Field analysis and the relational approach to historical social-scientific explanation of which it is an instance – helps illuminate the administrative dynamics of empires. While most studies of imperial dynamics emphasize the ‘high imperialism’ of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this article extends field analysis to a crucial case from the second half of the eighteenth century: the English East India Company's transition from a (largely) merchant trading company to a territorial power. In this disordered space of administration, officials struggling with one another for metropolitan recognition provided moral accounts of themselves which, on the one hand, explained their behaviour in terms drawn from abstract, purportedly universal social spaces, and, on the other hand, claimed credibility through a personal ‘interest in disinterest’. I argue that these moral accounts helped delimit the boundaries of and shape the dynamics within a distinctively imperial administrative field. To analyse this transformation, I suggest a synthesis of three varieties of relational analysis: Bourdieu's field theory, Fligstein and McAdam's analysis of strategic action fields, and Padgett and Powell's work on network folding and robust action.
AbbottA., (1995), ‘Things of boundaries’, Social Research, 62: 857–882.
2.
AcemogluD.JohnsonS. and RobinsonJ. A., (2001), ‘The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation’, The American Economic Review, 91 (5): 1369–1401.
3.
AdamsJ., (2007), The Familial State, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4.
BanerjeeA. and IyerL., (2005), ‘History, institutions, and economic performance: The legacy of colonial land tenure systems in India’, The American Economic Review, 95 (4): 1190–1213.
5.
BarkeyK., (1994), Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
6.
BarkeyK., (2008), Empire of Difference, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BaylyC. A., (1989), Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World, 1780–1830, London: Longman.
8.
BlackJ., (1990), Robert Walpole and the Nature of Politics in Early Eighteenth-Century Britain, Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.
9.
BoltsW., (1772), Considerations on India Affairs, London: Printed for J. Almon.
10.
BourdieuP., (1996), The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, Cambridge: Polity Press.
11.
BourdieuP., (1998), ‘Is a disinterested act possible?’, in Practical Reason, 75–91. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
BourdieuP. and WacquantL. J. D., (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
BowenH. V., (1991), Revenue and Reform: The Indian Problem in British Politics, 1757–1773, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
BowenH. V., (2004), ‘Bolts, William (1739–1808)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
BowenH. V., (2006), The Business of Empire: The East India Company and Imperial Britain, 1756–1833, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
BrewerJ., (1990), The Sinews of Power, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
CalhounC. J.CooperF. and MooreK. W., (2006), Lessons of Empire: Imperial Histories and American Power, New York: New Press.
18.
ChatterjeeP., (1993), The Nation and its Fragments, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
ChatterjeeP., (2012), The Black Hole of Empire: History of a Global Practice of Power, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
CohnB. S., (1987), ‘The recruitment and training of British Civil servants in India, 1600–1860’, in An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays, 500–553. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
DodwellH., (1920), Dupleix and Clive: The Beginning of Empire, London: Methuen.
22.
EmirbayerM., (1997), ‘Manifesto for a relational sociology’, American Journal of Sociology, 103 (2): 281–317.
23.
EriksonE., (2014), Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company, 1600–1757, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
FligsteinN. and McAdamD., (2012), A Theory of Fields, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
FuchsS., (2005), Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society, London: Harvard University Press.
26.
FurberH., (1948), John Company at Work: A Study of European Expansion in India in the Late Eighteenth Century, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
GhoshS. C., (1970), The Social Condition of the British Community in Bengal: 1757–1800, Leiden: Brill.
28.
GoJ., (2008a), American Empire and the Politics of Meaning, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
29.
GoJ., (2008b), ‘Global fields and imperial forms: Field theory and the British and American empires’, Sociological Theory, 26 (3), 201–229.
30.
GoJ., (2011), Patterns of Empire: The British and American Empires, 1688 to the Present, New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
GoswamiM., (2004), Producing India, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
GreenblattS., (1980), Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From Moore to Shakespeare, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
GreeneJ. P., (2013), Evaluating Empire and Confronting Colonialism in Eighteenth-Century Britain, New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HallwardN. L., (1920), William Bolts: A Dutch Adventurer under John Company, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
HarlingP., (1996), The Waning of ‘Old Corruption’, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
HarlowV. T., (1952), The Founding of the Second British Empire1763–1793, London: Longmans, Green and Company.
37.
HejeebuS., (2005), ‘Contract enforcement in the English East India Company’, The Journal of Economic History, 65 (2): 496–523.
38.
KleinL. E., (1994), Shaftesbury and the Culture of Politeness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
KuitersW. G. J., (2002), The British in Bengal, 1756–1773, Paris: Indes savantes.
40.
KuitersW. G. J., (2004), ‘Verelst, Harry (1734–1785)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
KumarK., (2010), ‘Nation-states as empires, empires as nation-states: Two principles, one practice?’, Theory and Society, 39 (2): 119–143.
42.
LawsonP. and PhillipsJ., (1984), “‘Our execrable banditti”: Perceptions of nabobs in mid-eighteenth century Britain’, Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 16(3): 225–241.
43.
LeonardS., (2014), “‘A theatre of disputes”: The East India Company election of 1764 as the founding of British India’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 42(4): 593–624.
44.
MannM., (2005), Incoherent Empire, London: Verso.
45.
MarshallP. J., (1987), Bengal: The British Bridgehead, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
MarshallP. J., (1976), East Indian Fortunes, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
47.
MarshallP. J., (2005), The Making and Unmaking of Empires, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
McGilvaryG. K., (2006), Guardian of the East India Company: The Life of Laurence Sulivan, London: I. B. Tauris.
49.
McLeanP. D., (2007), The Art of the Network: Strategic Interaction and Patronage in Renaissance Florence, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
50.
NechtmanT., (2010), Nabobs: Empire and Identity in Eighteenth-century Britain, New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
NightingaleP., (1985), Fortune and Integrity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
NortonM., (2014), ‘Classification and coercion: The destruction of piracy in the English maritime system’, American Journal of Sociology, 119(6): 1537–1575.
53.
ObertJ. and PadgettJ. F., (2012), ‘Conflict displacement and dual inclusion in the construction of Germany’, in The Emergence of Organizations and Markets, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
PadgettJ. F., (2012), ‘The politics of communist economic reform: Soviet Union and China’, in The Emergence of Organizations and Markets, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
PadgettJ. F. and AnsellC. K., (1993), ‘Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434’, American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1259–1319.
56.
PadgettJ. F. and PowellW. W., (2012), The Emergence of Organizations and Markets, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57.
SmithA., (2002), The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
SteinmetzG., (2007), The Devil's Handwriting, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59.
SteinmetzG., (2008), ‘The colonial state as social field: Ethnographic capital and native policy in the German overseas empire before 1914’, American Sociological Review, 73: 589–612.
60.
SteinmetzG., (2013), Sociology and Empire: The Imperial Entanglements of a Discipline, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
61.
SteinmetzG., (2014), ‘The sociology of empires, colonies, and postcolonialism’, Annual Review of Sociology, 40 (1): 77–103.
62.
SternP. J., (2011), The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63.
SutherlandL. S., (1952), The East India Company in Eighteenth-Century Politics, London: Hyperion Press.
64.
VerelstH., (1772), A View of the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the English Government in Bengal: Including a Reply to the Misrepresentations of Mr. Bolts, and other Writers, London: J. Nourse.
65.
WangL., (2015), ‘From masterly brokers to compliant protégées: The frontier governance system and the rise of ethnic confrontation in China-Inner Mongolia, 1900–1930’, American Journal of Sociology, 120 (6): 1641–1689.
66.
WilsonN. H., (2012), Economies, Moralities, and State Formations in British Colonial India, Berkeley, CA: University of California.
67.
WilsonN. H., (2015), “‘A state in disguise of a merchant’? The English East India Company as a strategic action field, ca. 1763–1834”, Political Power and Social Theory, 29: 257–285.
68.
WyrtzenJ., (2011), ‘Colonial state-building and the negotiation of Arab and Berber identity in protectorate Morocco’, International Journal of Middle East Studies43 (Special Issue 2): 227–249.
69.
WyrtzenJ., (2015), Making Morocco: Colonial Intervention and the Politics of Identity, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
