Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Bakheit Mohammed Nur
(University of Bayreuth)
Rüdiger Seesemann (University of Bayreuth)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel
- Stream:
- Location-based African Studies: Discrepancies and Debates
- Location:
- S67 (RW I)
- Sessions:
- Tuesday 1 October, -, -
Time zone: Europe/Berlin
Short Abstract:
This panel proposes to scrutinize the epistemic power relations between the Global North and the Global South together with their impact on the political economy of knowledge production in and about Africa as carried out from different locations and loci of enunciation.
Long Abstract:
In academic forums concerned with the reconfiguration of African Studies in Europe, Africa and the Americas, scholars frequently debate the rationale for studying Africa. While appearing simple on the surface, the question of why we study Africa has profound epistemological, methodological, relational, and ethical ramifications. It challenges the validity of knowledge produced in the framework of African Studies and probes claims to the objectivity of research methodologies. Furthermore, the inquiry into knowledge production in African Studies raises questions about the extent to which academic works perpetuate colonial and epicolonial images of the continent produced by hegemonic power differentials past and present.
This panel proposes to scrutinize the epistemic power relations between the Global North and the Global South together with their impact on the political economy of knowledge production in and about Africa at different locations around the globe. In particular, the panel seeks to engage with multiplicity, relationality, reflexivity, and decoloniality as conceptual tools for the reconfiguration of African Studies. How do academics and institutions in the field view, design and reconfigure their working relationships, institutional structures, theoretical and methodological toolboxes, research ethics, epistemologies, and intellectual representations? What does their respective locus of enunciation entail for their approach to the study of Africa? What challenges are current attempts to reconfigure African studies facing? How do scholars address these challenges? The panel invites papers that engage with theoretical, empirical, methodological, intersectional, and decolonial dimensions of the current state and future direction of African Studies.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Tuesday 1 October, 2024, -Paper short abstract:
Drawing on 1260 readings from 24 undergraduate syllabi in North America, this paper investigates the content and instructional approaches in the teaching of "African politics.” I critique the hegemonic concepts and theories from the Global North and present alternative perspectives and approaches.
Paper long abstract:
Drawing on 1260 readings from 24 undergraduate syllabi in North America, this paper investigates the dominant content and instructional approaches in the teaching of "African politics.” Despite recent momentum around decolonizing curricula, most courses still rely predominantly on articles and books written by male non-African authors based in the Global North. These materials are more likely to engage in sweeping generalizations about how politics works on the continent, employing concepts like “neopatrimonalism”, “personal rule”, and “clientelism”. While some of these “seminal” materials make use of secondary Africa-wide data to support their broad claims, in other cases the supporting evidence for such generalizations remains elusive or unconvincing (e.g., a lab experiment in one African capital city). Next, the paper underscores that the books and articles most prominent in North American classrooms have been cited between 1,000 and 6,000 times, whereas the materials offering counternarratives or critiques, from non-African and African authors alike, typically receive less than 500 citations. Finally, I conclude with two suggested remedies for the current situation. The first is that book and journal editors change the incentives for authors so that generalizations to all of Africa are made with far greater caution and qualification (through their submission guidelines and guidance to reviewers). Second, I advocate for an alternative approach to teaching that emphasizes counter-hegemonic narratives and amplifies the voices of Africans and women. I provide examples of suggested readings and instructional methods that encourage students to think critically about power relations and knowledge production in “African politics.”
Paper short abstract:
While recognising the enormity and complexity of various challenges, I want to focus on my experience, specifically on what I call “triple hurdles”. The triple hurdles are epistemic orientation, language, and passport positionality.
Paper long abstract:
The challenges associated with epistemic orientations emanate from the hegemony of Eurocentric epistemologies in development studies. The universalist claim and hegemony of Euro-centred knowledge frameworks, theories and concepts contribute to disregarding and discrediting ways of knowing and interpreting the world I have been exposed to growing up in Ethiopia. Hence, bringing non-Eurocentric epistemic orientations into my teaching and research is always challenging. The second hurdle concerning language concerns the normalisation of English as the only language for producing academic output recognised in evaluating my academic success and achievements. The incentives to produce academic outputs in languages other than English are almost non-existent. As a result, aspiring academics like me are discouraged from producing knowledge outputs easily accessible by most people from whom the empirical data is gathered and about whom most research in development studies/African studies is apparently concerned. The third hurdle is passport positionality, where the nationality/passport of academics becomes a restricting factor for their social and physical mobility. This includes the expensive fees that immigrants pay to renew their and family members' visas and the massive sums of money, time, and psychological resources that Global South academics pay when they plan to travel for academic activities (such as applying for Schengen Visas). I want to reflect on how the implications of these “triple hurdles” can be further explored and reflected on within the context of pursuing social and epistemic justice while examining possibilities of reconfiguring African studies.
Paper short abstract:
This paper contributes to conversations about the reconfiguration of African Studies by proposing solutions ranging from funding models, methodology, citation politics, etc. even within the larger reality of asymmetrical economic power relations between the Global North and the Global South.
Paper long abstract:
The conundrum of the reconfiguration of African Studies is entangled with a whole set of other attendant problems mostly centred around the question of economic power as a base. The base of this power in economic relations between the Global North and the Global South manifests in the superstructure of knowledge production in academia that demonstrate these unequal relations. The calls for the reconfiguration of African Studies must necessarily address the waning power of the call of decolonisation that has been weakened by academic careerism, political correctness appeasement by those in power, managerial co-option of genuine struggles, etc. I propose a series of deployments with clear indicators to address some of these challenges as far as possible within the framework of hegemonic economic relations while admitting to the impossibility of reconfiguring towards decolonisation any academic institution without reconfiguring the entire economic and political system that governs those very institutions. Even with such profound limitations, there are a few the steps that Africans, the African diaspora and allies can undertake towards decolonisation. There can be no total epistemic justice outside of economic justice that (re)produce the very relations of the Global North and the Global South. The political economy of knowledge owes its being to the actual political economy between Africa, its friends, frenemies and enemies.
Paper short abstract:
This paper contends that the asymmetrical power dynamics in knowledge production ‘on’ and ‘in’ Africa ought to be urgently addressed with some responsibilities on the shoulders of academic and non-academic actors in African Studies.
Paper long abstract:
African Studies, today, is confronted with a serious problem of asymmetrical power relations of distinctive epistemic kind. In addressing this problem, there has been an increasing call towards decoloniality aiming at dismantling colonial historical structures and epistemes that continue to reinforce disparities in the quality and positionality of knowledge production in African Studies. Desirable as the push towards decoloniality is in re-ordering epistemic power relations in contemporary African Studies, the question is: who sets such agenda and whose responsibility is it in ensuring its realisation? This paper contends that the power dynamics in knowledge production ‘on’ and ‘in’ Africa ought to be urgently addressed with some responsibilities on the shoulders of academic and non-academic actors in African Studies. This paper further argues that African scholars have a foundational responsibility both in designing new transdisciplinary paradigms of indigenous methodologies and epistemologies and setting agenda from within for the field, while non-academic actors like the activists and daily knowledge curators of indigenous knowledges have the responsibility of keeping the tide on bridging the power disparities. Some critical challenges such as existentiality and authentic south epistemologies in the realisation of the agenda setting and responsibilities mapping between academia and non-academic actors in African Studies are hypothesised and responded to.