2011/10/01 by Heather Sutherland · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #Asian Studies and History #Island Studies and Pacific Affairs #Socioeconomic Development in Asia
paper · doi:10.1017/s0010417511000417
openalex publication_date 2011/10/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
During the long nineteenth century, emerging bureaucratic states sought to align boundaries of space, political authority, and social identity. According to the normative ideal, ramified systems of delegated control should be consolidated into a single government, state power evenly applied throughout the entire area, and patchworks of local identities replaced with uniform citizenship. However, as Bayly has observed, states remained composite, negotiating with subordinates who retained their own spheres of influence. Integration was contested, uneven, and by no means linear. These tensions were evident in cities, with their traditions of trade and migration, and in colonial societies, characterized by the symbiosis between communal leaders and imported officials. However, even here informal controls were supplemented by state-sponsored social discipline as military power, managerial capacity, and populations expanded. Social categorizations were more rigidly enforced. Settlements and regulations became more closely packed, shrinking unclaimed space, both physical and social.