東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Empire's penal turn: The rise of opi...

Kim, Diana Sue.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Empire's penal turn: The rise of opium prohibition in mainland southeast Asia, 1870-1935.

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Empire's penal turn: The rise of opium prohibition in mainland southeast Asia, 1870-1935./
Author:	Kim, Diana Sue.
Description:	293 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-04(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International75-04A(E).
Subject:	Political Science, General. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3606324
ISBN:	9781303634437

Empire's penal turn: The rise of opium prohibition in mainland southeast Asia, 1870-1935.
Kim, Diana Sue.

Empire's penal turn: The rise of opium prohibition in mainland southeast Asia, 1870-1935. - 293 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-04(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2013.

This dissertation analyzes the rise of opium Prohibition in colonial Southeast Asia. Over the course of six decades spanning the turn of the 20th century, European powers in the region abandoned opium as a lucrative source of revenue, denouncing as dangerous what had once been defended as an integral part of overseas political economy. Amidst this shared shift however, colonial states traveled very different paths--introducing Prohibition based on competing justifications, through distinctive institutions, and at various moments in time. What explains these divergent trajectories and how did colonial states come to commonly criminalize opium? What does this pattern of equifinality reveal about the enterprise of building colonial states, Empire, and political order more generally? Conventional scholarship on drugs and empire approaches these questions from the perspective of great power politics, global economic changes, or moral and religious crusades. By contrast, my analysis highlights the role of overseas bureaucrats and their local statecraft. It develops a comparative and historical analysis of British and French opium regimes in Burma, Laos, and Siam from 1870 to 1935 that identifies the mechanisms by which on-the-ground administrators in peripheral colonies helped at once articulate and answer the "opium question;"--namely, what constituted the best interest of colonial subjects with regards to the use, sale, and inland trade of opium. Specifically, this project traces how the everyday work of these modest actors (i.e., district-level record keeping, compiling routine reports, the creation of racial labels and categories, as well as jurisdictional dispute resolutions) generated immodest claims to unique expertise and ethnographic competence over unfamiliar people and their practices; how such claims traveled and became persuasive beyond the colonies; and the recursive consequences of these discursive processes. It reveals the surprisingly strong powers of relatively weak administrators who, in effect, defined opium's putative problems in overseas colonies and justified corresponding legal and policy reforms to solve these problems. My analysis thus elucidates how the local production of colonial knowledge provided the conditions of possibility for Empire's penal turn against opium. Theoretically, this project intervenes in a key debate in political science regarding why states respond differently to similar political, economic, and social crises by addressing a prior yet often overlooked question: how do states define the very crises to which they respond? And by explaining how colonial states reconfigured opium from a once legal and lucrative source of revenue into a dangerous drug, this dissertation invites further consideration of how states define problems and what bearings this capacity has upon other mechanisms of state power and market control.

ISBN: 9781303634437Subjects--Topical Terms:

1017391
Political Science, General.

Empire's penal turn: The rise of opium prohibition in mainland southeast Asia, 1870-1935.
LDR:03833nam a2200289 4500 001 1963930
005 20141008090556.5
008 150210s2013 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781303634437
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3606324
035 $a AAI3606324
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Kim, Diana Sue. $3 2100275
245 1 0 $a Empire's penal turn: The rise of opium prohibition in mainland southeast Asia, 1870-1935.
300 $a 293 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-04(E), Section: A.
500 $a Advisers: Bernard Harcourt; Dan Slater.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2013.
520 $a This dissertation analyzes the rise of opium Prohibition in colonial Southeast Asia. Over the course of six decades spanning the turn of the 20th century, European powers in the region abandoned opium as a lucrative source of revenue, denouncing as dangerous what had once been defended as an integral part of overseas political economy. Amidst this shared shift however, colonial states traveled very different paths--introducing Prohibition based on competing justifications, through distinctive institutions, and at various moments in time. What explains these divergent trajectories and how did colonial states come to commonly criminalize opium? What does this pattern of equifinality reveal about the enterprise of building colonial states, Empire, and political order more generally? Conventional scholarship on drugs and empire approaches these questions from the perspective of great power politics, global economic changes, or moral and religious crusades. By contrast, my analysis highlights the role of overseas bureaucrats and their local statecraft. It develops a comparative and historical analysis of British and French opium regimes in Burma, Laos, and Siam from 1870 to 1935 that identifies the mechanisms by which on-the-ground administrators in peripheral colonies helped at once articulate and answer the "opium question;"--namely, what constituted the best interest of colonial subjects with regards to the use, sale, and inland trade of opium. Specifically, this project traces how the everyday work of these modest actors (i.e., district-level record keeping, compiling routine reports, the creation of racial labels and categories, as well as jurisdictional dispute resolutions) generated immodest claims to unique expertise and ethnographic competence over unfamiliar people and their practices; how such claims traveled and became persuasive beyond the colonies; and the recursive consequences of these discursive processes. It reveals the surprisingly strong powers of relatively weak administrators who, in effect, defined opium's putative problems in overseas colonies and justified corresponding legal and policy reforms to solve these problems. My analysis thus elucidates how the local production of colonial knowledge provided the conditions of possibility for Empire's penal turn against opium. Theoretically, this project intervenes in a key debate in political science regarding why states respond differently to similar political, economic, and social crises by addressing a prior yet often overlooked question: how do states define the very crises to which they respond? And by explaining how colonial states reconfigured opium from a once legal and lucrative source of revenue into a dangerous drug, this dissertation invites further consideration of how states define problems and what bearings this capacity has upon other mechanisms of state power and market control.
590 $a School code: 0330.
650 4 $a Political Science, General. $3 1017391
650 4 $a Asian Studies. $3 1669375
650 4 $a History, General. $3 1017448
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0342
690 $a 0578
710 2 $a The University of Chicago. $b Political Science. $3 1675606
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 75-04A(E).
790 $a 0330
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2013
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3606324