AFRIKAN MASCULINITIES AND CULTURE

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 DECOLONIAL THOUGHT

INTRODUCTION

Decolonial thought – not to be confused with postcolonial studies or critique of colonization – is a critical study of global power-relations, which helps to understand contemporary manifestations of historical colonialism. The investigation of coloniality of power, knowledge and being is located in a realisation of the asymmetrical world order in which Black humanity and Afrikan knowledge is doubted and marginalised. This chapter consults literature to understand how decoloniality relates to the study of Afrikan masculinities and philosophy of education.

DEFINING DECOLONIALITY

Decolonial thought differs from postcolonial studies and theories of decolonization. Although the three are related, decolonial thought refers to a specific focus associated with critical research on modernity and coloniality. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013) described it as an analytical tool to understand historically infused power imbalances:
“Decoloniality is born out of a realisation that ours is an asymmetrical world order that is sustained not only by colonial matrices of power but also by pedagogies and epistemologies of equilibrium that continue to produce alienated Afrikans who are socialised into hating the Afrika that produced them and liking the Europe and America that rejects them” (p. 11).
According to Mignolo (2009), honest scholarship involves acknowledging that the academic world has been built on a Western premise, filtered through a colonial matrix of power, conceptualised through a racial system of social classification and compartmentalised through a remapping of the world into first, second and third world countries. Mignolo (2009:7) also identifies two emerging directions of what he terms epistemic disobedience within global knowledge production and social development. He refers to one of these directions as de-westernisation − which may be described as a countermovement within a capitalist economy in terms of which the rules are no longer defined by Western players and institutions – and the second direction as a de-colonial position − which includes various ideological streams which have in common the fact that they are based on a definitive rejection of accepting the role of “the other” and a reorientation of European centred modernity.
As outlined by Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013), decoloniality is often premised on three concepts: coloniality of power (studies the asymmetrical power structure of current global politics), coloniality of knowledge (questions who generates knowledge and for what purpose, and how it has been used to assist imperialist development) and coloniality of being (investigates how Whiteness has gained extreme ontological density and the dehumanization of “the other”). To think and act in accordance with decoloniality means to go against the stream. To question everything. To disrupt, oppose, refuse and denounce. To decolonise is to attack oppression fearlessly. This, in the words of Fanon (1963), is always violent; it opposes the framework of possibility. It moves the native from her/his colonial position of “repetition without difference” and existence “outside of time” to rescript new meaning, presence and action.
What this means is that to rethink what has become known as “conventional knowledge”, in a decolonial sense, makes a complete paradigm shift necessary. In addition to problematizing the coloniality of knowledge embedded within Westernized institutions and modernist societies, decolonial thought must aim to bring about another world (Banazak & Ceja, 2008). It stands in opposition to international power designs that claim to be of universal validity and attempt to create a multitude of liberating knowledges, forms, visions, concepts and approaches in the world.

DISCOURSES OF DECOLONIALITY

Views in decolonial thinking

Referencing an overview authored by Banazak and Ceja (2008), we can summarise six main views in decolonial thinking:
1. There is a distinction between colonialism and coloniality
When they use the term “colonialism,” decolonial thinkers are referring to a form of political domination with corresponding institutions; when they use the term “coloniality,” they are referring to something more important for them, namely, a pattern of comprehensive and deep-reaching power spread throughout the world. Decolonial thinkers view the present human subject as constructed to a large extent by coloniality. Categories such as class and gender are part of that construction. Decolonial thought is distinguished by its attempts to explain the relationship between such categories rather than simply juxtapose them.
2. Coloniality is the “dark side” of modernity
Unlike many theorists of modernity who consider colonialism a “deviation” or “phase” of modernity which has already been transcended, decolonial thinkers maintain that modernity is indissolubly linked to coloniality. There would be no modernity without coloniality and coloniality presupposes modernity. In this view, modernity serves as a marker that divides the world into the powerful and the marginalised. Those who can define and those that are defined. In other words, there is no “us” (modernity) without a “not us” or a “them” (non-modernity). Colonised knowledge, being, territories, and populations are epistemically, ontologically, and socially inferiorized by the colonist glance (see Mignolo, 2000: ix–x).
3. Thinking must be done in terms of the world-system
Decolonial thought does not analyse countries or isolated regions; rather it is interested in understanding what happens in a region as it is related to the world system. The world system is the basic geo-political reference point for decolonial thought. Since modernity does not exist without coloniality, the various theorist of decolonial thought will often speak of a modern / colonial world system. That is, the modern world system is produced by European colonial expansion which connected, for the first time in history, all parts of the world and thus reaches a new global scale. From that moment on, local experiences in any region of the planet are impossible outside of their connection to the context of this world system.
4. Eurocentric and intra-modern discourses of modernity must be problematized
Historical, sociological, cultural and philosophical narratives which are used in modernity are the result of Eurocentric and intra-modern perspectives. They presuppose that modernity originated in Europe and has been exported, with greater or lesser success, to other parts of the world; and they assume that modernity can be understood in the light of Europe and these other sections of the globe. In contrast, decolonial thought holds that Europe is best understood from the perspective of a world-system and that Europe is not the origin but a result of that world-system, its technologies of government, and its discursive formations.
5. Rather than a new paradigm, decolonial thought is an “other paradigm”
Decolonial thought does not aim to be consolidated as a new paradigm within the academy (as for example post-structuralism and post-colonialism) but to question the epistemic criteria for the production of academic knowledge associated with Eurocentrism and modernity; and produce knowledge that is not Eurocentric but formed from the colonial difference. That is, it aims at an “other paradigm”; what is sought in decolonial thought is not only a change of the contents of conversation but also a change of the limits and conditions of conversations. More specifically, we don’t need new ideas; we need a completely new way of thinking.
6. Decolonial thought aspires to a decolonial project
Decolonial thought not only aims at problematizing the coloniality of knowledge incarnated in Eurocentric academic institutions and modernist narratives. It also aims to bring about other worlds. Hence, decolonial thought gives rise to an ethics and a politics of pluriversality (a combination of the words “pluri” and “universality”) (see Grosfoguel, 2012). Standing in opposition to global and totalitarian designs, created in the name of universality (which usually means a particularity claiming to be universal), pluriversality is an attempt to make visible and viable a multiplicity of knowledges, forms of being, and visions of the world.
It is, ultimately, the “decolonial project” – in direct dialogue with concepts of transdisciplinarity, critical theory, Afrikology and Afrikan-centred praxis that makes decolonial thought particularly relevant for this study; to position the analytical gaze – as it discusses the experiences, the challenges and the aspirations of Afrikan masculinities – in the world as seen by Afrikan men themselves.

Fallism as decoloniality

A number of uprisings, confrontational debates, issues of contestation and protest have been staged around the Afrikan continent in recent years. As an aftermath to the Arab spring, student protests in countries like Cameroon, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt and South Afrika, the Fallist movements of South Afrika, the impact of the Black Lives Matter campaign started by Afrikan American youth and a gradual re-popularization of decolonization and critical thinking among Afrikan youth, questions like space, power, ownership, education, coloniality and hegemony were raised, and change was demanded. Demands that, by some, were seen as unreasonable, but that the grossly popular superhero film, Black Panther, seemed to effortlessly accept as a premise: Unapologetic Afrikan-defined space, innovation, construction, sustainability, identity, leadership and equity were presented as a norm, not a controversial, revolutionary cause.
The many student uprisings taking place in South Afrika between 2015 and 2017, often referred to as “Fees Must Fall”, serve as an interesting example of practical decoloniality. The Fallist approach to oppressive realities has been one of confrontation, demand and non-negotiation. Using Fanon as a reference, Xaba (2017) argues that such uprisings – often labelled as violent by the media – are necessitated by the fact that:
“State violence and structural racism is normalised [and] when the poor respond to structural violence they are problematised and criminalised” (p. 1).
For young people, these are experiences where lack of hope and disinterest becomes the result of constant attempts to raise voices that, in the final instance, are ignored. When you are victimized by structural violence which restricts the provision of basic human needs/rights and you – in addition to the oppressive experience – have to force authorities to take your complaints seriously, and, when the end result of this not only is that you are ignored, but also seen as a provocation, it leads to social death. You no longer exist; your life is made to be completely insignificant.
The idea of Fallism – loosely defined as campaigns against structures, concepts or positions that must be rendered invalid and “fall” (Moya, 2016) – emerged in South Afrika in 2015 (Mangcu, 2016) and developed into radical, uncompromising efforts by students to challenge university policies (Xaba, 2017). Drawing from the country’s rich history of youth uprisings, students popularized a currency of critical thinking and radicalization, brought to national attention by the Rhodes Must Fall, Fees Must Fall and a number of related movements. These uprisings became channels for student protest against the colonial residue, discriminatory fee structures, and living conditions for Black students and Westernized curricula represented on South Afrikan university campuses.
Fallism became a series of many co-related actions aiming to highlight, denounce and end oppression against Black people (see Taghavi, 2017). The campaigns were not only directed towards universities, but also addressed the colonial nation state as an instrument for inflicting structural violence on poor Black South Afrikans on a daily basis (Xaba, 2017). The student movements, founded in Black Consciousness, Pan-Afrikanism and – to a certain degree – Black Radical Feminism, brought to the fore uncomfortable and sensitive questions that South Afrika had not fully discussed in public, at least outside of party politics. Concepts such as anti-Black, Black non-being, White privilege, decolonising education, repossession of land and ending patriarchy were widely discussed and created a broader national consciousness, reflected on social media platforms, radio and in newspapers.
The background to the movements can perhaps be traced back to smaller movements, largely spearheaded by Black youth in townships, such as Blackwash and September National Imbizo (SNI) who in 2009-2010 started mobilizing youth around Black critical thought (see Tafira, 2013). These movements, inspired by iconic leaders such as Steve Bantu Biko, Frantz Fanon, Thomas Sankara and Chinweizu, brought about radical interpretations of political ideas previously advocated by Pan Afrikan and Black Consciousness movements in South Afrika in the 1960s. In 2012, Julius Malema, the then President of the ANC Youth League, was expelled from ANC for his radical views and went on to start the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in 2013, which quickly gathered a substantial following and came third in the 2014 general elections. Suddenly, young, politicized voices spoke uncompromisingly in parliament, media and academic symposiums; places that had previously been associated with subdued criticism and a reluctance to exhibit confrontational rhetoric.
These dynamics – coupled with the many civil actions, lawsuits and protests staged around the country, in which young people played a strong role – focused on issues that marginalized and disempowered Black people in general. It sparked a new approach in which youth unapologetically attacked representations of colonialism and westernization and militantly criticized government, education policies and the economy, which continued to marginalize and oppress Black people. In 2015, Rhodes must Fall led to Fees must Fall and in a matter of months, the whole country saw protests by students who demanded to be heard.
These radical movements influenced new conversations in most corners of society and reminded people in government that young people were no longer prepared to be silent and accept being ignored. Gender discrimination was among the disparities highlighted. Next to the discussion of how white supremacy and capitalism marginalises Black existence, patriarchy was also described as a power construct where Black women were excluded and invalidated. This opened up a new discourse on the role of men in general, and Black men in particular. Terms like “toxic masculinity”, “cultures of violence” and “harmful practices” were heatedly debated and brought forth a need for men to rexamine what masculinity means, especially in an Afrikan context. More than anything, the Fallist movement caused disruption to terms, perspectives, values and practices that were seen to be the norm. There are several important lessons that can be drawn directly from the critique positioned by the student movements. They can be summarized, for the purposes of this study, into three main positions:
The need to re-think (to oppose the status quo and what is considered normal, classic, standard etc., to position dewesternization and to draw knowledge from outside of what has been positioned as the main theoretical frame).
The need to re-envision (to draw inspiration from Afrikan sources, to “see with different eyes” and unmute indigenous voices within places of research, conceptualization, policy making and planning).
The need to re-build (to dismantle what has been colonised and built with new enthusiasm that empowers, liberates and enables).
These are positions inspired by the articulations of young protestors and can serve as a guideline for how to reshape problematic aspects of masculinity in Afrikan societies.

WHAT DECOLONIALITY MEANS IN THE STUDY OF AFRIKAN MASCULINITIES

Decoloniality – in an Afrikan context – demands a converging point between epistemological theories and methodological actions. As a bold dismissal of a Western-centric reality which seeks to reconstitute and revalidate its own worldview, decoloniality becomes a process of rescripting the Afrikan as a subject in her/his own location. A drive, then emerges, to liberate the Afrikan subject and seeing the study of
– and engagement by – the Afrikan subject as a prerequisite to open up the possibility of liberation.
When discussing masculinity in Afrika, colonization may be referred to, but it rarely is placed at the centre of the analysis. Lugones (2016), writing from a feminist angle, has brought together critical race theory, coloniality of power and analysis of gender dynamics by women of color, in order to understand intersectionality better. We may borrow from this angle to discover multiplicities of colonial impacts on Afrikan masculinity. Patriarchy, as a hierarchy of male oppression, played a central role in the colonial project. Through a decolonial lens, it becomes clear that the political oppression of Afrikans has also been gendered. An overarching male bias has served to silence, omit and ridicule women’s presence, opinions and experiences. In a very similar way to how the experience of Afrikan people, collectively, have been silenced, omitted and ridiculed.
In this study, the decolonial lens is aiming at the experience of Afrikan men. Colonisation and coloniality has not only targeted Afrikan men, but this study argues that the roles and lives of Afrikan men have been – and continue to be – strongly affected by its histories of hegemonic oppression. It argues that the way in which contemporary Afrikan masculinities are associated with toxicity, abuse, violence and lack of consideration, it is an extension of – and a result of – the atrocities meted out against men as colonial objects.
Decolonising Afrikan masculinities, in this study, is directly linked the conceptual pillars of the decolonial, epistemic perspectives of power, knowledge and being (Ndlovu- Gatsheni 2013). In regards to power, the decolonial interest lies in understanding how a global, assymetrial – and geo-political – power structure affect Afrikan men’s reality, identities, values, choices and actions. Concerning knowledge, the investigation turns to what is known about Afrikan men, who creates such knowledge and how this relates to the imperial agenda. Lastly, in relation to being, it is of interest to see how Afrikan men relate to the Black experience, Other’ing, dehumanization and the vacuum of meaning that erupts when representing the opposition to – and primary victim of – Whiteness.
The question of Afrikan male subjectivity occupies the central focus in this examination. What does the Afrikan man know about himself? How has he been scripted by colonial histories and in what way does he rescript himself away from these? Here, the need for a methodology, a melting together of theory and action – epistemology and methodology – appears with urgency.
In this study, coloniality in the space of masculinity also means to question, disrupt, displace, rattle and unsettle what may be seen as regular, normal and conventional. It is understood that dominant perspectives – such as qualitative, quantative and triangulation methodologies – are irrelevant in understanding the Afrikan man from within. These perspectives are located in what Ake (1982) calls “sciences of equilibrium”; they represent a contaminated ideological bias of mainstream Western science and are part of a modernity project that is opposed to change. Within this, the physics of power are hidden.
Mignolo (2011a) that all thinking is located somewhere. It is of great importance that Afrikan men – as subjects – are understood in the location that informs their thinking; within the location where their subjectivity is articulated and in the location that addresses the direction where subjection comes from. In other words, the attempt the Afrikan man makes to represent the “Othered” self.
This points to a decolonial critical analysis, a methodological intervention that gives primacy to the lives and experiences of Afrikan men, in the way they experience them as Afrikan subjects.
“…questions the truth of authorigy, techniques to reveal the figures of power that operate in dominant discourses or ideologies at Euro North-American episteme” (Hardt 2011:19).
A number of decolonial epistemic perspectives have been positioned over the years, each with its own history, dynamics and effects (Sithole, 2014): Negritude, Pan-Afrikanism, Ethiopianism, Afrikan Personality, Black Theology, Afrikan Humanism, Black Consciousness, Afrocentricity and others. Although gender often has been explored within these perspectives, the male perspective, position, role and view has had a tendency to dominate, take on the role as a sole narrator (or thought producer) and “own” the liberation narrative. A truly decolonial mission in regards to Afrikan masculinity must be driven by what Dastile (2013: refers to as “[a]n African centred epistemological framework and ontological location” (p. 93). This creates a need for groundedness in the lived realities of Afrikan men in order to contribute to a new generation of knowledge, marked by epistemic justice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.2 MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION AND OBJECTIVES
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN
1.7 PLACING THE RESEARCHER’S WORK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.9 STRUCTURE OF STUDY
CHAPTER 2 AFRIKAN MASCULINITIES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 DEFINITIONS OF MASCULINITY
2.3 STUDIES OF AFRIKAN MASCULINITY
2.4 AFRIKAN MASCULINITIES AND HISTORY
2.5 AFRIKAN MASCULINITIES AND CULTURE
2.6 CHALLENGES IN AFRIKAN MASCULINITIES
2.7 CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ON AFRIKAN MASCULINITIES
2.8 MASCULINITY IN A SOUTH AFRIKAN CONTEXT
2.9 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3 DECOLONIAL THOUGHT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 DEFINING DECOLONIALITY
3.3 DISCOURSES OF DECOLONIALITY
3.4 WHAT DECOLONIALITY MEANS IN THE STUDY OF AFRIKAN MASCULINITIES
3.5 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 4 PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 CULTURAL BASIS FOR AN INNOVATIVE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION
4.3 FREIRE AND DIALOGICAL ACTION
4.4 AFRIKANIZATION; INNOVATIVE AFRIKAN PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION
4.5 RITES OF PASSAGE AS A PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION
4.6 AFRIKOLOGY AND AFRIKAN-CENTRED PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION
4.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 5 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 AFROCENTRICITY, AFRIKOLOGY AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.3 FRAME OF REFERENCE
5.4 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH (PAR)
5.5 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 6 RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCESS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
6.3 DATA ANALYSES
6.4 CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE STUDY’S RELIABILITY (TRUSTWORTHINESS)
6.5 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 7 FINDINGS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 THE WISDOM OF ELDER VHO-MATSHEKA
7.3 THE ROLE OF AFRIKAN MEN
7.4 AFRIKAN MEN – BEING AND BECOMING
7.5 AFRIKAN MEN, HISTORY AND DECOLONIZATION
7.6 CULTURAL SOLUTIONS FOR AFRIKAN MEN
7.7 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR AFRIKAN MASCULINITIES
7.8 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 CENTRAL ISSUES
8.3. TOWARDS AN INNOVATIVE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION FOR AFRIKAN MASCULINITIES
8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.5 RELIABILITY, LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS
8.6 CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT