LECTURE FIVE: AUTHOCTHONOUS RELIGIONS: AFRICAN TRADTIONAL RELIGIONS (A.T.R)
Religion is a difficult word to
define, and it becomes even more difficult in the context of African traditional
life. I do not attempt to define
it, except to say that for Africans it is an ontological phenomenon; it pertains
to the question of existence or being.
We have already pointed out that within traditional life, the individual
is immersed in religious life which starts before birth and continues after his
death… This is fundamental, for it
means that man lives in a religious
universe. Both the world and
practically all his activities in it, are seen and
experienced through a religious under-standing and meaning…the point here is
that for Africans, the whole of existence is a religious phenomenon; man is a
deeply religious being living in a religious universe.
John Mbiti, African Religions and
Philosophy. 19.
In terms of the line of inquiry called “World Religions,” the examination of the data set classifiable as “African Traditional Religions” poses some of the same challenges as those associated with the study of Traditional Native American religiosity. First and foremost of these challenges is the scope of the subject matter as indicated through the broadness and “fuzziness” of the taxonomic classification “African Traditional Religions.” The African continent is a huge landmass on which more than 785 million people (and growing) dwell. According to the United Nations Environmental Programme’s (UNEP’s) website the population of the African continent has been increasing significantly since many of the countries gained independence from European colonial presences in the 1950”s:
million in 2000 (see Figure 7). Despite the fact
that population growth rates have
declined since the mid-1980s,
an estimated 2.4 per cent per annum. However,
future growth rates are expected to
be lower. The region will attain an estimated
population of 1 406 million by the
year 2030 (UNDP 1999, 2000) (see also figure
4.11). Rapid urbanization is also a
main driving force, which is causing stresses in
many African economies. With an
average annual growth rate of 3.71 per cent (see
Figure
4.12),
urbanizing region of the world. Nevertheless,
agricultural. In 2000, the urbanization level
was only 37.9 per cent, and it is
projected to reach 54.5 per cent by 2030. Urban
population is expected to grow
from 297 million in 2000 to 766 million in 2030
(UNDP 1999).
(
Environment Outlook: Past, Present, Future
Perspective)
Of the total
population, approximately 20% now exhibit a quantifiable form of religiosity
classifiable as “African Traditional Religion” (of course this number has varied
significantly in terms of a more historical or longitudinal
consideration!). In a sense, the
varieties of exhibited religiosity that are categorizable as “African Traditional Religions” really are
thrown together taxonomically because of a method of negation; that is, even
though these religions are classified under the rubric “African Traditional
Religions” because they are authcthonic
religiosities—they are indigenous to specific socio-cultural contexts in
specific bioregions in the African continent—they are also classified under this
rubric because these religiosities are NOT classifiable as “Muslim/Islamicate” or “Judeo-Christian” or “Judaic.” Thus, the specific varieties lumped
together taxonomically under the rubric “African Traditional Religions”
represent an expansive and diverse range of religiosities: a staggeringly complex and varied data
set to examine (especially when one includes the diachronic or longitudinal
examination of this data set in addition to the synchronic or latitudinal
examination!)
Moreover, beyond the
challenge that is the vastness of the data set, there persists a challenge in
relation to the representative-ness and accuracy of the source material for the
study of African Traditional Religions.
Like the
Finally, with
abovementioned limitations identified, one develops a healthy suspicion—what is
categorizable as “a hermeneutic of suspicion”—towards
making any universal assertions or drawing any universal hypotheses about the
subject matter. As with the
examination of the data set classifiable as “Traditional Native American
religiosity,” the examination of the data set classifiable (loosely) as “African
Traditional Religions” must entail caution and a robust scrutiny of the
increasingly broad range of source material available—a scrutiny marked by
scientific suspicion and circumspection—before any isomorphic patterns can be
isolated and identified and then further identified as parallel with motifs
evident in the “product” representative of other religiosities outside the
“African Traditional Religions” data set.
Fortunately, because
of the global access to robust data (especially data derivative from more
indigenous sources, i.e., oral and written accounts from those whose life-worlds
are oriented within a specific variant system of religiosity classifiable under
the rubric “African Traditional Religion”), more precise assertions can be made
concerning the data set and perhaps more accurately descriptive isomorphic
patterns can be isolated and identified, lending a
more-than-geographic-coincidental justification for classifying the entire data
set under the “African Traditional Religion” rubric. Again, as in the case of Traditional
Native American religiosity, some of the fundamental orienting qualities of
Traditional African Religion are embedded residually in superceding
religiosities that represent a syncretistic hybridization (as more rural
Africans are forced to move to urban/metropolitan environments, this
hybridization process will increase proportionally; in fact, the fundamental
attributes of African Traditional Religions will become deducible only as
embedded residues in a superceding religiosity more and more as people leave the
more isolated rural environments for the cosmopolitan environments of the urban
complexes). The study of African
Traditional Religions may parallel the studies of other socio-cultural
phenomena—other worldviews—that are moving towards extinction due to
socio-economic pressures in a changing world.
What becomes essential
at this stage, then, is to identify some of more broadly recurrent motifs and
patterns—maybe even general isomorphic patterns—that are evidenced in the
“product” that constitutes the primary data set for analysis. These isomorphic patterns will be
classified under my own taxonomic system or rubric—hopefully a rubric that is
not only applicable to this data set but also applicable to any data set scrutinizable in the line of inquiry called “World
Religions” or “religious studies” as such.
Again, the accuracy of the identified isomorphic patterns is contingent
upon the universal descriptiveness of these patterns. Thus, these identified isomorphic
patterns are in no ways static; they must remain continually and rigorously
dynamic, modified routinely when they do not accurately describe the data set
they purportedly describe.
AN
ISOMORPHIC-PATTERN RUBRIC (WITH RELEVANT DISCUSSION AND EXAMPLES) DERIVATIVE
FROM THE EXAMINATION OF THE DATA SET CLASSIFIABLE AS “AFRICAN TRADITIONAL
RELIGIONS”
RELIGIOUS COSMOLOGY (AS EVIDENCED THROUGH THE
METAPHYSICS (A “metaphysics” is a universal, underivative principle that
characterizes reality as a whole and all specific phenomena
constitutive of
this reality).
·
In African Traditional religiosities there is
evidenced a recurrent metaphysics defining the world as function of a force
majeur or a force vitale (a “vitalizing force that permeates all elements
of the cosmos”). A primary example
of this notion is evidenced in the motif of the “Nommo
Twins” found in the creation mythology of Dogon people
of
· Anthropocentrism (“A cosmologically established and evidenced human-centered-ness) is a major root orientation for Homo religiosus in many African Traditional Religion variants (in the Latin, Judeo-Christian West, this anthropocentrism is evidenced in theology that stresses the “God for me”—pro me in Latin—sense of the Trinitarian or Three-in-One deity: what is called an “economic” sense of the deity)
· In many African Traditional Religion variants there are five ontological categories constitutive of the religious cosmology (“ontology” is a term that means “principles or theories of being,” that is principles or theories of “what is”): 1) The numinous; 2) Spirits; 3) Human beings; 4) Animals and Plants; 5) Phenomena and objects without biological life
· In many African Traditional Religion variants, the root trope/motif/metaphor of BALANCE is central (e.g., that connoted in the term “ma’at,” a term of ancient Egyptian origin that connotes “mutual complimentarity,” which has derivatives that occur in many African language groups, especially, that of the Yoruban people of Nigeria, whose religious notions have been diffused into the Western hemisphere through the Voodoo religion of Haiti)
· In many African Traditional Religion variants, Homo religiosus exhibits a sense that certain categories of individuals have the capacity to manipulate the force majeur or force vitale: priests; witches (“witchcraft” is the capacity to manipulate the vital force for various ends); and sorcerers
TIME (NORMATIVE
GESTALTEN EVIDENCED IN AFRICAN TRADITIONAL
RELIGIOSITY)
· In many African Traditional Religion variants the sense of time is not linear (as in Judeo-Christian time sense, implying a beginning, middle, and end), but understood in terms of 1) Actual time (an extremely long past and present); and 2) Potential time (“No time”)
· In many African Traditional religiosities, time is understood as being divisible into two “spheres” or fields, best summed up through the Swahili terms “Sasa” and “Zamani”… “Sasa” is a term that connotes “micro time”: the time of existence/the time that binds people to the immediate. “Zamani” connotes “macro time”: it is the sacred time of myths and the Somewhat/Something Other/numinous/holy/wholly Other itself. Sasa time is contained within Zamani time: in a sense, Homo religiosus exists in both time fields simultaneously (although the inflections of these times vary according to the “state” of the individual in the continuum of existence)
· There is no sense of “end times” (the Greek term and correlate notion eschaton that inflects the sacred text and derivative cosmology of normative Judeo-Christianity) in many African Traditional Religion variants. There is no consciousness of history being comprised of a beginning, middle, and end.
·
In many African Traditional Religion variants there
is no belief in the notion of progress (although, there are exceptions, e.g.,
the Sonjo people in what is now
· In many African Traditional Religion variants there persists the notion that prehistory and history are the domains of myth (creation; the first man; withdrawal of the deity from the world; tribal origins)
· As in religion as such, many African Traditional religiosities entail myth that is communicated intra-generationally and inter-generationally via oral transmission: again, myth connects Homo religiosus with the time of origins…in illo tempore…in illud tempus…
· For many African Traditional religious sensibilities, life is viewed as a function of cyclic rhythms (a la the Judaic and Judeo-Christian notions encoded through the book of Ecclesiastes in the Hebrew and Judeo-Christian sacred canons: a “time for every purpose….”)
· In many African Traditional religious sensibilities, death is considered a moment of transition out of the Sasa time field into the Zamani time field. “The Living Dead” are those who are deceased but still in the memory of those left behind in the Sasa/Zamani field (in fact those who have died remain—those who have transmigrated from the Sasa/Zamani field to the Zamani field—remain in the Zamani field as long as they are remembered and “paid attention to” by those inhabiting the Sasa field). There is NO ANCESTOR WORSHIP in African Traditional religiosity. The ancestors are seen as those who have moved from the Sasa/Zamani field to the pure Zamani field, and thus, still interact with individuals and the cultus. When those in the Sasa/Zamani field no longer remember the names of the deceased, the deceased move from personal immortality in the Zamani field to collective immortality. Collective spirits may inhabit the realm between the numen and human beings, although their influence becomes more collective and less personal…
LAND
CONNECTEDNESS
· “Africans are particularly tied to the land, because it is the concrete expression of both their zamani and their sasa (Mbiti 35). As in the case of Traditional Native American religious cosmology, the land is experienced, perceived, and thought as sacred space for those oriented within some variant of African Traditional Religion
· In many African Traditional Religion variants, specific geographical attributes become tropes or metaphors for the numinous or the primary deity (e.g. the Ngombe from the region called the “Congo” see the numinous—i.e., the high deity—as “the one who clears the forest” reflecting the forest ecosystem in which the cultus dwells; for several tribal groups living in the Mt. Kenya bioregion, the numinous or deity has erupted in illo tempore into the empirical field and continues to erupt in a recapitulation of the primordial hierophany/kratophany interface in the localized vicinity of Mt. Kenya and four other mountains in the bioregion)
·
People of river drainages (e.g. tribal groups
dwelling in the
· In some African Traditional religiosities, national divinities—spirits—are understood as governing the domain of water (e.g., the Banyoro of Uganda make sacrifices to the spirit of Lake Albert; the Baganda of Rwanda have mukasa: the Divinity of seas and lakes; the Yoruba have olokun, the Divinity of the Sea) [Mbiti 70-71]
·
The Lugbara people of
· In some variants of African Traditional religiosity, rain is regarded as a blessing of the high deity: many refer to the deity through terms that can be translated as “rain giver” (e.g., the Didinga of Sudan use the term Tamukujenn for the high deity, which is a word derivative from the cognate tamu, meaning “rain”)
· In some variants of African Traditional religiosity, thunder is understood as the effect of divine or numinous causation
SACRED
HISTORY
·
Exodous and Emancipation: the Meru tribe
of
KINSHIP
· The socio-cultural aggregations and parameters constitutive of kinship structures are ordered according to religious cosmological principles in most groups marked by African Traditional religiosity. Not only are the modes of kinship defined religiously but the parameters for interaction within these kinship groups are defined religously
TABOO
· For the Nuba of Sudan, the deity punishes those who contravene tradition since tradition is established cosmogonically by the deity
·
The Ovambo who dwell in
· In general, sacred boundaries must be paid attention to in recapitulating the hierophany/kratophany orientation (e.g., this “paying attention to” could take the form of sexual abstinence before sacrificing, hunting, and/or smelting, which are all religiously bound ritual practices that recapitulate the order of the world as established primordially through the hierophany/kratophany interface)
ASPECTS AND
ATTRIBUTES OF THE NUMINOUS (AS DEDUCIBLE FROM
THE “PRODUCT” OF
HOMO RELIGIOSUS, ESPECIALLY THE MYTHIC OR
MYTHOPOEIC
ELEMENTS)
GENERAL
ATTRIBUTES:
·
The numinous both
transcends the world (is beyond the world) and is immanent in the world
(permeates the world). The
transcendence of the numinous or deity is often represented spatially in
references to “up there” for the localization of the dwelling place of the
numinous. The numinous is seen
recurrently as beyond the vicissitudes and flux of the existential field. The
immanence of the numinous/deity is attributed to many varieties of hierophanic/kratophanic vectors, expressed mythopoeically (sometimes even through hymns or songs, such
as a hymn of the Gikuyu people of Kenya which asserts,
mythopoetically: No father
or mother, nor wife nor children,/He is alone/He is neither a child nor an old
man;/He is the same today as he was yesterday.[Mbiti 43])
·
Notions concerning the
attributes of the numinous tend to be communicated orally/mythopoeically as well as through other media (e.g., via
what Westerner’s might terms “religious art” or artifacts). Written text is viewed as suspect in
most African Traditional Religion variant.
The
·
The qualities of
OMNIPOTENCE (“All powerful-ness”); OMNISCIENCE (“All knowing-ness”); and
OMNIPRESENCE (“All present-ness”) are generally attributed to the numinous in a
wide range of African Traditional Religion variants. These qualities are attributed
recurrently throughout history and contemporarily to the
numinous
·
In many African
Traditional Religious variants the numinous—i.e., the high deity—is localized up
in the sky (e.g., the Fajulu people of
·
In some variants of
African Traditional religiosity, the numinous is associated with the sun: sun is a manifestation and extension of
the high deity (e.g., the Chagga in
·
In some variants of
African Traditional religiosity there are even associations between the numinous
and the moon (e.g., the Nuer tribe of
·
In some variants of
African Traditional religiosity, the numinous possesses dual aspects (e.g., the
Bari of Sudan; the Lugbara
who once inhabited
·
In most African
Traditional Religions variants, the numinous or deity is viewed as the source of
all phenomena
·
Again, in most African
Traditional Religions variants, the numinous is viewed in terms of a power
hierarchy: 1) the High Deity; 2)
Spirits; 3) Humanity; 4) Animal and Vegetable Domains; 5) Phenomena in the
inanimate domain
ONOMASTICS OR A STUDY OF THE
NAMES FOR/OF THE NUMINOUS
·
The Zulu of South
Africa and the Banyarwanda of Rwanda call the numinous
or the high deity “The Wise One” (Mbiti
39)
·
The Akan of Ghana designate the numinous or the high deity as
“He who knows and sees all.” (39)
·
The Barundi of Barundi designate the numinous/high deity, “Watcher of everything.”
(39)
·
The Ila of Zambia have a term for the numinous/high deity that
can be translated as “Ears are long” (39)
·
The Baganda of Uganda have a name for the numinous/high deity
that can be translated as “The Great One”
·
The Bamum of Cameroon use the terms Njinyi or Nnui, meaning “He who is
everywhere” to designate the numinous or deity.
·
The Tonga of Zambia use
a term for the numinous/high deity that can be translated as “The Ancient of
Days” (see as a parallel the term from the Hebrew and Judeo-Christian sacred
book called Daniel that is translated along the same formulaic
lines: YHWH, the numinous in
Judaism and Judeo-Christianity, is given an appellation that is translated as
“The Ancient of Days”). For the
·
The Ga tribe of Ghana, the Langi of
Uganda, and the Shilluk of Sudan analogue or
approximate the numinous through the trope/metaphor of wind or air (recall the
Native American Navajo notion of “Holy Wind” and the Judeo-Christian notion of
“The Holy Spirit” derivative from the Greek term and correlate notion
Pneuma Hagia, which connotes “the
Holy Breath or Wind”)
·
In many variants of
African Traditional Religiosity, the numinous or deity is ineffable or not name-able! The Lunda who
inhabit Zambia, Angola, and Congo have a name—Njambi-Kalunga—that is translatable
as “The God of the Unknown”; the Ngombe of Congo have
a name—Enda Landala—that translates as
“The Unexplainable”; the Masai of Kenya have a
name—Ngai—that translates as
“The Unknown” (note the Judeo-Christian New Testament reference to the Greeks
who had a statue dedicated to “the Unknown God” on Mars Hill or The Areopagus)
·
The names for the
numinous or the high deity and the attributes associated with these names can be
deduced from specific kinds of religious “product” that have mythopoeic quality.
For example a traditional Pygmy hymn encodes mythopoeically the attributes of the numinous associated
with the nameless holiness of this numinous: In the
beginning was God/Today is God/Tomorrow will be God./Who can make an image of
God?/He has no body/He is a word which comes out of your mouth./That word! It is
no more,/It is past and still lives!/So is
God.
(Mbiti 49)
·
The Nuba of
·
The Barundi of Burundi have a term for the
numinous—Haragakiza—that can be translated
as “There is a savior,” implying the salvific or
saving quality of the numinous (the numinous intervenes on behalf of
people!)
·
In some variants of
African Traditional religiosity, the numinous/deity is seen in terms of
political tropes or metaphors: chief, lord, master (the Judeo-Christian “Gospel
According to Matthew” demonstrates the tendency to use political tropes in
reference to the numinous, in its tracing of Jesus’ genealogy back to King
David)
·
Judicial
metaphors—e.g., judge—often time become the orienting onomastics for referring to the numinous or the
deity
COSMOGONY
(LITERALLY “THE BIRTH OF THE COSMOS” FOR Homo religiosus, AS ENCODED AND TRANSMITTED MYTHICALLY OR
MYTHOPOEICALLY)
·
The works of the
numinous/deity: the high deity is
predominantly seen as the Creator (e.g., the Akan
tribe of
·
The potter trope or
metaphor is prevalent in representing the numinous’/deity’s agency in creation
(e.g., in the Banyarwanda tribe of Rwanda, women leave
“God Water” to the deity in order that the deity may create more children for
people [51])
·
The Tiv of Nigeria are carpenters and thus see the
numinous/deity through a carpenter/wood-worker root trope or metaphor,
indicating that the numinous/deity has a carpenter-like agency in generating the
cosmos or world
·
The Kiga of
RITUALS (THE MODES OF RESPONDING TO OR “PAYING
ATTENTION TO” THE SOMEWHAT/SOMETHING OTHER/NUMINOUS/HOLY/WHOLLY OTHER MANIFESTED
TO Homo religiosus THROUGH A PRIMARY
HIEROPHANY/KRATOPHANY INTERFACE)
·
Rainmaking
rituals/ceremonies are prevalent all over
·
Many tribes practice a
“ceremony of naming” (e.g., the Gu people of
·
Some tribes maintain a
holy fire (e.g., the purifying fire of the Gikuyu
tribe in
·
Worship is done
universally through utterance:
utterance is an external marker for internal religious orientation. Worship is done in thought, word, and
deed in African Traditional religiosity
·
Ceremonial rituals,
such as circumcisions, marriages, and naming, cover liminal
periods in the
existential field of Homo religiosus (a liminal period in religious
studies and anthropological discourse is a period of transition from one “state”
to another: the period of physical
and psychological transformation that is constitutive of the morphing from
childhood to adulthood is a liminal period; the period
of social/legal/spiritual transformation that is constitutive of the morphing
from singlehood to marriage is a liminal period…)
·
Most tribes practice
variants of what can be called “death rituals” (e.g., the Ladogaa people of
SACRIFICE
·
Sacrifices and
offerings constitute one of the most common acts of worship (responding to or
“paying attention to” the “Somewhat/Something Other…) among African peoples
(75)
·
There are four
prevalent theories to explain the function of sacrifices and offerings in
African Traditional Religions:
o
Gift
Theory
o
Propitiation Theory
o
Communion
Theory
o
Thank-Offering
Theory
·
All sacrificial rituals
involve paying to the ontological balance of power: being bound by, towards, and through the
Somewhat/Something Other… erupting into the empirical field and orienting
Homo religiosus
·
Many tribes participate
in sacrificial rituals or ceremonies that include some form of animal sacrifice
(e.g., the Bevenda of South Africa and the Luo of Kenya sacrifice black animals; the Abaluyia of Kenya and the Baganda
of Uganda sacrifice white animals)
·
The Abaluyia of Kenya believe that the deity is “The one to whom
sacred rites and sacrifice are made and paid” (77)
·
Bachwa and Bambuti pygmies give a portion of their return from hunting
and gathering to the deity; if this is not “paid attention to,” a person will
fall sick or will have bad fortune in hunting (this kind of motif is evidenced
in variants of Traditional Native American religiosity as
well)
·
The Barundi of Burundi make sacrifices to Kiranga, which can be
translated into English as the “hero spirit” who intercedes to the high deity on
behalf of the people
·
Sacrifice is almost
universally reinforced with prayer
RELIGIOUS
SOCIO-CULTURAL ROLES (AS ESTABLISHED, AUTHORIZED, AND SUSTAINED
RELIGOUSLY)
·
·
Healers/Shamans who
understand dis-ease as a function of psycho-spiritual
origin or etiology, and who treat dis-ease through the
several types of “agency” capacities:
o
Healers/Shamans are
spiritual agents in restoring health or wholeness
o
Healer/Shamans are
custodians of ethnobotanical cures as well as
administrators of these cures
o
Healer/Shamans are
spiritual/psychological mediators
o
Healer/Shamans function
as exorcists (e.g., the Acholi of Uganda believe that
Jok or evil spirits are
the agents of illness—the Ajwaka is the healer in the
cultus)
·
Prophets (e.g., the
Ngunudeng
of the
Sudanese Nuer tribe who go into ecstasy and speak for
the sky deity, dengkur)
·
The Chief-king or
Fon: In African Traditional religiosity, the
socio-political role of the chief-king is a fundamentally religious role (as
part of the religiously defined cosmology). Kingship rituals entail a symbolic (but
literal to Homo religiosus) death of the
individual and resurrection in the new role and being of the king (see, for
example, the kingship rituals of the Bantu-speaking tribes).
THEODICY OR
RELIGIOUS EXPLANATIONS OF AND THEORIES FOR THE EXPERIENCES OF EVIL (PHYSICAL
EVIL, LIKE NATURAL DISASTERS, AND MORAL EVIL, SUCH AS
MURDER)
·
Evil is more attributed
to human short-circuiting of the largely beneficent force
vitale or force
majeur that permeates all
aspects of the cosmos—i.e., through the manipulation of the “power field” via
sorcery and witchcraft. Magic and
sorcery are often seen as the sources or etiological causal factors operative in
experiences and perceptions of personal affliction
·
In some religious
systems, the deity is seen as responsible for the human afflictions (e.g., the
Tonga of Zambia have a notion of Tilo, which is a term and
correlate concept describing the maleficent attributes of the deity and
heaven)
·
Sometimes experienced
and perceived evils are attributed to the agency of the deity who punishes
transgressors of taboo (Mbiti 56)
·
In many African
Traditional religious sensibilities, Homo religiosus understands that the
deity is responsible for human mortality (e.g., the Ankore of Uganda; the Azande of
Sudan; the Bachwa of Congo; the Gikuyu of Kenya; Vugusu of Kenya;
the Yoruba of Nigeria; the Zulu of South Africa; and many other tribal
affiliations). However, in general,
the deity is not usually associated with the causal factors that result in the
specific afflictions that beset humanity
RELIGIOUS ETHICS
(THE TERM “ETHICS” IS DERIVATIVE FROM THE GREEK COGNATE “ETHOS,” CONNOTING “THE
BEHAVIORAL HABITS OF A PEOPLE”)
·
In many tribal
societies, the deity is viewed as a judge punishing those who transgress the
boundaries constitutive of taboo (e.g., the Nuba of
Sudan see the deity as punishing those who contravene national traditions since
these traditions as sustained ritually recapitulate the fundamental religious
orientation established through the primary hierophany/kratophany
interface)
As indicated above,
due to staggering vastness of the data set constitutive of the taxonomical
classification “African Traditional religiosity,” the derivation of universal
hypotheses describing general isomorphic patterns evidenced throughout the data
set is a very difficult if not impossible enterprise. One only needs to look at a map
identifying the vast diverse tribal affiliations and vastly divergent linguistic
traditions, in relation to their geographical niches, that mark the African
continent, to realize the complexity of examining the data set without slipping
into some kind of reductionistic mis-representation.
As in the case of the study of Traditional Native American Religion, the
contemporary examination of African Traditional Religion entails more of a focus
on the sui generis elements of specific socio-cultural/tribal
variants in the data set rather than the focus on asserting more universal
hypotheses. Many of the assertions
concerning perceived isomorphic patterns made in academic circles in the past
are currently being suspended and put under intense scrutiny. A significant tool in both the
descriptive and evaluative processes is the ever-expanding range of available
data relating to the subject matter.
As in the case of religious studies as such, one of the most daunting
challenges in examining the phenomenal elements constitutive of the “African
Traditional Religions” data set is allowing the data to “speak for itself” in
its own context without passing judgment of the data or imposing interpretive
schema on the subject matter, which mis-represent
rather than accurately represent or describe that which they purport to describe
(more contemporary scholars of African Traditional religiosity have even accused
John Mbiti, cited so frequently above, of being
reductive—Mbiti is a Kenyan theologian acculturated in
the Judeo-Christian tradition, but nevertheless, involved in pioneering studies
of African Traditional Religions).
Viewing the multivalent and complex attributes of African Traditional
Religions and understanding these attributes in their own terms, before these
religiosities are subducted below the new, more-global
and urban-cosmopolitan affiliated religiosities, poses a tangible challenge to
scholarship.
“
2002.
1/266.htm
>.
Ani,
Marimba.
Yurugu: An African-centered Critique of
European Cultural Thought
And
Behavior.
Masolo,
D.A. African Philosophy in Search of Identity.
Mbiti, John S.
African Religions and Philosophy. Garden City, NY:
Anchor Books/Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1969.
Serequeberhan, Tsenay,
ed. African Philosophy: The
Essential