(John McCann/M&G)
My first reaction to the concept of decolonisation of epistemology was cognitive dissonance. I could not reconcile decolonisation of anything within our contemporary space.
To put it in philosophical terms, the concept seemed to be ontologically misaligned to the world we live in. Suppose we understand ontology as an “inventory” of everything accessible to us (through our senses and our analytical intellect), then ontology should matter only to the extent that it is useful for progress in the modern industrial epoch.
Although the subject of epistemological decolonisation has been gaining momentum, it is still vaguely defined. It seems to fail to first account for the post-colonial nature of society, politics and economy — and what ought to be known (epistemic equipment) to participate in these post-colonial systems.
So, my attempt is to discern the meaning of decolonisation of epistemology within a contemporary ontological context (namely, what should be known today, how and why?)
In my Mail & Guardian article titled “colonialism’s shadow looms over policing”, I alluded to the expulsion of the native from their lands. At that point it occurred to me that epistemology is, and was not independent of the land and how the native could work and live off it.
And I must add that cosmological epistemology — in a spiritual sense — was not independent of the land either. That is why the rain queen had her work cut out in that pre-colonial cosmology.
So, what did colonialism do to alter pre-colonial epistemology? The point of departure is the three-pronged strategy the British employed to change the lifestyle, the African ways of making a living and what the native had to know to fruitfully participate in the new world order that the British had engineered.
First, the British abolished the pre-colonial communal land ownership and replaced it with individualised lots or sections. Second, the Christianisation of the native replaced what the British viewed as paganism. Third, Western education was introduced hand in hand with British ways of making a living.
The three were interlocked such that the transformation of pre-colonial epistemology would be rendered inescapable. To feed from the land, the native had to know how to work it, according to the new colonial agricultural system. To attain that knowledge the native had to take instruction from the European school and the European master of the land. At church the missionary could not have forgotten the Bible verse that enjoined the servant to obey their master.
The epistemological implications of spatial displacement, Europeanisation of economic activities and individualisation of economic progress reverberated to our contemporary societies. You do not only reap what you sow in today’s world of work.
You also eat according to what you know. As our universities advance the decolonisation of epistemology on the one hand, on the other hand the stringent university entry requirements are individualistic and competitive.
The degree, diploma or certificate you obtain after passing your examination is a product of an epistemology that is shaped by the world of work for which the university is preparing a student.
In the workplace, the job interview and your performance agreement are individualised. Rewards for good or excellent performance are individualised. That cannot be blamed on the employers of course.
By the time a candidate walks into the boardroom for the job interview, they have already been through an epistemological system that punishes the students caught sharing answers during the examinations. Under the watchful eye of the invigilator, the postcolonial individualisation of epistemology is enforced with an unforgiving iron fist.
As I ponder the question of decolonisation of epistemology in 21st century Africa, I raise three categories of inquiry. First, the singularity of the human form (ubuntu) and its epistemological implications. Second, the first building block of a pre-colonial African society and its implications for epistemology. Third, the re-configuration of spatial occupation of the land and its implications for epistemology.
On the singularity of the human form, in philosophical terms ubuntu claims that, “You are, therefore I am.”
Because we are individual instances of one human form, we are divided in unity. For this reason, your human problems are my human problems and vice versa. And since I see myself in you, you are a familiar stranger.
The atrocious colonialism might have been facilitated by the Africans seeing themselves in the Europeans initially, whereas the Europeans pretended as if the Africans did not manifest from the same human form.
Regarding the building blocks of the society, what must have been the atomic foundation of an African society? Was it the individual, family, community or the entire society of communities?
Historically the building block of an African society was the community, the product of which was communalism. Communalism produced collectivisation of making a living, and to that end communal epistemology must have emerged.
With regards to the land and the sharing of the space in particular, the expulsion of the African from their land scattered more than the human beings.
It also scattered the African epistemological unity (what Africans knew together, how and why). The workplace may mimic the sharing of space and can propagate epistemic singularity for success in projects that require team effort. But it has not removed individualistic survivalism and its attendant epistemic individualism.
But where to from here? In my view the problem is not the 21st century perspective of the world — what to know about it, why and how. It is the transformation of individualism to communalism on the one hand, and the adaptation of epistemology to 21st century African ontology on the other.
That could translate to an African education and training system that views curriculum philosophy as ontological primarily, and epistemological secondarily.
Mzwandile Manto kaB Wapi is an independent philosopher and community activist.