Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest

by Anne McClintock

Imperial Leather chronicles the dangerous liaisons between gender, race and class that shaped British imperialism and its bloody dismantling. Spanning the century between Victorian Britain and the current struggle for power in South Africa, the book takes up the complex relationships between race and sexuality, fetishism and money, gender and violence, domesticity and the imperial market, and the gendering of nationalism within the zones of imperial and anti-imperial power.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Gender, Theory, Feminism, Sexuality, Race

464 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

Anne McClintock is the A Barton Hepburn Professor in Gender and Sexuality Studies at Princeton University, is on the Executive Committee of the Program in American Studies and is an Affiliate at the Princeton Environmental Institute.

Her interdisciplinary and transnational work—both scholarly and creative—explores the intersections between race, gender and sexualities; imperialism and globalization, including Indigenous studies; visual culture and mass media; sexual and gender violence

Reviews

[Charlotte Kersten]

This sure was a book that I read. Yep.

[T.J. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oh God, Anne McClintock.

Where do I begin?

Well, the book itself is complex, clever, well-thought out, and detailed. Her premise linking colonial domination and cleanliness is a masterful concept.

However, part of the logic, rationale, reasoning and argument in this book just strikes me as batshit insane. I know I'm a (future) historian, this literature analysis is fine when dealing just with books. But using lit crit techniques on historical texts and making colonial historical claims makes me angry with her fundamental lack of evidence or at least more than just one spurious piece of evidence. Parts of her read like Margaret Murray, everyone's favourite pseudo-witch scholar from the 1920's with McClintock's real lack of evidence. Lest you angry lit students get on me, I get it--it's not my field exactly, but I dont' make claims to literarily break down lit texts in the same manner. I think she takes a brilliant observation and stretches it too far here.

[Lobstergirl · Rating 3 out of 5]

A countrywide effort of white nationalist hygiene began. The few voices that attempted to investigate the book's [The Long Journey of Poppie Nongena] complex and ambiguous politics were drowned out in the unanimous hubbub proclaiming that the book had no politics at all, that it was universal, that it dealt with "family issues" and therefore lay beyond the provenance of politics and history proper. At the same time, a well-established critical discourse that defined great literature as apolitical lay ready to hand. In the prevailing white South African liberal aesthetic, based in the universities and white literary journals, politics was seen as a squalid activity made up of venal party polemics and pamphleteering and riven with prejudice, self-interest, cliche and mundanity. Great literature, on the other hand, was seen as transcending the mediocre noon of everyday, inhabiting an inscrutable, hermetic realm of essential and timeless truths. Works of art that embody these truths are the gifts of individual genius and exemplify a unity of vision, wholeness of experience, immanent and universal value, irony of tone, complexity of form, cultivated sensibility and moral discrimination untainted by the platitudes of political dogma. Thus ran the familiar liberal aesthetic inherited by white academics trained in the Leavisite school.

It should not be forgotten that the historical separation of literature and politics began at the moment in Western history when women began to read and write in large numbers. As the "damned mob of scribbling women," in Nathaniel Hawthorne's dyspeptic phrase, entered the public literary domain, literature was defined as separate from politics. Similarly, as colonized countries wrestled their way into independence after World War II; and as women and men of color entered the universities in significant numbers, insisting on defining an alternative to the enshrined white male subjectivity; at just that moment, the requiem was rung on the subject. At the very moment that disenfranchised voices forcibly clamored for the privilege of defining their own identity and authority, "the author" was declared dead.

-- pp. 303-304

[Jordany · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The politics of memory and authorship are inextricably entangled with the politics of institutional power in all its forms: family households, domestic labor, education, publishing, and reception. History is a series of social fabulations that we cannot do without. It is an inventive practice, but not just any invention will do. For it is the future, not the past, that is at stake in the contest over which memories survive.” (McClintock, 328)

I had a great time reading this, just nodding in agreement and saying “yes girl”. Its like deja-vu, a confirmation of thoughts I've had for some time but only now had defined and rationalized before me. I think my whole book collection is just going to be feminists shitting on phallocentric and eurocentric (both “universal”) philosophy, theory, history or whatever (then use them in my art like Rashid Johnson, albeit very different context). I am happy there is analysis of “cross dressing” on top of everything else. The chapter on female fetishism blew my mind and I reread it after having just finished it. I wish I had read this sooner because I had a hard time in several courses where the professors just got bitchy responses and half-assed essays from me because I didn't like Freud or Sartre for erasing any “others” subjectivity because of the ways sex, class, race, gender trouble formations of identity, which are not shared equally. I would have loved to have done an analysis of those texts that flipped its theory on its head like Anne so brilliantly does with Freud and Lacan! (I doubt I could). This is also something done by Lauren Berlant in Desire/Love. Reading this makes you reflect on formations of power that negatively affect you, especially in the everyday, and it made me realize yes they are obviously connected but can result from interesting crossings of wrongness; Heterosexism=Homophobia&Misogyny=Transphobia. These circumstances are not abstract, and seem mostly focused on sex and gender but cross class and race in interesting ways (I wonder how this relates to the quote above especially in relation to queers like how the queer movement was hijacked by the gay white middle-upper class?). Especially since policing the borders of gender and sex have always involved a queer subject along with sex workers. Anyway Munby would make for a really strange SVU episode (I know there’s no mention of rape but he is creepy!). The way Anne discusses the life of Cullwick is amazing, to the extent that details abound and transgress the feminist trap-hole of victimization. The book actually made my own art less abstract to me, and confirmed a lot of my hangups in my art practice (mostly from the amazing chapter on female fetishism!).

[meeners · Rating 4 out of 5]

there's some brilliant food for thought here. deducting one star because the author does not use serial commas. ha! just kidding. (...MAYBE??) it's really because i remain somewhat ambivalent about psychoanalysis in/of/through history (while still acknowledging its usefulness). her rereading of freud's oedipal theory is freaking awesome, at least. and even die-hard anti-psychoanalysis readers should be able to appreciate her main assertion that "race, gender and class are not distinct realms of experience...rather, they come into existence in and through relation to each other - if in contradictory and conflictual ways." chapters 8 & 9 can be skipped if you're just interested in the theory, as they don't really cohere with the rest of the book.

...seriously, though, why don't more people use serial commas :(

[anna near · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite taking fucking forever to finish, I thoroughly enjoyed reading 'Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest' by Anne McClintock. What I really liked was McClintock's meticulous research and engaging writing style. Her in-depth exploration of historical narratives and cultural representations allowed me to gain a comprehensive understanding of the intricate dynamics at play during the colonial era. The intersections of race, gender, and sexuality were brilliantly examined, providing insightful and thought-provoking analysis. McClintock's work prompted me to critically reflect on the ongoing legacies of imperialism and its impact on contemporary societies. Overall, 'Imperial Leather' is an exceptional book that combines meticulous research, engaging writing, and profound insights into the complex interplay of race, gender, and sexuality within the colonial contest.

[Adam Glantz · Rating 3 out of 5]

A series of articles that are as fresh as post-colonial and feminist versions of critical theory get...take that as you will. The highlight of the book comes early, first with a psychoanalytic reading of H. Rider Haggard's "King Solomon's Mines," and then with McClintock's investigation of the transgressive relationship between the precociously self-sufficient Victorian scullery maid Hannah Cullwick and English barrister Arthur Munby. Other than these tales, the book is a dense stew of Freudian, Marxian, and feminist theories that can be tough going at times. There is certainly something to be learned here. It looks likely that race, class, and gender dovetail in the culture of modern imperialism, so that one form of identity is frequently imagined with the others, no matter the reality: This Gramscian formulation is the origin of such anomalous epithets as "the black Irish". And on a wider theoretical plane, it also makes sense that individual level disciplines like psychology and more collectivist fields like political science are mixed up with each other: The insights of Freud, say, were constrained by a variety of political and social forces, while politics and economics (a la Gramsci again) have a definite impact on individual behavior and notions of identity, e.g., as some Native Americans would reify borders on the white man's map as "medicine lines," whose crossing had portentous spiritual consequences. Findings like these constitute the strength and the weakness of critical theory. It's able to poke holes in the axioms, categories, and forms of knowledge of traditional science, but that's less earth-shaking than it may at first appear, since all real science admits to the uncertainty of its results and even tries to quantify it. Moreover, the critical theory endeavor is purely negative, purely deconstructive in the sense Derrida employed, because it doesn't construct a new science of its own. Thus, when reading McClintock's book, it's hard to determine if her arguments are truly valid and generalizable, or if they're merely a bien-pensant, tendentious way of thinking, a new axiomatic orthodoxy that's seductive because it sounds so progressive. With an empirically-grounded, experimental-approximating method to evaluate our ideas, we'll never shake off our cultural milieu nor attain absolute certainly. But without them, we're hardly better off. So unless you see deconstruction as a value in its own right, this book will remain an interesting sideshow, an evocative punctuation mark in a broader narrative.

[Malcolm · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a sophisticated analysis of the complex interrelationship of class, gender and race in British colonial and imperial settings, including the end of empire. McClintock draws on feminist, psychoanalytic, socialist and postcolonial theory to develop an argument we may not agree with but cannot ignore. Her analysis of the competing British, Afrikaaner and black colonial and anti-colonial discourses takes understandings of South African history to new places, and has much wider general resonance. I don't agree with much of what she says, but it remains compelling and a text I regularly draw on for ideas and comparative inspiration.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book does an excellent job of outlining the concepts of race, commodity, and sex fetishism and provides good examples of some that subverted the norm during the Victorian period and in Colonial Africa. The first half was very dry, but it is an academic text so it does require one to engage the brain. The second half of the book was quite well-written and researched.

[Justin Abraham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chapter 3 -- the remarkable true story of Hannah Cullwick who insisted that female domestic labour was worth something more than the Victorians acknowledged and so demanded a wage from her 'husband' and never bore him children.

McClintock is brilliant when she is describing the work that went into being idle and how that work (and its dirt) involved even more work to cover it all up.

Chapter 6 -- in which we learn about the 19th century crisis of masculinity occurring in the second, third, fourth etc. sons of the English and the way this crisis was played out in colonies where masculinie honour could be regained, patriarchy could be restored, empire and monarchy could (literally) be performed, and female bodies, especially black female bodies, could be ruled over.

Again McClintock returns to idleness but this time to the attribution of idleness to "savages" who were "lazy" despite the fact they were doing all the work. M. suggests, though, that any idleness that may have existed was a form of resistance on the part of native inhabitants to this foreign sense of labour.

[Flora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don't let the dated, dissertation-y title turn you off. This book is awesome: an original, impressively-researched (even for an academic tone), and actually pleasurable-to-read analysis of racist Victorian soap advertisements, the fixation of bourgeois men on washerwomen (her chapters on maidservant Hannah Cullwick -- who spent forty years in a secret relationship with her "master," posing for photographs in blackface and chains and keeping a diary detailing for him her daily work -- are superlative), and more. Anne McClintock won a MacArthur several years ago, and, miracle of miracles, it was just.

[bookcasewalls · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book, though I found various parts of it more or less convincing. Chapters one through five were considerably more necessary reading than six through ten. Even for a book that comes at history sideways, it was somewhat incoherent overall (it compares unfavourably, for example, with 'City of Dreadful Delight', which also approaches key themes through eclectic figures/events) - but when it's good, it's really good.

[Jade Metzger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book! I use it for my scholarship. Excellent use of Freudian concepts, and makes psycho analysis relevant for today's reader. I loved the fetish section and the power exchange. Beautiful.

[leni swagger · Rating 5 out of 5]

This counts to me because I read a very, very long chapter on King Solomon’s Mines in here!!
Nevertheless, this was a very informative and well-written chapter on sexuality, race, and gender in the imperial context

[Chris Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought this book for a class I was taking on the British Empire. We did not get to read it as part of our work. This was unfortunate for me, as I read it several years later, and certainly wish I had had a guide into this book. I returned to it after Dr. Maria E. Montoya mentioned it in her excellent book Translating Property, so here we are, a month and a half down the road. I am reviewing it before I rate it because I am still struggling with my understanding of it. (OK. The information that follows is still true from my perspective but writing it has clarified my thinking. There is a tremendous amount of information and thought-provoking work in this book, and I got a lot more out of it than it might seem by my carping below. Still, if it ever comes out in an annotated edition, I'll read it again.)
It seems obvious to me that Ms. McClintock is a scholar--erudite, thoughtful, brave, and deep. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out her target audience. Is it for other inside baseball scholars? OK. Is it for use as a text? Fine, if they have a skilled, engaged professor to guide them. If it is aimed at the general reader, they will have to really, really want to know what she has to say, because she does not really help them along the way. She rattles off ideas, ideologies, words, movements, people, and techniques, with little introduction and definition.
Her synecdoches seem to be appropriate to the task, but she doesn't make clear whether the connection to her theme is historical or her analysis. H. Rider Haggard's map for example. The way she describes it as the female body is all well and good, but she doesn't quote from his letters, books, or other writings, that show this was his plan. If she is parsing or psycho-analyzing him a century later it is something else. Michael Frayn in his afterword to Copenhagen talks about the importance of getting in the subject's head with research, the only way in is with imagination.
Throughout the book, she sprinkles thoughtful analyses on writing history and autobiography, that could be used as jumping-off points in history theory classes.

[Scott Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very dense book (not so much in the difficulty of language as the sheer amount of information presented) and really gives a great, thorough investigation of issues of race and gender and class in relation to colonialism and all kinds of nationalism. The chapter on soap ads of Victorian England was particularly interesting to me as pop culture is something I am very interested in. There is also a lot of great discussion of fetishism and nationality that I found very interesting after having taking an entire graduate seminar on fetishes in culture last semester, and had already read most of the people mentioned. However for some reason I couldn't quite breeze through the book like I have some others. I found it interesting but it seemed like a real ordeal to get through.
But it was good.

[Shannon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely a theory book written in the 90s. Had a lot of important things to say, but it felt like a lot of essays forced to hang out in one book, and I kept waiting for her to tie it all together but it never happened. Also, it's kind of funny how she examines this one historical figure's scopophilia to the point where it seems like she's getting a scopophilic thrill from it.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author may have fascinating and important things to say, but I will never know because she writes in the most awful academic jargon that avoids clarity, precision and any attempt at communicating to anyone except their colleagues. If you can master the prose you may find something wonderful. I never will.

[Iñaki Tofiño · Rating 4 out of 5]

I do not agree with everything she says and I think that the book is somehow incoherent (some psychoanalysis here, some cultural studies there, a bit of Marxist theory...), but she makes interesting points and there is a lot to learn from the book.

[Chloe Coventry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anne McClintock - the intellectual femme fatal of postcolonial theory

[Katherine · Rating 5 out of 5]

kick-ass.

[Melanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting premise and quite helpful for thesis research, but it tended to be focused on oddly peripheral texts and figures, which I didn't find so helpful.

[Shannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good teaching book--the pears soap images make for a really interesting class discussion.

[Decolonize D Native · Rating 4 out of 5]

That cover though.

[Amy]

Very useful book for studies in Imperial colonialism and the gender contest. Features heavily on the Victorian idea of the 'New Woman'.

[Evan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A tour-de-force of scholarship, ranging so widely over place,s spaces and texts, that you could get lost if the author wasn't so very clear in her style and presentation.

[Purple Iris · Rating 4 out of 5]

I only read a couple of chapters, but I really appreciate McClintock's insights. Some of the psychonalysis stuff is a bit over the top for my tastes.

[Karmen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read only ch.5 for a course, but it was very interesting read. Might pick up again if time aalows.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important feminist contribution to/critique of postcolonial theory and psychoanalysis. McClintock attempts to highlight the sexism/male-centric nature of these two theories whilst still claiming them as useful and insightful. The book jumps around a fair bit on a wide variety of topics with some being significantly more interesting than others.

[Liz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for a class. Dense & clumsy. But learned a lot