and validity of the instruments used. The sample was quite representa tive and countrywide. I t embraced all the major denominations including Moslems, and traditionalists. Data is very well tabulated using simple statistics easy to be understood by readers without a deep knowledge of statistics. Since the study was undertaken it appears as if many of the respondents did not understand the role of the church in education. Few young men in particular who mentioned the work of the church in education did not think the church had much to do with education. Among the rural popula tion it was felt the church should participate in educa tion to increase the number of school opportunities. The church too should involve itself in a wide range of developmental activities. Church and Education in Tanzania is a thoroughly executed study pro- viding useful information on one of the most important agencies enga ged in the development of the people. D.N. SIFUNA Comments on B.D. BOWLES', Review of the Politics of State Forma tion: The Nature and Effects of Colonialism in U~anda This comment on Bowles' review in ~ Volume No.1, January 1976 is not intended to defend the book. Fora book which was in complete manuscript form by August 1971 and went to publishers in early 1972, it must be talking about things which are now fairly well known in 1976. Bowles, however, seems to think that since the book came out in 1974, May of that year to be exact, it must cover a research interest like his, judging from the article which appears in the same volume of Utafiti. One is not even apoligis- ing for spelling mistakes like "welfare" instead of "warfare" which are many and obvious. The context leaves the reader in no doubt as to what is intended. The fact that a publication says things that are alrea dy known is not necessarily a weakness. What matters is whether the old wisdom is being used to say something new. The reference to Ankole, Busoga, Acholi etc., wa s not so much intended to introduce novel ideas but to show how colonialism created local identities. I n this way it was possible to prove tha t "tribes" were colonial creations, a point Bowles finds 'valuable'! If I were studying Ankole certamly I would not achieve much by repearing Karugire nor do I in fact do that. 'Tribalism' does not result from the fact of people belonging to the same culture and living together in one polity. That Kakwa and the Alur were divided by international boundaries is a historical fact. The concern with this division was in reference to culture and how people were inconvenienced by the boundaries especially in the case of the Kakwa in their religious affairs. One would not like to debate here wha t is meant by tribalism and again, the 129 context, the theme, the argument has to be understood in its context. There is constant reference to idea s that are already known. One would like to a sk the question who know these facts? Is it the policy-makers who know? Is it the academics like Bowles who number a handful in East Africa? If this knowledge was widespread as Bowles seems to imply, certainly certain mistakes which are committed everyday would not be ma de unless people know they are making mistakes and continue to do so. This would certainly cover the majority of Africa's leaders. One reviewer of tha t same book felt disappointed 1 ha d not ta lked about Amin! For Bowles I have not talked about productive forces. 1 have apparent- ly even tried to convince him that Kaggwa was a peasa nt! Certainly every- thing should have been included! Bowles should have tried to find out what I set out to do. lt seems to Bowles there are some states I like. I do not know what he thinks 1 like. I might value the information. Bowles claims to know me sini:e I have "once pointed to me". I would certa inly have grea t difficulties in identifying him if I met him on the street! nor do I remember the encounter when 1 stated the obvious that historical analysis is not casual analysis! Whether we talk of "colonial benefits" or not, some groups were better off than others. Some places like Kilimanjaro, Buganda, Central Kenya and others developed a capitalistic infrastructure before the others did. This generated relative depriva tion. It does not surprise me to hear that Amin is doing everything to put West Nile on the same footing as Buganda or that he has tried to force the Ka ramajong to wear clothes! In the review, the author referred to my inconsi stency of thought. For my benefit and those of his audience, he does not demonstrate this. I f the space allowed for the review was limited, I would like him to spa re his time and point this out to me privately. 1 will certainly acknowledge him when I revise the book for the second edition. However, it seems to me that the inconsistency comes about because "throughout I treated Uganda as a geopolitical unit". U the book had considered "changing modes of production, the process of underdevelopment, the state as a supportive insti tution", would have been consistent. I f inconsistency is a result of what I left out because I had a different interest from his, I have nothing to do about it. If it is a fault in the logic of presentation of what I had to say, 1 wi sh he could enlighten me more. But if it comes about because I did not do a research like the one he is doing from which he has published "Export Crops and Underdevelopment in Tanganyika 1929-61", I am sorry to beg to differ. Studies of underdevelop- ment by the way a re no longer novel either! The study of underdevelopment should perhaps be replaced by studies of society construction and revolution. 130 Finally, a word a bout causal and historica 1 analysIs, a topic apparently Bowles and 1 have discussed. As a sociologist 1 am aware of the difficulties tha t surround causalanalysis in the study of social phenomena. Perhaps historians a re more competent in this field. Nowhere in the book was a causal analysis attempted. Even a detailed "consideration of the 30 years before the event", a prescription he provides would not help me to present a casual explanation. The multiplicity of social phenomena and their interrelationships simply limit causal analysis, the way 1 understand it. Even his one factor approach, study Kulaks, is ina dequate without studying institutions which precipitate the Kulaks. Even one wouldhave to go beyond the Kulaks in Buganda and perhaps go to West Nile or even Southern Sudan and indeed to the colonial army at least to know how Aminemerged! What i s it that continues? Is it values, soci a 1 institutions, social relationships, modes of life, humanfraility or what? Is it purely internal problem or an externally generated one as well in the ex-colonial countries? 1 am sure these questions are an albatross which hangs around Bowles' neck as well as mine. Finally, 1 am not so sure that Bowles is right when he says Dar es Sa la am has gotten rid of all the people who believe colonialism is a benevolent reforming institution. Why does the struggle still continue? What 1 have said in the book may fall flat simply because some people have convinced them- selves too early that they know! T. B. KABWEGYERE+ +Senior Lecturer, Sociology, University of Nairobi. 131