When describing this vast area of land, some commonly interchange the entire continent of Africa for the word “country.”
By Sarah Aduke Ohiomah / Originally Published September 12, 2019
Within our society, there are many common misconceptions about the continent of Africa. When describing this vast area of land, some commonly interchange the entire continent of Africa for the word “country.” While others—who also singularize the countries within Africa—believe that the continent is only filled with impoverished, famished people and safari animals. Today, we can easily claim the root of these false beliefs to be the subliminal messages that are delivered throughout the media. But where did this scathing, deprecatory complex towards Africa(ns) originally come from? Why has there been constant, social undermining towards the abilities of its residents for many centuries now?
In our class, we have examined the theories of German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is widely recognized due to his discourse about the relationship between geography and “World History” (Daitz, 2019). Although many of Hegel’s hypotheses were racially motivated and heavily discriminatory, they were quite significant in shaping the way people perceive certain areas of the world, especially his description of Africa. Hegel divided Africa into three sectors that were based on his perception of the citizens—along with their lifestyles—residing in each respective area. In this essay, I will analyze Hegel’s description of Africa through using evidence from an excerpt from his book, The Philosophy of History. I will then use other readings—such as the work of Souleymane Bachir Diagne—to respond to the perplexing yet problematic views of the German philosopher, Hegel. Lastly, I will conclude this paper with a reflection on the importance of Hegel’s views when it comes to “decolonizing” the curricula of the University of Cape Town.
Georg Wilhelm FriedrichHegel used the method of analyzing the relationship between geography and world history in order to finalize theories regarding the people who reside in those areas (Daitz, 2019). He used the term “Spirit” in order to separate different cultures and degrade the social positioning of indigenous citizens (Daitz, 2019). According to Hegel, the term “spirit” is similar to the definition of culture (Daitz, 2019). He believed that the geographical conditions of a certain area determined how potent the “Spirit/Culture” is within that given region (Daitz, 2019). It also determined whether the residents of that region were what he named “World Historical People,” meaning their relevance when examining the history of this planet. All of these ideologies were used to construct Hegel’s division of Africa.
In Hegel’s book, Lectures on the Philosophy of History, he writes that “Africa must be divided into three parts…” (Hegel, 1837: 491). He goes on to describe his version of how Africa should be divided, by associating each region of Africa with another region of the world. The three divisions of Africa—according to Hegel—are the following: “Africa Proper,” “European Africa” and Asian Africa (Hegel, 1837: 491). “African Proper” is all that is south of the Sahara and is similar to the Uplands, another term used by Hegel to divide the geography of Europe. Hegel’s further descriptions of “Africa Proper” clearly shows that he is quite unknowledgeable of the land and makes assumptions that lack objectivity. He describes it as “the land of childhood” and explains how it has a very “isolated character” (Hegel, 1837: 491). He also states that “Africa Proper” contains “the most luxuriant vegetation” but is home to “ravenous beasts” (Hegel, 1837: 492). His demeaning, vulgar language implies that there is a blatant superiority complex that he associates with people of his similar demographic. “European Africa” is everything north of the Sahara and is similar to the Coastlands, a term used to divide European geography (Hegel, 1837: 492). The Coastlands are described to use water as a unifying element. Hegel states that this region “mustbe attached to Europe” (Hegel, 1837: 493). Asian Africa is described to be “the river region of the Nile, the only valley-land of Africa, and which is in connection with Asia” (Hegel, 1837: 491). Although, this division of Africa may seem absurd on a surface level, many individuals subconsciously use this division to help direct their views on certain areas within Africa. Therefore, there are many implications and strong effects of this division.
Hegel’s division of the continent not only diminished the true significance of Africans in world history, but it allowed for individuals to openly separate African residents into an invisible hierarchy. Along with this, it also perpetuated the overall belief that Africa cannot succeed on its own. Hegel’s descriptions of a typical African consists of a person that is “in his completely wild and untamed state” and an individual who “has not yet attained to the realization of any substantial objective existence” (Hegel, 1837: 492). According to Hegel, “Africa is said to be unhistorical; undeveloped spirit – still involved in the conditions of mere nature; devoid of morality, religions and political constitution” (Adegbindin, 2015: 20). Knowing that Hegel’s opinions of Africa are still strong today and were stimulated/motivated through racism, ignorance and xenophobia, it makes sense why there are so many degrading misconceptions about Africa, even within the 21st century.
Senegalese author, Souleymane Bachir Diagne, had many interesting responses to Hegel’s beliefs about Africa. Diagne uses Hegel’s exact words as a form of mockery to explain why his analysis of Africa actually made no sense at all. He states that “Hegel believed he could tell from the map where a continent’s identity gives itself to be read” (Diagne, 2013: 5). Diagne is clearly illustrating how Hegel’s bizarre theories were based on little to no information about the intricate cultures/identities of the individuals residing in them; therefore, blatantly indicating the extensive inaccuracy of his claims. Diagne described Hegel’s theories to be “hurried considerations about Africa,” as he went on to chastised Hegel’s justification for slavery and explaining how Hegel thought that slavery would “open[ed] up the possibility for Africans of seeing their intelligence and talents blossom in a more favourable theatre” (Diagne, 2013: 6). Diagne responds to the philosophy of Hegel by questioning the spaces in which the African diaspora exist as a result of slavery, and he also questions how Hegel’s beliefs have “imped[ed] the task of understanding the continent’s intellectual history” (Diagne, 2013: 6). Literature from African scholars, such as that of Souleymane Bachir Diagne, is important to study within the curricula in order to appreciate the true intellectual history of Africa, and to analyze the validity of Europeans coloniststhat have implemented these degrading beliefs within several societies—including communities in Africa.
I honestly believe that studying philosophers, such as Hegel, prevents any attempts of decolonizing the curricula of the University of Cape Town. Continuing to study the theories of racist European philosophers is a form of epistemic violence. It is silencing the voices of truly important African scholars who have worked for so many years to get their history to be told accurately. When we study Hegel, we are subconsciously reinforcing his ideas and showing that his words are even worth analyzing, no matter how absurd we understand them to be. One of the reasons why Hegel’s division of Africa is still potent today, is because we choose to add him to our curriculum. In order to enforce change and “decolonize” our curricula, we must avoid giving these white European men a voice to speak about a continent that they have immorally controlled and exploited in the past. These racist theories won’t have an effect on my knowledge of what true African culture entails, it will only strengthen the common misconceptions that people have of Africa. Let’s give a voice to African scholars and completely dismantle Hegel’s theories about this continent.
References:
“Critical Notes of Hegel’s Treatment of Africa.” Critical Notes on Hegel’s Treatment of Africa, by Omotade Adegbindin, 2015, pp.19-43
“Introduction,” The Ink of the Scholars: Reflections on Philosophy in Africa, by Souleymane Bachir Diagne, CODESRIA, Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, 2016, pp. 1–9.
“Philosophy of History.” Philosophy of History, by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and John trl. Sibree, Colonial Press, 1900, pp. 79–102.
SOC1005S Introduction to Sociology: Module II: Empire and the Social Sciences – Week 5, PowerPoint from lecture,by Emma Daitz, 2019, slides 1-37