Search results

In research on non‐Western populations there is a tendency to limit analysis to only gross demographic differences. This has resulted in the serious misconception of an ethnically homogenous population in countries such as Japan and thus masks a critical dimension of the diversity truly extant. This article examines Western research on Japanese views of people of African descent evident prior to 1945. The argument by Western researchers that Japanese are inherently ethnocentric/racist is examined through primary and secondary sources dealing with Japanese contact with Africans. The alternative explanation offered suggests that while the basic structure of ethnocentrism existed before Western contact, there are indications that this structure was given direction and focus (i.e. became racial) with and through that contact. It is suggested that the view acquired by the Japanese of Africans was based in large part on the collective representations presented to them by Euro‐Americans.

Mankind stands at a turning point in time as empires crumble, old enemies make peace, and the old‐order based on nation‐states is threatened. But, regrettably, it seems scholars are increasingly playing dysfunctional roles: instead of preaching tolerance and understanding fit for a Global Village built peace and cooperation, voices of intolerance and extremism are making significant inroads into the ivory tower.

In a small, but insightful book, Civilization on Trial, written more than half a century ago, the great English historian, Arnold Toynbee, expressed great pessimism about the prospects of Western civilisation which he found to be Eurocentric (Toynbee, 1948). Toynbee's study of history was universalistic, reflecting a deep knowledge and respect for non‐Western cultures and civilisations. For Toynbee history was unified whole; it was a universal history of the entire humanity, not just of some Western people. In this sense, Toynbee is similar to the great Muslim scholar, Ibn Khaldun, the author of Muqaddimah, written almost six centuries ago, as an inquiry into the causes of the rise and decline of civilisations (Mehmet, 1990: 81–4).

This article¹ is offered up in the spirit of what the High Kings of Gondor might call a weregild.² That is, I hope, in this article, to clear a debt: a debt, long overdue, much like that owed by the Armies of the Dead to Isildur’s heir, Aragorn son of Arathorn. I reference The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Tolkien, 1994) because this article is, in the main, about Tolkien and his oeuvre as an astonishing instance of what might be called lex populi. But this article attempts more than just another cultural legal reading of a popular literary and cinematic phenomenon.³ What, in fact, it proposes is nothing less than a practical demonstration of what it means to read jurisprudentially. In so doing, I hope to repay some of the theoretical debt that jurisprudence (and law-and-literature) has incurred, and owes so clearly to literary criticism, cultural studies and Continental philosophy. For far too long jurisprudence has been content to absorb the lessons of these other disciplines’ versions of textual theory – of the play of the sign, the dissemination of meaning, the deconstruction of logos – without propounding its own topoi let alone interpretive paradigms. Such topoi, of course, jurisprudence has in abundance: in notions of a “higher justice”; in concepts of law’s connection with morality; and, especially, the law’s role in inaugurating “the social.”

As a fountainhead of postcolonial scholarship, Edward Said has profoundly impacted multiple disciplines. This chapter makes a case for why sociologists should (re)read Edward Said, paying specific attention to his warning about the inevitably violent interactions between knowledge and power in historic and current imperial contexts. Drawing on Said and other postcolonial theorists, we propose a threefold typology of potential violence associated with the production of knowledge: (1) the violence of essentialization, (2) epistemic violence, and (3) the violence of apprehension. While postcolonial theory and sociological and anthropological writing on reflexivity have highlighted the former two dangers, we urge social scientists to also remain wary of the last. We examine the formation of structures of authoritative knowledge during the French Empire in North Africa, the British Empire in India, and the American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan during the “Global War on Terror,” paying close attention to how synchronic instances of apprehension (more or less accurate perception or recognition of the “other”) and essentialization interact in the production of diachronic essentialist and epistemic violence. We conclude by calling for a post-orientalist form of reflexivity, namely that sociologists, whether they engage as public intellectuals or not, remain sensitive to the fact that the production and consumption of sociological knowledge within a still palpable imperial framework makes all three violences possible, or even likely.

The action taken by the Council of the British Medical Association in promoting a Bill to reconstitute the Local Government Board will, it is to be hoped, receive the strong support of public authorities and of all who are in any way interested in the efficient administration of the laws which, directly or indirectly, have a bearing on the health and general well‐being of the people. In the memorandum which precedes the draft of the Bill in question it is pointed out that the present “Board” is not, and probably never was, intended to be a working body for the despatch of business, that it is believed never to have met that the work of this department of State is growing in variety and importance, and that such work can only be satisfactorily transacted with the aid of persons possessing high professional qualifications, who, instead of being, as at present, merely the servants of the “Board” tendering advice only on invitation, would be able to initiate action in any direction deemed desirable. The British Medical Association have approached the matter from a medical point of view—as might naturally have been expected—and this course of action makes a somewhat weak plank in the platform of the reformers. The fourth clause of the draft of the Bill proposes that there should be four “additional” members of the Board, and that, of such additional members, one should be a barrister or solicitor, one a qualified medical officer of health, one a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and one a person experienced in the administration of the Poor‐law Acts. The work of the Local Government Board, however, is not confined to dealing with medical, engineering, and Poor‐law questions, and the presence of one or more fully‐qualified scientific experts would be absolutely necessary to secure the efficient administration of the food laws and the proper and adequate consideration of matters relating to water supply and sewage disposal. The popular notion still exists that the “doctor” is a universal scientific genius, and that, as the possessor of scientific knowledge and acumen, the next best article is the proprietor of the shop in the window of which are exhibited some three or four bottles of brilliantly‐coloured liquids inscribed with mysterious symbols. The influence of these popular ideas is to be seen in the tendency often exhibited by public authorities and even occasionally by the legislature and by Government departments to expect and call upon medical men to perform duties which neither by training nor by experience they are qualified to undertake. Medical Officers of Health of standing, and medical men of intelligence and repute are the last persons to wish to arrogate to themselves the possession of universal knowledge and capacity, and it is unfair and ridiculous to thrust work upon them which can only be properly carried out by specialists. If the Local Government Board is to be reconstituted and made a thing of life—and in the public interest it is urgently necessary that this should be done—the new department should comprise experts of the first rank in all the branches of science from which the knowledge essential for efficient administration can be drawn.

The Food Bill has emerged from the Grand Committee on Trade, and will shortly be submitted, as amended, to the House of Commons. Whatever further amendments may be introduced, the Bill, when passed into law, will but afford one more example of the impotence of repressive legislation in regard to the production and distribution of adulterated and inferior products. We do not say that the making of such laws and their enforcement are not of the highest importance in the interests of the community; their administration—feeble and inadequate as it must necessarily be—produces a valuable deterrent effect, and tends to educate public opinion and to improve commercial morality. But we say that by the very nature of those laws their working can result only in the exposure of a small portion of that which is bad without affording any indications as to that which is good, and that it is by the Control System alone that the problem can be solved. This fact has been recognised abroad, and is rapidly being recognised here. The system of Permanent Analytical Control was under discussion at the International Congress of Applied Chemistry, held at Brussels in 1894, and at the International Congress of Hygiene at Budapest in 1895, and the facts and explanations put forward have resulted in the introduction of the system into various countries. The establishment of this system in any country must be regarded as the most practical and effective method of ensuring the supply of good and genuine articles, and affords the only means through which public confidence can be ensured.

In the very able and striking address which he recently delivered before the Society of Arts, Sir WILLIAM PREECE insisted that commercial success—whether of a man, of a body of men, or of a nation—is referable to the working of distinct laws, the recognition and study of which may justly be said to constitute a “science of business.” In terms rendered the more severe by their dispassionate and moderate character, Sir WILLIAM referred to the lamentable ignorance displayed by the legislature, by the manufacturer, and by the general public, of what may bo regarded as the most elementary facts and methods upon which such a science must be based. He pointed to the loose and bungling character of our commercial legislation; to the lack of co‐operation and combination; to the nonexistence of a properly organised and effective consular service whereby full information could be supplied and the interests of British trade, both home and colonial, might be studied and advanced; and finally to the lethargy of British producers and manufacturers themselves, who allow foreign competitors to drive them out of even their own home markets without making an effort to discard the old‐fashioned and worn‐out methods which have given those competitors the advantage. Of late years the warning voice has been raised from time to time, but it has been as a voice crying in the wilderness. The remarkable speech delivered at the Guildhall by H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES is fresh in the recollection of those who are not too drowsy or too indifferent to appreciate the vital nature and the magnitude of the evil. In 1891 Lord PLAYFAIR stated that if the Americans were right in principle in the management of some of their commercial concerns, “the whole policy of the United Kingdom was founded on a gigantic error, and must lead to our ruin as a commercial nation.” Sir WILLIAM PREECE is amply justified in attaching severe blame to the British manufacturer and producer. They have allowed “the Americans and the Germans to oust them out of their own markets, not by any superiority in the quality of their goods, but by lower prices, by superior knowledge of the demands of the markets, by the establishment of new markets, by better direct communication with foreign countries, by superior methods in business ways, by establishing regular intelligence departments, and, above all, by possessing and exercising superior commercial technical knowledge,” “and,” continued Sir.WILLIAM, “they must lay aside the commercial habits of their fathers.” With regard to food‐products, for instance, can it be truly said that any adequate steps are taken to secure any satisfactory and permanent improvement of the national food supply with respect to purity and good quality? Has anything been done, with governmental or legislative assistance, to make a systematic study of, and provide authoritative information upon such questions as the sources from which food stuffs are obtained, the adequacy or inadequacy of supplies, the true value of home‐produce and the advantages of utilising colonial products as far as possible? The answers to these questions can only be emphatically in the negative. There is no civilised country in the world in which the producer and vendor of adulterated, impoverished, and inferior articles of food can cany on their nefarious practices with more impunity, in certain respects, than in the United Kingdom, although, originally, we led the way in framing legislative enactments on these all‐important matters. At every port of entry today we might most appropriately set up the old waste‐land notice that “rubbish may be shot here.” As we offer all the necessary facilities, and as they are being taken advantage of more and more, wo might also freely advise that “rubbish should bo manufactured here” as well, What steps do British producers and manufacturers of articles of food take to move with the times, to set their houses in order, to protect themselves, and to enable the public to differentiate between the good and the bad? In the vast majority of instances the attitude they adopt is still one of unmasterly inactivity, except in the direction of unscientific and clumsy advertisement. On this they spend enormous sums without proportionate returns, and in following this course they constantly lay themselves open to condemnatory criticism by the publication of unauthorised and exaggerated statements which, in spit© of CARLYLE'S dictum “mostly fools,” are now merely received by the general public with a shrug of the shoulders. The time has come when, in order not only to develop their trade but in order to keep it, British manufacturers must give evidence of an independent and authoritative character to justify the faith that is presumably in them in recommending their goods to the public. Those who refuse to entertain new ideas and who are content to rest in a semi‐comatose condition on the achievements of the past,—relying merely on the possession of the hitherto reputable “name of the firm,”—by the operation of an inexorable law must inevitably drop out of the race.