Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:18:06.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Race Matters: Orientalism and Religion, India and Beyond c. 1770–1880

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2007

SHRUTI KAPILA
Affiliation:
Tufts University, USA

Abstract

In tracing the history of the concept of race, this article revises the conventional view that race acquired significance only after the mid-nineteenth century in colonial India. Instead, it situates the history of race in the connected realms of enlightenment science in both the metropolitan and colonial worlds and in the public sphere of Indian print culture. From the 1770s onwards the emerging ‘science’ of race was intimately related to orientalism and was salient for civilisational concepts, above all, religion. Precisely because it was a capacious concept that encompassed both cultural and biological ideas, race became an inescapable category for world-comparative distinctions between human types and religions, but it also held implications for the role of empire. Phrenology was a popular dimension of this set of ideas and found votaries among both imperial and also Indian literati of radical, conservative and liberal political opinions. The Calcutta Phrenological Society became an active site of debate on these issues. Yet in the popular realm of vernacular print culture analogous notions of physical typology and distinction (particularly samudrikvidya) remained distant from such concerns. As a form of ‘insurgent knowledge’ samudrikvidya was part of the techniques for the reconstitution of an Indian selfhood. Race then was not only a powerful concept, but also one that was remarkably mutable in its meanings and uses from the eighteenth century onwards.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article is part of a larger and on-going research project and I am grateful to the Office of Dean of Arts and Sciences, Tufts University for its generous support. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Comparative History Seminar, St Antony's College, Oxford, November 2002 and the Commonwealth and Overseas Seminar, St Catharine's College, Cambridge, February 2005. I am indebted to the participants at these seminars for their comments, especially Megan Vaughan, Peter Mandler and Richard Drayton. Katherine Prior for assistance. All errors remain mine.