 |
|
Sabelo Mcinziba
|
I could not have imagined a better position for
Achille Mbembe to begin his talk on Climate
Change and the book of the Apocalypse than the position of epistemologies
of nature. He claims that the conceptions of nature the world-over are not and
have not been the same. This Western conception of nature can be characterised
as instrumental, that is, in the
European conception, nature is seen as “a giant complex of equipment” whose relationship
is significant as it owes its usefulness to human beings, human beings
themselves not nature but nature as an external relation that must be
understood in order to be dominated.
In contrast or alongside to the European conception of
nature is the African conception of nature – specifically West and Central
Africa, with particular emphasis to the latter. This conception of nature is
said to be located in the forest where nature is considered as a living
organism which not only shapes the modes of thought in “life force” or vitalism
but is also seen as a self-arising event and gift. Quite importantly was the
argument made about the finitude of the physical environment as a Western
conception and how the African idea is that of perpetual metamorphosis of life
from one form to another, therefore rendering ideas such as ‘end of the world’
or ‘death’ of as a final stage mutually unintelligible. To this followed the
conclusion that our understanding of nature as it stands today is a result of a
certain epistemology of the world, to spell the obvious, the West’s.
Viewed from this perspective, there could be very
little disagreement with this conclusion as it really tells the story of the world
as the ‘battle of epistemologies’ between European gnosis and bodies of
knowledge from other parts of the world. These battles have been ranging from economic
and political governance and thought, spiritual rationalization, medicinal
diagnosis and practice, forms of artistic expression, aesthetics of the
physique, and so on. As noted by Achille
himself that this is a mere introduction to the characterizations of nature by
Africa and Europe and in reality are not all that simplistic, they still leave
us with a few potentially problematic understandings of both epistemologies.
On the first, one could ask whether the
‘instrumentalization’ of nature has not been useful to better the life of
humans world-over if not the only constant practice that has allowed humans to
move from the different Ages of our history. Europe, in this minimal regard, is
no different from the rest of humans in all other parts of the world, perhaps the
sharp distinction that even allows us to pointedly differentiate between the
epistemologies of the nature of nature among humans is the development of
capitalism in Europe. As capitalism developed, so did ideas to rationalise this
environment and something akin to a body of thought developed, highlighted by
the so-called Enlightenment. In Africa, before Europe developed Capitalism and
as it was developing capitalism, the environment of social organisation was
vastly different. Generally, being a place of historical abundance, Africa will
have had as it did a different rationalization of its environment and how its
humans think of themselves in relation to the environment vis-a-vis their
European counterparts. Indeed, many Africans will confirm what Achille was
asserting as the rationale of perpetual metaphormosis and that nature is a gift
tied with the spiritual and cultural ways of existence. As delivered by
Achille, and given that it was an introductory feature of his talk, it risks
leaving itself open to criticism that Africans have never used nature
instrumentally – and of course we know this not to be the case as Africans were
the first humans and consequently the first manipulators of rock/stone into then complex tools and technologies that
were useful to people at the time. The visit to the Origins Centre at Wits
further crystallized this.
I think what ought to be taken strongly from Achille’s
characterization of nature from the perspective of Africa and Europe is the
cautionary tone against this radical instrumentalization of nature by humans
under the shadow of capitalism brought to African life by colonization and
colonialism. As a philosophy (capitalism) operating from a rationale of
scarcity of resources and the finitude of the physical world, and through its
global reach as a result of colonialism and universalization of its local
realities, it makes (contextual) sense for Europe to build its epistemology of
the nature of nature based on this ontology (“dark age/s” in Europe). As
indicated, this epistemology of the nature of nature could not have emerged in
Africa because the ontology of Africans was quite different and in fact its
fertility and abundance (as opposed to scarcity) was the very drive for its
colonization and appropriation for European needs and purposes. With much
emphasis again, this is not to impress that the African epistemology would not
allow for the usage of nature for the ends of humans (whilst it remains a
gift), but the sharp distinction being that of orientation between Europe and
Africa. Achille’s criticism takes place from the viewpoint of the South,
particularly Africa, and it is situated in a world where one body of knowledge
has had almost vanquishing power over another.
Africa itself being the victim of the most vicious
form of capitalist labour exploitation, land and resources, human displacement
and so forth, the epistemologies dominant in Africa have been those of a
Eurocentric interpretation, including in the climate change debate, and the
systematic organization of knowledge/s in Africa today through the university.
The university in Africa today struggles to theorise
from the position of the South, as the framework of learning and thinking in
Africa today is only such by geographical demarcations. This was clearest when
Achille discussed the issue of the apocalypse, particularly as a Western
concept, specifically a monotheistic one, perhaps more accurately to locate
that monotheistic rationale squarely in Judeo-Christian thought. While it is
true that there is no understanding of an apocalyptic event (Judgment Day/Hell)
in the African epistemological framework but a perpetual metamorphosis of
living organisms, it must also be recognised that that made more sense when
Africans controlled what happened in their natural as well as social
environment. In the age of Euro-American hegemony, where the ‘battle of
epistemologies’ has been to the defeat of Africa, the university in Africa today
cannot even thoroughly critique the West outside of Western thought and
mannerism. The reality that Africa is experiencing now, is an experience forced
onto Africa by Euro-American hegemonic forces and the real challenge for Africa
today and the rest of the colonized world is build epistemology from ontology
and more importantly that that ontology must emerge out of Africa’s own
determination. Until the epistemologies from the formerly oppressed peoples of
the world: racially, gender-based, queer, working class, etc. have power to
their knowledge and an articulation of difference without the temptation to
interpret difference hierarchically therefore justifying domination can we move
towards a more humane existence.
Sabelo Mcinziba
