Racialized Legalities: The Rule of Law, Race, and the Protection of Women in Britain’s Crown Colonies, 1886–1890
This article enquires into colonial officials’ invocations of the “rule of law” and the persistence of racial difference in the modern British Empire. To unravel this contradiction, I examine the debates over the freedom of women during the repeal of the Contagious Diseases ordinances in the directl...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Law & social inquiry 2024-08, Vol.49 (3), p.1396-1425 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1425 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1396 |
container_title | Law & social inquiry |
container_volume | 49 |
creator | Lee, Jack Jin Gary |
description | This article enquires into colonial officials’ invocations of the “rule of law” and the persistence of racial difference in the modern British Empire. To unravel this contradiction, I examine the debates over the freedom of women during the repeal of the Contagious Diseases ordinances in the directly ruled Crown Colonies of Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements (Singapore, Penang, and Malacca) between 1886 and 1890. Although the apparent purpose of these laws was the containment of venereal diseases, officials employed them to police prostitution and subject working-class, “native” women to medical surveillance. Despite the repeal of the Contagious Diseases ordinances across the empire, officials in both colonies continued to regulate prostitution in the name of native women’s freedom, invoking the rule of law. Through the historical ethnography of the rule of law, I demonstrate how the language of this ideal rendered an evocative frame of beneficence, legality, and protection against which officials articulated social difference in racialized, and intersectional, ways—what I call racialized legalities. In comparing the colonized in terms of racialized legalities, officials designed a differentiated sovereignty in determining the protections granted to native women. Expressing the cultural power of law, the rule of law was a constitutive myth. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/lsi.2023.38 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3108168734</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3108168734</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c219t-92a9055b2ffd89602478c83a94bac547d2ed019ecfe79392304e16877ab223c93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkMtKAzEYhYMoWKsrXyDg0k7NbSaJOx28wYBSKi5DOpPRlGlSk5Siq76DK1-vT-KUuvoP_B_nwAfAOUZjjDC_6qIdE0TomIoDMMCc8YyxQh6CARKSZ0XOimNwEuMcIURIkQ9Amuja6s5-mwZW5r1PyZp4DacfBk5WnYG-hZVej2DPmRHUroGpf70En0ydrHc74M0vjIPWwdtgk7Zuu_mNsAx-7WDpO-_6xhHEQhTbzQ8WEp2Co1Z30Zz93yF4vb-blo9Z9fzwVN5UWU2wTJkkWqI8n5G2bYQsEGFc1IJqyWa6zhlviGkQlqZuDZdUEoqYwYXgXM8IobWkQ3Cx710G_7kyMam5XwXXTyqKkdixlPXU5Z6qg48xmFYtg13o8KUwUjutqteqdloVFfQPgaFp8w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3108168734</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Racialized Legalities: The Rule of Law, Race, and the Protection of Women in Britain’s Crown Colonies, 1886–1890</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Lee, Jack Jin Gary</creator><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jack Jin Gary</creatorcontrib><description>This article enquires into colonial officials’ invocations of the “rule of law” and the persistence of racial difference in the modern British Empire. To unravel this contradiction, I examine the debates over the freedom of women during the repeal of the Contagious Diseases ordinances in the directly ruled Crown Colonies of Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements (Singapore, Penang, and Malacca) between 1886 and 1890. Although the apparent purpose of these laws was the containment of venereal diseases, officials employed them to police prostitution and subject working-class, “native” women to medical surveillance. Despite the repeal of the Contagious Diseases ordinances across the empire, officials in both colonies continued to regulate prostitution in the name of native women’s freedom, invoking the rule of law. Through the historical ethnography of the rule of law, I demonstrate how the language of this ideal rendered an evocative frame of beneficence, legality, and protection against which officials articulated social difference in racialized, and intersectional, ways—what I call racialized legalities. In comparing the colonized in terms of racialized legalities, officials designed a differentiated sovereignty in determining the protections granted to native women. Expressing the cultural power of law, the rule of law was a constitutive myth.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0897-6546</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1747-4469</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1545-696X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2023.38</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>19th century ; Abolition of slavery ; Colonialism ; Colonies & territories ; Containment ; Empires ; Ethnography ; Freedoms ; Health surveillance ; Historical ethnography ; Indigenous peoples ; Infectious diseases ; Intersectionality ; Law ; Legality ; Native women ; Prostitution ; Protection ; Race ; Racial differences ; Racialization ; Rule of law ; Settlements & damages ; Sexually transmitted diseases ; Sovereignty ; STD ; Surveillance ; Women ; Working class ; Working women</subject><ispartof>Law & social inquiry, 2024-08, Vol.49 (3), p.1396-1425</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Bar Foundation</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c219t-92a9055b2ffd89602478c83a94bac547d2ed019ecfe79392304e16877ab223c93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27843,27901,27902,33751</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jack Jin Gary</creatorcontrib><title>Racialized Legalities: The Rule of Law, Race, and the Protection of Women in Britain’s Crown Colonies, 1886–1890</title><title>Law & social inquiry</title><description>This article enquires into colonial officials’ invocations of the “rule of law” and the persistence of racial difference in the modern British Empire. To unravel this contradiction, I examine the debates over the freedom of women during the repeal of the Contagious Diseases ordinances in the directly ruled Crown Colonies of Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements (Singapore, Penang, and Malacca) between 1886 and 1890. Although the apparent purpose of these laws was the containment of venereal diseases, officials employed them to police prostitution and subject working-class, “native” women to medical surveillance. Despite the repeal of the Contagious Diseases ordinances across the empire, officials in both colonies continued to regulate prostitution in the name of native women’s freedom, invoking the rule of law. Through the historical ethnography of the rule of law, I demonstrate how the language of this ideal rendered an evocative frame of beneficence, legality, and protection against which officials articulated social difference in racialized, and intersectional, ways—what I call racialized legalities. In comparing the colonized in terms of racialized legalities, officials designed a differentiated sovereignty in determining the protections granted to native women. Expressing the cultural power of law, the rule of law was a constitutive myth.</description><subject>19th century</subject><subject>Abolition of slavery</subject><subject>Colonialism</subject><subject>Colonies & territories</subject><subject>Containment</subject><subject>Empires</subject><subject>Ethnography</subject><subject>Freedoms</subject><subject>Health surveillance</subject><subject>Historical ethnography</subject><subject>Indigenous peoples</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Intersectionality</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Legality</subject><subject>Native women</subject><subject>Prostitution</subject><subject>Protection</subject><subject>Race</subject><subject>Racial differences</subject><subject>Racialization</subject><subject>Rule of law</subject><subject>Settlements & damages</subject><subject>Sexually transmitted diseases</subject><subject>Sovereignty</subject><subject>STD</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Women</subject><subject>Working class</subject><subject>Working women</subject><issn>0897-6546</issn><issn>1747-4469</issn><issn>1545-696X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNotkMtKAzEYhYMoWKsrXyDg0k7NbSaJOx28wYBSKi5DOpPRlGlSk5Siq76DK1-vT-KUuvoP_B_nwAfAOUZjjDC_6qIdE0TomIoDMMCc8YyxQh6CARKSZ0XOimNwEuMcIURIkQ9Amuja6s5-mwZW5r1PyZp4DacfBk5WnYG-hZVej2DPmRHUroGpf70En0ydrHc74M0vjIPWwdtgk7Zuu_mNsAx-7WDpO-_6xhHEQhTbzQ8WEp2Co1Z30Zz93yF4vb-blo9Z9fzwVN5UWU2wTJkkWqI8n5G2bYQsEGFc1IJqyWa6zhlviGkQlqZuDZdUEoqYwYXgXM8IobWkQ3Cx710G_7kyMam5XwXXTyqKkdixlPXU5Z6qg48xmFYtg13o8KUwUjutqteqdloVFfQPgaFp8w</recordid><startdate>20240801</startdate><enddate>20240801</enddate><creator>Lee, Jack Jin Gary</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240801</creationdate><title>Racialized Legalities: The Rule of Law, Race, and the Protection of Women in Britain’s Crown Colonies, 1886–1890</title><author>Lee, Jack Jin Gary</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c219t-92a9055b2ffd89602478c83a94bac547d2ed019ecfe79392304e16877ab223c93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>19th century</topic><topic>Abolition of slavery</topic><topic>Colonialism</topic><topic>Colonies & territories</topic><topic>Containment</topic><topic>Empires</topic><topic>Ethnography</topic><topic>Freedoms</topic><topic>Health surveillance</topic><topic>Historical ethnography</topic><topic>Indigenous peoples</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Intersectionality</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Legality</topic><topic>Native women</topic><topic>Prostitution</topic><topic>Protection</topic><topic>Race</topic><topic>Racial differences</topic><topic>Racialization</topic><topic>Rule of law</topic><topic>Settlements & damages</topic><topic>Sexually transmitted diseases</topic><topic>Sovereignty</topic><topic>STD</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Women</topic><topic>Working class</topic><topic>Working women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jack Jin Gary</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Law & social inquiry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lee, Jack Jin Gary</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Racialized Legalities: The Rule of Law, Race, and the Protection of Women in Britain’s Crown Colonies, 1886–1890</atitle><jtitle>Law & social inquiry</jtitle><date>2024-08-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1396</spage><epage>1425</epage><pages>1396-1425</pages><issn>0897-6546</issn><eissn>1747-4469</eissn><eissn>1545-696X</eissn><abstract>This article enquires into colonial officials’ invocations of the “rule of law” and the persistence of racial difference in the modern British Empire. To unravel this contradiction, I examine the debates over the freedom of women during the repeal of the Contagious Diseases ordinances in the directly ruled Crown Colonies of Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements (Singapore, Penang, and Malacca) between 1886 and 1890. Although the apparent purpose of these laws was the containment of venereal diseases, officials employed them to police prostitution and subject working-class, “native” women to medical surveillance. Despite the repeal of the Contagious Diseases ordinances across the empire, officials in both colonies continued to regulate prostitution in the name of native women’s freedom, invoking the rule of law. Through the historical ethnography of the rule of law, I demonstrate how the language of this ideal rendered an evocative frame of beneficence, legality, and protection against which officials articulated social difference in racialized, and intersectional, ways—what I call racialized legalities. In comparing the colonized in terms of racialized legalities, officials designed a differentiated sovereignty in determining the protections granted to native women. Expressing the cultural power of law, the rule of law was a constitutive myth.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/lsi.2023.38</doi><tpages>30</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0897-6546 |
ispartof | Law & social inquiry, 2024-08, Vol.49 (3), p.1396-1425 |
issn | 0897-6546 1747-4469 1545-696X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3108168734 |
source | PAIS Index; Sociological Abstracts; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | 19th century Abolition of slavery Colonialism Colonies & territories Containment Empires Ethnography Freedoms Health surveillance Historical ethnography Indigenous peoples Infectious diseases Intersectionality Law Legality Native women Prostitution Protection Race Racial differences Racialization Rule of law Settlements & damages Sexually transmitted diseases Sovereignty STD Surveillance Women Working class Working women |
title | Racialized Legalities: The Rule of Law, Race, and the Protection of Women in Britain’s Crown Colonies, 1886–1890 |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T00%3A07%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Racialized%20Legalities:%20The%20Rule%20of%20Law,%20Race,%20and%20the%20Protection%20of%20Women%20in%20Britain%E2%80%99s%20Crown%20Colonies,%201886%E2%80%931890&rft.jtitle=Law%20&%20social%20inquiry&rft.au=Lee,%20Jack%20Jin%20Gary&rft.date=2024-08-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1396&rft.epage=1425&rft.pages=1396-1425&rft.issn=0897-6546&rft.eissn=1747-4469&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/lsi.2023.38&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3108168734%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3108168734&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |