Select any text – or excerpt of any text – from the reading list and apply one of the following methods of cataloguing in order to analyse its purpose value of meaning: 1. Inventory, 2. Metadata.
Census, Map, Museum in Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson (2006, pp.163-185) critically investigates the mode in which the ‘colonial state imagined it’s dominion’. The chapter is already formatted into an index, categorised by Census, Map,and Museum. The existing framework of the text guides the discourse through the lens of these three different scopes. The text is also implicitly subcategorised by theme. The overarching topics of the text examine the methods of control employed by the colonial state to validate their protectorate; 1. ‘The nature of the human beings it ruled’, 2. ‘The geography of it’s domain’, 3. ‘The legitimacy of its ancestry’ (Anderson, 2006, p. 164).
The primary conclusion Anderson draws from his findings is that the colonial state applied a ‘totalising classification grid’ to all facets of life under the regime’s control (Anderson, 2006, p.183). The act of categorising maintained control over the region, as their rule was bounded and determinate (Anderson, 2006, p.183). Anything that did not adhere to this classification grid was considered as ‘other’ – a category used to box ‘all real-life anomalies’ (Anderson, 2006, p.183).
Utilising a classification grid, mirroring the one adopted by colonial rulers used to legitimise their occupation, catalogues Anderson’s arguments both thematically and structurally. Employing this inventory method further reinforces the rigidity of the colonial’s imagination of its domain, but also explores a further indexical subcategorisation of the structure of Anderson’s text (2006).
The warp of the grid (columns) is thematic; fixed and sterilised, whereas the weft (rows) is the scale of investigation; specific and focused. The differing scales of the investigation – Census, Map, Museum – weave a narrative through the fixed methods adopted by the colonial state to imagine its dominion – ‘The nature of the human beings it ruled’, ‘The geography of it’s domain’, ‘The legitimacy of its ancestry’.
The nature of the human beings it ruled
The geography of it’s domain
The legitimacy of its ancestry
Census
The strive for unambiguity and completeness created a system of cataloguing people, which often overlooked the ethnodiversity, language, and religion in the area.
There was vast disparity across the census-maker’s imaginations of their dominion, creating inconsistencies across data sets.
The subcategorisation of the census was not a true depiction of the ancestry of the land, and those living within the territory would not have recognised themselves under the labels thrust upon them.
Map
Colonial cartographers and census-makers imposed the same surveillance on the human beings they ruled, through a system of total classification.
Prior to colonisation, map-making was a borderless practice, with a focus on documenting marching and sailing times. With the influx of colonial rule, boundaries were imposed onto the land, in attempts to quantify the territory in which they occupied.
Borders hold importance in determining sovereign authority. These man-made constructs were used to legitimise colonisation, as the creation of new boundaries provided a sense of self-determination over the land.
Museum
Construction of cultural monuments created a hierarchical tension between the builders and the colonial natives.
In the later waves of colonialism, there was a paradigm shift from conquest to an effort to legitimise colonial rule. Once borders were established, focus turned to justifying colonial occupation.
Prestige was intimately associated with the colonisers’s homeland. The colonisers with greater status used this as a tool to legitimise their ancestry and stake over the land.
Utilising a classification grid onto Anderson’s Census, Map, Museum (2006, pp.163-185), reflects the rhetoric that was communicated in the text. The inventory system creates a pattern discrimination (Apprich et. al., 2018), excluding arguments that do not fit the framework of the classification grid, discarding them as ‘other’ (Anderson, 2006, p.183). This method of cataloguing, both examines the structure and themes of the text, whilst amplifying Anderson’s argument that a system of classification was used to justify the colonial ruler’s imagination of their dominion (2006, pp.163-185).
Reference List:
Anderson, B. (2006) ‘Census, Map, Museum’ in Imagined Communities. London: Verso, pp.163-185.
Apprich, C. et al. (2018) Pattern Discrimination. London: Meson Press.
Leave a Reply