BOOK REVIEWS 103spokesmen who had no understanding of it. Indeed, Bishop Burrough's Londonsermon of 14 March 1976 (Appendix 6, pp. 95-8) seems a perfect instance ofcomplete failure to understand the structural thinking or sociological analysis thatunderlies liberation theology. There is new material here, e.g. Appendix 5(pp. 90-4), the notes of a confidential meeting on 13 May 1970 between Smithand representatives of the Anglican Church. The nine appendices (importantsermons, letters or pronouncements of the churchmen discussed) provide animportant resource. The book is a significant contribution to the history of theliberation struggle and also to Zimbabwean liberation theology which issurprisingly underdeveloped.The book's major flaw is its title, for the book's focus is clearly not (as theauthor readily admits, p. 76) the Anglican Church as a whole. It is a study of thepronouncements of some prominent churchmen. Also on the debit side is thedegree to which the author intrudes his own comments. Often the quotations aredamaging enough in themselves and need no gloss. In addition, the book couldhave benefited from some discussion of the rise of liberation theology withinChristianity generally. The acceptance of the structural analysis that underliesliberation theology has been gradual, grudging, and recent Š cf. the sea changewithin Catholicism between Leo XIII (1891) and Medellin (1968), and thedevelopment within the World Council of Churches evident from its assembliesat Amsterdam (1948), Geneva (1966), Uppsala (1968) and Nairobi (1975).Rhodesia's isolation from this ferment does not excuse someone like BishopBurrough, but it does make him comprehensible. Surprisingly, for somethingwhich began life as an MA thesis at the University of Zimbabwe, the technicalapparatus is somewhat slipshod. Crucial quotes are unacknowledged; where, forinstance, can one find Da Costa's letter to Bishop Burrough in which he confesses'to not trusting [Fr. Lewis] one half inch' (p. 47)? There is no footnote 26 on page69, which affects the following footnotes as well, and a fuller and more particularreference than just 'Harare Cathedral Archives' would have made material moreeasily recoverable.University of Zimbabwe P. GIFFORDReligious Development in African Identity Edited by K. H. Petersen. Vaster vik,Ekblad, Scandinavian Institute for African Studies Seminar Proceedings 17,1987, no price indicated.This is a bad book but one still worth reading since it highlights the stagnancy ofAfrican religious studies. The papers given at this conference redig the sameleached African soil, trying to extract one last crop of articles from it. Thus we find'conversion' Š the same old Morton/Fisher debate begun in Africa fifteen yearsago Š is continued here. We find African culture Š the 'identity' of Africa usedyet again as an apologia for all things African. For the rest, the papers focus in toofine detail on particular events, so that general implications cannot be drawn.They all appear to be too like chapters drawn from Ph.D. theses.The exception to this is Terence Ranger, whose greatest gift is probably theability to break moulds (including ones he has set himself)- He provided theconcluding paper to this conference. In it he highlights, with some courage, the104 BOOK REVIEWSissues which lie behind the failure of this conference to produce anything new orexciting. In particular, he attacks 'African identity' as a fixed given in anauthoritative discourse. He points to instances which show that such an 'identity'in pre-colonial times was fluid, and was pluralist. 'African identity' incontemporary Africa has become, however, a source of ideological oppressionlegitimizing the restrictiveness of the rural discourse and also the manner in whichdictats are handed down from on high by the Party to the rural poor. He pointsout that a narrow, restricted view of 'African identity' is precisely what is used asan ideology in South Africa to legitimize the bantustan policy of separatedevelopment. If 'development' in Africa is not to be prescriptive, defined bygovernment and imposed upon the rural poor, those poor have to be given theopportunities to create their own discourses so that they in turn can respondarticulately to government.Though he stops short of saying so, the implication of Ranger's paper is thatconferences like this one are complicit with the dominant African bourgeoisie increating a rigid, restricted African 'identity' which, being beyond question, masksthe realities of what is happening in Africa. Thus, African religious studies has nomeans of doing something new, since its conclusions are prescribed by thisideology. It can only become creative again by becoming disrespectful.University of Zimbabwe D. MACKAYDevelopment in Zimbabwe: The Role of The University, Univ. of Oslo, Centrefor International Development Studies, 1985, iii, 125 pp., no price indicated.This publication consists often lectures delivered at the University of Oslo in June1983 by members of the teaching staff of the nine Faculties of the University ofZimbabwe, together with a lecture by the late Professor W. Kekulawela, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, on Universities and Development in SriLanka.Publication was unfortunately and inevitably delayed, and many of thedevelopments envisaged have happily taken place in the interval. But thedocument is a valuable indication of both basic principles and their implemen-tation in the work of the University as it seeks increasingly and successfully toserve Zimbabwe. As such it will be very warmly welcomed by all those who havemade it their chief aim to make the University an integral and effective force in thelife of the nation ever since the founding of the University in 1955.A few factual errors were noted. For example, it is stated that 'the total studentpopulation of the University was about 1 000 at the time of Independence in1980' (p. 5). However, the Principal's Annual ReportTor 1980 indicates that therewere 2 239 students. Also, the ninth and most recent Faculty of the University(Veterinary Science) was established as early as 1979, although, as stated on page2, the first intake of students was in 1982.The reviewer had the privilege of twice visiting the University, in 1981 and in1986, and saw substantial evidence of its expansion along the lines envisaged bythe contributors to the lectures here reviewed.General Assembly, Church of Scotland R. CRAIG