28 Endogenous Knowledge_ Paulin Hountondji

Anu K Antony

INTRODUCTION

Endogenous Knowledge is a concept developed in the interactive sessions of a seminar organized by Paulin Hountondji at Universite Nationale du Benin, Cotonou, in 19871. There is a larger context in which the term ‘endogenous knowledge’ was evolved out of the discussions in this seminar. An elaboration of this context is required before explaining what Endogenous Knowledge means. One has to historically approach the problem of Africa’s underdevelopment to understand it properly, according to Paulin Hountondji. The present underdevelopment of Africa is a result of colonial domination and exploitation in the past. The colonial exploitation continues  in  many  ways  even  after  the  independence  from  direct  colonial  rule.  This exploitation, according to Houtondji, is not just restricted to the economic realms, but it also extend to the sphere of knowledge production. The knowledge production in Africa, according to Hountondji is highly dependent to the academia of North. (Hountondji, 1995: 2) This dependency of African academia to the North opens to a set of serious discussions and leads us to the concept of Endogenous Knowledge. Hence, it is first important to discuss the context and other concepts which help us to understand the meaning and relevance of ‘Endogenous Knowledge’. Though Hountondji substantiates his arguments with the example of African academia’s dependency to the North, the concept of endogenous knowledge holds relevance in the context of other post colonial nations as well.

1  The papers presented in this seminar is published as a book titled “Endogenous Knowledge: Research Trails”, edited by Houtondji. The concept of Endogenous Knowledge is elaborated in the introductory chapter of this book.

Paulin Houtond ji (1942–Present) 

(Image accessible at http://www.bdlive.co.za/world/africa/2012/10/02/paulin-j.-hountondji ) Paulin Houtondji is a contemporary Beninese Philosopher and the director of the African Centre for Advanced studies, Porto Novo. He is also the Professor of Philosophy at Universite du Benin, Cotonou. Houtondji was also an active politician, a critic of Benin’s military dictatorship and a prominent personality who was involved in the process of Benin’s democratic return. Hountondji’s works are important to understand the academic dependency of Africa to the North. Hountondji believed that the underdevelopment of Africa needs to be understood through a historical approach and not through an evolutionist approach. Evolutionist approach understands this underdevelopment as inevitable whereas historical approach enlightens us to the aspect of colonial exploitation of Africa in the past. (Ochieng, 2010: 26) He argued that the knowledge production  in Africa is still externally oriented to cater the needs of Northern universities. Hountondji understands this through the concepts of extraversion and endogenous knowledge. (Hountondji, 2010: 11) Though Hountondji substantiates his arguments with the present situation of African economy and academia, his academic contributions are relevant in the context of all post-colonial nations.

What is the context leading to the discussion on endogenous knowledge? 

As mentioned earlier, Hountondji notes that, the knowledge production in Africa is dependent on the Northern academia. Africa’s dependency and underdevelopment has to be understood historically, as a result of the colonial domination and exploitation. Even decades after the end of settled colonialism, the domination from the so-called mother country continues to have its control over 1) the economy, and 2) the knowledge production of Africa. Hountondji observes that there is a global parallelism in the field of economic activity and intellectual activity of Africa. The linkage of African economy to the world market creates a situation where the nation has to orient its economy to the demands of the North. Similarly, as a result of the same domination, the African academia is externally oriented to cater the intellectual needs of North. (Hountondji, 1995: 2)

How can this academic dependence be better understood? 

Hountondji observes that the quality of the research in Africa can be better assessed if one takes in to account the overall collective achievement of scholars, instead of the individual gains of researchers. Considering the general trend of research, it can be observed that the facilities available for research are highly underdeveloped. It can be observed that the research happening in Africa attends to the needs of Northern intellectuals than their own research needs. In other words the research is externally oriented. This happens in two ways: 1) In the same way the colonies acted as sources of raw materials for the industries of mother country, the research in the third world is merely performing the job of providing information or data as intellectual raw materials to the universities and laboratories of North. 2) The theories produced in the North are imported to Africa. African academia, according to Hountonji, also serves as loyal consumers for the theories produced in the North. (Hountondji, 1990, 1995, 2009)

The raw materials and information collected by African intellectuals are used by intellectuals of North to enhance their paradigms and sharpen their theoretical perspectives. These theories never attempt to understand what is actually happening in those locations from where their raw materials come. That is, the data collected in the so called third world is send to the North where these data is processed to formulate newer theories. The Northern academia is insensible  to  the  actual  social  realities  of  the  periphery  from  where  the  raw  material  is collected. At the same time, Periphery, marked with the absence of theoretical work, becomes the consumers of the imported theories from North. So here, what is missing in the process of knowledge production in Africa is the production of theoretical work. Hountondji argues that the actual theoretical work is not happening in the third world; instead it serves as a source of raw materials to the North and market for their imported theories. (Hountondji, 1995; 2009)

Hountondji’s critique on ethno philosophy 

While moving ahead with Hountondji’s critique on the present process of knowledge production in Africa, it is important to understand his critique on ethno philosophy. Ethnology and Ethno sciences, exposes the knowledge in the peripheral landscape for the curiosity of the researchers of North. Hountondji notes that the disciplines which study the history, philosophy or sciences of Africa are taking Africa as an objective genitive, rather than looking at the complicated realities. In other words research centers of North which study African history or African sociology (for instance) do it from a Eurocentric perspective, by taking Africa as an objective genitive. That is,  it will  be a sociological or historical discourse on Africa and a sociological or historical tradition developed by Africans won’t be of any relevance here. Hountondji argues that this is not sociology or history of Africa, but, ethno-sociology or ethno- history which takes birth from a Eurocentric perspective. Hountondji explains this with the example of ethno philosophy done by Placide Tempels to understand the Bantu philosophy of Africa. The writers like Tempels who ‘discovered’ the presence of philosophy in Africa wrote that Africans are not aware about their philosophy. According to Tempels the Africans were not conscious about their own philosophy. He argued that the philosophy present in the African systems of thought is not self consciously developed by the Africans. Instead, the thinkers from outside Africa has discovered it and further developed it in a systematic way. This was what Tempels wrote when he came across the richness of philosophy in African systems of thought. (Hountondji, 2009: 3-7)

Houtondji observes that this view point of Tempels was a result of the belief that only the North is capable of self consciously producing a philosophical tradition and the South is incapable of such an intellectual work. This is a pure Eurocentric logic, the logic which was a characteristic feature of most thinkers who attempted to understand Africa from outside. The Africa which they explained through their disciplines was not an Africa which was familiar to the Africans who lived there. The ethnology including ethno philosophy understood and attempted to study the African traditions of knowledge in a way which fulfilled the exotic curiosity of North and thus added to their collection of knowledge from cultures across the world. Hountondji criticized that this practice is not a peculiar feature of thinkers from outside, but even African thinkers who attempted to understand their culture, fell in to this trap of Eurocentric perspective and did research in this way. The paradigms and theoretical perspectives from North are so powerfully hegemonic that the African intellectual fails to recognize this hegemony most of the time. (ibid, 2009: 5)

Hountondji understands ‘philosophy as a set of texts’. This challenges the notion of self- unconscious existence of diverse knowledge in the African systems of thought. Searching philosophy in the oral culture of the so called exotic primitive lands is the result of a prejudiced assumption that African people are incapable of engaging in intellectual activities such as doing philosophy. The north searches for unconscious existence knowledge in third world. For hountondji, African philosophy is simply the philosophy done by Africans. African philosophy is rich and unique with its particular world views, which will be different but no less important, compared to the philosophy of the North. (ibid, 2009: 7)

What is ‘Extraversion’? 

Hountondji asks certain crucial questions such as, “where does all the equipment used for research in periphery come from?”, “how are research topics selected?”, “where and how are the data produced, dispatched stored, capitalized?”, “how do they get translated in to practical applications?”, “on what social needs and practical requirements are they based directly or indirectly?”, “who are the intended beneficiaries of the research?”, “what complex ties link our research establishments to industry in particular and the business world in general?’, “how does it fit in to the society producing it?”, “and to what extend is this society able to take charge of its findings, while discussing the hegemony of North in the knowledge production process of Africa.” (Hountondji, 1997) These questions are crucial in understanding the externally oriented nature of research in Africa.

There is a huge quantitative as well as Qualitative difference between the research done in Africa and the research done in the countries of North. This difference starts from the selection of topics for the research to the academic trips compulsorily conducted by the academicians of the South to the North. The activity of knowledge production in the South functions in the same way in which the economic activity of the third world functions. The southern academia is a territory under the continuing domination of North to collect raw materials, both economic and intellectual. It also acts as a market for the finished goods and theories. In this way, Hountondji argues that the knowledge production in Africa is ‘extraverted’, which means that this knowledge production is ‘outward/externally oriented’. It is outward oriented in the sense that its research strategies are decided by the North in direct as well as indirect ways. This outward focus of research reproduces and reinforces the hegemony of the North over South. (Hountondji, 1997)

According to Hountondji, Africa is marked by the absence of theoretical work. This is because of the absence of proper laboratories and libraries in Africa. Theoretical works and the development of concepts are done in the advanced laboratories of North. Just as Africa provided raw materials, they also consumed the theoretical products from North. Research done in the Africa applied alien theories to understand things which are part of their culture. This submission to the exotic curiosity and fantasy of the hegemonic North has to be understood keeping in mind the aspect of underdevelopment and dependence, as mentioned earlier. This is what Hountondji meant when he developed the term Extraversion. The purpose of the very existence of the knowledge production in African universities becomes serving the needs of the North. In other words, the intellectual work in the Periphery is externally oriented. This phenomenon is what Hountondji called ‘extraversion’.

What are the indices of extra version?

Houndtonji is expanding the concept further by listing out certain selected indices of this extraversion. These indices alerts us to the multiple and complicated dimensions in which the knowledge production of South is extraverted. Given below are some of the indices which Hountondji listed out to explain the aspects of extraversion.

1. Firstly, the sophisticated apparatus required for the research is not produced in countries like Africa. Hountondji states that  they have  never manufactured a microscope or any other lab apparatus. It is always imported from countries of North where it is manufactured. This increases the difficulty of doing advanced research here and also, automatically sets the standards in northern scale.

2. Secondly, the spaces where the research work is physically stored and systematically preserved, such as journals, archives and publishing houses are majorly concentrated in the North. It is burden of the intellectuals of the Southern intellectuals to publish in the journals of North or publish through the publishing houses of the North. Even if there are journals published in the South, Hountondji observes that the most number of readerships of the journals from South comes from North. In this way even writing in the journals of South is not inverting the existing extraverted tendencies.

3. Thirdly, the fact that the works of intellectuals from South is better known and read by the intellectuals from the North, the research work from the periphery tends to orient their work according to the North’s needs and expectations. This aspect of theoretical extraversion further restricts the possibility of the research work from South.

4. Fourthly, the situation traps the researchers from South in a way that it ends up doing research which is limited to the local scenes. They study the particular realities of their culture, but they do it in a way which gives data to the North about the primitive underdeveloped societies. Because of this they fail to produce independent research work and theories which can form strong universal theories. Hountondji notes that they thus become intellectually ingrown and thus miss to involve in the ‘independent creation of theoretical models, the making of comprehensive conceptual designs which later facilitate the accurate understanding of particular details as such”. (Hountondji, 1997)

5. Fifthly, the reasons for the extraverted research can be immediate and practical concerns of economic gain. This includes research in the area of agricultural cultivation of cash crops which can be imported or send to import substitution factories in the periphery. The agronomic research in Africa, as Hountondji observes was focused on the ways to improve the production of cash crops such as coffee, cocoa, cotton and oil palm. This research is not done expecting the readership of the intellectual community in North, but it is merely aimed at the practical concerns of import of cash crops to the North. This brings in economic gain for the periphery in a certain way and results in negligence of the production of the staple food crops of the majority population living there. This signifies the general economic extraversion for existential reasons.

6. Sixthly, Hountondji observes that the academic trips conducted by the southern intellectuals to North should be understood as a part of the same existential problem. This is  just another expression of the existential crisis  of an intellectual living in a country with an extraverted economy. As a result of  this, for the much esteemed progress of their careers some of them settle in northern countries. The rest compulsorily conducts North ward trips and shuttle between the periphery and the centre to ensure their career graph in the extraverted intellectual space in which they have to survive. Those who are not even capable of this, no matter how excellent they are in their respective fields of research, according to Hountondji, “survive as best they can on periphery waging Sisyphean battles against cynicism and despair while keeping a sharp eye out for openings through which they too might wriggle in to northward brain drain.” (1997)

7. Seventhly, Elaborating on the situation of brain drain, Hountondji is explaining that such academic trips have become a structural necessity. He adds that this observation is not intended to underestimate the huge amount of gains the research in periphery has as a result of those trips. But the real problem is when this happens in the logic of extraversion. The inward scientific activity is almost absent and the research is almost completely outward  oriented. It is in  this situation  Hountondji finds these trips as problematic.

8. The above point will be clearer when we come to what Hountoundji has listed as the Eighth point in the introduction of his book titled “Endogenous Knowledge”. The academic trips from periphery to the North have become a structural necessity, as mentioned above, for the survival of intellectuals from South. The intellectuals from North also conduct such trips to the periphery. These trips are not a part of their survival. Instead these are trips conducted to the exotic locations which can give them materials for further research back home. They don’t visit the Periphery to collect newer paradigms and theoretical frame works or to know different world views, but just to collect facts and information which can enrich their paradigms and theories. The southern intellectuals instead conduct the trips in search of new paradigms and theories to understand the peculiarities of their own culture. This is the difference between the south to north academic trips and north to south academic trips. This difference is the story of a continuing exploitation of the periphery by the centre. The academic trips are not intended for a mutual sharing and hence problematic. There is another type of academic trip which is a North to North trip. This has the intension of mutual sharing without exploitation and hence helps in improving the quality of the knowledge production of both sides, in a balanced way.

9. As a ninth and last point in listing out the indices, he drags our attention to the politics of language. He alerts to the situation where it has become a necessity of the Southern intellectuals to work and express in western languages. This situation gains strength with an underlying assumption that only the western language is capable of scientific expression. The situation makes it impossible for an intellectual from south not to learn the Western language. When one say that this indicates a process of exploitation, it doesn’t mean that an intellectual to fall to the trap of some kind of linguistic romanticism. But the situation is evidently problematic when there is no attempt made to learn any language from periphery by the centre in any case even when it is unavoidable for a proper research attempting to understand their culture. On the contrary an intellectual from the periphery is compelled to learn and express in western language. The situation is intense when the intellectual from the South don’t feel the necessity of exploring his own language resources. (Hountondji, 1997)

These are some of the indices which help the reader understand the dimensions of a larger complicated problematic. These indices are important because first of all, knowledge about an  extraverted  situation  is required  for  the  recovery  of  the  third  world  knowledge production. Since the motivations of doing a research comes from the North in various forms, it is  important  to  locate  the  exploitation  lining  this motivation  to  develop  an  independent modality  of doing  research.  The  present  task of the  Southern intellectuals, as Hountondji observes is that “within the specific field of knowledge, amounts to taking an informed enough view  of  current  practices  in  order  to  work  out  other  possible  modalities  of producing knowledge, other possible forms of technological and scientific production relationships, first between the South and the North, but also in the South itself and inside each and every country.” (ibid, 1997)

Endogenous knowledge 

As discussed above the intellectual extraversion of Africa is a parallel process of its economic extraversion. The intellectual extraversion can be understood as a characteristic feature of the extraverted economies. The beginning of all these exploitation can be historically traced back to the period of settler colonialism. Colonial ways of thinking, modern science, mind sets and perspectives of modernity conquered the landscapes and culture of the so called primitive colonies. When they did this, they were not occupying the lands which were vacant. They removed something, the so called primitive/pagan beliefs and culture (and even human beings sometimes) which appeared illogical, irrational and unnecessary to the modern conqueror. In such a situation the question that what happened to this ‘something’ which existed there actively and powerfully, becomes the  question of a consciousness about the necessity of revival. African traditions of knowledge are rich and diverse. They have been pushed off to the margins by the hegemony of modern knowledge systems. The African traditions of knowledge have still survived and this survival is strong enough to the extent that even the modern African scientists approach the local rainmakers to know the auspicious time for conducting ceremonies or family functions such as marriage, house warming etc. The African traditions of knowledge have survived in the margins and have never disappeared. It existed as a last hope when the modern medicine failed and in explaining facts which modern rationality couldn’t explain. Certain questions become important here such as what is the current status of these traditions of knowledge and how and why they have survived. (Hountondji, 1997)

As mentioned earlier, the term endogenous knowledge is developed in the introductory discussions of a seminar organized by Hountondji. A vibrant discussion occurred in the introductory session of this seminar about the status of the term ‘traditional’ to represent the knowledge systems of Africa. Here he attempts to coin a new terminology instead of ‘traditional’ since a group of scholars thought that ‘traditional’ is not the right term which can be used for a set of ideas which they intended to communicate. (1997)

The so called ‘traditional’ knowledge was always understood as a system of knowledge which has nothing to exchange with the ‘true processes’ of knowledge production. Traditional gives the meaning of something immutable and fixed, which is unable to undergo new changes. As a result it sometimes ended up vanishing out of people’s collective memory. It was seen as something which existed simply in juxtaposition and incapable of any worthy exchange with the mighty systems of present. When the word ‘traditional’ is used, even inside quotation marks, it invokes the idea of ‘traditional’ as opposed to ‘modern’. Even though these traditions are not completely vanished out of the collective memory of Africans, they remained as systems of mere exotic curiosity for the North. But, as mentioned above, these counter systems backfired, whenever the modern knowledge failed, as Hountondji notes. This has led to the development of attempts towards valorization of these systems of knowledge. The North has understood and studied these systems to add information about their knowledge on the exotic world of the primitive. There is a difference in this way of understanding because it attempts only to translate what is there in the primitive world to broaden the theories of the North. Not only has the thinkers from the North, but also the intellectuals from the South studied their own traditions of knowledge with the Westerner’s gaze. Hountondji notes, “the new approach calls for the working out of new methodologies in the various subject areas designed to help examine and evaluate and in total in various proportions to discard or to validate ‘traditional knowledge’, thus integrating it critically and utterly carefully in to the trend of current, living research work. The critical validation of the traditional element with a view to facilitating its active reappropriation, is likely to cause within the existing body of knowledge , shifts and shake-ups of which we at the moment have no way of predicting either the scope or impact. The main thing, however, is to create bridges, to re-create the unity of knowledge or in simpler, deeper terms, the unity of the human being.”(1997)

A new approach is what needs to be worked out which can understand, validate or discard these counter systems of knowledge to integrate it to the mainstream ways of doing research. This will be a new pathway towards doing a research which is not outward oriented, but independent, sensible to the particularities and holding the potential to form flexible universals. The intellectuals from  the  South at this point, have to engage with two  processes simultaneously: 1) to assimilate the innovations of Modern knowledge with a critical assessment and 2) to re-integrate the African traditions of knowledge in to the mainstream debates. (1997)

Considering the limitations of the term ‘traditional’ to represent the innate knowledge traditions of Africans, Hountondji introduces a new term ‘endogenous’. The term tradition places itself against the concept ‘modern’ and drags the discussion in to the limitations of a binary category. ‘Endogenous’ represents the knowledge which is a part of the internal cultural background of the Africa. It is the knowledge which originated in one particular culture and inherited through generations. It has a unique identity on behalf of that particular culture as against the dominant modern knowledge of North. The introduction of the term leads to some other questions about the origins of this knowledge. “What today appears endogenous may have been imported at a distant time in the past, prior to its later assimilation and its perfect integration in the society to the extent of obliterating its foreign origins.”(hountondji, 1997) The question of origin of a particular knowledge is an important point because in any culture it is difficult to decide what originated in that culture. What is practiced as a custom may have complicated histories of origin if one attempts to trace that out. Centuries must have played crucial roles in the numerous ways through which a culture has evolved out. Silent transactions must have occurred as a result of the mutual sharing and interaction between different cultures over centuries. It is difficult decide what belongs to and what do not belong to one particular culture. Endogenous include all those knowledge which the people of a particular identifies as theirs. Hountondji argues that this is exactly what makes the term ‘endogenous’ significant and this significance guides us to the crucial difference between the terms ‘indigenous’ and ‘endogenous’. Endogenous include all those knowledge which the people of a particular identifies as theirs. Hountondji argues that this is exactly what makes the term ‘endogenous’ significant and this significance guides us to the crucial difference between the terms ‘indigenous’ and ‘endogenous’.

What is the difference between Indigenous Knowledge and Endogenous Knowledge? 

Endogenous knowledge is something which doesn’t intend to deny the cultural transactions occurred over centuries between various cultures. But at the same time it intends to question the structural imbalance in the power relations between North and South. Modern science has become an integral part of all the former colonies. But the term ‘endogenous’ recognizes the domination and hegemony in this exchange of knowledge between North and South. It denotes not the static but dynamic state of cultures and its knowledge systems.“One will therefore describe endogenous, in a given cultural set-up, such knowledge as is experienced by society as an integral part of its heritage, in contrast to exogenous knowledge, which is perceived, at this stage at least, as an element of another value system.” (Hountondji, 1997)

So one cannot use the term ‘endogenous’ to represent complete interiority and it has larger dimensions. This definition which Houtondji and his fellow researchers gave to the term ‘endogenous’, clearly differentiates it from the much used term ‘indigenous.’ Indigenous defines something with the tag of the so called culture to which it belongs. Indigenous is what the North thinks as belonging to a particular culture in the South. ‘Indigenous’ is a term which is evolved inside the Eurocentric perspectives. It is an extraverted phenomenon because it unravels the cultural specificities for the curiosity of northern intellectuals studying the primitive world with their exotic fantasies. The so-called Indigenous knowledge is not studied by the North because of its mighty potential and the Northern intellectuals in no way intend to integrate it in to a universal system of knowledge. It has no significance outside that particular culture  according  to  the  northern intellectual.  But, Endogenous  is  a  term  which holds  its significance outside the cultural specificities also. It originates from consciousness of the unequal global power relations in the process of knowledge production. Hountondji clearly distinguishes between the terms ‘indigenous’ and ‘endogenous’ and the process of exploitation through which the endogenous got perceived as indigenous.

“The term (indigenous) always has a derogatory connotation. It refers to a specific historic experience, precisely one of integration of autochtonous cultures in to a world-wide ‘market’ in which these perforce are pushed down to inferior positions. The ‘endogenous’ becomes ‘indigenous’ in and through such a world widening process. What is proper thereby becomes improper, and sameness turns out as difference. Viewed from outside and perceived as an object, as a thing, the autochtonous person sees himself or herself endowed with a new function, that of a primitive, a privileged witness of humanity’s imaginary beginnings. Worse still, if that person doesn’t take care, he or she can very quickly interiorize the new values and looking at him or herself henceforth with other people’s eyes, perceive him or herself as an indigenous being.” (2009)

Locating Hountondji 

Omedi Ochieng attempts to locate Hountondji and his contributions in the history of African intellectual tradition, in his paper titled “The African Intellectual: Hountondji and after”. Ochieng argues that Hountondji can be marked as a ‘liberal’ modernist who “advocated for universal enlightenment thought”. Hountondji developed his intellectual works from Stalin’s regime in Benin. This was a regime which was not even willing to explore the dimensions of Marx’s own texts. According to Ochieng, it is significant that Hountondji produced intellectually stimulating works from this regime which imposed ideological correctness on the works of its intellectuals. (Ochieng, 2010: 25)

In his paper, Ochieng is attempting to examine Hountondji’s contributions critically. Hountondji practiced philosophy not in the abstract sense of the discipline. He always attempted to work from the interface between philosophy and politics.

After the independence of Africa, it had to participate in the global capitalism to export its raw materials. At the same time, the wars and recession caused the economic decline of Africa which created a peculiar economic situation. The ethno philosophy debates of the 1970s should be understood in the backdrop of this economic decline of Africa after its independence. There were  other  ‘theoretical  confusions’  and ‘ideological  divergences’  also,  which  led  to  the emergence of ethno philosophy. In this context, the neoliberal and utilitarian ideologies dominated University spaces. Hountondji observes these situations to develop his thoughts which got reflected in his works.

Contextualizing Hountondji’s intellectual contributions, Ochieng criticizes Hountondji. Ochieng argues that in his elaboration of the concept of Extraversion Hountondji took for granted the category called ‘West’. Even when he points out the modern hegemony of Metropole over the knowledge traditions of Africa, he fails to realize that ‘West’ is a modern construction to create the rest as ‘East’, the others. According to Ochieng, this realization would have complicated Hountondji’s attempts to demystify Africanness.

However, Hountondji’s works provided newer dimensions for the research works in Africa. Ochieng, attempting to locate Hountondji in the overall African intellectual discourse writes,

“Hountondji’s intellectual power and brilliance are without compare. And yet thanks to his uncritical belief in several fetishes of the modern intellectual- rigor, objectivity, compartmentalization, specialization- Hountondji loses an opportunity to re-examine how the documents of civilization he has rightly championed are nonetheless also documents of barbarism.” (ibid, 2010: 26).

References

1. Hountondji, Paulin J. (1997) Endogenous Knowledge: Research Trails. CODESRIA.
2. Hountondji, Paulin J. (2009) Knowledge of Africa, Knowledge by Africans: Two Perspectives on African Studies. RCCS Annual Review, Vol 1.
3. Hountondji, Paulin J. (1995) Producing Knowledge in Africa Today: The Second Bashorun M.K.O. Abiola Distinguished Lecture. African Studies Review. Vol. 38, No.3, (Dec, 1995), pp 1-10.
4. Ochieng, Omedi. (2010) The African Intellectual: Hountondji and After. Radical Philosophy 164 (November/December 2010).