Education, race and empire: a genealogy of humanitarian governance in the United States

Abstract

Much of the recent scholarship in critical philanthropy and humanitarianism focuses on the relationship between the origins of humanitarian governance and the development and expansion of imperialism. Imperial exploitation and dispossession were frequently linked in paradoxical ways with the protection and management of colonised populations. This paper explores these types of connections as they pertain to the relationship between humanitarianism, imperialism and the governance of African Americans in the United States (US). I focus, in particular, on how humanitarian initiatives in black education were mobilised in relation to differing moments of international and domestic colonialism, nation‐building, national security and global aspirations at the heart of American empire. The paper advances this line of inquiry through a genealogy of humanitarian reasoning and webs of belief about the proper intellectual development of African Americans at three historic moments of national development: the periods of Reconstruction, the Efficiency Movement and Pax Americana. In each different context, philanthropic foundations and humanitarians sought to provide education to African Americans, who were disenfranchised and disconnected in different ways in each period. But although the specific moral reasoning and techniques of care employed in the provision of education were particular to time and place, the underlying rationalities of a ‘progressive imperial agenda’ connecting African American enfranchisement and connection to national development and imperial aspirations, was manifest. The paper employs a genealogical method in order to link the excavations of the past to the present, indicating some of the ways that these interconnected logics continue to affect humanitarianism in the US today.

Race, biopolitics and liberal development from the Jim Crow South to postwar Africa

“…And that site – the biopolitical practices of the USDA's extension service in the Jim Crow South – is important because it brings to the fore the often unexamined racialised underpinnings of liberal forms of development. As Katharyne Mitchell has shown, “race was and remains central” to liberal, humanitarian forms of aid (, p. 358). In order to fully understand the colonial resonances and racialised bases of contemporary, liberal, development practices in places like Africa, therefore, critical geographies of development must pay attention not only to imperial imaginations and knowledges of Africans and African spaces, but of African‐Americans and the US South as well.…”

“…The belief that education and self‐improvement could transform groups of potentially problematic people into productive and docile labourers served a variety of interests – it could entice white landowners in the South to support state‐funded education for African‐Americans and white governmental and philanthropic elites in the North to maintain and extend their support of Southern education (Mitchell, ). As I'll discuss in more detail below, this dominant set of beliefs about how best to manage a raced population was also expressed in the published reports of the surveys of African educational facilities supported by the Phelps‐Stokes Fund.…”

“…In response to that inadequacy, Duffield argues, “development has historically provided a solution in the form of moral trusteeship” (, p. 61), tracing examples from late 19th‐century missionary projects to interwar British colonial policies of community development to post‐cold war humanitarian aid policies. Critical geographers of development have shown how that historical arc has important consequences, arguing that notions of inadequate “others”, trusteeship and the need for expert, external, interventions are implicitly and explicitly embedded in contemporary US and UK development policies and development geographies (Kothari, , ; Mercer et al, ; Mitchell, ; Power, ; Sidaway, , ). Calls for the decolonising of development geographies have led to interrogations of the imbrication of colonial imaginations, knowledges and practices with contemporary geopolitics and geoeconomics.…”

Rethinking access: how humanitarian technology governance blurs control and care

“…The growth and expansion of humanitarian action has resulted in calls to investigate the structures and practices that govern ‘humanitarianism', and the world that such governance produces. Accordingly, various scholars have asked questions about humanitarian governance: about its genesis and genealogy (Lester and Dussart, ), the relationship between humanitarian governance and the expansion of imperialism (Mitchell, ), the structure of international humanitarianism and the resulting possibilities for sectoral change and reform (Bennett, Foley, and Pantuliano, ; Kent et al, ; Knox‐Clarke, ), or specific forms of humanitarian governance that emerge in specific countries and related compositions of actors (Lautze, Raven‐Roberts, and Erkineh, ). A particularly useful and comprehensive dissection of the notion and elements of humanitarian governance appears in Michael Barnett's article, ‘Humanitarian governance’ ().…”

Unsettling “Inner City”: Liberal Protestantism and the Postwar Origins of a Keyword in Urban Studies

“…Recent work by McKittrick (), Woods (), Domosh (), Mitchell (), and others has fused geographic and historical methods in mapping and unsettling the interconnections between race and space. Particularly robust is the scholarship around the prison and carceral landscapes (Berger ; Gilmore ; Shabazz ).…”