Colonialism is often blamed for consolidating patriarchy, but to assess its effects we must consider labour institutions and the political economy of empire.
Evans has done something rare here. She has taken a debate that had calcified into two opposed positions — colonialism imposed patriarchy versus colonialism disturbed an indigenous order — and shown that both formulations miss the actual mechanism. The argument that empire and African patriarchs struck a bargain over labour rents, with women, junior men and converts working the seams of that bargain from below, is the kind of synthesis that reframes a literature rather than adding to it. The archival range is impressive, the Becker data on polygyny and schooling is the right kind of empirical anchor, and the closing comparison to South Asian kinship rents opens a far larger conversation than the essay itself attempts.
One thread worth pulling, in the spirit of where she leaves the reader. If the operative category is rents — what specifically each patriarchal order extracted, and what each colonial administration agreed to protect in exchange for governance — then the framework has implications well beyond the colonial period. Every subsequent development project, structural adjustment program, microfinance scheme and women’s empowerment initiative across the same geography has had to negotiate with the residue of the bargain Evans describes. The rents did not disappear when the flags came down. They were re-priced.
The question her essay opens, and which deserves the long-form treatment she is uniquely positioned to give: when post-independence states inherited the colonial-patriarchal compromise, what happened to the rents? Which institutions absorbed them, which dissolved them, and which converted them into something the development economists of the 1990s mistook for tradition?
Very interesting work. It shocks me everytime I hear about the brutality my female ancestors went through, and the futility of their resistance. I hope you include research in your book on what women can do to prevent going back to the past. It's barely been 100 years of women's rights, yet the backlash is so strong. Even factual articles and posts of yours get angry antifeminist comments.
Thank you very much for sharing. Certainly, there will always be a continuing struggle for women's rights and freedoms. As you know, it's not just about laws on paper, but also securing state enforcement.
This is a really interesting essay and it fits right into my research interest: How different colonial regimes impacted the position of women in Westafrican societies. I wonder if the difference between direct French rule and indirect British rule had an influence on womens substantive rights. My first intuition was looking at the kinship patterns: did the different modes of rule (different degrees of institutionalization, different degrees of disrupting pre-existing organization, etc.) had consequences for the rules of political succession, inheritance of property or maritial residence in native societies. I was interested in the mechanisms of the legalization of private property, since the French did only recognize native property when registered on an individual. Collective property was not recognized in French rule, on the other hand in British rule, the native population had more leverage in deciding how to use the land. Reading your essay, I wonder if the primat of colonial courts and French law might offered more opportunities for women to fight for liberties in contrast to the continous power of traditional courts in the British colonies.
I could only find your essay on this webpage. Have you published it before? How can I possibly cite it?
This is a really interesting essay, and it aligns closely with my own research interests, particularly the question of how different colonial regimes shaped the position of women in West African societies.
I have often wondered whether the distinction between direct French rule and indirect British rule had different effects on women’s substantive rights. My initial intuition was to look at kinship systems and ask whether the different modes of colonial governance—varying levels of institutionalization, differing degrees of disruption of pre-existing social structures, and so on—had consequences for political succession, property inheritance, or marital residence patterns in indigenous societies.
I have also been interested in the mechanisms through which private property was legalized under colonial rule. As far as I understand, the French administration generally recognized land ownership by the local population only when property was registered to an individual, while collective ownership received no legal recognition. Under British rule, by contrast, local populations often retained greater influence over land administration and use, since the British primarily focused on the extraction of mineral resources then on farming cash crops. Reading your essay made me wonder whether the primacy of colonial courts and French law may have created more opportunities for women to challenge existing constraints and claim certain rights, compared to the continued authority of customary courts in British colonies.
I was only able to find your essay on this website. Has it been published elsewhere before? If not, how would you recommend citing it?
Great piece, truly quality. I want to see why farming in Africa and America were women's work and not men's work as in Europe? I think this ties into the divergence between dowries and bride prices.
Evans has done something rare here. She has taken a debate that had calcified into two opposed positions — colonialism imposed patriarchy versus colonialism disturbed an indigenous order — and shown that both formulations miss the actual mechanism. The argument that empire and African patriarchs struck a bargain over labour rents, with women, junior men and converts working the seams of that bargain from below, is the kind of synthesis that reframes a literature rather than adding to it. The archival range is impressive, the Becker data on polygyny and schooling is the right kind of empirical anchor, and the closing comparison to South Asian kinship rents opens a far larger conversation than the essay itself attempts.
One thread worth pulling, in the spirit of where she leaves the reader. If the operative category is rents — what specifically each patriarchal order extracted, and what each colonial administration agreed to protect in exchange for governance — then the framework has implications well beyond the colonial period. Every subsequent development project, structural adjustment program, microfinance scheme and women’s empowerment initiative across the same geography has had to negotiate with the residue of the bargain Evans describes. The rents did not disappear when the flags came down. They were re-priced.
The question her essay opens, and which deserves the long-form treatment she is uniquely positioned to give: when post-independence states inherited the colonial-patriarchal compromise, what happened to the rents? Which institutions absorbed them, which dissolved them, and which converted them into something the development economists of the 1990s mistook for tradition?
I give 90/10 odds for this being an AI generated comment.
Very interesting work. It shocks me everytime I hear about the brutality my female ancestors went through, and the futility of their resistance. I hope you include research in your book on what women can do to prevent going back to the past. It's barely been 100 years of women's rights, yet the backlash is so strong. Even factual articles and posts of yours get angry antifeminist comments.
Thank you very much for sharing. Certainly, there will always be a continuing struggle for women's rights and freedoms. As you know, it's not just about laws on paper, but also securing state enforcement.
This is a really interesting essay and it fits right into my research interest: How different colonial regimes impacted the position of women in Westafrican societies. I wonder if the difference between direct French rule and indirect British rule had an influence on womens substantive rights. My first intuition was looking at the kinship patterns: did the different modes of rule (different degrees of institutionalization, different degrees of disrupting pre-existing organization, etc.) had consequences for the rules of political succession, inheritance of property or maritial residence in native societies. I was interested in the mechanisms of the legalization of private property, since the French did only recognize native property when registered on an individual. Collective property was not recognized in French rule, on the other hand in British rule, the native population had more leverage in deciding how to use the land. Reading your essay, I wonder if the primat of colonial courts and French law might offered more opportunities for women to fight for liberties in contrast to the continous power of traditional courts in the British colonies.
I could only find your essay on this webpage. Have you published it before? How can I possibly cite it?
This is a really interesting essay, and it aligns closely with my own research interests, particularly the question of how different colonial regimes shaped the position of women in West African societies.
I have often wondered whether the distinction between direct French rule and indirect British rule had different effects on women’s substantive rights. My initial intuition was to look at kinship systems and ask whether the different modes of colonial governance—varying levels of institutionalization, differing degrees of disruption of pre-existing social structures, and so on—had consequences for political succession, property inheritance, or marital residence patterns in indigenous societies.
I have also been interested in the mechanisms through which private property was legalized under colonial rule. As far as I understand, the French administration generally recognized land ownership by the local population only when property was registered to an individual, while collective ownership received no legal recognition. Under British rule, by contrast, local populations often retained greater influence over land administration and use, since the British primarily focused on the extraction of mineral resources then on farming cash crops. Reading your essay made me wonder whether the primacy of colonial courts and French law may have created more opportunities for women to challenge existing constraints and claim certain rights, compared to the continued authority of customary courts in British colonies.
I was only able to find your essay on this website. Has it been published elsewhere before? If not, how would you recommend citing it?
Great piece, truly quality. I want to see why farming in Africa and America were women's work and not men's work as in Europe? I think this ties into the divergence between dowries and bride prices.
Next up: Lawn bowling is a patriarchal assault on women.
Amazing work.