Ethnophilosophy Redefined?

73

Ethnophilosophy Redefined?
BARRY HALLEN
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY & RELIGION
MOREHOUSE COLLEGE
[email protected]
AND
W.E.B. Du Bois INSTITUTE FOR AFRICAN AND AFRICAN
AMERICAN RESEARCH
Harvard University
[email protected]
Thought and Practice: A Journal of the Philosophical Association of Kenya (PAK)
New Series, Vol.2 No.1, June 2010, pp.73-85
[email protected]

OR [email protected]

http://ajol.info/index.php/tp/index

Abstract
The meaning of the term ethnophilosophy has evolved in both a significant and
controversial variety of ways since it was first introduced by Paulin Hountondji in 1970.
It was first challenged by the Kenyan philosopher, H. Odera Oruka, as based upon
Hountondjis unfair appreciation of Africas indigenous cultural heritage. Barry Hallen
and J. Olubi Sodipo, using a form of analytic philosophy as foundational, thereafter
argued that Yoruba ordinary language discourse also served to undermine Hountondjis
critique. The later work of the Ghanaian philosopher, Kwame Gyekye, and the Kenyan
D. A. Masolo have further legitimized the epistemological status of elements of African

74 Barry Hallen

culture that once would have been labeled as of no genuine philosophical significance
because they were ethnophilosophical in character. The end result of this debate seems
to be that both the form and content of philosophy in culture generally must be relativized.
The most significant consequence of this would be that African and non-Western
philosophy generally would finally be culturally liberated from the oppressive influence,
indeed dominance, of what has conventionally come to be known as mainstream
(Western) philosophy.

Introduction
The term ethnophilosophy has had its most significant influence in the area of
African philosophy. It is a curious word, in that its meaning over the past decades has
varied from originally being a term of abuse, virtually an invective, to now a normative
term that could in principle be applied to what is labeled philosophy in any culture. The
present paper traces some of the key points in this transformation.

Origins
The term ethnophilosophy appeared in a most dramatic fashion in 1970 in an essay
published by Paulin Hountondji, a philosopher from the Republic of Benin, entitled
Comments on Contemporary African Philosophy. Hountondji used the term to both
chastise and categorize the work of a number of Africanists who were some of the first to
link the word philosophy to the cultures of Africa in their published works (Tempels
1959; Griaule 1965; Mbiti 1969). He objected to the way these scholars linked the word
philosophy to the African intellectual heritage because they implicitly observed a
double-standard regarding its meaning, a double-standard that was demeaning to the
intellectual integrity of Africa generally:
This Belgian missionarys Bantu Philosophy still passes today, in the eyes
of some, for a classic of African philosophy. In fact, it is an ethnological
work with philosophical pretensions, or more simply, if I may coin the
word, a work of ethnophilosophy. . .

Ethnophilosophy Redefined? 75

Indeed, Bantu Philosophy did open the floodgates to a deluge of essays

which aimed to reconstruct a particular Weltanschauung, a specific worldview commonly attributed to all Africans, abstracted from history and
change and, moreover, philosophical, through an interpretation of the
customs and traditions, proverbs and institutions - in short, various data concerning the cultural life of African peoples. .
Africans are, as usual, excluded from the discussion, and Bantu
philosophy is a mere pretext for learned disquisitions among Europeans.
The black man continues to be the very opposite of an interlocutor; he
remains a topic, a voiceless face under private investigation, an object to
be defined and not the subject of a possible discourse (Hountondji 1970,
122).
For Hountondji, some of the distinctive characteristics of this offensive African
ethnophilosophy are as follows: (1) It presents itself as a philosophy of peoples rather
than of individuals. In Africa one is therefore given the impression that there can be no
equivalents to a Socrates or a Kant. Ethnophilosophy speaks only of Bantu philosophy,
Dogon philosophy, Akan philosophy; as such its scope is collective (or tribal), of the
world-view variety; (2) Its sources are in the past, in what is described as authentic,
traditional African culture of the pre-colonial variety, of the Africa prior to modernity.
These can be found in cultural byproducts that were primarily oral: parables, proverbs,
poetry, songs, myths - oral literature generally. Obviously, since such sources do not
present their philosophies in any conventionally discursive or technical format, it is the
academic scholars, rather than African peoples, who interpret or analyze them, and thus
come up with what they present as the systematized philosophy of an entire African
culture; (3) From a methodological point of view, ethnophilosophy therefore tends to
present the beliefs that constitute this philosophy as things that do not change, that are
somehow timeless. African traditional systems of thought are therefore portrayed as
placing minimal emphasis upon rigorous argumentation and criticism in a search for truth

76 Barry Hallen

that provides for discarding the old and creating the new. Tradition somehow becomes
antithetical to innovation. Disputes between academic ethnophilosophers thus arise
primarily over how to arrive at a correct interpretation of a static body of oral literature
and oral traditions.
If this material were to be presented as cultural anthropology or as straightforward
ethnography, Hountondji would have no objection to it. But when it is introduced as
philosophy, as African philosophy, a demeaning and subversive double-standard is
introduced that excuses African philosophy from having critical, reflective, rational,
scientific, and progressive content in any significantly cross-culturally comparative sense.
Hountondji does not hold the perpetrators of this unauthentic African philosophy
personally responsible for their crimes. In their day in their own intellectual circles they
believed they were doing something revolutionary, something genuinely radical and
progressive, by daring to link the word philosophy directly to African systems of
thought.

Contours of the Debate

The responses to Hountondjis clarion call to stop intellectually crucifying Africa in this
manner have been profound. At first, virtually no one wanted to risk being labeled an
ethnophilosopher, and there is no doubt that his critique led, in part, to the extensive
period of soul-searching in the 70s and early 80s on the part of African philosophers
over how philosophy in the African context should be construed. For the term
ethnophilosophy had, for many, become a euphemism for false and anti-African
African philosophy.
However, an African philosopher who disagreed almost immediately with what he
perceived as certain unfounded claims and implications of Hountondjis critique was H.
Odera Oruka of Kenya. Oruka insisted and set out to prove, empirically, that Africas
cultures had always had their own philosophers, sometimes designated as wise men or,
by Oruka, as sages. Their most distinctive attribute was not that they acted as passive

Ethnophilosophy Redefined? 77

repositories of rote-memorized, communally orthodox oral literature and traditions, but

that they critically analyzed and evaluated the beliefs and practices of their cultures, and
frequently disagreed with them on a rational basis. This Oruka succeeded in documenting
via a series of fieldwork recordings, principally in the Luo-speaking areas of his native
Kenya:
Some sages ... attain a philosophic capacity. As sages, they are versed in
the beliefs and wisdoms of their people. However, as thinkers, they are
rationally critical and they opt for or recommend only those aspects of the
beliefs and wisdoms which satisfy their rational scrutiny. In this respect,
they are potentially or contemporarily in clash with the die-hard adherents
of the prevailing common beliefs. Such sages are also capable of
conceiving and rationally recommending ideas offering alternatives to the
commonly accepted opinions and practices (Oruka 1990, 44).
Oruka also objected to other elements of Hountondjis argument which suggested that
something truly akin to serious philosophical thinking was more likely to develop when
Africas cultures became predominantly literate rather than oral in character. Hountondji
had suggested that orality tended to reinforce the status of beliefs as communal, while
literacy encouraged more diverse and independent trains of thought. In response, Oruka
asserted that he (Oruka) had succeeded in identifying individual, non-literate sages who
undertook original thinking about such philosophical fundamentals as God, religion, body
and mind, virtue, good and evil, truth and falsehood, happiness, life and death, justice,
freedom, equality, law, human suffering, punishment, ethnicity and communalism. For
Oruka, the presence of such sages was more than sufficient ground to prove that this
further claim of Hountondjis was also false.
Another response to Hountondjis critique was that formulated by J. Olubi Sodipo and
Barry Hallen at the University of Ife, Nigeria. Hallen and Sodipo chose to experiment
with the more conventionally academic ordinary language approach to analytic
philosophy (Austin 1961) in the African context, which focuses upon how people in a
particular society use certain words in their natural language in everyday life, in order to

78 Barry Hallen

precisely monitor their meanings and the criteria that govern their proper usage. But,
rather than treating individual concepts in isolation, the point was to place them in their
relevant fields of discourse - the network of other concepts with which they were
interrelated since all were somehow concerned with the same subject-matter. For
example, the network of concepts used to rate information as more or less reliable - a
topic of obvious relevance to epistemology or the theory of knowledge. In their
Knowledge, Belief, and Witchcraft: Analytic Experiments in African Philosophy (1986),
they set out to demonstrate that the Yoruba-language vocabulary and criteria used to
classify information as more or less reliable differed fundamentally from those derived
from English-language usage and treated as paradigmatic by (Western) academic
philosophical epistemology:
African philosophy, insofar as it may come to deal with the analysis of
African languages (or meanings) and evaluation of the beliefs of African
cultures, will not even be in a position to begin until such things have been
correctly understood and translated in a determinate manner. ....
For something has happened. A category of information that was supposed
to be knowledge no longer is. People who were supposed to be witches
no longer are. From a cross-cultural point-of-view we therefore believe
that this book introduces a new dimension into philosophy (not just into
African philosophy) by demonstrating that the criteria governing the
application of certain concepts in radically different language systems may
be of genuine philosophical significance (Hallen and Sodipo 1986, 124).
While Oruka consulted Luo wise men or sages for their diverse and critical opinions,
Hallen and Sodipo chose to target Yoruba (southwestern Nigeria) traditional healers or
masters of medicine as reliable sources for the correct usage of a selection of terms that
would correspond to, and hopefully make for meaningful comparisons with, the results of
similar exercises carried out by orthodox academic philosophers who targeted Englishlanguage ordinary, everyday usage.

Ethnophilosophy Redefined? 79

What is noteworthy about both of these responses to Hountondjis critique is that neither
succeeded, at least initially, in escaping being typed by their peers (as well as Hountondji
himself) as further manifestations of ethnophilosophy. Orukas research was criticized for
being philosophically simplistic and superficial: For it is one thing to show that there are
men capable of philosophical dialogue in Africa and another to show that there are
African philosophers [my italics] in the sense of those who have engaged in organized
systematic reflections on the thoughts, beliefs, and practices of their people (Bodunrin
1981, 170).
The key point in Bodunrins criticism seems to be that being critical of certain beliefs and
practices in ones culture is not enough to qualify anyone in any society as a professional
philosopher. In Hallen and Sodipos case, the fact that they turned to traditional healers as
their preferred sources of information about ordinary language usage has been interpreted
as assigning them a status comparable to Orukas sages. To a limited extent this analogy
is justified, in that the local population did regard them as those members of their
community most knowledgeable of the culture generally. But the fact that Hallen and
Sodipo - guided by the tenets of ordinary language philosophy - were using these men as
arbiters for the correct usage of ordinary, everyday, spoken language rather than as
sources of rational but idiosyncratic beliefs indicates a very different methodological
approach to philosophy in the African context from what Oruka was concerned to
develop with the school of thought he eventually designated as philosophic sagacity.

Cultural Elements in Contemporary African Philosophy

Many other African philosophers have contributed to what remained a vigorous debate
over the proper role of oral traditions in African philosophy (Appiah 1992; Imbo 2002;
Masolo 1994; Mudimbe 1988; Serequeberhan 1991; Wiredu 1980). But, beginning
roughly from the early 1990s, a kind of consensus was emerging that, although basing
African philosophy exclusively on such material might not be the best way to proceed, it
most certainly was entitled to a place in the writings of African philosophers who
regarded it as in some sense formative or even foundational. In part this was a response to

80 Barry Hallen

an increasingly global Western cultural imperialism; and in part it was either an implicit
or sometimes explicit acknowledgement that philosophers in the African context felt free
to chart their own methodological pathways if necessary so as to accommodate the
distinctive nature of Africas intellectual heritage.
One example of such a refined approach may be found in the work of the Ghanaian
philosopher, Kwame Gyekye. In his Tradition and Modernity: Philosophical Reflections
on the African Experience (1997), Gyekye makes a clear distinction between the
methodology he embraces and the results of that methodology when applied to elements
of his native Akan culture. The forthright phrasing of the opening statement of this book,
meant to summarize its aims, is characteristic:
[1] to stress the fact of the universal character of the intellectual activity
called philosophy - of the propensity of some individuals in all human
cultures to reflect deeply and critically about fundamental questions of
human experience; [2] to point out that philosophy is essentially a cultural
phenomenon; [3] to argue the legitimacy or appropriateness of the idea of
African philosophy and attempt a definition of (modern) African
philosophy; [4] and to demonstrate that there were sages or thinkers in
Africas cultural past who gave reflective attention to matters of human
existence at the fundamental level, and, as part of the demonstration, to
critically explore the philosophical ideas of the Akan traditional thinkers
(of Ghana) (Gyekye 1997, 9).
In his An Essay on African Philosophical Thought: The Akan Conceptual Scheme (1995),
Gyekyes approach to Akan philosophy is significantly conceptual. He identifies
terminology in Akan (Twi) discourse that is of philosophical significance. But he also
emphasizes the intellectual importance of proverbs in that culture, as analogous to
philosophical nuggets that contain highly condensed, judicious insights and wisdom,
characteristic of an oral culture that could not have recourse to extensive written tracts.
At the same time he rejects, categorically, a purely, technically philosophical, linguistic
or conceptualist approach to these materials (Gyekye 1995, 64-65). He does this because

Ethnophilosophy Redefined? 81

their function, most importantly, is not merely to express or to record wisdom - it is to

also serve as practical guides to life and human experience.
To research their practical consequences in Akan culture, Gyekye has undertaken what he
unabashedly refers to as fieldwork - seeking out sages in traditional Ghanaian society
who can explain this dimension to the concepts and proverbs he finds of interest (in effect,
they illuminate the relationship between theory and practice). But rather than remain with
sets of random concepts and proverbs and the isolated, individuated meanings or insights
they express, Gyekye sets out to weave them together (Gyekye 1995, 16) so that they can
then be seen to express more systematic philosophical viewpoints on such topics as God,
causality, free-will, and ethics or morality: By connection to the traditional, I ... [am]
only calling for some analytic attention to be paid also to the traditional thought
categories, values, outlooks, and so on, as a way of affirming an existing African
philosophical tradition, some features or elements of which may be considered worthy of
further philosophical pursuit (Gyekye 1995, p.xi-xii).
Gyekye further maintains that this philosophical substratum of Akan proverbs will turn
out in many cases to replicate the proverbial wisdom of other African cultures. This is a
thesis he explores in greater detail in a later book, African Cultural Values (1996). For
example, in a chapter on Moral Values, he favorably compares specific humanistic
values expressed by the Akan with similar virtues affirmed by the Yoruba ethnic group of
Nigeria in West Africa and the Swahili language and culture of East Africa. Yet at the
same time he wants to maintain that it would be a serious error to infer from this that
there is such a thing as a unique - in the sense that it contains ideas not found anywhere
else in the world - African (traditional) philosophy shared by all the subcontinents
peoples (Gyekye 1995, p.xvi). He is equally reluctant to argue that there is a unique Akan
cultural philosophy. According to him, what one does find in every culture in the world
are certain common philosophical concerns and questions to which different answers
(destiny versus free-will, for example) in different formats (proverbs versus deductive
arguments, for example) have been proposed. The particular combination or interrelation
of formats and answers to these concerns or questions found in a particular culture may

82 Barry Hallen

somehow be distinctive, but this is of a very different order from their being literally
unique to that culture.
Moreover, Gyekye argues that philosophy is a historical as well as cultural enterprise. By
this he means that the issues which concerned African philosophers in precolonial or
traditional times may not be the same as those that concern African philosophers in
modern or contemporary times (Gyekye 1995, p.xi-xii). But this does not imply that there
should be no connection between the two. He is prepared to be flexible about what
exactly that connection should be. From the standpoint of the history of philosophy in
Africa, all viewpoints relevant to traditional philosophy would become important. But
since the philosophical priorities and concerns of every society change over time, this
would mean that, from the standpoint of modern or contemporary African philosophy,
some traditional themes may prove of less interest or relevance than others.
Hountondji has also recently (2002) clarified his position on what he now prefers to term
African traditions of thought. When explicitly assessed from a critical philosophical
standpoint, they have every right to constitute an important dimension of African
philosophy. But this would constitute a very different approach to their significance than
when previously used to promote fairy-tale, tribal African philosophies manufactured in
an ad hoc manner from random proverbs and myths.

Philosophy as an Aspect of Culture

For a long time in academic philosophy in sub-Saharan Africa, much controversy over
the embattled concept of ethnophilosophy appeared to pit indigenous African knowledge
systems against philosophy as a specialized category of knowledge. The assumption in
much of that literature, and in the work of some diehard critics of the idea of African
philosophy to date, is that an idea cannot be both indigenous and philosophical at the
same time (Masolo 2003, 26).

Ethnophilosophy Redefined? 83

The most recent and comparatively radical metamorphosis of the meaning of the term
ethnophilosophy could be seen as a logical consequence of the history already
recounted. Ethnophilosophy began its conceptual life as an appellation used to
stigmatize what was said to be a distinctively dysfunctional form of African philosophy.
It was then liberated, insofar as it was then used to legitimize the inclusion of
distinctively African cultural elements in a scholarly discipline that could be considered
African-oriented yet philosophically scrupulous as far as professional or academic
standards were concerned (Gyekye 1997, 235-241). Most recently it has been elevated to
a kind of transcendent status in that, if this kind of approach is acceptable for African
philosophy then, in effect, it might also all along have been true of whatever was and is
termed philosophy in any culture - Western or non-Western.
This would mean that the priorities (the problems of philosophy) that distinguish it as a
discipline in Western cultures are themselves culturally generated, as are the priorities
that distinguish it in Asian cultures, and so forth. If indigenous content is legitimized, the
whole of philosophy becomes effectively, respectably tribalized. In effect, then, every
manifestation of even academic philosophy, wherever it occurs, might be said to
represent a form of ethnophilosophy. But what the West almost succeeded in doing was
persuading the rest of the world that its culturally-generated views of philosophy - its
ethnophilosophy - should be regarded as culturally universal, as forms of thought and
knowledge that all other cultures were compelled to imitate if they wished to be admitted
as members of that exclusive club known as academic philosophy:
The African ethnophilosophy controversy rekindles and contextualizes the
opposition between local and universal perceptions of knowledge. .... Thus,
the emergence of the social-construction-of-knowledge movement
(ethno-knowledge) clearly erodes its [science when presented as an
exclusively Western paradigm of universality, for example] force by
questioning its foundational status. In opposition to that which is alien,
foreign, or extraneous, the postulation of the adjective indigenous before
the characterization or name of any knowledge is to claim for the adjective

84 Barry Hallen

the desirability of autochthonomy (autochthony), self-representation, and

self-preservation (Masolo 2003, 25)

Conclusion
The overriding, critical issue for orthodox or establishment (Western) philosophy, of
course, will be to what extent the indigenization of knowledge and of philosophy opens
the door to relativism. For if knowledge and thereby truth were to become culturally or
linguistically defined and thereby potentially relativized, Western orthodoxy would view
the discipline of philosophy as entering into the mode of self-destruct. But, as the
intellectual fashions associated with multiculturalism and postcolonialism have
demonstrated (Mudimbe 1988), and as a Western-generated postmodernism has
highlighted, epistemological standards and priorities are also cultural byproducts
(Harding 1997). This would make the door referred to above disappear entirely, because
now non-Western, indigenous systems of knowledge should have prima facie integrity
and thereby equal representation and status in the global intellectual marketplace.

References
Appiah, K. Anthony. 1992. In My Fathers House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J.L. 1961. Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bodunrin, P.O. 1981. The Question of African Philosophy. Philosophy, Vol.56/216,
pp.161-179.
Griaule, Marcel. 1965. Conversations with Ogotemmeli. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gyekye, Kwame. 1995. An Essay on African Philosophical Thought: The Akan
Conceptual Scheme. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--. 1996. African Cultural Values. Philadelphia: Sankofa Publishing Company.
--. 1997. Tradition and Modernity: Philosophical Reflections on the African Experience.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hallen, Barry. 2000. The Good, the Bad, and the Beautiful: Discourse About Values in
Yoruba Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
--. 2006. African Philosophy: The Analytic Approach. Trenton, N.J.: Africa World Press.
--. 2009. A Short History of African Philosophy. 2nd rev. ed. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.

Ethnophilosophy Redefined? 85

Hallen, Barry and J. Olubi Sodipo. 1986. Knowledge, Belief and Witchcraft: Analytic
Experiments in African Philosophy. London: Ethnographica Ltd. (Revised edition
1997, Stanford University Press).
Harding, Sandra. 1997. Is Modern Science an Ethnoscience? Rethinking
Epistemological Assumptions. In Eze, E. ed. Postcolonial African Philosophy.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 45-70.
Hountondji, Paulin. 1970. Comments on Contemporary African Philosophy. Diogenes,
71, Paris: UNESCO, pp.120-140.
--. 1996. African Philosophy. Rev. ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
--. 2002. The Struggle for Meaning. Athens: Ohio University Center for International
Studies.
Imbo, Sam Oluoch. 2002. Oral Traditions as Philosophy: Okot pBiteks Legacy for
African Philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Janz, Bruce B. 2009. Philosophy in an African Place. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Karp, Ivan and D.A. Masolo. eds. 2000. African Philosophy as Cultural Inquiry.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Masolo, D.A. 1994. African Philosophy in Search of Identity. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
--. 2003. Philosophy and Indigenous Knowledge: An African Perspective. Africa Today,
Vol.50 No.2, Fall/Winter, pp.21-38.
--. 2010. Self and Community in a Changing World. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Mbiti, John. 1970. African Religions and Philosophy. New York: Doubleday.
Mudimbe, V.Y. 1988. The Invention of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Oruka, H. Odera. ed. 1990. Sage Philosophy: Indigenous Thinkers and the Modern
Debate on African Philosophy. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Serequeberhan, Tsenay. ed. 1991. African Philosophy: The Essential Readings. New
York: Paragon House.
Tempels, Placide. 1959. Bantu Philosophy. Paris: Presence Africaine.
Wiredu, Kwasi. 1980. Philosophy and an African Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.