It is customary to regard ‘tropical medicine’ as a product of the late nineteenth century, ‘its instrument the microscope, its epistemology the germ theory of disease’. The accepted interpretation is that tropical medicine was a European concept: originating in Britain and France and exported to the colonies by pioneering medical scientists. This interpretation is useful inasmuch as ‘tropical medicine’ as a discipline with its own journals, institutions, qualifications, and an exclusive discourse did not emerge until the last decade of the (...) nineteenth century, and partly in response to metropolitan imperatives. But the European perspective of existing histories of ‘tropical medicine’ has obscured important developments in the understanding of diseases in the tropics which took place prior to 1890; most of which occurred in the colonies themselves – and especially in India. In order to distinguish this body of knowledge from its later, institutional incarnation, it will be referred to here as ‘tropical hygiene’: the term most commonly used by medical men in India until the 1890s. (shrink)

Before attempting to use as a historical source the Lucknow Lunatic Asylum case notes of the British colonial period in India, it is necessary to determine which methodological approach is most viable. The approach of historians, who attempt retrospectively to diagnose the patients of the past from the clinical details of case notes, does not satisfactorily deal with the criticism that data on medical case notes is less a series of objective observations and more a product of the power relations (...) of the period. In contrast, medical and postcolonial historians treat the information on the case notes as a set of discursive constructions rather than a series of objective observations. By tracing the discourses in operation during construction of the Lucknow case notes, this paper identifies the ways in which the notes can be read as a series of colonial and medical discursive representations rather than as a set of clinical data. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDie jüngere Forschung zur Sozialgeschichte der Gesundheit und Medizin im kolonialen Indien hat sich jenseits spezifischer hegemonialer Aspekte der imperialen Medizin mittlerweile verstärkt der Bedeutung ihrer indischen Vermittler und der gebrochenen Natur kolonialer Herrschaft zugewandt. Davon inspiriert beleuchtet der Beitrag die Rolle indischer Subalterner im System der Krankenhäuser für Geschlechtskrankheiten der Provinz Madras im 19. Jahrhundert. Er fokussiert auf die so genannten „Gomastah“, eine Klasse von indischen Untergebenen, die zur Aufdeckung der illegalen Prostitution in Madras eingesetzt wurden, um so die (...) Ausbreitung von Geschlechtskrankheiten zu verhindern. Untersucht wird auch die Rolle anderer einheimischer und nicht einheimischer Untergebener wie der Dhais, Chowdranies und Matrons, die für die reibungslose Umsetzung desContagious Diseases Actund das alltägliche Funktionieren dieser Krankenhäuser unverzichtbar waren. Indem herausgearbeitet wird, wie indisches Kastendenken in die koloniale Gouvernementalität einfließen konnte und so koloniale Vorurteile und Xenophobie stärkte, unterstreicht der Artikel die Tatsache, dass es keine einseitige Aneignung oder Vermittlung kolonialen Wissens und kolonialer Vorannahmen durch die kolonisierten Vermittler gab. Argumentiert wird vielmehr für deren Interaktion, betont wird die komplexe Bedeutung des Kastensystems und seiner Vorurteile für das alltägliche koloniale Regierungshandeln. Zudem befasst sich der Beitrag mit dem daraus resultierenden Chaos und den inhärenten Machtkämpfen zwischen verschiedenen Gruppierungen des kolonialen Personals. (shrink)

In the academic debate on infrastructures in the Global South, there is a broad consensus that (post)colonial legacies present a major challenge for a transition towards more inclusive, sustainable and adapted modes of providing services. Yet, relatively little is known about the emergence and evolution of infrastructures in former colonies. Until a decade ago, most historical studies followed Daniel Headrick’s (1981) “tools of empire” thesis, painting—with broad brush strokes—a picture of infrastructures as instruments for advancing the colonial project of exploitation (...) and subordination of non-European peoples and environments. This paper explores new research perspectives beyond this straightforward, ‘diffusionist’ perspective on technology transfer. In order to do so, it presents and discusses more recent studies which focus on interactive transfer processes as well as mechanisms of appropriation, and which increasingly combine approaches from imperial history, environmental history, and history of technology.There is much to gain from unpacking the changing motives and ideologies behind technology transfer; tracing the often contested and negotiated flows of ideas, technologies and knowledge within multilayered global networks; investigating the manifold ways in which infrastructures reflected and (re)produced colonial spaces and identities; critically reflecting on the utility of large (socio)technical systems (LTS) for the Global South; and approaching infrastructures in the (post)colonial world through entangled histories of technology and the environment. Following David Arnold’s (2005) plea for a “more interactive, culturally-nuanced, multi-sited debate” on technology in the non-Western world, the paper offers fresh insights for a broader debate about how infrastructures work within specific parameters of time, place and culture. (shrink)