Field Theory and Colonialism: Indirect Colonial Situation as a Social Field in Egypt (1882–1922)

ABSTRACT This paper argues that Egypt under British rule (1882–1922) constituted a field of power in which the local state of Egypt and the British administration competed to dominate three key subfields to ensure control over a contested territory: the modern courts system, policing, and agricultural production. The paper employs the concept of colonial field to explain the contingencies and hybridity of modern legal system under colonial situations. Even though the British administration occupied a superior position of power, its control over the local state did not persist consistently because the local state managed to reappropriate its shares of power from one subfield to another. Therefore, weakness in a particular subfield did not necessarily lead to failure in other domains of power. This paper shows that the local state of Egypt redeployed the symbolic capital of modern courts, physical capital of policing, and the economic capital of agricultural production as a bulwark against the British interventions. Given the relative autonomy of the local state, the paper also reveals how Egypt experienced indirect colonialism within a broader context of imperial contestations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sociology Lens
Published
2026-02-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.70036
Primary Topic
Colonial History and Postcolonial Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Field Theory and Colonialism: Indirect Colonial Situation as a Social Field in Egypt (1882–1922)

Mehdi Hoseini
Sociology Lens
Colonial History and Postcolonial Studies
article

Field Theory and Colonialism: Indirect Colonial Situation as a Social Field in Egypt (1882–1922)

Mehdi Hoseini
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper argues that Egypt under British rule (1882–1922) constituted a field of power in which the local state of Egypt and the British administration competed to dominate three key subfields to ensure control over a contested territory: the modern courts system, policing, and agricultural production. The paper employs the concept of colonial field to explain the contingencies and hybridity of modern legal system under colonial situations. Even though the British administration occupied a superior position of power, its control over the local state did not persist consistently because the local state managed to reappropriate its shares of power from one subfield to another. Therefore, weakness in a particular subfield did not necessarily lead to failure in other domains of power. This paper shows that the local state of Egypt redeployed the symbolic capital of modern courts, physical capital of policing, and the economic capital of agricultural production as a bulwark against the British interventions. Given the relative autonomy of the local state, the paper also reveals how Egypt experienced indirect colonialism within a broader context of imperial contestations.

Sociology Lens
Boston College (US)
Boston College, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Colonial History and Postcolonial Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.