Is Africana Studies Relevant As An Academic Discipline?

The context of an academic discipline is as important as its content because the parameters of our knowledge are often defined by the manner in which we choose to learn, teach and research. Several disciplines that were once regarded as legitimate areas of human inquiry have now become obsolete. A few centuries ago, students could get respectable degrees in alchemy or phrenology, which are now widely recognized as pseudo-sciences. Added to this list are several ventures in humanities that were undertaken as a consequence of war and colonialism in the 19th century. For instance, Egyptology began with Napoleon’s campaign in the Mediterranean in 1798. A contingent of Enlightenment scientists and scholars who accompanied the French expedition to Egypt laid the foundations of Orientalism. Similarly, Sinology emerged as the study of classical Chinese language and literature and Kremlinology as that of Russia. And Indology, the study of India, pioneered by German scholars August Wilhelm von Schlegel and Arthur Schopenhauer, flourished in the context of romanticism and British rule.

These disciplines were intended to serve an important purpose at that time. To many Europeans, the East was an exotic place of alien, primitive and even barbaric people. The “Orient” as opposed to the “Occident” was a land of magicians and snake charmers. Societies such as the Royal Asiatic Society (1824), American Oriental Society (1842) and German Oriental Society (1845) were formed to decipher the incomprehensible and to equip the colonial rulers with a better understanding of the peoples they sought to govern. But following the retreat of colonialism and perhaps in response to Edward Said’s criticism of the Eurocentric approach towards Middle Eastern, Asian and North African cultures in his influential book Orientalism (1978), these disciplines were either discarded or radically altered. Those scholars that still managed to survive had to take recourse to Marxist historiographies in their celebration or dismissal of indigenous cultures as per the wishes of their patrons.

Under the garb of academic sophistication, some of this fabrication resurfaced in the form of “diaspora studies” in our times. Ideas of economic determinism and class struggle were more than evident here. The “diaspora” was viewed as a distinct oppressed class of people sharing ethnic identities. The members of the diaspora had been detached from their ancestral roots and dispersed by the forces of imperialism, slave trade, conflict and resettlement. The concept of Africana Studies is to be located within this context as it is presented as an investigation into the African diaspora. But the greater problem that we encounter here is that this diaspora might not even exist.

Here it is important to distinguish between African American Studies and Africana Studies. To conflate the two would be a mistake. African American Studies is an academic discipline directed towards the study of the history, culture, politics and literature of African Americans. On the other hand, Africana Studies or Africology focuses on all peoples of African origin, both in Africa and in the African diaspora across the world. As stated on the website of Africana Studies and Research Center at Cornell, this field studies the cultures of the people of African descent not only in the United States but also elsewhere in the diaspora:

Africana Studies is a tradition of intellectual inquiry and study of African peoples. Using a transdisciplinarian approach, Africana scholars document the global migrations and reconstruction of African peoples, as well as patterns of linkages to the African continent (and among the peoples of the African Diaspora).

This description raises two questions: 1) Does the African diaspora exist? 2) If it does, how does Africana studies contribute to our understanding of the issues and challenges faced by this diaspora? I would argue that this diaspora might not exist as we assume it to be and that even if it does exist, Africana Studies might not help us address the issues of the people of African descent in a significant manner.

First and foremost, one should note that the basis for African diaspora is race. Other commonalities such as shared cultural values or historical experiences are not of great consequence because they do not contribute to the idea of a distinct diaspora. If historical experiences were to constitute a common ground, then the diaspora would have to include all peoples of former colonies within its ambit. Besides, geography is not a cohesive element because the diaspora is spread across thousands of miles and covers about a third of the world. Africana Studies is divided into three concentrations representing the three regions of the African Diaspora: Africa, African America, and African Caribbean. The enormous diversity within the African diaspora in terms of language, religion, ethnicity and nationality demolishes the argument of shared culture. Within Africa too, great differences are apparent as one travels from Egypt to South Africa. Similarly, African Americans have little in common with the people of African countries. Even recent immigrants to the US from Africa face problems and challenges that closer to those experienced by immigrants from other countries.

Besides, even when Africana claims to address the histories and cultures of all peoples of Africa, it does not give sufficient attention to several large communities of the continent. There is no course in Africana that documents the migration of North African Arabs to America and Europe. While it puts great emphasis on the arrival and settlement of people of African descent in the New World, there is no mention of the large concentrations of indentured laborers from India and China who landed in Mauritius, Madagascar, South Africa, and the Caribbean, to name a few. Don’t these communities also belong to the African diaspora? The fact that Africana does not seem to be concerned with this question makes one question the basis for the selective conception of the African diaspora.

A glance at the list of courses offered by the Africana Studies Department at Cornell also proves this point. For instance, ASRC 1500 (The Shape of American Culture: An Introduction to Africana Studies), ASRC 3660 (Race, Migration and the American City) and ASRC 3031 (Race and Revolution in the Americas) are taught along with ASRC 2670 (History of Modern Egypt), ASRC 4600 (Politics and Social Change in the Caribbean), ASRC 4672 (Nationalism in the Arab World) and ASRC 4303 (Nationalism and Decolonization in Africa). The department also offers an assortment of language courses in Swahili, Yoruba and Arabic. To be fair, most of these courses are cross-listed with other departments such as History and Government. One should also note that ASRC 2670 and ASRC 4672 are not taught by Africana faculty but happen to be conveniently cross-listed. But the disparate nature of these studies under one department reminds one of the “cabinet of curiosities” that a colonial adventurer would assemble on his return from the Orient. One can easily notice that these courses hardly present a coherent narrative. The only thread that runs through them is that of race which is not only inadequate but also erroneous in some respects.

It is true that the social construct of race has deeply shaped the history and development of African American Studies. African American Studies is a product of the Civil Rights Movement and the first Black Studies program was started at UC Berkeley in 1969.  The creation of similar departments across universities once played a significant institutional role in supporting academic views that were marginalized from the mainstream discourse. On the other hand, Africana Studies first began as a direct consequence of the later stages of colonialism when European interest in African cultures grew in the 1890s. It was only later that the two disciplines were integrated to encourage a global approach towards the diaspora. Thus, the point that I wish to raise is not against African American Studies but rather against Africana Studies and indeed, all other forms of diaspora studies.

Race is a social construct that has no technical basis and it is difficult to deal with cross-continent issues on the precarious presumption that a particular racial diaspora exists. This is a relic of the colonial era that has somehow persisted in our times in some areas. Today we cannot imagine a department on Aryan studies because we understand that the notion of an “Aryan people” is fictitious and dangerous. Correspondingly, we should also desist from viewing Africa overwhelmingly in terms of racial identities and focus more on the internal nuances of the challenges facing the continent and its people. It is a welcome sign that Africana Studies along with some other disciplines, is proceeding in this direction.

However, in its core conception, Africana Studies seeks to provide a unique “African experience” with an Afrocentric perspective. The idea that a discipline has to be centered around one perspective, whether it is Eurocentric, Afrocentric or Sinocentric, is itself a product of imperialism. Africana Studies is premised on the acceptance of a colonial projection onto Africa, its inversion and outward reflection. So, as a concept, it is no different from Eurocentric approaches to the world. It should now be recognized that it is a poor and naïve strategy to combat Eurocentrism with Afrocentrism. Rather than countering Eurocentrism by Afrocentrism, it would be far more comprehensive if scholars could provide a juxtaposition of different perspectives. But most importantly, race has to be addressed at an appropriate level, which cannot be done through the projection of a pan-global sense of commonalities.