Tilley, Helen. Africa as a living laboratory: empire, development, and the problem of scientific knowledge, 1870-1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Print.
Notes re: Helen Tilley
“the defiant resistance of African nature”
people and environment treated as one as opposed to Western territories where nature/culture was an assumption
Notice big jump in technical staff at 1920: something was happening
Vernacular science: imperial scientists ended up taking more of an interest in indigenous knowledge than they might otherwise have because there were so few of them in relationship to the ambitious scale of the knowledges they wanted to create
Taking the idea of laboratory seriously means: this was not just an instrumental tool for solidifying colonial power; the contingencies of “experimentalism”
Acquiring knowledge of environment as both a justification for and structure to the activities of the Scramble for Africa
“scientific stations” as another type of imperial site like mission stations or administrative centers
early awareness of the poor quality of scientific information (which raises a question about when that awareness eroded or elided into confident generalizations, if it did)
tropes of science: fertility, development, comprehensive, special/universal, local/distant [in/about Africa],
the nitty-gritty of process (how the sausage got made): science was not just a tool of empire, vernacular science was important, science slowly infiltrated domains that were originally built outside of science (agriculture)
ecology as management AND knowledge
the consequence of imperial science: trypanomomiasis pp. 118-119; BUT Tilley says, look this was not a break or a departure from imperial practice p. 120—science deconstructed empire according to Tilley p. 122
Agriculture as a domain of practical expertise that was gradually infiltrated by scientific expertise pp. 128-134
What’s at stake in the scientific study of soil fertility? (what ought African productivity to be, and what’s the explanation of a gap if there is one)
Science as a non-human agent? E.g., does science beget science?
p. 154 the capacity of science to produce surprises that repudiate earlier tropes: that tropical soils were poor in quality
Ecology as invented in practice in Africa and similar settings: what does it mean when the periphery invents the metropole?
Science for science’s sake vs. science for application/development
Science as not having that much authority: “medical pluralism” as a fact on the ground—tolerated if not sanctioned p. 184
The growth in late 20th C. science of science that can be done about Africa from a distance, and maybe as a result being less epistemically plural than colonial science was
Really great book for demonstrating why the meticulous study of institutional histories via careful archival research can be so important. It is hard for students to read through a book like this, but the details here end up being the big picture.
Smart overall critique of the treatment of colonial science as a straightfowardly instrumental “tool of empire”–Tilley ends up arguing that science by its nature ends up forcing imperial technical services and researchers to engage African knowledge seriously and to take on data that subverts imperial authority.