Although it came into existence 40 years ago, Black Studies is still referred to by many names today. This proliferation of labels attests that, indeed, the question of naming remains a sensitive one for Black Studies. However, and this is one of the main contentions of the present article, this unfinished naming process reflects a deeper and equally unsettled issue: that of self-definition. Most specifically, it is argued here that as long as Black Studies is primarily defined by subject matter, as it is the dominant practice, rather than by perspective, the naming of the discipline will remain a contentious and tricky affair.
Aldridge, D., & Young, C. (2000). Historical development and introduction to the Academy. In D. Aldridge & C. Young (Eds.), Out of the revolution: The development of Black Studies (pp. 3-10). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
2.
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (1990). Black Studies: Theory, method, and cultural perspectives. Pullman: Washington State University Press.
3.
Asante, M. (1988). Afrocentricity. Trenton, NJ : Africa World Press. (Original work published 1980)
4.
Asante, M. (1998). The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia : Temple University Press. (Original work published 1987)
5.
Asante, M. (1990). Kemet, Afrocentricity, and knowledge. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
6.
Asante, M., & Karenga, M. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Black Studies . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Azibo, D. (1992). Articulating the distinction between Black Studies and the study of Blacks: The fundamental role of culture and the African-centered worldview. The Afrocentric Scholar, 1(1), 64-97.
8.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes , UK: SRHE & Open University Press.
9.
Blake, E., Jr., & Cobb, H. (1976). Black Studies: Issues in the institutional survival . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
10.
Camic, C., & Xie, Y. (1994). The statistical turn in American social science: Columbia University, 1890 to 1915. American Sociological Review , 59, 773-805.
11.
Clark Hine, D. (1997). Black Studies: An overview. In J. Conyers (Ed.), Black Studies: A disciplinary quest for both theory and method (pp. 7-15). Jefferson, NC : McFarland.
12.
Cleveland State University. (n.d.). Black Studies program. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.csuohio.edu/class/blackstudies/
13.
Karenga, M. (2002). Introduction to Black Studies. Los Angeles: Sankore University Press. (Original work published 1982)
14.
Kottak, C.P. (2001). Cultural anthropology. Boston : McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1974)
15.
Mazama, A. (Ed). (2003). The Afrocentric paradigm. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
16.
McGee, R.J., & Warms, R. (1996). Anthropological theory: An introductory history . Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
17.
Nelson, W. (1997). Africology: Building an academic discipline. In J. Conyers (Ed.), Black Studies: A disciplinary quest for both theory and method (pp. 60-66). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
18.
Rose, A. (1975). Afro-American Studies in higher education. Monographs in Afro-American Studies, Center of Afro-American Studies, University of Miami.
19.
Roy, R. (1979). Interdisciplinary science on campus. In J. Kockelmans (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity and higher education (pp. 161-196). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
20.
Shumway, D., & Messer-Davidow, E. (1991). Disciplinarity: An introduction . Poetics Today, 12(2), 201-225.
21.
Staples, R. (1973). What is Black sociology? Toward a sociology of Black liberation. In J. Ladner (Ed.), The death of White sociology (pp. 161-172). New York: Vintage.
22.
Stewart, J. (1992). Reaching for higher ground: Toward an understanding of Black/Black Studies. The Afrocentric Scholar, 1(1), 1-63.
23.
Thompson Klein, J. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and disciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
