MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2217285577 · doi:10.1386/ijfs.18.2-3.263_1

On the predicament of Africanist knowledge: Mudimbe, gnosis and the challenge of the colonial library

2015· article· en· W2217285577 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Francophone Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican cultural and philosophical studies
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlterityColonialismRepertoireEpistemeSociologyAnthropologyIdeologyPower (physics)Representation (politics)Identity (music)HistoryEpistemologyHumanitiesAestheticsPhilosophyArtSocial scienceLiteraturePolitical sciencePoliticsLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the major conceptual apparatuses in Mudimbe’s critical repertoire is the concept of the ‘colonial library’, an abstraction that denotes the immense body of texts and systems of representation that for centuries has functioned to produce Africa as a paradigm of difference and alterity. A transdisciplinary space the huge knowledge capital of which constitutes and is constitutive of the epistemological locus of Africa’s invention, the colonial library, Mudimbe tells us, also incarnates a paradox: while its knowledge capital serves to justify monstrosities such as Atlantic slavery and colonialism, it has also been from within the foundations of its power knowledge regimes that Africans themselves have sought to interrogate western discourses on Africa, as well as produce their own notions of self-identity, discourses of Otherness and ideologies of alterity. What exactly is this library, and how does it structure knowledge on and about Africa? This article examines the colonial library and the problem it poses for Africanist knowledge. It asks whether discourse on and about Africa outside of the power-knowledge regimes of the library is possible, or, whether Africanist knowledge is always already doomed at its very moment of enunciation since it is always contaminated by the violence of its epistemological region of emergence. The article concludes by engaging with Achille Mbembe in order to illustrate the difficulty of escaping the vicious circle generated by the colonial library. La ‘bibliothèque coloniale’ est un des principaux appareils conceptuels du répertoire critique mudimbéen. Ce concept est une abstraction censée représenter un immense corpus de textes et d’images qui, pendant des siècles, a alimenté l’idée selon laquelle l’Afrique serait le continent de la différence et de l’altérité. Espace transdisciplinaire dont l’énorme capital intellectuel constitue le locus épistémologique de l’invention de l’Afrique, la bibliothèque coloniale, ainsi que Mudimbe le remarque, incarne aussi un paradoxe. D’un côté, elle fut mobilisée pour justifier des monstruosités telles que la traite négrière atlantique et le colonialisme; d’un autre côté, c’est à partir du pouvoir-savoir qui la constituait que les Africains se sont employés à interroger les discours occidentaux sur l’Afrique ainsi qu’à produire leurs propres notions identitaires et, finalement, à élaborer leur singularité discursive et idéologique. En quoi consiste exactement cette bibliothèque et de quelles ressources tire-t-elle profit pour structurer le savoir africain? Cet article se penche en outre sur les défis que la bibliothèque coloniale pose à l’émergence d’un savoir africaniste. D’autres questions connexes seront abordées: peut-on concevoir une réflexion sur l’Afrique en dehors de la dualité pouvoir-savoir qui régit la bibliothèque? Doit-on plutôt se résigner à accepter que tout discours africaniste se trouve, dès le moment de son énonciation, irrémédiablement contaminé par son contexte épistémologique d’origine?

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it