State of Anthropology in the Sudan
Abdel-Ghaffar M. Ahmad
The state of anthropology in Sudan
D. Abdul Ghaffar Muhammad Ahmed
This article was published in the magazine published by the Ethnographic Museum in Stockholm, Sweden, Volumes One and Two, 1982. It was republished in Arabic in the book “On the History of Anthropology and Development in Sudan”, translated by Mustafa Magdy El-Gammal, Arab Research Center for Arab and African Studies and Documentation, Cairo 2002. Arkamani republishes it after the approval of Dr. Abdul Ghaffar Muhammad Ahmed, thank you
It is not possible to understand the state of anthropology in Sudan today without knowing the different stages it has gone through. During the first phase, the focus of anthropology's interest focused on the different systems of organization appropriate to the colonial administration funding the research, and on issues of interpretation of meaning. The second stage brought about a shift in research interest. Although general literature continued to be written, specific problems of a scientific nature became more subject to discussion and research. The best example of this is the issue of settling nomads and imposing state authority on them. Interest in scientific application also continued in the third stage, but there became greater emphasis on analyzing local reality in relation to the country as a whole. At the end of the second phase, a reconsideration of the concepts used to analyze data began, but this occupied an advanced priority in the third phase, which also witnessed greater methodological preoccupation with participatory intervention, more overlap with other cognitive systems, and more direct contact with development planners and decision makers through various research projects of an institutional nature. Attention also increased to the participation of non-Sudanese experts and students, thus shedding light on the differences between them and Sudanese researchers in terms of commitment, ethics, and ideology. Foreign experts have had a somewhat negative impact on the role of anthropology in development in Sudan. There is no doubt that the awareness of all Sudanese anthropologists about these issues of commitment, ethics, and ideology will be the main factor in improving the situation.
In his introduction to his book The Political System of the Anuak in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Sir Edward Evans Pritchard wrote: “The research was carried out at the request of the government of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, which encountered some difficulties in its dealings with the masters of the Anuak, and can therefore be considered part of ‘applied anthropology’ in the most well-known sense of that expression, which can be used to indicate the present stage in the anthropological sciences: the discovery of facts in the light of which the government can organize its administration. I hope that it will These discoveries will be of interest to those in charge of management, and I am confident that they will realize that my study of nuclei has been limited to a small range of problems and that it is therefore necessary to increase our knowledge by more extensive investigations.” Evans-Pritchard, 1940:5-6. Evans-Pritchard,1940:5-6
The relationship between anthropology and colonialism has finally been put in its proper place (cf. Magubane, 1971; Mafeje, 1971; Abdel-Ghaffar, 1973). The main persistent problem for a period was to overcome petty-bourgeois intellectual interests in this branch of knowledge, and to realize that its contribution to the development of society must be in line with its socio-economic situation, and not merely produce individual mental reflections. This role was successfully performed by Mafeje, 1976. However, the prevailing situation in African countries after the end of the colonial era makes it very difficult for the African intellectual to get rid of the legacy of colonial science in this era. The current generation of African anthropologists are products of colonial anthropology, or if we want to generalize what Mafeje said about himself and his compatriot Magubane, they are “African petty bourgeois, or a pale imitation of European bourgeois society” Mafeje, 1976. But what can be said about anthropology also applies to other social sciences that go through the same context, and it is wrong to limit criticism to this branch of knowledge alone. This issue has its theoretical basis and historical context, and can only be investigated through research into its development. Magubane,1971Mafeje,1971Abdel-Ghaffar,1973Mafeje,1976
In this context alone, there can be meaning in talking about the development of anthropology in Sudan and its current state. During the past decade, attempts have been made to assess the extent of the progress of anthropology in this country. The development of anthropology from a tool used by rulers to help manage a country with diverse population groups, to contracting research carried out by scientists who may be more concerned with their personal achievement than with the fate of the people they study, and to an academic science taught at a national university (Cunnison, 1977). Cunnison,1977
After reviewing the early stages of the development of anthropology in Sudan, this paper will address an assessment of the state of anthropology in Sudan today, with special attention to the issue of commitment, ethics, and ideology.
It is quite easy - says Cunnison (1977) - to distinguish between three completely different periods in the life of social anthropology in Sudan. The first phase began with Seligman's visit to the country in 1910, and continued until independence in 1956, during which research was conducted by foreign researchers and under the supervision of a foreign government. This is the period in which Evans-Pritchard, Nadel, Linhart, and Buxton completed their work. Cunnison,1977
The second phase began in 1958 with the start of teaching anthropology - a branch of knowledge - at the University of Khartoum. Although the university was a national institution, foreign researchers continued to represent the majority of the work force in the Anthropology Department, meaning that the researchers and teachers remained non-Sudanese, but they worked under the supervision of the Sudanese government.
The year 1971 marked the beginning of the third phase. This year, the first anthropology students who obtained postgraduate degrees returned from abroad and found their way to the Department of Anthropology and Sociology. Starting from this stage, the direction of the department changed to become Sudanese, and most of its members became Sudanese. In the early 1970s, the Economic and Social Research Council was established, which provided more space to accommodate Sudanese anthropologists, and also provided other opportunities for Sudanese professional anthropologists to prove that their studies and activities could be useful in addressing development problems. The end of the seventies witnessed another development that had a noticeable impact on this scientific branch, which was the establishment of two new universities, each with a special development orientation. Both the Universities of Juba and Al-Jazira University introduced anthropology as a major subject of study for the first batches of their students.
There is a further development to be added to the three stages distinguished by Cunnison, namely applied anthropology undertaken on a consultative basis. It can be claimed that the applied anthropological research that began in Sudan on a consultative basis is just another aspect of the third phase, but it is an aspect that deserves special treatment. Most consulting research has had a negative impact on the development of this scientific branch, and it has also raised doubts about the benefit of involving anthropologists in development efforts. The practitioners in this case are foreigners working for the international agency and multinational companies aiming to control the Sudanese national economy. Given the commitment of these researchers to the interests of the bodies for which they work, their status in the independent state is similar to that of an anthropologist in the colonial era.
Foreign government and foreign anthropologists
At the end of the nineteenth century, there was enormous ethnographic material in Sudan that found its way to a number of publishing houses in Europe. The most important of these books is the description of the Sudanese people by the traveler James Bruce in his book entitled “Journeys to Discover the Sources of the Nile” (1), which was published in 1805. There are other works of a higher quality, namely the books and articles published by the German explorer Robert Hartmann (2) in the period 1863-1869. Among the most important works of Hartmann is Hartmann, 1863. In addition to them, a number of other explorers visited Sudan at their own expense, or under the sponsorship of interested European institutions, and wrote about the ways of life of the Sudanese population and their institutions. Arab travelers also contributed a detailed description of the black community, the most prominent of whom was Ibn Omar al-Tunisi, who wrote a treatise on Darfur under the title “Arousing Minds with the Biography of the Arab Countries and the Sudan” in 1850 (3). Hartmann,1863
There are also Sudanese scholars who have written about the lives of the different groups living in the country. The most important of these contributions came from a scholar well known to contemporary researchers interested in Sudan, namely Muhammad al-Nur Wadhifallah, who in 1805 wrote “The Book of Classes in the Biography of the Saints, Sheikhs, Scholars, and Poets in Sudan” (4).
The government that existed at the beginning of the twentieth century, in what was called Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, found great benefit in this material, which provided much information that the government desperately needed before embarking on implementing basic plans for the development of the country. But there is still a need for more knowledge. At a time when anthropology was gradually establishing itself as an independent scientific branch within the field of social sciences, some British officials in the administration were looking for specialized experts to provide them with reliable information about the social organization of the “local” populations among whom they worked (5). In fact, anthropology not only provided assistance to the enlightened colonial administration, but to the same extent, professional anthropologists - through their voluntary union with the colonial administration - helped strengthen the administration’s position in many colonies.
Evans Pritchard explained the position of the Anglo-Egyptian government on anthropological research by saying: “The government of what was then known as the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan constantly encouraged anthropological research in southern Sudan, whether professionally or as a hobby. Professor J. J. Seligman and Mrs. Z. D. Seligman conducted surveys in the periods 1909-1910 and 1921-1922, and their observations were published, along with other information. Others collected it in 1932 in the book entitled “The Pagan Tribes of the Nilotic Sudan.” During the period from 1926 to 1935, I made six visits to southern Sudan. In the first visit, I conducted surveys of areas that the Seligmans did not cover. During the other five visits, I conducted more intensive studies of the Azande and the Nuer, and of the Anuak to a lesser extent, and in the period 1939-1940, Dr. S. F. Nadel conducted them Continuing our work, as he conducted his research among the people of the Nuba Mountains, which was renewed after the end of the World War, my colleague at Oxford, Dr. R. J. Lenhardt, made five visits to southern Sudan during the period 1948-1954, where he conducted extensive studies of the Dinka and the Anuak, and then many of our students followed him: Dr. J. F. M. Middleton conducted a study on the Lugbara (a Ugandan group, some of whom are believed to live in Sudan). This was during the period 1949-1952. Dr. Jane Buxton conducted a study of the Mandari in the period 1951-1952, and Mrs. Philip Mansfield (Miss McHatton before that) studied the Latoka during the years 1951-1954. Dr. Conrad Renning also conducted a new study on the Azande, with special interest in the Azande project, during the period 1952-1955 In 1957, Dr. Kronenberg studied among the Nimang, a group in the Nuba Mountains whose population is estimated at about 37 thousand people. In the period from 1958, he participated with Mrs. Kronenberg in research among the Bongo and neighboring peoples in the Bahr el-Ghazal District, and he participated with her again in research during 1959-1961 among the Didinga and Lungarim in the Equatoria District. Evans-Pritchard, 1962:1. Evans-Pritchard,1962:1
The government's desire to sponsor anthropological research was part of a general policy supported by the Colonial Office to collect more reliable information about the social organization of populations and their belief systems. The prevailing feeling was that this compiled material would help the administration in establishing smoothly the maintenance of “law and order” and developing plans for the development of “tribal” groups within the framework of the colonial system.
Thus, the first stage is the stage of research conducted by foreign researchers for the benefit of a foreign government, in which the administration and the anthropologist share one ideology - which is the ideology of colonialism. The administration's main goal was to control, oppress and exploit the national population. The anthropologist helped facilitate this work by explaining and revealing how local organization, beliefs, and values work. Although this did not go beyond submitting monthly reports to the Office of the Administrative Secretary, as is clear in Sudanese documents, the anthropologist was writing to a man of authority who shared more or less the same type of training with him and could therefore understand anthropological discourse. The financial bond also represents additional evidence of how engagement and commitment are directed. The problem of ethics does not arise here, as the goals of the colonial administration coincide with the ideological bias of the anthropologists. The theoretical contribution of anthropology also came in line with the tendencies of the rulers (for more theoretical analysis of colonial anthropology, see Osama Elnur, British Colonial Policy in Sudan).
It has been claimed at times that, with the exception of Nadel, there was little meaningful collaboration between anthropologists and management during the early period Cunnison, 1977:4. In contrast, it is easy to prove that this cooperation was an important part of the relationship between anthropologists and administrators in the first stage because most - if not all - of the funding needed for research came from the colonial administration. There is more than one case in which this administration requested specific studies to be conducted (compare: Faris, 1973; Abdel-Ghaffar, 1973). Moreover, one of Evans-Pritchard's lesser-known works, Evans-Pritchard's Political System of the Anuak (1940b), actually provides evidence of anthropologist's involvement and use in wartime in Sudan, long before the case of South Asia. Evans-Pritchard was involved in organizing the Anuak during his time among them. Faris,1973Abdel-Ghaffar,1973Evans-Pritchard,1940 b
However, if the purpose of meaningful cooperation is to provide direct information about the groups studied, it must be made clear that in the case of Sudan it was not necessary to write simplified reports so that the administration could understand them. In contrast to many cases in the history of the British colonies, the highest positions in the civil service in Sudan were held by those with high academic degrees, graduates of the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London. Moreover, most of them had the opportunity to return to the University of London to study anthropology, and some of them (such as B. B. Howell) did much better studies than the anthropologists who later came to their areas of work (6). Since this is the case, one can imagine that there is a desire among administrators for anthropologists to provide them with professional reports on the results of their research, from which the administrator can draw conclusions that are useful in policy making.
The administration also exercised strict control over the work of anthropologists associated with it. In 1926, anthropologists were given a list of questions that they were expected to include answers to in their reports. The hope behind this was to prevent anthropologists from being absorbed in issues of purely academic importance and neglecting the direct needs of administration. In 1926, Sir Harold MacMichael, one of the most able administrators in the British Empire, wrote: “I also feel the necessity of achieving results in the shortest time, and that we should be able to avoid the danger to which we are always exposed as a result of dealing with the scientific expert, or rather his drowning the practical person in a maze of excessive detail and ambiguity” (7) (quoted in: Abdel-Ghaffar, 1973: 268). Abdel-Ghaffar,1973:268
In 1930, the Sudanese government commissioned Evans-Pritchard to study the Nuer with the aim of collecting the information the government needed to establish peace and administrative authority among them. To achieve a similar goal, Nadel was commissioned for his study in the Nuba Mountains in 1939. In 1937 the government created the position of Commissioner for Archeology and Anthropology, a position which Arkell held. However, most of the latter's effort focused on antiquities, in what seemed to be a literal response to the advice of some of his colleagues in the Sudanese government at the time, who believed that it was better for Arkell to leave the anthropological research to both Evans-Pritchard and Nadel, while he focused on archaeological exploration, excavation, and museum work (8). In 1940, the Sudanese government established an anthropological body operating under the presidency of the Civil Secretary.
After World War II, the position of the Government Anthropology Commissioner was separated from the Antiquities Commissioner. Linhardt was the first to hold the new position, as he began his work among the Dinka and Anuak in southern Sudan. He was followed by Ian Connison, who did extensive work on a northern Sudanese group in the period 1952-1954, and then he was followed in the position by Cronenberg (9). It is worth noting that all studies conducted before the Kunison period focused on southern Sudan or the pagan tribes in central Sudan.
In general, anthropological research began in Sudan in 1910, and has continued since then at the hands of professional anthropologists, under the auspices of the Sudanese government and with the assistance of the Colonial Ministry (especially in the early stages). The Anthropology Authority played a pioneering role in this field, as it included members from the Office of the Administrative Secretary and the Ministry of Education. Unfortunately, we are unable to obtain more information about this body, as there appear to be no regular records of its achievements within the government archives in Khartoum.
The common approach of both anthropologists and administrators had a significant impact on the way rural areas were managed in Sudan. This effect can be seen by applying the theory of balance in the management of local communities, which is a theory derived directly from British anthropology. Balance is a distinctive feature of the material of Evans-Pritchard, one of the most influential writers at that time. He adopted the theory of balance not only in his study of the Nuer, Evans-Pritchard, 1940a, but also in his classic study of the Azande (1937). It presents to us the Azande system of thinking and its own logic, where contradiction and doubt represent two mechanisms within this system to protect it from stopping its work. While it is clear that all of this occurs in a hierarchical society - where the leader has the final say even on the level of doctrine - this knowledge is suppressed in order to allow the idea of balance to work. In the case of the "common people" it seems as if they determine their own fate. Such a vision allows for unilateral dealing with the situation of the “common people” in society, and highlighting how it is balanced through its own governing mechanism. Evans-Pritchard,1940 a
With regard to the entirety of anthropology as a branch of knowledge, the research conducted in Sudan was of great importance to it. Euan Lewis gives us an assessment of this research by saying: “The Republic of Sudan has been the scene of some of the most important scientific and theoretical discoveries in the field of social anthropology. Evans-Pritchard’s classic studies of fragmentation politics among the delocalized Nuer [see: Nuer political system], and of the role of magic among the Azande, not only revolutionized the sociological understanding of tribal societies, but also contributed greatly to deepening our understanding of the institutional basis of conflict and cohesion in Human society in general” Lewis, 1971. Lewis,1971
Among the most widespread works of that period, which had special importance for the development of science, including influencing other branches of knowledge such as politics, philosophy, and doctrine, were the works of Evans-Pritchard, Nadel, and Linhardt.
Anthropology comes to the university
In the second phase, major changes occurred in all scientific fields (not only anthropology), as the role of the research engine moved from the government administration to the University of Khartoum. Anthropology gained new ground with the introduction of teaching anthropology at the College of Economic and Social Studies in 1958. In 1970, the Anthropology Department at the University of Khartoum had ten teachers - seven of whom completed their scientific degrees in the same year - and they were all non-Sudanese, and there were three Sudanese assistant teachers. However, anthropology continued to suffer from clear obstacles in most newly independent countries, due to the fact of the close connection between this branch of knowledge and colonialism and its justification. In order for anthropology to have justification for its presence within the university, a number of social science scholars and students had to be convinced of the possibility of this science contributing to the development of a country like Sudan. As a result, both anthropological education and research became developmentally oriented, which quickly resulted in increased public acceptance of anthropology. The funds and capabilities directed to the field work service were sufficient. During this period, research focused mainly on northern Sudan because of the limited amount that anthropology had accomplished there, and because of the outbreak of fighting in the southern part of the country.
Given the use of anthropology in the past by the colonial administration, members of the Anthropology Department were careful to refuse to participate directly in research conducted in areas where national political problems arose. Connison explains this by saying: “We rejected a proposal from a British institution to assign a member of the department to cover the situation in Wadi Halfa. Part of the rejection was because we were all already involved in research work, but the main reason was that we considered it unwise to enter an area fraught with political conflict in the climate of the early sixties. The approved program seemed to be the best possible, given the skills available and the needs of the time. Since planning is a strongly expressed slogan, it would be better for descriptions and research of local communities to be available to those responsible for planning until They can carry out their work with knowledge - and not ignorance - of the social systems of the local communities to be planned.” Cunnison, 1977:7. Cunnison,1977:7
At the same time, there remains the need to provide advice on social problems. After the United Nations Decade for Development began, advisory delegations of the international body began to contact local planners, some of whom included anthropologists (see, for example, Barth, 1967, regarding the Jebel Marra team). This may have encouraged government departments to seek advice from resident and foreign anthropologists, in the hope of improving their performance. However, strong reasons hindered the participation of members of the Anthropology Department at the University of Khartoum in this process. “Before the end of this period, the same approaches were made repeatedly by the government to obtain consultations or to conduct small surveys, but the advice or assistance requested was not of a kind that could be provided in the time available and in light of the general circumstances, with the exception of one or two cases. Communication was difficult, and only a few of us succeeded in establishing relations with officials in the ministries such as those we maintain at the university, as our Arabic language was so poor that it did not allow us to express correctly and participate - even through the press - in Controversies and issues raised in the metropolis: “We were present but not part of society.” Cunnison, 1977: 7-8. Barth,1967Cunnison,1977:7-8
Theoretically, structural-functional analysis became the distinctive feature of this stage, but before its end, radical interpretations of the local communities studied within the national framework began to appear. One of the most important works published in this period was the Al-Baqqara study carried out by Cunnison, 1973a. Cunnison,1973 a
National anthropologists and foreign advisors
It is clear from the above that, over the course of more than seventy years, many professional anthropologists from other countries have flocked to Sudan, with the aim of conducting ethnographic research and in-depth anthropological studies of local communities. These anthropologists came in the wake of the travelers who, over two centuries, presented various presentations on the customs, values, and aspects of the organization of the state, systems, and small groups in what was known as Sudan (10).
In the last decade, a number of Sudanese social anthropologists returned to the Department of Anthropology at the University of Khartoum after completing their studies in the West, forming a nucleus of national scholars in a country well known to all anthropology students in the world. Today, the number of members of the department’s staff has reached eleven members, seven of whom received their scientific preparation exclusively in anthropology, while the others received their preparation in anthropology and sociology. There are also five assistant teachers who are preparing to obtain a doctorate in anthropology abroad and who are expected to join the teaching staff after their return. The department offers courses for a number of students ranging between 180 and 200 students, and also awards master’s and doctoral degrees for scientific theses in both. Courses at the university level range from a basic introduction to anthropological theory to areas of specialization such as the Middle East and Africa. There is a clear orientation towards development issues, and special attention is given to courses such as development sociology and rural sociology.
She also teaches anthropology at the Universities of Juba and Al-Jazira, at Al-Nilein University, and at Omdurman Islamic University. However, the size of school courses and the number of faculty members in the field of anthropology are considered relatively limited in these universities.
The focus of the anthropological study in this third stage differs from the previous two stages, as it witnesses an interest in a more detailed analysis of the relationship between the local and the national, especially in the political field. However, it still bears among the distinctive features of the second stage an interest in problems of a practical nature. Moreover, the particular “academic approach” (as Connison calls it) that emerged in the first stage was not completely neglected, because anthropologists continued to use the constructivist approach that leads to a field vision concerned with observing everything. However, anthropologists in the third stage do not allow the fantasy of being academics to distance them from the applicability of their research in daily life.
Foreign academics working in anthropology at the universities of Khartoum and later Juba and Gezira contributed to the development that occurred at this stage. In the second stage, it was easy to notice the influence of the Oxford School on the teaching staff, as most of them received their education there. However, at the end of the second phase, it was noted that a different trend had crystallized, represented by the contribution of Friedrich Barth, who visited Sudan for a year (1963), and the contribution of Fares, who came after him in 1966 and stayed for a period of three years. The two received their education in Cambridge, but they tried to separate from the British Anthropology School, and they had a noticeable influence at this stage, as their students constituted the majority of the non-Sudanese teachers who joined the department in the first periods of the third stage. This connection was achieved mainly through an exchange agreement initiated by Barthes between the Anthropology Departments at the Universities of Bergen (Norway) and Khartoum. The agreement included the exchange of faculty members and the conduct of research in Sudan. Farris maintained this connection after his departure to the United States of America, and he also sent some of his students to join the Department of Anthropology at the University of Khartoum.
The results of this relationship were of great benefit to the tasks facing anthropologists in the third stage, as all those who joined the department were those who devoted themselves to development issues. Another connection was also achieved between the University of Khartoum and the University of Hull after the return of professors from the second stage to this university in England, with their continued interest in ensuring that the department they left at the University of Khartoum remains able to carry out its role satisfactorily at this stage. Then they organized an appointment program under which faculty members are contracted for a period of three years, provided that the professor spends two years of it in Sudan to teach at the University of Khartoum (11). Moreover, the National Research Council established the Economic and Social Research Council, which provided the opportunity for anthropologists interested in research of an applied nature to practice field work and obtain sufficient funding, which created new job opportunities for anthropology graduates. It also allowed faculty members to exercise affiliation or supervise these activities, which helped them move forward in satisfying their research interests.
Among the tangible achievements of the third phase: the predominance of the Sudanese element among the department’s faculty members, and cooperation with similar departments in universities outside Sudan. Creating new opportunities to work in other national institutions and institutes; And establishing the status of anthropology as a knowledge system that can play an important role in the development process. These are achievements that paved the way for the expectation of more achievements. The national anthropologists who returned to Sudan at this stage suffered from “scientific colonialism,” as Galtung (1967:296) puts it, as most of them returned at a time when, instead of “rethinking” anthropology, they had to focus on “reinventing” it. There have been few innovations in this regard. It takes some time to build independent thinking, which requires dismantling concepts characterized by Western bias and ethnocentric ideology, and then moving towards a critical evaluation of the literature produced in Sudan about the country itself. Galtung,1967:296
In view of the scientific contribution that anthropology made in the colonial era, it is hoped that there will be a change in its orientations under independent Sudan, and that all those working in this field will rethink the concepts they use in analysis and the type of problems that they must focus on studying. This must also include a reconsideration of the studied unit. But this reorganization was not an easy matter, due to the prevailing trend within the Sudanese elite after independence, which is hostile to anthropology as a knowledge system. A large number of intellectuals viewed anthropology as a subject related only to colonial rule, and had no benefit in an independent country (cf. Abdel-Ghaffar, 1973: 259-70). This trend was reflected in the decline in the number of students enrolled in anthropology courses (Cunnison, 1977: 6). In addition, the questionable nature of the scientific preparation received by some anthropologists, along with the influx of a large number of foreign researchers, has created a negative image of the role of anthropology in the development process in Sudan. Abdel-Ghaffar,1973:259-70Cunnison,1977:6
However, the emphasis on regional studies and social issues in the development process has added to anthropology a new focus that must be paid attention to, which necessitated the occurrence of changes, perhaps the most important of which is methodological change, and in particular the shift from the position of participant observation to the position of participant intervention. This approach raises the importance of issues of commitment, ethics, and ideology, which have received increasing attention from anthropologists in the last two decades (see, for example, Hyms, 1972). Today, after anthropologists have become “present in society and part of it at the same time,” we should not jump to the conclusion that there will inevitably be unity between anthropology and government administration. It is true that they share the language (Arabic, not anthropology), and they share experience as contributors to nation building. There is no doubt that this strengthens the opportunities for mutual interest between them, especially since both the anthropologist and the ruler share a national identity. However, the individual, as a participant in the national political system, and as committed to this or that line with regard to development, this situation may lead him to disagree with the ideology of the ruling regime. The rapid and successive transitions in political power have reduced the opportunities for anthropologists to contribute to development at the national level. This is mainly due to the lack of a prevailing ideology that could guide social scientists at the dawn of independence. However, since the mid-seventies, some members of the Anthropology Department at the University of Khartoum have begun to adopt radical approaches to the study of society, without neglecting the classical anthropological theories that constitute an important element in the student’s study of this branch of knowledge, which can be seen in a number of works published by members of this department, including, for example, Abbas Ahmed Muhammad’s study on “The Arabs of the White Nile” Mohamed, 1980, and Dr. Abdel Ghaffar Muhammad Ahmed’s study “The Sheikhs and the Shiites.” (Abdel-Ghaffar, 1974). In these studies, the seeds of disengagement from the constructivist functional school were planted. Finally, the Marxist trend began to take over the members of the department, which was evident in all the contents of the academic courses and published works (12). Hyms,1972Mohamed,1980
At the present time, the members of the department have achieved some progress through their increasing participation in policy research, by institutionalizing social research in development projects, and replacing participatory observation with intervention in policy making and application. However, at the same time, new phenomena have witnessed, and the scene has been dominated by a flood of foreign researchers and students who primarily aimed to conduct research of a superficial nature and in the shortest possible time. Most of them were “reputed” experts and graduate students at various Western universities, working as consultants in Sudan for powerful multinational companies or international agencies.
These consultants and experts obtained their initial experience in field work in Sudan with the help of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Khartoum. Because the department believes in the necessity of encouraging cooperation with various colleagues abroad, it allowed a number of these foreign students to join the university, and then provided them with the opportunity to obtain permits to conduct their research. Later, membership in the university was no longer necessary, as there was no longer a need to obtain a permit for “experts,” “consultants,” and “advisors” affiliated with international organizations and multinational companies.
Most of the visiting anthropologists during this period were divided into two main categories: the first was the category of students who came to conduct “hasty” field research and at the same time perform an advisory role, and the second category was the professional anthropologists who came as “experts” even if they had not visited Sudan before. The first category lacked experience and seemed unable to maintain standards of scientific commitment and ethics. In the long term, they were simply an extension of scientific colonialism, using the influence of the agencies they worked for to access - and sometimes seize - documents that local researchers could not dream of accessing, due to security reasons and arrangements. From a moral standpoint, it seemed clear that their greatest interest was in gathering the necessary material to obtain the academic degree that would enable them to become “experts” in the affairs of Sudan and its people. They rarely care about answering questions about the possible impact of their research on local populations, and how international bodies benefit from the reports they prepare.
As for the second group of anthropologists, they assumed the role of “experts” despite their limited knowledge of Sudan, and thus they conducted their research in a “hit and run” manner. Usually, their visit to the country did not exceed a few weeks, during which they consulted Sudanese specialists, whether they were at the university or outside it. After a short trip to the local site or region they were specifically sent to study, the expert takes over the work of the Sudanese specialist after re-editing it based on the trip he took. In most cases, a report is issued based on a hasty study and was written in haste before leaving the country.
The second category is worse than the first category in terms of the degree of commitment towards the local population, because their recommendations may have a significant impact on the population whose development aspirations remain undiscovered, due to these short study missions. It is clear that the primary obligation of these “experts” is to those who assign them, otherwise they may not get this work in the first place, especially since the academic jobs available to anthropologists in Europe and the United States of America are very limited, in contrast to the generous payment for visiting experts or consultants. In addition to this, many international bodies are legally obligated to include a social scientist in every research team, but the presence of anthropologists and sociologists often becomes merely decorative. This pattern of action is fully justified in light of the belief that international bodies and multinational corporations bring development to the Third World.
There is no doubt that the interference of visiting experts and students threatens the progress of this branch of knowledge at the current stage, because the recommendations of visiting “experts” are often taken seriously by government officials, and with more attention than they give to the detailed research conducted by local university professors, despite their reluctance to search to reach appropriate concepts, which can be clearly seen from the studies conducted within the framework of agricultural projects on lands saturated with river and rainwater. These studies reveal another aspect of dependency, which we will not discuss. Here it is in detail, despite its importance. It is a difficulty that may not be overcome before enough time has passed, and when government officials discover that these “experts are friends of Sudan” are willing to maintain this friendship only as long as the Sudanese continue to play the role of ignorant locals, and these “friends” monopolize the right to think for them and speak in their name.
Colleagues of these “friends” in various universities around the world, who are interested in sending graduate students to blacks, should know that most members of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Khartoum agree with Himes when he says: “It is not a sufficient reason to move towards studying another culture just because it is ‘other.’ Also, there must be good reasons - from both a moral and political standpoint - to send more expatriate researchers to another part of the world. Instead of dealing with its causes, the candidate must For a Ph.D. in anthropology with (superficial) fieldwork, let us ask candidates to actually prove that they are entitled to this.”
It is possible to attribute the dominance of external influence today to the use of the English language as a medium in reports submitted to the government. This is of course further proof that scientific colonialism is still accepted by the country's universities and its government. It is also one of the elements of dependency and neo-colonialism, as most donor countries prefer to receive reports in this language. Although Sudan gained its independence in 1956, and although most of the population speaks Arabic with one dialect or another, and although pre-university education has been Arabized since 1970, the English language is still the medium of instruction in all universities (the situation has changed now - Arkamani). The Anthropology Department has endeavored to use the Arabic language in writing research results. However, there is much that needs to be done in this regard, especially if there is agreement on the validity of the question: For whom do we write? Do we really need to follow the Western academic formula when we write our reports to the government or publish the results of our research? This is a question that is strongly raised all the time, and is linked to the issue of reconsidering concepts and “reinventing” anthropology, as we mentioned earlier.
If there is a positive impact made by foreign experts, it is that they conveyed to Sudanese anthropologists that development problems require them to leave behind the approach of a single cognitive system, and to cooperate with other scholars in other branches of the social sciences in order to interact with other cognitive systems concerned with addressing development issues. What encourages the necessity of adopting the interconnected cognitive systems approach is that the nature of the research and the problems studied require this, which can be seen, for example, in the Jonglei project. However, this does not mean demolishing or belittling the special scientific standards that anthropologists adhere to. Working in research teams with multiple cognitive systems requires them to be distinguished in their science itself, and also to be familiar with other cognitive systems so that they understand what their colleagues are saying and contribute more effectively to the joint task undertaken.
As for training students, it requires reconsidering anthropology courses and introducing them into the courses of other departments. Unfortunately, this work is being done slowly, and it is hoped that the conviction of the usefulness of anthropology and its support for development in Sudan will be completed quickly.
(1) James Bruce (1730-1794), a Scottish traveler who began his journey in 1769 to discover the sources of the Blue Nile. In 1771, he traveled via Sennar and Berber to Aswan in Egypt, which he reached in 1772 (see: Hill, 1967:8). Hill,1967:8
(2) Robert Hartmann (1831-1893), a German naturalist who in 1859 accompanied the young Baron von Barum on a trip across the Bayouda Plain from Dongola to Khartoum and the Blue Nile. He later became a professor of anatomy at the University of Berlin, and wrote several books about the inhabitants of the Nile Valley (Hill, 1967:152). Hill,1967:152
(3) Muhammad bin Omar al-Tunisi (1789-1857), descendant of an educated Tunisian family, joined his father in 1803, who was at that time in Darfur. He provided the first detailed description of Darfur known to the world (Hill, 1967:277-8). Hill,1967:277-8)
(4) Muhammad al-Nur died in 1809. He wrote a book that included the biographies of a group of Muslim saints in Sudan. He wrote it in the Sudanese colloquial language and it is known as “The Book of Classes.”
(5) See my contribution: Abdul Ghaffar and Faris in Asad, 1973
(6) The British administration in the colonies received courses in applied anthropology at the University of London. Some civil service employees in Sudan, including Howell, also joined these courses. There are references to these decisions in Evans-Pritchard, 1951: 110
(7) There is a long excerpt from this speech in (Abdel Ghaffar, 1973: 267-69).
(8) This advice came mainly from Sir Douglas Newbold, who was then governor of the Kordofan Directorate in Sudan (see: Henderson, 1952: 79-80).
(9) Referring to this point, Connison says: “Cronenberg was probably the only one who worked under this name. I was told that I was not a government official, and the same thing may have happened to others who received grants (). I received a grant from 1952-1954 to conduct research on the Misseriya. The governor of the region assigned me to write a summary report in the second year of my work, which he submitted to the Anthropological Commission, and he also asked me to submit the final report to the Ministry of While the Misseriya was the subject of study, there was no pressure to carry out investigations in any particular direction. I did exactly what I liked, i.e., to carry out anthropological research (1977:6).
(10) “Sudan” is a geographical term that means all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa from the Red Sea in the east to the Atlantic Ocean in the west. It was first used by Arab travelers and geographers in the Middle Ages, and it has continued to be used by modern historians of Africa when discussing the Sudanese belt (O'Fahey and Spaulding, 1974:vii). O'Fahey and Spaulding,1974:vi
(11) As a result of this project, the person selected by the Department of Anthropology at the University of Hull spent two years in Khartoum at the expense of its university, with support from the British Council. After two years, he returns to Hull, where he is appointed for a period of one year. This project went through some difficulties and was then cancelled.
(12) This can be seen in the courses on development sociology, urban studies, and some of the materials proposed in a course entitled “Texts and Problems.” Regarding published works, see: Abdel-Ghaffar, 1979 a; El Watheg, 1980. Abdel-Ghaffar,1979 aEl Watheg,1980
Abdel Ghaffar M. Ahmed 1973, 'Some Remarks from the Thitd World on Anthropology and Colonialism'. in: Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, Taha Asad (ed.), London: Ithaca Press
Abdel Ghaffar M. Ahmed (ed.) 1973 b, Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, London: Ithaca Press
Abdel Gahffar M. Ahmed 1974, 'Shaykhs and Followers: Political Struggle in the Sudan'. in: Toward a Marxist Anthropology, S.Diamond (ed.), The Hague: Mouton
Abdel Ghaffar m. Ahmed 1979, 'The Contribution of Social Sciences to Rural Developmeny'. Paper presented to Expert Meeting on the Utilization of Sociasl Sciences by Policy Makers, Surinam, December 1979
Barth F. 1967, Human Resources in Darfur. Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Bergen Mimeo.
Bruce J. 1805, Travels to Discover the Sources of the Nile, London
Cunnison L. 1966, The Baggara Arabs, Oxford University Press
Cunnison L 1977, 'Changing Relations of Anthropology and Administration in the Sudan', Sudan Journal of Development Studies I (1): 1:24
Evans-Pritchard E.E. 1937, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande, Oxford University Press
Evans-Pritchard E.E. 1940 a, The Nuer. Oxford University Press
Evans-Pritchard E.E. 1940 b, The Political System of the Anuak of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. London School of Economics, Monographs on Social Anthropology No.4. London: Percy Lund, Humphries & Co
Evans-Pritchard E.E. 1962, 'Anthropology Research in the Southern Sudan', Sudan Society I: 9-14
Evans-Pritchard E.E. 1963, Essays in Social Anthropology, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe
Faris J. 1973 a, The Nuba Personal Art, London: Duckworth
Faris J. 1973 b, 'Pax Britannica and the Sudan: S.F.Nadel', in: Anthropology and Colonial Encounter, Talal Asad (ed.), London: Ithaca Press
Galtung J. 1967, 'After Camelot', in: The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot, I.L.Horowitz (ed.), Boston: M.J.T.Press
Hartmann R. 1863, Reise des Freiheerm Adalbert von Bamim durch Nord-Ost Afrika in den Jahren 1859 und 1860, Berlin
Henderson K.D.D 1952, The Making of Modern Sudan, London: Faber and Faber
Hill R. 1967, A Biographical Dictionary of the Sudan. London: Cass
Howell P.P. 1954, A Manual of Nuer Law, Oxford University Press
Hymes D. 1972 (ed.), Reinventing Anthropology, New York: Pantheon Books
Lewis I.M. 1971, 'Spirit Possession in North East- Africa', in: The Sudan in Africa, Y.F.Hassan (ed.), Khartoum University Press
Lienhardt G. 1961, Divinity and Experience. The ReligIon of the Dinka, Oxford University Press
Mafeje A. 1971, 'The Ideology of Tribalism', Journal of Modern African Studies 9 (2): 253-261
Mafeje A. 1976, 'The Problem of Anthropology in Historical Perspective: An Inquiry into Growth of Social Sciences', Canadian Journal of African Studies 10 (2): 307-333
Magubane B. 1971, 'A Critical Look at Indices used in the Study of Social Change in Colonial Africa', Current Anthropology 12: 419-431
Mohamed A.A. 1980, The White Nile Arabs, London: The Athlone Press
Nadel S.K. 1947, The Nuba: An Anthropological Study of the Hill Tribes in Kordofan. Oxford University Press
O'Fahey R.S. and J.L.Spaulding 1974, Kingdoms of the Sudan, London: Methuen
Al Tunisi 1850, tashiz al-azhan bi-sirat bliad al-arab wa al-sudan, Cairo
El Watheg K. 1980, 'Nuer Migrants in Building Industry in Khartoum', in: Urbanization and Urban Life in the Sudan, Valdo Pons (ed.), DSRC, Khartoum