A response to Steven Feierman's 'writing history: flow and blockage in the circulation of knowledge'. Issue 1 (2nd January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Masebo, Oswald
• Is Part Of: Journal of contemporary African studies. Volume 37:Issue 1(2019)
• Page Start: 20
• Page End: 35
• Publication Date: 2019-01-02
• Subjects: Writing history -- Tanzania -- Africa -- knowledge circulation -- knowledge production -- historical knowledge -- methodology -- African history; Africa -- Periodicals; Africa -- Civilization -- Periodicals; Africa -- Politics and government -- Periodicals; 960
• DOI: 10.1080/02589001.2019.1626008
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0258-9001

Abstract

ABSTRACT: This paper responds to Steven Feierman's 'Writing history: flow and blockage in the circulation of knowledge.' Feierman has noted that most of the publications produced in Tanzania, and in Africa more generally, do not circulate to America. As a result, American scholars do not have access to such publications. The consequence of this phenomenon is that American scholars have difficulty producing African historical knowledge that is rich in context. While agreeing with Feierman's thought-provoking intervention, this paper makes three main propositions. First, while acknowledging the problem of knowledge circulation between Africa and America, the paper renders visible an equally serious and disturbing reality: that the circulation of knowledge between African institutions is far more limited than it is between Africa and America or Europe. Many Africans consume knowledge that is largely produced in America and Europe. Secondly, while agreeing with Feierman that many scholars in America have difficulty producing historical knowledge about Africa that is rich in context, the paper argues that it is still possible for historians to produce contextually-rich knowledge. To do so, it is proposed, such historians need to craft locally-based methodological strategies that are sensitive to Africans' perspectives on their changing cultural and physical world. Finally, while recognising that the limited circulation of knowledge is an important reason for some American scholars to produce historical knowledge about Africa which is rich in context, the paper offers four additional explanations on this problem, namely the failure of some scholars to conduct sustained primary field research in Africa; lack of personal sacrifice, a proper attitude and commitment to do long-term research in Africa; the tendency of some scholars from America to make no effort to find works produced in African institutions of higher learning when they visit Africa; and the growing over-reliance on digitised sources of information for producing histories, sources which can hardly capture such things as emotions, feelings, thoughts, silences, or cosmologies that are inevitable in the production of contextually-rich historical knowledge.