Scholarship on the modern state’s symbolic and social infrastructural power typically correlates high state capacity to practices of standardization, homogenization, and integration. Less attention has focused on how this power can be directed towards differentiation and heterogenization, as amply demonstrated in the case of empire. This article develops a framework for analyzing how infrastructural power is employed by modern colonial states and how it impacts society. It argues that formal legitimization structures defined for colonial subunits influence legibility practices enacted within them—what is named and counted and how it is named and counted—and that these legitimization-legibility linkages are significant because they politicize particular boundaries of collective identity in lasting ways within the subjugated society. This model is used to analyze variation within French North Africa between a colony-type linkage in Algeria and a protectorate-type linkage in Morocco, and account for the divergent identity politics and claims-making strategies that emerged within these units. The conclusion considers the broader comparative implications of legitimization-legibility combinations in formerly colonized political units.

This article examines the gendered relationships of authority that are at the heart of the processes of customary marriage in South Africa, as well as the ways in which colonial political intervention worked to effect social change in nineteenth-century colonial Natal. This analysis reinforces the established historiographical understanding that instigating generational shifts in authority was important to Natal Native Policy, unlike customary regulation elsewhere in colonial Africa in which colonial law worked to shore up the authority of senior men. However, it seeks to underline that while negotiations of colonial power began to shift authority from older to younger men by manipulating Native marriage, and in particular the practice of lobola, the effects of such policies produced profound shifts in the experience and articulation of gendered relationships of marriage and colonial authority. The imbrication of changes in gender and generational norms ultimately reveals the contradictions in both colonial claims of liberal gender reform and African claims that colonial policy provoked the usurpation of male traditional authority.

Human migration has played an important role in the construction or dissolution of states in southern Africa. With the coming of the colonial period there was an intensification of the process of migration, mainly for work. Such movements were premised on the uneven development of colonial economies in which some areas became suppliers of labour while others became labour markets. In the case of Swaziland, the migration of labour was dominated by male migrants as the existing labour markets offered more opportunities for men. This view has become a conventional interpretation of the disparity in the mobility of men and women within states or across borders. This article uses the experience of Swaziland to extend the discourse on why men dominated the migration currents in Swaziland during the colonial period. It points out that it is no longer useful to rely on purely economic explanations of why more men were migrating than women in colonial Swaziland. The argument pushes the frontier of analysis beyond economics and argues that a more significant explanation is to be found in the power relations at the homestead level, whereby men had the power to determine if and when women could migrate. The discussion shows that Swazi men, in collaboration with colonial administrators, employed different strategies to control the mobility of women. The intention of the men was to keep women in the rural areas and they used their power in the homestead and their influence on the colonial administration to create barriers against female migration to local and cross-border industrial centres.