Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:34:36.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NEO-TRADITIONALISM AND THE LIMITS OF INVENTION IN BRITISH COLONIAL AFRICA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2003

THOMAS SPEAR
THOMAS SPEAR
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Exploring a range of studies regarding the ‘invention of tradition’, the ‘making of customary law’ and the ‘creation of tribalism’ since the 1980s, this survey article argues that the case for colonial invention has often overstated colonial power and ability to manipulate African institutions to establish hegemony. Rather, tradition was a complex discourse in which people continually reinterpreted the lessons of the past in the context of the present. Colonial power was limited by chiefs' obligation to ensure community well-being to maintain the legitimacy on which colonial authorities depended. And ethnicity reflected longstanding local political, cultural and historical conditions in the changing contexts of colonial rule. None of these institutions were easily fabricated or manipulated, and colonial dependence on them often limited colonial power as much as facilitating it.

Keywords

Accommodation to colonialismanthropologycolonialethnicityhistoriographylawpre-colonialresistance
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of African History , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 3 - 27
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I dedicate this paper to the memory of Leroy Vail, who made us aware of the complex dynamics of African traditions in his many books, articles and edited collections on language, history, traditions and ethnicity. I also thank Iris Berger, Florence Bernault, Sara Berry, Patrick Harries, Corinne Kratz, Richard Rathbone, Richard Roberts, Jan Vansina, Crawford Young and especially Richard Waller for their perceptive comments and suggestions.