In 2020, LSE archivist Sue Donnelly introduced a group of undergraduate students in the Department of Anthropology at LSE to the newly digitised School calendars (1895-2006) on the LSE Digital Library. The calendars are a rich source of information on many elements of life at LSE including lists of students, staff and courses each year. The students’ focus was using the calendars to understand more about anthropology course content during the period of empire to shed light on LSE’s links with colonialism and understand the nature of this relationship from a decolonisation perspective. The following article was written by students Neelofar Ahmed, Eliana Radaelli, Alex Seuren and Leonie Zeuner with the support of Deborah James, Professor of Anthropology.
We are a group of undergraduate anthropology students who undertook a research project to investigate LSE’s archives, its calendars, and documents on courses taught from 1896 to 1950. The context was our department’s broader impetus to investigate and understand its own (and the School’s) role in the colonial project, and to participate in wider “decolonising” initiatives. For more detail on some of the anthropology department academics and students, please refer to the thumbnail sketches and photos on the Old Anthropology Library’s ancestral wall.
These documents, we found, demonstrate how LSE, from its founding to the mid-20th century, was embedded in the colonial structures of the British Empire, catered to the colonial administration, and trained people for a colonial society and economy. From the onset, teachings on society, law, economics, and politics at LSE were internationally oriented and the degrees were specifically tailored for people who would join industries and services that were part of the global structures of Empire. For example, in the 1920s the Commerce degree had an option “recommended for students who wish to take up colonial and General Trades” (1919-20, p110) with students being able to focus on trade in “North and South America”, “India and the Far East”, “Africa and Australasia”, as well as other options focusing on trade relations with colonies such as South Africa or Palestine.
The Anthropology Department from 1919 to 1940
From the department’s inception, anthropology courses taught at LSE catered to missionaries and colonial officials. Formal courses were first established in 1919 with one main “Ethnology” course taught by Charles Seligman. Notably, the lectures were explicitly “intended for officials, missionaries, and those going among primitive and barbarous peoples” (1919-20, p60). The recommendation of the general “Ethnology” course for missionaries and colonial administrators was removed in 1933, and it was replaced in the 1930s by a number of other courses tailored to or recommended for missionaries and colonial officers. From 1930 to 1933, a class for graduate students in the “Ethnology of Africa”, taught by Seligman and later E E Evans-Pritchard and Audrey Richards, was designed for African civil servants.
Similarly, the lectures for graduate students in “Language and Culture” (from 1930 to 1932) by Bronislaw Malinowski and Raymond Firth, were also “specially designed for intending fieldworkers, administrators, and missionaries” (1930-31, p95) and in 1933 and 1934, for the course “The functional analysis of primitive cultures” and the graduate course “Modern anthropology in Theory and Practice of Field Work” by Malinowski, it was noted that “attention will be given also to the applications of anthropology to colonial administration, missionary work, and the educationalists’ problems among native races” (1933-34, p91). Thus, many of the courses offered by the anthropology department throughout the 1920s and 30s were tailored to colonial administrators and missionaries, as stated in the course description. While many departments at the time were offering courses on subjects such as colonial law, the history of the British Empire, or economic development in colonies, it stands out that anthropology courses were intended to educate colonial officers and to enable aspects of the colonial project.
Furthermore, in the 1920s and 30s race science, primitivism, and eugenics were standard in anthropological teaching and thus ideologically supported the colonial project. In 1926, the main “Ethnology” course was extended to include sections on “Prehistoric and Early Man” and on “The Living Races of Man and their Distribution”, which included teachings on “the biological standpoint, heredity and evolution, The Darwin and post-Darwin Standpoints, Race, Nationality, and Language, The Distribution and Cultural achievements of the Chief Races” (1926-27, p97), which remained in place until the end of the 1930s. Knowing Charles Seligman’s controversial role in perpetuating scientific racism through his Hamitic Theory, it is striking that his Ethnology course included sections on “The Living Races of Man and their Distribution” and, in other courses such as “Primitive Modern View-Points in African Ethnology”, the syllabus included topics such as “The Hamites, the earliest known inhabitants of Africa; […]; The peoples of mixed Hamito-negro descent; their physical characters. Hamitic cultural characteristics”.
Moreover, primitivism was present in all anthropology courses taught at the time, such as “Political Institutions of Primitive Peoples” by Schapera, (1928), “Primitive Mentality” by Malinowski and Ginsberg (1922), and “Anthropology: The Mental Outlook of Primitive Man”, by Evans-Pritchard (1931-1932). Specifically, in “Psychology and Anthropology”, Fortes taught “racial and group differences in sensory, cognitive, motor and affective functions” in 1939 (1938-39, p100). The foundational role of scientific race theory and eugenics in anthropology at the time also becomes evident in the degree and diploma requirements. From 1924 onwards, the requirements for an anthropology degree were specified as seven branches of anthropology, one of them being physical anthropology, “the elementary study of the general structure of Man, past and present; comparative study of the physical characters of the various races and subraces of Man” and another being geographical anthropology, the “geological and geographical conditions of racial and cultural development. The distribution of races.” (1924-25, p201). In 1927 it was specified that one of the requirements for an academic diploma in anthropology was the study of “the physical character of the various races; the process of evolution” (1927, p285).
Considering that much teaching today still includes the texts of those labelled the discipline’s and the department’s forefathers, it is central that we critically engage with how these scholars engaged both in the training of colonial administrators and how scientific racism, white supremacy, and colonial paternalism both structured their research and was perpetuated in their teaching in the Anthropology Department.
The Colonial Administration Course
In 1932, a new “special course on colonial administration in both its administrative and anthropological aspects” (1934-35, p7) was introduced. The Colonial Administration course was a series of lectures “specially designed for administrators, missionaries on leave and for educational cadets preparing for colonial work” (1934-35, p95). This course was made up of several taught courses such as “Comparative Colonial Policy”, “Colonial Constitutional Law”, or “The British Colonial Office”. The course was under the supervision of Coatman, a Professor of Imperial Economic Relations who had previously worked for the British government in India and was an advocate of the British Empire in his writing (Donnelly, 2016).
The anthropology department played a role in teaching the Colonial Administration course. A few courses were taught by anthropology professors such as Lucy Mair who, after returning from her research in East Africa, took up a position as lecturer in Colonial Administration. Courses such as “The place of anthropology in Colonial Studies” by Mair (1934), and “Anthropology and Administration” by Malinowski (1934) were part of the course and sought “to bring together administrative officers from the colonial services as well as missionaries and students of anthropology” (1934-35, p103). In 1939, Raymond Firth, Meyer Fortes, and a Mr Lewin taught “Principles of Applied Anthropology”. The lectures concerned “the application of anthropology to problems of administration, education, economic development, and social reorganisation in the simpler societies now coming under European control” (1938-39, p105). This course suggests that anthropology was here being retooled as a tool of social control, and that the practice of anthropology in this context was strongly connected to colonial work.
LSE’s role in training students to work in the British Empire included special regulations, rewards, and concessions for students working in colonial positions. For example, students who “spent at least two years in service overseas (ie, working under engagements or agreements with the Governments of the Dominions, Government of India, Crown, Colonies, or Mandated Territories)” (1928-29, p306) were exempt from “the whole or part of the Examination” and were not required to complete their terms consecutively. The school was eager to accommodate the demands of work in the colonies and supported students working in these roles.
Students of anthropology were encouraged to research and assist in resolving issues that emerged in the development of the British Empire. The Wellcome Gold Medal for Anthropological Research was awarded annually by the Royal Anthropological Institute for the best research essay on “the application of anthropological methods” to “the problems of native peoples”. Particularly, this medal was awarded to the application of anthropology to issues “arising from the intercourse between native peoples or between primitive natives and civilised races” (1938-39, p425). As with other points raised above, this suggests that anthropological research at LSE was directed to the mission of colonisation and facilitating its operation: an observation further evidenced by the titles of various early research studentships at LSE such as “Under what conditions should ‘self-government’ be given to a colony in which only a minority of the population belong to the white races? Illustrate the actual problems of British South Africa” (1896-97, p185); or “What are the main economical and political conditions of the problem of federating the British Empire?” (1900-01, p559).
The courses taught in the anthropology department appear often to have been specifically designed to manage problems encountered in the colonies. Throughout the calendars, courses on colonial administration appear to be divided into how to best manage and enforce rule in various realms such as literacy, land, and labour. The syllabus of “Comparative Colonial Administration” by Lucy Mair in 1946, for example, focuses on “problems peculiar to the administration of illiterate populations of non-European culture” (1946-47, p163). The “Comparative Colonial Administration Part II Economic” taught by Lewin in 1939, alternatively discusses “initial difficulties of obtaining labour from populations unfamiliar with a money economy”, “problems arising from modern developments in native land tenure” and “the sociological problems of a migrant labour force; proposals for stabilisation and for checking the exodus from native territories” (1939-40, p104). For students aspiring to work in the colonies, this catered to the solution of practical problems they might face: the documentation shows that a number of graduates entered these roles after their university training. Decolonising anthropology at LSE today means thinking critically about the principles built into the roots of anthropology.
India, LSE and Colonialism
LSE taught several courses on India during the colonial period. This is not surprising considering the importance of India: described as the “Jewel in the Crown” of the Empire. By the late 19th century India was providing immense economic and strategic benefits to Britain. After 1870, the British economy had become dependent on India as one of Britain’s main markets (alongside the US) for manufactured goods. By 1913, around 60 per cent of British exports were headed to India, while raw materials, jewels, textiles, spices and the like travelled in the opposite direction. Hence, India was an important destination for British trade and investment. Moreover, the Indian army played a definitive part in advancing Britain’s colonial agenda as well as fighting for the British during both world wars.
LSE played a role in this by offering to educate colonial officers. Several specialist courses on India were taught, giving officers in training a better understanding on how most effectively to administer the colonial state. Courses focused on Indian economics and politics: in the latter – such as “Indian Politics & Administration” by Sir Alfred Lyall (1900) – there was discussion of internal administration and rule over the native states of India as well as British protectorates in India.
Although Indian politics was a focus for the Empire, the key motivation behind British rule was economics and trade. From 1921 onwards, LSE, beyond the anthropology department, offered a range of courses on this. They included “Trade of India & the Malay Archipelago”, and “Economic Development of India” (both taught by Mr. Keatinge: 1921), “Indian Production and Trade” by Mr Keatinge (1922) and Dr Anstey (1923), “Indian Trade and Finance” by Dr Slater (1923-34) and later by Professor Coatman. Dr Anstey also led a number of graduate seminars on “Indian Production and Development” (1931-33). These courses led with a history of Indian trade to provide context to officers on training and continued with an analysis of the general conditions of Indian trade, commerce, and industry. The Indian system of banking, public finance (capital expense, loan, debts etc.) was also a major topic, as was the Indian agricultural sector, presumably because of India’s rich agricultural production and supply of raw materials for the Empire.
Conclusion – why does this research matter and what does this mean?
Delving into the archives, the calendars show how from the start LSE sought to attract “persons engaged or about to engage in the public service whether in this country, in India or the colonies” (1900-01, p7). LSE enabled colonial civil servants to study at LSE and access LSE courses and resources, for example the school opened the library without charge “for the purpose of study and research to persons engaged in any branch of public administration in the British Empire or any other country” (1931-32, p380). LSE also prepared students for joining colonial administrations. For example, the LSE calendars give detailed descriptions of requirements (eg, age, nationality, or health requirements) for joining the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, the Indian Civil Service, Student Interpreterships in the Far East, Eastern Cadetships, and the Levant Consular Service. They also give details of the examination, and of which courses to take in order to join the civil service, both in the UK and abroad.
These examples from the archives show us how parts of LSE were built on a colonial mindset and structure and how it was geared, overall, towards staffing and upholding the British Empire, rather than using the social and political sciences to foster resistance. LSE often constructs its own history as one of advancing social progress – an institution founded “for the betterment of society”. The archives can help us to contextualise such claims, showing how they may serve to conceal the ways in which the school’s early history is embedded in colonial structures and practices. This is not to disregard the many achievements and breakthroughs made by researchers at LSE in the interests of equality and progress. Instead, research with a decolonising imperative seeks to unravel the origins of our department and LSE more broadly to ask: where does our knowledge come from and what purposes does it serve? How did LSE’s teaching on global economics, commerce, politics, and law, and its preparation of students for “international” careers in the context of Empire, colonisation and eventual independence, uphold imperial and colonial orders? How does this relate to LSE’s claims to be a “global university” today? Insights from LSE’s archives can help us to understand the school’s relationship to imperialism over time and, by doing so, foster and encourage a contextualised understanding of knowledge.
From our findings we strongly encourage other departments to engage in their history and entanglements with colonialism.
Coda
It was not only British administrators who trained at LSE Anthropology. Those who were later to become post-independence leaders in the former colonies also received an education at the school. B R Ambedkar, later to be the architect of India’s constitution, first visited LSE in 1916, returned in 1921 and submitted his doctoral thesis in 1923. Jomo Kenyatta, an anti-colonial activist, a PhD student in the anthropology department from 1934 to 1938 and author of Facing Mount Kenya (1938), became the first Prime Minister of independent Kenya in 1963. Kwame Nkrumah, who became the first Prime Minister and President of independent Ghana in 1957, also registered for a PhD at LSE. Zachariah Keodirelang Matthews (known as “Z K”), a prominent academic and activist in South Africa, spent a year at LSE studying anthropology with Malinowski. Thomas Marealle, who later became Paramount Chief of the Chagga in what was then Tanganyika, completed a course in social welfare at the School in 1946, and was inspired by avowed communist Harold Laski who taught government and political science at LSE (Molony 2014). Seen alongside the courses on colonial administration referred to above, these few examples suggest that the moral and political legacies of colonialism have been complex and undoing them requires much thought and intellectual and political effort.
References
Donnelly, S. 2016. “No More Worlds Here for Him to Conquer” – Dr B R Ambedkar at LSE. LSE Blogs
Molony, Thomas. 2014. Nyerere: the early years. James Currey
