| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 107.5

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 248 words from this article are provided below; about 561 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 107.5 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Sub-Saharan Africa

Lyn Schumaker. Africanizing Anthropology: Fieldwork, Networks, and the Making of Cultural Knowledge in Central Africa. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. 2001. Pp. xii, 376. Cloth $59.95, paper $19.95.

A generalized awareness that ethnographic anthropology was practiced in, and heavily conditioned by, a "colonial situation" may be traced to the 1950s. By 1970, the notion that anthropology was "handmaiden" or "child" of colonialism or imperialism was a frequent trope among radical critics of the discipline. By 1990, the idea was a commonplace of postcolonial discourse, often deployed without examination in the work of graduate students in anthropology and surrounding disciplines.It is the great virtue of Lyn Schumaker's study that it forces readers to think in a more nuanced and case-specific manner about the "colonial situation" of anthropology. 1

Focusing on a particular institution in a particular colonial situation (the Rhodes-Livingston Institute in what was then Northern Rhodesia), Schumaker places the anthropological work carried on there in "multiple contexts—social, cultural, political, historical, material" as well as national or regional (the British, the American, and the African). However, because her history (although theoretically informed) is a history of anthropology as practice, her "central context" is that of "the field," and her central analytical concept that of the "work culture": the "sum of the technologies, work organization, work processes, uses of space and material artifacts, and ways of representing and thinking about these that are unique to a particular small group or institution" (p. 9). . . .

There are about 561 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.