KINLOCH, G. C. 1970 Flame or Lily: Rhodesian Values as Defined by the Press. Durban, Alpha Graphic, 134 pp.no price stated.This work sets forth for the reader the excitingprospect of a description and analysis of theattitudes and culture of Rhodesia's Europeansthrough the combined tools of sociology andhistory. New contributions to our substantiveknowledge of Rhodesian attitudes and culture arecertainly needed; new methodological endeavoursand interdisciplinary approaches are always wel-comed. Unfortunately the gap between theauthor's intentions and what he actually accom-plishes is disappointing, even depressing.The sociological technique used involves theapplication of what he calls a content analysisapproach to the leaders appearing in Rhodesia'sthree main newspapers: The Rhodesia Herald,The Bulawayo Chronicle and The Umtali Post.It appears that his historical technique involvesthe use of a sample of these leaders starting fromtheir respective inceptions, in the 1890s, up tothe end of 1968.One might expect that a sociologist who ana-lyses a sample of 2 639 editorials and who claimsthat 'newspapers, as part of the mass media, playa crucial role in any society Š they mould aswell as reflect that society's culture' (p. 2) wouldtry to present some empirical evidence for deter-mining the amount of influence and the represen-tativeness of newspapers. However, no data aresupplied on newspaper circulation, patterns ofreadership (what kind of people read the news-papers), or the reading habits of the public(what parts of the newspaper are read by whattypes of people), all important factors whichdelimit the significance of newspaper leaders andthus indicate what limits of generalization couldbe made. Supplying such data is particularlycrucial in light of data from communicationstudies in the U.S.A. on reading habits whichindicate that editorials are perhaps one of theleast read sections of the newspaper, rating farbehind the sections on sport, humour, gardeningand the home. Furthermore, crucial questionssuch as the independence of the press in Rho-desia and the ideological compatibility betweenthe government and the press are neither raisednor discussed.The fundamental problem of Dr. Kinloch'sstudy is methodological. The nature of the pub-lished product is that of a grouping together ofa number of clippings under typical headings.Headings are generalized as 'government', 'eco-nomy', or 'labour' in place of analytic conceptsand classifications are useless, since they tell usnothing about Rhodesian culture or attitudes.The result is both trivial and dismaying, for thestudy is neither sociological nor historical; it isno more than a compilation of quotations withsimplistic commentaries appended.It seems, indeed, that a real content analysiswas never attempted in the course of the research.For there are neither general nor operationaldefinitions of such basic concepts as culture,attitudes, authoritarianism, puritanism and fairplay, despite the necessity of such definitions forconducting content analysis research. Of course,if there are no indices for these concepts, therecannot be any statistical evidence presented forhow operative the phenomena described by theconcepts are. Take for example the statement:'emphasis on fair-play is also evident in 1968'(p. 31). What does 'fair-play' mean and how isit related to terms and themes in the leaders?How much 'emphasis' is there on it and how'evident' is it in 1968? And, how evident is itin 1968 as compared to say 1895, 1923 and 1963?The last question indicates why the study isneither sociological nor historical.Given these methodological failures it is per-haps unrealistic to expect the author to linkhis research to any theoretical frameworkor to related empirical research. But whenvoluminous empirical and theoretical studies onculture, attitudes and communications exist, itis certainly not asking too much of a sociologistto make use of this extensive literature.This work also suffers from Dr. Kinloch'sapparent value bias towards political stability,which overlooks that confict of attitudes inherentin the rise of African nationalism, the break-upof Federation, and the divisive legislation of theRhodesian Front. What historical evidence isthere, one wonders, to corroborate the author'sbelief in the operational effectiveness of 'thevalues of fair-play and constitutional flexibilityin order to adjust to the rising values of thecountry's non-whites' (p.18). What indeed isthe explanation in the author's use of the term'minority' to describe the non-white 95 per centof Rhodesia's population?The overall effect, whether intentional or not,of this sort of approadi is to offer the EuropeanRhodesian a vague but bland sense of re-90assurance; but this is very different from theproclaimed purpose to 'provide sociological in-sight into a scene already over-charged withemotional stereotypes, as well as stimulating aUniversity of Rhodesiacloser relationship between sociology and history'(p. xvi). In fact, this work contributes little toeither discipline.K. MAGUIREHARRIS, P. B, 1970 Studies in African Politics. London, Hutchinson, 181 pp. 13s.Political change in Africa during the twentiethcentury has often been as rapid as it has beenvaried. Keeping abreast of developments is there-fore a difficult task for any scholar or author.By his Studies in African Politics Professor Harrishas demonstrated his scholarship and his skillas an author. The field he has tackled is anenormous one. ranging from pocket historiesof the processes of decolonisation to a study ofdemocracy in independent Africa, from detailedanalyses of East and Centra! African attempts atcloser union, politics in South Africa and Rho-desia to the luxury of 'pointers to the future';and all this in little more than 150 pages. Theproduct is a work of value to students andscholars for the knowledge it demonstrates andthe insight it contains.A brief introductory chapter considers 'TheProcess of Decolonisation in Africa'. Despiteits brevity, this contains much interesting com-ment. For example, Professor Harris explainsthe withdrawal of the major European powersfrom Africa as not a retreat but 'a process ofpolitical disengagement' (p. 9). Thus he warns'colonialism does not end merely because wehave very obvious external signs removed. De-colonisation has simply meant that the ex-colonynow takes its own sovereign decisions ... Infact it may be wrong to see a simple dichotomybetween pre-colonial and post-colonial phasesin recent African politics' (p. 30). A reminderto search for continuity as much as change inAfrican history must always be valuable.Yet it is because of the complexity of theAfrican situation, the unique features of everyexercise in decolonisation, and the need forextreme caution in generalisation, that the readermay be unhappy about another of ProfessorHarris' comments: 'The French appear to havebeen generally the most successful decolonisers . . .the Belgians had least success and the Britishhave had mixed fortunes' (p. 31). The basis forthis judgement is not explained, whether thatof bloodshed spared or goodwili preserved, ofeconomic interest maintained or institutions con-tinued, or a score of other factors that meritconsideration. Perhaps Professor Harris' ratingmay even run counter to his own 'theme' that'Africa's problems can best be understood . . .in African terms without reference to norms andconcepts derived from other sources' (p. 7).Similarly a more detailed analytical study ofthe internal Congo crisis would be more usefulthan the comment of one observer that 'whenexternally imposed authority, the only element oforder and cohesion in the vast expanse of aterritory as large as Western Europe, was abruptlywithdrawn, the endemic centrifugal forces oftribalism, regionalism, and conflicting politicalambitions asserted themselves. Chaos and vio-lence followed' (p. 26). So too Professor Harrisleaves the reader to assess for himself the com-ment: 'One of the most remarkable conferencesof recent times was the so-called Round TableConference of January and February I960'(p. 27). With the difficulties of the Paris PeaceTalks only recent history this reader is fascinatedby the possible shape of the table, but on theother hand does not find remarkable the removalfrom prison of a future prime minister to attenda constitutional conference.By his analysis of democracy in Africa, Pro-fessor Harris has again a valuable contributionto make, especially with regard to the study ofpolitics. For example, he comments: 'Africanpolitics is oligarchical, i.e., political power tendsto be concentrated in the hands of a few persons'(p. 37). And, according to Professor Harris,'the notion opposite to democracy is not dic-tatorship but oligarchy' (p. 37). Moreover Afri-can politics is party politics for 'the party is thesupreme, political organisation in modern Africaand the legislative body appears in many cases tobe no more than an unnecessary intermediary'fp. 37).Yet when Professor Harris introduces 'tribe' tohis analysis the picture becomes at once con-fused. For example, the suggestion that 'the91