Fallahin on Trial in Colonial Egypt: Apprehending the Peasantry through Orality, Writing, and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores the experiences of Egyptian peasants from the Delta province of Minufiyya who were tried for murder by newly created "native" or "national" courts between 1884 and 1914. Through the study of 2,000 pages of criminal files, I deconstruct how the colonial state used the modern techniques of judicial orality, writing, and performance, both to justify a series of reforms that turned the entire legal process into a parody of justice, and to develop a grand narrative that essentialized peasants as revengeful, greedy, and passionate and ultimately linked their alleged immorality to their illiteracy. \nFurthermore, my work sheds light on how peasants reacted to this process of moralization of the law by promoting the "honor of the brigand" through violence and poetry. Finally, by focusing on the many petitions contained in the judicial files, my dissertation provides new insight into the development of a "vernacular" culture of the law that betrays the peasants' awareness of the highly political nature of the legal process. \nBy presenting and analyzing an untapped wealth of Egyptian archives produced by the native courts, this research not only sheds invaluable light on the workings and hence the very nature of British colonial justice in Egypt, but also represents a significant advance in the knowledge of the origins of Egypt's current legal system. On a more theoretical level, this study also constitutes an important contribution to the reflection on the subaltern subject initiated by Rosalind O'Hanlon and Talal Asad, by showing how the peasants' agency paradoxically lies in their "disempowerment."
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".