Thread by @VincentFoucher

Seeing a recent edited volume on “terrorism” in Africa. Published by a decent academic publishing house (don’t ask, I won’t tell). There is a chapter on #BokoHaram. I am reading the few pages I can access on Google Books (the volume is absurdly expensive). A (sad) thread…

It is such a demoralising read. Reflecting the parlous state of publications on Boko Haram and broader problems within academia. A thread…

Boko Haram, because it’s fancy, is a great topic to publish about. Everybody wants to know something about this. The problem is, very few people do actual research. Because it’s difficult.

Most people collate secondary sources. Sometimes they do it well, combining it with an analysis of jihadi literature and sermons and their deep knowledge of the academic literature on contemporary political Islam and/or the history of Nigeria.

Sometimes, people just assemble whatever scraps they can and write blurbs, mobilising their prejudices on the way. The piece I skimmed through is one like this. I pick on this one, but there are dozens of these. Let me take some basic examples from that piece.

First of all, the uncritical acceptance of official body counts (1,000 kills claimed by he Chadian Army during Bohoma’s Wrath)… At the very least, one should insist that it is a claim by a party to the conflict, not a fact.

And then, for a piece published in 2023, the absence of mention of the distinction between the factions of Boko Haram, JASDJ and ISWAP, is confounding.

Also, this “political” obsession, as if Boko Haram could really be understood as the result of a power play between Nigerian “legal” politicians…

Of course, legal politics, and the suspicion between the supposedly Muslim North and the supposedly Christian South (a divide which is not as clear-cut in reality) is part of the story that made some people in the North look to Mohamed Yusuf as a solution.

But Yusuf was by no means a pawn of politicians. Reupping conspiracy theories to that effect is no good. At the very least, the author might want to note that the 2009 uprising happened under… a Muslim president…

And then, a discussion of external factors. Brace yourselves, guys. The author states that the “Balkanization of the continent” us a “central goal of foreign powers” - meaning the West, in this instance. Good old comfy narratives die hard.

Jeremy Keenan’s controversial take on the Algerian jihad as tool of the United States comes in handy at this stage – but there is not discussion of the fact that Keenan’s take is VERY disputed indeed.

Then there is a quote by a controversial activist (and one-time ambassador of the AU to the US), Arikana Chihombori-Quao, claiming that France is “taking out” 500 bn USD from Africa “year in year out”, whatever that means...

For the record, France’s GDP is a little bit under 3,000 bn… the GDP of all Ecowas countries together (including Nigeria) is slightly above 700 bn.

Of course, there is a mention that some have accused France of supporting Boko Haram. The fact that in the instance mentioned, these accusations were made by a rent-a-crowd fake NGO in the pay of some segment of the Nigerian security system is not discussed, of course.

Then to the “Arabs” (yes, I quote). Turkey is mentioned as an Arab state. Ouch. And of course, it is alleged that Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are involved in a plan to “develop Islam” in Africa, implying that Boko Haram is part of that. This is positively insane.

Of course, the 2019 story of the supposed arms shipment from Turkey to Boko Haram comes up – a story never confirmed, that makes little sense, that came from Egyptian media that were rabidly anti-Erdogan and that was picked up by anti-Muslim politicians and media in Nigeria...

Then there is the notion that Boko Haram served as a “collaborating pad” for different terrorist organisations in West Africa, with no details whatsoever… And that’s just from the few pages I could access.

Why is this a problem? Why am I so annoyed? A number of reasons. First, because it speaks to the degraded state of academia. The publish or perish race is making people (authors and editors) settle for very poor stuff. None of that is subjected to serious review.

And there are always publishers who are more salesmen than anything else to publish that because there is a little money to be made. Sad.

As a result, we have tons of useless crap that is encumbering the bibliographies. People read and quote from that crap, and produce even crappier pieces.

And some academics think they know and can talk authoritatively, and plenty of people believe them because they are professors and have published a book. And this feeds into seemingly savant conspiracy theorising that's feeding mistrust and essentialist misperceptions.

This is a disease, is what it is.

When I think of the journos, NGO analysts and the odd academics who make the effort and take the time to try and get things right (and yes, sometimes they make mistakes and yes, they can disagree with one another), it makes me sad.

I find it reckless & shameless that people dare publish about matters so serious, matters in which real people die & suffer, without a sense that they can make any original & useful contribution... Shut up if you don't have anything to add. Don't confuse things further.

But I am being unfair to an extent. Being able to even begin doing actual research on these issues is difficult. It takes resources, networks, time... It is a privilege. And so the question is also that of the state of universities.

Still, even while fighting to change the political economy of global academia, I think that researchers should be able to understand and accept when they are not going to be in a position to contribute usefully, and recalibrate and pick another, more feasible topic.

I think the "do no harm" principle applies also in epistemology.

Because I do think that we can really do harm by spreading lazy and stereotypical narratives, whether essentialist or conspiratorial. People who do that are actively degrading the capacity of people to understand one another and work out solutions.