Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Social fields, subfields and social spaces at the scale of empires: explaining the colonial state and colonial sociology

2016; SAGE Publishing; Volume: 64; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/2059-7932.12004

2059-7932

George Steinmetz,

Colonialism, slavery, and trade

The Sociological Review MonographsVolume 64, Issue 2 p. 98-123 Monograph Article Social fields, subfields and social spaces at the scale of empires: explaining the colonial state and colonial sociology George Steinmetz, George SteinmetzSearch for more papers by this author George Steinmetz, George SteinmetzSearch for more papers by this author First published: 25 April 2016 https://doi.org/10.1002/2059-7932.12004Citations: 2Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract This article develops a series of arguments about social fields, subfields, and social spaces that can help us understand empires and colonies. First, we have to assume that the scale of fields is not always coextensive with the boundaries of the national state but is often much larger, or smaller. Imperial fields are among the most spatially extensive ones, though they may not be as territorially extensive as truly global fields. Second, we need to make a distinction between imperial fields and imperial social spaces (based on Bourdieu's distinction between social fields and social spaces). The third argument is that colonies in modern empires were characterized by two different kinds of fields: fields that were simply extended into the overseas territories, versus completely separate fields unique to one or more of the colonies. The colonial state is an example of a field that is specific to the colony. By contrast, scientific fields were often simply extended from the metropole into the colonies, encompassing both. The fourth argument concerns subfields. Transported into imperial realms, this distinction suggests that some colonial offshoots of fielded metropolitan practices do not constitute separate fields but are nonetheless differentiated from their main overarching field. These four points are illustrated with examples from British, French and German imperial policy, colonial statecraft and colonial sociology. Citing Literature Volume64, Issue2Sociological Review Monograph Series: Fielding TransnationalismMarch 2016Pages 98-123 RelatedInformation