You are on page 1of 6

The Royal African Society

Anthropology and Colonial Policy Author(s): Lucy Mair Reviewed work(s): Source: African Affairs, Vol. 74, No. 295 (Apr., 1975), pp. 191-195 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal African Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/721182 . Accessed: 13/02/2013 05:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and The Royal African Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to African Affairs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:41:01 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIAL POLICY


LucY MAIR

THERE NOdefence against the argumentthat whatever one thinks one had IS been doing one was objectivelydoing something else. All I can tell you is what I and my contemporaries thought we were about when we launched-as I think we can claim to have done-modem field studies in anthropologyon the African continent. To do this I must examinethe sources of support for research,the aims and values of those who pursued it, and also the attitudesof those officials from whom we had to have tolerance,if no warmerassociation. Levelsof responsibility policy for I should like to begin by saying something about the relation of officialsto policy, independently of their relation to us. Colonial policy is apt to be represented as a monolithic process of exploitation, all colonial officials being primarilyengaged in this task. Policy, however, was neither made nor implemented in such a monolithicmanner. It was made at differentlevels: partly in London, partly in the capitals of the different territories,hardly at all by the administratorswith whom we came into contact. In London there were two differentinfluencesat work: what one might call the Chamberlain school, which saw the major aim of policy as economic development,and the 'humanitarian' school, going backto the Abolitionists. The latter protested againstabusesand invoked the principles which their representativeshad got written into the Mandate system of the League of Nations. Economic policy in the colonies was a matter of choosingtypes of development,giving or withholding assistance to European enterprise, seeking to stimulate or check migration to centres of employment. The District Commissioner'sjob-'native administration'--was concernedwith the preservationof peace, the settlement of disputes, the introduction of improved seeds and agriculturaltechniques, measures of sanitation, and so forth; also with 'civilization' in the crude sense of making 'them' more like 'us' by suppressing institutions thought to be incompatible with our standardsof morals. Lest it be thought that 'the preservationof peace' means the suppressionof rebellion, it was much more concerned with the assaults of Africans on one another. Where Europeansettlement had been encouragedlargely a matter of climate-District Commissionerswere, in practice, expected to further Europeaninterests by securing an adequate labour supply; this was not a matterof officialinstructions,which were neutralor to the contrary,but of the unpopularitythey earnedif they did not. But many District Commissioners,
Lucy Mair recentlyretiredfrom the Chairof Applied Anthropologyat the London School of Economics. She presently teaches at the University of Kent. See also p. 226. 191

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:41:01 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

192

AFRICAN AFFAIRS

especially where these pressureswere not operating,were genuinely devoted to the interests, as they saw them, of the Africans over whom they were set in authority. It was their duty to administernative law 'where not repugnantto natural justice', and when it became Colonial Office policy to recognize traditional authorities as the grass-roots agents of administration,to know how to identify them. Some of them, therefore,were interested in what we could tell them on these matters;othersresentedthe idea that we could tell them anything. Some territoriesappointed officialsas governmentanthropologists;these were the territories where European interests were minimal. The 'Indirect Rule' it policy eventuallybecame an anachronism; was maintainedtoo long after 'new men' had appearedto speakfor their compatriots. But this is not to say that it was wrong all the time. And I cannot see that letting people keep their own rules of civil law is oppressive or exploitative, or that to elucidate these rules assists oppression. I must now turn to the attitude of the anthropologists,and begin with my own. I came into the subject because I was one of the people naive enough to believe that the League of Nations would usher in a new world if only all governments would follow its principles. My first job was writing publicity materialfor the League of Nations Union, and the first books I read on Africa were the two scathing indictments of Kenya policy by Norman Leys and MacgregorRoss, and then Edwin Smith's The GoldenStool. became anthropologists because they had grown Some of my contemporaries in countries where there were 'natives' and wanted to know more about up them, of course from a sympatheticpoint of view. None of us, it is true, held that colonialrule ought to come to an immediateend. Who did in those days? We thought it should give Africansa better deal, and to a largeextent we were in line with leaders of the missionaryworld, such as J. H. Oldham,who is usually thought to have been responsible for the chapter on the relations between Africans and Europeansin the report of the Commissionon Closer Union in East Africa. This containedthe often-quoted assertionthat 'the creationand preservationof a field for the full developmentof native life is the first charge on any territory,and . . the governmenthaving createdthis field has the duty to devote all availableresourcesto assisting the native to develop within it.' Under the influence of Malinowski, however, we went further than the and missionariesand District Commissioners, insisted on the value of all African institutions. Of course, there is a differencebetween correctingethnocentric judgments of alien institutions and insisting that they should at all costs be preserved;Malinowskisaw that himself when he had visited Africa,and most of us found it out for ourselves. Nevertheless, we still held that there should be good reason before traditionalinstitutions were destroyed, and, above all, that village life should not be disrupted by the absence of the young men for long periods at labour centres. We believed that the right line of developmentwas through independentproductionof cash crops. But, on the whole, we thought

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:41:01 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND COLONIAL POLICY ANTHROPOLOGY

193

economic development had done more harm than good, and in that sensesupposing us to have had any influence-it could be said that we were aligned with those who 'neglected' the colonies (of course, the European exploiters complainedof the 'neglect' much more, at that time, than the Africans). Sourcesof funds Where did we get our money from? Not directly from officialsources until after the end of the Second World War. One or two scholarshipshad been founded by the families of anthropologistswho died young; one or two trusts for researchin generalhad been founded by industrialists,and could sometimes be tapped for anthropology. Australia established and financed a National Research Council long before there was anything of the kind in England. It representeduniversitybodies and providedfor work in Oceania. As far as Africa is concernedthe InternationalAfricanInstitute was founded in 1926 as a result of the activity of some notable missionaries-Edwin Smith, J. H. Oldham, Hans Visscher-and advocates of what was then regarded enlightened colonial policy, such as Lord Lugard. Its funds were providedby contributionsfrom governments and the Rockefeller Foundation, and administered by a committee of academics. Applicants for grants chose their own territoriesand problems. The declared aim of the Institute was to study social change in Africa as a guide to policies which should lead to harmoniouscooperationbetween Europeansand Africans. It certainlyseems clear now that this was an unattainableaim, and of course it can be translatedinto 'fastening the yoke on the neck'. It did not prevent the beneficiariesof the funds from simply arguingthat deliberateinterferencewith Africaninstitutions had generally been harmful and the best policy was to avoid it. Whateveryou think of that line of argument, it was not one that commended itself to the colonial authorities. The other majorsource of finance at that time consisted in direct grants from the RockefellerFoundation; I do not know what first stimulated their interest in anthropology. My first fieldworkwas done on a Rockefeller Foundation grant, and I assure you that no strings of any kind were attached
to it.

I should say something about the post-war period when, for a short time, anthropologywas financedfrom the Colonial Social Science Research Council. This body came into being as a delayed response (delayed on account of war conditions)to the plea made by Lord Hailey in his African Surveythat government funds should be made availablefor researchinto all problemsconfronting African territories. By far the larger proportion of the money eventually got providedwent into the naturalsciences, but anthropology a scraping. These and grantswere administeredby a committeeof anthropologists a representative of the newly created African Research division of the Colonial Office, and chaired by a member of the Office. On the occasions when I took part in its discussions, they often turned on the question whether the project would be

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:41:01 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

194

AFRICAN AFFAIRS

better financedfrom some other source. Once, I remember,a Colonial Office member of the group described a project with some distaste as 'trying to find how to manipulatepeople'. Relationswith administrators It has sometimesbeen suggestedthat anthropologists avoideddiscussionof the administrativeside of the picture because they were financed by government grants. It must be emphasized that this has only been true to a small on extent, but I think one has to answerthe commentthat we concentrated 'the village' or 'the people' and took for grantedthe externalsources of the changes that we documented. I think the reason is simply that one cannot do both at have, the importanceof the once, and we did not realize, as later anthropologists to implementpolicy and membersof interactionbetween administrators seeking the public seeking variouslyto stall it or to profit by its consequences. This kind of study involves the examinationof documents(which, of course, may not the always be made available,but if they are not it is because researcheris an not because he is officiallysponsored). I might mention here that I outsider, myself wrote a book on colonialpolicy which was highly criticalof some governments, even if too lenient to others. Let us come now to our actual contactswith administrators. We needed, of course, governmentpermission to do the work, and on my first trip that was all that I got (missionariesgave me my first base). On the second I was allowed to live in a governmentrest-house,though I was warnedthat I must move out if any officialshould want it. On the third a clerk was put at my disposal. On this last occasion I was requested to let the authoritiessee what I had written; they did not censor it, but they told me I had got it all wrong. I was interpreting in terms of social structurewhat they preferredto interpretin terms of personalities. Malinowski maintainedthat he did not get anywherewith the Trobriandersuntil they saw that he was at daggersdrawnwith the authorities. I think it more likely that he had a row with some officialjust when the situation was ripening in any case. Edith Clarke,who was one of his earliest disciples, solemnly advised me, 'Let it be known that you have quarrelled with the on District Commissioner.' I do not know whether she did her own fieldwork that basis, but then they did not have District Commissionersin Jamaica. Audrey Richardshas reportedthat she was sent on a tour with a DC to see what the countrywas like, and was so upset by his behaviourto Africansthat she did not completeit. As for me ... one begins by an interview with the Provincial Commissioner,who normally one never sees again. My first one said 'We've nothing to hide', makingit clearthat he supposedI had come to dig out scandal; he had no idea what I was after, or indeed what anthropologywas. My second one said 'We've had anthropologistshere before'-meaning me, though he did not realize that-in the tone in which he might have said 'We've had mice'. He then told me what I couldnot be allowedto do: fortunately,somethingthat I

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:41:01 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POLICY AND COLONIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

195

did not much want to. He later summonedme to his office and said he would have to stop me workingif I went arounddiscussingthe problemof the succession to the then dying Kabaka(which I had not been doing). In Malawi, officials were kind to me, but I was denouncedas a Communistby a fellow passengeron the voyage out, and frantic cables went to London. The handmaid of imperialism!

Now in paperback

The Nigerian Military


A Sociological Analysis of Authority and Revolt ROBIN LUCKHAM
An account of the Nigerian military coup of 1966, in which the author discusses both the events themselves and their sociological background. '... a book of real value, not least in the way it has assembled and recovered information which will remain a primary source for a critical watershed in the history of tropical Africa's most important state.' John Flint, CanadianJournal of History Paperback ?2.20 net

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

This content downloaded on Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:41:01 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like