<i>The Intimacies of Four Continents</i> by Lisa Lowe

The Intimacies of Four Continents, by Lisa Lowe. Durham, Duke University Press, 2015. 319 pp. $24.93 US (paper). Lisa Lowe's book indicts tyranny of world history, whose categories and frameworks have not permitted understanding of the connections among various peoples, differentially affected by empire (174). The very phenomenon that promised emancipation but brought misery, she says, also obscured the geographical interpenetration of its racialized forms of domination. In five disparate chapters, Lowe responds to this calamity by recovering how African racial slavery accompanied European settler colonialism in the Americas and elsewhere, and how Asian labour was sometimes viewed as African slavery's obvious successor. The continents were not separate, so a single framework is required to recover their intimacies. One chapter introduces the argument, while also reflecting on an archival document that explicitly introduces the link between African slavery and Asian free labour. Through a close examination of Olaudah Equiano's autobiography, the second chapter shows how a classic liberal genre cannot escape traces of racialized unfreedom that claims to have surpassed. Next, Lowe reads William Makepeace Thackeray's Vanity Fair (London, 1848) to demonstrate how racialized labour allowed exotic commodities to be popular in novelized metropolitan interiors. The penultimate chapter analyzes John Stuart Mill and claims that his famous liberal theory of politics is part of the same syndrome. Finally, the book shows how, in unmasking the false pretense of racialized capitalism to spread freedom, heroic pioneers such as W.E.B. Du Bois and C.L.R. James struggled but failed to transcend an ultimately European story of human liberation, which points toward the need for the more expansive approach in Lowe's own book. It is, indeed, a very important intervention. The most revelatory parts come when Lowe, a literary critic, practices the reading of literary texts. Other parts, which have a very high quotient of theoretically sensitive expression to empirical contribution or novel claim, prove less compelling. Indeed, historians will find a few of Lowe's claims and procedures straining credulity. For one thing, Lowe works with an approach to that does not take very seriously the major debates that have raged since Uday Singh Mehta, whom Lowe rightly cites approvingly, opened up the topic of liberalism and empire. Thus, I could not tell what, if anything, in Lowe's extended interpretations of G.W.F. Hegel, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Karl Marx, adds to the more recent and subtle discussions by Jennifer Pitts and others. An excellent counterpoint to Lowe's book in this regard is Andrew Sartori's Liberalism in Empire (Oakland, 2014), which attempts to renew a Marxist approach to the relationship between and empire, and pays predominant attention to the place of Asia while expressing appreciation of liberalism's multiple dimensions, and the distinction between theory and practice. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.