Epistemic anxieties and colonial common sense

THE PLASTIC TERM Inlandsche kinderen was applied variously to those of mixed ancestry, those of Dutch parentage born in the Indies and those whites (wherever they were born) living in poverty in the Indies. Beliefs about the type of people these Inlandsche kinderen were, their predilections and limitations (a continual tension, given that no fi rm defi nition to the term was ever made, let alone a category to allow such essentialism) shaped offi cial eff orts to regulate society. The European Pauperism Commission of 1901 sought to establish precisely who these liminal fi gures were, and codify clearly who was European-born, Indies-born Europeans, and the mixed race who were ‘European only in name’ (p.158). This involved intrusive questioning of those who fell below a specific household income. They were asked about things like alcohol and opium use, gambling, and prostitution. More broadly, their lifestyle was assessed to see if it conformed to European standards. Their children’s Dutch fl uency was included in this assessment.

Understandably evasive

The attempt to carry out this survey revealed that there were far more ‘Europeans’ living at this income level than had been previously assumed. Given the nature of some of the questions (‘Was your mother a prostitute?’ ‘How many illegitimate children do you have?’) it is not hard to imagine some evasiveness on the part of the subjects, as well as reluctance on the part of the questioner. The assumption of moral decline in tandem with fiscal limitation was particularly insulting, and racially coded. As Stoler points out, a major shortcoming with the scheme was that the defi nition of poverty assumed very diff erent standards of living for Europeans and Asians:

‘Most embarrassing to all, and especially to the ruling elite, were the numbers of subaltern civil servants in government offices whose own incomes were lower than the level at which pauperism was calculated to start. The commissioners lamented this ‘misunderstanding’ and misconstrual of their intention by those questioned, among whom were lowly clerks in those very offices charged to carry out the investigation’.(p.162)

This clearly indicates that it was less about poverty in absolute terms, and more about whites whose lifestyles were seen as unsuitable, and particularly unbecoming for Europeans in a colonial environment. The simplistic assumption of financial need on the part of those who lived in a local style also demonstrates the reluctance of the offi cial view to understand those who may have chosen such an affi nity. The pretence of despising such people could not completely hide the concern and even fear that the existence of those who had ‘gone native’ elicited among administrators.

Sending sons to Europe

The issue of the Radikaal (the qualification required for a career in the colonial service, which was only offered by the academy in Delft) brought to a head the tensions between the Indiesresident Dutch and the colonial administration. The costs (both financial and personal) of sending sons to Europe for a decade or more of schooling caused strains for families in the Indies, which were met with condescension from the authorities in the Netherlands. Most poignant of all are the disjunctions between what was seen, and known, by administrators in the Indies, and what refused to be seen or accepted by their bosses.

Attempts were also made with new schools in the colonies to improve (particularly mixed-race) children, to raise them as an ideal artisanal class in the Indies. These schools included agricultural colonies, designed both to improve, and limit the aspirations of, those enrolled. These agricultural colonies, based on French models, were of limited success. However, they demonstrate a growing anxiety about the role of the Eurasian community and how these people should be classifi ed in colonial society.

Through these studies of individual instances, which demonstrate diff erent facets to the administrative challenge of the Indies, Stoler also demonstrates the challenge of the historian to read through the ‘partial understandings, epistemic confusion’ (p.185) of the records left by various civil servants. This is a densely written and researched account, which illuminates Stoler’s long research in Dutch archives. It is certainly a useful addition to the historiography of Dutch rule in the Indies, but more broadly for those studying colonial administration anywhere.

Katrina Gulliver
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich
hello@katrinagulliver.com