Date: 17 Jun 95
From: Chris Lowe <Chris.Lowe@directory.Reed.EDU>
Fikru Gebrekidan wrote (in part):
"The question that faces many upcoming American and European Africanists today
is that whether they should perpetuate old stereotypes and misperceptions as
they engage in epistemological discussion or whether they should become
catalysts
of change by challenging Africa's misrepresentation."
---end of quoted material
Fikru, I agree that "tribe" is a regressive term, that African use of it
reflects colonial influence, and that it is academically outdated (and
intellectually incoherent). I am also pleased to learn that the BBC has given
the term up. I wish I could say the same for any U.S. media. Yes, scholars of
Africa should challenge misrepresentation of Africa, including the term
"tribe".
But paying attention to African ethnic processes doesn't in itself perpetuate
stereotypes, does it?
The fact that many Africans now use the word "tribe" when speaking English is
significant. It affects efforts to challenge the misperceptions outside of
Africa. Journalists, students, business people and travellers often will say,
"But Africans themselves use the term, what can be wrong with my doing so?"
Just saying "it's regressive" is going to sound like name- calling to a lot of
people, and put them on the defensive without reasons or alternatives.
Beyond questions of persuasion are other serious issues:
1) Vail et. al. say that modern tribalism is "invented" and rooted historically
in colonial societies, so primordialist claims about African ethnicity are
false. Good.
But many seem to extend this to say that the invented identities are false.
This seems like a mistake. Historical claims can be false, but can identities?
How far is "false identity" from "false consciousness"?
To me, African ethnicity looks an awful lot like ethnicity everywhere else in
the modern world, responding to similar types of social disruptions brought
about by the same causes (new forms of markets and new states, institutions and
laws developed to organize and sustain them). All other national and ethnic
identities are equally as invented as African ones, and equally real in their
effects.
2) Colonialism happened. It changed African societies and African forms of
consciousness. Is it effective to try to deny that history and resultant
realities? Many seem to argue that any change Africans made under or as a
result of colonialism is alien to them. Isn't this just another form of false
consciousness argument? Doesn't it substitute a nationalist or pan-Africanist
primordialism for colonialist/ tribalist primordialism, but still try to seal
Africans off as a totally distinct order of humanity?
3) What does it mean that Africans are using the word "tribe" in English? If
we think Africans should fight the misrepresentations the word carries, don't
we need to know why some of them use it?
Are Africans who use "tribe" in English using a bad translation taught in
school, without knowing how it will be misused? If so, the answer would be
education.
Or are they using a bad translation consciously, despite knowing that in their
own languages they think about such matters differently? If so, why? This
case implies that it is not miseducation but other circumstances which sustain
the misperceptions, making education not the answer. Rather it would require
changing the circumstances.
Or are Africans who use the terms "tribe" and "tribalism" using a new word for
new relationships in a new situation, created by colonial and post- colonial
states and markets, for which there are not indigenous terms? Ethnic
identities aren't the only thing colonialists invented which Africans adopted
or adapted or adapted to. If "tribe" and "tribalism" are really words for new
strategies for survival in new circumstances of power and domination (a
conclusion which a Vail- type analysis can support, although the main emphasis
so far has been on debunking primordialism), then just calling them regressive
isn't going to get far, absent equally or more effective strategies.
What form should our challenge take? Should we say: "tribe" is a totally false
myth, to be rejected and ignored? Or should we say: "tribe" marks out colonial
and neo-colonial relationships, and its persistence shows their persistence?
Chris