Colonial racial essences were protean and repeatedly reformulated, not fixed

Evidence

I understand ontology as that which is about the ascribed being or essence of things, the categories of things that are thought to exist or can exist in any specific domain, and the specific attributes assigned to them. Ontologies, as Ian Hacking writes, refer to ā€œwhat comes into existence with the historical dynamics of naming.ā€ Pursuing an ā€œhistorical ontology,ā€ then, demands something that philosophical study of ontology tout court might pursue but more often does not: identification of mutating assignments of essence and its predicates in specific time and place. On the face of it, the notion of essence implies stability and fixity, the enduring properties of people and things. But if there is anything we can learn from the colonial ontologies of racial kinds, it is that such ā€œessencesā€ were protean, not fixed, subject to reformulation again and again. — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 45

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Clarifies the operative meaning of ontology for this project — ascribed being, not philosophical realism.
  • XREF: Ian Hacking’s ā€˜historical ontology’ framing resonates with Ann Laura Stoler’s ā€˜archival grain’ and colonial knowledge-production literature. — connects to: Colonial race was judged by conduct and affiliation rather than appearance; Racial essences gained epistemic force from strategic shifting attributes, not fixed ones.; Inconsistencies in colonial racial categories reveal latent distinctions rather than errors (+3 more)
  • corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 45

Broader Connections