Advertisement

Revue de Synthèse

, Volume 121, Issue 3–4, pp 265–290 | Cite as

Comment nommer les éléments? les catégories anthropologiques en afrique du sud

  • Adam Kuper
Articles

Résumé

L'anthropologie sud-africaine a historiquement été divisée en deux écoles: l'une, associée aux universités de langue afrikaans, appuyait l'apartheid; l'autre, associée aux universités anglophones, s'opposait à la ségrégation et à la discrimination raciale. L'anthropologie afrikaner se focalisait sur la culture, la tradition et l'ethnicité, tandis que l'école rivale voulait étudier l'Afrique du Sud comme une société unique, en transformation rapide. Cette opposition, qui a parfois été exagérée, a été la plus marquée dans la période de renforcement de l'apartheid, dans les années soixante et soixante-dix, mais il y a toujours eu un débat considérable sur les objets mêmes des recherches en anthropologie, en particulier sur la nature des groupes «raciaux» et «tribaux» en Afrique du Sud. Ces problèmes, fondamentaux d'un point de vue politique, ont forcé les anthropologues à se confronter aux grandes questions posées par les politiques gouvernementales. Cet article retrace l'histoire de ces débats sur la classification des populations en Afrique du Sud.

Mots-clés

ethnicité apartheid histoire de l'anthropologie Afrique du Sud Botswana classification 

Abstract

South African anthropology has been historically divided into two schools. One, associated with the Afrikaans-language universities, was favourable toapartheid. The other, associated with the English-language universities, was opposed to segregation and racial discrimination. Afrikaner anthropology focused on culture, tradition, and ethnicity, while the other school was committed to the study of South Africa as a single, rapidly changing society. This opposition has sometimes been exaggerated, and it was most significant during the period of highapartheid in the sixties and seventies but there has always been considerable debate over the very objects of anthropological research, and in particular about the nature of the «racial» and «tribal» groups in South Africa. These issues were politically of the greatest significance, forcing anthropologists to confront great questions about government policy. This paper traces the history of these debates on the classification of the peoples of Southern Africa.

Keywords

ethnicity apartheid history of anthropology South Africa Botswana classification 

Zusammenfassung

Die südafrikanische Anthropologie hat sich in ihrer Geschichte in zwei Schulen geteilt. Die eine dieser Schulen befürwortete dieApartheid und war an den Universitäten vertreten, an denen Afrikaans die Unterrichtssprache war; die andere wurde an den englischsprachigen Universitäten gelehrt und lehnte die Rassentrennung und-diskriminierung ab. Die Anthropologie der Afrikaans-Universitäten konzentrierte sich auf Kultur, Tradition und Ethnizität, während die damit rivalisierende Richtung Südafrika als einheitliche, in schneller Umwandlung begriffene Gesellschaft untersuchen wollte. Dieser Gegensatz, der bisweilen übertrieben worden ist, war in der Zeit derApartheid, d.h. zwischen 1960 und 1970, besonders ausgeprägt, aber es gab immer eine heftige Auseinandersetzung über die eigentlichen Gegenstände der Anthropologie, insbesondere über das Wesen der Rassen—und Stammesgruppen in Südafrika. Diese aus politischer Sicht grundsätzlichen Probleme zwangen die Anthropologen dazu, sich den wichtigen Fragen zu stellen, die mit der Politik der Regierung zusammenhingen. In diesem Artikel werden die Auseinandersetzungen über die Klassifizierung der südafrikanischen Völker dargestellt.

Stichwörter

Ethnizität Apartheid Geschichte der Anthropologie Südafrika Botswana Klassifizierung 

Resumo

Historicamente a antropologia sul-africana esteve dividida em duas escolas: uma, associada às universidades de língua africânder, que era partidária doapartheid, a outra, associada às universidades de língua inglesa, que se opunha à segregação e à discriminação raciais. A antropologia africânder focava sua atenção na cultura, na tradição e na etnicidade, enquanto a outra escola estava voltada para o estudo da África do Sul como uma sociedade singular, em rápida mutação. Esta oposição chegou a ser exacerbada, e foi mais significativa durante o auge doapartheid nas décadas de 60 e 70. Sempre houve no entanto um debate acirrado a respeito dos próprios objetos da pesquisa antropológica, em particular sobre a natureza dos grupos «raciais» e «tribais» na África do Sul. Estes problemas tinham um alto significado político, e os antropólogos se viam confrontados com questões importantes de política de Governo. Este artigo reconstitui a história destes debates a respeito da classificação dos povos na África do Sul.

Palavras-chaves

etnicidade apartheid história da antropologia África do Sul Botswana classificação 

Liste des Références

  1. Barnard (Alan), 1992,Hunters and herders of Southern Africa. A comparative ethnography of the Khoisan peoples, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carstens (Peter), 1966,The Social Structure of a Cape Coloured Reserve, Cape Town, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Gluckman (Max), 1940, «Analysis of a social situation in modern Zululand»,Bantu Studies, vol. XII, p. 147–174.Google Scholar
  4. Gordon (Robert), 1990, «Early social anthropology in South Africa»,African Studies, vol. XLIX,1, p. 15–48.Google Scholar
  5. Gordon (Robert) etSpiegel (Andrew D.), 1993, «South African anthropology revisited»,Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. XXII, p. 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hamilton (Carolyn), 1998,Terrific majesty, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hammond-Tooke (W. David), éd., 1974,The Bantu-Speaking Peoples of Southern Africa, Londres, Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Hammond-Tooke (W. D.), 1997,Imperfect interpreters. South Africa's anthropologists, 1920–1990, Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harries (Peter), 1989, «Exclusion, classification and internal colonialism. The emergence of ethnicity among the Tsonga-speakers of South Africa»,in Wail,The Creation of tribalism in Southern Africa, Londres, James Currey, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. Hunter (Monica), 1936,Reaction to conquest. Effects of contact with Europeans on the Pondo of South Africa, Londres, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Junod (Henri A.), 1912,The Life of a South African tribe, Neuchatel, Imprimerie Attinger, 2 vol.Google Scholar
  12. Kiernan (Jim), 1997, «David in the path of Goliath. South African anthropology in the shadow ofapartheid»,in McAllister,. 1997.Google Scholar
  13. Kuper (Adam), 1976, «Culture area or political system?»Africa, vol. XLVI,3, p. 291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuper (A.), 1999,Among the anthropologists, Londres, Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kuper (A.), 2000,L'Anthropologie britannique au xx e siècle, 1re éd. 1973, ici trad. de l'anglais par GéraldGaillard, Paris, Karthala.Google Scholar
  16. Kuper (Hilda), 1947a,An African aristocracy. Rank among the Swazi, Londres, Oxford University Press for the International African Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Kuper (H.), 1947b.The Uniform of colour. A study of White-Black relationships in Swaziland, Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lee (Richard B.), 1979,The! Kung San. Men, women, and work in a foraging society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lee (Richard B.) etDe Vore (Irven), éd. 1968,Man the hunter Chicago, Aldine.Google Scholar
  20. L'Estoile (Benoît de) 1997, «The “natural preserve of anthropologists”. Social anthropology, scientific planning and development»,Social Science Information, vol. XXXVI, 2, June, p. 343–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lodge (Tom), 1999,Consolidating democracy, Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press.Google Scholar
  22. MacMillan (William Miller), 1929,Bantu, Boer, and Briton. The making of the South African native problem, Londres, Faber and Gwyer.Google Scholar
  23. MacMillan (W. M.), 1975,My South African years, Cape Town, David Philip.Google Scholar
  24. Marshall (Lorna), 1976,The! Kung of Nyae Nyae, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. McAllister (Patrick), éd., 1997,Culture and the commonplace, Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ramphele (Mamphela), 1995,A life, Cape Town, David Philip.Google Scholar
  27. Ross (Robert), 1993,Beyond the pale. Essays on the history of colonial South Africa, Hanover, Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Saunders (Christopher), 1988,The Making of the South African past. Major historians on race and class, Cape Town, David Philip.Google Scholar
  29. Schapera (Isaac), 1930,The Khoisan Peoples of South Africa. Bushmen and Hottentots, Londres, George Routledge & Sons.Google Scholar
  30. Schapera (I.), éd., 1934,Western civilization and the natives of South Africa. Studies in culture contact, Londres, George Routledge & Sons.Google Scholar
  31. Schapera (I.), 1937a, «Cultural changes in tribal life»,in Schapera 1937b.Google Scholar
  32. Schapera (I.), éd., 1937b,The Bantu-Speaking Tribes of South Africa. An ethnographical survey, Londres, George Routledge & Sons.Google Scholar
  33. Spiegel (Andrew D.), 1997, «Continuities, culture and the commonplace. Searching for a new ethnographic approach in South Africa»,in McAllister, 1997.Google Scholar
  34. Vail (Leroy), éd., 1989,The Creation of tribalism in Southern Africa, Londres, James Currey.Google Scholar
  35. Van Rensburg (Fanie) etVan der Waal (Kees), 1999, «Continuity and change in South African cultural anthropology (Volkekunde). Issues of essentialism and complexity»,South African Journal of Ethnology, vol. XXII,2, p. 45–48.Google Scholar
  36. Van Warmelo (Nicholas J.), 1935,A preliminary survey of the Bantu tribes of South Africa, Pretoria, The Government Printer.Google Scholar
  37. Vawda (Shahid), 1995, «The other anthropology. A response to Gordon and Spiegel's review of Southern African anthropology»,African Studies, vol. LIV,1, p. 128–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. West (Martin), 1988,Social anthropology in a divided society, Cape Town, University of Cape Town (Inaugural Lecture Series).Google Scholar
  39. Wilmsen (Edwin N.), 1989,Land filled with flies. A political economy of the Kalahari, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brunel UniversityUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations