“Not at Home in Empire” by Ranajit Guha: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Not at Home in Empire” by Ranajit Guha

“Not at Home in Empire” by Ranajit Guha first appeared in the renowned journal Critical Inquiryin 1997, is a groundbreaking piece that has impacted the fields of history and postcolonial studies, challenging traditional narratives of colonialism and emphasizing the importance of literature and literary theory in understanding imperial experiences. Guha’s work highlighted the complexities of colonial subjectivity and the anxieties experienced by European colonial officials, arguing that these experiences were often at odds with the dominant discourses of empire.

Summary of “Not at Home in Empire” by Ranajit Guha

1. Empire’s Uncanny Nature: Empire, Guha argues, is fundamentally uncanny because it is constituted through violence, conquest, and imposed power structures, rather than by organic social bonds. The empire’s abstract authority, supported by forts, barracks, and bureaucracies, maintains control over vast territories, but these territories remain essentially “empty” when devoid of the conqueror’s institutions. As Guha notes, “empire requires no homes,” sustained by foreign dominion rather than a connection to the land or people (Guha, 1997, p. 482).
2. Colonial Isolation and Alienation: Guha illustrates the colonial officers’ sense of alienation in South Asia, particularly through the memoirs of British officer Francis Yeats-Brown, who describes his experience in India as both exhilarating and deeply isolating. He reflects on the “sense of isolation” he felt, even in his seemingly comfortable life, “a caged white monkey in a zoo” surrounded by an “incredibly numerous beige race” (Guha, 1997, p. 483). This profound sense of being foreign and isolated permeates the colonial experience, as colonizers are unable to reconcile themselves with the vastness and unfamiliarity of the lands they govern.
3. The Role of Clubs as Surrogate Homes: Guha notes that for British officers like Yeats-Brown, colonial clubs acted as substitutes for home. In the familiar setting of the club, with “heads bent over English newspapers,” the officers found a temporary refuge from the overwhelming “millions and immensities” of India (Guha, 1997, p. 483). This social space, enclosed within the limits of shared culture and language, was a circle of safety within the broader alienation of empire.
4. Anxiety Over the Unknown: The colonizers’ anxiety is tied to the sheer scale and unknowability of the Indian environment. Yeats-Brown’s anxiety was not about fear of specific threats, but rather a “pervasive anxiety about being lost in empire” (Guha, 1997, p. 484). The incomprehensibility of the colonial experience – the “millions and immensities” that he encountered – symbolizes the colonizer’s struggle to understand and control a vast, foreign territory. This alienation was inherent to an empire that ruled without genuine hegemony or consent from its subjects.
5. Contradictions in Colonial Authority: Guha discusses the inherent contradictions within British colonial authority, where a liberal government imposed autocratic rule on a foreign population. The British colonial state, Guha points out, functioned as “dominance without hegemony” – a structure of rule imposed on a subject population without any organic social foundation (Guha, 1997, p. 485). This disjunction between liberal ideals and imperial practice created a deep unease among colonial officials.
6. Fear vs. Anxiety in Imperial Historiography: Guha differentiates between fear and anxiety, arguing that imperial historiography has often conflated the two. Fear refers to a specific, identifiable threat, while anxiety is more pervasive and indefinite. Yeats-Brown’s anxiety about the scale and strangeness of India was not a fear of rebellion or sedition, but an existential dread of being engulfed by the empire’s vast, unknowable spaces (Guha, 1997, p. 487).
7. Orwell and the Failure of Liberalism: Guha also examines George Orwell’s reflections on empire, particularly his famous essay “Shooting an Elephant.” Orwell’s experience in Burma mirrors the same anxieties that haunted Yeats-Brown. While Orwell critiqued the empire’s moral failings, Guha suggests that his anxiety went deeper, stemming from a sense of entrapment and loss of freedom as a colonial officer. Orwell writes, “I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all…I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly” (Guha, 1997, p. 491). This moment of realization highlights the inherent contradiction of imperial rule, where even the colonizers are trapped within the expectations imposed upon them.
8. The Uncanny as a Persistent Element of Empire: Finally, Guha argues that the uncanny experience of empire – marked by isolation, anxiety, and the struggle for meaning – was a persistent element of the colonial experience. This anxiety was rarely acknowledged in the official narratives of empire, which emphasized triumphalism and progress. However, for individuals like Yeats-Brown and Orwell, the empire was a place of deep unease and alienation, where they never truly felt at home (Guha, 1997, p. 492).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Not at Home in Empire” by Ranajit Guha

Term	Explanation	Example in Text
Anxiety	A state of mind characterized by a feeling of general unease and worry, often for no apparent reason. It is distinguished from fear by its lack of a specific object.	The young officer’s feeling of isolation and lack of significance in Yeats-Brown’s memoir (passage not directly quoted).
Definiteness (of Fear)	Fear has a specific object or threat associated with it.	The British rulers’ fear of rebellion or sedition in the passage from John Kaye’s History of the Indian Mutiny
Hegemony	Cultural leadership or dominance.	The British Raj failed to achieve hegemony in India because it could not win the consent of the ruled.
Indefiniteness (of Anxiety)	Anxiety is characterized by a lack of a specific object or threat.	The young officer in Yeats-Brown’s memoir feels a general sense of unease and doesn’t know where it comes from.
Limit	The boundary or edge of something.	Home is a space of absolute familiarity where the members of a family feel secure by the completeness of their mutual understanding.
Measure	The act, process, or system of assigning numbers to quantities or attributes.	A world of known limits derives comfort from the known measure of things.
Normality (of Colonial Rule)	The everyday practices and routines of colonial administration.	Orwell describes the moral and political doubts of the subdivisional police chief as integral to the normalcy of the colonial world.
Otherness	The state of being different or foreign.	The irreducible and historically necessary otherness of the colonized made imperialism uncanny for the colonizers.
Register (Literary)	A particular level or style of language used within a text.	Orwell’s essay uses two registers: one that critiques colonialism and another that expresses his own sense of anxiety and loss of freedom.
Tyranny	Cruel, oppressive, or unjust government.	Orwell initially describes British rule in India as a tyranny.

Contribution of “Not at Home in Empire” by Ranajit Guha to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Introduction of Postcolonial Anxiety in Colonial Narratives: Guha’s essay expands on the concept of postcolonial theory by introducing the notion of anxiety as a core element of the colonial experience. This anxiety, distinct from fear, is a pervasive sense of unease that colonizers felt in relation to the overwhelming scale and unknowability of the colonized territories. Guha writes, “What made him feel so isolated was not therefore fear…but simply an indefinite and pervasive anxiety about being lost in empire” (Guha, 1997, p. 484). This differentiation between anxiety and fear contributes to a deeper understanding of the psychological toll of colonial rule.
2. Dominance without Hegemony: A Structural Concept in Postcolonial Studies: Guha introduces the idea of “dominance without hegemony” to describe the British Raj’s rule in India, where power was maintained without gaining the consent of the governed population. This concept highlights the disconnect between the imposed colonial state and the society it ruled. Guha’s analysis contributes to postcolonial theory by revealing the inherent contradictions within imperial governance. He asserts, “The raj was a dominance without hegemony—an autocracy that ruled without consent” (Guha, 1997, p. 485).
3. The Uncanny and the Empire: Expanding Freud’s Theories: Drawing from Freud’s concept of the uncanny, Guha applies this psychoanalytic theory to the colonial experience. The empire itself becomes an unhomely space for both colonizers and colonized, where nothing feels familiar or comfortable. Guha elaborates on this idea through the experiences of figures like Yeats-Brown, who found India to be “an empty, hence inaccessible, outside” (Guha, 1997, p. 484). This use of the uncanny as a tool for understanding colonial alienation advances psychoanalytic literary theory into the realm of postcolonial discourse.
4. Critique of Liberalism and Imperialism: Guha critiques the liberal narratives that often justified colonialism, arguing that even self-proclaimed liberals like George Orwell could not escape the structures of power imposed by the empire. In analyzing Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant,” Guha shows how colonial officers, despite their liberal ideals, were trapped by the expectations of imperial dominance: “When the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (Guha, 1997, p. 491). This insight challenges the traditional portrayal of colonial officers as merely reluctant agents of empire, suggesting that their complicity ran deeper, influenced by both personal and structural forces.
5. Reframing Colonial Historiography Through the Lens of Anxiety: Guha’s essay shifts the focus of colonial historiography from the typical narratives of fear and rebellion to a more nuanced understanding of colonial anxiety. He argues that the historiography of empire has often conflated anxiety with fear, focusing on specific threats to state security, while ignoring the deeper, more pervasive sense of anxiety that colonial officers experienced. Guha writes, “The differences of race, religion, language, and custom…separated the rulers and the ruled as with a veil of ignorance” (Guha, 1997, p. 486). This reframing contributes to postcolonial historiography by offering a more complex emotional landscape of empire.
6. Challenging the Triumphalist Narrative of Empire: Guha critiques the triumphalist narrative often found in imperial historiography, which celebrates colonial expansion as a process of progress and civilization. He highlights how this narrative overlooks the anxieties and contradictions that underpinned the colonial project. Guha states, “It is not anxiety but enthusiasm that has been allowed to dominate its narratives” (Guha, 1997, p. 488). By foregrounding the feelings of isolation and alienation experienced by colonizers, Guha challenges the dominant historiographical discourse that simplifies the complexities of imperialism.
7. Contributions to Subaltern Studies: As the founding editor of Subaltern Studies, Guha’s work in Not at Home in Empire builds on his earlier contributions to the field. The essay emphasizes the gap between colonial rulers and the subjugated populations, reinforcing the importance of subaltern perspectives in understanding the dynamics of empire. His focus on colonial officers’ alienation, rather than their dominance, offers a more nuanced view of the imperial experience, which complements subaltern studies’ emphasis on the marginalized voices of history.
8. Decentering the Colonial Subject: Guha’s work decenteres the colonial subject by focusing on their psychological dislocation and alienation. Rather than portraying the colonizer as a figure of absolute power, Guha shows how the colonial subject is, in fact, deeply unsettled and uncertain, contributing to a broader understanding of identity and subjectivity in postcolonial theory. The essay’s exploration of how colonial officers were “trapped in the image of the sahib” (Guha, 1997, p. 491) challenges simplistic notions of colonial authority and power.
9. Integration of Psychoanalysis with Postcolonial Theory: By blending psychoanalytic concepts like the uncanny with postcolonial concerns of domination and alienation, Guha offers a sophisticated theoretical approach that deepens both disciplines. His analysis of how colonial officers like Yeats-Brown and Orwell experienced empire through the lens of anxiety extends the reach of psychoanalytic theory into historical and political contexts, offering new ways to analyze colonial texts and narratives.

Examples of Critiques Through “Not at Home in Empire” by Ranajit Guha

Literary Work	Critique from Guha’s Perspective
John Kaye’s History of the Indian Mutiny	Kaye’s work presents a one-sided view of the Mutiny, focusing on the threats posed by the colonized and downplaying the anxieties and isolation experienced by the colonizers. Guha argues that this perspective is influenced by the discourse of law and order, which prioritizes the security of the state over the complexities of colonial subjectivity.
Francis Yeats-Brown’s The Lives of a Bengal Lancer	Yeats-Brown’s memoir reveals the complexities of colonial subjectivity and the anxieties experienced by European colonial officials, challenging traditional narratives of colonialism. Guha uses this memoir to illustrate the ways in which colonizers can be conflicted and alienated from the imperial project.
George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”	Orwell’s essay exposes the moral dilemmas faced by colonial officials and the hypocrisy of British imperialism. It also challenges the notion of the colonizer as a heroic figure. Guha argues that Orwell’s text reveals the ways in which the colonizer can be trapped by the expectations and demands of the colonial system, leading to a loss of freedom and a sense of anxiety.
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book	Kipling’s stories, while often celebrated for their exoticism and adventure, also reinforce colonial stereotypes and hierarchies. Guha could critique Kipling’s work for its portrayal of the colonized as inferior and exotic, and for its celebration of British imperialism as a force for progress and civilization.

Criticism Against “Not at Home in Empire” by Ranajit Guha

1. Overemphasis on the Psychological Aspect of Empire
   Critics argue that Guha places too much focus on the psychological isolation and anxiety of the colonizers, overshadowing the material and political realities of colonial oppression. By emphasizing the colonizers’ personal struggles, the essay risks minimizing the experiences of the colonized populations, whose suffering under imperial rule is far greater and more direct than the anxieties of the ruling class.
2. Lack of Attention to the Voices of the Colonized
   While Guha is known for his work in Subaltern Studies, this essay has been criticized for focusing almost exclusively on the perspectives of colonial officers like Yeats-Brown and Orwell. Critics point out that Guha does not provide enough space for the voices of the colonized or explore how the empire’s uncanny nature was experienced by the people subjected to British rule. This creates an imbalance in the narrative, centering the colonizer’s emotional experience rather than the colonized’s resistance and struggles.
3. Neglect of Economic and Structural Dimensions of Empire
   Some critics believe that Guha’s focus on anxiety and the uncanny overlooks the economic and structural foundations of empire. By prioritizing the psychological alienation of individual colonial officers, the essay arguably downplays the importance of the material exploitation and systematic violence that were the core mechanisms of colonialism. This approach may detract from a broader understanding of empire’s political and economic objectives.
4. Simplistic Dichotomy of Fear vs. Anxiety
   The distinction Guha makes between fear and anxiety, while theoretically interesting, has been criticized as overly simplistic and not entirely applicable to all colonial experiences. Some scholars argue that fear and anxiety are more intertwined in the context of empire, and separating the two in such stark terms risks ignoring the complexities of colonial governance and the real, immediate fears faced by both colonizers and colonized.
5. Overreliance on Western Philosophical Frameworks
   Guha’s reliance on Western philosophers such as Freud, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger to explain the colonial experience has been criticized for neglecting non-Western theoretical frameworks that could provide a more nuanced understanding of empire. Critics suggest that the essay could have benefited from integrating indigenous philosophies or postcolonial thinkers who might offer alternative interpretations of anxiety and alienation in the context of empire.
6. Romanticization of the Colonizers’ Alienation
   Some critics argue that Guha’s portrayal of the colonizers’ alienation can border on romanticizing their experience, inadvertently generating sympathy for colonial officers like Yeats-Brown and Orwell. This focus on their emotional and psychological struggles may shift attention away from the structural violence they perpetuated, risking an imbalance in the critique of empire.
7. Insufficient Critique of Liberalism
   While Guha critiques the failure of liberalism in the colonial context, some scholars believe that he does not go far enough in deconstructing the complicity of liberal ideologies with imperial power. The essay points out Orwell’s dilemma but does not fully address how deeply liberalism was intertwined with the justification of colonial rule. A more thorough critique of liberalism’s role in perpetuating empire might have strengthened the argument.
8. Neglect of Gender and Class Dimensions in Colonial Experience
   The essay’s analysis focuses primarily on race and ethnicity, but it has been criticized for neglecting other crucial dimensions of the colonial experience, such as gender and class. Critics argue that the anxieties of colonial officers could also be understood through their interactions with indigenous women or lower-class populations, adding complexity to the narrative. Guha’s essay does not adequately explore how these factors intersected with race to shape the colonial experience.
9. Limited Exploration of Resistance Movements
   Guha’s focus on the internal psychological struggles of colonizers has been critiqued for not giving enough attention to the anti-colonial resistance movements that actively challenged imperial rule. By focusing primarily on the anxieties of the colonizers, the essay risks sidelining the voices and actions of those who resisted and fought against the empire, which is a significant element of postcolonial studies.

Suggested Readings: “Not at Home in Empire” by Ranajit Guha

Representative Quotations from “Not at Home in Empire” by Ranajit Guha with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Empire requires no homes, if only because the authority, the imperium, from which it derives its form, function, and purpose, is easily sustained by forts and barracks and offices.” (p. 482)	Guha argues that empire is a structure of power sustained by military and administrative institutions, without the need for social or cultural integration with the local population. This highlights the detachment of imperial authority from the territories it rules.
“Yet among these servants and salaams, I had sometimes a sense of isolation, of being a caged white monkey in a zoo whose patrons were this incredibly numerous beige race.” (p. 483)	Through Yeats-Brown’s account, Guha illustrates the profound alienation colonial officers felt in India, depicting the deep sense of otherness and racial separation between the colonizers and the colonized.
“The raj was a dominance without hegemony—an autocracy that ruled without consent.” (p. 485)	This quotation encapsulates one of Guha’s key arguments, that British rule in India was maintained through dominance and force rather than through the consent or participation of the governed, highlighting the coercive nature of colonial power.
“What made him feel so isolated was not therefore fear…but simply an indefinite and pervasive anxiety about being lost in empire.” (p. 484)	Guha distinguishes between fear and anxiety in the colonial context, arguing that colonial officers experienced a more pervasive form of anxiety, not tied to specific threats but to the sheer unknowability and vastness of the empire they ruled.
“India, standing as it did beyond the limit, was an empty, hence inaccessible, outside.” (p. 484)	Here, Guha emphasizes the alienation felt by the colonizers, portraying India as an unknown and unknowable “outside” that remained inaccessible despite their efforts to control it.
“The great safeguard of sedition was to be found in the slow processes of departmental correspondence… A letter was written where a blow ought to have been struck.” (p. 486)	This quote critiques the bureaucratic inefficiency of the colonial state, which responded to crises like rebellion or sedition through slow and ineffective means, reflecting the structural limitations of colonial rule.
“The world has the character of completely lacking in significance. In anxiety one does not encounter this thing or that thing which, as something threatening, must have an involvement.” (p. 487)	Guha uses Heidegger’s concept of anxiety to describe how colonial officers felt a loss of significance in the unfamiliar world of empire, where they could not find meaning or understand their surroundings.
“It is not anxiety but enthusiasm that has been allowed to dominate its narratives.” (p. 488)	Guha critiques imperial historiography for focusing on the triumphalist and enthusiastic moments of empire, such as conquest and progress, while ignoring the pervasive anxiety and alienation experienced by colonial officers.
“I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all… I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly.” (p. 491)	This quote from Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant illustrates the moral and psychological pressures faced by colonial officers, as they were often forced to act against their own will to conform to the expectations of both the empire and the colonized people.
“He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib… He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it.” (p. 491)	Guha uses Orwell’s reflection to describe how colonial officers were trapped in their roles as imperial representatives, forced to perform their duties in a way that stripped them of personal agency, turning them into mere symbols of colonial power.