DVST 6901: The global politics of development (Semester 2,
2026)
August 10, 2026
Main reading: Lorenzini (2019); Pedersen (2015); Lugard (1922)
Other reading: Rist (2014), chap. 3
Slides available at https://anthrograph.rschram.org/6901/2026/02
colonialism, indirect rule, the dual mandate, The League of Nations and the formation of an international system, ethnocentrism, evolutionism
In this week, we prepare to examine the contemporary political debates about the nature and implications of “developing” a society by first looking at the prehistory of contemporary international politics, specifically European imperialism. European empires were not uniform or constant. The thing about European imperialism is that, because it existed for so long, at any one moment, particularly in its late phases, everyone simply accepted it as a fact. For them, the question was how should people and societies operate within an imperial system and specifically how to break with older models of colonial control and replace them with new policies.
Patrick Wolfe is often quoted as saying colonialism is “a structure rather than an event” (e.g. Wolfe 2006, 390). This is true of settler colonialism (Wolfe’s main concern) and about extractive colonialism and other situations in which one society imposes itself on another. But to say that colonialism is a structure implies that it is a set of institutions and rules which we inherit. It is more accurate to say that colonialism is a set of prevailing conditions, like weather or climate in the sense that they are the implicit background to events, decisions, and actions. Unlike natural conditions, they are historical formations, and not inevitable or necessary. But for people in a colonial situation and for actors within an imperial period, there are a set of default assumptions that people make. Colonial oppression is as much of the mind and of people’s language for representing experience as it is of rules and policies, which are a reflection of the colonial conditions.
In Week 1, we touched on the idea that most contemporary models of development have a implicit bias in favor of Western ideas of progress, and that development can be seen as a kind of “neocolonialism.” This was a familiar idea to many people, and if you think about it, in contemporary discussions of global politics, it makes a kind of intuitive sense. But if it is true, then we actually have a bit of a puzzle to figure out. The closet link between 20th century ideas of development are late 19th century and early 20th century ideas of humanitarianism, the belief that all people and all human life has inherent dignity and deserves protection. Lugard’s ideas of indirect rule of certain kind of colonized peoples is his and his society’s effort to realize a humanitarian aim of protection and to break with what they saw as the evils of older colonial strategies and policies, namely chattel slavery and forced relocation. After the first World War, when the US and other colonial powers defeated Germany, another colonial power, they had to decide what responsibilities the powerful has to societies that had been subordinated with the German empire and which were, also, much less powerful than other societies. European imperialism, which for so long was simply accepted as fact, like the weather, now was competing for legitimacy with a new idea: a people’s collective right to self-determination. Yet, rights like this are easy to say but hard to do. To defend this right, the League of Nations instituted the Mandate system whereby one society would, in their words, be responsible for (or, rule over) other societies. Can colonialism be a means to decolonize colonies? The world
Everyone is talking about AI. It is very interesting to me how much this discussion about chatbots has changed since 2022.
What do you think will happen as a result of people adopting AI tools in everyday life?
What are the effects of governments adopting AI tools?
And what are the effects of people competing to create newer, better, faster models especially ones that can, for instance, independently design and carry out science experiments to discover new technologies, cure cancer, develop new weapons?
Is social unrest likely?
“Technological determinism” in Silicon Valley—the belief that technology will eventually solve all solvable problems, because the pursuit of solutions is itself a universal tendency.
Technological progress is linear and hence predictable.
Once it is shown that it is possible for a technology to be created to do something, then it is inevitable that someone somewhere will do it.
If it is possible for a computer to simulate human intelligence and consciousness then it is inevitable that it will eventually happen.
“The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom; a progress whose development according to the necessity of its nature, it is our business to investigate” (Hegel [1837] 1901).
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” (Martin Luther King, as quoted in Ellis 2011)
What best represents your view about the meaning of history?
In his book, Ancient Society, Lewis Henry Morgan writes:
“It may be remarked finally that the experience of mankind has run in nearly uniform channels; that human necessities in similar conditions have been substantially the same; and that the operations of the mental principle have been uniform in virtue of the specific identity of the brain of all the races of mankind. This, however, is but a part of the explanation of uniformity in results. The germs of the principal institutions and arts of life were developed while man was still a savage. To a very great extent the experience of the subsequent periods of barbarism and of civilization has been expended in the further development of these original conceptions. Wherever a connection can be traced on different continents between a present institution and a common germ, the derivation of the people themselves from a common original stock is implied” (Morgan 1877, 8).
What is your response to this statement?
Frederick Lugard argues for a specific view of colonialism and concomitently a specific approach to colonial governance:
“Let it be admitted at the outset that European brains, capital, and energy have not been, and never will be, expended in developing the resources of Africa from motives of pure philanthropy; that Europe is in Africa for the mutual benefit of her own industrial classes, and of the native races in their progress to a higher plane; that the benefit can be made reciprocal, and that it is the aim and desire of civilised administration to fulfil this dual mandate” (Lugard 1922, 617).
First annexed by Queensland in 1883 to prevent German encroachment
Eventually endorsed by Britain in the belief that it would prevent lawlessness, including illegal blackbirding
At the time, no one in Australia or Britain argued that anyone in British New Guinea has a right to self-determination.
The idea that a “people” as a community has a collective right of self-determination was only reflected in ideas about a nation-state, a territorial unit that existed for and belonged to a distinct nation that governed itself.
Early governors of British New Guinea were influenced by what Lugard calls “indirect rule” (Lugard 1922, 199). They identified people within communities to be government chiefs or village policemen.
A major concern of Australian administation in British New Guinea (later renamed Papua) was that contact with Europeans was leading to a decline in the birthrate, and hence to a greater population decline.
“[Officials] believed that depopulation could be reversed by bringing natives under a colonial government. They … used tax policy as an incentive for women to have more children. For every man who supported a woman with at least four children, the head tax was waived. Every woman who was raising more than four children was given a card with which she could claim a baby bonus for each child above four. (Given that both men and women received a benefit from children, one could argue that the baby bonus also created an incentive for men and women to enter into a monogamous marriage centered on raising their children.) Even as doctors requested more money from the colonial government to improve medical care and public health of natives, Macgregor and Murray maintained that they could protect native welfare by encouraging different kinds of domestic behavior. The colonial government even used propaganda to encourage a higher birth rate. On patrols through the area, officers inquired about venereal disease, lectured people on the importance of having children, and in one case distributed pamphlets on the matter.” (Schram 2018, 84; see also Lambert 1934; Reed 1997; Bennett 2014)
Let’s first agree for purposes of discussion that colonialism is bad and should be eradicated. There is no legitimate system in which one society governs another as a distinct, subordinate strata (if not racially marked and presumed inferior strata).
Let’s also agree that, even when everyone agrees to this, a colonial system won’t change overnight.
The League of Nations said to colonial powers that, at least for mandated territories, the ruling power had a responsibility to a higher body representing an international community. They could maintain control, but the control was subject to constraints and controls to align it with international norms, including the goal of self-determination for every people.
Imagine they report to your small group. Collectively you speak on behalf of an international community.
You can discuss these questions in any order.