Steinmetz, George.  “‘The Devil’s Handwriting’: Precolonial Discourse, Ethnographic Acuity and Cross-Identification in German Colonialism.”  Comparative Studies in Society and History 45 (2003): 41-95.

Steinmetz’s careful and precise article has many analytical virtues. For instance, his attempt to bridge the pre-colonial and the colonial, temporally.  His attempt to differentiate between ethnographic discourse and racial discourse.  And his attempt to bridge the material, the cultural, and the psychic.  Noble attempts all, even if not flawless in the execution.  He also makes more than one attempt to fissure the concept of “empire,” in this case the German empire as it acted upon Samoa and Qingdao in the late nineteenth century.  There is the factor of class struggle within colonial societies.  And there is the factor of multiple locations of empire in the world, hence his comparison of the German empire in Samoa and in Qingdao.

So, temporal correctives, discursive correctives, psychic correctives (a brave attempt, but the least convincing), social correctives, and -- of course -- geographical correctives.  What is the analytical payoff in each case?  In other words, what was the previous scholarly mode, and how do each of Steinmetz’s correctives yield a better understanding?

1.  Temporal corrective (adding the pre-colonial to the colonial)....

2.  Discursive corrective (adding ethnographic discourse to racial discourse)....

3.  Social corrective (adding class struggle to imperial monolith)....

4.  Geographical corrective (adding multiple locations to imperial monolith).... 

(One thing you don’t get is a tedious and reductionist “everything-is-connected” argument so common in, say, “globalized” or “transnational” versions of history.  Despite its flaws, Steinmetz’s article yields another kind of payoff.  Steinmetz might ultimately be too conceptually heavy, though, comparable to the way that Colley was too narratively heavy -- but that is for you to decide.)