Comparative versus Global History of Debt Slavery

Bondage in ancient Rome and Northern America has often been presented as forms of chattel or ‘real’ slavery as opposed to the ‘mild’ or hybrid forms of slavery, servitude and coercion found in so many different contexts in Africa, Asia and medieval Europe. Such a distinction is problematic. Anthropologists, sociologists and historians differ considerably in their assessments of what precisely constitutes slavery, highlighting variously issues of social status (membership of or exclusion from the clan, family and local community), religion, legal status (forms of dependence, freedom of movement, hereditary nature of constraints), economic conditions and political, legal and procedural rights. Researchers have pinpointed several variables in their attempts to find a definition of bondage, but without reaching a consensus.

The debate has sharpened even more over the last two decades as cultural and subaltern studies scholars have highlighted the relativity of notions of freedom and coercion. As a result, the critical question currently asked is whether the different forms of servitude found in various societies in Africa, Asia, the Indian Ocean world or the Americas can all be considered to constitute ‘slavery’. If the answer is yes, then by implication slavery existed before and independently of colonialism. Conversely, if the answer is no, it means that these were forms of ‘imperialist’ dependence and bondage specific to a particular place.