View the H-Africa Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Africa's November 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Africa's November 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Africa home page.
<firstname.lastname@example.org> In response to Ken Harrow, Chris Lowe has stated the position very fully and eloquently as he did previously. There is a difference between calling oneself a postmodernist and being "endebted" to a wide range of recent cultural theory (not all of which would itself fall under the label of "postmodernism"). I also admit that, as an historian, I do not like too much of the variant of this theory which does call itself "postcolonial." Here there is a claim to historical understanding which often stands on very weak empirical foundations, i.e. simple and unspecified notions of "capitalism" or Foucaultian readings of colonialist documents with little concern for what actually went on on the ground. We all buy into the "invention of tradition" (thus the suspicion of ethnic-based maps) but do we need Homi Bhabha's dense discussions of "hybridity" to understand this? My original remark about Africanists not calling themselves post-modernists probably should be restricted to historians and social scientists and the term is usually used to name "others" e.g. Vansina's notorious identification of a Northwestern- Chicago postmodernist axis. In that case David Cohen, who comes closest to fitting the bill, does reject the label; it has little relevance to the Comaroffs; and Marshall Sahlins (also named) is most relevant here for his query "What does the native say to the postmodernist anthropologist? (answer; "Enough about you, now let's talk about me.").