Living with Nkrumahism: Nation, State, and Pan-Africanism in Ghana
Living with Nkrumahism: Nation, State, and Pan-Africanism in Ghana
复制标题
与恩克鲁玛主义共存：加纳的民族、国家和泛非主义
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jeffrey S. Ahlman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jeffrey S. Ahlman
《与恩克鲁玛主义生活在一起》为研究夸梅·恩克鲁玛及其意识形态对加纳公民的影响做出了原创性贡献。这本书的主要论点是，尽管恩克鲁玛的激进意识形态在1957年至1966年之间保持不变，但他的人民大会党（CPP）的政策在应对威胁恩克鲁玛反殖民主义和泛非主义愿景的全球进程时发生了变化。不断变化的政治地形迫使加纳人不断适应“不断变化的政治现实”，其特点是逐渐“加强国家控制”（210）。在杰弗里·阿尔曼看来，这些反应代表了加纳过渡到自治的最重要的“教育和遗产”（210- 211）。阿尔曼的分析首先总结了恩克鲁玛的非殖民化和国家建设/国家发展的愿景（第1-2章），然后讨论了人民党试图在基层建立一个新的民族意识。第一章介绍了恩克鲁玛激进的反殖民主义视野的跨国性质，侧重于他的思想影响，而不是提供一个标准的传记。这里没有什么令人惊讶的，但我希望阿尔曼在美国和英国的时候能进一步深入研究恩克鲁玛的激进主义。第二章阐述了恩克鲁玛的非殖民化和国家发展的愿景，重点是基于意识形态的教育和现代化。关于后者，阿尔曼通过特马的故事揭示了恩克鲁玛对旧秩序的残暴，特马是一个被CPP摧毁的渔村，为一个现代化的港口让路。阿尔曼用种族（Ga）抵抗来突出对恩克鲁玛现代主义项目的抵抗的种族和宗教特征。第三章考察了恩克鲁玛试图通过为人民党的民族主义项目俘获年轻人来重塑加纳公民身份。阿尔曼以两个青年组织--建设者旅和青年先锋队为重点，令人信服地指出，恩克鲁玛希望切断加纳青年与家庭和传统的旧联系，把他们变成忠诚的社会主义公民。这一章有很多值得思考的地方，但我特别喜欢阿尔曼访谈中的紧张关系，即社会分裂的经历（类似于特马的物质分裂）与加纳年轻人作为社会流动的一种手段自愿参加组织之间的紧张关系。章
Living with Nkrumahism makes an original contribution to the scholarship on Kwame Nkrumah and the effect of his ideology on the Ghanaian citizenry. The book’s main argument is that, although Kwame Nkrumah’s radical ideology remained constant between 1957 and 1966, the policies of his Convention People’s Party (CPP) shifted in response to global processes that threatened Nkrumah’s anticolonial and Pan-Africanist vision. The shifting political terrain forced Ghanaians to adapt continuously to “evolving political realities” marked by the gradual “tightening of control by the state” (210). In Jeffrey Ahlman’s opinion, these reactions represent the most important ‘edifice and legacy’ of Ghana’s transition to self-rule (210-11). Ahlman’s analysis begins with a summary of Nkrumah’s visions of decolonization and nation building/national development (Chapters 1–2), and then proceeds to discuss the CPP’s attempts to build a new national consciousness at a grassroots level. Chapter One presents the transnational character of Nkrumah’s radical anti-colonialist vision, focusing on his intellectual influences rather than offering a standard biography. There is nothing surprising here, but I wish that Ahlman had delved further into Nkrumah’s radicalism while abroad in the United States and United Kingdom. Chapter Two lays out Nkrumah’s vision of decolonization and national development, focusing on ideologically-based education and modernization. Regarding the latter, Ahlman reveals Nkrumah’s brutality toward the old order through the story of Tema, a fishing village destroyed by the CPP to make way for a modern harbor. Ahlman uses ethnic (Ga) resistance to highlight the ethnic and religious character of resistance to Nkrumah’s modernist project. Chapter Three surveys Nkrumah’s attempt to remake the Ghanaian citizenry by capturing the youth for the CPP’s nationalist project. Focusing on two youth organizations, the Builders’ Brigade and the Young Pioneers, Alhman argues convincingly that Nkrumah desired to sever Ghana’s youth from the old ties of family and tradition and turn them into loyal socialist citizens. There is much to ponder in this chapter, but I especially liked the tension that came through in Ahlman’s interviews, between the experience of social disruption (similar to the physical disruption in Tema) and the willing participation of young Ghanaians in the organizations as a means of social mobility. Chapter