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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Law & social inquiry 2024-08, Vol.49 (3), p.1396-1425
1. Verfasser: Lee, Jack Jin Gary
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 &amp; 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 &amp; damages ; Sexually transmitted diseases ; Sovereignty ; STD ; Surveillance ; Women ; Working class ; Working women</subject><ispartof>Law &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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