Conference announcement

Looking at science as a terrain of postcolonial interaction between Africa and Europe, adds a vital dimension to the many commemorative and celebratory events related to the fiftieth anniversary of seventeen independent African countries. Although scholars often play a large part in these events, as experts, eyewitnesses, activists, or otherwise, they rarely or marginally seize these occasions to put their own positions — the vicissitudes of science and scientists throughout the postcolonial period — to academic and public scrutiny (Ki-Zerbo 2005; Mkandawire 2005). One could object that such is perhaps easier done for the colonial period. After all, it is now widely acknowledged that scientific work — its practices and infrastructure as much as its insights and findings — in many different disciplines, ranging from the humanities and social sciences, to geography and the life sciences, were vital for the mise en valeur, the exploitation of human and natural resources, of the African colonies (Bonneuil 2000; Harrison 2005; Kuklick and Kohler 1996: 7-10; MacLeod 2001). But much the same can be said of the postcolonial period although it is clear that science and scientists now operate in knowledge/power configurations that differ considerably from the colonial ones and that have been variously identified as developmentalism, neoliberal governmentality, therapeutic domination, etc. (Bonneuil 2000; Cooper 2004; Mamdani 2008; Rottenburg 2009; Seth 2009).

But there are more (dis)continuities to reckon with in these matters. From the time when the mostly young African universities tried to turn their backs on the former metropolis through programmes of Africanisation (Arnaut 2008; Mamdani 2008) until the present when the Bologna reforms (Khelfaoui 2009) or the World Bank's 'green' expertise (Goldman 2001) are contested as undermining national scientific institutions 2 and local expertise, the blame of 'colonisation' of knowledge/science, is never far away. The question is if, how and to what extent scientists themselves have been assessing their stances and interventions in connection with Africa in terms of decolonisation. This general question is not meant to be the licence for a navel-gazing retrospective but the starting point of an open-minded combination of historical reconstruction and reflexive prognosis on science as site of collaboration and distinction, antagonism and complicity between Africa and Europe. Without for that matter essentialising either the colonial vs. the postcolonial, science vs. 'non-science', or Africa vs. Europe, this conference is a transgressive as much as an interdisciplinary endeavour which addresses the overall theme in least three different registers.

The first register is labelled 'Postcolonial science' and addresses questions of theory and method, ideologies and pedagogies. Already before independence, individual scholars in Africa and the diaspora, their networks or departments in different scientific disciplines had been involved in more or less formalised projects of decolonizing science. Among these, Postcolonial Theory — which is often dated back to Frantz Fanon — is perhaps the most well-known, not in the least because, over the last decade, it has been severely criticised from different angles. Although Post(-)colonial Studies is widely acknowledged to have been working hard towards, among other things, destabilizing received geopolitical categories, interrogating Western (epistemic) hegemonies, and the affirmative recuperation of subaltern voices (see e.g. Anderson 2009; Loomba, Kaul, Bunzi, Burton, and Esty 2005), it has been accused of being an intellectual coterie in several respects. First, concerning the social aspect, Appiah (1991: 348) and Dirlik (1994: 356) have denounced each in their own way, that Postcolonial Theory is the work of a relatively secluded diaspora network, whose degree of embeddedness in, and exposure to, the 'postcolonial' realities, both contemporary and historical, in Africa and beyond are doubtful (Pouchepadass 2007: 215; Zeleza 2002: 22). Second, Postcolonial Theory has been particularly thriving in the humanities from where it allegedly originates, and to some extent in the social sciences (Darby 1997; Miller 1993), but has been criticised for failing to engage with the other disciplines, particularly the political 3 and economic sciences (Quayson 2000; Spivak 1999). Third, it seems that Postcolonial Theory has become overly concerned with the refinement of its many sensitivities and positionalities to the extent of becoming self-referential and even esoteric (Eagleton 1999; Shohat 1992; Sylvester 1999; Zeleza 2004).

Beyond the narrow confines of Postcolonial Theory, other decolonizing activity has been going on in different disciplines. Anthropology is perhaps the one which has been most heavily engaged in this, arguably since its very invention as a modern science by Malinowski and Boas (resp. James 1973; Stocking 1974) and, subsequently in different waves since the 1950s (e.g. Balandier 1951; Fabian 1983; Gluckman 1955/1963; Hymes 1972; Mbembe 2001; Moore 1994). In historiography (and far beyond), the Subaltern Studies Group has been most influential since the 1980s (Prakash 1994), and has had albeit hesitant effects on African historiography (Cooper 1994; Diouf 1999; Nugent 2009; Ranger 1993), although the decolonizing concerns in African history go back much further, to the late colonial period (Iye 2009; Ranger 1971; Vansina 1994). Finally, in archaeology decolonising appears to have been thematised rather recently (Schmidt 2009).

Beyond the narrow confines of Postcolonial Theory, other decolonizing activity has been going on in different disciplines. Anthropology is perhaps the one which has been most heavily engaged in this, arguably since its very invention as a modern science by Malinowski and Boas (resp. James 1973; Stocking 1974) and, subsequently in different waves since the 1950s (e.g. Balandier 1951; Fabian 1983; Gluckman 1955/1963; Hymes 1972; Mbembe 2001; Moore 1994). In historiography (and far beyond), the Subaltern Studies Group has been most influential since the 1980s (Prakash 1994), and has had albeit hesitant effects on African historiography (Cooper 1994; Diouf 1999; Nugent 2009; Ranger 1993), although the decolonizing concerns in African history go back much further, to the late colonial period (Iye 2009; Ranger 1971; Vansina 1994). Finally, in archaeology decolonising appears to have been thematised rather recently (Schmidt 2009).

Second, multiplying the 'postcolonial dialogue' also means paying attention to the many sites where it has taken place, also the peripheral or less visible ones, both in Africa and in Europe, both inside and outside the strict confines of the university (Sibeud 2004). Whether or not Dirlik (1994), echoing Appiah (1991: 348), has a point when he states jestingly that the post-colonial begins when "Third World intellectuals have arrived in First World academe", recent critiques from Europe (Bayart 2009) and Africa (Zeleza 2010) invite us to diversify our vision of the postcolonial intelligentsia and of the countries and sites where the labour of decolonization has been taken place. This task falls mainly within the second register of the conference, but here we invite scholars to look into concrete trajectories of decolonizing university research and curricula in Africa and Europe since the 1960s. The focus is on investigating the anti-colonialist, nationalist or pan-Africanist research ideologies and pedagogies which have shaped local struggles to wed African/national intellectual affirmation and scientific universality (Arnaut 2008; Robinson 2003). Finally, these trajectories need not be limited to the moments of anticolonial struggles and the subsequent 'Afro-modern' current of the Black Atlantic and 5 diaspora studies, but need to be extended to the ongoing globalization research programmes which, in Africa, are often embedded in a rhetoric of 'second independence' and multilateralisation (Bertrand 2006; Mbembe 2008; McClintock 1992; Zeleza 2002).

The second register, 'Science in the postcolony', looks at the past and future, the continuities and discontinuities of decolonizing science from three angles: states and state-building, institutions, and (national and international) networks (in the broad sense of the term).

The habitual concern is with the role that science, its institutions, its personnel and its expertise, have played in the building and reworking of the independent African states. Contrary to the earlier frames, Foucault's notions of savoir-pouvoir, governmentality, and biopolitics have opened a vast domain of reflection and research on the relations between science, governance and economic development. Ever since Mudimbe's much acclaimed 'The invention of Africa' (1988), Foucault's approach has inspired many scholars to look into the relationship between knowledge production and state-building, also in the sense of the regulation of populations and subjectification as well as the production of inequalities and the valorisation of life (after: Fassin 2009). As could be expected, the current literature in this area focuses on science's place in the global knowledge economy (MacLeod 2001: 2) and the transnational forms of governmentality (Ferguson and Gupta 2002). This ties in well with science's universalistic claims and its cosmopolitan condition as an international authoritative discourse, network and institution. Rather than expecting to develop theoretical frameworks, the conference invites participants to present case studies in which African societies and the way they are governed are deeply affected by scientific interventions as diverse as experimentalization in agriculture (Bonneuil 2000), therapeutic schemes concerning AIDS-HIV (Rottenburg 2009), and 'bio-prospecting' or the new scramble for genetic material (Merson 2000).

Apart from case-studies of postcolonial savoir-pouvoir, the conference focuses more particularly on two kinds of loci of scientific activity: institutions and networks. With 6 regard to institutions, three are of particular interest: the university, the museum and the library. Leaving aside a number of exceptions, all three were set up in Africa in the late colonial and early postcolonial period as the hallmarks of modernity and national intellectual sovereignty (Harrison 1997). Likewise, in Europe, in the wake of decolonisation, colonial institutes or institutes with a direct colonial mission were either abolished, reinvented or left behind. In keeping with the general challenge of this conference to work towards the rehistoricization of science in the postcolony, and considering the fact that hardly any research on this has been done (Hahn 2008; Sicherman 2008) , this conference invites participants to present concrete cases of the creation and transformation of universities, museums, libraries or related institutions in postcolonial Africa and Europe. Like in the account of the trajectories of decolonisation proposed in the first register, here, it is important to take into account the more recent developments such as the funding or the internationalisation of the institutions under scrutiny (Khelfaoui 2009; Mamdani 2007; Prewitt 2004; Zeleza 1996). Ultimately, it may be revealing to take into account the most recent developments, and observe what place has been given to science, particular scientific institutions or disciplines, or scientific events in the seventeen 'cinquantenaire' celebrations in Africa in 2010. Lastly in this register, the conference intends to look into the national and international partnerships, informal networks and formal associations as the human infrastructure in which the processes described above take shape. Again, like in the case of the African Studies associations, this conference wishes to offer a platform to transnational organisations, such as APAD, AEGIS, CODESRIA and the Association of African Universities, which have worked towards stimulating scientific exchange and collaboration in Europe and Africa, in order to address a number of issues related to (field) research, funding, implementation and publication (Academy and Universities 2009; Kuklick and Kohler 1996; Rabkin, Eisemon, Lafitte-Houssat, and Rathgeber 1979; Zeleza 1996).

The third register, 'Objects and subjects' looks into the role of science in postcolonial processes of objectivation/objectification and subjectivation/subjectification in three 7 distinct domains: heritage, conflict, and advocacy. Although participants are free to employ conceptual schemes provided by Butler (1997), Foucault (1994) or Bourdieu (2003) to define the terms of the debate, both processes can be taken in a wider sense as the production/construction of objects/subjects through discourse and action whereby production/construction take place within a set of (changing) power relations. When looking at heritage, the main focus is on 'intangible heritage', more particularly on what has been classified under indigenous knowledge, oral traditions, endangered languages, etc. Through transnational programmes such as the UNESCO and European Council 'Intangible Cultural Heritage' conventions, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2006), or Global Intellectual Property Issues Division, as well as the continuous pressure from cultural and community tourism, media and entertainment, heritagisation has become a formidable force of meta-cultural production both in Europe and in Africa (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004; Philip 2001). This has an obvious objectifying side: elusive knowledge and cultural processes are circumscribed, reified and 'disciplined' in the literal sense of being allocated to one or the other domain of science or cultural expression (Hountondji 2000). However, it becomes really intriguing when these processes of objectification are seen in relation to processes of subjectification in the sense of identity construction, cultural affirmation, economic positioning, and social mobility (Baron 2010; Li 2007; Sylvain 2002). The conference invites contributions on objectification/subjectification processes in the domain of intangible heritage with a focus on the role and changing position of scientists and science as an authoritative discourse.

As far as the subtheme of conflict is concerned, in a more general sense, the conference wishes to focus on the relationship between conflict and scientific research since 'les indépendences': how did the cold war situation, repression and dictatorial regimes or political instability and 'new wars' affect, hamper or otherwise inspire and refashion scientific research in/on Africa? More specifically, this conference wishes to concentrate on processes of objectification/subjectification in connection with the emblematic figure of the victim/perpetrator and his/her testimony. Testimonies or witness accounts have become one of the principal means of access into the way people reconstruct and signify, experience and value, their involvement in conflict/crisis (Das 2007; Jackson 2002; Jackson 2004). Like in 'heritagisation' described above, in the production/construction of witnesses, an intricate play of objectification and subjectification is at play: the objectification of identity, religion, ethno-national belonging, etc. is entangled with processes of political subjectification through representation and 'traumatic' testimony (Fassin 2008; Julien 2005). All the more because testimonies have become so critical in different institutions and events surrounding past and ongoing conflicts — from international tribunals over commissions of national reconciliation, to grass-roots conflict settlement schemes, etc. — it is vital that scholars reflect on their own role in constructing and deconstructing, authorizing and delegitimizing witness accounts, as ambivalent products of voicing and silencing. The latter in itself is a central problematic in postcolonial thinking (Spivak 1988). Finally, the conference wishes to raise the interrelated issues of advocacy and consultancy, activism and commercialisation of scientists and their work in Africa and Europe. One of the central constructs of colonial science was perhaps the contrast between the objectivity and disinterestedness of the scientist (scientific subject) versus the subjectivity and the unselfconscious of the native (as object of scientific research) (Hendry 2007). In the aftermath of postcolonial and postmodernist critiques, this relationship has been reshaped in terms of mutual engagement, coevalness, dialogics and dialectics (e.g. Apter 1999; Fabian 1983). Beyond the confines of the relationship between 'researcher' and 'researched', the conference wishes to look into the popular, political and market forces in relation to which scientists find themselves operating both in the field and in their academic institutes.