| dc.description.abstract | Colonialism imposed the urban order on the indigenous societies of Africa, especially in those areas of southern Africa settled by whites. Many anthropologists have investigated the consequent social changes, called acculturation, using as indices of this acculturation or Westernization "European" clothes (often considered the most important index), occupation, education, and income. Based on the assumption that white settlers were an "elite" to be imitated by Africans, these indices have also been used to describe the formation of status groups and even classes among the urban Africans. Studies utilizing these indices seem to perform a definite ideological function of "vindicating" white cultural supremacy, thus justifying Europe's "civilizing" missions. They make it clear that the anthropologists have not recognized any pre-existing African culture which would enable Africans to synthesize their urban experiences in a meaningful way. In this paper I take issue with some of the assumptions underlying the choice of indices for measuring social change and African aspirations under the colonial social order. The indices that have been selected correspond neither to the primary reality of a racially divided society, nor even to the secondary reality of limited individual mobility within the colonial social structure. Studies of status group and even class formation among urban Africans simply have not taken into account the colonial social order. We cannot ignore social stratification as reflected in consumption patterns, occupation, education, and income, or social status and prestige as experienced by individual members. But these features were subsidiary in a colonial situation because Africans were objectively oppressed by white settlers. Thus we see the primary difficulty of sociological studies employing these indices: the units of analysis-individuals and their reactions-are too small. Even the most detailed description of these small units fails to reveal patterns and trends of growth. No indication is given that struggles against colonial rule were taking place. The studies are not concerned with the way in which the colonial social order worked to limit every aspect of African life. The difficult problem of alienation (due to colonial oppression), "class consciousness" and "false consciousness" are completely ignored. Colonial anthropology has never analyzed the economic, social, and political structures of white settler societies as they were formed and transformed by the incorporation of Africans in the industrial system. The analysts have not seen the forest, only trees; they have managed to describe only fragmentary parts of the whole. When Africans join the industrial system, even under colonial rule, and begin to adopt "urbanism as a way of life," they do not thereby become bad imitations of anyone. If they drink bottled beer, listen to recorded music, use furniture in their houses, and wear suits, they are merely taking their places in the scheme of things as they are. Where two cultures, differing in their technological development, meet, adjustments are inevitable. Yet the culture that is "inferior" in terms of technology does not simply yield to the other. The two cultures yield to one another, undergoing profund modifications. Thus the development of classes under such conditions does not lead to a static situation, but creates a dynamism which facilitates social change-where "change" refers not to internal modifications within a given social order, but to a total ("historical") transformation of the whole society. | en |
