Afrocentrism and World Politics: Towards a New Paradigm.

Reviewed by

Molefi Kete Asante Temple University

Errol Anthony Henderson has written a remarkable book. It is a book that purports to advance a new paradigm in the discourse on world politics as he seeks to "critique and contribute to the Afrocentrist approach." This is a laudable goal, and it is one of which I approve wholeheartedly.

But, alas, the project goes awry because it seems that Professor Henderson confuses Afrocentricity with Africanity at times, and at other times he is not clear on the origin of Afrocentricity as an intellectual idea itself. These, as I shall point out, are not the only areas of difficulty for this worthwhile idea; the author also introduces us to kimira, a quite interesting concept, but one which suffers from lack of conceptual clarity, particularly in relationship to what others have called Afrocentricity.

Yet I am rather impressed by the way Henderson outlines the limitations of the scientific exegesis of political phenomena. He is quite right in suggesting the inability of paradigms of politics to provide suitable interpretations of the totality of world politics. I believe that the idea of wholism, which Henderson sees in Afrocentricity (or is this Africanity?), is a key reason he argues for a new paradigm in politics. He believes that the idea of wholism, which he attributes to Afrocentricity, would augur well for a wholistic interpretation of international politics. This is a rather bold position, particularly when Henderson insists that Afrocentricity is attacking white supremacy. Most Afrocentrists are too busy advancing the agency of Africans to spend time attacking white supremacy; indeed, if it is attacked it is only in the process of advancing Africa. It is a mistake to assume that the Afrocentrist's project is weighted toward an attack on white supremacy rather than on the establishment of African agency in every given circumstance.

Perhaps Henderson's project is an assault on white supremacy as he sees it in the field of political science. Rather than re-orienting the study of political processes, it appears that kimira is an offering alongside the development of realism, interdependency, Marxism, behaviorism, and other political ideas and concepts, all of which are unabashedly Eurocentric.

It is possible that in a thoroughgoing Afrocentric analysis of the processes of politics one could critique the entire structure of political institutions and traditions inherited from the West. There is no reason for all political processes to look like those inherited from Europe or America.

Professor Henderson appropriates Cheikh Anta Diop to the Afrocentrist's project without telling us how Diop is an Afrocentrist. This is an assumption that is made without regard to either Diop's own intellectual traditions or a complete understanding of the Afrocentric field. Henderson is not the first to use Diop in this way. In fact, the use of Diop, a historian, linguist, and physical scientist, as an Afrocentrist may be doing something to Diop that even he would have objected to during his life. Afrocentrists, such as myself, have claimed Diop to be a precursor of the Afrocentric tradition, but marking him, as has often been done, as an Afrocentrist may lead to confusion of categories.

I raise this question because like Henderson I do not see that we need totally to "abandon Diop," but we do need to ask how Diop is seen in the light of the intent of the Afrocentrists to create a new paradigm for analysis. In 1980 I met Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar at his office and told him that I intended to research and publish in defense of Africa. He cautioned me that "Africa needs no defense; Africa must be advanced." As I reflected on Diop's words over the years, it occurred to me that he might have been speaking of advancing Africanity, the idea of Africa in terms of culture, political dynamics, and traditions, rather than the absolute projecting of African agency in every discourse and situation, as I had meant by Afrocentricity. I never resolved that issue in my mind, but I believe that Professor Henderson has landed on the side of Africanity. Nevertheless, he has written a wonderful work; even with its flaws, it stands as the best work written to date on the question of Afrocentricity and world politics. It is written in an engaging style and with a great sense of self-consciousness which is always enjoyable. I recommend this book for study and discussion and believe that it will be around for many years as a useful volume on Afrocentricity.