Abstract
My comments focus on several aspects of the Comaroffs' version of 'historical anthropology' that is so vividly applied in their 'Revelation and Revolution' sequence. My main question concerns their apparent reluctance to use the familiar anthropological device of the 'extended case method'. This seems to be related to their distrust, already expressed in their 1992 book on Ethnography and the Historical Imagination (1992), of 'the basic tropes of Western historiography: . biography and the event'. Yet, is some sort of extended analysis of what Veena Das (1996) called 'critical events' not necessary if 'historical anthropology' wants to highlight the agency of people in imperialism's periphery? My main interest concerns what might be the book's most important contribution: the consistent effort to show that 'modernity' was not something imposed by capitalism's center on the periphery but instead emerged from a two-way process in which Africans were actively involved, rather than just being the victims of it. This is quite clear for economic developments. The main challenge remains, in line with the Comaroffs' approach, how this active involvement can be brought further to the fore in cultural respects as well.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
