Colonial officials stumbled over sentiments impervious to rational state control.

Evidence

Colonial scripts prompt us, their distant readers, to imagine that concern with the affective was centered on unbridled passions, irrational outbursts, or at least the unpremeditated affective states their bearers embraced. They make it plausible to imagine that what European authorities feared most was that “hidden force” that Dutch novelist Louis Couperus so powerfully described at the turn of the century as that to which the colonized had access and colonials unknowingly could be subject, a display of sentiments that showed more powerful mystic and mental states. But, as the public assembly of 22 May suggests, this may not have been the case. Rather than extemporaneous passions was the threat of sustained sensibilities, resentments against ongoing unfreedoms, and the political standards they called into question. Outbursts were manageable. It was those durable sentiments, those of parental distress and the wounds of estrangement, that expressed judgment and critique. — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 578 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Colonial officials blamed elite ambitions rather than taxation for the tax revolt; Colonial officials believed political agitation threatened to undo civilizing work; Colonial authorities feared steady sensibilities more than emotional outbursts — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 578 (+5 more)

Related

• Colonial authorities feared steady sensibilities more than emotional outbursts (similarity 0.94)
• Colonial authorities understood that regime viability depended on managing sentiment contagion (similarity 0.92)
• Colonial officials discounted attacks as personal revenge absent political significance (similarity 0.92)
• Colonial officials believed political agitation threatened to undo civilizing work (similarity 0.91)
• Colonial officials feared settlers’ emotional investment in the Indies more than fiscal costs (similarity 0.87)
• Colonial governors struggled to know their own officials’ sentiments (similarity 0.84)
• Colonial fears centered durable resentments rather than momentary passions (similarity 0.82)
• Colonial secrets signaled official unease about unrest without a name (similarity 0.82)
• Colonial governance ran as much on sentiment’s management as on reason’s rule. (similarity 0.82)
• Colonial authorities aimed to manage subjects’ aspirations as a political necessity (similarity 0.82)
• Colonial authorities understood sentiment’s governance role before scholars did (similarity 0.82)
• Colonial officials fixated on subject populations they feared far more than evidence warranted (similarity 0.81)
• Dutch colonial rule was preoccupied with sentiment and affect, not reason alone. (similarity 0.80)
• Colonial regimes deliberately cultivated habits and redirected sentiments, a neglected topic. (similarity 0.80)
• Colonial anxiety also circulated as irony among European officials themselves. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Colonial authorities feared steady sensibilities more than emotional outbursts #expands (0.75) — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 578
• Colonial authorities understood that regime viability depended on managing sentiment contagion #contradicts (0.60)
• Colonial secrets signaled official unease about unrest without a name #expands (0.60)