CfP: Tackling Coerced Labour Regimes in Asia: Towards a Comparative Model

Call for papers, deadline 1 July 2019

Tackling Coerced Labour Regimes in Asia: Towards a Comparative Model

Call for Papers

For a panel proposal ‘Tackling Coerced Labour Regimes in Asia: Towards a Comparative Model’ for the Sixth Conference of the European Network in Universal and Global History (ENIUGH) on 25-28 June 2020 in Turku, Finland.

Organizers: Kate Ekama (University of Stellenbosch) and Matthias van Rossum (International Institute of Social History)

 

The challenge of understanding simultaneously the commonalities and differences of regimes of coerced labour has recurred time and again in the study of slavery, serfdom, and other forms of labour coercion. Whereas one approach to this challenge has been to bring the many variants of coerced labour into a single broad category of ‘bondage’, other approaches tend to juxtapose forms of slavery and forms of serfdom. The difficulties in creating a clear differentiating and at the same time unifying analytical model have led some scholars to conclude that “no single definition has succeeded in comprehending the historical varieties of slavery or in clearly distinguishing the institution from other types of involuntary servitude” (Davis 1988, 32).

This panel seeks to contribute to this enduring challenge by inviting contributions to an inductive global-historical comparative agenda that aims to detect characteristics, differences and commonalities through in-depth analysis (or thick descriptions) of different coercive labour regimes.

It departs from the notion that we should aim to understand the different variants within the context of ‘the whole praxis of coerced labor’, not in order to bring them together in one broad category of bondage, but in order to ‘identify clearly the differences and similarities between various forms of exploitation and repression’ (Van der Linden 2016, 294, 322). The contrasts, at the same time, were also not clear-cut, as forms of slavery on the one hand extended to variations of caste- and land-based slavery, which showed similarities to corvée and serfdom regimes, while serfdom regimes on the other hand could at times allow for hiring and selling subjects in ways comparable to slavery.

Recent studies for the Indian Ocean and Indonesian Archipelago worlds, as well as for Central and East Asia, indicate that forms of commodified slavery were widespread, and were fuelled by networks of slave trade that stretched across these regions. Research also indicates that commodified forms of slavery existed side by side and interacted with different forms of non-commodified bondage, most importantly corvée, caste- and debt-based slavery. This makes it important to not only understand why slavery occurred, but to understand in a more comparative and contextualized way why specific forms or regimes of labour coercion occurred,and, in a wider sense, why specific regimes developed less or disappeared in specific contexts, and/or why such regimes occurred in specific combinations.

Building on meetings in Amsterdam (2016), Kalmar (2017) and Lyon (2019), the panel is part of a network that aims to further the study of coerced labour and relocation in Asia by developing a framework to enhance the study of comparisons and connections. To systematize the comparisons, this panel proposes a common set of elements for interrogation that can guide thick-descriptions of different coerced labour regimes. The selection of these elements builds upon and combines the three ‘moments’ of coercion in entry, work and exit (Van der Linden); the classical model of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ systems of slavery (Watson; Reid; Ward); the proposed distinction between coercive regimes based on the method of binding through mobilizing or localizing mechanisms (Van Rossum); and the notion of slaveries as defined by partial or complete availability or Verfugbarkeit of people’s bodies (Miller; Mann).

 

This leads us to the following elements by which coerced labour regimes should be studied:

Entrance

1. Origins and entrances: What are the ways into specific regimes of bondage and enslavement? [a] What are the criteria for bondage or enslavebility? Under what conditions are people (allowed to) be bonded or enslaved? [b] And what are the real existing practices? [c] Were people of local origin or non-local origin? Were people bonded (or not) before? [d] What was the type of entry into (host) society – i.e. how did people find their way into dependency? Was this hereditary; tribute; impoverishment; sale; punishment; abduction; war or slave raid? (Hereditary; commodified; political; criminal; war)?

Relation

2. Method of binding: What is the method of binding; what is the mechanism or feature through which the subjected is tied to a master or ruler (or an enslaved bound to a master); on what basis (legal property; land; debt; caste; status)?

3. Function of the labour regime or relation: What is the function or object of coercion and of the coerced (labour) relation? Is the object social reproduction, subsistence, public (non-market production), market-oriented (private of state)?

4. Alienability: How is the relation organized in terms of transferability? Is there formalization and regulation of (restriction of) transferability of subjected or bonded people? [a] What are the criteria for transferability? Under what conditions can people be transferred, and on the basis of what? [b] And what are the real existing practices? [c] Does this involve commodified transfers (are people sold) or other kinds of transfer (such as tribute)?

5. Assimilability: How is the relation organized in terms of social mobility and integration into (host) society? Are there specific regulations with regard to assimilability and social mobility? What is the discourse or ideology, and what are the practices?

Exit

6. Exits: What are the exits of specific regimes of bondage and enslavement? [a] Within the regime: Are there exits from the bondage or enslavement, such as emancipation, buying freedom, upward social mobility, escape, otherwise? What are the routes? Legal or illegal? [b] Outside the regime: Are there exits from society? Into other regimes of bondage or enslavement (relates to point 4) or otherwise? Legal or illegal?

 

We invite papers that respond to this framework and address the various elements of inquiry in research on regimes of dependency in Asia, for example by historical thick-descriptions of regime(s) of coerced labour, comparisons of case-studies, or source-based reflections on connections and developments.

Scholars interested in taking part in the panel should send a short abstract (100-300 words) including paper title and institutional affiliation to Matthias van Rossum (mvr@iisg.nl) and Kate Ekama (katejekama@gmail.com) before Monday 1 July 2019.

Posted