Sociology Empire Colonialismo 692991

Sociology and Colonialism in the British and French
Empires, 1945–1965*
George Steinmetz
University of Michigan
Sociology in France, Britain, and Belgium between 1945 and the mid-1960s was
oriented toward the overseas colonies as well as the European metropoles. This
fact is in line with recent research showing that European empires were located
at the heart of national self-understandings, social structures, and everyday prac-
tices and that loss of empire had sweeping domestic impacts.1 What is most im-
mediately striking from the standpoint of intellectual history is the disciplinary
amnesia about sociologists’ involvement in colonial research after 1945. The pro-
cess of forgetting sociology’s colonial entanglements set in almost immediately
after decolonization. European social scientists now came to resemble the “paro-
chial” Tacitus, who was “obsessed with the history of affairs at Rome, neglecting
the Empire, or seeing it only as refracted through the spectacles of a home-keeping
Roman.”2 Most narrowed their vision to the domestic front; specialists in African
kinship and witchcraft became sociologists of European medicine and European
families; others retooled as specialists in community studies, race relations, migra-
tion, and development.3 Sociological theorists of modernization, dependency, and
neocolonialism after 1960 acknowledged continuities with the past but tended to
erase the specific impact of the immediately preceding colonial situation.4 A half
* For comments on earlier versions of this article I would like to thank audiences at
the American Historical Association, British Sociological Association, Centre européen
de sociologie et de science politique, Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach, German So-
ciological Society, and the Social Science History Association, as well as at the universities
of Bielefeld, Harvard, Lisbon, Melbourne, Michigan, Minnesota, Northwestern, Paris–
Dauphine, Sydney, Toronto, Urbana-Champaign, Wisconsin–Madison, and Yale. Michael
Banton, Fred Cooper, Jean Copans, and Julia Hell provided especially invaluable feedback.
1
Antoinette Burton, “Who Needs the Nation? Interrogating ‘British’ History,” Jour-
nal of Historical Sociology 10, no. 3 (1997): 227– 48; Stuart Ward, ed., British Culture
and the End of Empire (Manchester, 2001); Jordanna Bailkin, The Afterlife of Empire
(Berkeley, CA, 2012).
2
R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford, 1946), 38.
3
Cyril Sofer, a specialist in urban Africa during the 1950s, became a management
sociologist; William Watson, author of an important African ethnography, became a
medical sociologist in the United States.
4
There were exceptions. Balandier and his students at the Paris Centre d’études
africaines analyzed the lasting effects of colonial rule on underdevelopment; Althusserian
The Journal of Modern History 89 (September 2017): 601–648
© 2017 by The University of Chicago. 0022-2801/2017/8903-0004$10.00
All rights reserved.
This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
602 Steinmetz
century later, British and French sociologists are finally criticizing their disci-
pline’s provincialism and methodological nationalism. As this article will suggest,
these efforts should be accompanied by an exercise in disciplinary anamnesis.
The literature on “decolonizing the social sciences” has largely ignored sociol-
ogy, at least in its European heartland.5 Yet sociology was as much a part of the
colonial social scientific mobilization in the mid-twentieth-century British, French,
and Belgian empires as psychology, economics, geography, demography, and his-
tory. By recovering this neglected history I am proposing an alternative geneal-
ogy of “theory from the global South.” Several of these sociologists were already
engaging in the “decolonization” of sociology that Pierre Bourdieu called for in
1974.6
Histories of British postwar sociology have alluded to the colonial moment
only obliquely through references to the large number of social anthropology PhDs
at the core of the sociology profession through the 1970s. Historians of French
social science sometimes note in passing that sociologists were employed by
IFAN (Institut Français d’Afrique Noire) and ORSTOM (Office de la Recherche
Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer). A recent history of les grandes enquêtes
(large social surveys) in post–World War II French sociology ignores all of the
grandes enquêtes carried out in the colonies.7 Yet the term grandes enquêtes
was already being used in the 1930s to describe studies carried out by large teams
of social researchers in the colonies.8 Robert Montagne’s study of the Moroccan
proletariat in the late 1940s mobilized more than eighty-two researchers; Pierre
Bourdieu’s Algerian research in 1960 involved “entire teams of researchers,
Algerian students, men and women.”9 A study of the history of French urban so-
ciology similarly narrows its geographic focus to the Hexagon, ignoring research
neo-Marxists theorized the “colonial mode of production.” Pierre Philippe Rey, “Sociol-
ogie économique et politique des Kuni, Punu et Tsangui de la région de Mossendjo et
de la Boucle du Niari (Congo-Brazzaville)” (PhD thesis, Paris, 1969), 519.
5
But see the essays in George Steinmetz, ed., Sociology and Empire: The Imperial
Entanglements of a Discipline (Durham, NC, 2013).
6
Pierre Bourdieu, “Les conditions sociales de la production sociologique: Sociologie
coloniale et décolonisation de la sociologie,” in Le mal de voir, ed. Henri Moniot (Paris,
1976), 416–27.
7
Philippe Masson, Faire de la sociologie: Les grandes enquêtes françaises depuis
1945 (Paris, 2008).
8
“Les grandes enquêtes en Afrique du Nord,” Bulletin économique du Maroc 3,
no. 12 (1936): 159–60.
9
Abdelmalek Sayad, Histoire et recherche identitaire, suivi de entretien avec Hassan
Arfaoui (Saint-Denis, 2002), 71; Robert Montagne, Naissance du prolétariat marocain:
Enquête collective exécutée de 1948 à 1950 (Paris, 1951); ORSTOM, Organisation-
Activités 1944 –1955 (Paris, 1955); Jacques Berque, “Nouveaux types urbains au Maroc:
A propos d’une enquête collective,” Annales ESC 7, no. 2 (1952): 210–16.

Sociology and Colonialism in the British and French Empires 603
on colonial urbanism before 1960.10 A recent history of French labor sociologists

criticizes them for focusing on “contemporary societies, not distant ones,” over-
looking the fact that sociologists did, in fact, study labor in the colonies and
postcolonies. Surveys of African workers and industrialization were sponsored
by UNESCO, the International African Institute, and the Inter-African Labour In-
stitute, often with French contributors.11
Another problem is a tendency to deny the very existence of a disciplinary
field of sociology in France and Britain before the 1960s. The postwar rebirth
of British sociology is often traced to the 1963 Robbins Report, which led to
a sharp increase in the number of metropolitan universities and students, and
to the 1965 Heyworth Report, which established the British Social Science Re-
search Council (SSRC). This narrative suppresses the fact that the British SSRC
replaced an earlier Colonial Social Science Research Council, which had fi-
nanced the research of an entire generation of colonial social scientists, includ-
ing many sociologists, between 1944 and 1962. The Robbins and Heyworth re-
ports marked not just a beginning but an ending as well—a transition from an
empirecentric scientific and educational focus to a narrower metropolitan one.
Historians tend to date French sociology’s breakthrough to the Fifth Republic
and the Fourth Plan (1962–65).12 As I will show, however, a number of impor-
tant institutional structures for sociological research were already well estab-
lished in the metropole and the colonies by the end of the 1950s. What changed
in the first half of the 1960s was the retrenchment in sociology’s geospatial
imaginary, along with a rapid expansion of students, publications, and work op-
portunities in sociology until the mid-1970s.
10
Michel Amiot, Contre l’état, les sociologues: Élements pour une histoire de la
sociologie urbaine en France (1900–1980) (Paris, 1986).
11
Lucie Tanguy, La sociologie du travail en France: Enquête sur le travail des so-
ciologues, 1950–1990 (Paris, 2011), 77. French sociologists who carried out enquêtes
on industrialization and labor conditions in the colonies include Balandier, Bourdieu,
and Montagne, as well as Gérard Althabe, Jacques Binet, Pierre Clément, Jean Cuisenier,
Robert Descloitres, Roland Devauges, Jean-Claude Froehlich, André Hauser, Paul Mercier,
Yvon Mersadier, Jean-Claude Reverdy, and Jean-Paul Trystram.
12
See, e.g., Philippe Masson, “Le financement de la sociologie française: Les con-
ventions de recherche de la DGRST dans les années soixante,” Genèses 62 (2006): 110–
28. French Planning was initiated in 1946 and was directed by the Commissariat Général
au Plan, which generated economic forecasts and coordinated discussions among gov-
ernment ministries and key social actors to forge a consensus about public policy and
private investment priorities for the immediate future. French planning was “indicative,”
not authoritarian, and lacked powerful tools for influencing public or private behavior.
Whereas the first plans emphasized “modernization and equipment,” the Fourth Plan en-
compassed social and science policy as well. On the Fourth Plan, see Pierre Bauchet,
Economic Planning, the French Experience (New York, 1964); and John and Anne-
Marie Hackett, Economic Planning in France (London, 1963). On science policy at the
time, see Robert Gilpin, France in the Age of the Scientific State (Princeton, NJ, 1968).

604 Steinmetz
My focus is on France and Britain, the two countries with the largest national
sociological fields in 1945, ranked just behind the United States.13 They also had
the largest remaining colonial empires. The exact date of independence was dif-
ferent in each colony, but 1965 marks a convenient endpoint, since by then most
colonies had become independent.14
Although this article will call attention to differences between the French and
British cases, the rise of colonial sociology was part of broadly uniform and inter-
twined processes taking place across the European colonial empires and their sci-
entific fields. The overall trajectories of the colonialism-sociology nexus were
similar: colonial developmentalism led to a heightened demand for social science,
and sociology became more attractive to colonial planners, for reasons discussed
in this article. Colonial sociology, in turn, became a central component of a disci-
pline that was just coming into its own in the metropoles. Cross-national differ-
ences stemmed from the divergent intellectual and disciplinary traditions flowing
into sociology in the two countries and from the greater emphasis on large collec-
tive social research projects in France.15
My topic is colonial sociology. This is an analytical category, one that was not
widely used by contemporaries, at least after 1945. Colonial sociology is defined
here as sociological work focused on or conducted in colonies. It took the follow-
ing forms: (a) ethnographies and social surveys carried out in colonies, either in-
dependently or at the behest of governments, firms, international agencies, or re-
search organizations; (b) theoretical analyses of colonies or the colonial condition;
(c) historical studies of colonies; (d) comparative studies based on information
generated in colonies; (e) teaching colonial sociology in institutions of higher ed-
ucation. I include four demographic groups of sociologists who specialized in co-
lonialism at the time: (1) a group born in Europe; (2) a group originating in white
settler communities in North Africa and South Africa:16 (3) a group born as col-
13
German sociology had been decimated by Nazism, and many sociologists who
had stayed in Germany were prohibited from teaching after 1945. Carsten Klingemann,
Soziologie und Politik: Sozialwissenschaftliches Expertenwissen im Dritten Reich und
in der frühen westdeutschen Nachkriegszeit (Wiesbaden, 2009).
14
I exclude India here because it became independent so quickly after 1945.
15
I deal at greater length with the French case in this article, having discussed British
colonial sociology in George Steinmetz, “A Child of the Empire: British Sociology and
Colonialism, 1940s–1960s,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 49, no. 4
(2013): 353–78.
16
Jacques Berque and Jean Servier were born in Algeria, Paul Pascon in Morocco.
Jeanne Favret-Saada, who taught sociology at the University of Algiers between 1959
and 1963 before moving to Nanterre University, was born into a Jewish family in Tunisia
that had acquired French citizenship in Algeria. Jeanne Favret-Saada, “Jeanne Favret-
Saada,” in Comment je suis devenu ethnologue, ed. Anne Dhoquois (Paris, 2008), 79–
94. Jean Cazeneuve was born in France but attended lycée in Morocco; Paul Mus was
born in France but spent his entire childhood and the first part of career in Indochine;

onized subjects;17 and (4) a small number of sociologists who were considered
“mixed-race” or with an intermediate status between colonizer and colonized.18
This article’s first task is to excavate this colonial sociology and to recon-
struct its relations to the rest of the sociology discipline and neighboring disci-
plines. The essay also asks how extrascientific forces shape social science, and
it explores the limits of the contextual determination of knowledge. Social re-
search faced two powerful and countervailing pressures in Europe after 1945.
On the one hand, there was enormous pressure on social scientists to make use-
ful contributions to rebuilding the war-torn European homelands and to help
solve what was widely described as a mounting crisis in the colonies. On the
other hand, in the wake of Nazism and Vichyism there was an intensified focus
on questions of scientific and academic autonomy and intellectual freedom. The
postwar context allows us to explore both the external determination of social
science and the ways contemporaries tried to resist extrascientific pressures on
their work.
The article is divided into six sections. The first sets the stage methodologically
by asking three questions: (1) How should we define the analytic object “sociol-
ogy”? Who counts as a sociologist? (2) How was sociology distinguished from
its closest disciplinary competitors in colonial settings, anthropology and ethnol-
ogy?19 (3) How can Bourdieu’s concept of the scientific field be expanded to the
scale of empire? The second section discusses the emergence of a new form of
colonial governance based on development and science and the resulting demand
for colonial sociology. The third section outlines the universe of French, British,
international, and US-financed research institutes and educational institutions, the
Edith Clark was born in Jamaica; David Brokensha, Percy Cohen, Allie Abraham Dubb,
Ellen Hellmann, Leo Kuper, Max Marwick, Clyde Mitchell, Valdo Pons, John Rex, Jack
Simons, Cyril Sofer, and Harold Wolpe were born in South Africa.
17
A partial list of “indigenous” sociologists whose scientific careers began before de-
colonization includes Anouar Abdel-Malek, François N’Sougan Agblémagnon, Laurent
Marie Biffot, Lloyd Braithwaite, Kofi Busia, Sydney Collins, Nathanael Fadipe, Dzig-
bodi Kodzo Fiawoo, Cyril Fiscian, Fernando Henriques, Kwan Esiboa De Graft John-
son, Abdelkébir Khatibi, Albert Memmi, Văn Huyên Nguyễn, Orlando Patterson,
Manga Bekombo Prio, Abdelmalek Sayad, Paul Sebag, P. Austin Tetteh, and Abdelkader
Zghal.
18
Douglas Manley and M. G. Smith were mixed-race sociologists born in Jamaica.
Smith taught sociology at the University of the West Indies but was considered an anthro-
pologist during his career in the United States. Interview by the author with Orlando Pat-
terson, November 21, 2014.
19
I will use the terms “ethnology” and “anthropology” interchangeably in this article,
since fields with these labels occupied similar locations in the French and British disciplin-
ary divisions of disciplinary labor. For an in-depth analysis, see Emanuelle Siebeud,
“Ethnographie, ethnologie et africanisme: La ‘disciplinarisation’ de l’ethnologie française
dans le premier tiers du XXe siècle,” in Qu’est-ce qu’une discipline?, ed. Jean Boutier,
Jean-Claude Passeron, and Jacques Revel (Paris, 2006), 229– 45.

606 Steinmetz
places where colonial sociology was produced and taught. The fourth section ex-
amines the social contours of the French and British colonial sociology subfields
and their relations to their overarching sociology professions and the academic
and intellectual fields as a whole. The fifth section examines these colonial soci-
ologists’ political stances, views of the proper relationship between science and
politics, and strategies for increasing their own autonomy. The final section ex-
plores the contributions of colonial sociology.
I. Field Theory and Colonial Sociology

In order to account for the production, content, and formal features of cultural
works, intellectual history needs to pay attention to processes occurring at both
proximate and more remote levels, bringing internalist and individual accounts
of creation together with attention to social contexts. Pierre Bourdieu’s con-
cepts of habitus, symbolic capital, and social field help us make sense of intel-
lectual and scientific production and also, to some extent, individual works, by
combining an “external hermeneutic” with an internal one.20
Bourdieu’s mature field theory emphasizes the differentiation of social space
into specialized microuniverses, each relatively autonomous from all others and
located within a common macrocosm, which Bourdieu calls “social space.” Ev-
ery field is defined by a specific game involving competition over specific stakes.
Actors cannot simply deploy economic or generic forms of cultural or social cap-
ital in semiautonomous fields but are compelled to translate those resources into
forms that are recognizable and fungible within a given field. The difference be-
tween dominant and dominated sectors of a field is defined in terms of the un-
equal distribution of the specific kind of symbolic capital prevailing in that field.
Fields are riven by conflict over the rules of the game and the valuation of dif-
ferent practices. Some fields are defined primarily exoterically, by external de-
mands, while others are more autonomous and self-defining. Change within more
autonomous fields is driven mainly by internal dynamics.
The field approach is predicated on a relational social ontology. This is op-
posed to more substantialist approaches in the social sciences in which causal-
ity is conceptualized on the model of direct contact between people (as in social
network approaches) or things (as in actor-network theory). In Bourdieu, fields
and positions relate to one another through formal homologies, although direct
contact among actors is of course not excluded. For example, all fields are
structured by a cardinal division between dominant and dominated poles. This
basic asymmetry is rooted in different holdings of field-specific symbolic cap-
20
Pierre Bourdieu and Hans Haacke, Free Exchange (Stanford, CA, 1995); Pierre
Bourdieu, Manet (Paris, 2013), and “Séminaires sur le concept de champ, 1972–
1975,” Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 200 (2013): 4 –37.

ital. Homologies are also based in actors’ habituses, which allow them to make
homologous (but not identical) moves in different fields.
Bourdieusian field theory is also inherently historical. It is a “genetic” form of
structuralism rather than an “orthodox” version.21 A field’s defining characteris-
tics can only be understood by historically reconstructing the field’s origins or
genesis and its subsequent evolution. Fields are inherently agonistic and there-
fore dynamic.22 Although some aspects of a field may be partially stabilized
(e.g., the definition of the game and its stakes), they are never permanently set-
tled. Indeed, some fields are constitutionally unsettled due to the porousness of
boundaries, the constant influx of new participants, and their tendency to define
distinction in terms of novelty. If participants in a given activity do not even
agree on the stakes of the game, it is difficult to speak of a field. Fieldness is
a continuum, not an either-or condition.
Although I am delaying discussion of colonial sociology’s contributions until
later in the article, it is worth noting that Bourdieu’s central theoretical categories
originated in the late colonial context under investigation here. It is widely ac-
knowledged that Bourdieu’s habitus concept first appeared in his Algerian field-
work.23 What has been overlooked is the emergence of the outlines of his field
concept in this same setting. Bourdieu’s field theory is usually attributed to his
immersion in French structuralism, especially the work of Lévi-Strauss, and to
his reading of Kurt Lewin, who transposed the field concept from theoretical phys-
ics into psychology. Most commentators locate this shift in the mid-1960s, starting
with Bourdieu’s paper “Intellectual Field and Creative Project.”24 But two key el-
ements of Bourdieu’s field theory emerged in nuce in Algeria before 1961.
The first of these is the idea of the social field itself. In 1959 Bourdieu noted in
a letter to his Algerian collaborator Abdelmalek Sayad that he was rethinking his
treatment of the role of honor in Kabyle culture not just by comparing it to peas-
ant culture in his native Béarn but also through “a Lewinian perspective, by try-
ing to demonstrate the type of personality corresponding to a society of honor”
alongside a “structural analysis of ritual.”25 This underscores the early date at
21
Pierre Bourdieu, “Principles of a Sociology of Cultural Works,” in Explanation
and Value in the Arts, ed. Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell (New York, 1993), 173–89,
176; George Steinmetz, “Bourdieu, Historicity, and Historical Sociology,” Cultural So-
ciology 5, no. 1 (2011): 45–66.
22
Fields are also partially nonagonistic arenas insofar as they depend on mutual rec-
ognition of all participants by all others and on a shared illusio—agreement on a set of
commitments and assumptions about the field and its idiosyncratic logics, vocabulary,
history, and debates.
23
Pierre Bourdieu, The Social Structures of the Economy (Cambridge, 2005), 2.
24
Pierre Bourdieu, “Champ intellectuel et projet créateur,” Les temps modernes 22,
no. 246 (1966): 865–906. This article was circulated as a mimeograph in 1965.
25
Letter from Bourdieu to Abdelmalek Sayad, late 1959, in Fonds d’Archives
Abdelmalek Sayad (FAAS), Musée de l’Histoire de l’Immigration, Paris; Amín Pérez,

608 Steinmetz
which Bourdieu was reading Lewin and conceptualizing the relationship be-
tween habitus and field in terms of homologies.26
The second element of Bourdieu’s field theory emerged from his military ex-
periences in wartime Algeria, which convinced him of the importance of scien-
tific independence from economic and political authorities. Defending cultural
and scientific autonomy was at the core of his lifelong political engagement
as well as his mature field theory. This focus likely originated with Bourdieu’s
work for the Information Service of the French army and the French government
statistics office in Algiers, as well as his exposure to the right-wing professors
and students at the University of Algiers. I will return to this topic below in dis-
cussing Bourdieu’s strategies for avoiding instrumentalization of his Algerian
research.
A. Sociology as a Field and Its Relations to Anthropology
Sociology, like any other field of activity, can only be defined and delimited in
terms of whatever recognized participants think it is, consciously and uncon-
sciously. A sociology field encompasses all of those people—and only those
people—who are recognized as members of that field by other contemporary
participants in that field. In fields that lack a formal numerus clausus or some
other form of certification, membership is negotiated in an ongoing manner.
There is also a continuous process of genealogical reconstruction, wherein pre-
viously excluded figures are included in a field and others expunged from its
history. The history of modern human science disciplines is characterized by
perpetual struggles over disciplinary boundaries, definitions of founders and ca-
nonical works, and “dominant principles of domination.” Membership in a field
goes hand in hand with the development of a specific disciplinary habitus and
illusio.
Although the rules governing inclusion in professional sociology were looser
in the 1950s and 1960s than they are today, there are a few objective markers of
membership. The closest thing to a sociological membership badge in France
between 1945 and the 1960s—other than a university chaire (of which there
were just a handful)—was membership in the sociology division of the Centre
national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS/National Center of Scientific Re-
search) or in the Centre d’études sociologiques (CES), which was the leading
French center for sociological research from 1946 until the late 1960s.27 Mem-
“Rendre le social plus politique: Guerre coloniale, immigration et pratiques sociolo-

giques d’Abdelmalek Sayad et de Pierre Bourdieu” (doctoral thesis, EHESS, 2015),
app. 2.
26
Pierre Bourdieu, In Other Words (Stanford, CA, 1990), 108.
27
Johan Heilbron, “Pionniers par défaut? Les débuts de la recherche au Centre
d’études sociologiques (1946–1960),” Revue française de sociologie 32 (1991): 365–
79. Almost all CNRS sociologists belonged to the CES, but the converse was not true.

bership in the British sociology field was assured through employment as a

reader, lecturer, or professor in a university sociology department or as a des-
ignated sociologist working in some other department (e.g., social studies) or in
a public research institution. Where this kind of information is lacking, we have
to reconstruct contemporary perceptions of individual scholars on a case-by-
case basis. In some cases a social scientific discipline cannot be determined,
usually when individuals move from academia into the wider intellectual or po-
litical field or an intrinsically interdisciplinary institution such as the Collège de
France.28 Few scholars were active in more than two disciplines simultaneously.
Most cases of ambiguous disciplinary identity turn out on closer inspection to in-
volve individuals moving sequentially into different disciplines. This pattern was
very typical for scholars located at the boundaries between sociology and ethnol-
ogy, as we will see below. Changes in disciplinary identity were also triggered by
international migrations from one national social science field to another.
Field theory solves another set of definitional problems. Scientific disciplines
exist in force fields of shifting, overlapping, and contested boundaries. The bor-
der with ethnology was the most salient one for colonial sociologists during
these years, and it was characterized by a mixture of hostility and cooperation,
protectionism and exchange. There was a great deal of traffic between the two
disciplines in the middle decades of the twentieth century. In France, the inter-
disciplinary tradition of the Année sociologique and Marcel Mauss’s central po-
sition in both disciplines meant that the boundary was extremely permeable. The
first five volumes of the third series of Année sociologique (1949–54) featured
contributions by leading ethnologists such as Denise Paulme, Pierre Métais,
André Schaeffner, and Jacques Soustelle. The same pattern characterized the
journal Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, whose contributors during the de-
cade 1946–55 included Marcel Griaule and Claude Lévi-Strauss. In 1958, stu-
dents at the Institute for Ethnology were merged into the group of sociology stu-
dents at the University of Paris.29 A number of scholars shifted from ethnology
into sociology, others moved from sociology into ethnology, and some made a
full cycle over the course of their careers from ethnology to sociology and back
again.
In the United Kingdom the borders between sociology and anthropology were
also quite fluid, and the pattern of anthropology PhDs becoming sociologists was
more common than in France.30 The newly fashionable genre of community stud-
28
An example is Roland Barthes, active in the Centre d’études sociologiques and the
CNRS sociology section from 1955 and a sociology professor in the Sixth Section of the
EPHE from 1962 but rarely seen as a sociologist after becoming a leading intellectual in
the 1960s.
29
Annales de l’Université de Paris 29, no. 1 (1959): 88.
30
Steinmetz, “A Child of the Empire.”

610 Steinmetz
ies brought British sociologists and ethnologists together on collaborative proj-

ects.31 Anthropologists published extensively in the Sociological Review (the
only British journal dedicated to sociology before 1950) and the British Journal
of Sociology, which was founded at the London School of Economics (LSE) in
1950. In 1951, the provisional executive committee of the new British Sociolog-
ical Association included anthropologists Raymond Firth and Meyer Fortes.32
Joint departments of social anthropology and sociology were set up at several
metropolitan and colonial universities. By the mid-1950s it seemed clear to con-
temporaries that the two disciplines were “no longer confin[ing] themselves to
what many regard as their proper spheres,”33 which meant “civilized” popula-
tions for sociologists and colonized or “primitive” societies for anthropologists.
A number of anthropologists set out to study metropolitan communities through
an anthropological lens.34 Sociologists were grouped together with anthropolo-
gists in “Section N” of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
The two disciplines interacted in colonial settings such as the conference at
Makerere University College in 1959 that gave rise to the volume Social Change
in Modern Africa (fig. 1).
Some international organizations promoted collaboration between the disci-
plines. UNESCO’s postwar project on race and racism brought together sociol-
ogists, ethnologists, and social psychologists.35 A UNESCO-sponsored study of
Stanleyville in the Belgian Congo in the mid-1950s was carried out by British
anthropologist Daryll Forde, Dutch-born sociologist Valdo Pons, and French co-
lonial psychologist Nelly Xydias.36
Peaceful coexistence between the disciplines was also coming under pressure,
however, due to shifts in the priorities of government science agencies and colo-
nial policy makers, private foundations, and university administrations. In France
after 1945 some younger social scientists saw sociology as a kind of avant-garde,
“a new word,” and a “militant position,” especially in contrast to ethnology.37 The
director of the largest postwar training program in ethnography, the Centre de for-
31
See, e.g., Lucien Bernot and René Blancard, Nouville, un village français (Paris,
1953); Pierre Clément and Nelly Xydias, Vienne sur le Rhône, la ville et les habitants,
situations et attitudes: Sociologie d’une cité française (Paris, 1955).
32
Jennifer Platt, The British Sociological Association (Durham, 2003), 20.
33
Barrington Kaye, “The Sociologist in a Hostile World,” Higher Education Quar-
terly 10 (1956): 172–80, 178.
34
See esp. K. L. Little, Negroes in Britain: A Study of Racial Relations in English
Society (London, 1947); Ronald Frankenberg, Village on the Border (London, 1957).
35
Anthony Q. Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism: The United States, UNESCO, and
“Race,” 1945–1968 (New York, 2012), 37.
36
D. Forde, ed., Social Implications of Industrialization and Urbanization in Africa
South of the Sahara (Paris, 1956).
37
Quotes from interviews by the author with Georges Balandier, February 9, 2007,
Paris, and Roland Waast, February 15, 2012, Paris.

Fig. 1.—Anthropologists and sociologists at the International African Institute semi-

nar at Makerere University College, Kampala, Uganda, January 1959. Courtesy of Mi-
chael Banton.
mation aux recherches ethnologiques, found that in 1953 there were actually more
“sociologists” than “anthropologists” among the 164 people doing full-time eth-
nographic research in France and that the disproportion was largest among the
younger ranks of ethnographers.38 Anthropologists in the Sixth Section of the
École pratique des hautes études (EPHE), including Claude Lévi-Strauss, were lo-
cated in its Division de sociologie until 1968. By contrast, sociology and ethnol-
ogy were located in separate sections in the CNRS, which has been the most im-
portant funder, organizer, and employer of French (social) science since 1939.39
There was a comparable escalation of border tensions and a gradual shift in
the balance of disciplinary power in Britain. Sociology was reported to be elic-
38
Leroi-Gourhan, “Qu’est-ce que c’est . . . l’ethnologie?,” Bulletin du Centre de for-
mation aux recherches ethnologiques, no. 5 (January 1953): 1–7, 1; Jacques Gutwirth,
“La professionnalisation d’une discipline: Le centre de formation aux recherches eth-
nologiques,” Gradhiva, no. 29 (2001): 25–41.
39
Sociology and ethnology were combined with other disciplines in CNRS sections
but never with each other. Jacques Lautmann, “Le CNRS et la sociologie,” Histoire de la
recherche contemporaine 2, no. 2 (2013): 182–88.

612 Steinmetz
iting great excitement among British students in 1945,40 and it increased “at al-
most ten times the rate of social anthropology” between 1945 and 1981.41 Some
British anthropologists began to experience “acute boundary consciousness”
vis-à-vis sociology.42 Adding fuel to the fire, prominent sociologists argued that
anthropology had lost its raison d’être, since African and other colonized soci-
eties were now subject to the same dynamics as European ones.43 Anthropologist-
cum-sociologist Peter Worsley wrote that “anthropology rose with colonialism,
and, in its traditional form at least, looks like dying with it.”44 The struggle reached
a crescendo in overseas fieldwork settings, where sociologists were the usurping
newcomers. According to Barrington Kaye, a British sociology PhD working at
the University of Malaya from 1951 to 1956, sociologists competed with anthro-
pologists for the support of colonial administrators, each arguing that “theirs is the
right, the best, the only method of approach.”45
Another reason for the rising fortunes of sociology, at least in the colonies, had
to do with the preferences of local intellectuals, who insisted that they “deserved
to be studied by the type of scientists that studied civilized societies—the sociol-
ogists.”46 Sociology was believed to be less politically compromised. In the new
African universities “anthropology was demoted to a subdiscipline of sociology”
or excluded outright.47 UNESCO prioritized sociologists in the organization of
a large conference titled “Social Impact of Technological Change in Africa” in
Ivory Coast in 1954.48 Présence africaine, the key journal in the Négritude move-
ment, was founded by Alioune Diop, a Senegalese intellectual who contributed
40
T. H. Marshall, Class, Citizenship, and Social Development, 2nd ed. (Garden City,
NY, 1965), 3.
41
J. Spencer, “British Social Anthropology: A Retrospective,” Annual Review of An-
thropology 29 (2000): 1–24, 4; Edmund Lisle, Howard Machin, and Sy Yasin, Traversing
the Crisis: The Social Sciences in Britain and France (London, 1984), 12–141, tables 3a, 3b.
42
A. P. Cohen, “Village on the Border, Anthropology at the Crossroads: The Signif-
icance of a Classic British Ethnography,” Sociological Review 53 (2005): 603–20, 616;
Wendy James, “ ‘A Feeling for Form and Pattern, and a Touch of Genius’: E-P’s Vision
and the Institute 1946–70,” in A History of Oxford Anthropology, ed. Peter Rivière (New
York, 2007), 104.
43
Donald G. MacRae, “Sociology in Transitional Societies,” Universitas (Accra) 2
(1956): 107–9, 107; T. H. Marshall, “Review of Anthropology Today: An Encyclopaedic
Inventory,” British Journal of Sociology 7 (1956): 59–64, 60.
44
Peter Worsley, “Only Connections,” Guardian, October 14, 1966.
45
Kaye, “The Sociologist,” 176.
46
G. I. Jones, “Social Anthropology in Nigeria during the Colonial Period,” Africa
44 (1974): 280–99, 286.
47
Owen Sichone, “The Social Sciences in Africa,” in The Modern Social Sciences,
ed. Ted Porter and Dorothy Ross, The Cambridge History of Science 7 (Cambridge,
2003), 466–81, 478.
48
UNESCO archives, document 338.924: 3(6)(666.8) “54,” IVORY COAST—Meet-
ing 1954 —Social Impact of Technological Change.

to professional sociology through the 1970s.49 The Second Congress of Black

Artists and Writers, sponsored by Présence africaine in Rome in 1959, included
a subcommittee on sociology but not one on anthropology.50 In 1971, the minister
of higher education and research in Algeria described ethnology as “contami-
nated by colonialism” and called for it to be “submitted to a process of decolo-
nization.” Ethnology was banned outright at the twenty-fourth conference of the
International Institute of Sociology in Algiers in March 1974.51
The other reason for the upsurge of sociology was imperial officials’ empha-
sis on development. Before examining the alliance between sociology and these
modernizing colonial rulers, I want to discuss briefly another aspect of social
fields: their spatial coordinates.
B. Social Fields at the Scale of Empires

The correct geographic scale for this study is the British Empire and Common-
wealth, on the one hand, and the French empire—or French Union, as it was
rechristened after World War II—on the other.52 Of course it is appropriate in
many cases to frame social analysis at the scale of the nation-state, as Bourdieu
does in several of his studies, but social fields often extend to the global or, more
appropriately, the imperial scale.53 Imperial fields are centered on metropoles,
with tentacles reaching out to overseas outposts and additional lateral connec-
tions that link colonies directly to one another. British social anthropology be-
fore 1961 is a good example of an imperial academic field: more than a third
of British-trained members were working outside metropolitan Britain, mainly
in the British Commonwealth, colonies, and former colonies.54 Sociology, psy-
chology, demography, medicine, and many natural science disciplines expanded
across the British and French empires, especially after 1945 with the creation of
new overseas universities and research institutes.55
49
ISA [International Sociological Association] Newsletter 3 (1974): 3.
50
See “Resolution de sociologie,” Présence africaine, nos. 24–25 (February–March
1959): 405–6.
51
Comments by M. S. Benyahi in 1971, quoted in Fanny Colonna, “Une fonction
coloniale de l’ethnographie dans l’Algérie de l’entre deux-guerres: La programmation
des élites moyennes,” Libyca 20 (1972): 259– 67.
52
Frederick Cooper, Citizenship between Empire and Nation: Remaking France and
French Africa, 1945–1960 (Princeton, NJ, 2014).
53
George Steinmetz, “The Colonial State as a Social Field,” American Sociological
Review 73 (2008): 589–612, and “Social Fields, Subfields, and Social Spaces, at the
Scale of Empires: Explaining the Colonial State and Colonial Sociology,” Sociological
Review Monographs 64, no. 2 (2016): 98–123.
54
S. Ardener and E. Ardener, “A Directory Study of Social Anthropologists,” British
Journal of Sociology 16 (1965): 295–314, 306.
55
Helen Tilley, Africa as a Living Laboratory: Empire, Development, and the Prob-
lem of Scientific Knowledge, 1870–1950 (Chicago, 2011); Pierre Singaravélou, Professer

614 Steinmetz
Imperial fields usually encompass only part of the empires in which they are
located. The British and French imperial fields of sociology contained blank
spots and points of concentrated activity, well-worn paths and paths that were
rarely traveled. As figures 2 and 3 suggest, French sociology was concentrated
in West and Equatorial Africa and the Maghreb and was late in entering the
French Antilles. The British field was concentrated in Southern, Central, and
West Africa and in Jamaica, where the University College of the West Indies
was an early center of social scientific education and research. Sociology made
fewer inroads into East and Southeast Asia, given the long-standing presence
of Orientalists and ethnologists there.
Scientists circulated through these spaces. The French colonial minister already
centralized the professions of colonial agrarian engineers and laboratory scientists
in 1921, enabling their careers to span different colonies.56 An illustration from
sociology is the far-flung career of David Bettison, a British-born disciple of
Max Gluckman who earned his BA, MA, and PhD at Rhodes University in South
Africa, worked at the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute in Northern Rhodesia be-
tween 1956 and the early 1960s, and taught sociology at Simon Fraser University
and the University of Alberta in Canada, the Australian National University,
and the University of Waikato in New Zealand.57 Other imperial career trajectories
remained entirely in the colonized Global South58 or moved north solely for uni-
versity training before returning to the colony.59 These scientific career loops in-
creasingly encompassed travels to the United States, where students from both
sides of the colonizer-colonizing relationship came for training or employment.
II. Colonial Developmentalism and the Increasing Demand

for Social Science
The period between the mid-1940s and early 1960s is sometimes summarized
as one of decolonization. Given the profound changes in colonial policy between
1945 and the mid-1960s, however, this period can also be described as one of
l’Empire: Les “sciences coloniales” en France sous la IIIe République (Paris, 2011), and
“De la psychologie coloniale à la géographie psychologique,” L’Homme et la société,
nos. 167–69 (2008): 119– 48; Erik Linstrum, Ruling Minds: Psychology in the British
Empire (Cambridge, MA, 2016); Karl Ittmann, Dennis D. Cordell, and Gregory H. Mad-
dox, eds., Demographics of Empire: The Colonial Order and the Creation of Knowledge
(Columbus, OH, 2010).
56
Christophe Bonneuil, Des savants pour l’empire (Paris, 1991), 52. On advice to
those seeking colonial careers in this period, see E. Mournat, Comment on cherche . . .
et on trouve une place aux Colonies, 2nd ed. (1937; Paris, 1955).
57
Bill MacArthur and Phil Harrington, “Obituary: David Bettison,” New Zealand
Sociology 29, no. 1 (2014): 180–84.
58
Ellen Hellmann exemplifies an entirely “southern” career in South Africa.
59
A pattern illustrated by François N’Sougan Agblémagnon, Kofi Busia, Manga
Bekombo Prio, and Abdelmalek Sayad.

Fig. 2.—Institutions supporting French colonial sociological research and teaching, mid-1950s. Color version available as an online en-
hancement.

Fig. 3.—Institutions supporting British colonial sociological research and teaching, mid-1950s. Color version available as an online en-
hancement.

colonial reoccupation,60 marked by increases in metropolitan spending and ef-

forts to spur “modernization” and tighten political control. The size of the gov-
ernment staff in the Colonial Office and overseas Colonial Service and the Indian
administration increased significantly between 1939 and independence.61 The
French colonial administration in sub-Saharan Africa was transformed by the dis-
patching of hundreds of new administrators and technicians after 1945.62 Colo-
nial issues became more, not less, interesting for French political elites, and ac-
tors from different sectors of the “field of power” began laying claim to parts of
the imperial administration.63
French and British development projects moved into high gear in the 1940s.64
The British Colonial Development and Welfare Act (CDWA) of 1940 invested
around $300 million annually for development and welfare schemes during the
mid-1950s. The French Fonds d’Investissements pour le Développement Écon-
omique et Social, or FIDES, created in 1946, “invested a trillion francs, or eight
percent of the national revenue, in the overseas territories” between 1948 and
1958.65 The development of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia was covered by the
metropolitan French plans.
Colonial developmentalism encompassed social policy and science, includ-
ing social science. By the mid-1950s the core pieces of French social legislation
had been extended to the colonies. Around 21 percent of total FIDES spending
and loans went to social programs.66 In the British colonies, 44 percent of the
60
Anthony D. Low and John Lonsdale, “Introduction: Towards the New Order,
1945–1963,” in History of East Africa, ed. D. A. Low and Alison Smith, vol. 2 (Oxford,
1976), 1–62.
61
A. H. M. Kirk-Greene, “The Thin White Line: The Size of the British Colonial
Service in Africa,” African Affairs 79 (1980): 25– 44, 27; N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar,
Report on Reorganisation of the Machinery of Government (Faridabad, 1957).
62
Jean-Charles Fredenucci, “La brousse coloniale ou l’anti-bureau,” Revue francaise
d’administration publique 108 (2003): 603–15, 604; William Cohen, Rulers of Empire:
The French Colonial Service in Africa (Stanford, CA, 1971), 178–79.
63
Tony Chafer, “Friend or Foe? Competing Visions of Empire in French West Africa
in the Run-Up to Independence,” in The French Colonial Mind, ed. Martin Thomas
(Lincoln, NE, 2011), 275–97, 277–81.
64
Frederick Cooper, Decolonization and African Society: The Labor Question in
French and British Africa (Cambridge, 1996); Christophe Bonneuil, “Development as
Experiment: Science and State Building in Late Colonial and Postcolonial Africa,
1930–1970,” Osiris, 2nd ser., 15 (2000): 258–81; Michael Crowder, West Africa under
Colonial Rule (London: Hutchinson, 1968), 499.
65
Cohen, Rulers of Empire, 173; Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch, “L’impérialisme
français en Afrique noire: Idéologie impériale et politique d’équipement, 1924–1975,”
Relations internationales 7 (1976): 261–82.
66
Commissariat Général du Plan, Rapport annuel sur l’exécution du plan de mod-
ernisation et d’équipement (Métropole et Outre-Mer) (Paris, 1956); Hubert Deschamps,
The French Union (Paris, 1956), 208; “Grand Conseil de l’A.E.F.,” Marchés coloniaux
(June 26, 1954): 1759.

618 Steinmetz
CDWA funds were spent by the “left hand” (Bourdieu) of the colonial state.
The social turn in colonial policy was the first factor pointing toward greater
reliance on sociology, given that discipline’s long-standing preoccupation with
the “social question.” Social welfare was an absolutely core part of the sociol-
ogy departments that were emerging in the colonial universities, for example.
Scientists, engineers, and technicians were in many respects the emblematic
colonial actors of the mid-twentieth-century empires.67 A poster for the Vichy
government demanded the services of “savants and technicians” in support of
the empire (fig. A1; figs. A1–A13 available online). Technical services rose to
30 percent of the total personnel of colonial states in the 1950s.68 The number
of statisticians posted to French colonies rose from just one in 1940 to seventy-five
in 1956.69 Already in 1944–45, “numerous CNRS representatives” were associ-
ated with the Commission of Colonial Programs and Research headed by the
CNRS director in coordination with the colonial minister.70 Between 1946 and
1952, more than two dozen research institutes supporting social science were cre-
ated across the colonial empire (fig. 2). Soon it became possible for the French
colonial research agency ORSTOM to produce maps of individual colonies show-
ing which towns and regions had been studied by its social research projects.71
The British Colonial Research Committee (CRC) was created in 1942 and fi-
nanced by the CDWA. Its mandate was to create “a cadre of scientists versed in
colonial problems” and to pay for “investigation in any field of scientific, eco-
nomic or social activity where knowledge was essential in the interests of colo-
nial development.72 The CRC financed the Colonial Social Science Research
Council (CSSRC). Additional scientific structures emerged directly “from the
needs” of the various British colonial governments and elites (fig. 3).73 The
Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, for instance, was created in 1937 at the suggestion
of the governor of Northern Rhodesia and was funded largely by the colony’s
“big capitalist interests.”74
67
Jean-Charles Fredenucci, “L’entregent colonial des ingénieurs des Ponts et Chaussées
dans l’urbanisme des années 1950–1970,” Vingtième Siècle 79 (2003): 79–91; Joseph M.
Hodge, Triumph of the Expert: Agrarian Doctrines of Development and the Legacies of
British Colonialism (Athens, OH, 2007).
68
Tilley, Africa as a Living Laboratory, 20, 9.
69
INSEE, INSEE, 1946–1956 (Paris, 1956), 32.
70
“Compte rendu de l’activité du CNRS de Septembre 1944 à Octobre 1945,” Fonds
documentaire du CNRS, Gif-sur-Yvette.
71
ORSTOM, L’ORSTOM et les recherches scientifiques et techniques en vue du
développement économique et social en Afrique et en Madagascar (Paris, 1962).
72
Colonial Research Committee, First Annual Report, 1943– 44 (London, 1944), 6;
Lord Hailey, “Research in the Colonies,” Spectator, March 4, 1949, 278–79, 278.
73
Tilley, Africa as a Living Laboratory, 7.
74
R. Brown, “Anthropology and Colonial Rule: The Case of Godfrey Wilson and
the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, Northern Rhodesia,” in Anthropology and the Colo-
nial Encounter, ed. Talal Asad (New York, 1973), 173–97, 177, 184.

The French analogue to the CRC was ORSTOM, described as a CNRS for
the empire. Its goal as defined in 1945 was “to create the scientific infrastructure
[l’équipement scientifique] necessary for the industrial and economic develop-
ment of Overseas France.”75 As discussed in the next section, ORSTOM en-
compassed the social sciences.
Developmentalism created a demand within imperial governing circles for in-
put from disciplines that had not been central to colonial government before 1945,
and this included sociology. Native policy was the central concern of all modern
colonial statecraft. The forging of native policy had been guided since the nine-
teenth century by images of indigenous culture drawn from professional and am-
ateur ethnographic texts and images.76 Before World War II most European colo-
nial governments relied on some version of “indirect rule”—a strategy known as
“Associationism” in the French empire. This approach heightened the demand for
ethnographic research, which was often carried out by administrators and military
officers.77 In British-ruled Tanganyika between 1925 and 1931, for example, Gov-
ernor Cameron instructed his officials to gather information on the suppressed and
dying tribal traditions that the policies of indirect rule could then try to resurrect.78
Colonial administrators’ interest in customary law and religion diminished after
1945 as indirect rule was supplanted by developmentalism, which relied on dif-
ferent kinds of information.
III. Colonial Sociology’s Institutional Base

While colonial sociologists did not represent themselves as a group, they co-
hered as loosely unified formations. They studied in the same institutions, par-
ticipated in the same conferences, professional organizations, and government
committees, published in the same journals, and worked at the same research
institutes. They interacted in the CSSRC, in the sociology and social science
sections of IFAN and ORSTOM, and in the “group of sociologists specialized
in overseas France” within the CES.79
75
ORSC, Rapport d’activité pour l’année 1945 (Paris, 1945), 1, 8–12.
76
George Steinmetz. The Devil’s Handwriting: Precoloniality and the German Co-
lonial State in Qingdao, Samoa, and Southwest Africa (Chicago, 2007).
77
David Killingray, “Colonial Studies,” in The British Intellectual Engagement with
Africa in the Twentieth Century, ed. Douglas Rimmer and Anthony Kirk-Green (Lon-
don, 2000), 41–67, 45.
78
Ralph Austen, “‘The Official Mind’ of Indirect Rule: British Policy in Tanganyika,
1916–1939,” in Britain and Germany in Africa: Imperial Rivalry and Colonial Rule, ed.
P. Gifford and W. R. Louis (New Haven, CT, 1967), 577–606.
79
CNRS, Rapport d’activité (Paris, 1961–62), 409, (Paris, 1962–63), 483. The CES
group of overseas specialists already existed in 1958; letter from de Dampierre to Stoetzel,
July 8, 1958, in Dampierre papers, MSHO Correspondence Génerale 1954–1967, folder
1958–1959, Bibliothèque Éric de Dampierre.

620 Steinmetz
Colonial science developed along broadly similar lines in France and Britain,
with a few important differences. France emphasized research institutes and had
a more developed training system for its colonial civil servants; colonial uni-
versities were more important in the British Empire, while France came late
to the idea of higher education for its colonized subjects.
A. Colonial Sociology in French Research Organizations

and Higher Education
The single most important actor in the nebula of French colonial science insti-
tutions was ORSTOM, which began training students in the natural and human
sciences in 1944. Instruction initially took place in Paris but soon moved to
ORSTOM’s overseas center in Adiopodoumé in Ivory Coast (fig. 4). In 1952
a new headquarters was opened in Bondy, outside Paris. By the end of the
1950s there were at least fifteen overseas ORSTOM research centers that had
sociologists on staff.80 One was the Institute of Central African Studies (Institut
d’études centrafricaines) in Brazzaville, the capital of French Equatorial Africa,
which employed several full-time sociologists and had laboratories and housing
for researchers (figs. A2–A4).
The other crucial institution for social science in the French colonies was
IFAN, created in 1936 by the governor general of French West Africa.81 Unlike
ORSTOM, IFAN was not under the authority of a metropolitan ministry; it was
originally financed entirely by the AOF but attracted funding from FIDES after
1945 and from the French Education Ministry in 1959. IFAN’s central office was
not in the metropole but in Dakar (figs. 5–6). The director of IFAN, Théodore
Monod, was a natural scientist, but he opened up the organization to the full
range of human and social sciences, including history, prehistory, and linguistics.
In 1952 IFAN created a sociology section, distinct from ethnography.82 The so-
ciology section was renamed the Department of Societies and Cultures in 1962–63,
80
Researchers employed as sociologues by ORSTOM between 1945 and 1970 in-
clude Balandier, Josette Chaumeton, Condominas, Roland Devauges, René Gouellain,
Jean Guiart, André Hauser, Bohumil Holas, Jean-Marie Kohler, Maurice Leenhardt,
Louis Massé, Paul Mercier, Yvon Mersadier, Louis Molet, Pauvert, Sidney Pelage, Mar-
cel Soret, and Louis-Vincent Thomas.
81
Albert Charton, “Creation de l’IFAN,” Bulletin du Comité d’études historiques et
scientifiques de l’Afrique occidentale française 1 (1936): 385–86; Jean-Hervé Jézéquel,
“Les professionnels africains de la recherche dans l’état colonial tardif: Le personnel lo-
cal de l’Institut Français d’Afrique Noire entre 1938 et 1960,” Revue d’Histoire des Sci-
ences Humaines 24 (2011): 35–60.
82
Institut français d’Afrique noire, Rapport annuel (Dakar, 1952), 21–22. Soci-
ologists at IFAN between 1945 and 1960 included Balandier, Jean-Claude Froelich,
René Gouellain, André Hauser, Bohumil Holas, Louis Massé, Paul Mercier, and Yvon
Mersadier.

Fig. 4.—ORSTOM Center at Adiopodoumé, Ivory Coast. Source: ORSTOM, Orga-

nisation—activités: 1944–1955 (Paris: ORSTOM, 1955), 30.
after Senegalese independence, but it remained separate from the Laboratory of

Ethnology.83
Colonial sociological research was also promoted by the Superior Council of
Overseas Sociological Research (Conseil supérieur des recherches sociolo-
giques outre-mer, or CSRSOM). This entity was created in 1951 with the goal
of “recruiting people and sending them to conduct applied research in the
framework of development projects financed by the French Overseas Ministry”;
CSRSOM’s optic, as its name indicates, was “above all sociological.”84 CSRSOM
was directed by colonial administrator-cum-historian Hubert Deschamps, and
its vice president was Sorbonne sociology professor Georges Davy, a ubiqui-
tous presence in French social scientific and university administration during
the middle decades of the century. Colonial sociologist-cum-ethnologist Paul
Mercier held the post of assistant (adjoint) at CSRSOM.
Demography became closely linked to sociology in postwar France, as else-
where, and it was omnipresent in colonial settings. The first director of the Na-
tional Institute of Demographic Studies (INED), created in 1945, was Alfred
Sauvy. Sauvy brought a cosmopolitan perspective to postwar French social sci-
ence and made INED into a multidisciplinary social science research agency
that seemed minimally constrained by its official demographic mission. Sauvy
83
IFAN, Rapport annuel 1962–63 (Dakar, 1963), 34 –42.
84
Jean-Louis Boutillier and Yves Goudineau, Trente ans (Paris, 1993), 5.

622 Steinmetz
Fig. 5.—Original IFAN building at Place Tascher, Dakar (now Place Soweto). Source:
Notes africaines, no. 90 (April 1961): 34.
was the originator of the phrase “Third World” (tiers-monde). He focused on

colonial underdevelopment in much of his postwar research,85 provided re-
sources for colonial research by INED workers, and covered colonial issues
in INED’s journal, Population. Sauvey’s study plan for future INED research
in 1953 included the rubric “Relations with Africa.”86
The French statistical offices were also deeply involved in colonial work.
The full title of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies
(INSEE) included the phrase “for the Metropole and Overseas France” ( pour
le Métropole et la France d’outre-mer). INSEE maintained offices in most of
the colonies, and its collection of demographic, economic, and population data
was understood to be essential for colonial development planning.87 The num-
85
Alfred Sauvy, “Introduction a l’étude des pays sous-développés,” Population 6,
no. 4 (1951): 601–8.
86
Alfred Sauvy, “Un plan d’études,” Population 8, no. 1 (1953): 4 –20, 16. Also INED,
Travaux et documents, vol. 27, Le Tiers-Monde, sous-développement et développement
(Paris, 1957).
87
M. Théodore, “Rapport sur un programme d’enquêtes statistiques agricoles et
démographiques en Afrique noire française,” Bulletin intérieur de l’INSEE, no. 10 (De-
cember 1954): 17–28, 22.

Fig. 6.—New IFAN building on campus of the University of Dakar, 1960. Source:
Notes africaines, no. 90 (April 1961), cover photo.
ber of statisticians posted from INSEE to the colonies rose from one in 1940 to
75 in 1956, reaching 125 by the end of the 1950s.88
INSEE’s colonial offices worked closely with sociologists. An ambitious sur-
vey of the Guinean population in 1954–55, the Mission démographique de
Guinée, was directed by three INSEE statisticians and involved two members
of IFAN’s sociology section (Gérard Brasseur and Louis Massé).89 According
to the project’s director, sociologists were necessary in order to ensure that
INSEE surveys asked “the right questions . . . in the right form” and that ma-
terial from survey interviews would be “correctly interpreted.”90 The Madagas-
car INSEE office supported the doctoral research of sociologist Suzanne Frère.91
88
INSEE, INSEE, 1946–1956, 32; Béatrice Touchelay, “Le développement de la
statistique d’outre-mer du début du siècle aux indépendances,” in La France et l’outre-
mer: Un siècle de relations monétaires et financières (Paris, 1998), 2–26, 23; Albert
Ficatier, Un certain regard sur une des fonctions de l’INSEE: De la statistique coloniale
à la coopération technique (Paris, 1981), 16.
89
Pascal-Gaston Marietti, “Présentation,” in Mission démographique de Guinée,
Étude démographique par sondage en Guinée, 1954 –1955; 1ère Partie: Technique
d’enquête (Paris, 1956), i–iii, ii n. 1; Théodore, “Rapport sur un programme,” 19.
90
Robert Blanc, Handbook of Demographic Research in Under-developed Coun-
tries (London, 1959), 65.
91
Centre des archives économiques et financières (Savigny-le-Temple), Statistiques-
Outre-mer, B-0057585/1, Travaux statistiques, Madagascar (1955–58).

624 Steinmetz
The Algeria office supported Pierre Bourdieu’s research projects in the late
1950s (see below).
Colonial sociology also gained a foothold in French higher education. The
central institution for advanced social science research and higher education
after World War II was the EPHE’s newly created Sixth Section. A number of
sociologists teaching in the Sixth Section before 1965 worked in and on the
colonies, including Raymond Aron, Georges Balandier, Roger Bastide, Jacques
Berque, Pierre Bourdieu, Georges Condominas, Eric de Dampierre, Albert Memmi,
Paul Mercier, and Maxime Rodinson. Several generations of Africanist ethnog-
raphers were introduced to Balandier’s “sociological” approach to Africa through
courses listed under the rubric “Sociologie de l’Afrique noire” in the annual
course guides and through other activities sponsored by Balandier’s Centre
d’études africaines, created in 1958.
Colonial sociology was also taught in the French universities. Aron, Ba-
landier, Bastide, and Jean Cazeneuve taught sociology at the Sorbonne, and
Bourdieu was Aron’s assistant at the Sorbonne in the early 1960s. Some students
working toward ORSTOM degrees were given grants to study sociology for
three years at the Sorbonne before embarking on their overseas research.92 Au-
ditors attended lectures by colonial sociologists Robert Montagne and Jacques
Berque at the Collège de France (1948–54 and 1956–81, respectively). Colonial
sociology made inroads into some provincial universities as well. The Institut
des sciences humaines appliquées at Bordeaux sponsored African research, in-
cluding a study in 1958–59 of the resettlement of peasants in the Sourou Valley
of Upper Volta (see below). The Centre d’études nord-africaines was created
at Aix-en-Provence in 1958 by two sociologists with research backgrounds in
colonial-era Morocco, Jean-Paul Trystram and André Adam. The Aix center
was dedicated to “problems of political science, sociology, economics, and con-
temporary history of the Maghreb.”93
Several French institutions of higher education introduced sociological ma-
terial into the training of colonial officials. The key institution was the École
colonial—renamed École nationale de la France d’outre-mer (ENFOM) in 1934
(figs. 7, A5). Starting in 1937 ENFOM’s new director, Robert Delavignette, a for-
mer administrator in French West Africa, began offering a course in African so-
ciology. In 1951 the overseas ministry directed ENFOM to provide systematic
instruction in the social sciences.94 In a speech to the incoming ENFOM class
92
Interview by the author with Roland Waast, Paris, February 15, 2012.
93
See http://iremam.cnrs.fr/spip.php?rubrique100/, accessed May 2, 2015. See H. L.
Krämer, “Adam, André Clément Henri,” in Internationales Soziologenlexikon, ed. Wil-
helm Bernsdorf and Horst Knospe, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 1984), 6–7.
94
Letter from Overseas Ministère to ENFOM Director, July 23, 1951. In Centre des
archives d’outre-mer, Aix-en-Provence (CAOM), École coloniale, box 18, dossier 1,
“Correspondence diverse relative à l’ENFOM 1848–1956.”

Fig. 7.—Courtyard of the École Nationale de la France d’Outre-Mer (1950s). Source:

École Nationale de la France d’Outre-Mer (Paris: Librairie Vuibert, 1955), 23.
in 1954, the overseas minister defined the new, obligatory six-week course in
the social sciences as a “practical sociology of direct application” focused on
“the detribalized, urbanized, proletarianized masses; the rural collectivities that
have been turned upside down by the migrations of workers, the imitation of
whites, and the independence of young people; and the new ideas that are de-
stroying the old social conformism and ancestral understandings of the universe.”
At the moment, he concluded, “we are still in a period of . . . social and intellec-
tual crisis.”95 This statement crystallized official understandings of the ongoing
colonial crisis and the role they hoped sociology could play in understanding
and resolving that crisis.
Another institution that provided sociological training to colonial officials
was the Centre des hautes études d’administration musulmane (CHEAM), cre-
ated by Robert Montagne in 1936. Montagne’s early military career in World
War I and the Rif War in Morocco was followed by a career as scholar and
educator. Montagne directed the Ethnological and Sociological Section of the
French Indigenous Affairs Office in Morocco, taught at Rabat, Algiers, the Sor-
bonne, and the Collège de France, and directed the Institute of Arab Studies in
95
“Inauguration du cours de sciences sociales,” Colo/ENFOM 53, no. 165 (1954):
1–3, 1–2.

626 Steinmetz
Damascus.96 Compared with other French specialists on Morocco at the time,

his research was less focused on Orientalist erudition than on political and so-
cial structures; on modernizing rather than traditional forms of Islam; on prole-
tarians, rural workers, and migrants rather than elites; and on the present rather
than the remote past. Montagne relied on a mix of archival documents, inter-
views, direct observation, and Durkheimian vocabulary. He employed teams
of researchers—a recognizably modern “sociological” approach at the time.
Montagne’s 1930 doctoral thesis was published by Année sociologique.97 Pierre
Rondot, who had created the military “information services” branch in French-
occupied Syria between the wars, was a protégé of Montagne, who “oriented a
certain number of officers whom he attracted to his équipe” toward “sociology
and ethnography.”98 Rondot took over as CHEAM’s director after Montagne’s
death.
Just as Montagne was an established practitioner of a form of sociology that
was “closely aligned with the concerns of the administration,”99 CHEAM con-
nected social science to colonial officialdom.100 The center trained civil servants,
officers, and magistrates serving overseas and sponsored research in the colo-
nies.101 All of its students were active in the military or civil service and had
at least four years of prior overseas service. They received a certificate from
the University of Paris upon graduation.102
A third educational institution involved in training colonial officials was the
École nationale d’administration (ENA), established in 1945 with the goal of de-
mocratizing recruitment into the upper civil service by breaking the monopoly
of the Institut d’études politiques, commonly referred to as Sciences Po.103 The
school obtained the right to train the Algerian Civil Service and the Corps of
Civil Controllers for Tunisia and Morocco—tasks that had previously been mo-
96
Pierre Rondot, “Robert Montagne et le Levant,” L’Afrique et l’Asie 4, no. 32
(1955): 36– 43; Renaud Avez, Soixante-dix ans de coopération scientifique à l’Institut
Français de Damas (Damascus, 1992), 141–46.
97
Robert Montagne, Les Berbères et le Makhzen dans le sud du Maroc (Paris, 1930).
98
Jean-David Mizrahi, Genèse de l’État mandataire: Service des renseignements
et bandes armées en Syrie et au Liban dans les années 1920 (Paris, 2003), 412; Avez,
Soixante-dix ans.
99
Mizrahi, Genèse de l’État mandataire.
100
François Pouillon and Daniel Rivet, “Présentation: La sociologie musulmane de
Robert Montagne,” in La Sociologie musulmane de Robert Montagne, ed. François
Pouillon and Daniel Rivet (Paris, 2000), 9–18, 11–12.
101
Universite de Paris, Centre de Hautes Études Administratives sur l’Afrique et
l’Asie Modernes (Paris, 1965).
102
Annuaire de l’éducation nationale 1962 (Paris, 1962), 137.
103
Gérard Vincent, Sciences Po: Histoire d’une réussite (Paris, 1987), 61–65; Rob-
ert O. Paxton, Vichy France, 2nd ed. ( New York, 2001), 334.

nopolized by ENFOM and Sciences Po.104 The ENA students were required to
write a thesis based on a year-long internship outside the school; a third of them
carried out research in North Africa.105 Of the 170 ENA students who completed
internships in North Africa between 1947 and 1955, seventy-eight went on to ca-
reers in the Tunisian, Moroccan, and Algerian administrations.106 During the
1950s, North African topics were taught at the ENA by Pierre Rondot.
Colonial sociologists were also represented at institutions of higher education
in the colonies. There were French universities in Hanoi and Algeria and insti-
tutes of advanced studies in Morocco and Damascus, and new universities
opened in 1960 in Dakar, Tunisia, and Madagascar.107 René Maunier and several
others taught courses on sociologie algérienne at Algiers between the wars; a
chair for North African sociology was created there in 1946.108 Bourdieu taught
morale et sociologie at Algiers from 1957 to 1960.109 At Algiers, sociology was
also represented in the Institute of Administrative, Social, and Colonial Sciences
(created in 1941, renamed Institute of Political Studies in 1950), the Urban In-
stitute (1942), and the institutes of Oriental Studies (1936), Islamic Studies
(1946), and Economic and Social Research (1954).110 At the Tunisian Institut
des hautes études there was, from 1951, a Circle of Sociological, Ethnological,
and Geographic Studies, whose aim was to support research on the “rapid [so-
cial] changes” occurring in the protectorate.111 A sociology licence degree was
offered at the Tunisian Institute starting in 1958. Frantz Fanon joined Paul Sebag
104
Roy Jumper, “The Recruitment and Training of Civil Adminstrators for Overseas
France: A Case Study of French Bureaucracy” (PhD diss., Duke University, 1955), 32.
105
A. G., “Les mémoires de stage des élèves de l’École nationale d’administration,”
Population 7, no. 1 (1952): 141– 42, 141.
106
École nationale d’administration, Promotions, no. 35 (1955): 114 –15.
107
J. Capelle, “Universités françaises d’Outre-Mer,” L’éducation nationale 12, no. 4
(1956): 1–5; Pierre Singaravélou, “L’enseignement supérieur colonial: Un état des
lieux,” Histoire de l’éducation 122 (2009): 71–92; Avez, Soixante-dix ans. Some French
colonial universities opened their doors too late to be considered here.
108
Tassadit Yacine, “At the Origins of a Singular Ethnosociology,” in Algerian
Sketches, by Pierre Bourdieu (Cambridge, 2013), 13–34, 17.
109
Pérez, “Rendre le social plus politique,” 90. Prior to the creation of the sociology
licence in 1958, sociology could only be studied at the university level within the cer-
tificate “Morale et sociologie,” part of the philosophy licence degree.
110
Documents Algériens, série culturelle, no. 29 (1948); Jean Mélia, Histoire de
l’Université d’Alger: L’épopée intellectuelle de l’Algérie (Algiers, 1950).
111
P. Martelot, “L’avant-Granai: Contribution à l’histoire de l’enseignement de la
sociologie en Tunisie,” in Université de Provence, Département de sociologie-ethnologie,
Hommage à Georges Granai (Aix-en-Provence, 1985), 9–18, 12; Lilia Ben Salem, “Paul
Sebag sociologue?,” in De Tunis à Paris: Mélanges à la mémoire de Paul Sebag, ed.
Claude Nataf (Paris, 2008), 127–34, 129.

628 Steinmetz
and Georges Granai in the instruction of the first generation of Tunisian sociol-
ogy students in 1960.112
The colony in which sociology had perhaps the strongest presence, even before
World War II, was Morocco.113 There was a professor of sociologie musulmane at
the Institut des hautes études in Rabat starting in 1920. Sociological material was
included in the curriculum of the Advanced School of Arabic and Berber Dialects
in Rabat; this was the only nonmetropolitan school for training French colonial
officers and administrators.114 A number of well-known sociologists emerged from
colonial Morocco, in addition to Montagne, Berque, Adam, and Trystram. Ed-
mond Doutté, the “dominant figure” in the French expeditions to Morocco be-
tween 1900 and 1904 that set the stage for the colonial takeover there and a spe-
cialist in “Algerian folk Islamic practices,” was “recruited by Mauss to join the
editorial team at Année sociologique.”115 Charles Le Coeur, a professor of ethnog-
raphy at the Institut des hautes études marocaines, aligned himself with sociol-
ogy.116 Moroccan-born sociologist Paul Pascon created an Interdisciplinary Re-
search Team in the Human Sciences in Rabat in 1958, just after independence.117
Two important ethnosociologists emerged from French Indochina. Nguyễn
Văn Huyên was a student of Marcel Mauss whose work was situated at the bor-
derline between sociology and ethnology. Nguyễn was the first “indigenous”
social scientist hired by a French colonial research institute, the Hanoi École
française d’Extrême-Orient (French School of the Far East) in 1940. He served
as education minister in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam from 1946 until
112
Lilia Ben Salem, “ ‘Propos sur la sociologie en Tunisie’: Entretien avec Sylvie
Mazzella,” Genèses: Sciences sociales et histoire 75 (2009): 125– 42, 127–28, and “Paul
Sebag sociologue?,” 127; Frantz Fanon, “Rencontre de la société et de la psychiatrie,” in
Oeuvres, vol. 2, Écrits sur l’aliénation et la liberté, ed. Jean Khalfa and Robert Young
(Paris, 2015), 430–56.
113
Edmund Burke III, “The Sociology of Islam: The French Tradition,” in Islamic
Studies: A Tradition and Its Problems, ed. Malcom H. Kerr (Santa Monica, CA, 1980),
73–88.
114
Spencer D. Segalla, The Moroccan Soul: French Education, Colonial Ethnology,
and Muslim Resistance, 1912–1956 (Lincoln, NE, 2009), 117.
115
Edmund Burke III, “The Image of the Moroccan State in French Ethnological Lit-
erature,” in Arabs and Berbers, ed. Ernest Gellner and Charles Micaud (Lexington, MA,
1972), 175–99, 178, and The Ethnographic State: France and the Invention of Moroc-
can Islam (Berkeley, 2014), 48; Philippe Besnard, “The Année sociologique Team,” in
The Sociological Domain: The Durkheimians and the Founding of French Sociology,
ed. Philippe Besnard (Cambridge, 1983), 11–39, 24 n. 40.
116
See “Actes du 2ème Congrès de la federation des Soc. Savantes de l’Afrique du
Nord,” in Revue africaine 79, no. 2 (1936); Alice Conklin, “De la sociologie objective à
l’action: Charles Le Coeur et l’utopisme colonial,” in Ethnologues en situations coloniales,
ed. Daniel Fabre, Christine Laurière, and André Mary (Paris, forthcoming).
117
Pierre-Robert Baduel, “Paul Pascon (1923–1985),” Revue de l’Occident musul-
man et de la Méditerranée 38 (1984): 181–88.

his death in 1975.118 The other “Indochinese” sociologist was Paul Mus, a
French Orientalist and archaeologist specialized in Southeast Asia who spent
his childhood in Hanoi. Mus was trained by Sylvain Lévi and was close to
Mauss and other Durkheimians. Like Nguyễn and many other French and Brit-
ish ethnologists, Mus moved toward sociology after the 1930s, publishing Viêt-
Nam, Sociology of a War in 1952.119
B. Colonial Sociology in British Research Organizations
and Higher Education
Colonial sociology was promoted by a number of British organizations, most
importantly the CSSRC, which supported specifically social scientific projects
in the colonies from 1944 to 1961.120 A total of £1,437,295 was spent on social
science by the CDWA between 1945 and 1962. Of course, this money was di-
rected at an array of social sciences, but sociology figured prominently in the
CSSRC’s funding priorities.121 The director of the LSE from 1937 to 1957, so-
ciologist Alexander Carr-Saunders, chaired the CSSRC through 1951, and LSE
sociologist David Glass served on the CSSRC’s Standing Committee on An-
thropology and Sociology from 1950 to 1959.
LSE was at the center of the British colonial sociological universe. It had a De-
partment of Colonial Administration starting in 1932. Carr-Saunders served on the
1946 Asquith Commission that created the British postwar colonial universities
and chaired the committee that organized the relationship between the University
of London and these schools.122 LSE joined Oxford and Cambridge after 1945
in training the cadets bound for colonial service. Two members of the LSE soci-
ology department, T. H. Marshall and Morris Ginsburg, were involved in this pro-
gram. Ernest Gellner, a member of the LSE sociology department between 1949
and 1978, carried out his ethnographic work in Morocco starting in 1954, at the
end of the French protectorate. The LSE sociologist Donald MacRae taught at
the University College of the Gold Coast in 1956.123 The majority of the colonial
sociologists active in the British Empire between 1945 and 1960 earned degrees
at LSE.
118
Pierre Singaravélou, “NGUYÊN Van Huyên,” in Dictionnaire des orientalistes
de langue française, ed. François Pouillon, 2nd ed. (Paris, 2012), 764.
119
David Chandler, “Paul Mus (1902–1969): A Biographical Sketch,” Journal of
Vietnamese Studies 4, no. 1 (2009): 149–91; Paul Mus, Viêt-Nam, sociologie d’une
guerre (Paris, 1952).
120
David Mills, “British Anthropology at the End of Empire: The Rise and Fall of
the Colonial Social Science Research Council, 1944–1962,” Revue d’histoire des sci-
ences humaines 1 (2002): 161–88.
121
Steinmetz, “A Child of the Empire.”
122
I. C. M. Maxwell, Universities in Partnership: The Inter-University Council and
the Growth of Higher Education in Developing Countries, 1946 –70 (Edinburgh, 1980).
123
MacRae, “Sociology in Transitional Societies,” 107–9.

630 Steinmetz
Other metropolitan British universities became centers of colonial sociology,

led by Manchester after Max Gluckman moved there in 1949 to direct the social
anthropology department. Gluckman hired J. Clyde Mitchell as a sociologist in
his department, which officially became a joint social anthropology and sociology
department in 1966. Gluckman urged some of his own doctoral students to seek
posts in Britain’s rapidly expanding sociology departments. Other universities
with colonial sociologists included Hull, where Peter Worsley taught (1956–64)
before moving to Manchester; Leicester, where the sociology department in the
1950s consisted of Norbert Elias and Ilya Neustadt, both of whom taught in
African universities and where there was a “fairly large contingent of African
students”;124 Edinburgh, where anthropologist Kenneth Little promoted ethno-
graphic research in the colonies and British communities and, like Gluckman,
urged his students to move into sociology or to remain bidisciplinary; and Liver-
pool, where the social science department was chaired by Thomas Simey, whose
1946 book Welfare and Planning in the West Indies staked out a research agenda
on the Caribbean family that became a popular theme among Jamaican social
scientists.125 One of the earliest British colonial sociologists, Leo Silberman,
taught at Liverpool in the late 1940s.126
Colonial sociology was also well represented in the British colonial univer-
sities. The founder and first head of the sociology department at the Univer-
sity College of the Gold Coast was Kofi Busia. That department welcomed
several African American sociologists during its first decade (Frank Talley
Cherry, St. Claire Drake, and Hylan Lewis) as well as the German-Jewish ex-
ile sociologist Norbert Elias, who headed the sociology department at Accra
between 1962 and 1964 (see below).127 Colonial specialists at the sociology
department at the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, founded
in 1955 in Salisbury (Harare), included David Bettison, J. Clyde Mitchell,
D. H. Reader, and Jaap Van Velsen. Sociology was taught in the Department
of Economics and Social Studies at University College in Ibadan, Nigeria (es-
tablished in 1948), until 1960, when sociology became a separate department
and was headed by Peter Lloyd, “doyen of the nonindigenous sociologists of
124
Chris Rojek, “An Anatomy of the Leicester School of Sociology: An Interview
with Eric Dunning,” Journal of Classical Sociology 4, no. 3 (2004): 337–59, 345.
125
T. S. Simey, Welfare and Planning in the West Indies (Oxford, 1946); interview
by the author with Orlando Patterson, November 21, 2014.
126
Leo Silberman (born in Germany in 1918, died in London, 1960) studied in South
Africa and at Balliol College, Oxford, and lectured in sociology at Witwatersrand, Liv-
erpool, Northwestern, and the University of Chicago between 1945 and 1959. Biograph-
ical details from collection “Lettres de Leo Silberman à Louis Saguer, 29 mai 1935–20
mai 1960,” Bibliotheque nationale de France, département de la musique.
127
W. E. B. Du Bois received an honorary degree from the University of Ghana in
1963 but apparently was not associated with the sociology department there.

Yoruba society.”128 The sociology department at the University College of the

West Indies in Jamaica included, at various times between the late 1950s and
the end of the 1960s, Lloyd Braithwaite, Douglas Manley, Orlando Patterson,
M. G. Smith, and R. T. Smith. Anglophone South African universities created
sociology departments between the wars, and several sociologists worked on
indigenous South Africans or colonial phenomena (Edward Batson, Cape Town;
James Irving, Rhodes; John Gray and Leo Silberman, Witwatersrand). Two Brit-
ish social research institutions in Africa promoted sociological research: the East
African Institute of Social Research at Makerere College in Uganda and the
Rhodes-Livingstone Institute in Northern Rhodesia, which turned in an explicitly
sociological direction in the 1950s under the leadership of J. Clyde Mitchell
(1952–55).129
C. International Institutions Promoting Colonial Sociology
International organizations also promoted colonial social science after 1945. I
have already mentioned some of UNESCO’s projects. Also important was the
International Africa Institute (IAI), which was founded in 1924, headquartered
in London, and directed by a rotating set of scholars from different countries.
Although anthropology was the leading discipline within the IAI between the
wars, the organization funded research by scholars such as Balandier, Banton,
and Richard Thurnwald, who had a foot in both disciplines, and Remi Clig-
net, a sociologist.130 The third institution was the Scientific Council for Africa
South of the Sahara (CSA), created as part of the Commission for Technical
Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara (CCTA) in 1954 through an inter-
governmental agreement between Britain, France, and several other colonial
powers.131 The CSA’s activities included suggesting research projects to the
governments concerned, linking research centers and workers in different colo-
nies, collecting information, publishing reports, convening scientific confer-
ences, and directly sponsoring research through its Inter-African Research Fund.
128
J. T. Saunders, University College, Ibadan (Cambridge, 1960); quote from David D.
Laitin, Hegemony and Culture: Politics and Change among the Yoruba (Chicago, 1986),
219 n. 41.
129
On sociological endeavors at the East African Institute of Social Research and
Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, see Steinmetz, “A Child of the Empire,” 18–19.
130
On Thurnwald’s career, see George Steinmetz, “Scientific Autonomy and Empire,
1880–1945: Four German Sociologists,” in German Colonialism in a Global Age, ed.
Geoff Eley and Bradley Naranch (Durham, NC, 2014), 46–73.
131
CCTA, Inter-African Scientific and Technical Co-operation, 1948–1955 (Lon-
don, 1956), xi, xv; National Academy of Sciences, Recommendations for Strengthening
Science and Technology in Select Areas of Africa and South of the Sahara (Washington,
DC, 1959), 20–21.

632 Steinmetz
Social science research on European colonies was also underwritten by Amer-

ican foundations. The Carnegie Foundation subsidized the Commission of In-
vestigation on the Poor White Question in South Africa in 1932, a second in-
quiry into poverty in South Africa focusing on poor blacks, Lord Hailey’s
African survey in 1939, and individual projects, such as Leo Silberman’s study
of the border dispute between Ethiopia and British Somaliland.132 Carnegie also
supported the continuing education of British colonial officers with grants for a
year of coursework.133 The Rockefeller Foundation financed the studies and re-
search of colonial sociologists François Bourricaud, Georges Bousquet, Jean Caze-
neuve, and Charles Le Coeur and contributed to the Rhodes-Livingstone and East
Africa Institutes, the IAI, the London Institute of Race Relations, and social sci-
ences at the universities of Zambia, Ibadan, Makerere, and Rhodesia and Nyas-
aland. The Ford Foundation gave more than $300,000 to the University College
of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to promote social sciences between 1958 and 1966
and contributed to the IAI and the South African Institute of Race Relations.134
IV. The Social Properties of the Colonial Sociology Subfield

and Its Relations to the Sociology Discipline as a Whole
and to the Academic and Intellectual Fields
This section explores the relative importance and status of the colonial socio-
logical subfields within the overarching national sociology disciplines. My first
finding is that these colonial sociologists constituted a sizable proportion of
their respective disciplinary fields.
How large were the colonial sociological subfields in France and the United
Kingdom in absolute terms and relative to the field as a whole? Using the criteria
set out above to identify (1) all sociologists and (2) the subset of sociologists
working on colonial and imperial phenomena, I estimate that the sociological field
in France and the French Union in 1949 consisted of around 54 people in full-
time research or teaching posts, 30 of whom were working on colonial materials
(56 percent). By the end of the 1950s there were around 150 full-time sociologists
132
Carnegie Commission, The Poor White Problem in South Africa: Report of the
Carnegie Commission, 5 vols. (Stellenbosch, 1932); Tiffany Willoughby-Herard, Waste
of a White Skin: The Carnegie Corporation and the Racial Logic of White Vulnerability
(Oakland, CA, 2015). Silberman’s Carnegie grant is discussed in the diaries of Rocke-
feller officer Montague Yudelman, entry for February 7, 1957, Rockefeller Archive Cen-
ter, RG 12, Box 534.
133
Charles Joseph Jeffries, The Colonial Empire and Its Civil Service (Cambridge,
1938), 126.
134
Ford Foundation Archives at Rockefeller Archive Center, grants 05400059 (In-
ternational African Institute); 05900006 and 05900265 (University College of Rhodesia
and Nyasaland); and 05900083 (University of Ibadan).

in greater France, 61 of whom were colonial specialists (41 percent). The greater
British sociological field in 1949 consisted of around 41 people, 17 of whom were
working on colonial topics (41 percent). In 1960, near the end of the colonial pe-
riod, the total number of sociologists in greater Britain had increased to 88, and of
these 33 were working on colonial topics (37 percent).135
Colonial research thus constituted a sizable sector of the two sociology fields.
How influential was the colonial pole relative to the discipline as a whole? In or-
der to assess colonial researchers’ status, we need to examine their structural lo-
cations within the overall disciplinary field. While sociology was marginal rela-
tive to the older core disciplines in the British and French university and scientific
fields, colonial specialists were not relegated en bloc to marginal positions within
sociology. Many colonial specialists were of course relatively marginal within
their disciplines, due to their minority status or overseas origins or because they
spent their time in remote overseas locales. Yet other colonial specialists were lo-
cated at the heart of their respective disciplines (e.g., Aron, Bastide, Bourdieu,
Gellner, Worsley), as were some of the sociologists who promoted colonial stud-
ies without engaging in it themselves (Carr-Saunders, Davy, Gurvitch, Ginsberg,
Marshall). In sum, specialists in and supporters of colonial sociology varied
widely in terms of their field-specific symbolic capital, ranging from “dominant-
dominated” (i.e., dominant within a dominated discipline) to “doubly dominated”
(i.e., dominated within a dominated discipline).136
One major axis of confrontation in French postwar sociology pitted groups
allied with approaches understood at the time as “American”—statistical, empir-
icist, and policy oriented—against more theoretical European traditions linked
to philosophy and history.137 The theoretical camp was centered around Georges
Gurvitch, a Sorbonne sociology professor starting in 1948.138 Other members of
the theoretical pole included the contributors to the third series of the Année
sociologique and members of Raymond Aron’s Centre de sociologie euro-
péenne. At the opposite pole were the self-described “empiricists” led by Jean
Stoetzel, also a Sorbonne professor starting in 1955. Stoetzel rejected the “phil-
osophical and reflective” traditions from French sociology’s “humanistic period”
135
Two UK-based sociologists not included in these sums—because they only be-
came seriously interested in colonial phenomena after 1960—are Ilya Neustadt and
Norbert Elias.
136
For these categories, see Christophe Charle, Birth of the Intellectuals: 1880–1900
(Cambridge, 2015).
137
On French sociologists’ views of American sociology at the time, see Jean-
Christophe Marcel, Éléments pour une analyse de la réception de la sociologie américaine
en France (1945–1959) (habilitation thesis, Université de Paris–Sorbonne, 2010).
138
Jean-Christoph Marcel, “Georges Gurvitch: Les raisons d’un succès,” Cahiers
internationaux de sociologie 110 (2001): 97–119.

634 Steinmetz
and advocated “additive and impersonal” teamwork against more traditional indi-
vidual research styles.139
The French colonial sociologists participated in both the theoretical and the em-
piricist camps. This was reflected in the activities of the CNRS-financed Centre
d’études sociologiques, whose first meeting in 1946 was presided over by Colo-
nial Minister Marius Moutet. The CES was defined at the outset as dedicated to
studying France, “including overseas France.”140 A number of colonial specialists
were invited to join the CES: Balandier, Bastide, Berque, de Dampierre, Memmi,
Pierre Naville, Jean Laude, Michel Hoffmann, Andrée Michel, and Maurice Leen-
hardt. The first director of the CES, from 1945 to 1949, was Gurvitch, and a group
of colonial specialists gravitated toward him. Gurvitch cofounded the Association
internationale des sociologues de langue française, whose first conference in 1958
focused on “the sociology of overseas countries” and whose 1965 meeting was
dominated by colonial and postcolonial specialists.141 Gurvitch founded the Ca-
hiers internationaux de sociologie after 1945, and this journal increasingly carried
colonial material, especially after Balandier took over as editor in 1954. The third
CES director, from 1951 to 1956, was Maximilien Sorre, who had taught colonial
geography at Bordeaux between the wars. Even after Stoetzel became director of
the CES in 1956, this did not mark an end to the center’s openness to colonial re-
search—Stoetzel and demographer Alain Girard studied immigration from the
colonies to France.142
A third major sociological grouping emerged after 1958 around the Centre de
sociologie européenne (CSE). As the holder of one of the rare sociology chairs
and as initiator of the French sociology licence degree, Raymond Aron was
emerging in this period as the third dominant figure in the disciplinary field,
alongside Gurvitch and Stoetzel. The first people Aron invited to join his cen-
ter included Pierre Bourdieu, who was completing his Algerian fieldwork at
the time, and Eric de Dampierre, who had been carrying out fieldwork in
French Ubangi-Chari since the mid-1950s. According to a report on the center’s
planned activities in 1959, Bourdieu and de Dampierre would study “the transfer
of European institutions to underdeveloped countries, especially in Africa and
139
Jean Stoetzel, “Sociology in France: An Empiricist View,” in Modern Sociolog-
ical Theory in Continuity and Change, ed. Howard P. Becker and Alvin Boskoff ( New
York, 1957), 623–57, 624, 644.
140
“Centre d’études sociologiques,” Cahiers internationaux de sociologie 1 (1946):
177–80, 177.
141
VIe colloque de l’AISLP, Royaumont, 28-29-30 octobre 1965: Sociologie de la
“construction nationale” dans les nouveaux États (Bruxelles, 1968). Georges Granai,
founder of sociology instruction in Tunisia, was also “in the orbit of Gurvitch.” Jean
Paul Trystram, “Souvenirs,” in Hommage à Georges Granai, 19–22, 19.
142
Alain Girard and and Jean Stoetzel, Français et immigrés (Paris, 1953–54).

South Asia.”143 Aron also brought in Jean Cuisenier, who had directed a survey of
economic underdevelopment in Tunisia, and François Bourricaud, who had su-
pervised a social survey in Upper Volta (see below).144 Two other relevant spe-
cialists joined the CSE before 1965: Salah Bouhedja, a guide and interpreter
for Bourdieu during his 1960 study of the forced resettlement of Algerians,
and Françine Muel, a student of Balandier’s and a specialist in postcolonial
Rwanda.145
Closer examination of the EPHE’s Sixth Section before 1965 underscores the
centrality of colonial specialists in French sociology and social science at the
time. By 1961–62 there were thirty-six professors (directeurs d’études) and
one associate professor in the Sixth Section’s sociology and ethnology division,
and half of them were associated with colonial topics.146 A study of thesis com-
mittees in the Sixth Section found that Balandier was the most sought after thesis
advisor or committee member between 1960 and 1964 and that the most fre-
quent committee consisted of Balandier, Bastide, Mercier, and the Africanist
ethnologist Denise Paulme.147 Africanist sociology was thus at the core of
French postgraduate student interest until at least 1965. In sum, if colonial soci-
ology was somewhat marginal to the core of the older elite educational system,
the Sorbonne and the grandes écoles, this was because sociology itself was still
marginal to those institutions. Colonial and Africanist topics were central to so-
ciology.
A similar pattern characterized the British case, with one important differ-
ence. Here too, sociology was an upstart discipline, excluded from the traditional
core of the university. Sociology was mainly taught in the “red-brick universi-
ties” created in the second half of the nineteenth century and the “plate-glass
universities” created in the 1950s. The ancient British universities accepted an-
thropology somewhat “more readily than other aspirant disciplines,” including
sociology.148 Sociology chairs finally arrived at Cambridge and Oxford in 1969
143
“Démande à la Ford (IIIe version),” report on CES (in English) for the Ford Foun-
dation, in Heller papers, folder Aron (CES), EHESS archives.
144
Jean Cuisenier, “Le sous-développement économique dans une groupement rural
en Tunisie: Le Djebel Lansarine,” Cahiers de Tunisie 6, nos. 23–24 (1958): 219–66;
Martelot, “L’avant-Granai,” 16.
145
Salah Bouhedja, “ ‘Il était un parmi les dix,’ autour de l’enquête sur les camps de
regroupement dans Le Déracinement,” Awal: Cahiers d’études berbères 25–28 (2003):
287–93; interview by the author with Françine Muel-Dreyfus, March 30, 2014; CSE, Le
Centre de sociologie européenne 1961–1965 (Paris, 1965).
146
EPHE, Section des sciences économiques et sociales, Annuaire (Paris, 1956/57–
1965/66).
147
Olivier Godechot, “La formation des relations académiques au sein de l’EHESS,”
Histoire et mesure 26 (2011): 223–60.
148
Henrika Kuklick, The Savage Within: The Social History of British Anthropology,
1885–1945 (Cambridge, 1991), 52; Adam Kuper, Anthropology and Anthropologists:
The Modern British School (London, 1983), 147.

636 Steinmetz
and 1973, respectively. Tellingly, both of these sociology chairs were filled by so-
cial anthropologists-cum-sociologists—John A. Barnes at Cambridge and J. Clyde
Mitchell at Oxford. Both men had worked extensively in colonial settings, in-
cluding the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute. Colonial specialists with social anthro-
pology PhDs occupied the first sociology posts at Bristol, Hull, and Manchester.
Because social anthropology had a richer intellectual heritage and greater pres-
tige than sociology in the United Kingdom, colonial specialists often had a rel-
ative advantage, not a status deficit. By 1972, a plurality of sociology professors
and heads of sociology departments in the United Kingdom had social anthro-
pology doctorates.149
V. Colonial Politics and Scientific Ethics

It would be misleading to assume that colonial sociologists were colonialist so-
ciologists. Colonial sociologists’ political views were highly diverse. Some pro-
vided advice to colonial governments on policies. Jean Servier, a CNRS-funded
ethnographer in Algeria between 1949 and 1955, tried to contribute to the French
counterinsurgency campaign by creating an ill-fated “free village” (djemaa libre)
in the Zakkar region.150 Pierre Bourdieu’s conversion from philosopher to soci-
ologist began when he was put in charge of crafting propaganda for the French
army in Algeria in 1956, but he emerged as a sharp critic of French policy two
years later.151 Some sociologists reproduced the familiar hierarchical relation-
ship between colonizers and colonized in their dealings with indigenous research
assistants, while others worked closely with African researchers.152 Bourdieu
was the first sociologist to coauthor an important study with a colleague born
as a colonized subject, Abdelmalek Sayad.153 Balandier also worked with Afri-
can intellectuals and leaders;154 he and Pierre Naville contributed to Présence
149
Platt, British Sociological Association, 33, 35.
150
Maurice Faivre, “Un ethnologue de terrain face à la rebellion algérienne,”
Mondes et cultures 63 (2003): 448–60; Camille Lacoste-Dujardin, Opération “Oiseau
bleu”: Des Kabyles, des ethnologues et la guerre en Algérie (Paris, 1997), 277.
151
Pérez, “Rendre le social plus politique,” 67–74; Pierre Bourdieu, Sociologie de
l’Algérie (Paris, 1958).
152
Lyn Schumaker, Africanizing Anthropology: Fieldwork, Networks, and the Making
of Cultural Knowledge in Central Africa (Durham, NC, 2001); Andrew Bank and Leslie J.
Bank, eds., Inside African Anthropology: Monica Wilson and her Interpreters (Cambridge,
2013).
153
Pierre Bourdieu and Abdelmalek Sayad, Le déracinement: La crise de l’agriculture
traditionelle en Algérie (Paris, 1964).
154
On Balandier’s activities in French colonial Africa, see “Tout parcours scien-
tifique comporte des moments autobiographiques (entretien),” Actes de la recherche
en sciences sociales 185 (December 2010): 44–61; Gregory Mann, “Anti-Colonialism

africaine.155 Some sociologists supported continuing European colonial rule,156

but the majority were skeptical of colonialism or openly opposed it. A few con-
tributed directly to independence struggles. Sociologist Andrée Michel, author
of a pioneering study of Algerian labor migrants in France, became a porteuse
de valises during the Algerian War. Claudine Chaulet was a French member of
the Front de Libération Nationale during the Algerian War and opted for Algerian
citizenship after independence.157 The Tunisian Jewish sociologist Paul Sebag
supported Tunisian independence at a moment when the Tunisian Communist
Party still favored continuing membership in the French Union.158
Many colonial sociologists had a sophisticated understanding of the relation-
ship between politics and science. Here again, Bourdieu staked out a unique po-
sition, arguing that scientific autonomy and political engagement could be com-
bined. Bourdieu rejected the “escapism of Wertfreiheit,” arguing that “you have
to be an autonomous scholar who works according to the rules of scholarship to
be able to produce an engaged knowledge.”159 Bourdieu’s experiences in Algeria
between 1956 and 1960 taught him that social research required independence
from (colonial and metropolitan) governments, business elites, and scientific ad-
ministrators. His abhorrence for Sartre’s posture as a “prophetic” or “total” intel-
lectual led Bourdieu not to reject participation in politics by social scientists but
rather to develop an alternative vision of the “collective intellectual” on the basis
of Foucault’s model of the “specific intellectual.”160
Bourdieu was able to increase his margin of scientific maneuver in Algeria by
mobilizing the support of agencies that were not directly controlled by the local
colonial administration. The INSEE provided an official stamp of approval for
Bourdieu’s study of Algerian workers in 1960. His project on the resettlement
and Social Science: Georges Balandier, Madeira Keita, and ‘the Colonial Situation’ in
French Africa,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 55, no. 1 (103): 92–119.
155
Pierre Naville, “Présence africaine,” Présence africaine 1 (November–December
1947): 44–46
156
This was true of Eric de Dampierre, according to Catherine Perlès, in an interview
with the author, Nanterre, January 2014; Margaret Buckner, “Eric de Dampierre and the
Art of Fieldwork,” in Out of the Study and into the Field: Ethnographic Theory and Prac-
tice in French Anthropology, ed. R. Parkin and A. de Sales ( New York, 2010), 103–24.
157
Pierre Chaulet and Claudine Chaulet, Le choix de l’Algérie: Deux voix, une mé-
moire (Algiers, 2012); Jules Falquet, “Avant-propos,” in Féminisme et antimilitarisme,
by Andrée Michel (Donnemarie-Donilly, 2012), 11.
158
Claude Nataf, “De Tunis à Paris: Élements de biographie,” in De Tunis à Paris:
Mélanges à la mémoire de Paul Sebag, ed. Claude Nataf (Paris, 2008), 5– 6, 5.
159
Pierre Bourdieu, Interventions, 1961–2001, ed. Frank Poupeau and Thierry Dis-
cepolo (Marseilles, 2002), 472–73, 465.
160
Pierre Bourdieu, “Il faut que l’intellectuel donne la parole à ceux qui ne l’ont
pas!,” in L’événement du Jeudi, September 10–16, 1992, 114–16; Perez, “Rendre le so-
cial plus politique.”

638 Steinmetz
camps was made possible by financial and logistical support from the director
of the Algiers-based Association pour la recherche démographique, économique
et sociale, who strongly “defended the autonomy of [his] researchers and their
research.”161 Bourdieu also benefited from the collaboration of Algerian assis-
tants, including Sayad—relationships that gave Bourdieu access to Algerians will-
ing to discuss their experience of the resettlement camps (fig. A6).162
The case of Éric de Dampierre suggests a different model of resistance to sci-
entific subjugation. ORSTOM and CSRSOM financed de Dampierre’s original
fieldwork in Equatorial Africa during the mid-1950s. They instructed him to focus
on explaining declining birthrates in the colony. In 1956 the director of CSRSOM,
Deschamps, demanded that de Dampierre stop pursuing historical studies of the
colony and redirect all of his attention to the demographic problem, writing that
“it is the present and the future that are essentially at stake; the past should only
intervene in an auxiliary role for explaining, in a certain measure, contemporary
tendencies.” De Dampierre responded that “this is none of the governor’s busi-
ness!”163 By piecing together funding from a variety of different organizations
(UNESCO, CNRS, CES, EPHE, Musée de l’Homme), de Dampierre was able
to avoid coming under the control of any one of them. He began to defend explic-
itly a Weberian doctrine of Wertfreiheit and even published French translations
of Weber’s Science as a Vocation and Politics as a Vocation in his book series with
Plon publishers. De Dampierre mobilized Weber in defense of an idea of scholarly
erudition modeled on the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought,
with which he was familiar from his time in Chicago as an exchange student in
1950–52.164
VI. A Modernist Discipline

A specifically sociological approach to colonial problems emerged after 1945.
The label “sociology,” as it was understood by people like Balandier, Mercier,
161
Yves Jammet, “Abdelmalek Sayad, les années d’apprentissage,” in Abdelemalek
Sayad: La découverte de la sociologie en temps de guerre, ed. Tassadit Yacine, Yves
Jammet, and Christian de Montlibert (Nantes, 2013), 17–127, 100; Bouhedja, “ ‘Il était
un parmi les dix,’ ” 288; Claude Seibel, “Les liens entre Pierre Bourdieu et les statisticiens
à partir de son expérience algérienne,” in La liberté par la connaissance: Pierre Bourdieu
(1930–2002), ed. Jacques Bouveresse and Daniel Roche (Paris, 2004), 105–20.
162
Perez, “Rendre le social plus politique”; Jammet, “Abdelmalek Sayad.”
163
Deschamps to de Dampierre, January 10, 1956, in Dampierre papers, Mission
sociologique du Haut Oubangui, Correspondence Génerale 1954 –1967, folder 1954 –
1955, Bibliothèque Éric de Dampierre.
164
On the relations between de Dampierre and Aron and the differences in their
uses of Weber, see Michael Gemperle, “La fabrique d’un classique français: Le cas de
‘Weber,’ ” Revue d’Histoire des Sciences Humaines, no. 18 (2008): 159–77.

and Worsley, was used “in preference to ethnology,” because sociology was un-
derstood as dealing “with human groups that [had] become dependent on or
come under the influence of Occidental society” and that had thereby entered
into a “state of crisis.”165 Sociology was defined similarly by a number of fund-
ing institutions, research organizations, and colonial officials. According to
ORSTOM, sociology “orients itself above all toward the study of the current
evolution of material, social, cultural, and ideological life. It could not be other-
wise, since our contact with indigenous societies everywhere sets them on the
path of accelerated change, severe problems, and anarchic reconstruction. The
sociologist is typically the present day observer and the advisor for the future
in these regions. Sociological studies are indispensable for the local govern-
ments of the French empire.”166 Significant here was the depiction of sociology
as a discipline focused on the disruptive changes induced by European colonial
conquest and rule (“our contact”) and useful as a guide to policy making. Another
text calling for a specifically sociological approach to colonial crisis management
was Recommendations for the Historical Study of the Historical Societies of Black
Africa, written by Georges Balandier in 1949 when he was director of the social
sciences department of the ORSTOM-sponsored Institut d’études centrafricaines
in Brazzaville. Balandier instructed researchers to focus on “transformations of
social organization,” including:
1) Slackening of the political function at the level of the tribe, the clan, and
“specialized” families;
2) Transformations of religious, moral, administrative, political, and eco-
nomic solidarity of the inhabitants (also, the emergence of social
classes);
3) Reactions to the administrative structures imposed by European nations
(especially administrative and traditional chiefs, politico-religious orga-
nizations . . . ; displacements of villages provoked by administrative or-
ders; awakening of cooperative, syndical, and political life, etc.);
4) The attraction to urban centers.
This list suggested that sociology could offer useful advice to colonial gover-
nors confronted with the massive social disruptions resulting from the Euro-
pean presence. Colonial sociologists would analyze the degeneration of older
forms of social solidarity and their reconstitution along new lines. They would
study economic and demographic changes—everything from individual bud-
165
Paul Mercier, Les tâches de la sociologie (Dakar, 1951), 43– 44. See F. N’Sougan
Agblémagnon, “La concept de crise appliqué à une société africaine: Les Éwés,” Ca-
hiers internationaux de sociologie 23 (1957): 157–66.
166
ORSTOM, Courrier des chercheurs 4 (1951): 61.

640 Steinmetz
gets and family structures to the labor process.167 Colonial governments also
turned to sociologists to examine the social impact of giant infrastructural proj-
ects and the resulting programs of mass resettlement.
Sociological colonial work was distinguished by a set of new analytic objects,
methods, concepts and theories, and epistemologies. Sociologists’ new objects
included colonial urbanization, industrialization, proletarianization,168 pauperi-
zation, unemployment,169 shantytowns,170 detribalization, and cultural mixing.
Migration studies received an impetus not seen since the publication of The Po-
lish Peasant in Europe and America, as sociologists examined flows between
countryside and city, colony and metropole.171 Community studies, which be-
came a mainstay of British sociology, originated in the colonies after World
War II, as did the field of “race relations.” The journal Race, which became
Race and Class in 1972, began in 1959 with a distinctive focus on colonial
and immediate postcolonial settings. The lead article in the first issue of Race
was written by Michael Banton, a pioneering sociologist of colonial Sierra
Leone and colonial migrants in London.172
Other contributions by colonial sociologists were methodological and episte-
mological. Sociologists analyzed European colonizers in the same analytic
frame as the colonized, whereas most anthropologists had avoided studying
white settlers.173 A transnational framing of social research emerged spontane-
ously, as sociologists examined networks and flows of people, objects, and cul-
167
For one of the earliest studies of colonial family budgets, see Văn Huyên Nguyễn,
Recherches sur la commune annamite (Hanoi, 1939).
168
Pierre Bourdieu et al., Travail et travailleurs en Algérie (Paris, 1963).
169
Roland Devauges, Les chômeurs de Brazzaville et les perspectives du barrage du
Kouilou (Brazzaville, 1959); Gérard Althabe, Le chômage à Brazzaville: Étude psycho-
logique (Paris, 1959).
170
Paul Sebag, “Le bidonville de Borgel,” Cahiers de Tunisie 23–24 (1958): 267–
309; Robert Descloitres, Jean Claude Reverdy, and Claudine Descloitres, L’Algérie
des bidonvilles (Paris, 1961).
171
Georges Balandier, Sociologie des Brazzavilles noires (Paris, 1955); Michael
Banton, The Coloured Quarter: Negro Immigrants in an English City (London, 1955);
Andrée Michel, Les Travailleurs algériens en France (Paris, 1956); Robert Montagne,
Étude sociologique de la migration des travailleurs musulmans d’Algérie en métropole,
8 vols. (Paris, 1957); Sydney Collins, Coloured Minorities in Britain (London, 1957).
172
Michael Banton, The Coloured Quarter: Negro Immigrants in an English City (Lon-
don, 1955), West African City: A Study of Tribal Life in Freetown (London, 1957), “Soci-
ology and Race Relations,” Race 1 (1959): 3–14; personal interview with Banton, Febru-
ary 3, 2011.
173
Joseph Wilbois, Le Cameroun, les indigènes, les colons, les missions, l’adminis-
tration française (Paris, 1934); René Maunier, Sociologie coloniale, 3 vols. (Paris, 1932–
36); Albert Memmi, Portrait du colonisé, précédé du Portrait du colonisateur (Paris,
1957); Paul Mercier, “Le groupement européen de Dakar: Orientation d’une enquête,” Ca-
hiers internationaux de sociologie 19 (1955): 130– 46; Frantz Fanon, “Algeria’s European
Minority,” in A Dying Colonialism (1959; New York, 1965), 147–62.

tural representations across tribal, colonial, and world-system boundaries. Rather

than bracketing colonialism, as in much interwar ethnography, sociologists put
colonialism at the center of their analyses. Correspondingly, they rejected the
static approaches that typified interwar anthropology and postwar Parsonsian so-
ciology, instead emphasizing domination, conflict, and change.174 Balandier’s
entire approach was known as “dynamic sociology.”175 Sociological studies were
often explicitly historical and comparative.176 De Dampierre and others com-
bined ethnographic fieldwork with archival research. At the end of the colonial
period, African sociologists began to elaborate a standpoint-theoretical critique
of European research on their societies.177
Colonial sociologists also made important theoretical contributions, in addi-
tion to Bourdieu’s concepts of field and habitus. Balandier’s student Pierre-
Philippe Rey based his theory of the “articulation of modes of production”
and the colonial mode of production on his discovery that French administra-
tion in the Congo had been unable to crush the traditional tribal system and
had needed to find a way to combine it with the colonial system.178
Some sociologists developed arguments that are now associated with post-
colonial theory. This should not be surprising, since two theorists seen as pre-
cursors of postcolonial theory, Albert Memmi and Abdelmalek Sayad, were so-
ciologists, and since Frantz Fanon taught colonial sociology students in Tunis
at the end of his life.179 Cultural hybridity was widely discussed among sociol-
ogists at the time, who started from the assumption of mixed cultures and the
174
See, e.g., Georges Balandier, “La situation coloniale: Approche théorique,” Ca-
hiers internationaux de sociologie 11 (1951): 44 –79, and Sociologie actuelle de
l’Afrique noire (Paris, 1955); Peter Worsley, The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of
“Cargo” Cults in Melanesia (London, 1957).
175
Christian Giordano, “Jenseits von Emile Durkheims Erbschaft: Die dynamische
Sociologie und Anthropologie Georges Balandiers,” in Französische Soziologie der
Gegenwart, ed. Stephan Moebius and Lothar Peter (Konstanz, 2004), 213–36.
176
See, e.g., Balandier, Sociologie actuelle de l’Afrique noire; Éric de Dampierre,
Un ancien royaume Bandia du Haut-Oubangui (Paris, 1967); Paul Mercier, Tradition,
changement, histoire: Les “Somba” du Dahomey septentrional (Paris, 1968).
177
François N’Sougan Agblémagnon, “La différence de psychologie et de sensibil-
ité provoque-t-elle une différence de comportement entre occidentaux d’une part, africains
de l’autre, quant aux méthodes de la recherche et quant à l’interprétation des résultats?,” in
État et perspectives des études africaines et orientales: Compte rendu du colloque de
l’Association des universités partiellement ou entièrement de langue française, by Pierre
Louis (Montreal, 1965), 128– 44.
178
Rey, “Sociologie économique et politique,” 519. Another student of Balandier
who combined ethnography with history was Claude Meillassoux.
179
Fanon’s last writings had as much to do with sociology as psychiatry, a point that
is misunderstood by Fanon’s biographer, who writes that his 1959 book L’An V de la
Révolution Algérienne was “rather misleadingly” titled Sociology of the Algerian Rev-
olution in its 1966 edition, “even though it is obviously not an exercise in sociology
in any real sense.” David Macey, Frantz Fanon (New York, 2000), 398. It is unclear

642 Steinmetz
selective appropriation of external ideas by colonized societies. Balandier and

Mercier’s 1952 study of the Lébou villagers in Senegal, for example, argued that
this apparently unchanging culture was fully enmeshed in global history and
webs of outside influence and that the Lébou were able to negotiate repeated in-
vasions by playing “a game of conservation and innovation,” filtering outside
influences without being “closed to them.”180 British and French colonial psy-
chologists (some of whom were also sociologists) explored the psychic distress
caused by colonialism and the failure of traditional healing methods to deal with
mental illnesses resulting European-induced changes.181
Some colonial sociology exhibited the specifically modernist characteristics
typical of Western technoscience182 and embraced the most objectionable as-
pects of colonial rule. Sociology as a discipline often claimed special expertise
in surveys, statistics, computers, research design, and in the quantitative meth-
ods favored by governments. Sociologists seemed particularly at home with
machines and equipment—everything from computers and computer card sort-
ing machines to psychotechnical intelligence tests (figs. 8 and A7–A11). This
strengthened sociologists’ elective affinities with postwar colonial policy mak-
ers, who were enamored of the “marriage of technology and development.”183
The French FIDES program placed special emphasis on infrastructure or “equip-
ment.”184
If the emblematic activity of colonial states after 1945 was the vast public
works project, the most politically fraught topic for colonial sociologists was
the resettlement of people displaced by these projects. Sociologists were mobi-
lized to study and manage the uprooting and rehousing of populations. Colo-
what Macey thinks “real” sociology looked like at the time. Joby Fanon submits that
his brother Frantz studied for a bachelor (license) degree in sociology, but the sociology
licence did not yet exist when Fanon was pursing his studies in France (1946–51). Joby
Fanon, Frantz Fanon: De la Martinique à l’Algérie et à l’Afrique (Paris, 2004), 87.
Nonetheless, this mistaken recollection points to a deeper truth about Fanon’s work.
180
Georges Balandier and Paul Mercier, Particularisme et évolution: Les pêcheurs
Lebou du Sénégal (Saint-Louis, 1952), 131, 212.
181
This was the argument developed by psychiatrist Henri Collomb and psychoan-
alyst Marie-Cécile Ortigues at the Fann hospital in Dakar starting in the mid-1950s. See
Danielle Storper-Perez, La folie colonisée (Paris, 1974)—a revision of a sociology doc-
toral thesis based on the author’s work with Collomb at the Fann clinic; René Collignon,
“Vingt ans de travaux à la clinique psychiatrique de Fann-Dakar,” Psychopathologie
africaine 14, nos. 2/3 (1978): 133–44. On British colonial psychiatry see Linstrum, Rul-
ing Minds.
182
Paul Rabinow, French Modern (Cambridge, MA, 1989), 277–319; James C.
Scott, Seeing like a State (New Haven, CT, 1998).
183
Laura Ann Twagira, “ ‘Robot Farmers” and Cosmopolitan Workers: Technolog-
ical Masculinity and Agricultural Development in the French Soudan (Mali), 1945–
68,” Gender & History 26 (2014): 459–77, 460.
184
See n. 12 above.

Fig. 8.—Pierre Bourdieu in Algeria, late 1950s, with Zeiss Ikoflex camera. Courtesy
of Jérôme Bourdieu.
nialism had always been linked to expropriation and population transfers, but
resettlements before 1945 were usually executed without input from social sci-
entists.185 After World War II, the figure of the resettlement sociologist came
into focus.186
185
Bonneuil, “Development as Experiment.”
186
Colonial ethnosociologist David Brokensha, who worked on the Volta river basin
project, referred to a “sociology of resettlement” (“Detailed Plan of Proposals and Esti-

644 Steinmetz
Sociologists were asked to advise colonial rulers on the likely responses of

communities facing dislocation, to participate in their transfer, and to guide
the social organization of new villages and social structures. In 1949–51, soci-
ologists Balandier, Jean-Claude Pauvert, and André Hauser carried out studies
for the governor of Gabon on the impact of resettling scattered rural populations
in more densely concentrated towns.187 Five years later, Paul Mercier executed
a “study mission in French Guinée relating to human problems posed by the
implantation of an industrial complex in the Konkouré region, and in particular
by the problems of displacement of the population caused by the realization of
that project.”188 In an unpublished report Mercier wrote that “sociologists’ role
should not be limited” to a study of the conditions before the move, but that
they should also be involved in rehousing the displaced populations, just as so-
ciologists had participated in the “installation of new villages during the oper-
ation ‘regroupement des villages’ ” in Gabon in 1949–51.189 In the mid-1950s
sociologists at the Tunisian Institut des hautes études carried out a survey of
a seminomadic group in the colony’s south that was being sedentarized by
the French government.190 In the late 1950s sociologists were involved in a
survey of “directed emigration and organization of the peasantry . . . in central
Togo.”191 Another large resettlement program in the Sourou River valley in Up-
per Volta was accompanied by analysis of the factors affecting “the mechanisms
of migration” among different ethnic groups. Each research team in Sourou ob-
served the reactions to resettlement in a single village over the course of a year.
This survey in 1957–58 was carried out under the auspices of the Bordeaux
Institut des sciences humaines appliquées and was overseen by a thirty-six-
year-old sociologist, François Bourricaud.192
mates for Anthropological Research in the Volta Basin,” May 7, 1962, Norbert Elias pa-
pers, file 294, Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach).
187
Georges Balandier and Jean-Claude Pauvert, Mission d’étude du regroupement
des villages (territoires du Gabon) (Paris, 1950), and Les villages gabonais (Brazzaville,
1952).
188
EHESS Archives, Fonds C. Heller, correspondence, Afrique, folder Paul Mercier,
CV.
189
Paul Mercier to Georges Balandier, Conakry, September 21, 1956, Balandier pa-
pers, Dossier Guinée, Bibliothèque nationale de France.
190
Martelot, “L’avant-Granai,” 14; A. Bessis et al., Le Territoire des Ouled Sidi Ali
ben Aoun (Paris, 1956).
191
ORSTOM, Elements de bilan (1959), I.R.T.O. 4.
192
François Bourricaud and Guy Laserre, Aménagement hydro-agricole de la Vallée
du Sourou: Programme de recherches en sciences humaines (Bordeaux, 1957), 69;
Françoise Izard-Héritier and Michael Izard, Les Mossi du Yatenga: Étude de la vie
économique et sociale (Bordeaux, 1959). The Sourou plan was not fully implemented
until the 1970s.

The largest colonial resettlement program in this period took place in wartime
Algeria, where a quarter of the indigenous population was displaced. Again, so-
cial science was involved. The entire process was overseen by the Specialized
Administrative Sections (SAS) of the French army. Some SAS officers had stud-
ied “Muslim sociology” in a year-long apprenticeship before their active duty,
and some were charged with studying indigenous villagers before and after re-
settlement in order to discover how to make the new settlements more viable.193
Bourdieu and Sayad painted such a devastating picture of the consequences of
resettlement that their book Le déracinement was barred from publication until
after the war. The regrouping policy, they argued, was “a pathological response
to the mortal crisis of the colonial system, laying bare the pathological aims at
the core of the colonial system” and leading to a “pathological acceleration” of
cultural change. The authors compared the French officers “charged with orga-
nizing the new collectivities”—the SAS—to “Roman colonizers,” who “begin
by disciplining space” in order to “discipline people” (fig. A12).194 As this ex-
ample shows, individual sociologists’ political stances were not determined in
any simple way by their civil status.
My final example of a resettlement sociologist involves another famous
twentieth-century sociologist, Norbert Elias, the critical historical sociologist and
author of The Civilizing Process. After reaching retirement age in England, Elias
served as head of the sociology department at the University College of Ghana
from 1962 to 1964 (figs. 9, A13). He took over supervision of a long-running
study of the social impact of resettling villagers as part of the planned flooding
of the Volta River. Elias’s research took place in a period that was immediately
postcolonial—Ghana had become independent in 1957—but the project had been
under discussion since 1915, and planning had started in 1954.195 His project
involved teams of research assistants, mainly college students. Elias intended to
study “ten sample communities of different sizes representing a variety of differ-
ent conditions and problems . . . that arise in the period of transition and after re-
settlement” in order to understand “why some villages, or some sections within
them, strenuously resist resettlement while others could be persuaded to move.”
He “hope[d] to demonstrate in practice some of the inadequacies of the conven-
193
Grégor Mathias, Les sections administratives spécialisées en Algérie: Entre idéal
et réalité (1955–1962) (Paris, 1998), 37; Noara Omouri, “Les Sections Administratives
Spécialisées et les sciences sociales: Études et actions sociales de terrain des officiers
SAS et des personnels des Affaires algériennes,” in Militaires et guérillas dans la guerre
d’Algérie, ed. Jean-Charles Jauffret et Maurice Vaïse (Paris, 2001), 383–98.
194
Bourdieu and Sayad, Le déracinement, 26, 27.
195
Jordan E. Shapiro, “Settling Refugees, Unsettling the Nation: Ghana’s Volta River
Project Resettlement Scheme and the Ambiguities of Development Planning, 1952–1970”
(PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2003).

646 Steinmetz
Fig. 9.—Norbert Elias with students at the University College of Ghana, ca. 1962.
Source: Norbert Elias papers, Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach.
tional non-sociological approach”—by which he meant the anthropological ap-

proach—to this sort of study.196
VII. Conclusion: Sources of Social Scientific Fruitfulness

Why were some colonial sociologists able to carry out fruitful work in what
would appear to be unpromising conditions? Two reasons emphasized here
are the postwar expansion of resources for research and the enhanced emphasis
196
Norbert Elias, “Volta Basin Research Project of the Department of Sociology,”
Norbert Elias papers, Ghan-Essays 3f, folder IB (Introductory comments); Norbert Elias
to Ilya Neustadt, March 13, 1964, Norbert Elias papers, vol. 44.2.3; N. Elias and
H. King, “Problems of Ghanaian Communities,” 7, Norbert Elias papers, Ghan-Essays 3a
(all in Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach).

on scientific and intellectual freedom. Colonial sociology also benefited from

being able to work with and against powerful intellectual traditions in both
countries: social anthropology in Britain and existentialism, early structuralism,
and Durkheimian and Maussian sociology in France.
Another set of reasons for this burst of innovation has to do with sociology’s
somewhat marginal position within academic and intellectual fields at the time.
Most sociologists in both countries were in institutions located outside the tra-
ditional centers of academic life. But these newer institutions were often more
focused on scientific research, which was gaining prestige, while teaching, which
was at the heart of the older institutions, was losing status. The social sciences
were being encouraged without being rigidly codified. These new disciplines
had a stronger presence in newer institutions, while the older centers continued
to emphasize humanistic erudition. Moreover, the boundaries between social sci-
entific disciplines and the rest of the intellectual field were extremely porous
compared to today. This was even true of the relations between academe and
the arts: some of the leading colonial sociologists were also novelists or poets,
or combined social scientific and poetic discourse.197 Colonial sociology’s pat-
tern of intervening from the margins of the intellectual field recalls another sci-
entific formation that peaked during the 1960s, structuralism. The creative center
in France during the era of high structuralism was located in relatively marginal
institutions such as the Sixth Section of the EPHE and the provincial French uni-
versities, among isolated figures at the traditional core institutions, and at the in-
tersections between the academic, aesthetic, and journalistic fields.198
Colonial sociology benefited from an additional source of marginality not
available to structuralism. It was being produced at the sensitive, vital border
zone between colonizer and colonized in a period of turbulent cultural change.
Colonized intellectuals were gaining greater access to higher education. Cam-
paigns against racism and colonialism were leading European intellectuals to
seek out interlocutors and collaborators among the colonized. These intellectual
contact zones introduced new ideas into social scientific imaginaries.
A final factor that contributed to the intellectual flourishing of colonial soci-
ology was not specific to this period. Empires are good to think with. Empires
are by definition culturally multiplex, pushing social scientists to look beyond
their own culturally bound categories. Empire’s global scale and built-in expan-
siveness nudges social thinkers beyond the locality and the nation-state. The fact
that empires are always riven by anti-imperial pressures renders unhistorical
thinking and static analytical models suspect. Empire’s evanescence focuses in-
197
Colonial sociologist-littérateurs active in this period include Balandier, Kaye,
Khatibi, Le Coeur, Memmi, Naville, Patterson, and M. G. Smith.
198
Niilo Kauppi, French Intellectual Nobility: Institutional and Symbolic Transfor-
mations in the Post-Sartrian Era (Albany, NY, 1996).

648 Steinmetz
tellectuals’ attention on the historicity of sociopolitical formations, promoting a

historical sociology even where that concept did not yet exist. These are some of
the reasons these late colonial societies, though disavowed almost immediately
after independence by their erstwhile colonizers, produced social research of
lasting importance.


Sociology Empire Colonialismo 692991

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sociology Empire Colonialismo 692991

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sociology and Colonialism in the British and French

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

on colonial urbanism before 1960.10 A recent history of French labor sociologists

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

I. Field Theory and Colonial Sociology

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

“Rendre le social plus politique: Guerre coloniale, immigration et pratiques sociolo-

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

bership in the British sociology ﬁeld was assured through employment as a

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

ies brought British sociologists and ethnologists together on collaborative proj-

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

Fig. 1.—Anthropologists and sociologists at the International African Institute semi-

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

to professional sociology through the 1970s.49 The Second Congress of Black

B. Social Fields at the Scale of Empires

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

II. Colonial Developmentalism and the Increasing Demand

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

colonial reoccupation,60 marked by increases in metropolitan spending and ef-

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

III. Colonial Sociology’s Institutional Base

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

A. Colonial Sociology in French Research Organizations

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

Fig. 4.—ORSTOM Center at Adiopodoumé, Ivory Coast. Source: ORSTOM, Orga-

after Senegalese independence, but it remained separate from the Laboratory of

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

was the originator of the phrase “Third World” (tiers-monde). He focused on

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

Fig. 7.—Courtyard of the École Nationale de la France d’Outre-Mer (1950s). Source:

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

Damascus.96 Compared with other French specialists on Morocco at the time,

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

Other metropolitan British universities became centers of colonial sociology,

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

Yoruba society.”128 The sociology department at the University College of the

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

Social science research on European colonies was also underwritten by Amer-

IV. The Social Properties of the Colonial Sociology Subfield

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

V. Colonial Politics and Scientific Ethics

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

africaine.155 Some sociologists supported continuing European colonial rule,156

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

VI. A Modernist Discipline

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM

This content downloaded from 191.034.176.225 on September 10, 2018 07:41:48 AM