This volume offers, in the main, a retrospective look into the enduring work of I. M. Lewis, the doyen of Somali studies. The book consists of eight parts containing twenty essays: “The colonial period and today” (two essays), “Clan politics, pastoral economy and change” (four), “Islam” (two), “Spirit possession” (two), “Poetry” (four), “Cultural variations” (two), “Language” (two) and “Conclusion” (two). The introduction, “Lewis and the remaining challenges in Somali studies”, frames and contextualizes Lewis’ eminence as the “founding father of Somali studies”. It is clear from the section titles that Lewis’ work encompasses all aspects of Somali studies, yet the editors quite perceptively mention the elusive nature of the subject that Lewis and other scholars attempt to limn and categorize. Put differently, Somali affairs still present a conundrum to the totalizing analyses elaborated by area specialists. Lewis’ work is no exception.

The Festschrift celebrates Lewis’ long and illustrious career. The introduction mentions Lewis’ propagation of what the editors call the “clan paradigm” and the new crop of Somali and non-Somali scholars who take him and his paradigm to task. The editors’ stance on this debate, however, reveals their partiality, for example when they write: “Somali studies were and still are confronted by two problems: the first one is rather banal. It can be called ‘the career problem’ and is the problem of how to contribute something to Somali studies which Lewis has not already touched upon. The second problem, which is more serious, is related to the correct interpretation of the Somali tragedy of civil war and state collapse.” (p. 6; emphasis added). To explain away intellectual, disciplinary and methodological disagreements as a “career problem”, one in which Lewis’ critics are only interested in carving a turf or are in search of topics unaffected by Lewis’ imperial gaze is simply ludicrous. There is so much in Lewis’ scholarship that still needs refining. There are topics in Somali studies that still evade the undialectical, omniscient gaze the editors attribute to Lewis.

It is here where the editors – two seasoned Somalia scholars – could have benefited from the absent voices whose work they relegate to the backburner. What the antithetical voices – Besteman, the Samatar brothers, etc. – question is the validity of the assumptions that inform Lewis’ work, and of his own anthropological stance. In short, they interrogate one of Lewis’ blind spots, namely, the dialectical relationship that emerges from what Mary Louise Pratt calls the “contact zone”. What kind of pressure, for example, did colonialism exert on the clan system to effect structural/surface and deep transformations? How much of what Lewis saw of the clan system was the result of these pressures? What sort of mechanisms did he put in place to separate the seemingly pre-colonial and colonial constructions? How did Lewis’ unconscious reading of the world affect his reading of the Somali clan system? Finally, could there be a discrepancy between the “object/subject” identified by Lewis and the Somali perceptions of self and other?

The editors partially acknowledge the intractability of the problems mentioned above. They also see a discrepancy between the conjecture promoted by area specialists and regnant “Somali affairs that [continue] to challenge any premature conclusions” (p. 1). Without addressing the semantics of the operative phrase “premature conclusions”, the editors seem to forget how false assumptions obfuscate all conclusions, premature or otherwise. What Lewis knows (both as object and as epistemology) must in time change. To argue as if nothing has changed over the years in the configuration and meaning of clan identity is to ignore the dialectical nature of reality. Some of the essays in the book point to new ways of looking at Somali culture, history and politics, while others do not even prove the “this-sidedness” of their argument. The editors’ essays do not add to our knowledge of the two important topics with which their respective articles deal. I am not certain what “Farmers from Arabia” would contribute to our understanding of the Somali predicament. Nor am I convinced of the intellectual depth and import of “Somali (nick) names and their meaning”. The latter article would have benefited from a comparative analysis of names drawn from Somali and, say, German (the writer's) culture. What would a reader learn from knowing that Esel, Bauer or Berg mean, respectively, donkey, farmer and mountain, without discussing the wider socio-political, cultural, linguistic and economic implications of name-giving? What's in a name, after all? To answer this question would necessitate a grasp of theorizing as a poetics able to accommodate diverse cultural systems and nuances from different societies.

One way out of the dual problems the editors pinpoint in the introduction is to transcend two trends that now dominate the field of Somali studies, i.e. cheerleading sycophancy and a senseless feeling of righteousness that assumes it has all the answers. Neither trend is profitable to our understanding of Somalia. Neither trend was able to sniff the air and caution Somalis about the impending danger that came to engulf both nation and state. On the contrary, both trends lead to sterility and stagnation. As the editors of this volume write, “the truth lies – as usual – in between” (p. 7). Neither vilifying nor canonizing Lewis’ work would contribute to our knowledge of Somali society and culture.

Lewis is a scholar who is worth his weight in praise. The praiseworthy, because of the sheer magnitude of their accomplishments, are also blameworthy. The contributions to this volume attest to the towering height of Lewis’ shadow over things Somali. A man of his time, he certainly got some things wrong. The job of good disciples is twofold: to keep the master's work in focus and in demand, while at the same time believing in the incompleteness of his work. The aim should never be to make us card-carrying Lewisites, for then we would lose track of the depth of his work and enquiry. Rather, the aim should be to go beyond him. Might it not perhaps be appropriate to pen a piece entitled “Lewis beyond Lewis”? That shouldn't be a bad idea, after all.