AFRICISM
The Consolidating Name and Definition of African Religion
by
Aloysius M. Lugira
Introduction
For many years Africa remained a terra incognita, that is an unknown world, to many peoples outside the continent of Africa. For many years literacy has become the practical conveyor of knowledge about other peoples and other cultures. Objective knowledge about Africa through writing and reading did not become accessible to the literate world for a long time.
The classical world is understood to have had little knowledge of Africa, its peoples, and its cultures, in which its religions are enshrined. Many literate traditions tended to find it difficult to admit that Axum, Egypt, Nubia and later the Maghreb, were parts of Africa. The classical world easily indulged in allegations and feelings that Africa teemed with fabulous creatures. However, as Strabo has indicated, some sensible observers among the literate Greeks and Romans did not seriously take fables concocted about Africa by personalities like Homer and Hesiod. seriously. a
Early, purportedly, non-fictional writers make reference to the religions of Africa, with hesitations. As Grottanelli notes, “Herodotus and some later writers, for example, refer to the gods of Libyans, attributing Greek names to them.”[1987:89]. But, as Stephanie
Gsell remarks in his eight volume books on the history of North Africa, “we cannot be sure whether these gods were true Berber deities or gods introduced to Africa by Phoenicians.”[Paris 1913-1928]. The Romans who ruled North Africa were interested more in the promotion of their religion than the religion of their colonialized subjects. As the classical writers were not really interested in the religions of Africa, they had no interest in being preoccupied about how those religions should be known.
Approaches to the Naming of the Religion of Africa
It is the modern times European colonialist arrival to Africa, which ushered in the name-calling of the religions of Africa, the focus of this treatise. Approaches to the coinage of the variety of names included a number of theories, which were supported by knowledgeable scholars in humanities and social sciences. In concrete terms, here, one speaks about theorists who are identified with the following professionalism: Anthropologists, many of whom handle and describe religious beliefs and practices as they feel they are in a variety of communities. Historians treat religion in terms of events resulting from beliefs. Theologians are preoccupied with reflection on beliefs with special attention on whether they are true or not. These theorists being sons and daughters of their backgrounds have often espoused theories about the Religion of Africa which are in compliance with “Evolution” as discovered and expounded by Charles Darwin[1859], adapted by Edward B. Tylor[1871], J.G. Frazer[ ] and W. Robertson Smith, in the British Isles, and as promoted by Emile Durkheim [1912] and Lucien Levy-Bruhl [1912], on continental Europe. “Functionalism” as the mainly theoretical approach of the study of religion of the twentieth century sharpens the focus of questioning about what function was served by religion in a particular society, rather than dwelling on asking the evolutionary question of how religion first originated. The avid promoters of this theory include anthropologists Bronislaw Malinowski and Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard. From the second half of the twentieth century, anthropologists focused attention to the role of religion as an expression of the structure of the ideas, values and beliefs of society. This is the theory of “Structuralism” the leading proponent of which is Claude Levi-Strauss. “Projection” is a theoretical term, which embraces not only the psychological approach of Sigmund Freud but also the earlier philosophical arguments of Ludwig Feuerbach who claimed that statements about God were really to be understood as statements about humanity. All these are strong theoretical bases in which questionable names of the religions of Africa originate. These names, as will be enumerated later in this treatise, are eurocentric in design. In order to right the imbalances generated by the misnomers of the religions of Africa an africentrically geo-ontological approach is applied so as to be enabled to coin a consolidated name for the religions of Africa. The name is Africism. And the objective of this treatise is to define Africism.
I
Factors of Western Approaches to Names of the Religions of Africa
For many centuries the religions of Africa have been called a variety of names. Some of these names have been categorized as negative names. While some names are spuriously ambiguous, others are inaccurate. Negative names of the religions of Africa include Paganism, Heathenism and Kafirism. Spuriously ambiguous names, include Fetishism, Animism and Primitive Religion. Inaccurate names of the Religions of Africa include Tribal Religion, African Traditional Religion and African Primal Religion. All the above fall under the category of misnomers of African Religion.
These misnomers have come about as a result of the marginalization of the continent of Africa. Generally speaking this kind of condition about Africa was caused by situations like those of slave trade, colonialism, imperialism, racism and xenophobia. Given the crumbling barriers of today’s shrinking World as well as the idealistic movement towards Globalization, a new day about the perception of the religions of Africa appears to be on the horizon.
During the 20th Century, many world religious institutions and organizations changed their minds about what to include in the grouping of religions of what used to be understood by the terminology, World Religions, in the sense of being a preserve of such religions as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. Of late, in spite of the good will expressed about the ethnic religions of Africa, still there existed the disadvantage of a lack of a consolidated name for African Religion. This glaring lack of the consolidated name became the motivating element in search of a consolidated name for the autochthonal religions of Africa.
Elements of an African Approach toward the Naming of the Religions of Africa
The Western approach to the study of African Religion was Eurocentric. So it was decided that the search for the consolidated name of African religion was going to be not only Afrocentric but it was going to be also and mainly Africist. The specific approach was to take into consideration what Anthropologist Ashley Montagu has observed that
“The true scientist endeavors to see things the way they are, not the way they ought to be or what is considered desirable.” [1968:4-5]. In that sense the approach was designed to put into consideration the origination of the religions of Africa both ethnically and geographically. The identification therefore of the approach is identified to be autochthonal that is that it designates a religion, which independently originates and exists in the land of Africa. Specifically, the approach is a geo-ontological one. Like one speaks about something geopolitical in reference to something which is based on the interrelation of politics and geography, so something geo-ontological or geontological, means something based on the interrelationship of being and geography. In that sense what is being looked for is to strike a deal which comes up with the name of the religions of Africans which links the being of that religion interrelationally with Africa. Internationally the efficient way of personal identification is carried out by means of a document known as a passport. This document with its entire geopolitical and geo-ontological links gives assurances as to whether the bearer of the passport is identified in an appropriately objective way. The criterion of being, together with the one of geographical origination become the starting points in the endeavor of aiming at contributing to the establishment of a comprehensively consolidated name for the religion of Africans. On this basis the geo-ontological approach in search of an appropriate name for the religions of Africans, descriptively lands one into the name “African Autochthonal Religions” and/or “African Religions”. As it will soon be shown, one may speak about “Africism” as the consolidating name of the ethnic religions of Africa.
Relative to the geo-ontological approach in search of an appropriate name, the term autochthonal or autochthonous contributes to the clarification of the geographically aboriginal originality of the religion, which is descriptively identified as being autochthonal.
Etymologically, the term autochthonal is derived from Greek, through the agglutination of a prefix, a Greek root word, and an adjectival suffix. The Greek prefix “auto” has the meanings of “self, one’s own, by oneself, independently, self-motivating, self-, etc.” The Greek root word “chthon” means “earth, soil, land”. “Auto” the prefix brought together with “chthon” , the root word, and the suffix “al” result in autochthonal. And something autochthonal refers to something, which independently pertains to a land, a continent, as part of it or as part of its products.
Geo-ontologically descriptive, African Autochthonal Religion, may be viewed as a comprehensive expression of the aboriginal religion of Africa. It is inclusive by the fact that in the concept autochthonism, ideas of originality, aboriginality, traditions and belongingness to a land and people thereof, are to be found. Because of these same ideas African religion is not only viewed in terms of the past but it is also looked at in its present as well as in its future perspectives. The adjective autochthonal, or autochthonic, or autochthonous is also necessitated by the confusion caused by some writers who when they say “African Religion” they mean what the title “Religions in Africa”, spells.
Definition of Africism
What is a Definition?
Before proceeding on to define Africism it might be useful to give some context as to what a definition in general is, the types of definitions and the rules of a definition.
It is also appropriate, as a reminder to mention some players in a chronological order in as far as the dissemination of notions about definitions is concerned from classical times to contemporary times.
1. What is a definition?
Is a question, which may be answered in a variety of ways by a variety of people.
a. In classical terms Aristotle gives the following answer to the question: “ A definition indicates the whatness and the essence of something”, in other words, a definition is “the presentation or expression of that which constitutes the essence of a thing.”This is a rendering, which has been volunteered by Roy J. Deferrari [1948:274] and by Raziel Abelson [1967:314-324].
b. In contemporary practical terms T.Y. defines a definition as: “Specification of the meaning or, alternatively, conceptual content of an expression. For example, ‘period of fourteen days’ is a definition of ‘fortnight’. [1999:213].”
2. Kinds of Definitions:
Definitions fall into many kinds. For the purpose of this work focus will be directed to three kinds:
a. The etymological definition: The explanation of the history of the word as shown by breaking it down into basic elements or by tracing it back to the earliest known form and indicating its changes in form of meaning.
b. The nominal definition: The explanation of the meaning of the word.
c. The real definition: The explanation of the thing defined.
3. Rules for Defining:
These are rules handed down to us by Aristotle in his Topica. [1967:322]. By the weight of tradition these rules have continued to be accepted to the present day. They are:
(1) A definition should give the essence or nature of the thing defined, rather than it’s accidental properties.
(2) A definition should give the genus and diferentia of the thing defined.
(3) One should not define by synonyms.
(4) A definition should be concise.
(5) One should not define by metaphors.
(6) One should not define by negative terms or by correlative terms (e.g., one should not define north as opposite of south, or parent as a person with one or more children).
4. Some Pertinent Contributors to the Literary Study of the Definition
Before one may talk about major contributors to the study of the Definition, it might be helpful first to determine the viewpoints under which those contributors may be classified. They are pioneers that may be identified as having contributed at a classical stage. There are those work were carried out during modern times. And those who have contributed in our contemporary time. Contributors have proposed their views, which can be subsumed under three general types of positions. The three general positions are what Raziel Abelson has summarized as the: (1) essentialist type; (2) prescriptive type; (3) linguistic type. In abbreviated form the three types have come respectively to be known as: “E-type,” “P-type,” “L-type”. [1967:314-324].
a. Contributors whose presentations mainly fall under the E-type include classical pioneers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, who have bequeathed us with the Socratic question, namely the “What is X”. To these pioneers one may had writers like Thomas Aquinas of medieval time as well as Kant and Husserl of modern times.
b. Supporters of P-type views include Paschal, Hobbes, Russell and most contemporary logicians.
c. Those who support L-type views include John Stuart Mill, G.E. Moore, Richard Robinson, whose book Definition was said to have had the distinction of being the only book in the English language devoted to the subject of definition. [1954].
The definition of Africism will be approached in a threefold way. First it will be by way of an etymological definition. Second a nominal definition will be presented. Third the real definition will be given.
Africism is a term, which is derived from geo-ontological, historical and linguistic origination to signify the unity and diversity of African religions.
Etymology is succinctly described as “ The study of the derivation of words.” In the case of the term “Africism”, the involvement is to try and answer the question: What is Africism? Since this is a word, in defining this word, it becomes important first to go the etymological way. Hence the suggestion of an etymological definition. This calls for some explanation of the historical background of this word “Africism”. It also calls for the breaking down into basic elements of the word as well as trying to figure out the meaning this word bears.
The term “Africism” is tied up with geo-ontological as well as geopolitical circumstances, which have affected the African continent for along time. It is for that reason that in order appropriately to define what “Africism” is, one has to delve first into martial, colonialist, and imperialist relationships between the northest part of what is known as the Continent of Africa and the City State of Rome.
The particular developments of what is being referred to here are largely connected with the three Punic Wars which took place in the years 264-242 B.C., 218-202 B.C., 149-146 B.C., between Carthage and Rome. Brian H. Warmington has succinctly pictured these wars [1985:8-9]. The primary military rivals of these campaigns, as generals, were Hannibal on the side of Carthage and Scipio Africanus on the part of Rome. After Hannibal’s epic descent onto Italy across the Alps with herds of elephants Carthage was realized as being Rome’s most formidable enemy. Hence came Cato the Elder’s injunction that “Carthage has to be destroyed.” (Delenda est Carthago).
The end of the third Punic War in 146 B.C. saw the total destruction of the city of Carthage. In what is now Tunisia, Rome established a province in North Africa in the fertile region behind the ruined city of Carthage. This came to be known as Roman Africa. The province is said to have prospered greatly and became the granary of Rome.
Later the province was extended to present day Libya, the Tripolitan coast. In 46 B.C. modern Algeria known then as Numidia was added first as a separate province called Africa Nova. In 25 B.C. Emperor Augustus united the two provinces and called them
Africa Proconsularis. In 42 A.D., Emperor Claudius formed two new provinces in Mauritanea an area which today comprises Western Algeria and Morocco.
This part of the African Continent became so acculturated to the Roman culture and civilization to the extent that Latin became the official language of the area. Classical writings make it abundantly clear that the autochthonally ethnic people of the region were known as afer in the singular, and afri in the plural.
By Latin word formation the land of the afri was in Roman parlance to be known as Africa. In other words Afric- becomes the root word onto which a gender modifying suffix is added like in the case of Afric-us in case of something masculine or like in Afric-a, in case of something feminine, or like in Afric-um, in case of something in a neuter gender. By the same consideration an “-ism” as a suffix to Afric- can be added to affect the root word in terms of a signification relative to religion.
Africism is the religious umbrella name of the ethnically religious manifestations of Africa.
During the time of the Roman occupation of parts of North Africa, Africa signified the Roman Territorial Province. Obviously the Roman Province was not the end of the existing block of land whose unbroken extension was understood to be continuing southwards to form the entire main land beyond the Roman Province which came to be known as terra incognita. While the objective translation of terra incognita would mean “the unknown land”, the obliquely transposed rendering of terra incognita generated the loaded and smugly applied phrase, the “Dark Continent.” The oneness of “Africa” includes both Africa as the Roman province together with “Africa “ as terra incognita. Similarly Africism is one in the oneness of Africa.
Africism is a religious umbrella for under it is a variety of autochthonal religious manifestations the classification of which is to be shown later in this treatise. Religious manifestations in autochthonal Africa represent the African systems of religious beliefs, ritual practices and thought systems, which in essence appear to be the same, but being expressive of differences in manifestations. It is hereby considered appropriate to come up with a coinage of a term, which meets the need of being able to express the African religious phenomenon in a comprehensively consolidated way. This is done by the proposition of the term Africism. Africism is arrived at by agglutinating the root word
“Afric-“ with the suffix “–ism”. It is linguistically sound to apply the suffix “-ism” in the process of forming the name of a system of a theory or practice which can be religious, ecclesiastical, philosophical, etc. according to the circumstances at hand. As Heinrich von Stietencron testifies, for “Africism”, Hinduism is a case in point. [
Africism is hereby defined as: The system of African autochthonal religious beliefs, ritual practices and thought, concerning the Supreme Being, superhuman beings, human beings, extrahuman beings and the world.
According to this definition Africism stands for the essence and unity of African religion and thought as well as for the existence of the plurality of the manifestations of African religions and modes of thinking. It is in this sense that Africism becomes the umbrella name of the systems of beliefs, thought and practices of the peoples of Africa.
Salient features of Africism as constituted in the real definition may synoptically be viewed as follows:
(1) The Supreme Being
The Supreme Being, in Africism, is a being above which there is none.
By reason of this supremacy, the most auspicious attribute of this Being is one of being the originator of whatever exists. African peoples recognize the existence of the Supreme Being by identifying the existence of this Being through a variety and multiplicity of names. In the pyramidal conceptualization of existence African consider the Supreme Being to be at the apex of things. The Supreme Being is the uniquely one whose divinity commands the monopoly of God with a capital “G”.
(2) The Superhuman beings
The hierarchical structure of Africism is one of the cardinal elements of the autochthonal religions of Africa. Superhuman beings are those beings, which fall under the category of the spirit world. Spirits are also hierarchically considered. Among spirits there are gods of a variety of ranks. Some are considered to be associates of the Supreme Being, others are regarded as heads of departments and functionaries in the service of the Supreme Being in such a way that Africism becomes a religion which hierarchically entertains the existence of a Monotheism that goes hand in hand with Polytheism of gods with lowercase “g”.
There also tutelary spirits believed to have been so created by the Supreme Being for purposes of exercising some guardianship in the interest of communities.
There is also the belief in the spirit of the departed for spiritual immortality is one of the beliefs of Africism.
(3) Human Beings
Human beings form the third salient feature of Africism. What some colonialist
Administrators have observed about Africans that they are “incurably religious”,
testifies to the fact that human beings are the key players in as far as believing
and ritual practices in Africism are concerned.
(4) Extrahuman Being
In the world of beliefs and ritual practices there are mystical powers and/or parareligious powers which in a variety of ways do preoccupy the minds, feelings and beliefs of people in African communities as the case may happen to be in many other human communities. These mystical powers are perceived to be agents beside human capabilities. Hence the reference to them in terms of extrahuman beings. These mystical powers include:
a. Magic, the influences of which are steeped in neutrality.
b. Witchcraft, the adverse influences of which are believed to be natural
c. Sorcery, the adverse influences of which are believed mainly to be artificially nurtured and induced.
(5) The World
Believers of Africism live in the world. As observers of the world around them they are induced to draw conclusions, which religiously affect them relative to the phenomenal and ineffable experience, they encounter about the world in terms of time, space and elements.
The salient features of Africism, which have been summarized above are essentially, present in each of the variety of manifestations of religiosity of the many peoples of Africa. Given the available studies of Africism one can in the next chapter give some classification on the basis of the status of Africism e.g. obsolete or living. Region, nation- states and ethnicity can also lead to the classification of Africism.
III
Classification of Africism by Regions, Nation-States and Ethnicities
NORTHERN AFRICA
Berber Africism
Egyptian Africism
Cushite Africism
Nubian Africism
Living Africism
Azande Africism
Dinka Africism
Nuer Africism
Shilluk Africism
Aksumite Africism
Abyssinian Africism
Galla Africism
Living Africism
Agikuyu Africism
Akamba Africism
Baluya Africism
Kipsigis Africism
Luo Africism
Maasai Africism
Meru Africism
Nandi Africism
TANZANIA
Living Africism
Bahaya Africism
Banyakyusa Africism
Baziba Africism
Sandawe Africism
Wachagga Africism
Wasukuma Africism
Acholi Africism
Baganda Africism
Bagisu Africism
Banyankole Africism
Banyoro Africism
Langi Africism
Lugbara Africism
Barundi Africism
Bahiri Africism
Baaka Africism
Bakweri Africism
Bamenda Africism
Bamileke Africism
Aka Africism
Bakongo Africism
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
Bakongo Africism
Bakuba Africism
Balele Africism
Baluba Africism
Bambuti Africism
Bashi Africism
Bakota Africism
Fang Africism
Achewa Africism
Angoni Africism
Anyanja Africism
Wayao Africism
Banyarwanda Africism
Babemba Africism
Baila Africism
Bakaonde Africism
Balala Africism
Balozi Africism
Balovale Africism
Badembu Africism
Batonga Africism
ANGOLA
Ovimbundu Africism
BOTSWANA
Batswana Africism
Basuto Africism
Makua Africism
Ovambo Africism
Amaxosa Africism
Amazulu Africism
Ovaherero Africism
Khoi-Khoi Africism
San Africism
Living Africism
Fon Africism
Mossi Africism
Akan Africism
Ewe Africism
Ga Africism
Krobo Africism
IVORY COAST
Agni Africism
Kpelle Africism
Bambara Africism
Dogo Africism
Songhay Africism
Edo Africism
Fulani Africism
Hausa Africism
Igbo Africism
Kalabari Africism
Nupe Africism
Tiv Africism
Yako Africism
Yoruba Africism
Mende Africism
Kono Africism
Sherbro Africism
The purpose of writing this treatise has been to suggest an approach to the study of the religions of Africa by way of rendering them the respect they deserve. This respect will not be achieved if there is no objective understanding of this religion. If these religions continue to be known by misleading names their marginalization will continue to be assured. Africism as the proposed name can be perceived in a variety of dimensions. If the reader of the treatise senses a dimension that may be added to the definition of Africism, he or she is welcome to suggest it.
Abelson, Raziel. 1967. “Definition”. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Paul Edwards, Editor in Chief. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc. & Free Press.
Aristotle, Works. Edited by W.D. Ross. 1928. Oxford.
Deferrari, Roy J. 1948. A Lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas. Washington, D.C.
Durkheim,Emile. 1912.Les Formes elementaires de la vie religieuse. (English translation. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 1915).
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1965. Theories of Primitive Religion. Oxford At the Clarendon Press.
Feuerbach, Ludwig. 1841.The Essence of Christianity.
Frazer, J.G. 1890. The Golden Bough
Freud, Sigmund. 1928. The Future of an Illusion. London: Hogarth Press.
Grottanelli, Vagini. 1987.”African Religion:History of Study”. In Mircea Eliade. 1987. The Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume I. New York:MacMillan Company, pp. 89-96.
Gsell, Stephanie. 1913-1928. Histoire Ancienne de l’Afrique du Nord. Paris.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. 1962. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Translated from the French, La Pensee sauvage).
Levy-Bruhl, Lucien. 1910, 1912. Les Fonctions mentales dans les societes inferieures. (English translation: How Natives Think, 1926).
Malinowski, Bonislaw. 1925. Science, Religion and Reality
Montagu, Ashley (ed.). 1968. The Concept of the Primitive. New York: The Free Press.
Robinson, Richard. 1954. Definition. Oxford
T.Y. 1999. “Definition”. In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Robert Audi General Editor. Cambridge University Press.
Tylor, Edward B. 1871 Primitive Culture. 2vols
Von Stietencron, Heinrich. 1993. “What is Hinduism? On the History of a Religious Tradition” In Christianity and World Religions: Path to Dialogue. Hans Kueng et al.(translation byPeter Heinegg. Maryknoll, New York 10545: Orbis Books.
Warmington, Brian H. 1985. “Punic Wars”. In Encyclopedia Americana. Alan H. Smith, Editor in Chief. Danbury, Connecticut 06816