Writing about the humanities from an African perspective

My research project is based on the premise that approaches to reality vary across civilisations and eras, that there is a plurality of modes of knowledge, and that there is gnoseological and epistemological relativity. It proposes to rethink the plurality of paths of human thought based on the idea of the fundamental equality of the various schools of thought, whilst recognising their incommensurability. This leads us to consider these different schools of thought in terms of their horizons and the configurations of the imaginable that they propose, as unique paths of the mind, developed simultaneously and shaped by the cultures from which they originate.

Reflecting on these questions in an African context requires an epistemic shift. We must incorporate the complexity of African social structures and understand them in terms of their cultural and historical specificities. This calls for a shift in perspective within established fields of knowledge and for a rethinking ; an act of thought that pays particular attention to its archaeological context and to current trends in the societies under study.

This project of restructuring calls for a fundamental rethinking of the social sciences, requiring an epistemological examination of the subjects, methods and status of the knowledge produced by the humanities and social sciences, as applied to African realities. The major obstacle to such an approach remains the difficulty of defining an epistemological field – in other words, the specific subjects to be examined, but also the unique methods required to achieve this. A recurring criticism of the Western view of knowledge is that it overestimates the prerogatives of the subject, based on the illusion that the subject, through its own means (reason and/or sense), can produce thought that takes account of the complexity of reality. The pitfall of European methodology lies in relying on a single criterion to explain reality. Furthermore, when it comes to knowledge, its approach is based on the desire to produce a reality governed exclusively by experience and reason. The fruitfulness of the methodological approach based on the principle of the excluded middle[1] will be examined. This approach distinguishes the subject from the object in order to interpret reality. It transforms objects into momentary entities and breaks reality down into minute fragments which one then attempts to reconstruct. This forms part of a residual positivism within the Western epistemological tradition, based on a two-thousand-year-old atomism. This approach has been useful for the development of physics and the natural sciences; but it proves far less fruitful for the humanities and social sciences, as the objects studied are multi-layered and the subject is not separate from the object. As in quantum physics, the observer’s position alters the observed object.

But more fundamentally, the aim is to gain a deeper understanding of African societies and cultures, which are also based on their own epistemological criteria. To achieve this, it is necessary to adopt ways of understanding reality other than scientific knowledge as it currently stands. Exploring the relatively little-known realms of African ontomythologies and epistemogonies allows for a more open approach to the various types of knowledge that have helped to safeguard the future of African societies. It is necessary to explore the possibilities offered by other forms of knowledge and other interpretations of reality. These constitute modes of knowledge that have demonstrated their long-term operational effectiveness in various fields of human activity: therapeutic and environmental knowledge, technical know-how, and social, historical, psychological, economic and agronomic knowledge. This knowledge has ensured the survival, growth and sustainability of African societies. To harness this knowledge, it is necessary to explore African cosmogonies, myths, diverse cultural expressions and linguistic resources.

We shall also discuss a theory of knowledge constrained by the limitations of the Western worldview, by questioning the exclusivity of the logocentric episteme and the framing of modes of understanding by a single mode of written thought. This study reconsiders the question of knowledge at its very roots. It aims to rethink the conditions that make it possible. ‘What can I know?’ is the question posed by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. ‘How is knowledge possible?’ These questions defined physics and metaphysics in the 18th century.

The questions we might instead ask ourselves could be the following: Can knowledge be acquired other than through experience? Can we acquire knowledge through the senses? What do the arts and non-discursive modes of thought teach us about reality? Can we envisage an epistemology of the senses?

This examination of knowledge will be developed by considering the objects of the epistemological quest as well as its modes of perceiving reality. Since Aristotle, to explain has meant determining causes or identifying the first cause. To regard explanation as the only way of thinking about the world is inherently biased. The concept of ‘linear causality’ has a limit, and that is the first cause. Complex and dialogical thinking (Morin) has made it possible to put this way of interpreting reality into perspective by revealing its limitations.

Human intelligence lies in our ability to go beyond the various possibilities of thought, to understand them and to bring them into dialogue with one another. The aim, however, is not to bridge the gap between these different approaches to knowledge and reality through a unitary and convergent dialectic. This will not be a systematic research project containing the ultimate truth, nor a synthesis, but rather an attempt to present these possibilities in order to produce something intelligible through their self-reflection.

[1] This view is also challenged within Western epistemology by proponents of quantum physics and thinkers such as Nicholas Georgescu-Rogen, who championed transdisciplinarity and the principle of the excluded middle.