TY - JOUR
T1 - How 'dynasty' became a modern global concept
T2 - intellectual histories of sovereignty and property
AU - Banerjee, Milinda
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - The modern concept of ‘dynasty’ is a politically-motivated modern
intellectual invention. For many advocates of a strong sovereign
nation-state across the nineteenth and early twentieth century, in
France, Germany, and Japan, the concept helped in visualizing the
nation-state as a primordial entity sealed by the continuity of birth
and blood, indeed by the perpetuity of sovereignty. Hegel’s references
to ‘dynasty’, read with Marx’s critique, further show how ‘dynasty’
encoded the intersection of sovereignty and big property, indeed the
coming into self-consciousness of their mutual
identification-in-difference in the age of capitalism. Imaginaries about
‘dynasty’ also connected national sovereignty with patriarchal
authority. European colonialism helped globalize the concept in the
non-European world; British India offers an exemplar of ensuing debates.
The globalization of the abstraction of ‘dynasty’ was ultimately bound
to the globalization of capitalist-colonial infrastructures of
production, circulation, violence, and exploitation. Simultaneously,
colonized actors, like Indian peasant/‘tribal’ populations, brought to
play alternate precolonial Indian-origin concepts of collective
regality, expressed through terms like ‘rajavamshi’ and ‘Kshatriya’.
These concepts nourished new forms of democracy in modern India. Global
intellectual histories can thus expand political thought today by
provincializing and deconstructing Eurocentric political vocabularies
and by recuperating subaltern models of collective and polyarchic power.
AB - The modern concept of ‘dynasty’ is a politically-motivated modern
intellectual invention. For many advocates of a strong sovereign
nation-state across the nineteenth and early twentieth century, in
France, Germany, and Japan, the concept helped in visualizing the
nation-state as a primordial entity sealed by the continuity of birth
and blood, indeed by the perpetuity of sovereignty. Hegel’s references
to ‘dynasty’, read with Marx’s critique, further show how ‘dynasty’
encoded the intersection of sovereignty and big property, indeed the
coming into self-consciousness of their mutual
identification-in-difference in the age of capitalism. Imaginaries about
‘dynasty’ also connected national sovereignty with patriarchal
authority. European colonialism helped globalize the concept in the
non-European world; British India offers an exemplar of ensuing debates.
The globalization of the abstraction of ‘dynasty’ was ultimately bound
to the globalization of capitalist-colonial infrastructures of
production, circulation, violence, and exploitation. Simultaneously,
colonized actors, like Indian peasant/‘tribal’ populations, brought to
play alternate precolonial Indian-origin concepts of collective
regality, expressed through terms like ‘rajavamshi’ and ‘Kshatriya’.
These concepts nourished new forms of democracy in modern India. Global
intellectual histories can thus expand political thought today by
provincializing and deconstructing Eurocentric political vocabularies
and by recuperating subaltern models of collective and polyarchic power.
KW - Global intellectual history
KW - Dynasty
KW - Monarchy
KW - British colonialism
KW - Germany
KW - India
U2 - 10.1080/23801883.2020.1796232
DO - 10.1080/23801883.2020.1796232
M3 - Article
SN - 2380-1883
VL - 7
SP - 421
EP - 452
JO - Global Intellectual History
JF - Global Intellectual History
IS - 3
ER -