The Poached Object: Differently Significant in Colonialism than in Nepal's Feudalism(s)

A rhinoceros' horn finds its way into human society, from the forest at Chitwan into a living-room, but it carries a different significance depending on whether it was the result of colonial poaching or of Nepali “feudal/monarchical” poaching. Nevertheless, poaching in general seems to have been derived from a kind of colonialist 'business model': trade-routes fraught with danger (violence is an integral part of the colonial business model) and production processes concerned with 'extraction' rather than value-addition...other examples of this 'colonialist' business model are the diamond trade, the illegal drug trade and the stealing of idols/statues of Gods, as all three of these trades seem to rely on the archaic model of capitalism espoused during colonialism. In poaching, the feudal elements in Nepal's history seem to have been inspired by this colonial business model, but the signs of feudal poaching carry a different meaning than the signs of colonial poaching, even though both colonialists and feudal elements may end up extracting the same product and finding the same place of exhibition of this product (the 'living room'). As long as poaching continues, therefore, we cannot say that we are out of colonialism if we espouse some of the same trade practices that we did back then. Poaching tells us we are in colonialism with a different name. 

It is tempting to think that the rhinoceros horn was a kind of fetish, but it was not. A fetish is an object which causes pleasure, it is a kind of addition to socializing which makes the experience of socializing pleasurable. However, borrowing from Lacan, we believe the rhinoceros horn is the object small 'a.' Deriving from the discussions of Lacanians regarding the object small 'a', we can say that the object small 'a' (henceforth, object a) is different from other types of capitalism's fetishized objects prevalent in society today, and so first of all we may begin by saying that the object a is an object produced first during colonial times and through colonial means and mechanisms, and not produced within the capitalist form of production as a readily consumable object. As opposed to the fetish, the object a or the poached object is the object which is supposed to enjoy rather than the subjects in its presence enjoying it. This character of being both enjoying and lifeless makes the poached object uncanny. In short, the poached object is not enjoyable but itself supposed to be enjoying. Perhaps we can say that the poached object was an enjoyable fetish for Nepalis, and the enjoyment/consumption of this object was a distraction with negative consequences, one of which is the fact that Nepali feudalism was not as efficient and respectful of its economy as colonialism was, eventually making Nepali society a society of consumers seeking fetishized products rather than producers concerned with efficiency. 

The colonial experience, where foreign men were geographically so far away from their homeland as to be anxious that they may no longer heed their authority figures, utilized the poached object as something which could serve as a metaphor for the authority figure. The rhinoceros horn was the master in the colonial experience, it re-presented directly the human figure of the master who was far away, and, more practically, it reminded the colonial officers of the abstract authority of the colonial mission of which they were a part. The colonialists in the foreign land, away from their master, desired another master, similar to when Lacan claimed that French students desired another master when they revolted against the existing order. This master in the colonial experience was the poached object, which is also a quite degrading fact since it implies that the colonialists never considered the actual native human beings who knew the land so well as their masters. It is precisely because of the metaphoric representation of authority that the poached object carried that it has become such a prized object today, that is, it is valuable as an authoritative object and for its legacy as an authoritative object. It similarly has value to academic institutions studying power because of the seamless way in which it has managed to integrate into human relations of authority and hierarchy. The object 'rules the world' in our contemporary capitalist moment, by re-presenting the authority figure, and being the most authoritative of things within human relations. What we mean is that it is not the object produced by capitalism for consumption (such as a car) which rules the world, but precisely the colonial-authoritative object, the object small a, which does so.