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.