Anthropology in Northern Rhodesia 1930-1960 Gewald, J.B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Researching and writing in the twilight of an imagined conquest: anthropology in Northern Rhodesia 1930-1960 Gewald, J.B. Citation Gewald, J. B. (2007). Researching and writing in the twilight of an imagined conquest: anthropology in Northern Rhodesia 1930-1960. Asc Working Paper Series, (75). Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/12875 Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown) License: Leiden University Non-exclusive license Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/12875 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). African Studies Centre Leiden, The Netherlands Researching and writing in the twilight of an imagined conquest: Anthropology in Northern Rhodesia 1930 - 1960 Jan-Bart Gewald ASC Working Paper 75 / 2007 1 African Studies Centre P.O. Box 9555 2300 RB Leiden The Netherlands Telephone +31-71-5273372 Fax +31-71-5273344 E-mail [email protected] Website http://www.ascleiden.nl © Jan-Bart Gewald, 2007 2 Abstract The rich corpus of material produced by the anthropologists of the Rhodes Livingstone Institute (RLI) has come to dominate our understanding of Zambian societies and Zambia's past. The RLI was primarily concerned with the socio-cultural effects of migrant labour. The paper argues that the anthropologists of the RLI worked from within a paradigm that was dominated by the experience of colonial conquest in South Africa. RLI anthropologists transferred their understanding of colonial conquest in South Africa to the Northern Rhodesian situation, without ever truly analysing the manner in which colonial rule had come to be established in Northern Rhodesia. As such the RLI anthropologists operated within a flawed understanding of the past. The paper argues that a historical paradigm of colonial conquest that was applicable to the South African situation came to be unquestioningly applied by anthropologists to the Northern Rhodesian situation, and discusses what the consequences of this paradigm are for our understanding of Zambian history. 3 4 Researching and writing in the twilight of an imagined conquest: Anthropology in Northern Rhodesia 1930 – 1960 I am saying that the sociology of the environment of social anthropologists has a bearing on the history of social anthropology.1 They are too intelligent to be able to persuade themselves that they are particularly important…2 Introduction The rich corpus of material produced by the anthropologists of the Rhodes Livingstone Institute (RLI) has come to dominate our understanding of Zambian societies and Zambia's past.3 It is argued here that the anthropologists of the RLI, which was primarily concerned with the social-cultural effects of migrant labour, worked from within a paradigm dominated by the experience of colonial conquest in South Africa. RLI anthropologists transferred their understanding of colonial conquest in South Africa to the Northern Rhodesian situation, without ever truly analysing the manner in which colonial rule came to be established in Northern Rhodesia. As such, the RLI anthropologists operated with a flawed understanding of the past. In arguing that a paradigm that was applicable to South Africa came to be applied to Zambia, it contributes to a discussion that was initiated by Gordon, Widlok, and Sunseri. Each of whom, in their separate fields, have drawn attention to the manner in which the South African experience continues to inform and obscure the dominant view of both anthropology and history about southern Africa as a whole. As such, Robert Gordon has highlighted “the effectiveness of [South African] colonial socialization”, which prevents us – in his case – from using terms such as “bushman” and infusing new 1 Edmund R. Leach, “Glimpses of the Unmentionable in the History of British Social Anthropology”, in Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 13 (1984), 1 – 23. p. 3. 2 Anthony St. John Wood, Northern Rhodesia: The Human Background, London: Pall Mall Press, 1961, p. 67. 3 This point is made in a review article by David Gordon, “Rites of Rebellion: Recent Anthropology from Zambia”, in African Studies, 62, 1, 2003, pp. 125 – 139. 5 meaning into them.4 In other words, the South African experience has effectively placed terms and concepts out of bounds and thereby appropriated them and robbed them of all meaning other than that dictated by the South African experience. Similarly Thomas Widlok, in dealing with Hai//om “bushman” communities in northern Namibia, has drawn attention to the continuing influence of labelling, locating and classifying of Hai//om within a South African paradigm.5 In a succinct article dealing with labour migration in colonial Tanzania, Thaddeus Sunseri tackled the hegemony of South African historiography in Tanzanian history. He clearly outlined the way in which an historiography, based on the South African experience, obscured historical understanding and exerted, “a hegemony that is belied by the empirical evidence”.6 Thomas Spear, in discussing the work of Mahmood Mamdani, has drawn attention to the danger of assuming that the “experiences of settler colonialism reflected those of all Africa”.7 Similarly, historians working on Mozambique and Namibia have indicated that the overwhelming reliance on South African models has shaped the writing of history in ways which do not bear relation to the observed data.8 This reliance has, as Sunseri correctly concludes: … led Africanists elsewhere to adopt one of the major weaknesses of this literature, the inability to show how peasants and labour migrants, men and women, contributed to the shaping of colonial political economies.9 Informed by these perspectives, this paper provides an overview of how and why the South African paradigm came to be applied to Zambia, and discusses what the implications of this paradigm have been for Zambian history. The paper concludes that current historiography dealing with the colonisation of Zambia between 1890 and 1920 is seriously flawed and needs to be revised. 4 Robert Gordon, The Bushman Myth, p. 6. Thanks to Thomas Widlok for making this point. 5 Thomas Widlok, Living on Mangetti: “Bushman” Autonomy and Namibian Independence, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999. See in particular Chapter 1, “Cultural Diversity”, pp. 15 – 41. 6 Thaddeus Sunseri, “Labour Migration in Colonial Tanzania and the Hegemony of South African Historiography”, in African Affairs (1996), 95, 581 – 598. 7 Thomas Spear, “Neo-traditionalism and the Limits of Invention in British Colonial Africa”, in Journal of African History, 44 (2003), p. 9, fn. 23. With thanks to Thaddeus Sunseri. 8 Patricia Hayes (et. al.)(eds.), Namibia under South African Rule: Mobility and Containment, 1915 – 46, Oxford: James Currey 1998. & Patrick Harries, Work, Culture, and Identity: Migrant Labourers in Mozambique and South Africa, c. 1860 – 1910, London: James Currey 1994. 9 Sunseri, “Labour Migration”, p. 585. 6 The Importance of Anthropology in Zambian History What he [Marshall Sahlins] is stressing is the importance of ethnography. And I sometimes feel myself that perhaps when all the theories are forgotten … if there is anything that will survive, I think it may be in the ethnography. And by and large I think the work that was done at that time was very, very good ethnography. It’s history.10 Although history is not the object of professional inquiry by anthropologists, they do have ideas about the past, and in the Zambian context anthropology has to a large extent come to determine the country’s historiography.11 Elsewhere in Southern Africa it could be suggested that every ethnicity has its own historian and written history, whereas in Zambia every ethnicity appears to have its own ethnologist and written ethnology. In contrast to South Africa and Zimbabwe, there has been comparatively little historical work done in Zambia. Which is not to say that there is not a rich and varied body of historical material available in Zambia. Yet, at the same time, comparatively more anthropological work has been done in Zambia than in South Africa and Zimbabwe. At the basis of all of this anthropological research lies the hard work of Audrey Richards, Godfrey and Monica Wilson, Max Gluckman, and the anthropologists who made up the Rhodes Livingstone Institute.12 It is to the credit of the Rhodes Livingstone Institute, that Zambia has a unique and richly detailed corpus of anthropological research that can be delved into for historical purposes. Indeed, so rich is the anthropological tradition in Zambia that when historical research has been conducted and historical debates have erupted, it has been on the basis of anthropological research conducted in the past. In other words, even the 10 Kevin A. Yelvington, “An Interview with A.L. Epstein”, in Current Anthropology, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), 289 – 299, p. 296. 11 Nowhere was this more so than in the case of Barnes and the Ngoni, whereby the Ngoni have come to form the stereotypical image of violent conquest in Zambia that came to be applied to the rest of the territory. John Barnes, Politics in a changing society: A Political History of the Fort Jameson Ngoni, London: Oxford University Press, 1954. 12 Those interested in an introduction to the history of the RLI are advised to read, L. Schumaker, Africanising Anthropology: Fieldwork, Networks, and the Making of Cultural Knowledge in Central Africa, London: Duke University Press 2001. 7 historical debates in Zambia are anthropological in origin. Examples would include the material published by Megan Vaughan and Henrietta Moore that re-examined