The universalization of the State as the general formula for the political organization of societies is, after all, a contemporary phenomenon. As recent research in political anthropology suggests, the existence of the state is "a minor variable for much of humanity" (Scott 2019, 32). For much of their history, human societies have experimented with a variety of frameworks for coming together, with 'stateless' groupings coexisting with state collectivities, and indeed, in many parts of the world, such as Africa, tending to be in the majority (Fortes and Evans-Pritchard 1940; Osafo-Kwaako and JR. Robinson 2013). Moreover, the characteristics that underpin the hegemonic conception of the state are the result of a slow, long, non-linear maturation process specific to European history.

With these observations, reflection on the origins of the State in the African context seems to us as exhilarating and stimulating as it should be. Indeed, inserted in the global history of peoples, Africa, like other geographical and political spaces, offers a fertile ground for observing the transformation of diverse social configurations by a single standard tending to organize them under a uniform model. The questioning, and hence the problematic in the present context, is plural. Firstly, although not exclusive, "stateless" societies would have been in the majority on the African continent (Michalopoulos and Papaioannou 2015), at least for the entire period preceding the generalization of the state, the beginning of which should be set at independence. Hence the interest in reflecting on the processes and mechanisms generating this remarkable evolution. Have the pace and causal factors proved to be similar in Africa than elsewhere? Did the same apply to the transition from "old" to "modern" state societies? Moreover, what links have these social and human groups maintained throughout history? How do the institutional and political characteristics of the old ("stateless" and state-owned societies) influence those of the new? Consideration of the multiple issues at the heart of these questions allows us to consider the methodological bias that a fruitful analysis of the origins of the state in Africa must necessarily be part of the long history of peoples. It must take into account the elements of continuity and rupture, innovation and sedimentation (Thelen 2003) that characterize, over time, the movement of populations by and through institutions.

Second, the global imposition of a conception of the state inspired by European history takes on a particular, though not singular, resonance in the African context. Indeed, in view of its expansion, while it is natural to question the spread of the so-called modern state model beyond its land of emergence, Europe, the choice of Africa is not a preference, and is no exception. Asia, North and South America are, in this respect, equally relevant objects of study. The issue that seems important to highlight is the double hegemony expressed by the emergence of modern states in Africa, the generalization of which, as underlined, coincides with the period of independence. The new states emerge with the aim of giving a container to the status of liberties of societies freshly emancipated from colonization. The hegemony here is historical. It highlights relations of domination whose terms are linked through the influence that the colonial powers would have had on the historical future of African societies. Almost arithmetic, the logic at work in this reasoning operates by simplistic deduction: the end of colonization marks the beginning of the state in Africa. The state in Africa is a legacy of colonization, which itself is considered the matrix of African political modernity (Sindjoun 1996). And for good reason, the criteria of organization, material and symbolic (legal frameworks, administration, etc.), material and symbolic (legal frameworks, administration, etc.) are borrowed neither from Japanese, Chinese nor American history. They draw their sources directly from the models of the former colonial powers. In sum, the constitution of African societies into states built according to specific norms confronts us with the structuring of the international order, its artificial criteria of inclusion and exclusion based on a selective reading of history. etc.) ne sont empruntés ni à l’histoire japonaise, chinoise ou américaine. Ils puisent directement leurs sources dans les modèles des anciennes puissances coloniales. En somme, la constitution des sociétés africaines en États bâtis selon des normes spécifiques nous met face à la structuration de l’ordre international, de ses critères artificiels d’inclusion et d’exclusion fondés sur une lecture sélective de l’histoire.

 Consequently, the political and historical hegemony at issue is also epistemological and theoretical. The thesis that makes colonization the matrix of political modernity in Africa, and the state the most successful indicator of the latter, also carries the seeds of a colonial construction of categories of analysis. Hence the need to highlight the arbitrariness of this construction. Indeed, this conception of the state is based on a Weberian reading of history, which, however immense it may be, especially at the empirical level, ignores practically the entire history of the African continent, except for the notable case of ancient Egypt. The work of theorization thus fails to take into account a vast sample of inter- and intra-social power and authority relations, of the meaning and organization of domination, specific to pre-colonial African societies. Consequently, an ex tempore application of an analytical category to a phenomenon taking diverse forms in space and time seems difficult. Without going into the superfluous debate on the patenting of epistemological norms (Barreault 2001), it is important in the present context to underline the controversial nature of the epistemic foundations of research on the origin of the state in Africa, and to question one of its major pillars: can we, should we, and above all, how can we think about the existence of the state in Africa outside of the Weberian conceptual and theoretical library? This exercise requires, among other things, an interest in the articulation and manifestation of domination, authority, centralization, and administration, i.e., the constituent categories of the accepted conception of the state, in the plurality and complexity of the historical reality of African societies. Studies in ethnology (Adler 1982; Terray 1986; Diop 1988) and political science (Monroe 2013), in particular, which study pre-colonial forms of the state in Africa, provide a basis for considering a renewal of the terms of the debate. In this order, rather than focusing on identifying the real, with a grocery list, the researcher could focus on the concrete dynamics of the categories that underpin the hegemonic conception of the state (people, government, territory, borders, coercive capacity, administration, army, etc.), and on the ways in which they come together. This raises the question of the respective rhythm and causality of these categories in the constitution process. If war has played a decisive role in the emergence of the modern state in Europe (Tilly 1985; Kestnbaum and Scokpol 1993), as well as the sophistication of fiscal capacity (Pierson 2011), or the existence of a rational bureaucracy (Weber 2015), what impact can the presence or absence of these factors have on African trajectories? ex tempore d’une catégorie analytique à un phénomène prenant des formes diverses dans l’espace et dans le temps nous apparait malaisée. Sans rentrer dans le débat, au demeurant superflu, du brevetage des normes épistémologiques (Barreault 2001), il importe dans le cadre présent, de souligner le caractère controversé des fondements épistémiques de la recherche sur de l’origine de l’État en Afrique, et d’en questionner un des piliers majeurs : peut-on, doit-on, et surtout comment penser l’existence de l’État en Afrique en dehors de la bibliothèque conceptuelle et théorique wébérienne? Cet exercice demande, entre autres, de s’intéresser à l’articulation et à la manifestation de la domination, l’autorité, la centralisation, l’administration, soit les catégories constitutives de la conception admise de l’État, dans la pluralité et la complexité de la réalité historique des sociétés africaines. Le passage par les travaux en ethnologie et en anthropologie (Adler 1982; Terray 1986; Diop 1988), qui s’intéressent à « l’archéologie de l’État précolonial » en Afrique (Monroe 2013), dans un souci principalement descriptif, nous apparait une base nécessaire permettant d’envisager un renouvellement des termes du débat. Dans cet ordre, plutôt que de s’atteler au repérage du réel, muni d’une liste d’épicerie, le chercheur pourrait se concentrer sur la dynamique concrète des catégories qui fondent la conception hégémonique de l’État (peuple, gouvernement, territoire, frontières, capacités coercitives, administration, armée, etc.), et sur les modalités de leur réunion. Se pose alors la question du rythme et de la causalité respectives de ces catégories dans le processus de constitution. S’il est avéré que la guerre a joué un rôle décisif dans l’émergence de l’État moderne en Europe (Tilly 1985; Kestnbaum et Scokpol 1993), tout comme la sophistication des capacités fiscales (Pierson 2011), ou encore l’existence d’une bureaucratie rationnelle (Weber 2015), quels impacts peuvent avoir la présence ou l’absence de ces facteurs dans les trajectoires africaines?

This last question leads us to another major issue in the genealogical reflection of the state in Africa, that of degree as a standard for evaluating state consistency (Clapham 1998). In fact, the construction of a repertoire of epithets, as creative as they are varied, characterizing the state in Africa, has flourished in the political science literature devoted to the African continent (Gazibo 2001). The state appears, among others, as "soft" (Myrdal 1967); "illusory", "predatory" (Darbon 1990); "failed" (Di John 2015); "neoaptrimonialist" (Bach and Gazibo 2011). Although it has the disadvantage of conferring a certain plasticity to the notion, this multiplication of epithets has the merit of making us realize that the state exists concretely in particular forms and attributes, in a particular social environment whose mark it bears. In short, while it sheds light on the context and period of emergence, the "sun of independence" is far from setting the twilight of reflection on the origin of the state in Africa. Rather, it would represent the dawn of it. The social entrenchment of the theoretical categories that the new states adopt after colonization opens the way to a rich research agenda, namely: through what mechanisms, processes and dynamics do we arrive at the various evolutions identified in the literature? In the different African countries, what are the characteristics of the dynamics of socialization of society and socialization of the state?