In the 1970s and 1980s, Ronald Robinson challenged the hitherto predominant Eurocentric theories of Imperialism. He formulated a peripheral approach, according to which indigenous collaboration consisted both of a formative and continuous factor of Imperialism. In particular, Robinson emphasized the importance of indigenous collaboration in the process of establishing imperial rule. Without the support of local elites the imperial power would have run into great difficulties in exercising control. To some extent Robinson’s thesis may have been a truism. Yet, most historians before him largely ignored the role of indigenous collaboration. And even until the present day empirical research into the interaction between indigenous elites and agents of imperialism is rather scarce.

Imperial history became increasingly regarded as somewhat outdated by the 1980s, as it focused primarily on matters of imperial conquest and administration or produced narratives of Western superiority. Imperial history appeared to have definitely lost its credentials by the adaptation of Edward Said`s critique of “Orientalism” respectively the ascendency of postcolonial studies in the 1990s. The most encompassing postcolonial approach, the colonial discourse theory, analyses the mechanisms of repression that operate through imperialistic language in order to understand how the “other” was constructed through the Western gaze. This critique of Western structures of knowledge, sceptical towards any possibility of authentic perception of the “other”, runs contrary to Robinson`s theory of collaboration, which requires a mutual understanding of both sides, or at least a basic knowledge about the socio-political behaviour and ethics of the “other”. Recently Homi Bhabha, like Said a scholar of literature, enhanced postcolonial concepts by focusing on the psychological complexities of the colonial relationship as well as on postcolonial identity formation. This psychoanalytical approach in colonial discourse further enlarges the gap between writings of cultural historians and traditional imperial historians.

However, on closer examination the current concepts of postcolonial and global history basically concern themselves with similar issues as Robinson already did, only on a different level, from a different perspective, and enunciated in a different jargon. Robinson`s “Europeanized collaborator” can be seen as a related figure to Bhabha`s “mimic men“. He also perceives similar functions such as the figure of the “intermediary” or “broker”, who by crossing cultural boundaries is considered crucial for processes of transnational entanglement and has therefore become prevalent in contemporary global history. In addition, the broadly-adopted concepts of “hybridity” and “in-between spaces” that emphasise the reciprocal complexities of the colonial encounter and the innovative sites of negotiation and cooperation, seem to emerge from Robinson`s notion of collaborative systems as fields of exchange between European and non-European components. Similarly, Robinson`s notion of Imperialism as an intercontinental process, where the metropolis appears neither at the centre nor on the periphery, but in their changing relativities, resonates strongly with the postcolonial appeal to exceed binary categories and the currently very popular perspective of “transnational history” as an alternative to state-centred approaches. Last but not least, Robinson`s emphasis on indigenous actors opened the way for non-Eurocentric perspectives and theories of “agency”, according to which colonial subjects are not helpless victims of superior forces and alien institutions, but historical actors who negotiate terms and pursue their very own interests.

All considered, various scholars agree that one of the salient issues will be the study of specific interactions between “colonized” and “colonizers”, and it seems that the time has come to revisit Robinson`s notion of collaboration by melding it together with approaches and aspects of global and postcolonial history. Whereas Robinson`s mere political-economic notion of collaboration does not give full credit to cultural exchanges and the in-between spaces of colonial encounters, postcolonial reflections will be confronted with political and economic structures and translated into the language of the empirical historian. Such a useful synthesis is, for instance, already implemented in the “new history of Diplomacy”, which combines cultural and political approaches.

A crucial problem lies in the very word “collaboration”, which has a negative connotation, categorising indigenous agents in imperial service as something like traitors, which in addition carries an academic anachronism based on the perspective of the postcolonial, modern nation state. The concept of “cooperation” could be a less problematical alternative, but as imperialism per definition is an unequal relationship carried out under some form of coercion, it might well be euphemistic. Thus, it seems to be most appropriate to describe the relationship as “transcultural cooperation under the premise of Imperialism”. A preliminary definition of Imperialism could be drafted as follows: Imperialism is the formal or informal political function of the process of the integration of new regions into an expanding world system – including culture, legal systems, norms etc. – by using superior power to establish advantageous terms for interests in profit. Conditio sine qua non and formative component of this process of expansion is a local system of cooperation that translates, mediates, legitimates, channels and thereby imposes the imperialistic demands on the indigenous society.

Call for Papers:
The specific concern of the conference is to take a closer look at the structures, diplomacies, symbolic procedures, and discourses of cooperative imperial systems respectively the different ways, patterns and networks of brokerage that they rely on. As these problems can best be analysed in a comparative approach and by using a long-term perspective, papers on different imperial spaces and societies as well as time frames of imperialistic expansion are welcome. The following issues should be addressed specifically:

Agents of cooperation: The main focus with respect to “Herrschaftskolonien” (colonies with a large indigenous population) will be laid on the most important partners, particularly traditional local elites and rulers. However, we will also analyse the role of cooperators on a lower level, such as informants, interpreters, professional civil service agents and mercenaries. What were the push and pull factors found within the network of cooperation and how much influence could indigenous elites, informants, interpreters, etc. maintain? With regard to questions of political and economic interests, identity and cultural adaption (“creolisation”), the European negotiating partner should be taken into account too. Were the “white” settlers, as Robinson claimed, really the “ideal collaborators”? Since cooperation was not yet thoroughly regulated and relied on rituals of face-to-face negotiation during the period of early imperial encounters, the foreign representatives should also be analysed in their different roles as intermediaries, advisers and imperial agents. The crossing of cultural boundaries, and more importantly inter-marriage and conversion, could evoke multiple identities and transform a foreign representative into a double agent or even someone working for the “other” side. Many contemporary imperial administrators therefore suspected these intermediaries of “going native”. Could, on the other hand, the indigenous cooperator look at the foreign political agents as a trustworthy adviser or was he rather an opponent whom they always resented in their hearts? Finally, it is important to raise the question of who benefited from imperial cooperation and who paid for it all.

Continuities and shifts: How were such systems of collaboration built up and what structural and cultural shifts did they undergo in the process of establishing imperial control? And why did they break down in the end? At the outset, the few incoming men on the spot eventually entered as mere clients in a patron-client system on indigenous terms. Can these relationships already be analysed in terms of Imperialism at all? How far did existing cultural, political and economic structures of the targeted societies determine the network of cooperation and how far did the latter influence the forms of imperial rule? Why did European imperialists sometimes only establish themselves within existing structures and in other cases rudely imposed Western administration? Was bureaucratization caused by local circumstances or rather by an “official mind” respectively a master plan determined by colonial discourse? What impacts did this process have on the formative cooperative networks, especially with respect to the agency, decision-making, intermediary roles, and cultural identity of both the indigenous and the imperial partner?

Organisational Issues:
The international conference will take place at the University of Bern (Switzerland) from 27th to 29th June 2013. The organizing committee will cover travel costs and accommodation for invited participants. There will be no charge for attending the conference. Please submit an exposé of 1 to 2 pages until July 15th, 2012 (as an e-mail attachment only) to flavio.eichmann@hist.unibe.ch. If accepted, the conveners will ask for a substantial written version of the proposed paper (up to 20 pages) until 15th Mai 2013. We hope to publish the conference procedures as soon as possible.

Representatives of the institutions involved: Benedikt Stuchtey (German Historical Institute, London), Bernd Greiner and Dierk Walter (Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung), Stig Förster (University of Bern)