Priya Satia

Priya Satia is an American historian of the British Empire, with a particular focus in the Middle East and South Asia. Satia is the Raymond A. Spruance Professor of International History at Stanford University. She was educated at Stanford (attaining both a B.A. in international relations and a B.S. in chemistry) and the London School of Economics (receiving a master's degree in Development Economics) and received her PhD from the University of California, Berkeley in 2004. Satia grew up in Los Gatos, California.

In addition to her academic publications, Satia has written for Time Magazine, The Nation, Slate, The New Republic and Foreign Policy Magazine. She has also contributed opinion pieces for CNN online as well as for the Washington Post and Al Jazeera.

She is on the international advisory board of Modern British History, an academic journal.

Themes

Satia's research focuses on how the material and intellectual foundations of the modern world were shaped by the era of British imperialism. She investigates the development of government bodies, military advancements, ideas about progress, and the resulting anti-colonial movements to understand how British imperialism continues to influence the present day and how the moral challenges it raised were addressed historically. More recently, Satia has also explored whether concepts of selfhood and individual agency, inherited from 'Western' ideals of classical liberalism and the Age of Enlightenment, are helpful or hurtful in understanding the impact of colonization on former colonized societies.

Time's Monster: How History Makes History

Her book "Time's Monster" examines how the discipline of history itself enabled and justified British colonialism by promoting a linear vision of historical progress, derived from the ideas of the Enlightenment in Europe. She further examines how the idea of inevitable progress, enabled British imperialists to justify what she deems morally reprehensible colonial actions by suspending ethical judgment and prioritizing future outcomes above all else. This sensibility was not limited to the British liberalism of the time but permeated British thought in general, serving as a flexible tool to rationalize contradictory actions across different imperial contexts. This work bridges the gap between public debates on the legacy of the British Empire and academic discussions on Liberalism's complicity in imperialism. The book raises questions about the limitations and alternatives to this historical sensibility, prompting further inquiry into the complex relationship between historical thought and imperial actions.

Empire of Guns: The Violent Making of the Industrial Revolution

Empire of Guns argues that war, specifically the government's demand for military equipment, drove the Industrial Revolution in Britain. This is contrary to other theories that attribute the revolution to factors like coal supplies, inventiveness, or consumerism. Satia supports her argument by examining the Birmingham gun-making industry, showing how war benefited businesses and how guns played a crucial role in British cultural and colonial expansion. Guns were not only weapons, but also status symbols, gifts, currency, and signifiers of power.

However, the book also highlights the moral complexities of the gun trade, particularly for Samuel Galton, a Quaker gunmaker who faced criticism from his pacifist community. Satia uses this conflict to illustrate the clash between militarism and emerging ideas about guns in civic life.

Essay on Significance of Kamala Harris as Vice Presidential candidate (2020)

In a 2020 Washington Post article, Satia analyzes the impact of representation in politics, focusing on Kamala Harris as a case study. She argues that, while representation alone doesn't guarantee radical change, it can embolden marginalized communities and create a context in which change becomes possible. Satia further highlights the disappointment of some on the left with Harris's moderate stance, drawing parallels to similar criticisms of Obama's presidency. The article counters the pessimistic view that these figures are mere tokens, arguing that representation, especially within a Democratic party reliant on minority support, matters significantly. The article then cites the Black Lives Matter movement as an example of how representation can catalyze activism, even if it arises from disillusionment. It further explores the historical context of anti-colonial struggles, emphasizing that radical change is often driven by ordinary people, but that representation can inspire and legitimize such movements.

Essay on the American Natural History Museum (2024)

In a June 2024 essay published in Indian online paper ThePrint, Satia argues that the "Hall of Asian Peoples" in the American Museum of Natural History in New York is problematic because it portrays Asian cultures as static and frozen in time, often relying on outdated, harmful and racist stereotypes. One of the examples Satia mentions is the specific way Indian society is presented in an exhibit titled 'Indian Cycle of Life' because it "...suggests India is an exclusively Hindu society, with a single, heteronormative vision of life". Another example of a statement made in another exhibit about Arab culture that Satia deems problematic is that “Islamic civilization arose primarily out of Arab respect for Greek and Roman accomplishments.” Satia believes the various misrepresentations can lead to misunderstandings and perpetuate harmful biases against Asian people and suggests that the museum needs to update its exhibits to reflect the dynamism and diversity of Asian and Middle Eastern cultures, and to do so in a way that is accurate.

Her essay was criticized by Samuel Abrams, who serves as a Nonresident Senior Fellow of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, Faculty Fellow at NYU's Center for Advanced Social Science Research and as a professor of Politics at Sarah Lawrence College. Abrams states that "Critiquing an outdated museum is fine, but nothing about Satia’s thread was constructive or helpful. Satia is a powerful voice as a tenured Stanford professor; she has expertise that would be of value to the museum. Rather than put her expertise to good use, Satia only presented the self-righteous rage that is common among so many professors."

Reception of work

Time's Monster

In an article titled "The book that changed me: how Priya Satia’s Time’s Monster landed like a bomb in my historian’s brain," historian Mark LeVine discusses the impact of Priya Satia's book on his understanding of history's role in justifying and normalizing violence. LeVine highlights Satia's exploration of how 18th- and 19th-century British historians used their craft to rationalize imperial expansion, creating a historical narrative that obscured what he sees as the violence and exploitation inherent in colonialism. The article emphasizes and reiterates Satia's call for historians to confront their discipline's complicity in perpetuating injustice, urging a reckoning with the ethical implications of historical narratives.

Writing in the Financial Times, Tony Barber states that "Satia’s book raises an important question about whether historians are prosecutors and history is a court in which judgments should be passed on accused individuals."

Maya Jasanoff of the New Yorker praised Satia for the book's probing analysis of how British historians have shaped, and often distorted, the nation's view of its imperial past. Jasanoff finds Satia's arguments compelling, particularly her focus on the role of historians like James Mill in perpetuating the idea that imperialism brought progress to colonized lands. The book is also commended for highlighting the erasure of historical records by British officials, further obscuring the true nature of imperial rule.

A more critical review came from author Zareer Masani. He criticizes Satia for conflating history, historiography, and historicism stating that "Most of Satia’s charge-sheet uses these terms as though they are interchangeable", and for relying on selective evidence, and making generalizations. The review finds fault with Satia's alleged moral equivalence between British imperialism and Nazism, as well as her misrepresentation of Indian history by overlooking positive contributions of British colonialism and internal conflicts within Indian society. Masani believes one example of this is when "..[Satia] castigates British Orientalists for perpetuating notions of Oriental despotism, but ignores the work of Orientalists like Sir William Jones and James Prinsep in rediscovering and celebrating India’s classical heritage." Additionally, Satia's own argument is seen as potentially teleological, presenting a predetermined narrative of evil empire as the inevitable outcome of liberal imperialism. Overall, while the book raises important questions about the role of historians in shaping narratives, the review finds its approach to be flawed and misleading due to its selective evidence, generalizations, and biases.

Empire of Guns

Writing in The New York Times, Jonathan Knee commends Satia for effectively challenging the traditional view of war as an economic hindrance. By presenting extensive evidence of the deep connections between war, government intervention, and industrial development, Satia offers a fresh perspective on the Industrial Revolution. The review also underscores Satia's emphasis on the crucial role of collaboration between the government and the private sector in fostering innovation and economic growth during the Industrial Revolution. Knee believes Satia's argument convincingly shows how public-private sector collaboration was a contradiction of "simple free-market narratives". This partnership, particularly in the arms industry, led to significant advancements in various British economic sectors, from finance to mining. Knee also praises Satia's examination of the evolving social and moral implications of guns. Through the case of Samuel Galton Jr., a Quaker gunmaker, Satia reveals the changing attitudes towards guns as their technology and societal impact shifted over time.

While this book provides valuable insights into the role of guns, violence, and empire in British history, its argument that war caused the Industrial Revolution is considered problematic by a reviewer in The Guardian, historian Emma Griffin. Griffin states that industrialization is a complex phenomenon with diverse causes, and other countries, like Switzerland, industrialized without war. Therefore, while war may have played a significant role, Griffin takes issue with Satia's overall thesis that it is the main cause of the Industrial Revolution.

Awards

• 2020/2021 Pacific Coast Conference on British Studies Book Prize (For Time’s Monster: How History Makes History)
• Time’s Monster: How History Makes History listed (nominated by Pankaj Mishra) as one of the Books of the Year (2020) by New Statesman
• 2019 Jerry Bentley Prize in World History (For Empire of Guns: The Violent Making of the Industrial Revolution) from the American Historical Association
• 2019 Pacific Coast Conference on British Studies Book Prize (For Empire of Guns: The Violent Making of the Industrial Revolution)
• 2018 BAC Wadsworth Prize (For Empire of Guns: The Violent Making of the Industrial Revolution)
• 2009 AHA-Herbert Baxter Adams Book Prize (For Spies in Arabia: The Great War and the Cultural Foundations of Britain's Covert Empire in the Middle East)

Publications

• Satia, Priya (2008). Spies in Arabia: The Great War and the Cultural Foundations of Britain's Covert Empire in the Middle East. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331417.001.0001. ISBN 9780195331417.
• Satia, Priya (2018). Empire of Guns: The Violent Making of the Industrial Revolution. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-7352-2186-4. OCLC 1039333835.
• Satia, Priya (2020). Time's Monster: How History Makes History. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-24837-3. OCLC 1151894978.

External links

• Appearances on C-SPAN