Profesor Cartagena: 9/12/12

African Studies seem somewhat a contested territory and notion, depending

on who executes the power of definition. Such studies and their results are

at times questioned and ridiculed as exotic, at times underrated in terms of

their social relevance, but occasionally also over‐estimated with regard to

their political impact. By way of introducing the wide panorama, three

concrete examples from the last decade try to illustrate the diverse points.

Then follows a summary overview on parts of the recent debate concerning

the definition and role of African Studies, before a last part reflects on the

relevance of African Studies in a Nordic context.

There are many different opinions on how to write African history

properly. One US-American historian, J.E. Philips, recently opined his

views quite dogmatically. In an article published in 2005 he compared

the writing of African history in three countries – Japan, France, and

the US. His comparison follows three premises: Firstly, UShistoriography of Africa is the most progressive. Secondly, Japanese

history writing on Africa, in contrast, is characterized by ignorance,

falsity, and bad faith. Thirdly, Philips holds responsible for this

allegedly bad state of the discipline in Japan the influence of the –

allegedly anti-historical – French social anthropologists Georges

Balandier and Claude Lévi-Strauss. Obviously, Philips` treatment of

the distinct national schools of thought is polemical in style. What is

worse, however, is the lack of expertise on the very topics he deals

with. Ignorance is displayed by Philips throughout his article. The

present contribution sets out to substantiate these points, for there is

more to say in favour of French and Japanese ways of writing African

history than the impertinent allegations of Philips forebode.

Profesor Cartagena