Euro-centrism Versus Afro-centrism: Asouzu’s Response to the Fallacy of Dogma in African Identity
By: Saheed Anuoluwapo Agunbiade
Published in: LAJOP vol. 5, no. 1, April, 2024
The current state of Africanness is tenuous. Hundreds of years of colonisation and decades of neo-colonialism have fundamentally altered what it means to be an African. Having lost lives, languages and cultures, many on the continent and in the diaspora question the authenticity and strength of our current culture; is there an African culture after colonialism, or are we simply reproductions of our colonial overlords on the African continent? Are Africans in the midst of an identity crisis? Is it bad if we are? In Saheed Anuoluwapo Agunbiade’s Euro-centrism Versus Afro-centrism: Asouzu’s Response to the Fallacy of Dogma in African Identity, these questions are approached via a thorough review of Afro- and Eurocentric thought paradigms as well as through the Nigerian philosopher Innocent Asouzu’s Ibuanyidanda ontology.
Agunbiade, like many other scholars, pegs African culture as being perennially unstable due to the whirlwind of cultures and connotations invoked when the term African is applied. Does being African mean being Black or Arab? Is African culture something that existed only prior to colonisation, or is our contemporary mix of Arab, European and traditionalist value systems akin to an African culture? For the sake of simplicity, Agunbiade (p. 37) defines an African as: “an open-minded person who is embodied with the intellectual, social and cultural traditions of the Africa [sic] and also feels the need[ ] to acknowledge the interdependency of the individuals in the world in the face of [an] ever-changing global environment”. This definition notwithstanding, the question of “what African culture is” remains wholly unanswered. Agunbiade states that traditionally, this issue has been handled vis-à-vis a reversion to ethnocentrism in African and European academic spaces.
From a Eurocentric approach, Agunbiade claims that European scholars seek to diminish foreign ontologies while uplifting their own, as a way to promote their ethnic ontology as hegemonic and correct (p. 48). Conversely, proponents of Afrocentrism seek to create and promote a uniquely African ontological position that supplants foreign ontologies to secure its own dominance. Contextualising this within his argumentation, Agunbiade argues that ethnocentrism, whether Afro- or Eurocentrism, is the incorrect approach, as ethnocentrism tends to breed conflict.
To mitigate such conflict, Agunbiade proposes Innocent Asouzu’s Ibuanyidanda ontology, to complement the negative effects of Afro- and Eurocentrism. Ibuanyidanda, roughly translated from Igbo to mean “no load is insurmountable for the ant”, is an ontology that argues that humanity accesses its full potential when we view individuals as complementary to each other's existence and view reality through the gaps in our knowledge. The Ibuanyidanda ontology enacts this interdependent worldview by dismantling the “us” versus “them” dichotomy presented by an ethnocentric worldview, while simultaneously providing a less ego-driven synthesis of the world: “we are able to meet the other in its otherness and accept it as an extension of our ego without bias because of this universal or transcendent thinking” (p. 55). Although the Ibuanyidanda ontology promotes a harmonious acceptance of diversity, Agunbiade’s synthesis of its perspective reveals a critical gap in his argumentation.
While Agunbiade’s synthesis of ethnocentrism and the Ibuanyidanda ontology makes for an easy read and provides a refreshing look at the rather dicey topic of identity, his ultimate text lacks a proper thesis or conclusion. Although the discussion within the text is fruitful (e.g., in its comparison of thoughts and ontologies) in his conclusion Agunbiade relates his commentary only to the topic of ethnocentric conflict, without clearly relating his discussion back to the topic of African identity. One can assume that Agunbiade proposes Ibuanyidanda as a means to stabilise and alleviate conflict within the identity through the utilisation of Ibuanyidanda’s interdependent qualities; however, such an idea would need to be properly explained to meaningfully contribute to the text’s discussion.
The answers to the questions: “Who is African?” and “What is African Culture?” remain somewhat unsatisfying. While Agunbiade does provide a self-constructed definition of an African, the “interdependency” highlighted in his definition appears to exist for the sole purpose of conflating Africanness into the Ibuanyidanda ontology. This conflation arises from the insufficient amount of reference material supporting the claim that Africans ubiquitously recognise the interdependence of individuals. Many attributes in Agunbiade’s definition appear logical and are grounded in claims made by other academics. However, the interdependency aspect of the definition seems incongruous and lacks adequate citations, raising questions about its purpose and functional validity. Due to the uncertainty of Agunbiade’s proposed definition, it remains to be seen if the Ibuanyidanda ontology would be the correct ontology to tackle identity-related instability. While it is evident that the Ibuanyidanda ontology could help mitigate the effects of ethnocentric conflict, it is not abundantly clear if this ontology could translate to a stabilisation of the African identity crisis.
Even with these criticisms in mind, Agunbiade’s article is a refreshingly non-ethnocentric look at African identity. As it is such a rarity for African identity to be handled outside of the scope of ethnocentrism (although from a philosophical perspective), Agunbiade’s work is a noteworthy contribution to the rich discourse within African identity studies.
Review von: Lena Diakite