In our inaugural and several other issues of Africana, we have emphasized the importance of including Africa-based scholarship in the global debates of the social sciences. The marginalization of African scholarship takes many forms and happens for many reasons.1 The notion, emphasized by Africanist Robert Bates, et al., that “arguments are not privileged by their origins…” is wrongheaded, self-serving, and frankly absurd.2 Put simply, the debates of the social sciences and humanities do not take place on a level playing field; differences of material wealth have an enormous impact on the structure of academic debates in the world. Far too often, this is the kind of elitist argument one finds among Western-based Africanists; with blinders on, many Africanists delve into the field with little sense of urgency or purpose. It is our contention that Africanists have a special responsibility to: 1) recognize the vast disparities of material wealth that exist within this particularly challenging field of study and 2) do all in their power to facilitate meaningful dialogue. Put even more bluntly: Bates, et al. think far too highly of the worth of their own scholarly contributions to African studies. As we enter the 21st-century, the dire circumstances of much of Africa require improved dialogue, improved academic engagement, with a clear acknowledgment, by all involved, of the human suffering that now exists on the African continent. Somehow, Western-led scholarship has moved away from its Enlightenment focus that valued humanity, to a profession that rewards scientific analysis above all else. Science may well have some of the answers but we must not lose sight, as some now seem to do, of what is at stake; somehow, it seems that many are forgetting the subject, which is human life. We remind those who forget that fascism, communism, and other ideological “solutions” to societal woes were similarly based on science; their tragic flaw was to forget the subject – let us not fall into that same trap. The emphasis on humanity is not idealistic, as scholarship seems to suggest today. It is the root of all democratic sentiments in every corner of the earth and at all times in human history. The true idealists are those who pretend to be the authorities today: pushing for a “level playing field” when there is not one and, while pretending to be scientific, ignoring glaringly obvious human suffering in the process.
Instead of being more honest and realistic about their subject, many Africanists prefer to get embroiled in petty squabbles against the few scholars that challenge the “cultural arrogance” of the Western scholars.3 For example, in Africa and the Disciplines, the editors critique Afrocentricity citing the works of, notably, Molefi Kete Asante – a favorite target of establishment Africanist scholarship. Defenders of the Western classics have similarly challenged Martin Bernal, author of the Black Athena series, who argues the obvious: Ancient Greece did not develop in isolation. Yet instead of understanding the obvious, instead of appreciating that Afrocentric scholarship is a tactical approach aimed at challenging the Eurocentric norms of scholarship, many Western based Africanists choose to defend their own Western turf, pontificating with a veneer of science, as if their own ideas were the only ones with any merit – as if their ability to dominate the dialogue had nothing to do with their own material advantages. We submit that the very notion that we should regret the lack of meritorious ideas coming from the continent is nothing short of foolishness; more than anything, saying so demonstrates how deeply entrenched the intellectual block, that systematically marginalizes African scholarship, has become. In actual fact, Africa and the Disciplines is of several mindsets: Robert H. Bates, V.Y. Mudimbe, and Jean O’Barr do not write any of the book’s chapters. They seem to have written a very disjointed introduction to the book – presumably to give the book professional credibility – then, structuring the book in two parts: Social Sciences and The Humanities, offer diametrically opposed points of view. Of all, Christopher Miller comes closest to the challenge of “Africa in the social sciences” when he writes of “The Challenge of the Intercultural Literary.” Finally, in the last chapter of the book, Miller states the obvious: “The production of knowledge is related to the structure of power.”4 And that is all that we are saying here: that Gramscian dilemma is what has motivated us to push for an Africana project.
By including the voice of African scholarship in African area studies, we are demonstrating our own recognition of the imbalances of power in academic dialogue. We readily admit that this modus operandi is at once a humanist impulse, based on our profound respect for our fellow men, and motivated by our belief that scholars can and should strive to be more democratic than the political worlds in which they reside. There is, and will continue to be, a tension that is created by those who challenge, unsettle, and threaten to disrupt the established order of the social sciences and the humanities. We submit, as mentioned in African and the Disciplines, that “the contribution of African scholarship [ought to] be valued, recorded, and institutionalized.”5 Moreover, we readily submit that this effort is normative in the same way that striving for democratization is just.
It cannot be over-emphasized: far too often in scholarship the efforts of the humanist and the inclusion of the normative are brushed aside as impractical or idealist. This is particularly true of the debates of political science, where the links between power and condition are too often considered the most appropriate, practical, and mature answer. Countless social science observers have commented on this link from, on the one hand, Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes to, on the other hand, Karl Marx, to Antonio Gramsci, and to Paulo Friere. The former group’s ideas are generally oversimplified and used to defend the principle, allegedly established by Athenian General Thucydides, the Father of Political Realism, that “the strong do what they have the power to do; the weak suffer what they must.” The latter group’s ideas are similarly oversimplified yet are said to support the general view that something ought to be done to improve the condition of the weak. In democratic politics these social science voices can be heard as well: conservatives defending the maintenance of the status quo, while progressives argue that the status quo disproportionately benefits the powerful. It is a pattern of social science debate and politicking that literally spans the globe. We are of the view that the marginalization of peoples in much of sub-Saharan African politics has become so extreme that the lack of global attention to the matter is a clear indication of willful ignorance. Today, global communications are such that the words and images of human suffering are clearly heard and visible to the point where retreating to a safe bubble – Ivory Tower or otherwise – is quickly becoming a luxury of numbered days. Violence and terrorism are tactics that, upon reflection, we hope to which few would resort but, with the percentages and sheer numbers of the suffering in today’s world, one wonders what options are left to many of the marginalized.
In the 1950s and 60s Frantz Fanon famously addressed this same issue in his socio-psychological observations of marginalized Algerians in colonial Algeria. Given the persistence of marginalization and trauma experienced by so many, Fanon ultimately concluded that violence would be the only viable option.6 How long, one must ask, will 80-90% of entire populations throughout sub-Saharan Africa put up with living on less than $2 per day? Is it any wonder why some, discouraged by the lack of opportunities, engage in civil unrest (at best) or even (at worst) violent or subversive means for altering their material lot in life?
In fact, studies have demonstrated that the inclusion of radicalized groups into the formal processes of politics, while seemingly tragic in the short-term, does eventually lead to the de- radicalization of those same groups.7 One would expect to find similar conclusions in many social studies areas, including psychology and sociology: inclusion of the socially marginalized can only improve the prospects for peace. But, again, in African area studies there remains an overarching lack of acknowledgment of Africa’s marginalization. Much of this, we suspect, is due to the legacy of the Cold War: acknowledging the materialist nature of African realities was considered Marxist, ergo not worthy of real consideration. This ideological resistance to daily social and political reality needs to be revealed and discussed. The alternative is to wait for science to play itself out – to wait, as a Stalinist regime did, and to “crack a few eggs” while those in power make their omelet. We ask: how many millions of human beings must die as we await the benefits of an ideologically-based science? That wait, we must all recognize, is a privilege and that wait, we contend, is simply unjust.
To understand African realities today, one must acknowledge the dramatic differences of material wealth that exist in this world and critically assess how this can to be. Yes, there may well be elements of this assessment that lead observers to “Marxist-like” sensibilities but we must avoid the Cold War instinct of summarily dismissing all of our critical observations as a result. Today, what is vividly clear is that the historical development of the African state has led to political circumstances that are at once politically centralized and generally structured around the control over a natural resource; many aspiring politicians in Africa get involved in politics for little more than personal enrichment and power. As in history, the African State remains something to latch onto; once there, it becomes virtually impossible to let go of the state’s comparatively abundant resources. This is deftly described in Chinua Achebe’s novel A Man of the People; in his words, once acquired, losing “a share of the national cake” is inconceivable.8 Again, in an atmosphere of few opportunities, thusly empowered politicians desperately do “what they have the power to do” while, from their perspective, the “weak suffer what they must.” Like it or not, political realities in sub-Saharan Africa therefore retain an air of rapaciousness that is logically based on a fear of falling from the pillars of political power to the depths of where the clear majority of the population now resides. The political survivalist adheres to theories and practices of a super- or hyper-realism that, not unlike the realisms of ancient worlds described by Thucydides, is linked to power and prestige. But in today’s African contexts, these realisms take place, if at all, alongside a cliff’s edge. To the extent that he listens to the debates of the social sciences, the African politician is understandably cynical about the Africanist promoter of ideas or of democratic ideals. Like everyone in that context, he is reminded daily of the vast chasm of material differences between himself and the average citizen; he is required daily to ensure that he does not allow himself to slip into the humiliating and life-threatening experiences of the majority of his fellow citizens.
In African area studies, the result is that we now have the self- congratulating wisdom of today’s mainstream Africanist, who claims to be a realist, “understanding” the language of power and politics in history, yet he is actually out of touch. Expounding the merit of Western ideas to African politicians, and to masses living on less than $2 per day, is an idealistic throwback to yesteryear when the expansion of power was thought to be but a byproduct of academic debate – in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The notion that civilizational development of all kinds is simply idea-driven, as famously described by Georg Hegel, is the truest form of idealism, as Marx did argue; in practice, as with Stalin, it is also dramatically arrogant and dangerous when one considers what is at stake. This arrogance has historically dominated the halls of power, from within the Athenian temple to today’s development institutions – intellectuals have too often applauded the deeds of the powerful with far too little critical thought. Using intellectual works to justify that status quo has too often been the modus operandi of those in power, while the masses remained in the dark. That darkness has been described by Marxists in everything from materialist to Enlightenment (humanist) terms; both have merit. And, upon reflection, we all know that those terms have formed the basis of a circular argument that has been the basis of ideological rifts for at least a century.
Let us move on! Differences of material do matter – they are political (as today’s political leftists and, yes, even Marxists claim); ideas do matter (as Westerners claim). Both, however, skirt the subject which, again, is human life. Advocates of each have acted as rivals in a Cold War debate but both, it must be acknowledged, looked to science for societal solutions as they sought the same industrial goal. Communists were, of course, ideological and, in doing so, forgot the subject: humanity. But so do today’s proponents of “one size fits all” free-market approaches to developmental woes. As the latter forge ahead, they will inevitably be challenged to think about the human cost of their scientific plan. If both “sides” can ever acknowledge the logic of the other, we can then move on to engage in real discussions as to what we can do to resolve the world’s increasingly apparent problems of human suffering and to, once and for all, end the lethal cycle of “scientific certainty.” Both capitalists and Marxists have been mesmorized by the “miracle of the market” and both, similarly, have demonstrated a tendency to forget that fundamental lesson: life matters. Let us all celebrate and enjoy the strengths of scientific inquiry but let us all remain cognisant of the shortcomings of scientific method; science, as it informs human behavior, does not act justly or morally. We can only hope that the societal arrangements that we have agreed to, within a social compact, allow for a critical assessment of scientific results and, ultimately, for just and moral expression.
Throughout Africa one hears the ongoing concern for the suffering of people due to the abuse of internal political power, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the seemingly unstoppable allegiance to externally-mandated neoliberal reforms that strike many as ideological – yet “scientifically informed” – pursuits that cause sensless harm. In the first contribution, for example, from Francis C. Chikwem, we are told that violence that occurred in the wake of the 2011 presidential election was the result of deeply entrenched political norms that systematically favor the whims of the few. He argues that, regrettably, circumstances are getting worse, as both racial and religious divides are manipulated by politicians to mobilize people to be increasingly violent towards others. For hundreds of years, the Muslim and Christian faiths have proven to be an integral part of African life, often in tandem with various compilations of local traditions. Francis Machingura describes these circumstances within the Zimbabwean context and argues that it is a combination of both local traditions and interpretations of the Christian bible that tragically lead to unsafe sex practices, even within marriages. In another piece by Richard S. Maposa we see that the Christian religion can play an important role at determining how Zimbabweans might interpret key moments in local history. Here, Maposa suggests how Christianity might interpret the oftentimes violent land reform program from 2000 to 2008. Please understand: we do not refute or support Maposa’s views. By including this piece we simply aim to demonstrate how influential religious perspectives can be in many African contexts. Like it or not, African scholarship is not always secular and one readily finds interpretations of the sacred texts and the like within African communities, local and national politics, and even within the halls of academia.
Consider the next piece by Jacinta Chiamaka Nwaka on the Catholic Institute for Development, Justice and Peace (CIDJAP). In great detail, Dr. Nwaka describes how CIDJAP was founded by the Catholic Diocese of Enugu in 1986 to embark on a struggle on two fronts: peace and development. When traditional societal and governmental arrangements do not seem to be working, it should come as no surprise that organized religion should come to the fore – in circumstances where little make sense, “faith” is sometimes the one thing that does. In fact, in his review of the extant literature, Dr. Nwaka argues that “the influence of Christianity as a contributory factor to relative peace in the area… was not taken into consideration.” In other words, there is a concern within African scholarship that the positive role of faith-based organizations is systematically marginalized within mainstream scholarship. To many, the problems of peace and development are very real, as is the visibility of the Christian church and the Muslim mosque. Understandably, the post-Cold War issue for many African scholars seems to be: Why then put faith in a theory of democracy?
Today, when they work at their democratic best, we know that pluralistic societies acknowledge differences of political opinion and strive to find workable political solutions without resorting to violence. We also know that differences of political opinion are based on a host of factors that are often socially constructed, impacted by simple differences of material welfare, wrought with ideological certainties of one kind or another, and rarely the result of self-critical analyses. Moreover, no one can claim objectivity when the perspectives of most are systematically marginalized in the process, as is the case for African area studies. For certain, the solutions cannot come from only self-congratulating disconnected elites, from mainstream academic scholarship that is too closely allied with temporal power, or from profit-driven corporate societies. Nor, for obvious reasons, can solutions for Africa’s plight really be expected to come from rapacious African politicians. Yet those are the only groups we are hearing from today. Our view is that the promotion of avenues for democratic dialogue is especially incumbent upon the educator. More than most, the educator is able to step beyond the bounds of any traditional or institutionalized constraint to contemplate the possible. This is not only the right thing to do; it is also a crucial step toward finding practicable solutions to many of the world’s most glaring developmental problems.
The Africanist who sides with the view that the best ideas are necessarily aligned with the developmental history of the West is, in our view, wittingly or not, a defender of the global status quo. Saying so does not damn all Western ideas to the proverbial dustbin of history; we are simply of the view that the degradation of circumstances in many sub-Saharan African contexts necessitates listening. In that vein we have included, in this issue of Africana, the local views of dire circumstances in several critically important regions of sub-Saharan Africa: Nigeria, Zimbabwe, the Bakassi Kingdom (from the perspective of the author, neither Nigeria nor Cameroon), and the Sudanese state. These of course are regions where human suffering continues and where a perpetuation of the status quo is not acceptable by any measure. To all of the contributors to this volume, we thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle to help inform the world of the plight of others. In line with the aforementioned, we have also included a piece on Achebe and Africa’s “intellectual leadership crisis” by a rising star in Africanist studies, Uzoechi Nwagbara.
On another practical note: Africana is now in its sixth year of publication. We encourage you all to inform others of the journal’s mission to include African voices in social science and humanities scholarship. Tragically, many of the challenges that African- American leader W.E.B. DuBois encountered remain with us today. As indicated above, the reasons for ongoing marginalization are many and they require more open discussion and transparency if things are ever expected to change. In his autobiography, DuBois wrote of his lifelong effort to complete an Encyclopedia Africana – a goal that was only achieved by like-minded individuals more than 30 years after his death in 1963:
I had planned an “Encyclopedia Africana” in 1909 but my leaving Atlanta for New York postponed the project and the World War prevented its renewal… I spent years of intermittent effort on this project and secured cooperation from many scholars, white and black, in America, Europe and Africa. But the necessary funds could not be secure. Perhaps again it was too soon to expect large aid for so ambitious a project… built mainly on Negro scholarship.9
Please do cite the works of our publication in your own conference papers and publications, mention us in dialogue with like-interested friends, and help us to spread the word that we are here! For those of you who are social media savvy, we can also be found on Facebook, though this is early in its development. We must also apologize for any delays that some have encountered in publication (usually in weeks not months), delays in any updates to our web-page, or in our communications with others interested in Africana. Please understand that we are a small group with limited resources. As things continue to improve, as we obtain non-profit 501(3)(c) status and eventual grant-funding, we hope to grow in relevance and impact. With your continued help and support, Africana can and should continue to establish itself as an important and relevant social science journal.
All said, it is with great pleasure that we present to you the June/July 2012 issue of Africana.
A. Curtis Burton, Editor-in-Chief Washington, D.C. USA
Christopher LaMonica, Ph.D., Managing Editor Boston, MA USA
