Post on 05-Feb-2023
Darko, I., N., (2014) Environmental Stewardship and Indigenous Education in Africa:
Looking Beyond Euro-Centric Dominated Curricula. In G., S. Dei & P. B. Adjei (Eds),
Emerging Perspectives on 'African Development': Speaking Differently. New York: Peter
Lang.
CHAPTER TEN:
Environmental Stewardship and Indigenous Education in Africa: Looking Beyond
Eurocentric Dominated Curricula
Isaac Nortey Darko
Introduction
Recent upsurges in violent earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, floods, ecosystem
degradation, ozone depletion, and biodiversity loss and increased threats to the safety of the
natural environment and its resources around the globe have put even the most ardent
environmental skeptics on alert, fearful that unless something is done about environmental
sustainability, perhaps there will not be much of a future left even for the current generation
(Battiste, 2008; Battiste, & Henderson, 2000; Dei, 1993). But even more central to this
discussion is the question of what kinds of education will change humans’ propensity to exploit,
degrade, and destroy wherever they find themselves. According to Mosha (1999), any attempt to
introduce alternative epistemologies such as Indigenous knowledge to any discussion about
Western-centered, environmentally sustainable education has been fiercely challenged and
rejected by some Western educators. There is an urgent need to rethink environmentally
sustainable education beyond Eurocentric-dominated rhetoric. This chapter calls for Indigenous
knowledge to be used as an alternative focal point for these discourses and epistemologies.
While education is vital to the solution of creating a global and systematic change that will
sustain societies, the effectiveness of environmental education, and the discussion of
environmental sustainability are obscurely tied to national and international education
development issues, which unfortunately are besieged by Western intellectuals and pseudo-
intellectuals—a situation that cannot be allowed to exist (Bekalo & Bangay, 2002). It is also
apparent that the present educational curricula, as with the entire educational system, move
further and further away from Indigenous knowledge. There are limited and in many cases no
attempts at various educational levels to examine Indigenous knowledge systems, especially,
their “awareness of the essential interrelatedness of all phenomena—physical, biological,
psychological, social and cultural” (Ntuli, 2002, p. 64). There is a fear of creating some sort of
division and confusion if diverse cultures are introduced into the classroom. This attitude, from
both policy makers and educators within the academy, is killing efforts to allow Indigenous
knowledges into the classroom (Mosha, 1999). The position of this chapter is that the current
Western-centered, environmentally sustainable education is not globally and universally
sustainable. The chapter asks, if environmental sustainability is a global issue, then can the rest
of the world afford to let Europe and its intellectuals dominate and control the discourse on
environmental sustainability? What gets sacrificed when environmentally sustainable education
rejects any alternative approach to looking at and dealing with the problem outside Eurocentric
tropes? The chapter further cautions that the rejection and lack of respect for local or Indigenous
knowledge and this conjecture by proponents of Western scientific discourse are serious barriers
to sustainable development in light of their apparent failure to meet human development needs
and at the same time to protect nature and the ecology (Breidlid, 2009).
The current paradigm shift to promote a sustainable development therefore gravitates
toward alternative curricula with the hope that these curricula would be designed to appreciate
and recognize the immense knowledge that exists, especially in rural communities. Through this
recognition, such an educational program stands a better chance of being successful (Bekalo &
Bangay, 2002). Consensus is therefore gradually building toward the notion that a solution to
current environmental issues must “proceed from understanding the dynamics within the local
context” (Owuor, 2007, p. 21). Such dynamics include the significant role of Indigenous
knowledge, practices, and beliefs in the development process.
Since the early 1970s, attention has been shifted to exploring how Indigenous knowledge
and institutions could contribute to a more culturally appropriate and sustainable environment,
and to sustainable resource management in general (Ntarangwi, 2003; Owuor, 2007; Shiva,
2002; UNESCO, 2006). Modern societies have a lot to learn from the enormous accumulated
knowledge and experience which Indigenous people have for many years used in building
environmentally manageable economies. Though complex and multifaceted, many contemporary
debates and discussions on Indigenous knowledge primarily focus on issues of definition, value,
ownership, and comparison of Indigenous knowledge with Eurocentric knowledge, creating the
impression that Indigenous knowledge is best “defined or explained by contrasting it with
Western knowledge or with science as though Indigenous knowing lacks scientificity,” and has
little or no use in modern scientific societies (Damme & Neluvhalani, 2004, pp. 354, 363). There
is, however, a growing recognition among many educators that it is important to revitalize
Indigenous knowledge by institutionalizing these knowledges into the education processes to
enhance societies’ abilities to tackle issues related to spiritual and physical, human, and Earth
relations (Damme & Neluvhalani, 2004) and to control the overexploitation of vulnerable
resources which are held in common (Hardin & Baden, 1977). So important is the global need to
create a sustaining environment that the UN General Assembly in 1992 made a resolution and
declared the years 2005–2014 as the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD).
In accordance with this declaration, it was agreed that sustainability was not just about
conserving the environment but about learning to live in respectful relationships with each other
and with nature, relationships that have been particularly missing in Western epistemologies for
centuries (Glasson, Mhango, Phiri, & Lanier, 2010; UNESCO, 2005, p. 10).
This global quest for a hegemonized education toward a sustainable economy
(globalization) may, however, come at a cost to knowledge production and culture, especially
among many African and Indigenous societies. It is often the case that colonialism, post-
colonialism, and neo-colonialism are embedded in the globalization discourse. And according to
Damme and Neluvhalani (2004), “all of these discourses appear to have contributed to (and
continue to contribute to) the undermining of Indigenous ways of knowing in most African
education” (p. 356). There is no question about the efforts by many developing nations to meet
the development milestone set under a Western neo-liberal economic framework (and marketed
under the globalization agenda). To achieve this, many nations have targeted education as the
springboard for thriving future economies. This shift, however, poses a challenge as “economic
globalization simultaneously (and contradictorily) encourages both cultural homogenization and
the commodification of cultural difference within a transnational common market of knowledge
and information that remains dominated by Western science, technology, and capital” (Damme
& Neluvhalani, 2004, p. 356; Gough, 2004). This affirms Odora Hoppers’s (2001) point that
“globalization requires greater caution than excitement” since “the relationship between
education and society has been replaced by concern for a relationship between education and the
economy, alias the market” (p. 17). The motive of this globalized education is evident in the
many educational reforms sweeping across the African continent where education curricula are
increasingly being co-opted to ensure productivity and reduce poverty (Damme & Neluvhalani,
2004). Damme and Neluvhalani (2004), therefore, opined that “in the context of considering
institutionalization of Indigenous knowledge in educational reforms driven by market logic, we
may be dealing with a form of cultural violence . . . defined as entailing processes in which
subordinated groups are involved (through politics, modernization and other social processes) in
not just internalizing but also proactively endorsing the illegitimacy of their own culture” (pp.
356–357). Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) call this genesis amnesia: “the naïve illusion that things
have always been the way they are, which leads to eternalizing and naturalizing relations which
are, in actual fact, products of history” (see Damme & Neluvhalani, 2004, p. 357).
The term ‘Indigenous or traditional ecological knowledge’ has been coined by a growing
number of educators to engage the immense knowledge about the environment produced within
Indigenous communities (Snively & Corsiglia, 2000). It is often used to describe the wisdom in
Indigenous communities that focuses on balancing human needs with environmental
requirements (Bowers, 1995). To these educators, acknowledging traditional ecological
knowledge does not mean opening doors to all and sundry, but it is valuable because it is refined
over time with careful observation and cannot arise spontaneously in modern imaginations
(Snively & Corsiglia, 2000). Some educators prefer the term ‘Indigenous knowledge’ to
‘traditional knowledge’ (see Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2000; Warren, 1995). The latter term
often poses a problem with the use of the word ‘tradition’ which, according to Warren (1995),
historically has denoted archaic attitudes of simple, savage, and static life (see Berkes et al.,
2000). Berkes (1999, p. 1252) notes that through the work of the International Conservation
Union (IUCN) working group, Indigenous ecological knowledge started as a “study of species
identifications and classifications (ethnobiology) and proceeded to considerations of peoples’
understandings of ecological processes and their relationship with the environment,” which is
seen as a practical knowledge-belief complex (Williams & Baines 1993). Berkes (2000) outlines
a working definition that was developed from the earlier works of Berkes, Folke, and Gadgil
(1995). This looks at Indigenous ecological knowledge as “a cumulative body of knowledge,
practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by
cultural transmissions, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one
another and with their environment” (Berkes et al., 2000, p. 1252)
What Is Indigenous African Knowledge?
The term ‘Indigenous knowledge’ has emerged as a shifting, complex, and contested
social construct (Musuku-van Damme & Neluvhalani, 2004). Questions about the nature of
Indigenous knowledge and its pedagogical usefulness in the academy are complex but obviously
necessary in promoting transformative education (Dei, 2011; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008;
Battiste, & Henderson, 2000). In the face of all the debates and contestations associated with the
term ‘Indigenous knowledge,’ the term has come to represent a unique type of knowledge that
has its origin outside Eurocentricity or among civilizations that had little, complex, or no contact
with mainstream European knowledge. Some scholars have questioned the collective use of the
word ‘Indigenous’ to describe or represent civilizations whose contact with European
imperialism differs (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Smith, 1999). To these scholars, such a
generalization of the word narrows the base of a significant population on our planet and
therefore must be carefully considered. In addition, it is argued that Indigenous knowledge is not
a monolithic epistemological concept since no culture exists in a pure, “uncontaminated state and
that some form of cultural interaction is always taking place” (Mosha, 1999, p. xii; see also
Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008). According to Smith (1999), the word ‘Indigenous’ emerged in
the early 1970s as a term that “internationalizes the experiences, the issues, and the struggles of
some of the world’s colonized people. . . . The term has enabled the collective voices of
colonized people to be expressed strategically in the international arena” (p. 7). While pointing
out the collective nature of Indigenous knowledge, I acknowledge the diversity of ethnic and
cultural groups among Indigenous people. I, however, share the opinion of others (e.g., Gyekye,
1987) “that beyond the fragmentation of cultures along ethnic, religious, racial, ideological, class
and gender lines, there are some common themes running through culture” (Dei, 1993, p. 30).
As noted earlier, raging debates exist in the academy about what rightly constitutes
Indigenous knowledge. One side of the debate recognizes Indigenous knowledges as the by-
product of relations between Indigenous and modern knowledge systems that is embedded in the
“cultural web and history of a people and their civilization and forms the backbone of the social,
economic, scientific and technological identity of such a people” (Odora-Hoppers, 2001, p. 4;
see also Gergen, 2001). To this view, Indigenous knowledge is likened to a magnet, where
locally inherited Indigenous knowledge or cultural capitals attract outside influence. During this
process, the notion of influencing becomes an integral part of local knowledge process
(Aronowitz & Giroux, 1987; Maila & Loubser, 2003). Contrary to this view is the argument that
Indigenous knowledge is an information-based system unique to individual communities and
cultures. It is the dynamism present in a local community’s ability to continually use an
internally and externally generated and experimentally based information system in
communication and decision making (Omolewa, 2007). This knowledge system is regarded as
science that is “user-derived, not scientifically derived, and its use complements and enhances
the gains made by modern-day innovations” (Maila & Loubser, 2003, p. 277). On both sides of
the debate, it is clear that the notion of problem solving or meeting the challenges in the
community constitutes a major key to defining Indigenous knowledge. Maila and Loubser (2003,
p. 277), quoting McClure, therefore, define Indigenous knowledge as “that body of accumulated
wisdom that has. ‘evolved from years of experience and trial-and-error problem solving by
groups of people working to meet the challenges they face in their local environments, drawing
upon the resources they have at hand.’”
Complicating the discussion is the notion of Indigenous knowledge as a ‘system.’ While
scholars like Maila and Loubser (2003); Flavier et al. (1999); Gergen (2001); O’Dora-Hoppers
(2001); Ntuli (1999); Vilakari (1999); and Chavanduka (1995) find it non-problematic to define
Indigenous knowledge as a system, Musuku-van Damme and Neluvhalani (2010) hold a contrary
view. For the latter, Indigenous knowledge as a system was developed in the early 1990s by
environmentalists and economists as a way of identifying knowledge that had characteristics
necessary for achieving sustainable development. This institutionalized definition to a certain
extent determined the type of relationship (in terms of development) that should exist between
communities that host these knowledges (mostly developing nations) and bodies like the World
Bank. In the view of Musuku-van Damme and Neluvhalani (2010), engaging Indigenous
knowledge as a system misses out on some fundamental worldviews of the so-called Indigenous
people, who “do not hold views that land can be bought or sold . . . , who also do not view trees,
plants . . . as ‘natural resources’ which produce profits or rents” (Davis, 1993, p. x). According to
Musuku-van Damme and Neluvhalani (2010), a reference to Indigenous knowledge as a system
abstracts Indigenous knowledge from the socio-cultural context of the people to the generalized
institutionalized views. This fails to represent Indigenous knowledge as embedded in the
community’s life and as a “constantly shifting meaning-making process of one within his/her
environment” (p. 356)
Notwithstanding the intense debates on what constitutes Indigenous knowledge, this
chapter holds to the definition of the concept as it pertains to the knowledge process, cultural
traditions, values, lived-world form of reason, and belief systems entrenched and typical to
Indigenous African local peoples’ way of life that has evolved over many generations and which
provides an understanding of humans’ interactions with nature (Aikenhead, 1997, 2001;
Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Glasson, Mhango, Phiri, & Lanier, 2009;) In a sense, African
Indigenous knowledge is knowledge derived from local or Indigenous African people—tribal
people whose socio-economic, political, and everyday lives are determined and regulated by
their own customs and traditions, which are fundamentally based on their worldviews (Battiste,
2008). Mosha (1999) also argues that “African Indigenous knowledge is local knowledge
generated and transmitted, over time, by those who reside in a particular locality, to cope with
their agro-ecological and socio-cultural environments; it is knowledge that develops from the
experience of people, passed down from generation to generation” (p. ix). This knowledge is the
product of one’s ecological environment that produces survival skills and familiarity, embedded
in the community’s traditions and practices, and passed on to each generation through local
languages, symbols, and artifacts, instructed by the Supreme Being (Spirituality) and their elders
(Battiste, 2008). African Indigenous knowledge is a holistic understanding that is derived from
the immediate environment, peoples’ experiences, perceptions, spiritual worldviews, and
interactions with others and the supernatural that has its own conceptual, ontological,
methodological, and axiological foundations (Battiste, 2008; Dei, 2011). The holistic and
comprehensive nature of African Indigenous knowledge offers a broad spectrum that covers
science and art and the political, mental, intellectual, social, spiritual, and economic life of
individuals and the interconnections between self, society, and with the universe (Battiste, 2008;
Dei, 1993). It is thus seen as a process of learning and sharing culture, histories, identities, and
social, economic, and political practices unique to each cultural group through personal and
group experiences with the immediate environment and intense interaction with the spiritual
world (Battiste, 2008; Owuor, 2007).
The African Indigenous knowledge system consists of multiple ways of knowing and
understanding our world in relation to nature, people, culture, and the environment (Boateng
1980; Dei, 1993; Mbiti, 1982). Respect for traditions and values, especially those relating to
personal relationships and relationships with nature, therefore, remains very important among
Indigenous Africans. It is the belief that the very survival of the human race is tied to the very
existence of nature and the environment. In other words, if you want to live a successful life, be
accountable to the people around you and show respect and duty toward the environment. For
this reason, every practice and relation that transpires in Indigenous African communities must
reflect common humanity, group belongingness, and a harmonious existence between people and
the natural world. Humans, in this stead, are not regarded as more important than nature but
rather as a part of nature (Bascon, 1942; Dei, 1993, p. 29; Evans-Pritchard, 1940; Lee, 1979;
Rattray, 1923; Snively & Corsiglia, 2000). This not only reflects the holistic nature of African
Indigenous knowledge, but also shows the significance of traditional beliefs which examine all
occurrences in the light of their significance to neighbors, relatives, ancestors, and gods (Dei,
1993; Gyekye, 1987; Rattay, 1927). By virtue of its multifaceted nature, African Indigenous
knowledge draws on personal experiences and historical stories that create valuable ideas within
the community of social responsibility, social cohesiveness, community membership, and the
commonality of all people (Damme & Neluvhalani, 2010; Dei, 1993, 2011).
Among Indigenous communities, especially in Africa, spirituality constitutes a major
pillar of self-identity and community well-being. In other words, one cannot discuss Indigenous
knowledge without mentioning Indigenous spirituality. According to Dei (1993), the reciprocity
and partnership existing in relations (human interrelations and reverence toward the Earth)
within communities shows the fusion of native knowledge and human spirituality. Yarmol-
Franko (1992) points out that “Indigenous knowledge has been ‘tried and proven for centuries”
(p,4) and whether expressed in local traditions, cultural beliefs, traditional songs, fables,
proverbs, legends, or myths, prove to be highly useful in transmitting individual thoughts and
ideas about the intricacies of the interrelationships existing between the social and natural
world(s)” (see Dei, 1993, p. 28; Omolewa, 2007). African spirituality embraces all cycles of life
and includes both animate and inanimate objects in the universe. It is the general idea among
many African Indigenous communities that the cycle of particularly the physical world is
controlled by the spiritual world. Though not seen, the spiritual is regarded as the most potent
form of force. Most Indigenous African communities conceptualize spirituality as both
horizontal and vertical (Bruce, 2005). According to Bruce (2005), the vertical dimension reflects
the relationship to God or a supreme being. God is believed to be the initiator of all existence.
The Earth is sustained by God’s mercies, and is the giver of life. The horizontal dimension
reflects both the relationship and connectedness to the ancestors, lesser gods, nature, and our
personal identity. These lesser gods are believed to live in rivers, forests, stones, mountains, and
plants. The ancestors are departed relatives who still live in the spirit world and therefore are not
seen physically but are active participants in the daily activities of the living. The horizontal
dimension brings out the axiological and ontological foundations of spirituality in Africa, which
is sacredness. It explains the particular importance given to tress, stones, rivers, the sun, moon,
stars, rain, wind, skies, animals, and plants. In other words, a tree is not just a tree, a river is not
just river, and an animal is not just animal; they are the physical manifestations of gods and
spirits. The concept of the sacred therefore becomes essential in defining spirituality in the
African context (Bruce, 2005). To put it simply, spirituality in the African sense refers to the
relationship between the Supreme Being, ancestors, lesser gods, deities, and man, and constitutes
an integral part of any effective ecological or environmental knowledge process in Africa.
Johnson (1992) also notes that spiritual explanations of environmental phenomena incorporate
important ecological strategies as they relate to conservation and sustainable methods further
founded in Indigenous interconnections to nature.
African spirituality to a large extent is unarguably tied to the worldview of Indigenous
communities, which is evident in African traditional religion. It other words, African Indigenous
knowledges are realized in the many different religious ceremonies, rituals, and practices
(Breidild, 2009). It is very difficult, even impossible, to claim African Indigenous spirituality and
exclude oneself from the many religious practices and ceremonies. As already mentioned, the
African worldview dictates that there are two realities: the physical and the spiritual. According
to this worldview, every physical occurrence, whether good or bad, manifests what has already
happened or is happening in the spiritual realm (Darko, 2009). Being spiritually inclined as an
African means to participate in the rituals, ceremonies, and practices of the local community.
Considering the significant roles that the worldview of a society plays in determining its
sustenance and existence, Breidild (2009) argues that a definition of Indigenous knowledge
systems must include the worldviews, cultural values, practices, and knowledge systems derived
from these worldviews and practices related to metaphysical, ecological, economic, and
scientific fields (p. 141). Religious practices and ceremonies serve as a resource through which
Indigenous knowledge is developed and sustained and frequently transmitted through the general
socialization process from generation to generation.
Challenges to Indigenous Knowledge Adaptability
In general, a number of conceptual and epistemological questions have been raised
concerning the place of Indigenous knowledges in the academy. In this section, I briefly
highlight some of the main issues that have been raised specifically about challenges that
confront Indigenous knowledges in their present dispensation. First, the assimilation processes
and Eurocentric education have had severely negative consequences for Indigenous knowledge
(generally). Indigenous people have not only been thought to mistrust their own worldviews,
feelings, institutions, elders, creativity, and instincts but also to regard them as inferior in
comparison with Western discourse. This charge against Western knowledge is evident in the
histories and legacies of colonialism among colonized nations, especially among Indigenous
communities. For example, colonization in Africa involved systems of punishments, rewards,
and privileges to Indigenes who managed to master the colonial knowledge. This served as a
disservice and encouraged the partial or total abandonment of Indigenous knowledges, culture,
and practices since those who wished to speak and work within Indigenous epistemologies were
met with mockery and sometimes punishment. Unfortunately, these privileges, rewards,
mockery, feelings of inferiority still exist in many African countries, even after many years of
independence (see wa Thiong’o, 1986).
Second, the many disembodied definitions of Indigenous knowledge that exist at
international (e.g., the World Bank definition) and local levels act to create confusion and
suspicion within the academy. According to Van-Damme and Neluvhalani (2010), within the
institutional framework of schools, colleges, and universities, knowledge is treated as “objective
and universal rather than relative, tacit and contextual” (p. 363). This framework has contributed
to the distortion of the local and Indigenous knowledge and value systems in complex ways
(Van-Damme & Neluvhalani, 2010). This process places superior value on the political economy
of knowledge production (Western/modernist) ideology to the detriment of ‘other’ forms of
knowledge. Institutions involved in the study of Indigenous knowledge must therefore engage in
an understanding of the relationship that exists between Western science and the ‘others.’ The
process of defining Indigenous knowledge in a Western epistemology has only succeeded in
lessening and limiting the scope of Indigenous credibility within the “process of teaching and
learning or in dealing with or trying to understand the local environmental issues and solutions
thereof” (Van-Damme & Neluvhalani, 2010, p. 363)
The process of Europeanization, with its colonialist perspective toward
Indigenous knowledge, continues to operate despite shrewd and misguided attempts to prevent it.
This is evident in the ways Western science claims and values Indigenous worldviews and
ecological knowledge as ethnoscience, which embodies disciplines such as ethnobotany,
ethnocosmology, ethnopharmacology, ethnomedicine, and ethnoastronomy. These
conceptualizations raise a basic concern about whether the study of Indigenous people and their
knowledge is itself a process of Europeanization. And I concur with Kincheloe and Steinberg
(2008) that it is, to an extent, “especially noting how Western scholars conceptualize Indigenous
knowledge in context far removed from its production” (p. 141). In many cases, Indigenous
knowledges are shown as knowledge systems that are culturally grounded against Western
science that is not culturally grounded, transcultural, and universal. Consequently, in the process
of ascribing worth to Indigenous knowledge, such an analysis utterly relegates Indigenous
teachings to a lower level of knowledge production that remains limited in scope (Kincheloe &
Steinberg, 2008). Also, discussions of Indigenous knowledge using Western concepts such as
botany and medicine are usually conducted in such a way that the holistic nature of Indigenous
epistemologies is subverted (Hess, 1995; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008). As mentioned earlier,
one cannot discuss Indigenous knowledge without recognizing its sacred practices, ceremonies,
and rituals.
The danger of essentialism in Indigenous knowledge production is another major
challenge. Essentialism, according to Kincheloe and Steinberg (2008), is a “complex concept
that is commonly understood as the belief that a set of unchanging properties (essences)
delineates the construction of a particular category—for example, Indigenous people, African
Americans, White people, women and so on” (p. 142). In terms of Indigenous knowledge, the
essentialist concept relates to the prehistoric. In other words, Indigeneity becomes an artifact that
is isolated from contemporary life. This could lead to the romanticization and over-mythicization
of Indigenous knowledge (Dei, 2010). The assertion of a fixed and stable Indigenous identity
may also be another essentialist demarcation in relation to Indigeneity. This essentialist
argument presents Indigeneity as inert and monolithic, thereby categorizing Indigenous culture
as good for the museum and less important in contemporary development agendas (Kincheloe &
Steinberg, 2008). It also has the potential to raise the uncomfortable concept of cultural hybridity
(Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008). When it comes to classroom pedagogy, the essentialist argument
is used to suggest the need for a global-level analysis directed to the epistemological patterns that
emerged in a variety of cultural contexts (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008). To avoid pedagogical
essentialism of Indigenous knowledge in the classroom, there is the need to avoid the concept of
a unitary curriculum. Curricula must be literally delivered in the classroom based on the different
locations and particular attention should be given to the epistemological patterns that emerge in
these various cultural contexts (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008). This may become necessary
considering the differences of understanding of structured practices that may be shared by
individuals, even within the same community. However, for stronger pedagogies it is important
to identify common experiences and themes that run through communities. Common experiences
shared by Indigenous communities, such as colonialism, leave any unique relations to nature and
alternative epistemologies to Western science as grounds for communal advantage (Dei, 1994;
Hall; 1995; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008).
In a final comment, it is clear that Indigenous knowledge comprises epistemologies,
ontologies, languages, sciences, and philosophies of Indigenous people that have survived
centuries as the fundamental synergies that nurture and ensure that one generation after another
becomes accountable and responsible to the environment, the supernatural, and human
relationships. And as a matter of fact, Indigenous epistemologies not only benefit Indigenous
people, but benefit the West as well. The acceptance of Indigenous knowledge will offer
transformative possibilities as educators have the chance to view knowledge production in
diverse cultural studies and settings (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008). According to Kincheloe and
Steinberg (2008), such “awareness of the epistemological truth production . . . will shake the
Western scientific faith in the Cartesian-Newtonian epistemological foundation as well as the
certainty and ethnocentrism that often accompany it…The hell of relativism is avoided by an
understanding of culturally specific discursive practices” (p. 137).
Indigenous Africans’ Perspective on the Environment
Among pre-colonial African societies, the total inclusion of all realities within the daily
activities of the society constitutes the environment. To the traditional African, nothing exists in
isolation; everything is either relative to everything else, or every person is related to every other
being (see Dei, 1993, p. 30). The environment, therefore, exists in the complexities of the social,
political, economic, religious, and spiritual relations within the community. The community was
therefore identified as relations to family members and non-family members as well as to the
surrounding tress, land, rivers, stones, air, rain, sunlight, skies, animals, ancestors, and the
supernatural. The non-dualistic nature of thought within Indigenous African communities’
enables relational balance on individual and communal levels (Dei, 1993, 2011). The African
value of community against the individual determined to a large extent relations with the
surroundings. Community values promote cooperation, reciprocity, and interdependence; hence,
one’s surroundings, for example, the land, tress, and rivers, were not just gifts from the Supreme
Being to be nurtured nor the abode of spirits and gods but were also the resting place of the
ancestors who constantly kept a watchful eye on the living (Dei, 1993). Religion and spirituality
formed an integral part of defining what environment is within the African context. The belief in
the creation stories, the Supreme Being, life after death, and a continuity or linkage between the
world of the living and the dead set environmental issues in a different context. It underlined the
African traditional ontologies and axiologies that guided relationships between the individual,
society, and nature. It determined the kind of relationships that must exist between humans and
their surroundings. In other words, traditional African culture which was inseparably linked to
African traditional religion spiritualized the universe and endowed the forces that threatened
them with supernatural powers and/or quasi-human attributes (Dei, 1993, Gyekye, 1987; Mbiti,
1982). Through this practice, a communal relationship that enabled humans to interact with these
forces was established. This relationship enabled communities to know when the ancestors were
not happy or satisfied with human actions or inactions. It is the belief among Indigenous
Africans that physical objects, especially those in nature such as trees, rivers, animals, and
others, are imbued with spirits that give meaning and life to all that an individual does in the
community (Dei, 1993). The use of natural resources without the approval of the ancestors and
gods, who are usually represented by traditional priests, priestesses, or chiefs, was unacceptable
within Indigenous systems. Doing so could incur the wrath of the gods and ancestors, which
might result in individual or communal punishment. This also explains the various Indigenous
myths, legends, and other cosmological beliefs surrounding natural resources that are explicated
in stories, proverbs, and riddles. Dei (1993), recognizing the ontology behind the environment
among most Indigenous people in Africa notes, that “we should all be paying attention to those
aspects of our traditions and myths which emphasize that beyond the trees there is a forest. We
and nature must be inseparable when it comes to the environment” (p. 36).
Indigenous/Traditional African Education
Education is the backbone of every society because it provides the resources for the
continuous existence of any population. According Fafunwa and Aisiku (1982), “Education is
the aggregate of all the processes by which a child or young adult develops the abilities,
attitudes, and other forms of behaviour which are of positive value to the society in which he
lives; that is to say, it is a process for transmitting culture in terms of continuity and growth and
for disseminating knowledge either to ensure social control or to guarantee rational direction of
the society or both” (p. 11). Education, therefore, serves as the main instrument to preserve,
maintain, and upgrade a society’s equilibrium, as well as promote the process of cultural
transmission and renewal (Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003, p. 426; Esu & Junaid, 2011). Personally,
I think the word ‘education’ is just the Eurocentric term for the socialization process in any
society aimed at equipping a generation to take over political, social, economic, and cultural
practices unique or general to that society and which is needed for the functioning of such a
society or community. It is basically the process by which society (adult members) carefully
guides and assists a new generation to understand and appreciate the heritage of their past and
participate productively in the society of the present as well as contribute to the success of the
future of the society (Omolewa, 2007). This means that the goals and methods of education may
vary from people to people, place to place, and nation to nation (Fafunwa & Aisiku, 1982).
Education becomes the art of learning, preserving, and making available to each generation the
organized and unorganized knowledge of the past (Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003). Without this
process, the transition from one generation to another, specifically from an older generation to a
younger one, may be impossible. Adeyemi and Adeyinka see education as a three-way process:
It is the inheritance of culture from the older generation; then this inherited culture is modified
and adapted into the younger generation’s own situations; finally, the modified culture is passed
on to a next generation. The cycle then begins again (Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003). Every
community, big or small, has its own ways of socializing or educating its people and this is often
based in and on the values, needs, and worldview of such a community. Indigenous African
education was and is an integrated system inseparable from other segments of life. Boateng
(1983) therefore concludes that “traditional African education was not only there to be acquired,
but it was actually there to be lived” (p. 322). Although Africans do not have identical and equal
educational experiences in traditional ways of knowing, it would not be wide of the mark to
describe the basic tenet of traditional education in Africa as that which is well integrated with the
social, cultural, political, occupational, emotional, artistic, religious, and recreational life of the
people (Omolewa, 2007).
Prior to colonial rule and the introduction of Christianity and Islam, African communities
had several ways of educating their people (Dei, 1993; Kenyatta, 1965; Marah, 2006). This
educational process is usually referred to as Indigenous, traditional, pre-colonial, tribal/ethnic
education in Africa (Esu & Junaid, 2011; Okoro, 2010). Pre-colonial education was a holistic
process that integrated the rituals, ceremonies, demonstrations, imitations, recitations,
observations, repetitions, and skills needed to sustain the community (Fafunwa & Aisiku, 1982;
Owuor, 2007) and was based on solid philosophical foundations. Adeyemi and Adeyinka (2003),
citing Ocitti (1971), identified these foundations or principles as preparationism, functionalism,
communalism, perennialism, and wholisticism. The preparationism principle implied that the
role of Indigenous education was to prepare or equip boys and girls for their appropriate and
distinctive roles, with each receiving the required training necessary to fulfill masculine and
feminine responsibilities respectively in the society. This principle outlined a very fundamental
tenet of Indigenous education, which is gender-based training. While girls were trained to
become capable mothers and wives, the boys were trained to be good family providers and
defenders of the society (Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003; Okoro, 2010). The principle of
functionalism was similar and ensured that people learned through participation, imitation,
initiation ceremonies, and work/play to become productive and well-integrated members of the
community (Esu & Junaid, 2011; Fafunwa & Aisiku, 1982; Owuor, 2007). The communalism
principle basically meant that all members of the society owned things in common. In the same
way the responsibility of caring for the younger generation was the responsibility of the whole
community. The perennialism principle illustrated that education was a means of maintaining or
preserving the cultural heritage and the status quo. The last principle, wholisticism, exemplified
the multi-learning nature of the Indigenous education system.
Regardless of the multicultural nature of African societies, Indigenous education was
meant to place knowledge within the context of the user (Dei, Hall, & Rosenberg, 2002; Owuor,
2007; Wane, 2002). This means that knowledge was contextualized and made useful through the
understanding of local communities’ culture and worldviews. The worldviews and values of
these communities guided change, complex learning, binding relationships, and the general
socialization process. The content of the ‘curriculum’ was therefore very comprehensive and
elaborate as it was based on the philosophy underlying these worldviews and the various job
responsibilities required of individuals in the society (Esu & Junaid, 2011). To a large extent, the
society determined the content of this curriculum (Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003). This meant that
the scope of traditional education was its cultural process since a child relied on all the cultural
forces in the community to educate himself or herself (Ociti, 1973). Education was seen as a
means to an end, not an end in itself, and “emphasised social responsibility, job orientation,
political participation and spiritual and moral values” (Fafunwa & Aisiku, 1982, p. 9) as the core.
The traditional educational apparatuses promoted purposeful living. Fafinwa and Aisiku (1982)
capture this in the seven cardinal goals of African education: “to develop the child’s latent
physical skills; to develop character; to inculcate respect for elders and those in position of
authority; to develop intellectual skills; to acquire specific vocational training and to develop a
healthy attitude towards honest labour; to develop a sense of belonging and to participate
actively in family and community affairs; to understand, appreciate and promote the cultural
heritage of the community at large” (p. 11). The key components of this education were
consequently the acquisition of specific professional skills: responsibility, accountability, and
interpersonal relations skills. Therefore, an educated member of the community was a
responsible, accountable individual with specific skills needed for the progress and well-being of
the entire community (Mungazi, 1996; Owuor, 2007). In other words, the goal is to “produce an
individual who is honest, respectful, skilled, co-operative, and who conforms to the social order
of the day” (Fafunwa & Aisiku, 1982, p. 11). It is also important to note that character formation,
in terms of ethics and morality, formed a significant part of Indigenous education (Adeyemi &
Adeyinka, 2003). It was the responsibility of the community, especially its leaders, to instruct
younger generations in the dos and don’ts of life both at home and at work. Communal
responsibility thus formed the basis of pedagogy in most Indigenous communities (Okoro, 2010).
It’s also worth noting that education was not separated from the social and cultural needs of the
specific community; rather, it was the process of interaction between the guardians and seekers
of knowledge, between men and women of ideas and skills and the young men and women
seeking to acquire and develop such ideas and skills needed for the well-being of the community
(Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003).
The educational or socialization process within Indigenous communities took many
forms and approaches. A child was educated or educated himself or herself through formal and
informal relations (Cajete, 2008). Two basic kinds of training existed in communities—general
and special. Methodologically, the process was usually handed down from generation to
generation through the oral tradition in symbols, arts, proverbs, folk stories, fables, songs, myths,
legends, performances, dances, riddles, idioms, apprenticeships, observations, and wise sayings
(Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003; Boateng, 1983; Dei, 1993, 2002; Owuor, 2007). According to
Boateng (1983), these were “more pedagogic devices rather than literary pieces” in that many of
these tales were carefully constructed to inculcate the society’s values into children without
necessarily and formally telling them what to do and how to do it…Myths and legends not only
supplied accounts of the groups origin, but related precedents, to present-day beliefs, actions
built codes of behaviour” (pp. 324–326). These varied methods of education were aimed at
integrating character building, intellectual training, and respect for cultural values, communal
spirit, and physical education (Okoro, 2010). Each individual in the community was highly
educated in the values and the moral virtues of the community such as humility, honesty, loyalty,
bravery, mental and physical wellness, proper hygiene, exemplary leadership, unity, love,
obedience, and sacrifice (Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003). However, certain skills and professions,
such as those practiced by the Indigenous herbalists or spiritualists, blacksmiths, and others,
required specific personalities and training. In this case, specific members within the clan or
family would be selected through the help of the elders, ancestors, and gods to undergo special
physical and spiritual training through apprenticeship with an older member within or outside the
clan or family (Dei, Hall, & Rosenberg, 2002; Mudimbe, 1988; Omolewa, 2007; Owuor, 2007;
Turay, 2002). This constituted forms of institutionalized centers of training, and in some
instances students lived with the trainer for a specified number of years to complete their training
and subsequently returned home to practice. Experiential, apprenticeship, and practical
knowledges therefore characterized Indigenous education. Special graduations were normally
held for students who had undergone such special training (Tiberondwa, 1978). According to
Adeyemi and Adeyinka, 2003, “Initiation ceremonies enjoyed a high degree of formalism; in that
it was characterised by teaching and learning of predetermined material in a specific physical
setting where a clear-cut distinction between pupils and teacher” had been made (p. 435; see
Datta, 1984; Okoro, 2010; Rodney, 1972; Tiberondwa, 1978).
Notwithstanding the seemingly compartmentalized nature discussed above, I agree with
Fafunwa and Aisiku (1982) that unlike the Westernized system of education, the aspirations, the
content, and the methods of traditional education are convolutedly interwoven, and are not
divided into separate sections. Quoting Abdou Moumouni (1969), Fafunwa and Aisiku (1982)
summarize the characteristics of Indigenous African education as “the great importance attached
to it, and its collective and social nature; its intimate tie with social life, both in a material and a
spiritual sense; its multivalent character, both in terms of its goals and the means employed; its
gradual and progressive achievements, in conformity with the successive stages of physical,
emotional and mental development of the child” (p. 10).
Apart from specialized professional trainings, which were carried out by identified
experts within the community, every adult in the community was responsible for the general
training of the younger generation. Considering the varying nature of responsibilities and roles
existing in communities, the idea of multiple teachers and learners was the backbone of
Indigenous communities. In other words, we are all learners of the social and natural world and
that social learning has to be personalized in order to develop the intuitive and analytical aspects
of the human mind (Dei, 2011). The Indigenous African sense of gerontocracy can be best
explained by power relations existing within the universe and the manner by which it has
permeated the African perspective on knowledge (Dei, 1993). At the top of the oligarchical-like
structure is the Supreme Being, followed by the lower gods, ancestors, deities, chiefs,
elders/leaders, and the older population (Boateng, 1980.) Community leaders had the
responsibility of being role models for the younger generation. It was their responsibility to
theorize about the society and through appropriate methods socialize the younger generation
about the spiritual world, traditions, power, and authority as well as instruct the younger
generation on their responsibilities toward people and the environment (Boateng, 1980; Dei,
1993; Mbiti, 1982). It is not surprising, therefore, that young people growing up in such
communities had many uncles, aunts, fathers, and mothers. Every adult was part of the bigger
responsibility of training a young person in the values and morals prioritized in their community.
Training begins from the womb and ends in the tomb (Omolewa, 2007). What this means
is that education in the traditional African perspective is a never-ending journey or a lifelong
process to prepare individuals to lead responsible lives in the community (Adeyemi & Adeyinka,
2003; Esu & Junaid, 2011; Omolewa, 2007). At conception, mothers were given a special kind
of education aimed at producing a healthy baby. At birth, the training continued at the mother’s
breast throughout the weaning process, during which the child spent much time with the mother
or guardian with little interference from the larger society (Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003; Fafunwa
& Aisiku, 1982). During this early stage, the baby, through close watching and imitation, learned
the ways of the mother or guardian. Later, after four or five years, the child was exposed to a
cluster of educational agents in the larger family network. Uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews, and
grandparents began to take part in the child’s education (Fafunwa & Aisiku, 1982; Marah, 2006).
Through direct instructions, imitation, and observations, the child learned values such as
obedience, respect, accountability, and responsibility. At the same time, the society at large bore
responsibility in training the child or young person to become a more proactive member within
their world. All members of the family, peer-group, age-group, community leaders, and members
of shrines and places of worship had interwoven and distinctive roles to play (Adeyemi &
Adeyinka, 2003; Omolewa, 2007). These trainings were conducted concurrently. The
socialization process in Indigenous African communities revolved around ensuring that the
“social and natural worlds from viewpoints which ensured that community issues became the
primary concern of all” (Dei, 1993). Education was centered on building the intellectual, moral,
spiritual, emotional, attitudinal, and physical characteristics of the young. For example, through
local histories, poetry, and legends, the younger generations were intellectually prepared for the
future. Through stories of morally accepted situations, and true stories of moral decisions and
actions by men and women in the community, the desired morals and values of the community
were also imparted to the younger generation (Fafunwa & Aisiku, 1982).
The success of the Indigenous African education system is evident in the present rich
historical records of African civilization. In other words, the immense capacity to preserve
cultural heritage proves the success of the pre-colonial education system. Through oral traditions,
symbols, and arts and crafts, much of the theoretical and philosophical knowledge has been made
available to the present generation. It became an avenue for the preservation and passage of time-
tested skills, customs, and knowledge from generation to generation (Adeyemi & Adeyinka,
2003; Omolewa, 2007). There is no doubt that the pre-colonial education system succeeded in
training boys and girls and young men and women to become productive members of their
communities. It prepared them for the social, economic, political, and spiritual challenges of
their time, and ensured that no able-bodied man or woman was unemployed in any African
society (Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003).
In summary, it is apparent that the process of traditional education in Africa was
intimately incorporated into the social, cultural, artistic, emotional, religious, and recreational life
of the community. That is, social and cultural values and norms as well as skill learning were
nicely integrated into all spheres of life. The integration of theory and practice throughout the
learning process also exemplified pre-colonial Indigenous education. The interdisciplinary
exploration of the surroundings through a social, economic, religious, and political outlook as
well as on epistemological and ontological bases encouraged a high level of intellectual work
within communities. Because language is at the heart of culture and cognition, the use of local
languages to impart meaning to the younger generation is well appreciated. Traditional
communities developed radical epistemological structures that provided students with their own
realities as bases of literacy (see Jackson, 1995). In conclusion, I concur with Fafunwa and
Aisiku (1982) that the evaluation of an educational system means measuring various functions of
the system against the needs of a particular society in order to determine whether such needs
have been met. In this regard, Indigenous African education was successful since it provided
both human and material sources needed in Indigenous communities.
Challenges to Indigenous Education
The very first challenge African Indigenous education faces is what Kincheloe and
Steinberg (2008) label as epistemological colonialism. This situation occurs when one culture
gains dominance over other cultures because it is able to represent its forms of knowledge as
transcendent truth and other knowledges as mere superstition. For example, the Chagga people
of Tanzania see truth as a contingent; because of that, local epistemologies would not claim
power by means of their ability to negate or validate knowledge produced in other cultures.
Western culture in contrast holds on to its dominance (forcibly acquired through colonialism) to
negate and invalidate Indigenous peoples’ worldviews. Eurocentric epistemologies have
produced a world that defines ‘truth’ as what can be empirically known through logical
reasoning, tested hypotheses, evidence from statistical analysis, and so on. To Kincheloe and
Steinberg (2008), such an epistemological foundation holds social and political implications,
because it helps determine the power relations between diverse cultural groups and therefore any
culture that does not produce knowledge according to these worldviews becomes a culture
substandard to Western culture.
The conceptualization of African traditional education poses a challenge, considering the
multi-cultural nature of traditional societies. First, almost all of the working definitions direct
education in a linear fashion. It was always a communication from teacher to pupil, top to
bottom, old to young. This is what Fafunwa and Aisiku (1982) may have meant when they
described education based on age groups or on affinities. This raises a number of questions
concerning how education about the environment was conducted among the adult population.
The linear outlook may have missed some vital characteristics of African education such as how
knowledge can be transmitted from the younger generation upward to their elders. Though the
adult population had the biggest responsibility in education, I still believe some sort of
reciprocity in knowledge production occurs during this process, and must therefore be somehow
represented in the definition of traditional education.
The clan and tribal focus of many African traditional education curricula has been seen as
a weakness and subsequently criticized by some authors (Adeyemi & Adeyinka, 2003; Marah,
2006). While this may remain true in certain aspects, it’s not entirely right to make such an
argument. In considering language, one may be right to say traditional students were not
educated to interact with outsiders. However, in terms of principles, professional ethics, and
adaptability, the African curricula were no different from any others. It allowed students to
conceptualize places and issues not only in the local environment but also beyond their
immediate experience (Omolewa, 2007). The holistic approach liberated the learner from the
authoritarianism of the teacher. This de-compartmentalized yet highly integrated nature of pre-
colonial African education developed in the learner a sense of self-discipline, self-directed
learning, and self-fulfillment (Omolewa, 2007). I personally believe that a culture’s inability to
transfer knowledge to others because of some barriers should not be seen as weakness or a form
of inefficiency. As long as it meets the daily needs of its community, I believe it is successful.
The absence of literacy in Indigenous education has come under fierce attack. To authors
such as Adeyemi and Adeyinka (2003) the absence of writing meant that knowledge could not be
preserved. I strongly disagree with this assertion, noting that even in Western education where
many forms of written sources exist, full knowledge cannot be stored or captured for future
generations. Other forms of preserving knowledge such as oral traditions have been equally as
efficient as written sources (Omolewa, 2007). The privileging of writing over oral tradition seeks
to deepen the hegemony present in the current curricula.
In reference to methods used in Indigenous African education, Adeyemi and Adeyinka
(2003) and Tiberondwa (1978) have argued that the inculcation of fear and punishment as a
means of training killed the initiative, innovation, and enterprise within young Africans, and that
these are virtues that modern education offers. However, this assertion is not entirely true. By
making such an argument, the authors are suggesting a fear-free modern education which I
believe is an illusion. Fear and punishment are integral parts of the modern educational system.
Many students will tell you that they do their homework for fear of being failed, expelled, or
reported to head teachers and parents, who might subsequently give them a punishment. The
methods of training offered by Indigenous education were so rich that failure was virtually
nonexistent; every effort was made, encouragement given, and incentives provided to make sure
that even the most cowardly underwent even the most intense exercise (Marah, 2006, p. 17;
Okoro, 2010). Block (1973, pp. 30–36) refers to this method of teaching as “Mastery Learning.”
I believe fear is a universal phenomenon and therefore cannot be held as a weakness of
Indigenous African education specifically.
Mazrui (1980) and Marah (2006) have cited the inability of African education to produce
‘scientists,’ as they are known today, as well as great military men as a shortcoming of
traditional African education. I absolutely disagree with these assertions, since there is enough
evidence that Africa produced great military men and women such as Yaa Asantewaa, Shaka
Zulu, and others who fought and won great battles against European imperialism. To ignore the
profound role of traditional herbalists and spiritualists who cured various diseases within
communities’ prior colonialism is an affront to the integrity of African education. This
assumption raises the question, what constitutes science? I believe the purpose of any scientific
endeavor is to make the activities of daily life easier and more manageable. There are many
examples of such innovations, such as the shaduf in ancient Egypt that made irrigation very easy
for farmers. Similarly, pre-colonial hunters and farmers developed complex methods to make
their work less difficult. For these reasons I totally disagree with Sekou Toure (president of
Guinea) as quoted by Marah (2006) that “it was because of the inferiority of Africa’s means of
self-defence that is why Africa was subjected to foreign domination” (see Marah, 2006, p. 20).
Rather, it is what I refer to as an unguarded hospitality extended to foreigners.
Other supposed shortcomings of African traditional education are that it did not promote
or ensure change and that it demanded conformity, but not individuality, creativity, or individual
uniqueness (Ociti 1973, p. 103). From my previous discussion of the educational system
prevalent prior to colonialism, it is obvious that Ociti’s first argument is unfounded. As noted by
Adeyemi & Adeyinka, (2003) Indigenous education involved a four-stage process, wherein
knowledge and methods changed to suit the present needs of the society. To describe African
education as not having promoted individuality or uniqueness is an irony. As a matter of fact,
these concepts are frankly foreign to Indigenous education, which had the communal interest as
the ultimate goal of a society’s values and norms.
The visible dominance of Western epistemologies within African educational institutions,
especially universities and colleges, is a great hindrance to the process of Indigenizing education.
It is unfortunate that African Indigenous epistemologies are not integrated into the curricula at all
levels but are rather confined to departments and institutions in the name of African Studies.
Institutions seem to lack the interest to engage Indigenous epistemologies at all levels. I am
therefore not surprised that universities have separate departments for African Studies, a
situation that confines the multifaceted socialization and educational process in local
communities to a single department. The recognition and participation of Indigenous knowledges
at all levels within African educational institutions will go a long way in helping Indigenize the
academy.
Why Integration Seems Difficult
Despite the benefits and potential of Indigenous knowledges for enriching the curricula,
educators need to know what implications the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges may have for
pedagogy and its sustainability in the academy. Given the present acculturation within many
communities, it is important for educators to know that even within the same ethnic group there
may be small disparities in how Indigenous knowledges may be used for decision making. It
therefore becomes a challenge of how to represent these diverse cultures in a non-hierarchical
space of knowing (Makhubu, 1998; Owuor, 2007; Semali, 1999).
One of the challenges that scholars willing to integrate Indigenous knowledge into the
mainstream academy will face is the ability to link Indigenous knowledge to educational reforms
that are part of a larger socio-political struggle (Mosha, 1999). To Mosha, advocates of
Indigenous knowledge in the academy “delineate the inseparability of academic reform, the
reconceptualization of science, and struggles for justice and environmental protection” (p. xi).
How would educators dissert the relationship that exists between the sovereignty of Indigenous
knowledge and the global social, political, and economic struggles of Indigenous people?
I ask, how do we teach Indigenous education without hegemonizing the Indigenous
knowledges? It is critical for educators not to hegemonize the diverse ways of knowing that exist
in most African communities. Any attempt to hegemonize knowledge will lead to over
simplification and make vulnerable the potentially unique and important contributions that
particular forms of Indigenous knowledge make to development within specific localities and
among local groups that embrace such knowledge (Angioni, 2003; Berkes et al., 2000, p. 27;
Owuor, 2007; Semali, 1999).
The complex nature of Indigenous education and practice makes its integration very
difficult. Philosophically, modern education makes a distinction between the epistemic and
ontological aspects of education. Indigenous education, however, involves invisibilities which
are embedded in the personal, individual, and socio-economic lives of people within the
community. Advocates of Indigenous knowledge in the academy therefore reiterate the
inseparability of Indigenous worldviews from the conceptualization of science and the struggles
for environmental piety. As already noted, there is little or no distinction between what
Indigenous people learn and how they live their lives. Indigenous peoples’ socio-economic,
political, spiritual, and religious lives are learned and practiced through proverbs, role playing,
idioms, apprenticeships, folk stories, myths, and legends. To separate these axiological and
ontological perspectives from the classroom defeats the whole purpose of integration.
The lack of consensus in validating the contribution Indigenous knowledge, practices,
and innovations has for the learner and the community remains one of the greatest challenges to
integration (Owuor, 2007). The dilemmas and contradictions have been focused on how such
integration can be implemented that is inclusive of all stakeholders including students, parents,
teachers, policy makers, and community members (Dei, 2002, Ntarangwi, 20033; Owuor, 2007).
Africa’s past experience with colonization best explains this struggle. Most African states are
still dealing with the legacy of European education that devalued, demonized, and delegitimized
local Indigenous knowledges.
Another challenge to integration is the idea of structured curricula extensively based on
Western economic models. This contradicts an Indigenous approach to education that integrated
socio-economic, political, spiritual, and religious activities into the learning process (Ntarangwi,
2003; Owuor, 2007). Breaking away from the status quo and destabilizing the present hierarchy
will therefore require a confrontation with the power dynamic present in the current Eurocentric
approach. This is a condition that will not be easy for educators, policy makers, curriculum
developers, teachers, and parents operating within a system that is Western oriented (Dei, 2002;
Owuor, 2007; Semali, 1999). In other words, what will be the nature of integration that will be
taking place in a school environment that is already dominated by Western epistemologies and
resources?
It is always the case that Western scientists insist on testing or measuring the validity of
Indigenous knowledge via Western scientific testing. This is problematic as it censures a call to
recognize Indigenous knowledges as legitimate forms of knowledge with their own axiological,
epistemological, methodological, and ontological rights. In its ‘wholistic’ and holistic nature,
significant tenets of Indigenous knowledge such as spirituality cannot be measured by Western
scientific standards. A tension then arises. If Indigenous knowledge is legitimately allowed into
the academy, will its very significant tenets such as religion and spirituality be accepted or
legitimized? Other questions that may arise would revolve around values and precepts of the
systems. What does each system value? I believe sustainability is possible and has the potential
to win wider participation only if sustainable education embraces alternative epistemologies,
especially of Indigenous peoples’ beliefs, practices, and cultures.
REFERENCES
Adeyemi, M. B. (2000). Science studies in Nigeria. In M. B. Adeyemi (Ed.), Social studies in
African education (pp. 247–266). Gaborone, Botswana: Pyramid.
Adeyemi, M. B., & Adeyinka, A. A. (2003). The principles and content of African traditional
education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(4), 425–440.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a First Nations cross-cultural science and technology
curriculum. Science Education, 8(12), 217–238.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2001). Students’ ease in crossing cultural boarders into school science.
ScienceEducation, 85(2), 180–181.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2008). Objectivity: The opiate of the academic. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 3(3), 581–585.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive
explanation of cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research Teaching, 36(3), 269–287.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cultural
Studies of Science Education, 2, 539–620. doi:10.1007/s11422-007-9067-8.
Anderson, J. A. (2001, December). Writing in subjugated knowledges: Towards a transformative
agenda in nursing research and practice. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1800.2000.00069.x
Angioni, G. (2003). Indigenous knowledge: Subordination and localism. In G. Sanga & G.
Ortalli (Eds.), Nature, knowledge: Ethnoscience, cognition, and utility (pp. 287–297).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Aronowitz, S. (1996). The politics of science wars. In A. Ross (Ed.), Science wars (pp.
202–225). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (1987). Education under siege: The conservative, liberal and
radical debate over schooling. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bascon, W. R. (1942). The principle of seniority in the social structure of the Yoruba. American
Anthropologist, 44, 37–46.
Battiste, M. (2008). Research ethics for protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage:
Institutional and researcher responsibilities. Handbook of critical and Indigenous
methodologies, 497-510.
Battiste, M. A., & Henderson, J. Y. (2000). Protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: A
global challenge. Saskatoon: Purich.
Bean, W. (1992). Reflections on a consultation on the development of tribals in Asia.
Convergence, 25, 5–17.
Bekalo, S., & Bangay, C. (2002). Towards effective environmental education in Ethiopia:
Problems and prospects in responding to the environment-poverty challenge.
International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 35–46.
Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Berkes, F., Colding, H., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as
adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251–1262.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Gadgil, M. (1995). Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity,
resilience and sustainability. In C. Perrings , K. G. Maler, C. Folke, C. S. Holling, & B. O.
Jasson (Eds.), Biodiversity conservation (pp. 269–287). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Block, J. H. (1973). Teaching, teachers and mastery learning. Today’s Education, 11(12), 30–36.
Boateng, F. (1980). African traditional education: A tool for intergenerational communication. In
M. Asante & K. W. Asante (Eds.), African culture: The rhythms of unity (pp. 109–22). Trenton:
N.J: African World Press.
Boateng, F. (1983). African traditional education: A method of disseminating cultural values.
Journal of Black Studies, 13(3), 321–336.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture.
London:
Sage.
Bowers, C. A. (1995). Educating for an ecologically sustainable culture. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
Breidild, A. (2009). Culture, Indigenous systems and sustainable development: A critical view of
education in an African context. International Journal of Educational Development, 29,
140–148.
Bruce, W. S. (2005). What is spirituality? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 104, 3–
13.
Cajete, G. (2008). Seven orientations for the development of Indigenous science education. In
N.
K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous
methodologies (pp. 135–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chavunduka, M. (1995, April). The missing links. Keynote address to the workshop on the study
and promotion of indigenous knowledge systems and sustainable natural resources
management in Southern Africa. Midmar, KwaZulu-Nata l.
Damme, L. S. M. V., & Neluvhalani, E. F. (2004). Indigenous knowledge in environmental
education processes: Perspectives on growing research arena. Environmental Education
Research, 10(2), 353–370.
Darko, I. N. (2009). Ghanaian Indigenous health practices: The use of herbs. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Datta, A. (1984). Education and society: A sociology of African education. London: Macmillan.
Davis, S. H., & Mundial, B. (1993). Indigenous views of land and the environment (Vol. 188).
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Dei, G. J. (1994). Indigenous African knowledge systems: local traditions of sustainable forestry.
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 14(1), 28-41.
Dei, G. J. S. (1994, March). Creating reality abs(as?) understanding: The relevance of
Indigenous Africanworld views. Paper presented to the Comparative and International
Education Society, San Diego, CA.
Dei, G. J. S. (2002). African development: The relevance and implications of Indigenousness. In
G. J. S. Dei, B. L. Hall, & D. G. Rosenberg (Eds.), Indigenous knowledge in global
contexts: Multiple readings of our world (pp. vii–x). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
University of Toronto Press.
Dei, G. J. S. (2009). Teaching Africa: Towards a progressive pedagogy. New York: Springer.
Dei, G. J. S. (2011). Introduction. In G. J. S. Dei (Ed.), Indigenous philosophies and critical
education: A reader (pp. 1–13). New York: Peter Lang.
Dei, G. J. S., Hall, B. L., & Rosenberg, D. G. (Eds.). (2002). Indigenous knowledge in global
contexts: Multiple readings of our world. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of
Toronto Press.
Elkana, Y. (1981). A programmatic attempt at an anthropology of knowledge. In E.
Mendelshohn & Y. Elkana (Eds.), Science and culture: Anthropological and historical
studies of the sciences (pp. 1–77). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Esu, A., & Junaid, A. (2011). Educational development: Traditional and contemporary. Online
Nigeria Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.onlinenigeria.com/education/?blurb=536
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940). The Nuer of Sudan. London: Oxford University Press.
Fafunwa, A. B., & Aisiku, J. U. (Eds.). (1982). Education in Africa: A comparative survey.
London: George Allen & Unwin.
Flavier J. M., De Jesus, A., & Navarro, S. (1999). Regional problems for the promotion of
Indigenous knowledge in Asia. In D. M. Warren, L. J. Slilkkerveer, & D. Brokensha
(Eds.), The cultural dimension of development: Indigenous knowledge systems. London:
SRP Exeter.
Foster, J. B. (2000). Marx’s ecology: Materialism and nature. Monthly Review. Retrieved April
14, 2011, from http://tifcss.org/graphics/marx_ecology.pdf
Foucault, M. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge (pp. 37–52). Brighton,
England: Harvester.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel
Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Social construction in context. London: Sage.
Glasson, G. E., Grykholm, J., Mhanho, N., & Phiri, A. (2006). Understanding the earth system of
Malawi: Ecological sustainability, culture, and placed-based education. Science
Education, 90(4), 660–680.
Glasson, G. E., Mhango, N., Phiri, A., & Lanier, M. (2010). Sustainability science education in
Africa: Negotiating indigenous ways of living with nature in the third space.
International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 125-141.
Good, R. (1995). Comments on multicultural science education. Science Education, 79, 335–
336.
Gough, N. (2004). A vision for transnational curriculum inquiry. Transnational Curriculum
Inquiry, 1(1).
Gross, P., & Levitt, N. (1994). Higher superstition: The academic Left and its quarrels with
science. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Gyekye, K. (1987). An essay on African philosophical thoughts. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(1), 243–248.
Hardin, G., & Baden, J. (Eds.). (1977). Managing the commons. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Hess, D. (1995). Science and technology in a multicultural world: The cultural politics of facts
and artifacts. New York: Columbia University Press.
Jackson, F. R. (1995). Radical pedagogical structures: Infusing a multicultural perspective
through environmental proverbs. ERIC, p. 1–15.
Johnson, M. (1992). Research on traditional environmental knowledge: its development and its
role. Lore: capturing traditional environmental knowledge. Dene Cultural Institute, Hay
River.
Keane, M. (2008). Science education and worldview. Cultural Studies of Science
Education,
3(3), 587–621.
Kenyatta, J. (1965). Facing Mount Kenya. New York: Vintage Books.
Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (2008). Indigenous knowledge in education: Complexities,
dangers, and profound benefits. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.),
Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies (pp. 135–156). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Kloppenberg, J. (1991). Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: Local
knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology, 56, 519–548.
Laurie, S. S. (1904). Historical survey of pre-Christian education. London:
Longmans,
Green.
Lee, R. B. (1979). The Kung San: Men, women and work in a foraging society. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Maila, M. W. & Loubser, C. P. (2003). Emancipatory indigenous knowledge systems:
Implications for environmental education in South Africa. South African journal of
education, 23(4), 276-280.
Makhubu, L. (1998). Essays on science and society, bioprospecting in an African context.
Journal of Science, 282(5386), 41–42.
Marah, J. K. (2006). The virtues and challenges in traditional African education. The
Journal of Pan African Studies, 1(4), 15–24.
Mazrui, A. A. (1980). The African condition: a political diagnosis. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Mbiti, J. S. (1982). African views of the universe. In R. Olaniyan (Ed.), African history and
culture (pp. 193–199). Lagos, Nigeria: Longman.
Middleton, N., & O’Keefe, O. (2003). Rio plus ten: Politics, poverty and environment. London:
Pluto Press.
Mudimbe, V. Y. (1988). The invention of Africa: Gnosis, philosophy, and the order of
knowledge. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Mungazi, D.A. (1996) The mind of black Africa. London: Prague.
Murray, A. (1996). The blue devils of Nada: A contemporary American approach to
aesthetic
statement. New York: Vintage.
Ntarangwi, M (2003). The challenge of education and development in post-colonial Kenya.
Africa Development, 28 (2),211-228.
Negash, T. (1996). Rethinking education in Ethiopia. Uppsala, Sweden: Reprocentralen HSC.
Ngugi, W. T. (1981). Decolonizing the mind: The politics of language in African literature.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mosha, R. S. (1999). The inseparable link between intellectual and spiritual formation in
Indigenous knowledge and education: A case study in Tanzania. What Is Indigenous
Knowledge? Voices from the Academy, 209-25.
Ntuli, P. (1999). The missing link between culture and education: Are we still chasing gods that
are not our own? In M. W. Makgoba (Ed.), African renaissance. Cape Town, South
Africa: Mafube-Tafelberg.
Ntuli, P. (2002). Indigenous knowledge systems: The African renaissance. In C. A. Odora-
Hoppers (Ed.), Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge systems (pp. 53–
67). Cape Town, South Africa: New Africa Books.
Ociti, J. P. (1973). African Indigenous education. Nairobi, Kenya: East African Literature
Bureau.
O’Donoghue, R., & Neluvhalani, E. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the school curriculum: A
review of developing methods and methodological perspectives. In E. Janse van
Rensburg, J. Hattingh, H. Lotz-Sisitka, & R. O’Donoghue (Eds.), Environmental
education, ethics and action in Southern Africa (EEASA/HSRC Monograph, pp. 121–
134). Pretoria, South Africa: EEASA/HSRC.
Odora-Hoppers, C. (2001). Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge systems:
Towards a conceptual and methodological framework. Pretoria, South Africa: HSRC.
Odora-Hoppers, C. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge systems.
Cape Town, South Africa: New Africa Books.
Omolewa, M. (2007). Traditional African modes of education: Their relevance in the modern
world. International Review of Education, 53(5-6), 593-612.
Ogawa, M. (1989). Beyond the tacit framework of “science” and “science education” among
science educators. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 247–250.
Okoro, K. N. (2010). African traditional education: A viable alternative for peace building
process in modern Africa. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences,
2(1), 136–159.
Owuor, J. A. (2007). Integrating African Indigenous knowledge in Kenya’s formal education
system: The potential for sustainable development. Journal of Contemporary Issues in
Education, 2(2), 21–37.
Rattray, R. S. (1923). Ashanti. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe under-developed Africa. Harare, Zimbabwe: Bogle
1’Ouverture.
Ross, A. (1996). Introduction. In A. Ross (Ed.), Science war (pp. 1–15). Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Salgo, H. (1973). The obsolescence of growth: Capitalism and the environmental crisis.
Review
of Radical Political Economics, 5(26).
Scanlon, D. (1964). Traditions in African education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Semali, D. J. (1999). Community as classroom: Dilemmas of valuing African Indigenous literacy
in education. International Review of Education, 45(3), 305–319.
Semali, L., & Kincheloe, J. (Eds.). (1995). What is Indigenous knowledge? Voices from the
Academy. New York: Falmer/Taylor & Francis.
Shiva, V. (2002). Foreword. In G. J. Dei, B. L. Hall, & D. G. Rosenberg (Eds.), Cultural
diversity and the politics of knowledge in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world
(pp. vii–x). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Simonelli, R. (1994). Traditional knowledge leads to a Ph.D. Winds of Change, 9, 43–48.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London:
Zed Books.
Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2000). Discovering Indigenous science: Implications for science
education (pp. 6–34). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sweezy, P. M. (2004). Capitalism and the environment. Monthly Review, 56(4). Retrieved April
4, 2012, from http://monthlyreview.org/2004/10/01/capitalism-and-the-environment
Thomson, N. (2003). Science education researchers as orthographers: Decolonising Keiyo
(Kenya) knowledge, learning and narratives about snakes. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(1), 89–115.
Tiberondwa, A. K. (1978). Missionary teachers: Agents of colonialism; A study of their activities
in Uganda, 1877–1925. Lusaka, Zambia: Kenneth Kaunda Foundation.
Turay, T. M. (2002) Peace research and African development: An indigenous African
perspective. In G.J.S. Dei, B.L. Hall & D.G. Rosenberg (Ed), Indigenous
knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world (pp. 248-263).
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
UNESCO. (2005). Links between the global initiatives in education—UN decade of education
for sustainable development. (Education for Sustainable Development in Action:
Education for sustainable development toolkit). Retrieved October 2011 from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001524/152453eo.pdf
UNESCO. (2006). Strategy of education for sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa.
UNESCO Regional office of Education in Africa: UNESCO/BREDA.
UNESCO Media. (2008). Education for sustainable development. Retrieved October
2011 from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001587/158787e.pdf.
Van Damme, L.S.M. and E.F. Neluvhalani. (2004). Indigenous knowledge in environmental
education processes: Perspectives on a growing research arena. Environmental Education
Research10(3):355–370
Vilakari, H. W. (1999). The problem of African universities. In M. W. Makgoba (Ed.), African
renaissance. Cape Town, South Africa: Mafube-Tafelberg.
Wangoola, P. (2002). Mpambo, the African multiversity: A philosophy to rekindle the African
spirit. In G. J. S. Dei, B. L. Hall, & D. G. Rosenberg (Eds.), Indigenous knowledge in
global contexts: Multiple readings of our world. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of
Toronto Press.
Wane, N. N. (2002) African women and spirituality: Connection between thought and
education. In E. O’Sullivan, A. Morrell, & M. O’Connor (Eda.), Expanding the
boundaries of transformative learning: Essays on theory and praxis (pp. 135-
150). New York: Palgrave, St. Martin’s Press.
Warren, D. M. (1995). Comments on an article by Arun Agrawal. Indigenous Knowledge and
Development Monitor, 4(1), 13.
Wa Thiong'o, N. (1986). Decolonising the mind. London: Heinemann
Watkins, M. H. (1943). The school in the bush. The American Journal of Sociology, 6(5), 666–
675.
Williams, N. M., & Baines, G. (1993). Traditional ecological knowledge: Wisdom for
sustainable development. Canberra, Australia: Centre for Resource and Environmental
Studies, Australian National University.
Wolpert, L. (1993). The unnatural nature of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common
future.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Yarmol-Franko, K. (1992). Editorial introduction. Convergence, 25(1), 3–4.