cities were created to meet the needs of the imperial economy or the mining industry were foreign to the practices of African people; they imagined rural societies in which people respected the authority of the chiefs and elders, and opposed them to a menacing urban world where detribalisation was under way (Burton 2005; Lewis 2000). The south‐western (Ibadan, Lagos, Abeokuta) and northern city‐states (Kano, Zaria, Zamfara) that predated the conquest of Nigeria, were also viewed and administered as traditional spaces, according to the principles of indirect rule.
Very soon, however, the colonial and South African authorities were faced with contradictory injunctions. How can migrants be assigned the role of making the colonial or industrial economy work without calling into question racial hierarchies in South Africa or the native authorities in Nigeria? And what should be done about ‘unemployed’ youths, who were ‘idle’ or ‘unruly’ and ‘single’ women without wage jobs, whose ordinary behaviour threatened the authority of the chiefs, elders or husbands? One of the solutions the colonial and South African authorities found to these problems was to identify individuals and groups and manage their differences according to geographical or ethnic origin, sex or age.
The analysis we are proposing here adds complexity to the definition suggested by Mahmood Mamdani (Mamdani 1996) of a bifurcated colonial state resulting from the institutionalisation of two systems of power by the colonial authorities: the first, an urban, racialised system, based on rights guaranteed to Europeans; the other, rural and tribalised, based on the despotism of customary law and chiefs described as decentralised despots. Mamdani’s analysis, according to which African workers and middle‐class urban residents found themselves in a legal vacuum (Mamdani 1996), schematically opposes urban and rural areas, whereas urban Africans also came under the authority of traditional chiefs. It fails to mention that colonial authorities were continually implementing specific legal apparatuses for Africans residing or working in the city; and it is a de‐historicised analysis as the categories of urban dwellers and workers were continually shifting in labour policies (Cooper 1995). More broadly, this book asks whether urban spaces were areas for testing and implementing a governmentality aimed at reforming individual conduct. Collected data by colonial administrators did not automatically lead to the implementation of specific policies – far from it – and one must be circumspect about their performative aspect (Bonnecase 2011, p. 21). Rather than the product of a coherent machinery, measures implemented by colonial power were makeshift devices that grew out of fragmentary empirical knowledge, the concerns of the moment, the expansion of the agencies or ministries in charge of these populations and the support of certain groups who saw them as furthering their own interests, all of which could, in the process, alter the initial objectives.
Colonial cities offered spaces to develop and implement labour policies and population management, relying on the exclusion of differentiated groups according to the context and the period – exclusion that may have pertained to temporary migrants, but which also encompassed other more or less sizeable categories or subaltern groups (the unemployed, single women, non‐natives, delinquents, street traders, etc.). Our purpose here is not to write the social history of these groups, nor to give voice to those once reduced to silence by their conquerors. Instead, we aim to show that the metropolis was a space that simultaneously produced social subordination and constructed a bureaucratic reality. This task implies thinking about the inextricable entanglement between the governing and the governed, and questioning the extent to which the various instruments of power that were introduced generated new social realities and participated in building a bureaucratic state that devoted much more time, energy and resources to gathering information on these people, classifying and categorising them and allocating reserved spaces to them.
We will focus on certain measures that favoured the exclusion – and inclusion in urban space – of the following specific groups: temporary migrants (versus urbans) in South Africa, non‐natives (versus natives) in Nigeria and young delinquents (versus adults) in both countries. At the very core of the processes of social differentiation, these measures were not only imposed from the top by the bureaucratic apparatus, they were also sponsored, shared and assimilated by a number of actors favourable to these policies. Thus, specific urban policies were developed for particular age groups identified, depending on the context and the period, either as dangerous (juvenile delinquents) or endangered (children in need of care). Though they were carried out by social services seeking to reform the conduct of children and youth, they were also supported by elders and parents in townships who saw these young people as threat to a certain moral view of the world (Chapter 2).
These policies were simultaneously appropriated and challenged by the population, which indicates their relative importance. The Kano riots in 1953 and the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 revealed new social configurations that originated in the colonial domination (Chapter 1). They show that the marginalised groups express their own demands, thereby demonstrating autonomous political initiative, but at times within the horizon of the language and practices of government. They also bring out divergences between the social and political interests of the various groups involved. Our analysis thus marks a break from an approach centred on nationalism and resistance to colonialism or apartheid. Similarly, it departs from a class‐based approach that sees the marginalised population either as dominated by elites and incapable of revolt or as rebellious and driven by awareness of their precarious economic situation.
Notes
1 1. Regarding these two successive approaches, see Achille Mbembe (2010) and Vincent Foucher’s (2010) answer. See also the analysis in terms of hegemonic transactions developed by Jean‐François Bayart (1989) and on South Africa by Deborah Posel (1991).
2 2. Indirect rule was a way of exercising colonial power by governing through native leaders, who were given power to deal with legal matters, policing, administration and taxation and overseen by the British authorities. First implemented in India, and experimented in Uganda and later Nigeria in the early twentieth century, indirect rule became the official policy of the British Empire and was extended to its other African colonies during the interwar period.
3 3. A race‐based policy, promoted by the governor general of French West Africa (AOF), William Ponty, starting in 1909, which relied on chiefdoms to act as intermediaries between the colonial administration and ethnic groups or races henceforth codified in an official taxonomy.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
