Spatializing States: Toward an Ethnography of Neoliberal Governmentality

Author(s): James Ferguson and Akhil Gupta

Source: American Ethnologist, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Nov., 2002), pp. 981-1002
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3805165
Accessed: 09-06-2015 18:20 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Ethnologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states: toward an ethnography of
neoliberal governmentality

JAMESFERGUSON
Universityof California,Irvine
AKHILGUPTA
StanfordUniversity

In this exploratoryarticle,we ask how statescome to be understoodas enti-

ties with particularspatialcharacteristics,and how changing relationsbe-
tween practicesof governmentand nationalterritoriesmay be challenging
long-establishedmodes of state spatiality.In the firstpartof this article,we
seek to identifytwo principlesthatare key to state spatialization:verticality
(thestateis vabove"society)and encompassment(thestate "encompasses" its
localities).We use ethnographicevidence froma maternalhealthprojectin
Indiato illustrateourargumentthatperceptionsof verticalityand encompass-
ment are produced throughroutine bureaucraticpractices. In the second
part, we develop a concept of transnationalgovernmentalityas a way of
graspinghow new practicesof governmentand new formsof "grassroots"
politics may call into questionthe principlesof verticalityand encompass-
mentthathave long helped to legitimateand naturalizestates'authorityover
vthe local." [states, space, governmentality,globalization,neoliberalism,
India,Africa]

Recentyearshave seen a new level of anthropologicalconcernwith the modern

state. Inpart,the new interestin the statearisesfroma recognitionof the centralrole
that statesplay in shaping"localcommunities"that have historicallyconstitutedthe
objectsof anthropologicalinquiry;in part,it reflectsa new determinationto bringan
ethnographicgaze to bearon the culturalpracticesof statesthemselves.An important
theme runningthroughthe new literaturehas been that states are not simplyfunc-
tional bureaucraticapparatuses,but powerfulsites of symbolicand culturalproduc-
tion that are themselvesalways culturallyrepresentedand understoodin particular
ways.Itis herethatit becomespossibleto speakof states,andnotonly nations(Anderson
1991), as "imagined"-that is, as constructedentities that are conceptualizedand
made socially effective throughparticularimaginativeand symbolic devices that
require study(Bayart1993; Bernal1997; Cohn 1996; Comaroff1998; Coroni11997;
Corriganand Sayer1985; cf. Fallers1971; Geertz 1980; Josephand Nugent 1994;
Nugent1997; Scott1998; Taussig1996).
In this article,our contributionto this literatureis twofold. First,we arguethat
discussionsof the imaginationof the state have not attendedadequatelyto the ways
in which statesare spatialized.1How is it thatpeople come to experiencethe stateas
an entity with certainspatialcharacteristicsand properties?Throughwhat images,
metaphors,andrepresentational practicesdoesthe statecome to be understoodas a con-
crete,overarching,spatiallyencompassingreality?Throughspecificsetsof metaphors

American Ethnologist29(4):981-1002. CopyrightO 2002, American Anthropological Association.

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 americanethnologist
982

with particularspatial
andpractices,states representthemselves as reifiedentities encompass-
properties(specifically,what we will describeas propertiesof "vertical
their authority,
ment").2Bydoingso, they helpto securetheirlegitimacy,to naturalize
of, other institutions
andto representthemselvesas superiorto, and encompassing
and practicesas
andcentersof power. We referto the operationof these metaphors some key
we identify
"thespatializationof the state."In the firstpartof this article, via an eth-
to show,
methods throughwhich statesachievethisspatializationand seek to such
are integral
nographic example, that mundanebureaucraticstate practices
ievements.
ach
by showing its rele-
Inthe second partof the article,we buildon this discussion transnational
vance to the questionof globalization.We arguethat an increasingly spatializa-
of state
economy today poses new challenges to familiarforms
political we discussthe re-
tion.Afterdevelopinga concept of transnationalgovernmentality,
internationalorgani-
lationbetween weak Africanstatesand an emergingnetworkof
(NGOs), and show how
zationsand transnationalnongovernmentalorganizations
of state spatiality.We
thesedevelopmentsconfound conventional understandings mightenrichthe an-
suggestthatattentionto the changingformsof statespatialization
politicsof glo-
thropology of the stateand clarifycertainaspectsof the contemporary
ization.
bal

partone: the spatialized state

conceptual issues
discourseson the state:
Two images come together in popularand academic
refers to the centraland pervasive
thoseof verticalityand encompassment. Verticality community,and
civil society,
ideaofthe state as an institutionsomehow "above" are effortsto
down" and state actions
family.Thus,state planningis inherently"top with the statepre-
and plan "fromabove,"while "the grassroots" contrasts
manipulate more "rooted."
more authentic, and
ciselyin that it is "below,"closer to the ground,
Thesecond image is thatof encompassment: Herethe state(conceptuallyfusedwith
thatbeginswith family
thenation)is locatedwithinan ever wideningseriesof circles
of nation-states.3 Thisis a profoundly
andlocal communityand ends with the system is encompassedby
which the locality
consequentialunderstandingof scale, one in by the international
the region,the region by the nation-state,and the nation-state
to produce a taken-for-granted spa-
community.4Thesetwo metaphorsworktogether regions,
and contains its localities,
tialand scalarimageof a statethatbothsitsabove
andcommunities.
for instance,in scholarly
Suchimagesof stateverticalencompassmentareevident,
topic that has dominatedrecentdis-
discussionsof so-calledstate-societyrelations,a idea of "civilsoci-
theory. The
cussionsof the state in politicalscience and political adjustmentin Af-
of structural
ety"has been embracedboth by neoliberaladvocates critics (cf.
many of their strongest
rica and India and, for differentreasons, by opposition between
said about the
Fergusonin press).But whateverelse might be quite specific, if
brings with it a
state and civil society, it is evident that it normally which the statesits
one in
often unacknowledged,imageof verticalencompassment,
The state, of course,
somehow "above"an "on the ground"entitycalled "society."5 "transcoding" of
has long been conceived in the West, throughan unacknowledged
(Stallybrass and White 1986), as
the body politic with the organismichumanbody
regulation,as againstthe
possessingsuch 'ihigher"functionsas reason,control,and
passions,and uncontrollableappetites of the lower regionsof society.6It
irrationality,

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states 983

is thereforeunsurprising thatwhereWesternpoliticaltheoryhasopposedcivil society

to the state, it has often been as a kind of bufferbetween the low and the high, an
imaginedmiddlezone of contactor mediationbetweenthe citizen, the family,or the
community,on the one hand, and the state, on the other.7 ForHegel (to take one
foundationalinstance),the statewas literally"mindobjectified"(1942:156),and civil
society preciselythe intermediarybetween the foundationalnaturalparticularityof
the familyandthe ideal universalityof the state.Thestatewas therefore"higher"than
civil society (ethicallyas well as politically)and also encompassedjt.8
Few scholarstoday, of course, would endorse Hegel's conception of the state
bureaucracyas the embodimentof society's highestcollective ideals, and feminist
criticismhas long since laid barethe maneuversthroughwhich the separationof a
public, political "society"from a private,personal"family"naturalizedpatriarchal
domination(e.g., Ferguson1984; Pateman1988; Rosaldo1980; YanagisakoandColIier
1987). Butthe old topographicmetaphorthat allowed civil society to appearas a
zone of mediationbetween an "upthere"state and an "onthe ground"community
continuesto be omnipresentand surprisinglyresistantto criticalscrutiny.Participants
in recentdebateson the publicsphere(e.g.,Calhoun1992) andcivil society(Chatterjee
1990; Cohen and Arato1992; Harbesonet al. 1994; Taylor1990) advance diverse
politicaland theoreticalpositions;butthey largelysharea commonsensetopography
withinwhich the objectof theirtheorizinglies in some sense "between"the stateand
the communities,interestgroups,and lifeworldsthatstatesmustgovern.
An imaginedtopographyof stacked,verticallevels also structuresmanytaken-
for-grantedimagesof politicalstruggle,which are readilyimaginedas coming "from
below,"as "grounded"in rootedand authenticlives, experiences,and communities.
The stateitself,meanwhile,can be imaginedas reachingdown into communities,in-
tervening,in a "topdown"manner,to manipulateor plansociety.Civilsociety, in this
verticaltopography,appearsas the middle latitude,the zone of contactbetweenthe
"upthere"stateandthe "onthe ground"people, snug in theircommunities.Whether
this contactzone is conceived as the domainof pressuregroupsand pluralistpolitics
(as in liberalpoliticaltheory)or of class strugglein a war of position(as in Gramscian
Marxism), the verticaltopographyof powerhasbeenan enormouslyconsequentialone.
Picturingthe state'srelationto society throughthe imageof verticalencompass-
mentfuses in a single, powerfulimagea numberof analyticallydistinctpropositions.
Isthe state'sencompassingheighta matterof superiorrankin a politicalhierarchy?Of
spatialscale? Abstraction?Generalityof knowledgeand interest?Distancefrom na-
ture?The confusionengenderedby bundlingthese distinctpropositionstogetheris in
fact productive,in the Foucauldiansense, in that it constructsa commonsensestate
that simply is "upthere"somewhere,operatingat a "higherlevel."The point is not
thatthis pictureof the "upthere"state is false (stillless thatthere is no such thingas
politicalhierarchy,generalityof interest,etc.), butthatit is constructed;the taskis not
to denounce a false ideology, but to draw attentionto the social and imaginative
processesthroughwhich stateverticalityis madeeffectiveand authoritative.
Imagesof stateverticalencompassmentare influentialnot only because of their
impacton how scholars,journalists,officials,activists,and citizens imagineand in-
habit states, but because they come to be embedded in the routinizedpracticesof
statebureaucracies.The metaphorsthroughwhich statesare imaginedare important,
and scholarshipin this areahas recentlymadegreatstrides.9Butthe understanding of
the social practicesthroughwhich these images are made effective and are experi-
enced is less developed.Thisrelativeinattentionto statepracticesseems peculiar,be-
cause statesin fact investa good deal of effortin developingproceduresand practices

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
984 american ethnologist

to ensurethatthey are imaginedin some ways ratherthan others(Scott1998). They

seem to recognizethata host of mundaneritualsand proceduresare requiredto ani-
mate and naturalizemetaphorsif states are to succeed in being imaginedas both
higherthan,andencompassing of, society.
The importanceof the mundaneritualsand routinesof statespatializationis easily
recognizedwhere the regulationand surveillanceofthe bordersof nation-statesis
concerned. Butthe policing of the borderis intimatelytied to the policing of Main
Streetin thatthey are acts that representthe repressivepowerof the stateas bothex-
tensivewith the territorialboundariesof the nationand intensivelypermeatingevery
square inch of that territory,respectively.10There is more to state spatialization,
though,than policing or repression.Statebenevolence, no less than coercion, must
also makeitsspatialrounds,as is clear,forinstance,in the ritualtoursof U.S.presidents
who dropfromthe sky in helicoptersto dispenseaid in the wake of naturaldisasters.
Althoughsuch spectacularexamples make convenient illustrations,it may be
more importantto look at the less dramatic,multiple,mundanedomainsof bureau-
craticpracticeby which statesreproducespatialordersand scalarhierarchies.'1Any
attemptto understandstate spatialization,therefore,must simultaneouslyattendto
theoreticalunderstandings and bureaucraticembodiment.The force of metaphorsof
verticalityand encompassmentresultsboth fromthe fact thatthey are embedded in
the everydaypracticesof stateinstitutionsand fromthe factthatthe routineoperation
of stateinstitutionsproducesspatialand scalarhierarchies.
Inthe sectionthatfollows,we explorethis relationbetweenspatialand statistor-
dersby showinghow they produceeach other.'2Becausestatepracticesare coimpli-
catedwith spatialordersand metaphors,an analysisof the imaginaryof the statemust
includenot only explicitdiscursiverepresentations of the state,but also implicit,un-
marked,signifyingpractices.These mundanepracticesoftenslip below the threshold
of discursivitybut profoundlyalterhow bodies are oriented,how lives are lived, and
how subjects are formed. Such a practice-orientedconception calls for an ethno-
graphicapproach.We do not attemptto providea full ethnographictreatmenthere
becausethis articleis principallyconcernedto identifya researchprogramratherthan
to presentthe resultsof one. Butit maybe helpfulto providea briefillustrationof how
an ethnographicview of mundanestate practicescan illuminatethe mechanicsof
statespatialization.
rituals and representations of the spatialization of state power in India

The Governmentof Indiain 1975 launchedthe IntegratedChild Development

Servicesprogram(ICDS),popularlyknownas the AnganwadiProgram,soon afterthe
formulationof the NationalPolicyforChildren.Itwas spurredby awarenessthatIndia
exhibitedsome of the world'shighestratesof infantmortality,morbidity,and malnu-
trition,andextremelyhighratesof maternalmortalityduringbirth.Thegoal of the An-
ganwadiProgramwas to providea packageof well-integratedservicesconsistingof
supplementarynutritionfor pregnantwomen and young childrenas well as educa-
tion, immunizations,and preventivemedicineforpoorand lower-castechildren.The
Anganwadiprogramwell illustratesthe concern with the welfareof the population
thatFoucaultidentifiesas thecentralaspectof "governmentality"
inthe modernworld.'3
The structureof commandof the ICDSbureaucracyat the Districtlevel followed
a typical pyramidshape. The DistrictProgramOfficer(DPO)headed the office. Re-
portingto him were the two Child Development ProjectOfficers (CDPOs)who
headedthe programsat the Blocklevel.'4TheCDPOssupervisedan officeconsistingof
clericalstaffand a driver,and also supervisedthe fourSupervisors(MukhyaSevikas)

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states 985

who, in turn,lookedafterthe 86 AnganwadiWorkersand an equal numberof Help-

ers in the Block.'5The pyramid-shapedhierarchyof the programwas madevisibleto
its employees throughstandardbureaucraticrepresentational devices like organiza-
tional charts.'6But,more importantly,hierarchywas realizedthrougha panoplyof
practicesof spatialencompassment,some examplesof which aregiven below.
The AnganwadiProgramoperatedthroughAnganwadisor Centers,run by a
Workerand herHelperfrom9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., six daysof the week. Runningthe
center involvedtakingcare of as many as 45 children,teachingthem, cooking food
fortheirmiddaymeal, supervisingtheirmedicalcare, and maintainingthe records.In
Mandi,the Blockfromwhich this data has been collected, all the Helpers,Angan-
wadi Workers,and Supervisorsas well as the CDPO,were women;the restof the of-
fice staffwere men.17
Exploringthis projectin the contextof an analysisof statespatialityimmediately
gives riseto severalquestions:How was the ICDSprogramspatialized?Bywhat pro-
cedures and techniquesof bureaucraticrationalitydid state verticalityand encom-
passmentbecome realand tangible?How were certainpeople and populationsfixed
in place, made "local,"whereasothershigherup could be seen to be more mobile,
more encompassing?Village-levelstate workers,in particular,representedan inter-
esting paradox.On the one hand,theirpresencein the village made it moredifficult
to sustainthe image of the state standingabovecivil society and the family;on the
otherhand,as marginalmembersof the stateapparatus,they provideda concreteex-
ampleto othervillagersof the verticalityand encompassmentof the state.Anganwadi
Workers,perhapseven morethanothervillagers,experiencedthe stateas an organi-
zation "abovethem"thatwas concerned primarilywith surveillanceand regulation,
even as they themselvesservedas agentsof thatsurveillance.
In orderto contextualizethe ethnographicexamplesthat follow, we will begin
with a shortdescriptionof the ICDSoffice in Mandi.18 Whenfirstlookingforthe ICDS
office, the ethnographer(Gupta)walked rightpastit becausethe directionsgiven had
been keyed to a blue UNICEFjeep that servedas the unofficialmascotfor the pro-
gram.He could not locate the office because the jeep was missing,and unlikeother
governmentofficesthatdisplayedlargesigns,therewas no outwardindicationthatan
office existed in thatbuilding.Itwas a nondescriptspace, consistingof a smalldrive-
way barelylargeenough for a vehicle, and a narrowflightof stairsto one side. The
stairsled to a terrace,openingup to threerooms,the furthestof which belongedto the
dynamicand articulateCDPOof MandiBlock,AshaAgarwal.Sittingbehinda fairly
largedesk in a sparselyfurnishedand decoratedroom,she had a buzzeron herdesk,
which she pressedwhenevershe neededto get the attentionof the peon.
Bydoingfieldworkin the ICDSoffice, itwas possibleto see how encompassment
came to be actuallyinstantiatedin the everydaypracticesof the program.The most
importantmechanismwas thatof the surpriseinspection.AnganwadiWorkerswere
positionedat the bottomof a bureaucratic hierarchyin which the ritualof surveillance
and regulationas an instrumentof controlwas central.Theywere subjectto surprise
inspectionsby a hostof visitingsuperiorofficers.One of the officers'primaryconcerns
was to monitorthe degree to which the AnganwadiWorkerscollected data, espe-
ciallyinformation aboutwomenandchildrenwho werethe targetsof the ICDSprogram.
Inthis sense, the object of the officers'surveillancewas the surveillanceexercisedby
the AnganwadiWorkeron "their"populations.The logic of this kind of recursive
regulationcannot be explainedin functionaltermsbecause most of this activitywas
irrelevantto the needs of the state. Rather,what such ritualsof surveillanceactually
accomplishedwas to representandto embodystate hierarchyand encompassment.

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
986 american ethnologist

Itwas possibleto accompanyAshaAgarwalon a couple of inspections.She had

carefullyplannedthe itineraryto includeAnganwadicentersthathad recordsof good
performance.Butthe fact that these were surprisevisits meantthat they could not
serve as unproblematicpublic relationsexercises. The firsttrip was on a cold and
overcastday in February1992, soon afterthe office hadreceiveda freshdisbursement
of fundsforpurchasinggasolineforthe jeep.
The firstvillage was Kalanda.Therewere two Anganwadisin Kalandathat had
been operatingsince 1985, when the ICDSprojectbeganin MandiBlock.Thevillage
was most unusualforthe well-maintainedqualityof its innerroadsand the complete
absence of sewage waterand garbageon the streets.Manymen in the village were
masons,returneesfromthe Gulf,who hadvolunteeredtheirlaborto laythe roadsand
the drains.
The firstinspectionwas of an Anganwadihoused in a darkroomthat servedas
the storageareafora farmfamily.A huge pile of lentilsoccupied halfthe room,com-
pletely coveringone wall and a sizeable proportionof the fRoorspace. The local An-
ganwadiWorker,a pleasantand energeticwoman, quicklysent the Helperto round
up additionalchildrento add to the 14 who were alreadythere.Ashaaskedthe chil-
dren to count and to recite the alphabet,which they did with practicedease. One
child in particular,who was a littleolderthanthe rest,had writtendown numbersall
the way to 100 on his slate and had also memorizedall the poems and songs thatthe
childrenhad been taught. Duringthe visit, a numberof childrencame in, looking
washed and scrubbed.Ashatold me thatthe teacheronly had a high school degree,
but seemed to be doing a good job with the children.She scolded the Anganwadi
Workerfor not removingthe charts,which functionedas teachingaids, fromthe wall
where the lentilshad been piled. "Itis yourjob to look afterthe charts,"she told her.
"Whenyou knewthatthe crop was going to be storedthere,why didn'tyou remove
the chartsbeforehand?" Afterinspectingthe AttendanceRegistersand writinga brief
reportin the InspectionRegister,which noted when the inspectiontook place, how
manychildrenwere there, and what the childrenhad demonstrated,Asha indicated
thatit was timeto leavethe Centerand move on to the second one.
The second Centerin Kalandaoperatedon the porchof a house. Butthe Angan-
wadi Workerwas nowhereto be seen. Therewas only a handfulof very young chil-
dren present.The Helperclaimed not to know the whereaboutsof the Anganwadi
Worker.Ashaandthe Supervisorattemptedto coax some of the childrento standand
recite the numbertable or to identifyobjects on an alphabetchart. None of them
complied. Itwas hardto tell whetherthis was out of fearof the visitorsor because of
theirunfamiliarity withthe task.Ashalefta note in the InspectionRegisterdemanding
that the AnganwadiWorkerproducean explanationwithin 24 hoursas to why she
was missingfromherstation.Justas Asha'spartywas headedbackto the jeep, the An-
ganwadiWorkerarrived.She apologizedprofuselyand blamedherdelay on the fact
thatthe bus she was travelingon had brokendown. Ashachastizedher in no uncer-
tainterms.Evenif herbus had brokendown, she said,thiswas no excuse forreaching
the Centerat 11:15 a.m. insteadof 9:00 a.m. The AnganwadiWorkerlamentedher
fate, sayingthatit was herbad luckthatthe one day when she startedlatewas the day
when Asha happenedto visit.Ashanotedwrylyhow much betterthe centerthatwas
operatedby the woman who was only "highschool pass"seemed comparedto the
second one, despite the fact thatthe second AnganwadiWorkerhad a Master'sde-
gree. She appearedsurprisedat this because, in the past,she had foundthatthe bet-
ter-educatedteacherhaddone a verygood job.

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states 987

One of the chief functionsof AnganwadiWorkers,and by far their most time-

consumingactivity,consistedof documentingand generatingstatistics.A plethoraof
registersrecordeddifferentaspectsof the Anganwadi'sfunctioning:Forexample, an
Attendance Register noted such thingsas how manychildrenwere in a Centereach
day, and who they were-their names,fathers'names,and castes. A Nutrition Regis-
ter recordedhow much food and fuel was consumed;a thirdregisterwas used to re-
cord the birthdates of each child born in the village, its parents'names, ages, and
castes.Similarrecordswere keptof all deaths.The name,age, and caste of each preg-
nantwoman and a recordof the outcome of the pregnancywere recordedin another
register.A Travel Log maintaineda recordof when and why an AnganwadiWorker
was missingfroma Center.An Inspection Registerwas maintainedin which Supervi-
sors,the CDPO,and othervisitorsrecordedtheirimpressionsaboutthe functioningof
the Anganwadi. Registerswere devices for self-monitoring technologies of self-
discipline that were simultaneouslyportfoliosfor recordingthe effectivenessof the
care of the population on the one hand,and forenablingthe surveillanceand con-
trolof the Workers,on the other.19
Surpriseinspectionsand registerswere two devices by which verticalityand en-
compassmentwere practiced.Itwas not only thatsuperiorofficersat "higher"levels
traveledin jeeps, therebyestablishingtheircontroloverthe geographicalspace of the
block, district,and state (whatevertheirjurisdictionhappenedto be), it was also that
they traveledin orderto conduct inspections,to discipline, reward,encourage,and
punish. Registershelped them do just that because registersenabled them to check
theirobservationsagainstwhat had been noted. Forexample,Ashacomplainedthat
Workerswho ranAnganwadiCentersin theirhomes often broughtin additionalchil-
dren when they saw the dust of the approachingjeep in the distance.Thus, by the
time the CDPOactuallyreachedthe Center,therewere manychildrenthere even if
the Anganwadihad not been operating;however,she managedto catchthe Worker's
"deception"in such cases by checkingthe namesof the childrenpresentagainstthe
names(ifany)enteredin the AttendanceRegister.TheCDPO'sabilityto swoop down
on the space of the AnganwadiWorkerwas thus mediatedby the semioticof dust,a
smoke signaldeliveredby thatvery device the jeep thatenabled herto suddenly
enterthe professionalspace of the local AnganwadiWorker.
The surpriseinspectionwas a ritualof controlthatestablishedand demonstrated
hierarchy,butthe mode of conductingthe inspection,the suddenswooping "down"
intothe geographicalspace of the AnganwadiWorker,was a demonstrationof the in-
equalityof spaces. AnganwadiWorkerswent to the main ICDSoffice at a prescribed
time each month;their abilityto enter the space of the superiorofficerwas limited
and circumscribed,a sharpcontrastto the surpriseinspection.The abilityto trans-
gressspace (theprerogativeof "higher"officers)was also a device of encompassment,
as it was theirpositionin the verticalhierarchythatgave officersthe privilegeof a par-
ticularkindof spatialmobility,a mobilitywhose functionand goal was to regulate
and discipline.
Theconjunctionof hierarchywith ever widercircuitsof movementfindsa differ-
ent kindof expressionin the systemof transfers,which are a majoraspectof the lives
of stateemployees in India.Governmentservantsaresupposedto be transferred every
threeyears;in practice,this periodis even shorter.Whatis interestingforthe purposes
of thinkingaboutthe spatializationof the state is the circumferenceof what Benedict
Anderson(1991) has called "bureaucratic pilgrimages."The "higherup"officialsare,
the broaderthe geographicalrangeof theirperegrinations,and the moreencompass-
ing their optics on the domain of state activity and its relationto what is merely

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
988 american ethnologist

"local."Once again,we find verticalityand encompassmentto be intimatelytied to

one another.
One of the chief mechanismsby which officials"higherup"in the bureaucracy
came to embodythe higherreachesof the state(withitsconnotationof greatervision;
a bettersense of the generalgood; and national,as opposedto local, interest)was by
positioning"lower-level"workers,"local"politicians,and "local"villagersas people
who belonged to, and articulatedthe interestsof, particularcommunities,with lim-
ited generalizabilityacross geographicalareas, or across class and caste divisions.
How did such localizationworkin practice?By what mechanismswere certainpeo-
ple fixed in space as loca people with local concernswhile otherscame to be seen,
and to see themselves,as concernedwith "larger"issuesthattraversedgeographical
and political space? Some concrete examples of localizationin the ICDSprogram
mighthelpto makethisdynamicvisible.
Byitsveryetymology the word angan means"courtyard," the space in northIn-
dian village homeswherewomen spend mostof theirtime the Anganwadiprogram
emphasizedits relationto a confined,encircled,and domesticspace. Contraryto the
image conjuredby this association,AnganwadiCenterswere in fact usually run in
public spaces, eitherporchesof homes or, when available,in communitycenters.It
was one of the expectationsof the ICDSthatthese spaces forthe Anganwadiswould
be donated by the community.Thus, there was no provisionfor rents in the ICDS
budget.Apartfrom reducingthe cost of administeringthe program,such a require-
mentwas intendedto providethe communitywith a stakein the operationof the An-
ganwadisand was, most likely,influencedby the designof internationaland bilateral
agencies such as UNICEF,USAID,and DANIDA(DanishInternational Development
Assistance).Accordingto developmentorthodoxy,one of the lessons learnedfrom
the highfailurerateof developmentprojectsin the past is thatthey lackedparticipa-
tion by the local community.Hence, ICDShad a "slot"for communityparticipation,
in the formof the provisionof space. Thiscreateda greatdeal of difficultyforAngan-
wadi Workersand was one of their chief complaints,as free space was scarce and
oftenreclaimedforweddingpartiesand storageof the harvest.
Is it surprisingthat the agentsof localizationwere preciselythose entities the
Indianstateand multilateralaid agencies thatclaimforthemselvesgeographiesand
intereststhat are nationaland universal?The programthus workedto create a struc-
turalandspatiallocationforthe AnganwadiWorkeras an officialwho was markedby
her ties to locality and particularity.Localizationof the AnganwadiWorkeris pre-
cisely what enabled those overarchinginstitutionsto disavow the particular,and to
claim to representthe "greater" good forthe "larger"dominionof the nationand the
world.

part two: transnational governmentality contemporary challenges to state

spatialization

governmentality and the global

In the previoussection, we showed some of the means throughwhich a state
may be able to create,throughmundaneand unmarkedpractices,a powerfulimpres-
sion of verticalencompassmentof the "local."Butsuch effortsby statesto establish
theirsuperiorspatialclaimsto authoritydo not go uncontested.Thisis especiallytrue
at a time when new formsof transnationalconnectionare increasinglyenabling"lo-
cal" actorsto challenge the state'swell-establishedclaims to encompassmentand
vertical superiorityin unexpected ways, as a host of worldly and well-connected

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states 989

"grassroots" organizationstodaydemonstrate.Ifstateofficialscan alwaysbe counted

on to invokethe nationalinterestin ways that seek to encompass (andtherebyde-
value) the local, canny "grassroots" operatorsmay trumpthe nationalace with ap-
peals to "worldopinion"and e-mail linksto the internationalheadquartersof such
formidablyencompassingagents of surveillanceas Amnesty International,Africa
Watch,or WorldVisionInternational . Theextentto which statesare successfuI in es-
tablishingtheir claims to encompassthe local is thereforenot preordained,but is a
contingentoutcome of specific sociopoliticalprocesses.And, as the precarioussitu-
ationof manystatesin Africatodaymakesespeciallyclear,the statehas no automatic
rightto success in claimingthe verticalheightsof sovereignty.
Inthinkingaboutthe relationbetweenstatesand a rangeof contemporarysupra-
national and transnationalorganizationsthat significantlyoverlap their traditional
functions,we have found it usefulto develop an idea of transnational governmental-
ity,borrowingand extendingthe idea of "governmentality" firstintroducedby Michel
Foucault(1991). Foucaultdrawsattentionto all the processesbywhich the conduct
of a populationis governed:by institutionsand agencies, includingthe state;by dis-
courses,norms,and identities;and by self-regulation,techniquesforthe disciplining
and care of the self. Politicaleconomy as knowledgeand apparatusesof securityas
technicalmeanshaveoperatedon the populationas a targetto constitutegovernmen-
tality as the dominantmode of power since the 18th century(Foucault1991:102).
Governmentalityis concerned most of all with "the conduct of conduct" (Dean
1999:10),thatis, withthe myriadways in which humanconduct is directedby calcu-
lated means. Foucaultwas interestedin mechanismsof governmentthat are found
withinstateinstitutionsand outsidethem, mechanismsthatin factcut acrossdomains
thatwe would regardas separate:the state,civil society,the family,down to the inti-
mate details of what we regardas personallife. Governmentalitydoes not name a
negativerelationshipof power, one characterizedentirelyby disciplineand regula-
tion;rather,the emphasisis on itsproductivedimension.
Morerecently,scholarsworkingin thistraditionhave soughtto refinethe analy-
sis of governmentalityto deal with the shiftfromthe Keynesianwelfarestatetoward
so-calledfree-marketpolicies in Westerndemocracies.Althoughthis move to neolib-
eralismhas often been understood(andvariouslycelebratedor lamented,depending
on one's politics)as a "retreat" or "rollingback"of the state, Barryet al. stressthat it
has, rather,entaileda transferof the operationsof government(in Foucault'sextended
sense) to nonstateentities,via "thefabricationof techniquesthat can producea de-
gree of 'autonomization'of entitiesof governmentfromthe state"(1996:11-12). The
logic of the markethas been extendedto the operationof statefunctions,so thateven
the traditionallycore institutionsof government,such as postoffices,schools, and po-
lice are if not actuallyprivatized at least runaccordingto an "enterprisemodel"
(Burchell1996). Meanwhile,the social and regulatoryoperationsof the state are in-
creasingly"de-statized," andtakenover by a proliferationof "quasi-autonomous non-
governmentalorganizations"(Rose1996:56).2°Butthis is not a matterof less govern-
ment, as the usual ideologicalformulationswould have it. Rather,it indicatesa new
modalityof government,which works by creating mechanismsthat work "all by
themselves"to bringabout governmentalresultsthroughthe devolutionof riskonto
the "enterprise" or the individual(now construedas the entrepreneurof his or her
own "firm")and the "responsibilization" of subjectswho are increasingly"empow-
ered"to disciplinethemselves(see Barryet al. 1996; Burchell1996; cf. Burchellet al.
1991; O'Malley1998; Rose1996; RoseandMiller1992).

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
99o american ethnologist

Suchextensionsof the Foucautdianconcept of governmentality to neoliberalism

are undoubtedlyilluminatingand suggestive.Butthey remainstrikinglyEurocentric,
and closely tied to the idea of the territorially
sovereignnation-stateas the domainfor
the operationof government.2' We proposeto extendthe discussionof governmentality
to modes of governmentthat are being set up on a global scale. These include not
only new strategiesof discipline and regulation,exemplifiedby the WTO and the
structural adjustmentprogramsimplementedby the IMF,butalsotransnational alliances
forgedby activistsandgrassroots organizations andthe proliferation
of voluntaryorgani-
zations supportedby complex networksof internationaland transnationalfunding
andpersonnel.Theoutsourcingof thefunctionsof the stateto NGOsandotherostensibly
nonstateagencies, we argue, is a key feature,not only of the operationof national
states,butof an emergingsystemof transnationalgovernmentality.
Theincreasingsalienceof suchprocessesoughtto bringintoquestionthetaken-for-
grantedspatialandscalarframesof sovereignstates.Butinsteadof spurringa wholesale
rethinking of spatialandscalarimages,whatwe findis thatreceivednotionsof verticality
and encompassmenthave been stretched often improbably to adaptto the new
realities.Thus, institutionsof global governancesuch as the IMFand the WTO are
commonlyseen as beingsimply"above"nationalstates,muchas stateswere discussed
vis-a-visthe grassroots.Similarly,the "global"is oftenspokenof as if it were simplya
superordinatescalar level that encompasses nation-statesjust as nation-stateswere
conceptualizedto encompassregions,towns, and villages.
Strugglesbetween agencies that are attemptingto fosterglobal governmentand
their criticshave made headIines firstin Seattlein Novemberand December 1999,
then in Washington, D.C., in Apri1 2000, and, more recently(September2000), in
Prague.One of the most interestingaspectsof these protests,as well as of the docu-
mentarycoverageand commentaryaboutthem, is the difficultyexperiencedby par-
ticipantsand observersalike in articulatingthe role of the nationalstate vis-a-vis
"global"agreementsand "grassroots" protests.Arethe institutionsthat promoteglo-
balization,such as the WorldBank,the IMF,and the WTO,makingpolicy decisions
that affectthe lives of people all over the world withoutthe normalmechanismsof
democraticaccountability,as the protestorscharge?Or arethese internationalbodies
merelyfacilitatingeffortsat "goodgovernance"proposedand enforced by national
governments,as they counter?Observersandcommentatorsstruggleto makesense of
thissituation.Journalists note thatthe protestorsconsistof seeminglyunrelatedgroups
that are protestingfor very differentcauses and reasons;moreover, many of the
"grassrootsgroups"opposing globalizationare themselvesarguablyleading exam-
ples of it:well-organizedtransnationalorganizationswithofficesor affiliationsspread
out acrossthe world,coordinatingtheirdemonstrationsoverthe internet,and even in
real-time(duringthe events)by cellularphonesand walkie-talkies.
The confusionevident in the understandingsboth of importantagencies of glo-
balizationand of the activistgroupsthatoppose them (aswell as those who reporton
themand studythem)is at leastin partabouthow statesarespatializedandwhat rela-
tionsexist between space and government.Processesof globalizationhave disturbed
the familiar metaphorsand practices of vertical encompassment(still taken for
grantedby the participantsin debateson globalization,includingjournalistsand aca-
demics),and the new landscapethat is emergingcan be understoodonly througha
rethinkingof questionsof space and scale. To accomplishsuch a rethinking,it will be
necessaryto questionboth commonsenseassumptionsaboutthe verticalityof states
as well as manyreceivedideasof "community," "grassroots"
andthe "local,"ladenas
they arewith nostalgiaandthe auraof authenticity.22

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states 991

In makingthis move, we find it usefulto turnfromour Indianethnographicex-

ample, in which a relativelystrong state succeeds in spatializingitself in familiar
ways, to a macrologicaloverviewof Africa,where manycontemporarystatesare, in
significantways, no longer able to exercise the powers normallyassociatedwith a
sovereignnation-state,or even (in a few cases) to functionat all as statesin any con-
ventionalsense of the term.Such undoubtedlyextremecases will help us to decenter
the state and to foregroundnew formsof transnationalgovernmentalitythatwe sug-
gest are not uniqueto Africa,even if they areespeciallyvisibleand importantthere.It
should be notedthatour aim is not to makea comparisonbetween Africaand India.
Rather,the discussionof the precarioussituationof Africanstatesaptlyillustratesone
partof our argument(aboutthe risingsalience of transnationalgovernmentality), just
as the Indianmaterialusefullyillustratesanotherpartof the argument(aboutthe way
that states secure their authorityand legitimacythroughunmarkedspatialpractices
thatcreateeffectsof verticalencompassment).23
beyond vertical encompassment: transnational governmentality in Africa
Contemporary scholarsof Africanpoliticscontinueto relyon imagesof vertically
encompassingstates,even as the empiricalsituationsbeing describedare becoming
ever less amenableto being capturedin such terms.Itis clearenoughthatthereexists
a rangeof phenomenain contemporaryAfricathat cannot be understoodin the old
"nation-building" optic that saw postcolonialAfricanpolitics as a battlebetween a
modernizingstate and primordialethnic groups. Butthe dominantresponseto this
evidentfact has been a recourseto the ideaof "civilsociety"to encompassa disparate
hodgepodgeof social groupsand institutionsthathave in commononly thatthey exist
in some way outside of or beyond the state (fora criticalreview, see Comaroffand
Comaroff1999:1A3). Definitionsof "civiI society"in the stateand society Iiterature
are usuallybroadand vague, but in practice,writersmove quite quicklyfromdefini-
tional generalitiesto a much more specific vision that is restrictedalmostentirelyto
small,grassroots, voluntaryorganizations.
Thisnarrowusageleavessome ratherimpor-
tantand obviousphenomenaout of the picture.One is neverquitesure:Isthe Anglo-
AmericanCorporationof SouthAfricapartof this "civil society"?Is John Garang's
army in Sudan partof it? Is Oxfam?What about ethnic movementsthat are not so
muchopposedto or priorto modernstates,but(as recentscholarsshow) producedby
them (see, e.g., Vail 1991; Wilmsenand McAllister1996)?Andwhat of international
mission organizations arguablyas importanta partof the Africanscene today as
ever, butstrangelyrelegatedto the colonial pastin muchAfricanistscholarship?Such
thingsfit uncomfortablyin the "state"versus"civilsociety"grid,and indeed cannot
even be coherentlylabeled as "local,""national"or "international" phenomena.In-
stead,each of these examples,like muchelse of interestin contemporaryAfrica,both
embodiesa significantlocal dynamic,and is indisputablya productandexpressionof
powerfulnational,regional,and globalforces.
The state, meanwhile, when apprehendedempiricallyand ethnographically,
startsitselfto look suspiciouslylike "civilsociety."Thiscan be literallyso, as when
governmentofficialsmoonlightby usingtheireducationaland institutionalcapitalto
start(andgain resourcesthrough)theirown "grassroots" organizations.(Asa Zambian
informantput it, "AnNGO?Oh, that'sjust a bureaucratwith his own letterhead.")
Moreprofoundly,as TimothyMitchellhas argued,the very conceptionof "thestate"
as a set of reifiedand disembodiedstructuresis an effect of statepracticesthemselves
(1991). Insteadof opposingthe stateto somethingcalled "society,"then, we need to

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
992 american ethnologist

view statesas themselvescomposed of bundlesof social practices,every bit as local

in theirmaterialityand social situatednessas any other(Gupta1995).
To breakawayfromthe conventionaldivisionintoverticatanalyticlevelsof state
and society here is to go beyondthe rangeof questionsthatsuch a division imposes
(how do statesrule,what relationsexist or oughtto exist between state and soci-
ety, how can civil society obtainroomto maneuverfromthe state,and so forth),and
open up for view some of the transnationalrelationsthatwe suggestare crucialfor
understandingboththe putative"top"of the verticalpicture(the state)and the "bot-
tom"("grassroots" voluntaryorganizations).
the state

If,as some neoliberaltheoristsof stateand society suggest,dominationis rooted

in statepower,then rollingbackthe powerof the statenaturallyleadsto greaterfree-
dom, and ultimatelyto "democratization." Butthe argumentis revealedto be falla-
cious if one observesthat, in Africaand elsewhere, dominationhas long been exer-
cised by entities other than the state. Zambia,to take an example, was originally
colonized (justa littleover a hundredyearsago) not by any government,but by the
BritishSouthAfricaCompany,a privatemultinationalcorporationdirectedby Cecil
Rhodes.Equippedwith itsown army,and actingunderthe termsof a British"conces-
sion," it was this privatecorporationthatconqueredand "pacified"the territory,set-
ting up the systemof privateownershipand race privilegethat became the colonial
system.Today,Zambia(likemostotherAfricannations)continuesto be ruled,in sig-
nificantpart,by transnationalorganizationsthat are not in themselvesgovernments,
but worktogetherwith powerfulFirstWorldstateswithina global systemof nation-
statesthatFrederickCooperhascharacterizedas "internationalized imperialism."24
Perhapsmostfamiliarly,internationalagenciessuch as the IMFand WorldBank,
togetherwith allied banksand FirstWorldgovernmentstoday often directlyimpose
policies on Africanstates.The name for this process in recentyears has been "struc-
turaladjustment,"and it has been made possibleby boththe generalfiscal weakness
of Africanstatesandthe morespecificsqueeze createdby the debt crisis.The new as-
sertivenessof the IMFhas been, with some justification,likenedto a processof "re-
colonization,"implyingseriouserosionof the sovereigntyof Africanstates(e.g., Saul
1993). Itshouldbe notedthatdirectimpositionsof policy by banksand international
agencies have involvednot only such broad,macroeconomicinterventionsas setting
currencyexchange rates, but also fairlydetailed requirementsfor curtailingsocial
spending,restructuring statebureaucracies,and so on. Rathersignificantand specific
aspectsof statepolicy, in otherwords,are,for manyAfricancountries,beingdirectly
formulatedin places like New York,London,Brussels,andWashington.
As criticshave pointedout, such "governance"of Africaneconomies fromafar
representsa kindof transferof economic sovereigntyaway fromAfricanstatesand
into the handsof the IMF.Yet, because it is Africangovernmentsthat remainnomi-
nally in charge,it is easy to see thatthey arethe firstto receivethe blamewhen struc-
turaladjustmentpolicies begin to bite. At that point, democraticelections (another
"adjustment" being pressedby internationaldonors)providea means wherebyone
governmentcan be replacedby another;but because the successorgovernmentwill
be locked in the same financialvice-gripas its predecessor,actual policies are un-
likelyto change. (Indeed,the IMFand its associatedcapitalcartelcan swiftlybring
any governmentthattriesto assertitselfto its knees, as the Zambiancase illustrates
vividly.)Inthis way, policies thatare in fact made and imposedby wholly unelected
and unaccountableinternationalbankersmaybe presentedas democraticallychosen

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states 993

by popularassent.Inthisway, "democratization" ironicallyservesto simulatepopular

legitimacyfor policiesthatare in fact made in a way that is less democraticthanever
(cf. Ferguson1995).
"the grassroots"

Civilsociety often appearsin AfricanStudiesnowadaysas a bustleof grassroots,

democratic local organizations.As JaneGuyerhas put it, what this ignores is "the
obvious:Thatcivil society is madeup of internationalorganizations"(1994:223).For,
indeed, the local voluntaryorganizationsin Africa,so beloved of civil society theo-
rists,veryoften,on inspection,turnout to be integrallylinkedwith nationalandtrans-
national-levelentities. One might think, for instance, of the myriadSouth African
communitygroupsthatarebankrolledby USAIDor European churchgroups(Mayekiso
1996; Mindry1998); or of the profusionof local Christiandevelopment NGOs in
Zimbabwe,which may be conceived equally well as the most local, grassrootsex-
pressionsof civil society, or as partsof the vast internationalbureaucraticorganiza-
tions thatorganizeand sustainthem (Bornstein2001). When such organizationsbe-
gin to take over the most basic functions and powers of the state, as they very
significantlydid, for instance,in Mozambique(Hanlon1991), it becomes only too
clearthat NGOs are not as i'NG" as they mightwish us to believe. Indeed,the World
Bank baldly refersto what they call BONGOS (bank-organizedNGOs) and even
GONGOs (government-organized NGOs).
Thatthese voluntaryorganizationscome as much from "above"(international
organizations)as from "below"(local communities)is an extremelysignificantfact
aboutso-calledcivil society in contemporaryAfrica.Foratthe sametimethatinterna-
tionalorganizations(throughstructuraladjustment)are erodingthe powerof African
states (and usurpingtheir economic sovereignty),they are busy makingend runs
aroundthese statesand directlysponsoringtheirown programsand interventionsvia
NGOs in a wide rangeof areas.The role playedby NGOs in helpingWesterndevel-
opment agencies to get arounduncooperativenationalgovernmentssheds a good
deal of lighton the currentdisdainfor the state and celebrationof civil society that
one findsin boththe academicandthe developmentliteraturerightnow.
Butchallengersto Africanstatestoday are not only to be found in international
organizationsand NGOs. Inthe wake of what is widely agreedto be a certaincol-
lapseor retreatof the nation-stateall acrossthe continent,we findformsof powerand
authorityspringingup everywherethat have not been well describedor analyzedto
date. These are usuallydescribedas "subnational," and usuallyconceived eitheras
essentiallyethnic (theold primordialist view),or alternatively(andmorehopefully)as
manifestationsof a newly resurgentcivil society, long suppressedby a heavy-handed
state. Yet, can we reallyassume that the new politicalformsthat challenge the he-
gemony of Africannation-statesare necessarilywell conceived as "local,""grass-
roots,""civil,"or even "subnational"?
Guerrillainsurrections,for instance, not famousfor their civility, are often not
strictly local or subnational,either armed and funded, as they often are, from
abroad.ConsiderSavimbi'sUniao Nacional paraa IndependenciaTotalde Angota
(UNITA)movementin Angola:long aided by the CIA,originallytrainedby the Chi-
nese government,with yearsof militaryand logisticsupportfromapartheidSouthAf-
rica,and fundingfromsourcesthatrangefromthe internationaldiamondtradeto do-
nationsfromU.S. churchgroups.Isthis a subnationalorganization?A phenomenon
of an emergingcivil society?Or considerthe highlyorganizedtransnationalformsof
criminalitythat so often exist in such a symbioticpartnershipwith the statethat we

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
994 american ethnologist

may even come to speak, as Bayartet al. have recentlysuggested(1999), of "the

criminalizationof the state" in many partsof Africa.Can such developments be
graspedwithinthe state-societyor local-global polarities?Whatabouttransnational
ChristianorganizationslikeWorldVisionInternational, which play an enormousrole
in manypartsof contemporaryAfrica,organizinglocal affairsand buildingand oper-
atingschools and clinics where stateshavefailedto do so (Bornstein2001)?Aresuch
giant,transnationalorganizationsto be conceptualizedas "local"?Whatof humani-
tarianorganizationssuch as Oxfam,Cooperativefor Assistanceand ReliefEverywhere
(CARE), or DoctorsWithoutBorders,whichperformstatelikefunctionsall acrossAfrica?
Such organizationsare not states, but are unquestionablystatelikein some re-
spects. Yet they are not well describedas subnational,national,or even suprana-
tional.They ignorethe nation-buildinglogic of the old developmentaliststate,which
soughtto linkitscitizens intoa universalisticnationalgrid(cf. Scott1998) and instead
build on the rapid,deterritorializedpoint-to-pointformsof connection (anddiscon-
nection)thatare centralto boththe new communicationstechnologiesand the new,
neoliberalpracticesof capitalmobility(Ferguson1999, 2001). Localand globalatthe
same time, such entitiesare transnational even, in some ways, anational;they can-
not be locatedwithinthe familiarverticaldivisionof analyticlevels presentedabove.
Not coincidentally,these organizationsand movementsthat fall outside of the re-
ceived scheme of analyticlevels are also conspicuouslyunderstudied indeed,they
have until recentlybeen largelyinvisiblein theoreticalscholarshipon Africanpoli-
tics, tending to be relegatedinsteadto "applied," problem-oriented studies.
Inall of these cases, we are dealingwith politicalentitiesthatmay be bettercon-
ceptualizednot as "below"the state,butas integralpartsof a transnationalapparatus
of governmentality.Thisapparatusdoes not replacethe oldersystemof nation-states
(which is let us be clear-not aboutto disappear),butoverlaysand coexistswith it.
Inthis optic, it mightmakesense to thinkof the new organizationsthat have sprung
up in recentyears not as challengerspressingup againstthe statefrombelow but as
horizontalcontemporariesof the organsof the state sometimes rivals;sometimes
servants;sometimeswatchdogs;sometimesparasites;but in every case operatingon
the same level, and in the same globalspace.
The implicationis not simplythat it is importantto studyNGOs and othertrans-
nationalnonstateorganizations,or even to tracetheirinterrelations andzones of con-
tact with the state.Rather,the implicationis thatit is necessaryto treatstateand non-
state governmentalitywithin a common frame, without making unwarranted
assumptionsabouttheirspatialreach,verticalheight,or relationto the local. Taking
the verticalityand encompassmentof statesnot as a taken-for-granted fact, but as a
precariousachievement,it becomes possibleto pose the questionof the spatialityof
contemporarypracticesof governmentas an ethnographicproblem.

conclusion: toward an ethnography of neoliberal governmentality

Studyingthe relationshipbetween states, space, and scale opens up an enor-
mous empiricaland ethnographicproject,one that has not been systematicallypur-
sued in anthropologicalanalysis.Inthis article,we have drawnattentionto two cen-
tralfeaturesof state spatialization,verticality and encompassment. These imagesof
space and scale are not "mere"metaphors.What gives verticalityand encompass-
ment theirefficacy as commonsensicalfeaturesof states is theirembeddednessin a
host of mundanebureaucraticpractices,as the examplesfromthe ICDSprogramin
Indiademonstrate.Insteadof understandingspace as a preexistingcontainerand
scale as a naturalfeatureof the world in which statesoperate,we have arguedthat

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states 995

statesthemselvesproducespatialand scalar hierarchies.In fact, the productionof

these hierarchiesis not incidentalbutcentralto the functioningof states;they arethe
raisond'etreof states(andperhapstheirraisond'etat).Itmightbe worthrereadingthe
ethnographicrecordto reinterpret the dataconcerninghow stateclaimsto verticality
and encompassmenthave been legitimizedand substantiatedin everydaylife in a
multiplicityof empiricalsituationsaroundthe world (althoughthe datamightwell be
too thin in manycases to carryout such a project).
Althoughthe spatialand scalarideologiesof stateshave alwaysbeen open to cri-
tique,the new practicesassociatedwith neoliberalglobalizationhave opened up op-
portunitiesfora deeperquestioning.Ina globalorderwherethe organizationof capi-
talism coexisted more easily with the hegemony of nation-states,statistprojectsof
verticalityand encompassmentseemed "natural"and were usuallyeasily incorpo-
ratedinto the everydayroutinesof social life. However,the conflictsengenderedby
neoliberalglobalizationhave broughtthe disjuncturebetween spatialand scalaror-
ders into the open, revealingthe profoundlytransnationalcharacterof both the
"state"and the 'Xlocal," and drawingattentionto crucialmechanismsof governmen-
talitythattake place outsideof, and alongside,the nation-state.Claimsof verticality
thathave historicallybeen monopolizedby the state(claimsof superiorspatialscope,
supremacyin a hierarchyof power, and greatergeneralityof interestand moralpur-
pose) are being challengedand underminedby a transnationalized"local"thatfuses
the grassrootsand the global in ways that make a hash of the verticaltopographyof
poweron which the legitimationof nation-stateshas so long depended. Forincreas-
ingly, state claims of encompassmentare met and counteredby globallynetworked
and globally imaged organizationsand movements manifestationsof "the local"
that may claim (in theircapacityas ecological "guardiansof the planet,"indigenous
protectorsof "thelungsof the earth,"or participantsin a universalstrugglefor human
rights)a widerratherthan narrowerspatialand moralpurviewthanthatof the merely
nationalstate.
We do not mean to suggestthatsuch transnationalizedlocal actorsalwayswin
theirfights,or thatnationalstateshave become incapableof exercisingtheirauthority
over localities.Neitherdo we intendto implythatstates'new difficultiesin spatializ-
ingtheirauthorityare likelyto usherin a new era of enlightenmentandgreaterpublic
good. (On the contrary,the diminishmentof stateauthorityis as likelyto undermine
the positionof subalterngroupsas it is to enhance it, as the recentpoliticalhistoryof
much of Africain particularshows).Thatstateclaims to verticalencompassmentare
today increasinglyprecariousdoes not mean that they no longerexist; as we have
shown, verticalencompassmentcontinuesto be powerfullyinstitutionalizedand in-
stantiatedin daily practices.Ifthe natureof these institutionsand the sites of this in-
stantiationare beingtransformed,it is preciselyto these transformations thatwe must
attendin ourempiricaI investigations.
Whatis necessary,then, is not simplymoreor betterstudyof "state-societyinter-
actions" to putmattersin thisway would be to assumethe veryoppositionthatcalls
for interrogation.Rather,the need is for an ethnographyof encompassment,an ap-
proachthatwould takeas its centralproblemthe understanding of processesthrough
which governmentality(by state and nonstateactors)is both legitimatedand under-
minedby referenceto claimsof superiorspatialreachand verticalheight.Indeed,fo-
cusing on governmentalitycalls into questionthe very distinctioninsistedon by the
termnongovernmental organization,emphasizinginsteadthe similaritiesof technol-
ogies of governmentacrossdomains.

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
996 american ethnologist

An ethnographyof the spatialityof governmentalityhasto confrontseveralprob-

lems. First,as originallyformulatedby Foucault(1991), "governmentality" as a form
of powerexercisedover populationsassumesthe frameof the nation-state.Extending
this concept to accountfor neoliberalglobalizationforces us to reformulatethe spa-
tial and scalarassumptionsof governmentality.25 Forexample,we cannotjustthinkof
transnationalgovernmentalityas a formof global government,a suprastatethat is su-
perimposedon variousnation-statesmuch as the EuropeanUnion is on its member
governments.Institutionsof global governanceare not simplyreplicatingon a bigger
scale the functionsand tasksof the nation-state,as bothproponentsand opponentsof
transnationalgovernmentalityoften assume. Verticalityand encompassmentcon-
tinueto be produced,butnot in the sameway by the same institutionsor groups.Glo-
balized "grassroots" groupsand nongovernmentalorganizationsare good examples
of how scales have collapsedintoeach other.Neil Smithhas attemptedto understand
this phenomenonof the "activesocial and politicalconnectednessof apparentlydif-
ferentscales" (1992:66) by referringto such activitiesin termsof "jumpingscales."
JohnRuggie(1993) has attemptedto understandthe reconfiguration of territorialsov-
ereigntyin the worldsystemas formingan "unbundledspace"where nationand state
are not homologousin theircontroland regulationof territory.Otherformsof spatial
and scalarproductionareclearlyimposingthemselveson statespatialityandterritori-
ality(Brenner1997; Storper1997; Swyngedouw1997). Atthe sametime, differentin-
stitutionsand organizations,includingnation-statesand metastateslikethe European
Union, are attemptingto reinstateverticalityand encompassmentin territoriesthat
are not necessarilycontiguous,or unitedin cultural,political,and economic spheres.
Theethnographicchallengefacingus todaywith neoliberalglobalizationis to under-
standthe spatialityof all formsof government,some of which may be embedded in
the daily practicesof nation-stateswhile othersmay crosscutor superimposethem-
selves on the territorial
jurisdictionof nation-states.
Suchan approachmightopen up a much richerset of questionsaboutthe mean-
ing of transnationalismthan have been asked up to now. It is not a question of
whethera globalizingpoRiticaleconomy is renderingnation-statesweak and irrele-
vant,as some have suggested,or whetherstatesremainthe crucialbuildingblocksof
the global system,as othershave countered.Forthe centraleffectof the new formsof
transnationalgovernmentalityis not so muchto makestatesweak (orstrong),as to re-
configurestates'abilitiesto spatializetheirauthorityandto staketheirclaimsto supe-
riorgeneralityand universality.Recognizingthis processmightopen up a new line of
inquiryintothe studyof governmentalityin the contemporaryworld.

notes
Acknowledgments We wish to thankRozitaDimovafor researchassistance.Whenthis
articlewas revised,AkhilGuptawas a Fellowatthe NationalHumanitiesCenterandJamesFer-
guson was a Fellowat the Centerfor AdvancedStudiesin the BehavioralSciences.We grate-
fullyacknowledgethe supportof boththose institutions.
1. Thereis a long and richtraditionof studiesby geographersand social theoristson the
social constructionof space underconditionsof modernityand postmodernity.Buildingon an
old, if oftenundervalued,traditionof spatialthinkingwithinMarxism(esp.the seminalworkof
Henri Lefebvre11991]),social geographerslike David Harvey(1985a, 1985b, 1990) and
Doreen Massey(1984, 1994) have shown how changingformsof capitalistproductionhave
structuredurbanspaces and the social experiencesthatunfoldwithinthem. Meanwhile,theo-
ristsof globalization,such as SaskiaSassen,haveshown how statepracticesof regulation(from
immigration controlto financialregulations)intersectwithtransnational
flowsof capitalto gen-
erate highly differentiatednationaland subnationaleconomic zones within an increasingly

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states
997

globaleconomic space (1991, 1996, 1998). Butalthoughsuch contributionshelpto show how

statesmay act to constructsocial and economic space and to shape the way that places are
built,experienced,and inhabited,they do not deal with the relatedbut distinctquestionthat
concernsus here:How arestatesthemselvesspatialized?
We have also benefitedgreatlyfroma recentbody of work in anthropologythatseeks to
understandethnographically the spatialconsequencesof statepolicies (see, e.g., Bernal1997;
Darian-Smith 1999; Grant1995; Herzfeld1991; Merry2001; andVerdery1996). Itis this litera-
turethathas enabledus to pursueour own, slightlydifferent,questionof how the stateitselfis
spatialized.
2. AnnAnagnostpresentsa wonderfulexampleof this phenomenonin herdiscussionof
splendidChina(1997:161-175).
3. A differentkind of critiqueof this positionhas been advanced by MarilynStrathern
(1995),who arguesthatjustbecauseanthropologyappearsto routeits knowledgethroughper-
sons, it does not follow thatthe personconstitutesan elementaryscale of social organization.
Maurer(1998)offersan exampleof how spatialandstatistprojectsconvergewhen encompass-
mentis realizedthroughincorporation.
4. Thatspatialencompassmentis often imaginedin termsof such neatly nested circles
does not implythatregions,localities,or communitiesreallydo fitso neatlywithinthe "higher"
levels thatsupposedlyencompassthem indeed, a rangeof phenomenafromborderlandsto
transnational communitiesin practiceconfoundthis image.Parttwo developsthe implications
of thisobservation.
5. The concept of "civilsociety"clearlygrows out of a specific, Europeanhistory;like
Chatterjee(1990),we emphasizethe historicalandculturalparticularity of the concept,even as
we areconcernedwith itsoperationaluniversalizationas partof the standardpackageof institu-
tionaland ideologicalformsthat have come to be as widely distributedas the modernstateit-
self. But it is not simplythe category,"civil society,"that requiresto be seen in its cultural
particularity, buta largerimaginarytopographythroughwhich the stateand societyarevisual-
ized in relationwitheach other.
6. Verderymakesa veryinteresting connectionbetweenthe nationandthe body(1996:63).
7. Notalltheoristshavemadesuchan opposition;indeed,the earliestwriterson civilsociety
(e.g.,Locke)saw"civilsociety"as synonymouswith"politicalsociety"(seeTaylor1990:105).
8. On the historyof the concept of civil society, see Burchell1991; Chatterjee1990;
ComaroffandComaroff1999; and Seligman1992.
9. See especiallysuch contributionsas Bayart's(1993) discussionof "eating"as a meta-
phorof state power in Africaand Mbembe's(1992) analysisof how the imageryof the vulgar
and the grotesquein the popularcultureof Camerooncomes to investthe symbolsof state
power.The ways thatthe spatialmetaphorsof verticalencompassmentthat we discuss here
maycoexistwith othermetaphorsfor picturingstatesarea richgroundforfutureinvestigation.
Otherimportant contributions
to a livelyrecentdiscussionon thestateinpostcolonialAfricainclude
Bayartet al. 1999; Chabaland Daloz 1999; Mamdani1996; andWerbnerand Ranger1996.
10. One particularly clearexampleof such policingis providedby the treatmentreceived
by Mexicanlaborersin the UnitedStatesat the handsof the INSandthe police, which demon-
stratesquiteclearlythatthe borderis not justa line thatone crossesinto a zone of safetybuta
zone of exclusionthatpermeatesthe interiorof the territoryof the nation-state(see,forinstance,
Chavez 1998). Heyman(1998) goes even furtherin makingan explicit connection between
controlof the U.S.-Mexicoborderand foreignwarssuch as Vietnamthroughthe tropeof ille-
gality.
11. Thetermorderis hereused both in itsdirectiveintentas well as in itsorganizingcon-
notations.
12. Thepointis neitherto reduceone to the othernorto claimsome kindof privilegedre-
lationship,as comparedto, say,the relationshipof space to capital.
13. See discussionon pages998-991.
14. The Blockis the smallestadministrative unit in India,comprisingapproximatelyone
hundredvillages.

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
998 american ethnologist

15. Thenumberof AnganwadiWorkersand Helpersvariedfromone Blockto another,de-

pendingon populationto be servedandthe fundsallocatedto the program.
16. Thepyramidalstructureof the bureaucracyfolloweda classic,Fordistpatternof indus-
trialorganization.Unlikethe bureaucraciesof late-capitalistfirmsor of otherpost-Fordistor-
ganizations,therewas no hintof a flatorganizational structure
ordecentralizeddecisionmaking.
17. Followinganthropologicalconvention,the name"Mandi," as well as the namesof the
people and villagesbelow, arepseudonyms.
18. Thefollowingtext is basedon fieldworkobservationsconductedby AkhilGupta.
19. Althoughwe have herechosen to focuson the surveillanceof the AnganwadiWorker
ratherthanthe welfareof the population,our pointaboutstateverticalityand encompassment
couldequallyhavebeendemonstrated byfocusingon the"positive"
aspectsof governmentality.
20. A good exampleis providedby the privatizationof prisons:Increasingly,privatecom-
panieshavetakenoverthe job of constructingand operatingprisonsforthe state.Once an "en-
terprisemodel" becomes dominant,there is little reason for many state functions to be
performedby stateinstitutions.
21. Itis striking,forinstance,thatRose(1996:53)characterizes"advancedliberalism" as a
set of strategiesthat"canbe observedin nationalcontextsfromFinlandto Australia" without
any discussionof the vastrangeof nationalcontexts(mostof the world,itwouldseem)to which
his accountdoes not apply. Nor is thereany considerationof the relationsbetweenthe break-
down of notionsof welfareat the nationallevel and those of developmentat the international,
or of the waysthatthe proliferation of "quasi-autonomous NGOs"mightbe linkedto changesin
the roleandfunctionof the nation-statewithina globalsystem.
22. Recently,a greatmanyanthropologistshave been concernedto problematizethe tra-
ditionalanthropologicalnotionof the "local"(althoughusuallywithoutrelatingthis notionto
the questionof statespatialization).Forreasonsof space,we will not reviewthis literaturehere,
butonly referthe readerto ourextensivediscussionof this issuein Guptaand Ferguson1997.
23. No doubtit is the empiricaldifferencesbetweenthe situationof the statein the two re-
gional contexts that accounts for why each best illustratesa differentpartof our argument
(broadly,the relativestrengthof the Indianstateversusthe institutionalandfinancialweakness
of so manyAfricanones),butit is notourpurposeto explorethosedifferences systematically
here.
24. We borrowthis evocative termfromremarksmade by Cooper(1993). It should be
noted,however,thatwe are hereconnectingthe termto largerclaimsabouttransnational gov-
ernmentalitythatCoopermay not have intendedin hisown use of the term.
25. SallyMerry(2001) has developedthe ideaof "spatialgovernmentality" to drawatten-
tion to formsof governmentality thatseek to regulatepeople indirectlythroughthe controland
regulationof space.

references cited
Anagnost,Ann
1997 NationalPastTimes:Narrative,Representation,and Power in ModernChina. Dur-
ham, NC:DukeUniversityPress.
Anderson,BenedictR.
1991 ImaginedCommunities:Reflectionson the Originand Spreadof Nationalism.2nd
edition.New York:Verso.
Bayart,jean-Francois
1993 [1989] TheStatein Africa:ThePoliticsof the Belly.New York:Longman.
Bayart,Jean-Francois,
StephenEllis,and BeatriceHibou,eds.
1999 TheCriminalization of the Statein Africa.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Barry,Andrew,ThomasOsborne,and NikolasRose,eds.
1996 Foucaultand PoliticalReason:Liberalism,Neo-Liberalism and Rationalitiesof Gov-
ernment.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Bernal,Victoria
1997 ColonialMoralEconomyand the Disciplineof Development:The GeziraScheme.
CulturalAnthropology12(4):447479.

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states 999

Bornstein, Erica
2001 The Good Life: Religious NGOs and the Moral Politics of Economic Development in
Zimbabwe. Ph.D. dissertation,Programin Social Relations, Universityof Californiaat Irvine.
Brenner, Neil
1997 Global, Fragmented, Hierarchical: Henri Lefebvre's Geographies of Globalization.
Public Culture 10(1):135-167.
Burchell, Graham
1991 Peculiar Interests:Civil Society and Governing "TheSystem of Natural Liberty."InThe
Foucault Effect:Studies in Governmentality. Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter
Miller, eds. Pp. 1 19-150. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1996 LiberalGovernment and Techn iques of the Self. In Foucault and Political Reason: Lib-
eralism, Neo-liberalism and Rationalitiesof Government. Andrew Barry,Thomas Osborne,
and Nikolas Rose, eds. Pp. 19-36. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burchell, Graham, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, eds.
1991 The FoucaultEffect:Studiesin Governmentality.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Calhoun, Craig, ed.
1992 Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Chabal, Patrick,and Jean-Pascal Daloz
1999 AfricaWorks: Disorder as Political Instrument.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha
1990 A Response to Taylor's "Modes of Civil Society." Public Culture 3(1):119-132.
Chavez, Leo R.
1998 Shadowed Lives: Undocumented Immigrantsin American Society. FortWorth: Har-
court Brace College Publishers.
Cohen, Jean L., and Andrew Arato
1992 Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Cohn, BernardS.
1996 Colonialism and Its Formsof Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Comaroff,John L.
1998 Reflections on the Colonial State, in South Africa and Elsewhere: Factions, Fragments,
Facts and Fictions. Social Identities4(3): 321-361.
ComaroffJohn L., and Jean Comaroff, eds.
1999 Civil Society and the Political Imagination in Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Cooper, Frederick
1993 Historicizing Development. Workshop. EmoryUniversity, Atlanta, December.
Coronil, Fernando
1997 The Magical State: Nature, Money, and Modernity in Venezuela. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Corrigan, Philip, and Derek Sayer
1985 The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural Revolution. New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Darian-Smith, Eve
1999 Bridging Divides: The Channel and English Legal Identity in the New Europe.
Berkeley: California University Press.
Dean, Mitchell
1999 Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub-
Iications.
Fallers, Lloyd A.
1971 The Social Anthropology of the Nation-State. Chicago: Aldine.
Ferguson, KathyE.
1984 The FeministCase AgainstBureaucracy.Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Ferguson,James
1995 FromAfrican Socialism to Scientific Capitalism: Reflections on the LegitimationCrisis
in IMF-ruled Africa. In Debating Development Discourse: Popular and Institutionalist

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1000 american ethnologist

Perspectives. David Moore and Gerald Schmitz, eds. Pp. 129-148. New York:St. Martins
Press.
1999 Expectations of Modernity: Myths and Meanings of Urban Life on the Zambian Cop-
perbelt. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2001 Global Disconnect: Abjection and the Aftermathof Modernism. In The Anthropology
of Globalization. Jonathan Javier Inda and Renato Rosaldo, eds. Pp. 136-153. New York:
Blackwell.
In press TransnationalTopographies of Power: Beyond "the State"and "CivilSociety" in the
Study of African Politics. In The Forces of Globalization. Gabrielle Schwab, ed. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Foucault, Michel
1991 Governmentality.In The Foucault Effect:Studies in Governmentality.Graham Burchell,
Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, eds. Pp. 87-104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Geertz, Cliftord
1980 Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Grant, Bruce
1995 In the Soviet House of Culture: A Century of Perestroikas. Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Gupta, Akhil
1995 Blurred Boundaries: The Discourse of Corruption, the Culture of Politics, and the
Imagined State. American Ethnologist22(2):375-402.
Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson, eds.
1997 Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Guyer, Jane
1994 The Spatial Dimensions of Civil Society in Africa:An Anthropologist Looks at Nigeria.
In Civil Society and the State in Africa. John W. Harbeson, Donald Rothchild, and Naomi
Chazan, eds. Pp. 215-30. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Hanlon, Joseph
1991 Mozambique: Who Calls the Shots? Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Harbeson, John W., Donald Rothchild, and Naomi Chazan, eds.
1994 Civil Society and the State in Africa. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Harvey, David
1985a Consciousness and The Urban Experience: Studies in the History and Theory of
Capitalist Urbanization. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
1985b The Urbanization of Capital: Studies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urbani-
zation . BaItimore: John Hopkins U n iversity Press.
1990 The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
1942[1821 ] Philosophy of Right.Thomas Malcolm Knox,trans. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Herzfeld, Michael
1991 A Place of History:Social and Monumental Time in a CretanTown. Princeton: Prince-
ton U n iversity Press.
Heyman, Josiah McC.
1998 State Escalation of Force: A Vietnam/US-Mexico BorderAnalogy. In State and Illegal
Practices. J. M. Heyman, ed. Pp. 285-314. Oxford: Berg.
Joseph, Gilbert M., and Daniel Nugent, eds.
1994 EverydayFormsof State Formation:Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern
Mexico. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Lefebvre,Henri
1991 The Production of Space. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
spatializing states 1001

Mamdani, Mahmood
1996 Citizen and Subject: ContemporaryAfrica and the Legacy of LateColonialism. Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press.
Massey, Doreen
1984 Spatial Divisions of Labour:Social Structuresand the Geography of Production. Lon-
don: Macmillan.
1994 Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity.
Maurer, Bill
1998 Recharting the Caribbean: Land, Law, and Citizenship in the British Virgin Islands.
Ann Arbor:The University of Michigan Press.
Mayekiso, Mzwanele
1996 Township Politics: Civic Strugglesfor a New South Africa. New York:Monthly Review
Press.
Mbembe, Achille
1992 The Banality of Power and the Aesthetics of Vulgarity in the Postcolony. Public Cul-
ture 4(2):1-30.
Merry,Sally Engle
2001 Spatial Governmentality and the New Urban Social Order: Controlling Gender Vio-
lence Through Law. American Anthropologist 103(1):16-29.
Mindry, Deborah
1998 "Good Women": Philanthropy, Power, and the Politics of Femininity in Contempo-
rarySouth Africa. Ph.D. dissertation, Program in Social Relations, University of California
at Irvine.
Mitchell, Timothy
1991 The Limitsofthe State: Beyond StatistApproaches and TheirCritics. American Politi-
cal Science Review 85(1 ):77-96.
Nugent, David
1997 Modernity at the Edge of Empire:State, Individual, and Nation in the Northern Peru-
vian Andes, 1885-1935. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
O'Malley, Pat
1998 Indigenous Governance. In Governing Australia:Studies in Contemporary Rationali-
ties of Government. Mitchell Dean and BarryHindess, eds. Pp. 156-72. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Pateman, Carole
1988 The Sexual Contract. Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press.
Rosaldo, Michelle Z.
1980 The Use and Abuse of Anthropology: Reflections on Feminism and Cross-CulturalUn-
derstanding. Signs: Journalof Women in Culture and Society 5(3):389-417.
Rose, N ikolas
1996 Governing "Advanced" LiberalDemocracies. In Foucault and Political Reason: Liber-
alism, Neo-liberalism and Rationalities of Government. Andrew Barry,Thomas Osborne,
and Nikolas Rose, eds. Pp. 37-64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rose, N ikolas, and Peter MiIler
1992 Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government. BritishJournalof Soci-
ology 43(2):1 72-205.
Ruggie, John
1993 Territorialityand Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in InternationalRelations. Inter-
national Organization 47(1):139-174.
Sassen, Saskia
1991 The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
1996 Losing Control?Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York:Columbia Univer-
sity Press.
1998 Globalization and Its Discontents: Essayson the New Mobility of People and Money.
New York:New Press.

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1002 american ethnologist

Saul,JohnS.
1993 Recolonization andResistance:SouthernAfricainthe 1990s.Trenton:AfricaWorldPress.
Scott,JamesC.
1998 Seeing Likea State:How CertainSchemesto Improvethe HumanConditionHave
Failed.New Haven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.
Seligman,AdamB.
1992 The Ideaof CivilSociety.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Smith,Neil
1992 Contoursof a SpatializedPolitics:HomelessVehicles and the Productionof Geo-
graphicalScale.SocialText33:54-81.
Stallybrass,Peter,andAllonWhite
1986 ThePoliticsand Poeticsof Transgression. Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.
Storper,Michael
1997 Territories,Flows,and Hierarchiesin the Global Economy.In Spaces of Globaliza-
tion:Reasserting the Powerof the Local.KevinR.Cox,ed. Pp. 1944. New York:TheGuil-
fordPress.
Strathern,Marilyn
1995 The Relation:Issuesin ComplexityandScale.Cambridge:PricklyPearPress.
Swyngedouw,Erik
1997 NeitherGlobalNor Local:"Glocalization" andthe Politicsof Scale. In Spacesof Glo-
balization:Reasserting the Powerof the Local.KevinR.Cox, ed. Pp. 137-166. New York:
TheGuiIfordPress.
Taussig,Michael
1996 TheMagicof the State.New York:Routledge.
Taylor,Charles
1990 Modesof CivilSociety.PublicCulture3(1):95-118.
Vail,Leroy,ed.
1991 TheCreationof Tribalismin SouthernAfrica.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Verdery,Katherine
1996 WhatWasSocialism,andWhatComesNext?Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Werbner,Richard,andTerenceRanger,eds.
1996 PostcolonialIdentitiesin Africa.AtlanticHighlands,NJ:Zed Books.
Wilmsen,EdwinN., and PatrickMcAllister,eds.
1996 The Politicsof Difference:EthnicPremisesin a Worldof Power.Chicago:University
of ChicagoPress.
Yanagisako,SylviaJ.,andJaneF.Collier
1987 Towarda UnifiedAnalysisof Genderand Kinship.In Genderand Kinship:EssaysTo-
warda UnifiedAnalysis.JaneF.Collierand SylviaJ.Yanagisako,eds. Pp 14-50. Stanford:
StanfordUniversityPress.

accepted May 25, 2001

final version submitted February 18, 2002

James Ferguson
Department of Anthropo/ogy
UniversityofCa/ifornia, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697-5100
[email protected]

Akhi/ Gupta
Department of Culturaland Social Anthropology
StanfordUniversity
Stanford,CA 94305-2145
[email protected]

This content downloaded from 140.211.127.19 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:20:40 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions