Suren Pillay, Africa is a Country
This text is a transcription of a talk given at
Azania House, Bremner Building, University of Cape Town, April 2015.
I want to thank you all for this wonderful
invitation to be a part of the conversations you have been having here at UCT,
and at Azania House. We, those outside your university, and at other
universities, down the road and across the country, are watching with great
enthusiasm and inspired by the courage and thoughtfulness with which you are
conducting this moment of subversion. I have to say that I am in particular
very encouraged by the connections you have made between subjections of
different kinds, particularly two very neglected forms of subjection — in the
sphere of knowledge production, and in the sphere of gender and sexuality.
These are remarkable connections and the kind of leadership that is visible to
those of us on the outside, shows a genuine effort to unsettle imperial hubris,
but also patriarchal power relations.
I have been asked to speak on “Decolonizing the
University”, and I am going to say a few things that I think don’t need saying
here, because the discussions you have had are already ahead of many of us in
thinking about this question. But the first thing I suppose I would say is that
we — those of us in pockets all around the country – UWC, Unisa, Rhodes, Fort
Hare — many pockets — are all dealing with this question of what to do with the
Universities we have inherited within the larger question of justice and the
transformations of the wrongs of apartheid. I would like to think of these
wrongs of apartheid as violences.
I want to make a distinction between three kinds
of violences we confront in South Africa, and that we inherited.
The first is political violence, the second
economic violence, and the third epistemic violence. Each of these violences —
political, economic, and epistemic — carries with them demands for justice. I
will say that justice in relation to the
first two that we have probably spent most of our time focusing on, and it
is the first two that animate most of
our political discourse and oppositional discourse.
Let me elaborate. The history of state formation
in South Africa is the history of settler colonialism. And at the heart of
settler colonialism is the removal, decimation, alienation and dispossession of
the population that was there by an external grouping. The magical trick that
settler colonialism performs is to denaturalize the right to belong of the
local population — to make them foreigners, while naturalizing the foreigner as
the person who has the right to belong. Foreigners become natives and natives
become foreigners. You know that old anecdote — “they came with the bible and
we had the land, they told us to close our eyes. We opened our eyes, and we had
the bible, but they had the land”. This magical trick of settler colonialism
was a political decision, legitimated
through law and enacted and administered by a bureaucracy. Millions of people
moved and removed and separated and thousands violently repressed for
resisting. The violence of migrant labour, of forced removals and dislocated
families, this is the political violence we inherited.
By political justice I mean the justice through
which this particular wrong was righted. The justice we answered this injustice
with could have followed two options. The first could have been, following much
of the experience of other African countries who inherited such a problem, was
to turn the tables — if the foreigner was made native and the native made
foreigner through colonial injustice, postcolonial justice could now make the
foreigner once more foreigner, and the native once more native. That was one option.
It was exercised as a form of citizenship in many African countries after
independence when the question of who belonged where was decided. The other
option was to try to decolonize the question of citizenship — by changing the
terms that colonialism gave us — foreigner, settler, native — and work towards
a form of citizenship which was not about where you are from, but where you are
at. This was in many ways remarkable and not the norm for most of the
continent. I know there is growing controversy over this, but I will leave it
there for now. My point is that political violence was answered through a
particular form of political justice.
Economic violence many of us are familiar with
and deeply troubled by — it is the reason we have the highest inequality in the
world, and racialized poverty and universities that are mostly black and mostly
white and mostly rich and mostly poor. If political justice solved the
citizenship question, we know it didn’t solve the question of economic justice.
I think we are all familiar with the new political movements that have emerged
as a result of that problem. And we also might agree that it was, and is, this
economic violence that drives most of
the discussion on the transformation of the education system, which focuses on
access for those previously excluded. Economic violence and the demand for
economic justice is the dominant slogan of our time now.
The third violence, epistemic violence, is
perhaps the most difficult one to confront. That’s perhaps because it is so
invisible, so naturalized, so part of the ordinary and every day life that it’s
hard to talk about. And yet it is perhaps the most important of the three
violences. Why would I say that? Well, you have to think a person an animal
first in order to treat them like an animal. You have to have a concept of what
a human looks like first, in order to misrecognize another human as property or
a slave. Epistemic violence is about thought.
And the political and economic effects of that thought. Colonialism’s political violence and capitalisms’s economic
violence had to be thought first. The abstract history of the march of human
freedom, let’s not forget, is also the concrete history of conquest,
colonialism, patriarchy, and the struggle for equality.
Epistemic violence is then in the very marrow of
everything we think is good about our modernity, its concepts and its
achievements. If the struggle for political and economic transformation asks
where are our black students and where are our black professors, the struggle
against epistemic violence adds: and what are we teaching and researching and
how are we doing that and why are we doing that?
Because the university is a place of
authoritative knowledge, certified knowledge, it is at the heart of epistemic violence.
It is where authorized and legitimate knowledge is cultivated, preserved and
protected but also changed. More so, when we think of the modern university in
Africa. I am not talking about the university in general, since there were
famous ancient seats of learning in Africa before colonialism, the Alexandra
Museum and Library in Cairo in 3rd Century BC. In Ethiopia as Paul Zeleza
reminds us, under the “Zagwe dynasty in the twelfth century” monastic education
“included higher education”, and there was “the Qine Bet (School of Hymns),
followed by the Zema Bet (School of Poetry, and at the pinnacle was an
institution called Metsahift Bet (School of the Holy Books) that provided a
broader and more specialized education in religious studies, philosophy, history,
and the computation of time and calendar, among various subjects.” There was
also of course the “Ez-Zitouna university in Tunis founded in 732. Next came
al-Qarawiyyin mosque university established in Fez in 859 by a young migrant
female princess from Qairawan (Tunisia), Fatima Al-Fihri. The university
attracted students and scholars from Andalusian Spain to West Africa.”
And then there was also course the learning at
Timbactou, and so on.
What we are talking about here is the modern
European University in the form that is globalized today. That form of the
university mostly arrives in the rest of the continent as a postcolonial
invention, after independence. South Africa with its settler colonial history
has a longer encounter with the university. Being at the heart of epistemic
violence, the university is however not
simply, as this moment attests, a conveyor belt of automatons, or robots or
ideological zombies of the dominant interests and order. The modern university
is also that site of constant invention, contestation, negotiation, subversion
and potentially, reinvention.
The concept of decolonizing the university is
then also about justice that addresses the epistemic violence of colonial
knowledge and colonial thought. In many respects we in South Africa are
mafikizolo’s. We are the Johnny come-lately’s to a problem that many before us
have grappled with, whether it be early debates at Lovedale college now Fort
Hare, the postcolonial reform of education in South Asia and the Middle East, the
famous debates on the hill at Dar Es Salaam, the Ibadan and Dakar schools of
history, or in its more scary versions the crass Africanization of just about
everything in Mobutu’s Zaire. There is much to study and much to learn from.
There are many examples to be inspired by, and perhaps too many examples of
pitfalls and mistakes. So in our conversations so far, I think the first thing
we did was to realize that decolonizing — or having a postcolonial critique of
— in our case humanities and social
sciences, was actually an obligation to learning. It was a moment of coming to
terms with the realization that our education had equipped us very well to know
many things. But it had also equipped us excellently to be ignorant of most of
the world and arrogant about our ignorance. This reinforced the heritage of
settler colonialism directly or indirectly. We do after all think that we live
in the West in South Africa. The assumption in this arrogance of ignorance can
be traced to the old mantra of the colonial administrator of India, Thomas
Babington MacCauley, who famously quipped: “a single shelf of a good European
library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.” He didn’t
even of course bother to say anything about Africa, since he like Hegel concurred
that there was no evidence of civilization to be found on this dark continent
in the first place. Now this is what we of course call epistemic violence. It
authorizes thinking about Others in ways that enables political and economic
violence to be enacted on the bodies of subject men and especially women. It
also authorizes ignorance since it reinforces the prejudice that there is
nothing much to learn from these parts of the world that could make us better,
or help us create a better world. That is what we are talking about when we say
we have a Eurocentric worldview in our education. It centers the idea of
Europe, as a metaphor, and turns all others into bit players or loiterers
without intent on the stage of world history, either too lazy to do anything
ourselves or always late, and running behind to catch up with Western
modernity.
Eurocentrism then is not the same thing as
whiteness since we all know that the forms of our modernity which are so
celebrated reinforce the idea of who has created the best kind of society that
we all should emulate. The equation of Eurocentrism with whiteness (and White
Supremacy) misses the fundamental insight of Fanon — that both whiteness and
blackness are products of a colonial encounter; as much as the native and the
settler are products of that same colonial encounter. Testimony to that is that
after independence we have seen that Eurocentric modernizers come in all
shades, genders, shapes and sizes, bearing all kinds of passports.
Now, the question might be, well yes, we
recognize that we have left out a lot of people from history, and left out
Africa from our curriculum. We can resolve this epistemic violence through the
justice of now including Africa in the university, naming things and building
new statues, and adding a new course to the degree, and adding a book to the
syllabus. This is all good, and necessary and important struggles we all wage
at the institutions we are in. And we must celebrate the victories when they
come.
But we have to ask ourselves always, what more
can we do to work towards undoing the epistemic violence of colonial knowledge?
Should we settle for a supplemental concept of history, where we now add
African Studies onto the existing curriculum with the danger of once more
ghettoizing it from the other mainstream disciplines? Or, do we have to
reconfigure the entire curriculum in ways that allows us to think the world,
now equipped with the intellectual heritages that we have been taught to ignore
from across the previously colonized world? Who then will teach the teachers if
our existing faculty are limited in interests and expertise? How do we recruit
new knowledge into our universities that breaks with geographical and
linguistic apartheid so that the antiquated idea of a Department of English can
be a department for the comparative
study of Literature? And how do we bridge the continental fault lines between
Anglophone, Francophone, Lusophone, and Arabic knowledge? And should a
decolonized knowledge project ask questions about the work that the
disciplinary forms of knowledge do to reinforce unequal power relations or
inhibit our thinking about certain objects of knowledge in particular ways?
Let me give you an example from the research
problem I am interested in, which has to do with contemporary political
violence and citizenship in Africa, to be more precise: in Northern Congo, in
Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, in South Sudan and Sudan, in Rwanda, and in Northern
Mali and Libya. Mostly this kind of violence is studied by political
scientists. And when you read most of the political science literature on
Africa, I will wager most of it we teach comes from certain parts of the world.
Most of it has certain concepts and assumptions that they work with. Most of it
is premised on the idea that there is an ideal form of the modern state, and
some people live in it, and the rest of us live in various degrees of
perversions, departures from, and
failures of it. Ours are pathological versions of the modern state. The most
empiricist version of this is of the kind of political science that measures
our lack of things, through Afro barometers and the like. The most poetic and
theoretical you might find, for example, in the writings of the French
political scientist on Africa, Jean Francois Bayart, and echoed perhaps
unwittingly by my Cameroonian friend who wrote a widely celebrated book ‘on the
Postcolony.’ They all tell us that we are pathological deviations of the script
of political modernity in one way or another.
To the despair of scholars, many political
elites and modernizing nationalists alike, contemporary political violence
across the colonized world remains predominantly articulated in terms of
identity, all the particular attachments that colonial secular modernity
promised to emancipate us from. The promise and hope of liberal political
modernity in particular, was that it would offer a political form — the
nation-state, a political value — that of universal equality, and that it would
cultivate freedom as individualized, with minimal external impediments. Now,
what for me might be interesting is if we try to think of contemporary
political violence outside of the assumptions of failure. Not to swing the bat
in the other way, to celebrate failure as achievement. But rather to not
measure or theorize ourselves on the basis of what we are not, in the negative.
If we were to move towards emancipative, less
violent and more egalitarian societies in Africa we would have to re-imagine
political community as grounded in the particular histories that colonial rule
had bequeathed us. If we are fighting over identity questions, as Mahmood
Mamdani shows in his work, we might need to better understand how colonial
power solidified the distinctions between native and non-native, indigenous and
foreigner, race and tribe, in a way that transformed cultural difference into a
form of difference that matters politically today.
The teleological assumption of colonial
modernity was that freedom, equality, modernity and the market would result in
the dissolution and loosening of the hold of particular attachments, whether
these be religious or ethnic or racial on the individual, other than the
national. Attachments were consigned to
the sphere of ‘culture’ while freedom was designated as that which flourished
in the sphere of individualized civic life. If the former was static, fixed,
regressive, conservative and traditional, the latter was dynamic, changing,
emancipative, modern and progressive. The grounds of a modern political community,
coupled to a capitalist market economy, offered then the promise of a peaceful
future best suited to the flourishing of human freedom. The corporate versions
of Africa Rising and Afropolitanism lives on this hope in many respects. In
Africa in particular, the trouble in realizing this image of the good society
has been defined as the cultural problem of the persistence of tribalism. We
might add now more prominently after Northern Mali and Northern Nigeria,
religion, and after the battle over the legacies of settler colonialism in
Southern Africa, race, to that persistence of particulars. When, we want to
know, can we move beyond race and tribe and religion? These are said to work
against the aspiration towards abstract
equality and citizenship. Most liberals concurred that these attachment of
culture would evaporate over time, many on the Left shared this modernist
assumption as well, even though critical of the usefulness of political
instability for the interests of global
capital. To make sense of the persistence of particulars many of us on the
Marxist Left theorized identity as the strategic invention and deployment of
pre-modern categories now mobilized to secure economic interests, particularly
the control of the natural resources that made neo-colonies useful only for
their primary commodities. The insights of political economy where remarkable,
but by the 1990’s in the wake of the Cold War, they were also increasingly
found to be wanting.
If we are to think our way out of these
postcolonial predicaments, we would have to take the question of how we think
the problem very seriously. We are currently witnessing even more acute expressions of political
violence articulated along religious and identitarian lines. The centrality of
historicizing citizenship, difference, majority and minority distinctions
remains even more germane to making sense of contemporary violence. We are
reminded that promises of liberal freedom and the ‘powers of the secular
modern’ remain hegemonic but also intensely chimerical and inadequate both to
think with and to construct political community out of.
Our current predicaments demand then fundamental
inquiries about the inheritances of citizenship defined by imperial and
colonial rule, and the challenges these continue to pose for the promises of
emancipation and equality for political subjects who might be said to always be
defined by attachments. Think of the Imazighen, Touregs and Berbers that cannot
be incorporated into Libya, Mali, Tunis and Algeria. Think of the Banyarwanda
who live in Kivu in Congo for generations now and tried to change their
identity to Congolese, or the Banyamulenge, or Tutsis in South Kivu who changed
from Banyarwanda to the people from Mulenge, Banyamulenge, but colonial
inheritances of citizenship keep them separated from Congo as foreigners not
natives. And the Hutu among the Banyarwanda that cannot return to Rwanda
tainted as perpetrators of the genocide. Northern Nigeria struggles with
conflict fought on religious identity terms and the South along ethnic lines,
where colonial rule politicized religion in the north and tribalism in the
South. Boko Haram or al-Shabaab have not emerged out of a divine nowhere; they
are not simply iterations of a global Islamist threat, but have intensely historical,
regional and national dynamics that propel them. In the case of Boko Haram,
it has to do with the fate of the North
in the colonial and postcolonial period; and the War on Terror post 9/11, which
licensed treating these movements as the new terrorists, the new enemy.
Might it be then that we need to decolonize the
concept of difference rather than aspire to dream of the liberal individual who
exercises rational choice as most Political Scientists tell us? It may mean we
need to theorize a concept of culture that depoliticizes cultural attachments
if colonialism politicized them. The problem then is not cultural attachments
per se, or identity per se, but politicized culture. When we move away from
liberal modernity’s assumptions — and away from the despair and discourse of
failure — we can begin to theorize our political modernity in the positive
rather than the negative, with all its messiness. My point is not to get you to
address these questions, but to give you an example of what it might mean to
rethink a problem in light of the critiques of knowledge production and to try
to think it differently so that different possibilities emerge, different
horizons of political imagination might open up, less clear because they don’t
have a clear ideal type in mind.
When you ask, what does it mean to think the
world from where we are at, from our location, and ask what that means for how
we organize knowledge, how we teach, who we teach, or we compare ourselves to,
who we learn from, you are going to the gut of a liberal colonial sensibility
that lives on in the present — the one that goes all the way back to
MacCauley’s dismissive remark about who produces anything worthy of being
called civilization.
The question might then be asked of you and us,
do you want to return us to the particular against the universal, do you want
us to step out of the global and the cosmopolitan and only think about the
local, is relevance as a criteria for knowledge not the straight jacket of
parochialism and narrow thinking? These are important and difficult questions
to grapple with. But this binary between the local and the global, the
universal and the particular, might be a mischievous distraction. Why should we
pit the local against the global or the universal against the particular? We
can also change the menu rather than be pressured to only accept those options.
It may actually mean that we think more carefully about the argument of
the Senegalese philosopher Souleyemane
Bachir Diagne, who suggests that the way
to think about decolonization and the universal is not to concede the universal
to an imperial imagination, but to work towards a truly universal universalism.
We need not give up then on the uni in the university, but we can try to
redefine the very idea of the university itself.