnty (1596,4+ Thomas Blom Hansen and Finn Stepputat exercise of actual or “spectral” violence—transmitted through rumors, tales, and reputations. The issue at stake is de facto recognition of sover- eign power by local and discerning “audiences” who often pay their ues to several authorities at the same time. Taken together, the contr- butions make it clear that although sovereign power always seéks to project itself as given, stable and natural, it never completely manages to achieve the status of a “master signifier” that can stabilize a social order and a set of identities? ‘Third, we believe that the complex history of the reconfiguration of sovereign power and citizenship in colonial and postcolonial societies demonstrates something important, and uncomfortable, about the per- zautations of these concepts. Colonial forms of sovereignty were more fragmented and complex, more reliant on spectacles and ceremony, and demonstrative and excessive violence, than the forms of sovereign ower that had emerged in Europe after several centuries of centraliz- ing efforts, These differences were rooted in indirect rule ata distance, ‘to pragmatic reliance on local, indigenous forms of rule and sover- eignty and tied to the efforts at asserting racial and civilizational supe- riority: European states never aimed at governing the colonial terito- ries with the same uniformity and intensity as were applied to their ‘own populations. The emphasis was rarely on forging consent and the creation of a nation-people, and almost exclusively on securing subjec- fion, order, and obedience through performance of paramount sover- eign power and suppression of competing authorities. Demonstrative vviolence and short term economic exploitation were constitutive of colonial rule and took precedence over long-term economic rationali- ties.+ As a result, the configurations of de acto sovereign power, justice, and order in the postcolonial states were from the outset partial, com- peting, and unsettled. We believe that by zooming in on the historical production and ac- tual practices of sovereign bodies—from states, nations, communities, self-appointed big-men and leaders, to mobile individuals and political outfits—outside the metropolitan hearts of empire, this volume can 2 The poststrucuraist questioning ofa reasoning and ulfed subject and the Lacanien notion ofthe subject as icredeemably spit ha in Intemational Relations been translated into an analogous erique of sovereignty and the sovereign sat 8 governing "master sigrior” capable of stabilizing soca identies. This ritque aims e deconstructing the sovereign state as the privileged subject and actor inthe international system, whose ‘regi constitution is concealed by formal recognition and a fiction of pennanence (Eakins, Persram, and Pin Fat 199), ‘or a succinct acoount of how European powers applied “Westphalian norms of Aiplomacy and engagement in heir appreech 0 European states and "Chaistan nations” ‘while applying other, morebrutal and crude methods in dealing with Afsican and Asian ‘ings and with the Chinese and Ottoman empires see Strang (1936) Introduction + 5 guaify and complicate understanding 4 standings of power and sovere [nthe postcolonial worldand in the West" vean oper seer eee Ege he etopolgy of polls an itcan conocer re embeded an “eric” undersanciigen fener ete standings of whet sovercnn Jnuacusne mas “Moxaatt Gos"? Sovmen ‘Secret or PowEr : Soave zie “Ten it crea aya sche pone const of ving the aw estes in gene dee ce consent.” (Bodin 1992, Book 1, 23) oe = Bes that, “Lathes was datven to eee Sse the dvi of say sk de eh ofa secular boty mishtbe made mania Pe yse ate rate nthe Pn” (as 55,49) The sg ne oe 1 fig- ‘the liv-Ne 6 + Thomas Blom Hansen and Finn Stepputat and the majesty ofthe royal institation an the body politic is often de- that was eternal and could expressed the office, the estates, Te tatter was superior to the former, Tisiped as acorpus mysticum axnystical body serie along with the natural body. In spite of this ‘articulation of theo- sie accep in the sphere of politics there was cat ‘acknowledg- logic gyal power as not being sacred in tse, bus Pa ‘embedded rrrand dependent on the recognition of is subjects -wellas the bless- Jags of the Church (Kantorowier 1957, 7-29) Boe ieat to this older acknowledgment of royal Powe! oe fragile acer, te notion of absolute rule posited 8 eonsctOt and ae er ypabe distance between the sovereign and the S02, and im- fositon of the will of the sovereign om 8 ‘body Politic. As Maritain Pins it in his extique of sovereignty: “thes sovereignty means noth Pie or it means supreme power separate and transcendent—not at the Pest ut above the peak—and ruling the ent ‘body politic from Peak Prat is why this power is absolute (ab solute, a ‘non-bound, separate) and consequently unlimited” {Maritain 1968, 47). This config- Seen of sovereignty had been in gestation for Europe. Kings trie to carve outa space betes ‘the localized power of Baroy jonds, and the deeply entrenched notion of imperiaum—embodied, feud cay Roman Empire and the power of the Vatican ‘epislate, in Meals and excommunicate disobedient Kings? Trev hes's notion of the Covenant, by which subject TE 1 their right to rule themseives and grantitto the ‘overlord in exchange for pro- care defined the origin of sovereign power in arts of violence that tection, tiatonal exactly because they expressed an CHS and wecepowering resolve to rule on part of the King In spite of the im- puter stability and sel-evidence ofthe Covenant, most of Hobbes's a= .setelog around how sovereign power could be delegated and aarneted in ways that would not undermine the tat ‘of the sovereign {Gop Hobbes 1991, 121-39). The most cursory S}eNes the violent con- (Piero centralized states ofthis era makes ipa Wo the preser ‘threatened by sales) Spordination. The model of sovereign Kings F wee a Pom the outset challenged by otter notions of legitimacy and representation of power The elaboration ofa theory rea om the teh century onward As shown by shes fn iolnpans cntbuted fares of ena 2 ely Dutch republic in the sb Sp he nly niin representation of he the inllenabiity of sovercigny was atthe het of csenberg, both theorists of owerend public oe se bjs and the King, raher than mediate Introduction + 7 er om see herefsoei jones ouicnaaareie acim face arte gohan ipa pe cao tc ec e Samael areas raat Sle te collie wpe tae fsa orion pete i tnd one pa os fan et ya thw oe med a of herein roe ne iran gone tenes seein ad Si a ce ogee el wae sgt gry o cum ofS ‘appoint the highest of, sperm x cenit oot ta Se ae steal Gi alas oer esl mea merece re ea le state; to impose tax on subjects or hat sane wn nt eng x oc dee muerte aterosotne elngig gha, jects; anc reserve the exclusive rij i a i Fea aint a : ee ee er esc aloe and Gt yeslgly newia te pe girders eae ae fem og eet ete pe oni canbe known | Soe eee _ argon amos coy ate apie angie! evince gaaaecicaer [eee ree seein pert i vn fects or arc eo mceee SCE i fear a Sd ac mein inches meg ntteecery tices ers Bich einer Sight ah Reso og ocge or Scie er oct sie ro cpap cen Paes wine bap Te gue of oe ingly moralzing and incur sy on elev reste, posing he ving Gots was well as he people by obeying the8 + Thomas Blom Hansen and Finn Stepputat ‘moral laws of society. In Pufendort’s classical treatise On the Duty of ‘Man and Citizen (1673), sovereign power is described as founded on the consent ofthe people which can only be maintained if the sovereign provides safety to the people and rules in a virtuous and prudent wey. The relationship between ruler and subject is described in termé of de, ties of the citizens but also ofthe sovereign who should enforeé “public discipline so that the citizens conform tothe precepts ofthe avis not so ‘much through fear of punishment as by habituation” (Pufendort [1673] 1991, 152) Considering the shetoric of sovereign power being exercised in the zame and service ofthe people, the emergence of “the people” in the eighteenth century political debates as the ultimate source of sover, efgnty appears less discontinuous than sometimes made out tobe "The ‘Various forms in different states in Europe and in North America (Mor- {gan 1986), but were never equated with what Spinoza termed “the mul {itude,”thatis, the actually existing mass of subjects. “The people” was ‘made up of small groups of educated, wealthy, and propertied men, and of representatives of the esates—free peasants, artisans, burgers, and so on. By vistue of their control of property, of their domestic lik and family, and of themselves (qua their Christian conscience and inte, Horized belief that supposedly controlled their actions), they were ae. forded a measure of sovereignty as individuals. Whereas the king and his corpus mysticum had symbolized and embodied sov representation of “the people” by “mere mortals’ (Lefort, 1988, 17). The crucial marks of sovereign power. indivisibility, selfreference, and transcendence—vvere now’ embed ed in the citizens. Violence was row fetishized as a weapon of rox, son and preservation of freedom of the citizens vis-a-vis the dhieas Sem Outsiders, from intemal enemies, and from those not yet ft for citizenship—slaves and colonial subjects ine French and American revolutions did, howeves, open several sesdageintes between people and state, The absolute monarch had see, written hc reeR Power and the state encompassing “the people” pe iaerane Goay politic. Now thestateand the people” coulanblonger Pe fdentia and the state could become unveprenentatnvg, illegitimate, aa erorthy of destruction, This crystallization of popula sovereignty not cur the authoritarian posses inherent in the sagen ee Introduction + 9 but created the possibility ofa new and more intensive merging of state iad People, New intensive and “caring” forms of governorate coerny uahared Nistor, in common sot of symbule emetgivg feng and pot ate Ganguage customs, religious life, et), clear beartianer Cena east in staal of death (punishment of trator) and oie, Netohar tl heroim in war and service of the nation) reproducing ae Fpulations became integral to the intemational system of sere “ioncitzen populations; aniliberal and authoritarian pardon sock die aubletts were permanently subordinated, serving as bon hess and markets for proper and liberal European staee Similarly the Seaial territories only enjoyed a quas-sovereignty by vistas of being the appendices to the metropolitan sates, {het the ety mode period he enguage of agit was the pre- nda eae Rete Sormaly under th Holy Roman Epi, andthe idle ander the jutdicion of local princes, sjoved occ ray of rights end “ighes atari nd economic matter See Walker (971) and Pastas ao Be ae aes a isappented inthe cous of he seo naa oe10. + Thomas Blom Hansen and Finn Stepputat ferred expression of sovereign power of the nation-state. “The people” ‘began to acquire an altogether more stable, hamogenized and orderly form as citizens were governed by law, and as states demanded pri- ‘mary and indivisible loyalties to the nation in return for a measure of rights. The twentieth-century history of the modern nation-state in the Western world revolved centrally around protracted struggles for recognition of citizenship rights to wider sections of the population— ‘women, the working class, nonwhite individuals and communities, im- :igrants and so on—but also the granting of a wider and deeper set of rights and entitlements. In T. H. Marshall's classical account, the notion of citizenship began with civil rights, for example, rights to property and to a fair tral in which proper individual citizens could claim habeas corpus (it. the right to claim and present one’s body in front of a court), which curtailed the exercise of arbitrary state violence by defining the body of the citizen as an integral part ofthe sovereign body of “the peo- pple” and thus entitled to due process. The next phase was that of formal political rights to vote, to freedom of speech and assembly, in order to Introduction + 15 understand sovereignty as a common denominator ay call the “gift of power’—the mystery of the will to individuals, the charisma that violence, selfishness, generate—and he identified its origins in elementary ‘expresses itself in extraordinary actions and moments. bile insights it is not surprising that Bataile’s work has ‘of reartculating themes in the philosophical “vitalism’— sche's ideas of the willpower of a future superior being, fs biological ideas of the clan vital as an irrepressible life fore, =gBet's much deeper ontological reflections, and even Merleau “wzitings on emotional and embodied intensities. But, unlike ters, Bataille shifted the emphasis from searching forthe sources to understanding will as an effect that is deducted from vio. and other sovereign acts. However on the whole, vitalis thi ques of modemity throughout the twentieth century’? The crux of s problem lies in Batalle’s somewhat impoverished analysis of mod- EFA bourgeois society as govemed by lifeless, disciplinary and com. ogies, and his view of sovereignty, the sacred, and the elemen- 4a forces of life as residues of an archaic age | The positing of sovereignty as a mark of something originary, of a | Will that is self-born and unaccountable and yet vitalizes the dull pro- "cedures of modernity, was even more pronounced in Carl Schnit’s ear lier and controversial work on “political theology” from 1920. Written, in the context of the upheavals following World War I, Schmitt's work. fon “the political” as an agonistic relation between friends and foes (Schonitt [1982] 1976) was deeply skeptical of parliamentary democracy ‘and of rationalist or idealist notions of justice that in his view basically relied on only superficially secularised Christian ideas of mercy and salvation. Instead, Schmitt proposed the Hobbesian “decisionist” argue ‘ment that law does not reflect the norms of a society but rather the will, {he fortitude and authority of those who decide whatis law. "For alegal order to make sense, a nozmal situation must exist, and he is sovereign, who definitely decides whether this normal situation actually exists” (Schmitt 1985, 13), ‘The key concept for Schmitt was here the notion of the “exception” ascination of violence and its capacity for puldcation and generating athen- {gy was along with celebration of fortitude and manlinese msnstays nthe calla for, ‘tins that ed to Fascism. Itwas given literary expression by many, but most orofaly echaps by Ee Juenger (199) The celebration of revolutionary violence ls hase long ‘tary on the Let fom Soel’s fascination with the “Cait” ofthe contontation of "he ‘masces" with authority (2000) o Che Guevara's sublimation of guerilla watfore ito act of “love ofthe people” (MacLaren 200)16 + Thomas Blom Hansen and Finn Stepputat (Ausnalme), which encapsulates what Bataille cals the "sovere n “sovereign mo. ‘ent’ in that itis a conceptual and normative void from where the can be given but also where ti ion showelec new and alien. Looked at nonnatie nothingness” 3), Although Schmitsdecsionism onthe surface may appear as hard nosed reaisny itis erally dependent on a wat ercenies odery and democracy as weak, frmalsig and dul eos toe view of Schmitt and his many contemporaries who necro, thetic to Nazism, modem society 1 dependent or te oa: and intensity derived from aha Although soversigty and state powers impli equated though: out Schmit’ work his dea ofthe decison haga wider phe resonates in many ways with Batlle’ idea of sverige ne duel ad embodied anthosis oF the nonmatve aul cnet Se sppeccance In the recent work of Giorgio Agamben, one finds a highly creative ‘tempt to combine the insights of Saunt, Beale Kenn and ye, though a Foucauldian optic, to get beyond the int telably metaphysical and vitat tenor oftheir expenidons, Agente rejects Foucault notion of sovereignty as an archal fomnof prone perseded by modem biopoltcs and suggests hat "the prodeorecay bopolitical body is the original activity of sovereign power te sa Sense biopolitcs sat least as old as the sovereign eetotine seen the sovereign exception” (Agamben ltstesd of begining with Hobbes, the absolutist state and the of Soverelen power in Chistian theology, Agamben argues te oe Le" or limple biological ie “has the pacar pies othe g ee ‘hese exclusion founds the city of men’ inthe Westers pene ne oat Snelusive exclusion” is captured in the Roman concept of homo sacred man whois expelled and banished from the comma. Bond who may be killed by members of the community_but not iced as he is not worthy ofthis gesture of honor before the divine gure, the outlaw, the Fries, or the convict, was historically the of the outside upon whose body and life the boundaries ofthe Hcl community could be built. The expulsion of someone who johave rights as a citizen, or simply to categorize some individ. iis in a society asa form of life that is beyond the reach of dignity and Fallhumanity and thus not even a subject ofa benevolent power isthe most elementary operation of sovereign power—be it asa government 4a nation-state, 2 local authority, a community, a warlord oF local militia. At the same time, Agamben shows the figure of the sovereign 10 be ambiguous—a figure whose status and cozporeality appears as frag- ile and ambivalent but also exempted from the rules of ordinary life as that of his double, the homo sacer, the figure symbolizing simple, mute and bare life (Agamben 1998, 49-108). ‘This logic of sovereign violence that founds the political community by excluding various forms of “bare life” has not disappeared with the emergence of modern biopolitical forms of governance. On the con- ‘rary. The essential operation of totalitarian power was to reduce the ‘Population to pliable bodies that could be improved, shaped, and regi- mented, but also exterminated if deemed unnecessary or dangerous. This operation, which aimed at containing and negating the “sovereign moments” and spontaneity of life that Bataille describes, had its coun ferparts in the rise of disciplinary institutions and welfare governmen- tality in Western democracies. In both cases this amounted to a “po- liticization of life” as well as a “medicalization of politics’: a political shetoric using metaphors of contamination and diseases of the body Politics, and political rationalities that employ health, risk, balance, and Prophylactic action as justifications for a range of interventions, from immunization programs to eugenics. Through these medical and eor- poreal metaphors, the body-as-organism popularized in nationalist ideology and political romanticism, returned once again as a privileged trope of society and community. ‘ToAgamben, “the state of exception,” the sovereign sphere deciding ‘on the exclusion of “bare life” (zoe), has remained constitutive of the Political comununity. It has acquired even more force as the empiricalIntroduction + 19 AL AND PostcoLoNtat: CONFIGURATIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY the last decade or more, a rich body of scholarship on colonialism firmly established that the colonial world was integral to the for. Jpn of law, public institutions, cultural identities, and ideologies of Europe. Technologies of public health management, crowd con. fats death and as genetic engineering underoe Sen Real Me Theeasngly biologi! lie subjered ere snd Hera undesie of ther democacts ince See Rent nprhonsandayhns but win the ators ae iecSo ot kzatonalis beyond econ ete earn the European nation states was informed by experiments with sors fecienty in the colonial world (Sen 2002); the dscptining and manajes Zuent of sexuality was prompted by the encounters with hat wes con an excessive sexual culture in the colonial world that would comapt specially the lower lasses in Europe (Stoler 1995, 2002) and note Of the seltrestrained Westem self, of literature, of “true” religion, and _ ofthe necesity ofa cultural canon was prompted by the desie to pre __ Sent the West to the colonized people through modem edueation fect der Veer 2001; Visvanathan, 1990, 1998). These efforts at rule, control and generation of knowledge of the colonial worlds, as well as of the ‘Rew lnsettling realities of industrial modernity in the Westem world, revolved around differences of culture, race, and civilization. Colonial sovereignty defined itself in the mercantile and military logic of conquest, exploitation, and “civilization” by competing Eure. ean states, and their encounters with local ideologies of rule and cif {etent notions of sovereignty. Local rulers or empires were semen seetated: but as often used as allies against other powers, especialy in je seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when European press 5m Asla and Africa was very tenuous. Colonial sovereignty Wes cone structed slowly and piecemeal and oscillated between confrontation 3nd alignment, between spectacular representation of European might and culture, and incorporation of local idioms and methods of ile the establishment of a permanent administration and coherent territorial and economic control with the colonial tenitories, the fixing of borders Giscipline that in multiple forms functions os she but un- td pow ord Us fo understand the cnigunatan eres | and the extension of elements of metropel oe ation of eo ~tension of elements of metropolitan administration asrived oo ous seities not as deformed or incomplet har | sus late in the history of colonialism. By the late nineteenth century, nadion states bp nl Ze vital tothe so-called Westphalian eter st {he “Westphalian sytem” had become the dominant systenn egal, “exception” HE Of constituting almost permanent Sater of {ulations between so-called civilized nations and their colonia, wha, ———e the uncolonind wold ofthe Otoman and Ginese anion ee ri ase natin eines reread the contin demands for dom of Siam, and so on were treated according to more brutal und "a. iicccatvinmyemsemeeieas etree ning tar c contin by in iy coiled sighs and by paicopinion ‘areas, confiscation of property, military punishmnent, etc). These for: