African Environmental Crisis: A History of Science for Development by Gufu Oba (review)

IF 0.8 3区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Rohini Patel
{"title":"African Environmental Crisis: A History of Science for Development by Gufu Oba (review)","authors":"Rohini Patel","doi":"10.1353/tech.2024.a933108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>African Environmental Crisis: A History of Science for Development</em> by Gufu Oba <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Rohini Patel (bio) </li> </ul> <em>African Environmental Crisis: A History of Science for Development</em><br/> By Gufu Oba. Abingdon: Routledge, 2020. Pp. 258. <p>Historian and environmental scholar Gufu Oba’s <em>African Environmental Crisis</em> is an excellent analysis of the unfolding and longevity of the “African environmental crisis hypothesis” (AEC) during the colonial and postcolonial periods in East Africa, a hypothesis that located the causality of environmental degradation on African peoples and Indigenous forms of land-use systems. Oba draws out the history of this hypothesis to show how it was constructed at various moments under colonial empires in East Africa since the nineteenth century and how it emerged at the intersection of environmental change, colonial development schemes, and scientific knowledge production under empires. The significance of the AEC was how it functioned to undermine Indigenous land use and in turn served to justify the imposition of imperial scientific and development regimes, while ignoring the material environmental consequences of the latter.</p> <p>Oba focuses on Tanganyika, Uganda, and Kenya in East Africa, identifying this as an important region where several ideas of the AEC took shape. Oba organizes the book into three thematic parts with chronological overlap. In part 1, the reader gets a rich historical analysis of the precolonial complexity of Indigenous African forms of land use and subsistence and European colonial explorers’ mixed impressions of the landscapes, including an important precedent of the AEC in the form of an unfounded desiccation hypothesis. But with harsh events, from epidemics to plagues, at the end of the nineteenth century, British and German imperial administrations took the opportunity to establish scientific research stations across the region, imposing new infrastructures of imperial science.</p> <p>This sets the basis for understanding the emergence of the AEC by the 1930s. It was animated locally by these events and by global and scientific theories, including the projection of discourses ignited by the Dust Bowl of the U.S. plains onto African environments. Part 2 inspects practices and infrastructures of imperial sciences at different points in the mid-twentieth century, including the experimental character of science for development enfolded in agronomic and range science, expansion of social science research, and administrative strengthening of technical assistance development models into the 1950s. Part 3 inquires into species changes like the tsetse fly and locusts and imperial responses, which took the form of noxious chemical technologies from arsenic to dieldrin, aerial spraying, and surveillance tools, among other methods.</p> <p>Oba meticulously uses a range of archival sources and interpretive methods, ranging from textual and discourse analysis to a meta-analysis of imperial environmental science and experiments (ch. 5). Travel documents <strong>[End Page 1004]</strong> of colonial explorers are used to delineate the contexts of mid-nineteenth-century East Africa, while a reassessment of the AEC is built using agronomic and range science research published in the <em>East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal</em> between the 1930s and 1960s. The author moves deftly between sources, analyzing narratives alongside ecological indicators, assessing the materiality of environmental change as it contrasts with the persistent hypothesis. The analysis also considers several ruptures to African forms of land use under colonial dispossession, techno-scientific agricultural and experimental schemes, and the reaches of the AEC as they took effect, such as colonial officials seeking to reduce and eliminate livestock that Maasai peoples were reliant on or the Teso peoples quickly adapting Indigenous systems to harvesting cotton as a cash crop (ch. 6).</p> <p>The book crucially reframes underlying historical motives for sciences for development in East Africa. By illustrating the ideological and material implications sown by colonial representations of landscapes and peoples through the prevalent AEC, Oba untangles the major fallacy that postcolonial environmental science and development in the region has inherited and preserved. This enhances related work at the interstices of science, environment, and empire, like Helen Tilley’s <em>Africa as a Living Laboratory</em> (2011) and Hannah Holleman’s <em>Dust Bowls of Empire</em> (2018). Much can be learned about the rootedness of twentieth-century techno-sciences and assistance programs in colonial land-use, control, and racial logics. The result of this immensely detailed, wide-ranging, and thoroughly argued book is...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":49446,"journal":{"name":"Technology and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2024.a933108","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reviewed by:

  • African Environmental Crisis: A History of Science for Development by Gufu Oba
  • Rohini Patel (bio)
African Environmental Crisis: A History of Science for Development
By Gufu Oba. Abingdon: Routledge, 2020. Pp. 258.

Historian and environmental scholar Gufu Oba’s African Environmental Crisis is an excellent analysis of the unfolding and longevity of the “African environmental crisis hypothesis” (AEC) during the colonial and postcolonial periods in East Africa, a hypothesis that located the causality of environmental degradation on African peoples and Indigenous forms of land-use systems. Oba draws out the history of this hypothesis to show how it was constructed at various moments under colonial empires in East Africa since the nineteenth century and how it emerged at the intersection of environmental change, colonial development schemes, and scientific knowledge production under empires. The significance of the AEC was how it functioned to undermine Indigenous land use and in turn served to justify the imposition of imperial scientific and development regimes, while ignoring the material environmental consequences of the latter.

Oba focuses on Tanganyika, Uganda, and Kenya in East Africa, identifying this as an important region where several ideas of the AEC took shape. Oba organizes the book into three thematic parts with chronological overlap. In part 1, the reader gets a rich historical analysis of the precolonial complexity of Indigenous African forms of land use and subsistence and European colonial explorers’ mixed impressions of the landscapes, including an important precedent of the AEC in the form of an unfounded desiccation hypothesis. But with harsh events, from epidemics to plagues, at the end of the nineteenth century, British and German imperial administrations took the opportunity to establish scientific research stations across the region, imposing new infrastructures of imperial science.

This sets the basis for understanding the emergence of the AEC by the 1930s. It was animated locally by these events and by global and scientific theories, including the projection of discourses ignited by the Dust Bowl of the U.S. plains onto African environments. Part 2 inspects practices and infrastructures of imperial sciences at different points in the mid-twentieth century, including the experimental character of science for development enfolded in agronomic and range science, expansion of social science research, and administrative strengthening of technical assistance development models into the 1950s. Part 3 inquires into species changes like the tsetse fly and locusts and imperial responses, which took the form of noxious chemical technologies from arsenic to dieldrin, aerial spraying, and surveillance tools, among other methods.

Oba meticulously uses a range of archival sources and interpretive methods, ranging from textual and discourse analysis to a meta-analysis of imperial environmental science and experiments (ch. 5). Travel documents [End Page 1004] of colonial explorers are used to delineate the contexts of mid-nineteenth-century East Africa, while a reassessment of the AEC is built using agronomic and range science research published in the East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal between the 1930s and 1960s. The author moves deftly between sources, analyzing narratives alongside ecological indicators, assessing the materiality of environmental change as it contrasts with the persistent hypothesis. The analysis also considers several ruptures to African forms of land use under colonial dispossession, techno-scientific agricultural and experimental schemes, and the reaches of the AEC as they took effect, such as colonial officials seeking to reduce and eliminate livestock that Maasai peoples were reliant on or the Teso peoples quickly adapting Indigenous systems to harvesting cotton as a cash crop (ch. 6).

The book crucially reframes underlying historical motives for sciences for development in East Africa. By illustrating the ideological and material implications sown by colonial representations of landscapes and peoples through the prevalent AEC, Oba untangles the major fallacy that postcolonial environmental science and development in the region has inherited and preserved. This enhances related work at the interstices of science, environment, and empire, like Helen Tilley’s Africa as a Living Laboratory (2011) and Hannah Holleman’s Dust Bowls of Empire (2018). Much can be learned about the rootedness of twentieth-century techno-sciences and assistance programs in colonial land-use, control, and racial logics. The result of this immensely detailed, wide-ranging, and thoroughly argued book is...

非洲环境危机:Gufu Oba 著的《科学促进发展史》(评论)
评论者 非洲环境危机:非洲环境危机:非洲环境危机:科学促进发展史》,作者:Gufu Oba。阿宾顿:Routledge, 2020。第 258 页。历史学家和环境学者古福-奥巴的《非洲环境危机》对东非殖民时期和后殖民时期 "非洲环境危机假说"(AEC)的发展和长期存在进行了出色的分析。奥巴梳理了这一假说的历史,以说明自 19 世纪以来,这一假说是如何在东非殖民帝国统治下的不同时期被构建出来的,以及它是如何在帝国统治下的环境变化、殖民发展计划和科学知识生产的交汇点上出现的。非洲经济委员会的意义在于,它是如何起到破坏土著土地利用的作用,并反过来为帝国科学和发展制度的实施提供理由,同时忽视后者对环境造成的物质后果。奥巴将重点放在东非的坦噶尼喀、乌干达和肯尼亚,认为这是非洲经济共同体若干理念形成的重要地区。奥巴将全书分为三个主题部分,并在时间上有所重叠。在第一部分中,读者可以看到丰富的历史分析,了解殖民前非洲土著土地使用和生存形式的复杂性,以及欧洲殖民探险家对这些地貌的复杂印象,包括非洲经济共同体的一个重要先例,即毫无根据的干燥假说。但在 19 世纪末,随着从流行病到瘟疫等严酷事件的发生,英国和德国帝国政府趁机在整个地区建立了科学研究站,强加了新的帝国科学基础设施。这为理解 20 世纪 30 年代亚欧博览会的出现奠定了基础。这些事件以及全球和科学理论(包括美国平原沙尘暴引发的对非洲环境的论述)在当地推动了非洲经济委员会的发展。第 2 部分探讨了 20 世纪中叶不同时期帝国科学的实践和基础结构,包括农艺学和牧场科学所包含的科学促进发展的实验性质、社会科学研究的扩展以及 20 世纪 50 年代技术援助发展模式的行政强化。第 3 部分探究了采采蝇和蝗虫等物种的变化以及帝国的应对措施,其形式包括从砷到狄氏剂的有毒化学技术、空中喷洒和监控工具等方法。奥巴细致地使用了一系列档案资料和解释方法,从文本和话语分析到帝国环境科学和实验的元分析(第 5 章)。殖民探险家的旅行文件 [第 1004 页] 被用来描述 19 世纪中叶东非的背景,而 20 世纪 30 年代至 60 年代期间发表在《东非农业和林业期刊》上的农艺学和牧场科学研究则建立了对东非共同体的重新评估。作者巧妙地穿梭于各种资料来源之间,在分析叙述的同时分析生态指标,评估环境变化的物质性,因为它与持久性假设形成了鲜明对比。分析还考虑了在殖民剥夺、技术科学农业和实验计划以及非洲经济共同体生效的影响下,非洲土地使用形式的几种断裂,如殖民官员试图减少和消灭马赛人依赖的牲畜,或特索人迅速调整土著系统以收获棉花这种经济作物(第 6 章)。该书重塑了科学促进东非发展的深层历史动机。通过说明殖民主义通过盛行的非洲经济委员会(AEC)对地貌和民族的表述所播下的意识形态和物质影响,奥巴解开了该地区后殖民环境科学与发展所继承和保留的主要谬误。这加强了科学、环境和帝国之间的相关研究,如海伦-蒂利(Helen Tilley)的《非洲作为一个活的实验室》(2011 年)和汉娜-霍尔勒曼(Hannah Holleman)的《帝国的尘碗》(2018 年)。关于二十世纪技术科学和援助计划在殖民地土地使用、控制和种族逻辑中的根基,我们可以了解到很多东西。这本内容详实、涉及面广、论证透彻的著作...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Technology and Culture
Technology and Culture 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
14.30%
发文量
225
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Technology and Culture, the preeminent journal of the history of technology, draws on scholarship in diverse disciplines to publish insightful pieces intended for general readers as well as specialists. Subscribers include scientists, engineers, anthropologists, sociologists, economists, museum curators, archivists, scholars, librarians, educators, historians, and many others. In addition to scholarly essays, each issue features 30-40 book reviews and reviews of new museum exhibitions. To illuminate important debates and draw attention to specific topics, the journal occasionally publishes thematic issues. Technology and Culture is the official journal of the Society for the History of Technology (SHOT).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信