{"id":163,"date":"2018-07-18T09:59:09","date_gmt":"2018-07-18T09:59:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/socp2.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=163"},"modified":"2019-05-06T06:14:20","modified_gmt":"2019-05-06T06:14:20","slug":"indigenous-sociology","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/chapter\/indigenous-sociology\/","title":{"rendered":"Indigenous Sociology"},"content":{"raw":"
\"epgp<\/a>\r\n<\/span><\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n

I<\/strong>NTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The discipline of sociology continue to be in a strong Eurocentric hold even in the present times, when the hegemony of Europe and North America has been recognized, identified, understood, studied, debated and criticized by various theorists across the world. Scholars like Paulin J. Houtondji and Syed Farid Alatas has discussed about this Eurocentric hold which results in an academic dependency of Periphery. (See for instance, Hountondji, 1995; Alatas, 1993 and Alatas, 2003) The term indigenous sociology has to be understood across this backdrop. Indigenous sociology attempts to create new languages which can be added to the existing frameworks, to understand the social world which is non-western (and hence not represented by the Northern Theoretical frame works (See for instance, Connell, 2008)).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Indigenous sociology counters the universal claims of Northern theories. It is an emerging area of study that focuses on the ways of knowing, seeing and thinking that are passed down orally from generation to generation. It can be considered as local knowledge i.e., knowledge which is not produced in academia as expert knowledge. Sometimes, indigenous knowledge is conflated as traditional knowledge. But, the word traditional gives the sense of something which is ancient and doesn\u2019t hold any significance in the present. \u2018Indigenous\u2019 is not the knowledge which existed in the past and the attempt of indigenous sociology is not to retrieve this \u2018outdated\u2019 knowledge. Indigenous knowledge should be understood as the knowledge of each society which is very much relevant in the present times and facilitates communication, action and decision making. Indigenous knowledge is also different from endogenous knowledge. We will elaborate on this in the later paragraphs of this module.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

What is meant by Indigenous Sociology?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

As mentioned above, the Northern theories are projected as universal and fail to represent the Non-western social World. Indigenous Sociology can also be understood as a critique to the hegemony of these Eurocentric perspectives. Indigenous sociology emerges from the attempts\u00a0to formulate alternate theoretical traditions outside the language of \u2018universal sociology\u2019. These traditions mark the particularities of the spatial locations outside the West, i.e., the periphery or South. (Patel,2014)The indigenous sociology, in other words, counter the Eurocentric perspectives and universal claims of Northern Social theory.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

In the next few paragraphs, we will discuss two significant scholars who contributed to the traditions of Indigenous sociology. They are Akinsola A. Akiwowo and McKim Marriot who pioneered in the attempts to build an indigenous sociological tradition, from the particularities of African and Indian societies, respectively.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nAKINSOLA A. AKIWOWO\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Akiwowo is a Nigerian sociologist who wrote the paper titled \u201cContributions to the sociology of knowledge from an African oral poetry\u201d in the year 1986. This paper is considered as a significant to the indigenous sociological traditions. In this paper, he attempts to formulate a set of sociological propositions deriving it from a Yoruba oral poetry. This became the starting point of a significant and vibrant discussion in the discipline of sociology. Various theorists responded to his paper, the most important among these responses being that of Moses Akin Makinde, O.B. Lawuyi and Olufemi Taiwo. The responses appreciated and criticized Akiwowo\u2019s paper. Their engagement with this paper raised several questions such as, \u2018what is indigenous sociology\u2019, \u2018how can it be practiced\u2019, \u2018how can it communicate with the rest of the world\u2019 and \u2018how far Akiwowo was successful in doing this\u2019. In the next section, we will discuss Akiwowo\u2019s paper and in the later sections, we will discuss the comments which Akiwowo received for his paper. This will help one to have a better understanding on the topic Indigenous Sociology.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In the next section, we will discuss the works of two scholars who contributed to the discipline of indigenous sociology: Akinsola A. Akiwowo and McKim Marriot. they explore this debate through different kinds of indigenous knowledges\u2013 one based on the oral poetry of a Nigerian treibe called Yoruba and the other based on written texts of Sanskritic traditions of India. We\u00a0will look in to the works of Akiwowo in the next few paragraphs and Marriot later in this module.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nAkiwowo\u2019s Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge from an African oral poetry.\r\n\r\n \r\n

In 1986, Akinsola A. Akiwowo wrote a paper titled \u201cayajo asuwada<\/em>: an oral poetry on the doctrine of creation: with contributions to the sociology of knowledge.\u201d Later in the same year he changed the title of that paper as \u201cContributions to the sociology of Knowledge from an African oral poetry\u201d. This paper attempted to \u201ccontribute a general body of explanatory principles by demonstrating how some ideas and notions contained in a type of African oral poetry can be extrapolated in the form of propositions for testing in future sociological studies in Africa or other world societies\u201d. (Akiwowo, 1986: 343-4)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Akiwowo invokes the phrase \u201cthe general body of explanatory principles\u201d used by George Homans in his book \u201cNature of Social Science\u201d. David J Hanson, who reviews the work by Homans, writes that,<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\u201cThe title of Homans\u2019 most recent book might more accurately have been the nature of Social Scientific Explanation. It\u00a0 is Homans\u2019s belief that while social science is producing an impressive store of findings and generalizations, it is not developing adequate explanations for the phenomena described. Explanation or theory is viewed as the deduction of empirical propositions from more general ones\u201d. (Hanson, 1970)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Homans argued that social science should produce more explanations and explanatory principles, which can give details of the phenomena described within the discipline. Akiwowo invokes George Homans in this paper to explain that it is significant to know how the linguistic and metaphysical representations, which entered in to the formation of the \u2018body of general explanatory principles\u2019 are geographically, culturally and ideologically different across the nations, in the study of the history of sociology. As mentioned earlier, Akiwowo attempts to contribute to this \u2018general body of explanatory principles\u2019, from an African Oral Poetry.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In his paper, Akiwowo attempts to present three things: 1) the English translation of a large portion of this oral poetry, 2) the interpretation and various reflections of the meanings and language of this oral poetry 3) propositions from the doctrine of creation which is present this\u00a0oral \u00a0poetry. \u00a0This \u00a0is \u00a0inductively \u00a0inferred, \u00a0to contribute \u00a0to \u00a0the \u00a0formation \u00a0of \u00a0a \u00a0sociological theoretical framework.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nMyth, Doctrine and Belief System\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Akiwowo explains that both \u2018myth\u2019 and \u2018doctrine\u2019 are part of a belief system. These three are important categories within the social theory. A \u2018myth\u2019 is a \u2018purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons etc, embodying popular ideas on natural phenomena etc, allegory\u2026 fictitious person or thing\u2019(1986 :344). The term doctrine means \u2018what is taught; body of instruction; religious, scientific, political etc, belief, dogma or tenet.\u2019(1986: 344) Quoting Beth<\/p>\r\n \r\n

B. Hess, Akiwowo explains that how certain beliefs emerge from human interaction. Religion, culture and other social institutions contribute to these belief systems. Hence, it is important for a social scientist to pay attention to these belief systems to understand the complex renderings of a society. Akiwowo also quotes Hess et al, that \u201cif one were to classify societies on the basis of belief systems, rather than mode of subsistence, it is the industrial nations that are simpler in their rituals and belief systems\u201d. (1986: 344-5) In this oral poetry both myth and doctrine exist together. The object of investigation in this paper is a myth of creation, Alasuwada, <\/em>presented through the Yoruba oral poetry, Ayajo Asuwa <\/em>and the doctrine it teaches about the creation of earth and everything in it, including humans. (Akiwowo, 1986) This paper looks in to a Yoruba myth, its doctrine and the belief system which overarches it. This paper is an attempt to place the relevance of an African myth and its\u00a0 larger philosophy in to the sociology of knowledge, which is dominated by Eurocentric perspectives.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nAyajo Asuwada<\/em><\/strong>: Meaning, Interpretation and Propositions<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

The oral poetry studied in the paper \u201cContributions to the sociology of Knowledge from an African oral poetry\u201d, by Akiwowo is called Ayajo Asuwada. <\/em>This is an oral poetry from the Yoruba tradition of West Africa. This is usually recited at the consecration of a new human settlement. It declares that the universal principle of Asuwa <\/em>is the source of all things, by which\u00a0everything is created. <\/span>Alasuwada <\/em>is the myth behind this oral poetry. <\/span>Alasuwada <\/em>is the myth of creation<\/span>. <\/em>According to Akiwowo, the Myths of creation have great importance across Africa and they believe God as the creator of everything. The people of Africa believe in a number of mythical stories which narrates the creativity of Omnipotent god. This oral poetry studied in Akiwowo\u2019s paper is a Yoruba oral poetry which narrates that <\/span>Aisuwa (<\/em>the self- alienation from community) is a result of selfishness and functions against the harmony and common good of the community. Not only <\/span>Aisuwa, <\/em>Goodness also starts from the community. (Akiwowo, 1986:\u00a0<\/span>352) it can be observed here that Akiwowo generalizes the particularities of \u2018Yoruba\u2019 tradition as African, throughout his paper. While doing this, Akiwowo is falling in to the language of universal sociology. Note, Indigenous sociology has emerged as a criticism towards this universalizing tendency of Northern Theories.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

The Yoruba tradition has a complex belief system. Alasuwada <\/em>oral poetry is comprised of 176 lines and is divided in to two parts: the spoken poetry and the song poetry. Spoken poetry has eight poems whereas the song poetry has one main poem with 6 verses. As Akiwowo explains it, the Alasuwada <\/em>oral poetry starts with a declaration of the Asuwa <\/em>principle. It is by this principle, the Yoruba belief says, the things on Heaven and Earth are created and the creator gave its form.1 (ibid, <\/em>1986: 347-352)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

The poetry talks about three basic abstractions: 1) bunched existence, 2) all existing goods collectively viewed and 3) all existing goods individually viewed. Iwa-susu <\/em>is a collectivity of existence or beings. Olofin otete <\/em>is the source of all the earthly beings of iwa susu<\/em>. Olofin otete <\/em>is addressed as Alasuwada <\/em>or the author of all things. (ibid, 1986: 350)<\/em><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Alasuwada <\/em>is also the myth of togetherness. Certain lines of spoken poetry lists out life forms which is in being due to their conformity\/togetherness like honey bee, human hair, trees, grass, ants and even man- made objects like broomsticks, corps of fighting men etc. Alasuwada <\/em>is the<\/p>\r\n \r\n

1 There are three stages in the process of creation. They are igba iwa se, igba iwa gun and igba iwa ro<\/em>: the emanation of iwa<\/em>, the completion and perfection of iwa, and the down pour of iwa on earth, respectively. Ori\/Origun <\/em>was the archetype and is created according to Asuwada <\/em>principle. Then the poem introduces four divinities, one springing from another, starting from origun <\/em>to baba-asemuegun-sunwon <\/em>and olofin otete<\/em>. Earth is created as the place for cultivation of goodness under the supervision of olofin otete<\/em>. (i<\/em>b<\/em>i<\/em>d<\/em>, <\/em>1986: 347-352)\u00a0creator who creates every being in groups. This is for a purpose according to the Yoruba oral poetry. The oral poet expresses <\/span>Asuwa <\/em>as the working principle of his communion. According to this the \u2018community of beings\u2019 has a deep meaning and purpose which is guided by the principle of <\/span>asuwa<\/em>. The poem also understands time as a reference point or a moment in the \u2018outpouring\u2019 of life. (<\/span>ibid, <\/em>1986: 348)<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

The poetry titled orin osuwa <\/em>speaks about the events after creation of the life forms. It narrates a story which is similar to that of the Biblical story of original sin. Akiwowo interprets this passage as dealing with the \u2018ontology of error\u2019. According to this the moral offence of the world began with yakangi <\/em>who attempted to steal iru<\/em>, from olugamo<\/em>, the divine mother. Towards the conclusion of verses in this poetry Akiwowo cites the concept of \u2018emotional contagion\u2019, developed by the experimental psychologists Lippit, Polansky and Rosen, in their study of collective behavior. They observe that the behavior of one person may influence another\u2019s behavior without any such intention. Alasuwada <\/em>doctrine puts forward the vision that if an emotional state of goodness spreads among the members of the entire community, the individuals in that community will also share that goodness. (ibid, <\/em>1986)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In short, this oral poetry infer that there is a universal principle called asuwa, <\/em>which believes that everything which is created unique has to be in communities\/group to continue in being and it is this nature of the beings which is the source of goodness. The error\/sin was introduced in to the world when yakangi <\/em>decided to enjoy alone, the provision for common good. Self alienation is the first and basic type of sin which disturbs the harmony of the community. This can be regarded as a social deviation or social pathology. There should be harmony among the individuals for the common good and existence of the community.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Akiwowo, introducing, translating and interpreting this oral poetry, develops a set of propositions from the spirit of the doctrine of Asuwa<\/em>, which he thinks can be added to the explanatory principles of sociology of knowledge. Akiwowo presents these as 9 propositions which Moses Akin Makinde in his rejoinder to Akiwowo\u2019s paper refers to as philosophical principle of asuwada<\/em>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

As mentioned above, Akiwowo develops nine propositions for the general body of explanatory principles in sociology of knowledge from this oral poetry. These are derived from the indigenous philosophy which is present in the Yoruba oral poetry, analyzed by Akiwowo. These propositions are \u201cintended to be statements of relationships between some significant elements of the subject matter of sociology, namely human society.\u201d (Akiwowo, 1986: 353) Akiwowo believes these as contributions \u201cto the sociology of Knowledge from an African (Yoruba) oral poetry. The propositions are on<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1)\u00a0 The understanding on the unit of life as individuals,\r\n\r\n2)\u00a0 This individual self\u2019s requirement of fellowship,\r\n\r\n3)\u00a0 The impossibility of the corporeal individual to continue without a community,\r\n\r\n4)\u00a0 Self-alienation for selfish pursuits as a sin,\r\n\r\n5)\u00a0 The good society being the society in which the self expression and\u00a0 creativity of the individual is possible,\r\n\r\n6)\u00a0 A good individual being one who is hardworking and the one who sacrifices for the common good,\r\n\r\n7)\u00a0 Every individual as having the capacity to be the initiator of goodness or the recipient of good or bad conducts,\r\n\r\n8)\u00a0 The social value of an individual depending upon this conduct and\r\n\r\n9)\u00a0 Finally the necessity of a social scientist who intends to understand the people and society of Africa to know these concepts. (ibid, <\/em>1986: 353-354)\r\n\r\n \r\n

Akiwowo concludes his paper with these propositions. He presents the translation, analysis and the derived propositions as an example of doing indigenous sociology to represent particularities of the social world outside global North. But Akiwowo is also falling in to the trap of the language of universal sociology even when he is attempting to challenge it, by generalizing Yoruba tradition as African. \u00a0In the next session we will look in 2 criticisms which\u00a0Akiwowo received for his paper. Then we will come back to this criticism on Akiwowo while discussing the difference between endogenous knowledge, (a concept developed by Paulin Hountondji) and Indigenous knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nCriticisms for Akiwowo\u2019s paper\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Akiwowo\u2019s paper received certain serious criticisms from the academic community. The first elaborated comment on this paper was written by Moses Akin Makinde. He appreciated the attempt by Akiwowo and added new dimensions to extend the scope of Akiwowo\u2019s paper. Makinde thinks that the strength of Akiwowo\u2019s paper lies in the philosophical potential of it. This \u2018philosophic part\u2019 is essential for the development of social theories, while undertaking any \u2018intellectual enterprise\u2019. (Makinde, 1988: 61) Makinde introduces the terms Asuwada eniyan <\/em>and Asuwada eranko<\/em>, two other aspects of the asuwada <\/em>principle which Akiwowo has not discussed in his first paper. These terms mean asuwada <\/em>of human beings and asuwada <\/em>of the lower animals, respectively. He prefers to use the word \u2018axioms\u2019 instead of what Akiwowo referred to as \u2018propositions\u2019 and scales down Akiwowo\u2019s propositions in to three axioms. He thinks these are the most important in relation to the area of concerns of the discipline, sociology. The first one of these axioms explains that the basic unit of social life is an individual\u2019s life and existence and it requires a community of fellowship to continue.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

The corporeal individual, Makinde argues, cannot continue without a community. The rest of the axioms (propositions, according to Akiwowo) are connected with these first three axioms. Makinde adds that ori<\/em>, which was formed to be the father of all creations, is also known as the guardian spirit. Makinde alerts that one question becomes significant when Akiwowo interprets the origin of ori <\/em>to the asuwa <\/em>principle. That is, \u2018why certain choices of ori <\/em>lead to success and why certain other choices lead to failure\u2019? Makinde thinks that the concept of ori<\/em>, philosophically creates unnecessary confusions to someone who is attempting to understand Akiwowo\u2019s paper and hence needs to be worked out clearly in order to explain its relevance in connection with the Asuwada <\/em>principle. (ibid, <\/em>1988)<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

The principle of <\/span>asuwada <\/em>in its larger sense, speaks about all life forms, but Makinde suggests that it is <\/span>Asuwada eniyan <\/em>which is concerned with the principle of human association. The concept of \u2018the sociality of man\u2019 about which Akiwowo elaborates has to be understood in the context of <\/span>Asuwada eniyan<\/em>. This sociality is the quality to live in communities and establish companionship and mutual conversation. It is this sociality which is responsible for the formation of a family, a social organization, complex society or a community. <\/span>Ajobi <\/em>and <\/span>Ajogbe <\/em>are concepts which represent family and society. Akiwowo interpreted these as the strong manifestations of the principle of <\/span>asuwa<\/em>. There are also two other derived concepts, <\/span>Alajobi <\/em>and <\/span>Alajogbe<\/em>. <\/span>Alajobi <\/em>is \u2018that which sustains all kinds of linear and collateral relationship.\u2019 <\/span>Alajogbe <\/em>is \u2018that which sustains persons or individualized groups who are living together under one group or in contiguous shelters in a locale\u2019. In Makinde\u2019s interpretation, <\/span>Ajobi <\/em>represents the concept of nuclear\/extended family and <\/span>alajob<\/em>i \u2018the individuals in the family or related families sharing a common bond under similar environmental and social conditions\u2019. (Makinde, 1988: 67) <\/span>ajogbe <\/em>is understood as the coming together of different families as well as individuals and <\/span>alajogbe <\/em>is \u2018people living together from different kinds of ajobi\u2019. But he is strongly hopeful in this new approach developed by Akiwowo. In other words, Makinde adds newer dimensions with clarity to Akiwowo\u2019s arguments while also simplifying his propositions in to Makinde\u2019s \u2018axioms.\u2019(<\/span>ibid, <\/em>1988: 68)<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

According to Makinde, with the advancement of technology, a societal degeneration can be witnessed in the industrial societies. It is with this disclaimer on societal degeneration of industrial societies, Makinde presents the concept ifogbontaayese<\/em>. For Akiwowo, ifogbontaayese <\/em>simply means use of wisdom to remake the world. But Makinde ifogbontaayese <\/em>means something which requires the coming together of disciplines and its practicing scientists. Makinde\u2019s interpretation of ifogbontaayese <\/em>invokes another concept to the context, the concept of arinjole<\/em>, which means profound thinking. Arinjole <\/em>is required in all the disciplines for bringing together various disciplines. This concept talks about how the knowledge from different disciplines is interrelated. In the context of the societal degeneration, Makinde thinks that the concept of i<\/em>fogbontaayese <\/em>is crucial. Makinde argues that the relevance of this concept extends from natural sciences to social sciences. This concept, according to Makinde, gives a\u00a0proper theoretical background for the ideas of unity of all knowledge and also to remake the world in to a better one. (<\/span>ibid, <\/em>1988: 68-9)<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

This rejoinder to Akiwowo\u2019s paper by Makinde is not intended at criticizing Akiwowo\u2019s arguments. Makinde considers Akiwow\u2019s paper as relevant within the tradition of indigenous sociology. He rejoins Akiwowo in expanding the concepts by adding dimensions to\u00a0 it and provides his interpretations to lead the arguments to newer possibilities. He validated Akiwowo\u2019s argument that African literature and oral traditions has a lot to offer to the world and not only social sciences but other disciplines from various parts of the globe can also benefit from it. But, unlike Makinde, the second comment which Akiwowo\u2019s paper received, thoroughly criticized his attempts. This was from the scholars O.B.Lawuyi and Olufemi Taiwo.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nComments from Lawuyi and Taiwo\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Unlike Makinde, Lawuyi and Taiwo presented an elaborate and thorough criticism to Akiwowo\u2019s paper. They accused Akiwowo for the \u201cfuzzyness\u201d in his language, while translating and explaining the Yoruba oral poetry. They appreciate Akiwowo\u2019s attempt, but criticizes that Akiwowo failed to recognize, elaborate and develop on his arguments any further. Indigenous sociology should be able present itself in a language which is capable of exchanging with the corpus of knowledge across the world. In such a case, a mere introduction of concepts and their translation will prove insufficient. Hence, according to Lawuyi and Taiwo, even though Akiwowo put forward an interesting approach, he and his followers lacked enough clarity to offer it to the world community of social sciences. They note that these concepts has an everyday significance, and Akiwowo failed to explain how one can develop these everyday concepts in to philosophical principles. Lawuyi and\u00a0 Taiwo also\u00a0 agree that it is completely possible to\u00a0 do sociology in African idioms, but the way Akiwowo has presented it, according to them, is \u2018fuzzy\u2019. (Lawuyi and Taiwo, 1990)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Lawuyi and Taiwo, in their paper takes four major concepts discovered by Akiwowo, which are the concepts around which Makinde\u2019s paper is \u00a0also organized. These are Asuwada, Ajobi,<\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

Ajogbe <\/em>and <\/span>ifogbontaayese. <\/em>The authors attempt to alert us to some of the neglected possibilities regarding these concepts as they think that it is not clear in Akiwowo\u2019s and Makinde\u2019s paper. Lawuyi and Taiwo notes that Akiwowo used the concept of <\/span>Asuwada <\/em>in three different ways and this can be confusing for the reader. They distinguish these as asuwada-1, asuwada-2 and asuwada-3 to avoid the \u201cindistinctness\u201d in Akiwowo\u2019s paper. So by pointing out the \u2018indistinctness\u2019 in Akiwowo\u2019s paper, they suggest that this can act as a hindrance to the use of these idioms for sociological analysis. (<\/span>ibid, 1990: <\/em>58-9)<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

Akiwowo gave two responses to Lawuyi and Taiwo which was impatient and rejected their criticism with scorn. The first response didn\u2019t even attempted to clarify on what they have raised as the limitations of Akiwowo\u2019s paper, but the second response did speak about these criticisms elaborately. However, in his second response given to Lawuyi and Taiwo, Akiwowo explains that the fuzziness inevitable and is related to the logic of oral poetry. He argues that it has to be presented with that fuzziness to a certain extent. Akiwowo accused Lawuyi and Taiwo for not understanding properly what Akiwowo has attempted to propose.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

The debate however alerted to some of the important questions in doing indigenous sociology. While developing general explanatory principles from the specificities of one culture, it should communicate with the practitioners of the discipline from other cultures as well. Hence it cannot be culture bound. Only then it can be developed in to powerful universals. Lawuyi and Taiwo accuses that Akiwowo\u2019s paper confuses the reader. When Lawuyi and Taiwo, the Yoruba speaking intellectuals find it difficult to understand the concept of Asuwada <\/em>in Akiwowo\u2019s paper a reader who is unfamiliar to Yoruba language and their culture would definitely not understand it. Without the clarity of the root concepts, the explanatory principles developed from it cannot be used for any theoretical and analytical purpose. (Lawuyi and Taiwo, 1990)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Taking in to account all these, it can be concluded that Akiwowo\u2019s paper has not succeeded in what it intended to do. But his attempts cannot be deemed and considered insignificant since this was from the colonized part of the world which could challenge the claims of false universality of the Eurocentric theory. Akiwowo demonstrated one possible way of developing a theory from the cultural contingency of Africa, which is of course a crucial attempt. Taking in\u00a0to account the responses which he got, and in the light of the questions which came out of this debate, indigenous sociology has to rectify the limitations of its practice. This debate is a fruitful one in the pathway of the further flourishing attempts.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nMarriot and Indian Ethno Sociology\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Akiwowo\u2019s paper is an\u00a0 important attempt in understanding the\u00a0 significance of indigenous sociology. Being elaborated on this paper and its responses, it is important to look in to similar attempts from other part of the world. McKim Marriot\u2019s attempt to develop an ethno sociology of India is one among such notable works. McKim Marriot attempted to develop an Indian ethno sociology with analytical tools derived from the Hindu scriptures. Marriot proposes an Indian Theoretical Social Science in his paper \u2018On Constructing an Indian Ethno sociology\u2019 which got published in the year 1991. He explains that a social theory developed from the ways of living and practices of a community can be a helpful tool for the analyst who attempts to understand social phenomena even though a systematic social theory is not needed for the people who live in that community. (Marriot, 1991)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In Samkhya and Ayurveda philosophical positions of Indian Philosophy, it is believed that the universe composed from three major elements, Air, Water and Fire. This implies \u2018anti- equivalent\u2019 or \u2018non-symmetric\u2019 relations. On the other hand, relations are equivalent and symmetric in the Western philosophy. These two relational sets, i.e. the Indian and the Western, are diametrically opposite to each other, according to Marriot. There can be other types of relational sets as well, which represent the specificities of other cultures. Marriot is trying to develop one such tool of social analysis from the Indian philosophical traditions. According to Marriot, the relational logic specific to one culture cannot be understood substituting it with the logic of the relational sets from another culture. (1991)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Marriot presents the Indian logic through \u2018cubes\u2019. The cubes represent \u2018incompleteness\u2019, as opposed to the dichotomous strands of Western thought. Marriot argues that, even though Indian Samkhya tradition discusses dichotomies its logic is different from the dichotomous logic\u00a0of west. The property space of the cubes is three- dimensional. The cube, unlike a uni-linear conception, allows the multiplicity of perspectives. \u201cOnly the diverse qualities of its spaces generated through permutations of its variables, seem able to accommodate the actual diversities of Indian life.\u201d (Marriot, 1991) This understanding of Indian life based on a three dimensional property space allows the analyst to perceive the actual diversity without bias to any one particular description. He also speaks about the <\/span>Ayurvedic <\/em>knowledge which explains that the remote areas of body are connected through channels to the humoral reservoirs of the body. Developing a theory based on this knowledge helps to think about the possible \u201cbetweenness\u201d of remote\u00a0 networks of communication which increases the possibilities of Ethno social science, according to Marriot. (Marriot, 1991)<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

This approach developed by Marriot, had many limitations. It generalized the Brahmin experience as the experience of the entire Indian society. It took the relational sets only from Vedic scriptures, which are Brahminical, to develop \u201cIndian Ethno sociology\u201d. He failed to mention about the diverse cultural realities which together construct the category \u201cIndian\u201d. Instead, he generalized the Brahmin perspectives as Indian. Still, it is worth discussing Marriot\u2019s attempt. Like Akiwowo, Marriot\u2019s attempt is also important as it tried to provide an alternate tradition to the Western hegemony, even though he did it by using the experience of another dominant community, the Brahmins. (1991)<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nWhat are the limitations of Akiwowo\u2019s and Marriot\u2019s Indigenous Sociology?\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

However, towards the end of his paper, Marriot agrees that the analysis which he presented is insufficient to develop an Indian ethno sociology. He also agrees that he oversimplified the concepts while attempting to present them. He himself, unlike Akiwowo is aware about the limitations of what he could achieve in proposing a new paradigm. But Marriot believes that a starting point to such a thought will lead to further additions and theorizations in this area. His attempts are intended to stating the limitations of Eurocentric theories since it proves insufficient for understanding other parts of the world. In doing this he is identifying some aspects \u00a0which underlie \u00a0the \u00a0\u2018Indian\u2019 \u00a0logic, by \u00a0which \u00a0he\u00a0 actually \u00a0homogenizes \u00a0the\u00a0 category\u00a0\u2018Indian\u2019. Similarly, Akiwowo is also generalizing the Yoruba tradition as African. India and Africa are regions with diverse cultural and social activities. One tradition from these regions cannot represent the rest of the traditions of that region. In this way we\u00a0 can observe that both Akiwowo and Marriot are falling in to the same generalizing tendency of universal sociology. Also the citizens of a region might have different opinions about what constitutes \u2018indigenous\u2019 from what Akiwowo and Marriot understood as Indigenous. There are limitations, many, in this regard and how far he is successful in developing an alternative is a different question. But the attempt is important since it can open new possibilities in doing research. With all its limitations, like Akiwowo, Marriot\u2019s theory is significant in terms of the uniqueness of it attempts and the capability of this to spark thoughts in academics along the same line. This work, in this sense can be considered as a crucial one in the pathway of attempting to challenge Eurocentric theories.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

But it has to be noted that the separating lines between Indigenous sociology and right wing ideology is very thin. As can be observed in Marriot\u2019s paper the sources which he used for his arguments are Brahminical. \u201cIndian\u201d is understood at \u201cbrahmin\u201d throughout the paper. In other words, the categories of \u201cBrahmin\u201d and \u201cIndian\u201d are collapsed in to each other. One need to be cautious about this culturist tendencies while perceiving the arguments of indigenous sociology. It can be noted that Akiwowo is also generalizing the Yoruba tradition as African. Both these thinkers are falling in to the language of universalism. Indigenous Sociology attempts to represent the particularities of the social world outside North. But sometimes the practitioners of indigenous sociology represent it in a language which is incapable of communicating with other social realities. Also indigenous should submit itself to the exotic curiosities of the northern sociology. Paulin Hountondji introduces a new concept \u2018endogenous knowledge\u2019 which is worth juxtaposing here.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nThe difference between \u201cEndogenous\u201d, \u201cIndigenous\u201d and \u201cTraditional\u201d.\r\n\r\n \r\n

The term endogenous knowledge is developed in the introductory discussions of a seminar organized by Hountondji. This term \u2018endogenous\u2019 was preferred over \u2018traditional\u2019 to represent\u00a0the knowledge systems of Africa. So instead of using \u2018traditional knowledge systems of Africa\u2019, the scholars preferred to use \u2018endogenous Knowledge systems of Africa\u2019, since a group of scholars thought that \u2018traditional\u2019 is not the right term which can be used for a set of ideas which they intended to communicate. (Hountondji, 1997) The so called \u2018traditional\u2019 knowledge was always understood as a system of knowledge which has nothing to exchange with the \u2018true processes\u2019 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\u2019s 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 \u2018traditional\u2019 is used, even inside quotation marks, it invokes the idea of \u2018traditional\u2019 as opposed to \u2018modern\u2019. \u2018Endogenous\u2019 is the new term which was developed to represent 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. \u201cWhat 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.\u201d(hountondji, 1997)<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

On the other hand, the term \u201cendogenous\u201d is also different from \u201cindigenous\u201d. Akiwowo used the term \u2018indigenous\u2019 to represent the knowledge of a particular culture outside West. But one has to note that Indigenous defines something with the tag of the so called culture to which it belongs. It can be a Eurocentric tag on what the North thinks as belonging to a particular culture in the South. It need not be perceived as meaningful outside the particular cultural territory. Endogenous is a term which holds its significance outside the cultural specificities also. It originates from consciousness of academic dependence and unequal global power relations in the process of knowledge production. \u2018Endogenous\u2019 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\u00a0introduction of the term leads to some other questions about the origins of this knowledge. \u201cWhat 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.\u201d(hountondji, 1997) The question of origin\u00a0 of a particular\u00a0 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. Endogenous include all those knowledge which the people of a particular identifies as theirs.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

\u201cThe 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 \u2018market\u2019 in which these perforce are pushed down to inferior positions. The \u2018endogenous\u2019 becomes \u2018indigenous\u2019 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\u2019s imaginary beginnings. Worse still, if that person doesn\u2019t take care, he or she can very quickly interiorize the new values and looking at him or herself henceforth with other people\u2019s eyes, perceive him or herself as an indigenous being.\u201d (2009)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Houtondji\u2019s criticism of the concept \u201cindigenous\u201d is significant here. As we observed before, both Akiwowo and Marriot are falling in to the trap of universal language of northern sociological theories. Here Hountondji is alerting us to this trap and reminds that \u2018indigenous\u2019 is a term which emerged from within the Eurocentric perspectives. \u2018Endogenous\u2019 is a concept hence worth discussing in this context.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nConclusion\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Indigenous sociology is not something which has nothing to do with the discipline\u2019s already existing ideas. It has to debate and exchange with the mainstream disciplines in its attempts to broaden the base and to challenge the hegemony inherent in its generalizations and universalizations. Indigenous sociology is an important area of the discipline in the sense that it questions the efficiency of Eurocentric theories in representing diverse cultural realities. The thinkers discussed here are the ones who recognized that the claim of universality in the Eurocentric \u00a0theories \u00a0is \u00a0a \u00a0false \u00a0claim. \u00a0They \u00a0are \u00a0the \u00a0ones \u00a0who \u00a0attempted \u00a0to \u00a0develop \u00a0an\u00a0alternative to challenge the domination of the global North in Academics. Hence these attempts are crucial in the pathway of sociology as discipline which is not restricted to the European and North American universities.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
you can view video on Indigenous Sociology<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n

REFERENCES<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1.\u00a0<\/em>Akiwowo, Akinsola\u00a0 A. \u00a0(1986) \u00a0Contributions to \u00a0the\u00a0 Sociology of Knowledge \u00a0from \u00a0an African Oral Poetry. <\/em>International Sociology.\r\n\r\n2.\u00a0<\/em>Akiwowo, Akinsola A. (1991) Responses to Makinde\/ Lawuyi and Taiwo. <\/em>International Sociology. Vol. 6; 243.\r\n\r\n3.\u00a0<\/em>Akiwowo, \u00a0Akinsola \u00a0A. \u00a0(1999) \u00a0Indigenous \u00a0Sociologies: \u00a0Extending \u00a0the \u00a0Scope \u00a0of \u00a0the Argument. <\/em>International Sociology. Vol. 14; 115.\r\n\r\n4. Hountondji, Paulin J. (1997) Endogenous Knowledge: Research Trails<\/em>. CODESRIA.\r\n\r\n5. Hountondji, \u00a0Paulin \u00a0J. \u00a0(2009) \u00a0Knowledge \u00a0of \u00a0Africa, \u00a0Knowledge \u00a0by \u00a0Africans: \u00a0Two Perspectives on African Studies. <\/em>RCCS Annual Review, Vol 1.\r\n\r\n6. Hountondji, Paulin J. (1995) Producing Knowledge in Africa Today: The Second Bashorun\u00a0<\/em>M.K.O. Abiola Distinguished Lecture<\/em>. African Studies Review. Vol. 38, No.3, (Dec, 1995), pp 1-10.\r\n\r\n7.\u00a0<\/em>Makinde, Akin M. (1988) Asuwada Principle: An Analysis of Akiwowo\u2019s Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge from an African Perspective. <\/em>International Sociology. Vol. 3; 61.\r\n\r\n8.\u00a0<\/em>Lawuyi, O.B. and Taiwo, Olufemi. (1990) Towards an African Sociological Tradition: A\u00a0<\/em>Rejoinder to Akiwowo and Makinde. <\/em>International Sociology. Vol. 5; 57.\r\n\r\n9. Patel, Sujata. (2014) Colonial modernity and the Problematique of Indigenous and Indegeneity: South Asian and African experiences. <\/span>In <\/em>Biegel, Fernanada and Sabea, Hanan (ed.), <\/span>The Academic Dependency and Proffessionalization in the South: Perspectives from Periphery. Sephis: EDIUNC.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
\"epgp<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

I<\/strong>NTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The discipline of sociology continue to be in a strong Eurocentric hold even in the present times, when the hegemony of Europe and North America has been recognized, identified, understood, studied, debated and criticized by various theorists across the world. Scholars like Paulin J. Houtondji and Syed Farid Alatas has discussed about this Eurocentric hold which results in an academic dependency of Periphery. (See for instance, Hountondji, 1995; Alatas, 1993 and Alatas, 2003) The term indigenous sociology has to be understood across this backdrop. Indigenous sociology attempts to create new languages which can be added to the existing frameworks, to understand the social world which is non-western (and hence not represented by the Northern Theoretical frame works (See for instance, Connell, 2008)).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Indigenous sociology counters the universal claims of Northern theories. It is an emerging area of study that focuses on the ways of knowing, seeing and thinking that are passed down orally from generation to generation. It can be considered as local knowledge i.e., knowledge which is not produced in academia as expert knowledge. Sometimes, indigenous knowledge is conflated as traditional knowledge. But, the word traditional gives the sense of something which is ancient and doesn\u2019t hold any significance in the present. \u2018Indigenous\u2019 is not the knowledge which existed in the past and the attempt of indigenous sociology is not to retrieve this \u2018outdated\u2019 knowledge. Indigenous knowledge should be understood as the knowledge of each society which is very much relevant in the present times and facilitates communication, action and decision making. Indigenous knowledge is also different from endogenous knowledge. We will elaborate on this in the later paragraphs of this module.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What is meant by Indigenous Sociology?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As mentioned above, the Northern theories are projected as universal and fail to represent the Non-western social World. Indigenous Sociology can also be understood as a critique to the hegemony of these Eurocentric perspectives. Indigenous sociology emerges from the attempts\u00a0to formulate alternate theoretical traditions outside the language of \u2018universal sociology\u2019. These traditions mark the particularities of the spatial locations outside the West, i.e., the periphery or South. (Patel,2014)The indigenous sociology, in other words, counter the Eurocentric perspectives and universal claims of Northern Social theory.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

In the next few paragraphs, we will discuss two significant scholars who contributed to the traditions of Indigenous sociology. They are Akinsola A. Akiwowo and McKim Marriot who pioneered in the attempts to build an indigenous sociological tradition, from the particularities of African and Indian societies, respectively.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

AKINSOLA A. AKIWOWO\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Akiwowo is a Nigerian sociologist who wrote the paper titled \u201cContributions to the sociology of knowledge from an African oral poetry\u201d in the year 1986. This paper is considered as a significant to the indigenous sociological traditions. In this paper, he attempts to formulate a set of sociological propositions deriving it from a Yoruba oral poetry. This became the starting point of a significant and vibrant discussion in the discipline of sociology. Various theorists responded to his paper, the most important among these responses being that of Moses Akin Makinde, O.B. Lawuyi and Olufemi Taiwo. The responses appreciated and criticized Akiwowo\u2019s paper. Their engagement with this paper raised several questions such as, \u2018what is indigenous sociology\u2019, \u2018how can it be practiced\u2019, \u2018how can it communicate with the rest of the world\u2019 and \u2018how far Akiwowo was successful in doing this\u2019. In the next section, we will discuss Akiwowo\u2019s paper and in the later sections, we will discuss the comments which Akiwowo received for his paper. This will help one to have a better understanding on the topic Indigenous Sociology.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the next section, we will discuss the works of two scholars who contributed to the discipline of indigenous sociology: Akinsola A. Akiwowo and McKim Marriot. they explore this debate through different kinds of indigenous knowledges\u2013 one based on the oral poetry of a Nigerian treibe called Yoruba and the other based on written texts of Sanskritic traditions of India. We\u00a0will look in to the works of Akiwowo in the next few paragraphs and Marriot later in this module.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Akiwowo\u2019s Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge from an African oral poetry.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In 1986, Akinsola A. Akiwowo wrote a paper titled \u201cayajo asuwada<\/em>: an oral poetry on the doctrine of creation: with contributions to the sociology of knowledge.\u201d Later in the same year he changed the title of that paper as \u201cContributions to the sociology of Knowledge from an African oral poetry\u201d. This paper attempted to \u201ccontribute a general body of explanatory principles by demonstrating how some ideas and notions contained in a type of African oral poetry can be extrapolated in the form of propositions for testing in future sociological studies in Africa or other world societies\u201d. (Akiwowo, 1986: 343-4)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Akiwowo invokes the phrase \u201cthe general body of explanatory principles\u201d used by George Homans in his book \u201cNature of Social Science\u201d. David J Hanson, who reviews the work by Homans, writes that,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cThe title of Homans\u2019 most recent book might more accurately have been the nature of Social Scientific Explanation. It\u00a0 is Homans\u2019s belief that while social science is producing an impressive store of findings and generalizations, it is not developing adequate explanations for the phenomena described. Explanation or theory is viewed as the deduction of empirical propositions from more general ones\u201d. (Hanson, 1970)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Homans argued that social science should produce more explanations and explanatory principles, which can give details of the phenomena described within the discipline. Akiwowo invokes George Homans in this paper to explain that it is significant to know how the linguistic and metaphysical representations, which entered in to the formation of the \u2018body of general explanatory principles\u2019 are geographically, culturally and ideologically different across the nations, in the study of the history of sociology. As mentioned earlier, Akiwowo attempts to contribute to this \u2018general body of explanatory principles\u2019, from an African Oral Poetry.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In his paper, Akiwowo attempts to present three things: 1) the English translation of a large portion of this oral poetry, 2) the interpretation and various reflections of the meanings and language of this oral poetry 3) propositions from the doctrine of creation which is present this\u00a0oral \u00a0poetry. \u00a0This \u00a0is \u00a0inductively \u00a0inferred, \u00a0to contribute \u00a0to \u00a0the \u00a0formation \u00a0of \u00a0a \u00a0sociological theoretical framework.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Myth, Doctrine and Belief System\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Akiwowo explains that both \u2018myth\u2019 and \u2018doctrine\u2019 are part of a belief system. These three are important categories within the social theory. A \u2018myth\u2019 is a \u2018purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons etc, embodying popular ideas on natural phenomena etc, allegory\u2026 fictitious person or thing\u2019(1986 :344). The term doctrine means \u2018what is taught; body of instruction; religious, scientific, political etc, belief, dogma or tenet.\u2019(1986: 344) Quoting Beth<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

B. Hess, Akiwowo explains that how certain beliefs emerge from human interaction. Religion, culture and other social institutions contribute to these belief systems. Hence, it is important for a social scientist to pay attention to these belief systems to understand the complex renderings of a society. Akiwowo also quotes Hess et al, that \u201cif one were to classify societies on the basis of belief systems, rather than mode of subsistence, it is the industrial nations that are simpler in their rituals and belief systems\u201d. (1986: 344-5) In this oral poetry both myth and doctrine exist together. The object of investigation in this paper is a myth of creation, Alasuwada, <\/em>presented through the Yoruba oral poetry, Ayajo Asuwa <\/em>and the doctrine it teaches about the creation of earth and everything in it, including humans. (Akiwowo, 1986) This paper looks in to a Yoruba myth, its doctrine and the belief system which overarches it. This paper is an attempt to place the relevance of an African myth and its\u00a0 larger philosophy in to the sociology of knowledge, which is dominated by Eurocentric perspectives.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ayajo Asuwada<\/em><\/strong>: Meaning, Interpretation and Propositions<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The oral poetry studied in the paper \u201cContributions to the sociology of Knowledge from an African oral poetry\u201d, by Akiwowo is called Ayajo Asuwada. <\/em>This is an oral poetry from the Yoruba tradition of West Africa. This is usually recited at the consecration of a new human settlement. It declares that the universal principle of Asuwa <\/em>is the source of all things, by which\u00a0everything is created. <\/span>Alasuwada <\/em>is the myth behind this oral poetry. <\/span>Alasuwada <\/em>is the myth of creation<\/span>. <\/em>According to Akiwowo, the Myths of creation have great importance across Africa and they believe God as the creator of everything. The people of Africa believe in a number of mythical stories which narrates the creativity of Omnipotent god. This oral poetry studied in Akiwowo\u2019s paper is a Yoruba oral poetry which narrates that <\/span>Aisuwa (<\/em>the self- alienation from community) is a result of selfishness and functions against the harmony and common good of the community. Not only <\/span>Aisuwa, <\/em>Goodness also starts from the community. (Akiwowo, 1986:\u00a0<\/span>352) it can be observed here that Akiwowo generalizes the particularities of \u2018Yoruba\u2019 tradition as African, throughout his paper. While doing this, Akiwowo is falling in to the language of universal sociology. Note, Indigenous sociology has emerged as a criticism towards this universalizing tendency of Northern Theories.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

The Yoruba tradition has a complex belief system. Alasuwada <\/em>oral poetry is comprised of 176 lines and is divided in to two parts: the spoken poetry and the song poetry. Spoken poetry has eight poems whereas the song poetry has one main poem with 6 verses. As Akiwowo explains it, the Alasuwada <\/em>oral poetry starts with a declaration of the Asuwa <\/em>principle. It is by this principle, the Yoruba belief says, the things on Heaven and Earth are created and the creator gave its form.1 (ibid, <\/em>1986: 347-352)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The poetry talks about three basic abstractions: 1) bunched existence, 2) all existing goods collectively viewed and 3) all existing goods individually viewed. Iwa-susu <\/em>is a collectivity of existence or beings. Olofin otete <\/em>is the source of all the earthly beings of iwa susu<\/em>. Olofin otete <\/em>is addressed as Alasuwada <\/em>or the author of all things. (ibid, 1986: 350)<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Alasuwada <\/em>is also the myth of togetherness. Certain lines of spoken poetry lists out life forms which is in being due to their conformity\/togetherness like honey bee, human hair, trees, grass, ants and even man- made objects like broomsticks, corps of fighting men etc. Alasuwada <\/em>is the<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1 There are three stages in the process of creation. They are igba iwa se, igba iwa gun and igba iwa ro<\/em>: the emanation of iwa<\/em>, the completion and perfection of iwa, and the down pour of iwa on earth, respectively. Ori\/Origun <\/em>was the archetype and is created according to Asuwada <\/em>principle. Then the poem introduces four divinities, one springing from another, starting from origun <\/em>to baba-asemuegun-sunwon <\/em>and olofin otete<\/em>. Earth is created as the place for cultivation of goodness under the supervision of olofin otete<\/em>. (i<\/em>b<\/em>i<\/em>d<\/em>, <\/em>1986: 347-352)\u00a0creator who creates every being in groups. This is for a purpose according to the Yoruba oral poetry. The oral poet expresses <\/span>Asuwa <\/em>as the working principle of his communion. According to this the \u2018community of beings\u2019 has a deep meaning and purpose which is guided by the principle of <\/span>asuwa<\/em>. The poem also understands time as a reference point or a moment in the \u2018outpouring\u2019 of life. (<\/span>ibid, <\/em>1986: 348)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

The poetry titled orin osuwa <\/em>speaks about the events after creation of the life forms. It narrates a story which is similar to that of the Biblical story of original sin. Akiwowo interprets this passage as dealing with the \u2018ontology of error\u2019. According to this the moral offence of the world began with yakangi <\/em>who attempted to steal iru<\/em>, from olugamo<\/em>, the divine mother. Towards the conclusion of verses in this poetry Akiwowo cites the concept of \u2018emotional contagion\u2019, developed by the experimental psychologists Lippit, Polansky and Rosen, in their study of collective behavior. They observe that the behavior of one person may influence another\u2019s behavior without any such intention. Alasuwada <\/em>doctrine puts forward the vision that if an emotional state of goodness spreads among the members of the entire community, the individuals in that community will also share that goodness. (ibid, <\/em>1986)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In short, this oral poetry infer that there is a universal principle called asuwa, <\/em>which believes that everything which is created unique has to be in communities\/group to continue in being and it is this nature of the beings which is the source of goodness. The error\/sin was introduced in to the world when yakangi <\/em>decided to enjoy alone, the provision for common good. Self alienation is the first and basic type of sin which disturbs the harmony of the community. This can be regarded as a social deviation or social pathology. There should be harmony among the individuals for the common good and existence of the community.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Akiwowo, introducing, translating and interpreting this oral poetry, develops a set of propositions from the spirit of the doctrine of Asuwa<\/em>, which he thinks can be added to the explanatory principles of sociology of knowledge. Akiwowo presents these as 9 propositions which Moses Akin Makinde in his rejoinder to Akiwowo\u2019s paper refers to as philosophical principle of asuwada<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

As mentioned above, Akiwowo develops nine propositions for the general body of explanatory principles in sociology of knowledge from this oral poetry. These are derived from the indigenous philosophy which is present in the Yoruba oral poetry, analyzed by Akiwowo. These propositions are \u201cintended to be statements of relationships between some significant elements of the subject matter of sociology, namely human society.\u201d (Akiwowo, 1986: 353) Akiwowo believes these as contributions \u201cto the sociology of Knowledge from an African (Yoruba) oral poetry. The propositions are on<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

1)\u00a0 The understanding on the unit of life as individuals,<\/p>\n

2)\u00a0 This individual self\u2019s requirement of fellowship,<\/p>\n

3)\u00a0 The impossibility of the corporeal individual to continue without a community,<\/p>\n

4)\u00a0 Self-alienation for selfish pursuits as a sin,<\/p>\n

5)\u00a0 The good society being the society in which the self expression and\u00a0 creativity of the individual is possible,<\/p>\n

6)\u00a0 A good individual being one who is hardworking and the one who sacrifices for the common good,<\/p>\n

7)\u00a0 Every individual as having the capacity to be the initiator of goodness or the recipient of good or bad conducts,<\/p>\n

8)\u00a0 The social value of an individual depending upon this conduct and<\/p>\n

9)\u00a0 Finally the necessity of a social scientist who intends to understand the people and society of Africa to know these concepts. (ibid, <\/em>1986: 353-354)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Akiwowo concludes his paper with these propositions. He presents the translation, analysis and the derived propositions as an example of doing indigenous sociology to represent particularities of the social world outside global North. But Akiwowo is also falling in to the trap of the language of universal sociology even when he is attempting to challenge it, by generalizing Yoruba tradition as African. \u00a0In the next session we will look in 2 criticisms which\u00a0Akiwowo received for his paper. Then we will come back to this criticism on Akiwowo while discussing the difference between endogenous knowledge, (a concept developed by Paulin Hountondji) and Indigenous knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Criticisms for Akiwowo\u2019s paper\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Akiwowo\u2019s paper received certain serious criticisms from the academic community. The first elaborated comment on this paper was written by Moses Akin Makinde. He appreciated the attempt by Akiwowo and added new dimensions to extend the scope of Akiwowo\u2019s paper. Makinde thinks that the strength of Akiwowo\u2019s paper lies in the philosophical potential of it. This \u2018philosophic part\u2019 is essential for the development of social theories, while undertaking any \u2018intellectual enterprise\u2019. (Makinde, 1988: 61) Makinde introduces the terms Asuwada eniyan <\/em>and Asuwada eranko<\/em>, two other aspects of the asuwada <\/em>principle which Akiwowo has not discussed in his first paper. These terms mean asuwada <\/em>of human beings and asuwada <\/em>of the lower animals, respectively. He prefers to use the word \u2018axioms\u2019 instead of what Akiwowo referred to as \u2018propositions\u2019 and scales down Akiwowo\u2019s propositions in to three axioms. He thinks these are the most important in relation to the area of concerns of the discipline, sociology. The first one of these axioms explains that the basic unit of social life is an individual\u2019s life and existence and it requires a community of fellowship to continue.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The corporeal individual, Makinde argues, cannot continue without a community. The rest of the axioms (propositions, according to Akiwowo) are connected with these first three axioms. Makinde adds that ori<\/em>, which was formed to be the father of all creations, is also known as the guardian spirit. Makinde alerts that one question becomes significant when Akiwowo interprets the origin of ori <\/em>to the asuwa <\/em>principle. That is, \u2018why certain choices of ori <\/em>lead to success and why certain other choices lead to failure\u2019? Makinde thinks that the concept of ori<\/em>, philosophically creates unnecessary confusions to someone who is attempting to understand Akiwowo\u2019s paper and hence needs to be worked out clearly in order to explain its relevance in connection with the Asuwada <\/em>principle. (ibid, <\/em>1988)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

The principle of <\/span>asuwada <\/em>in its larger sense, speaks about all life forms, but Makinde suggests that it is <\/span>Asuwada eniyan <\/em>which is concerned with the principle of human association. The concept of \u2018the sociality of man\u2019 about which Akiwowo elaborates has to be understood in the context of <\/span>Asuwada eniyan<\/em>. This sociality is the quality to live in communities and establish companionship and mutual conversation. It is this sociality which is responsible for the formation of a family, a social organization, complex society or a community. <\/span>Ajobi <\/em>and <\/span>Ajogbe <\/em>are concepts which represent family and society. Akiwowo interpreted these as the strong manifestations of the principle of <\/span>asuwa<\/em>. There are also two other derived concepts, <\/span>Alajobi <\/em>and <\/span>Alajogbe<\/em>. <\/span>Alajobi <\/em>is \u2018that which sustains all kinds of linear and collateral relationship.\u2019 <\/span>Alajogbe <\/em>is \u2018that which sustains persons or individualized groups who are living together under one group or in contiguous shelters in a locale\u2019. In Makinde\u2019s interpretation, <\/span>Ajobi <\/em>represents the concept of nuclear\/extended family and <\/span>alajob<\/em>i \u2018the individuals in the family or related families sharing a common bond under similar environmental and social conditions\u2019. (Makinde, 1988: 67) <\/span>ajogbe <\/em>is understood as the coming together of different families as well as individuals and <\/span>alajogbe <\/em>is \u2018people living together from different kinds of ajobi\u2019. But he is strongly hopeful in this new approach developed by Akiwowo. In other words, Makinde adds newer dimensions with clarity to Akiwowo\u2019s arguments while also simplifying his propositions in to Makinde\u2019s \u2018axioms.\u2019(<\/span>ibid, <\/em>1988: 68)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

According to Makinde, with the advancement of technology, a societal degeneration can be witnessed in the industrial societies. It is with this disclaimer on societal degeneration of industrial societies, Makinde presents the concept ifogbontaayese<\/em>. For Akiwowo, ifogbontaayese <\/em>simply means use of wisdom to remake the world. But Makinde ifogbontaayese <\/em>means something which requires the coming together of disciplines and its practicing scientists. Makinde\u2019s interpretation of ifogbontaayese <\/em>invokes another concept to the context, the concept of arinjole<\/em>, which means profound thinking. Arinjole <\/em>is required in all the disciplines for bringing together various disciplines. This concept talks about how the knowledge from different disciplines is interrelated. In the context of the societal degeneration, Makinde thinks that the concept of i<\/em>fogbontaayese <\/em>is crucial. Makinde argues that the relevance of this concept extends from natural sciences to social sciences. This concept, according to Makinde, gives a\u00a0proper theoretical background for the ideas of unity of all knowledge and also to remake the world in to a better one. (<\/span>ibid, <\/em>1988: 68-9)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

This rejoinder to Akiwowo\u2019s paper by Makinde is not intended at criticizing Akiwowo\u2019s arguments. Makinde considers Akiwow\u2019s paper as relevant within the tradition of indigenous sociology. He rejoins Akiwowo in expanding the concepts by adding dimensions to\u00a0 it and provides his interpretations to lead the arguments to newer possibilities. He validated Akiwowo\u2019s argument that African literature and oral traditions has a lot to offer to the world and not only social sciences but other disciplines from various parts of the globe can also benefit from it. But, unlike Makinde, the second comment which Akiwowo\u2019s paper received, thoroughly criticized his attempts. This was from the scholars O.B.Lawuyi and Olufemi Taiwo.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Comments from Lawuyi and Taiwo\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Unlike Makinde, Lawuyi and Taiwo presented an elaborate and thorough criticism to Akiwowo\u2019s paper. They accused Akiwowo for the \u201cfuzzyness\u201d in his language, while translating and explaining the Yoruba oral poetry. They appreciate Akiwowo\u2019s attempt, but criticizes that Akiwowo failed to recognize, elaborate and develop on his arguments any further. Indigenous sociology should be able present itself in a language which is capable of exchanging with the corpus of knowledge across the world. In such a case, a mere introduction of concepts and their translation will prove insufficient. Hence, according to Lawuyi and Taiwo, even though Akiwowo put forward an interesting approach, he and his followers lacked enough clarity to offer it to the world community of social sciences. They note that these concepts has an everyday significance, and Akiwowo failed to explain how one can develop these everyday concepts in to philosophical principles. Lawuyi and\u00a0 Taiwo also\u00a0 agree that it is completely possible to\u00a0 do sociology in African idioms, but the way Akiwowo has presented it, according to them, is \u2018fuzzy\u2019. (Lawuyi and Taiwo, 1990)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Lawuyi and Taiwo, in their paper takes four major concepts discovered by Akiwowo, which are the concepts around which Makinde\u2019s paper is \u00a0also organized. These are Asuwada, Ajobi,<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ajogbe <\/em>and <\/span>ifogbontaayese. <\/em>The authors attempt to alert us to some of the neglected possibilities regarding these concepts as they think that it is not clear in Akiwowo\u2019s and Makinde\u2019s paper. Lawuyi and Taiwo notes that Akiwowo used the concept of <\/span>Asuwada <\/em>in three different ways and this can be confusing for the reader. They distinguish these as asuwada-1, asuwada-2 and asuwada-3 to avoid the \u201cindistinctness\u201d in Akiwowo\u2019s paper. So by pointing out the \u2018indistinctness\u2019 in Akiwowo\u2019s paper, they suggest that this can act as a hindrance to the use of these idioms for sociological analysis. (<\/span>ibid, 1990: <\/em>58-9)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Akiwowo gave two responses to Lawuyi and Taiwo which was impatient and rejected their criticism with scorn. The first response didn\u2019t even attempted to clarify on what they have raised as the limitations of Akiwowo\u2019s paper, but the second response did speak about these criticisms elaborately. However, in his second response given to Lawuyi and Taiwo, Akiwowo explains that the fuzziness inevitable and is related to the logic of oral poetry. He argues that it has to be presented with that fuzziness to a certain extent. Akiwowo accused Lawuyi and Taiwo for not understanding properly what Akiwowo has attempted to propose.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The debate however alerted to some of the important questions in doing indigenous sociology. While developing general explanatory principles from the specificities of one culture, it should communicate with the practitioners of the discipline from other cultures as well. Hence it cannot be culture bound. Only then it can be developed in to powerful universals. Lawuyi and Taiwo accuses that Akiwowo\u2019s paper confuses the reader. When Lawuyi and Taiwo, the Yoruba speaking intellectuals find it difficult to understand the concept of Asuwada <\/em>in Akiwowo\u2019s paper a reader who is unfamiliar to Yoruba language and their culture would definitely not understand it. Without the clarity of the root concepts, the explanatory principles developed from it cannot be used for any theoretical and analytical purpose. (Lawuyi and Taiwo, 1990)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Taking in to account all these, it can be concluded that Akiwowo\u2019s paper has not succeeded in what it intended to do. But his attempts cannot be deemed and considered insignificant since this was from the colonized part of the world which could challenge the claims of false universality of the Eurocentric theory. Akiwowo demonstrated one possible way of developing a theory from the cultural contingency of Africa, which is of course a crucial attempt. Taking in\u00a0to account the responses which he got, and in the light of the questions which came out of this debate, indigenous sociology has to rectify the limitations of its practice. This debate is a fruitful one in the pathway of the further flourishing attempts.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Marriot and Indian Ethno Sociology\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Akiwowo\u2019s paper is an\u00a0 important attempt in understanding the\u00a0 significance of indigenous sociology. Being elaborated on this paper and its responses, it is important to look in to similar attempts from other part of the world. McKim Marriot\u2019s attempt to develop an ethno sociology of India is one among such notable works. McKim Marriot attempted to develop an Indian ethno sociology with analytical tools derived from the Hindu scriptures. Marriot proposes an Indian Theoretical Social Science in his paper \u2018On Constructing an Indian Ethno sociology\u2019 which got published in the year 1991. He explains that a social theory developed from the ways of living and practices of a community can be a helpful tool for the analyst who attempts to understand social phenomena even though a systematic social theory is not needed for the people who live in that community. (Marriot, 1991)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In Samkhya and Ayurveda philosophical positions of Indian Philosophy, it is believed that the universe composed from three major elements, Air, Water and Fire. This implies \u2018anti- equivalent\u2019 or \u2018non-symmetric\u2019 relations. On the other hand, relations are equivalent and symmetric in the Western philosophy. These two relational sets, i.e. the Indian and the Western, are diametrically opposite to each other, according to Marriot. There can be other types of relational sets as well, which represent the specificities of other cultures. Marriot is trying to develop one such tool of social analysis from the Indian philosophical traditions. According to Marriot, the relational logic specific to one culture cannot be understood substituting it with the logic of the relational sets from another culture. (1991)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Marriot presents the Indian logic through \u2018cubes\u2019. The cubes represent \u2018incompleteness\u2019, as opposed to the dichotomous strands of Western thought. Marriot argues that, even though Indian Samkhya tradition discusses dichotomies its logic is different from the dichotomous logic\u00a0of west. The property space of the cubes is three- dimensional. The cube, unlike a uni-linear conception, allows the multiplicity of perspectives. \u201cOnly the diverse qualities of its spaces generated through permutations of its variables, seem able to accommodate the actual diversities of Indian life.\u201d (Marriot, 1991) This understanding of Indian life based on a three dimensional property space allows the analyst to perceive the actual diversity without bias to any one particular description. He also speaks about the <\/span>Ayurvedic <\/em>knowledge which explains that the remote areas of body are connected through channels to the humoral reservoirs of the body. Developing a theory based on this knowledge helps to think about the possible \u201cbetweenness\u201d of remote\u00a0 networks of communication which increases the possibilities of Ethno social science, according to Marriot. (Marriot, 1991)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

This approach developed by Marriot, had many limitations. It generalized the Brahmin experience as the experience of the entire Indian society. It took the relational sets only from Vedic scriptures, which are Brahminical, to develop \u201cIndian Ethno sociology\u201d. He failed to mention about the diverse cultural realities which together construct the category \u201cIndian\u201d. Instead, he generalized the Brahmin perspectives as Indian. Still, it is worth discussing Marriot\u2019s attempt. Like Akiwowo, Marriot\u2019s attempt is also important as it tried to provide an alternate tradition to the Western hegemony, even though he did it by using the experience of another dominant community, the Brahmins. (1991)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What are the limitations of Akiwowo\u2019s and Marriot\u2019s Indigenous Sociology?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

However, towards the end of his paper, Marriot agrees that the analysis which he presented is insufficient to develop an Indian ethno sociology. He also agrees that he oversimplified the concepts while attempting to present them. He himself, unlike Akiwowo is aware about the limitations of what he could achieve in proposing a new paradigm. But Marriot believes that a starting point to such a thought will lead to further additions and theorizations in this area. His attempts are intended to stating the limitations of Eurocentric theories since it proves insufficient for understanding other parts of the world. In doing this he is identifying some aspects \u00a0which underlie \u00a0the \u00a0\u2018Indian\u2019 \u00a0logic, by \u00a0which \u00a0he\u00a0 actually \u00a0homogenizes \u00a0the\u00a0 category\u00a0\u2018Indian\u2019. Similarly, Akiwowo is also generalizing the Yoruba tradition as African. India and Africa are regions with diverse cultural and social activities. One tradition from these regions cannot represent the rest of the traditions of that region. In this way we\u00a0 can observe that both Akiwowo and Marriot are falling in to the same generalizing tendency of universal sociology. Also the citizens of a region might have different opinions about what constitutes \u2018indigenous\u2019 from what Akiwowo and Marriot understood as Indigenous. There are limitations, many, in this regard and how far he is successful in developing an alternative is a different question. But the attempt is important since it can open new possibilities in doing research. With all its limitations, like Akiwowo, Marriot\u2019s theory is significant in terms of the uniqueness of it attempts and the capability of this to spark thoughts in academics along the same line. This work, in this sense can be considered as a crucial one in the pathway of attempting to challenge Eurocentric theories.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

But it has to be noted that the separating lines between Indigenous sociology and right wing ideology is very thin. As can be observed in Marriot\u2019s paper the sources which he used for his arguments are Brahminical. \u201cIndian\u201d is understood at \u201cbrahmin\u201d throughout the paper. In other words, the categories of \u201cBrahmin\u201d and \u201cIndian\u201d are collapsed in to each other. One need to be cautious about this culturist tendencies while perceiving the arguments of indigenous sociology. It can be noted that Akiwowo is also generalizing the Yoruba tradition as African. Both these thinkers are falling in to the language of universalism. Indigenous Sociology attempts to represent the particularities of the social world outside North. But sometimes the practitioners of indigenous sociology represent it in a language which is incapable of communicating with other social realities. Also indigenous should submit itself to the exotic curiosities of the northern sociology. Paulin Hountondji introduces a new concept \u2018endogenous knowledge\u2019 which is worth juxtaposing here.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The difference between \u201cEndogenous\u201d, \u201cIndigenous\u201d and \u201cTraditional\u201d.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The term endogenous knowledge is developed in the introductory discussions of a seminar organized by Hountondji. This term \u2018endogenous\u2019 was preferred over \u2018traditional\u2019 to represent\u00a0the knowledge systems of Africa. So instead of using \u2018traditional knowledge systems of Africa\u2019, the scholars preferred to use \u2018endogenous Knowledge systems of Africa\u2019, since a group of scholars thought that \u2018traditional\u2019 is not the right term which can be used for a set of ideas which they intended to communicate. (Hountondji, 1997) The so called \u2018traditional\u2019 knowledge was always understood as a system of knowledge which has nothing to exchange with the \u2018true processes\u2019 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\u2019s 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 \u2018traditional\u2019 is used, even inside quotation marks, it invokes the idea of \u2018traditional\u2019 as opposed to \u2018modern\u2019. \u2018Endogenous\u2019 is the new term which was developed to represent 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. \u201cWhat 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.\u201d(hountondji, 1997)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

On the other hand, the term \u201cendogenous\u201d is also different from \u201cindigenous\u201d. Akiwowo used the term \u2018indigenous\u2019 to represent the knowledge of a particular culture outside West. But one has to note that Indigenous defines something with the tag of the so called culture to which it belongs. It can be a Eurocentric tag on what the North thinks as belonging to a particular culture in the South. It need not be perceived as meaningful outside the particular cultural territory. Endogenous is a term which holds its significance outside the cultural specificities also. It originates from consciousness of academic dependence and unequal global power relations in the process of knowledge production. \u2018Endogenous\u2019 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\u00a0introduction of the term leads to some other questions about the origins of this knowledge. \u201cWhat 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.\u201d(hountondji, 1997) The question of origin\u00a0 of a particular\u00a0 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. Endogenous include all those knowledge which the people of a particular identifies as theirs.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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 \u2018market\u2019 in which these perforce are pushed down to inferior positions. The \u2018endogenous\u2019 becomes \u2018indigenous\u2019 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\u2019s imaginary beginnings. Worse still, if that person doesn\u2019t take care, he or she can very quickly interiorize the new values and looking at him or herself henceforth with other people\u2019s eyes, perceive him or herself as an indigenous being.\u201d (2009)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Houtondji\u2019s criticism of the concept \u201cindigenous\u201d is significant here. As we observed before, both Akiwowo and Marriot are falling in to the trap of universal language of northern sociological theories. Here Hountondji is alerting us to this trap and reminds that \u2018indigenous\u2019 is a term which emerged from within the Eurocentric perspectives. \u2018Endogenous\u2019 is a concept hence worth discussing in this context.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Conclusion\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Indigenous sociology is not something which has nothing to do with the discipline\u2019s already existing ideas. It has to debate and exchange with the mainstream disciplines in its attempts to broaden the base and to challenge the hegemony inherent in its generalizations and universalizations. Indigenous sociology is an important area of the discipline in the sense that it questions the efficiency of Eurocentric theories in representing diverse cultural realities. The thinkers discussed here are the ones who recognized that the claim of universality in the Eurocentric \u00a0theories \u00a0is \u00a0a \u00a0false \u00a0claim. \u00a0They \u00a0are \u00a0the \u00a0ones \u00a0who \u00a0attempted \u00a0to \u00a0develop \u00a0an\u00a0alternative to challenge the domination of the global North in Academics. Hence these attempts are crucial in the pathway of sociology as discipline which is not restricted to the European and North American universities.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n
you can view video on Indigenous Sociology<\/strong><\/td>\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

REFERENCES<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

1.\u00a0<\/em>Akiwowo, Akinsola\u00a0 A. \u00a0(1986) \u00a0Contributions to \u00a0the\u00a0 Sociology of Knowledge \u00a0from \u00a0an African Oral Poetry. <\/em>International Sociology.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0<\/em>Akiwowo, Akinsola A. (1991) Responses to Makinde\/ Lawuyi and Taiwo. <\/em>International Sociology. Vol. 6; 243.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0<\/em>Akiwowo, \u00a0Akinsola \u00a0A. \u00a0(1999) \u00a0Indigenous \u00a0Sociologies: \u00a0Extending \u00a0the \u00a0Scope \u00a0of \u00a0the Argument. <\/em>International Sociology. Vol. 14; 115.<\/p>\n

4. Hountondji, Paulin J. (1997) Endogenous Knowledge: Research Trails<\/em>. CODESRIA.<\/p>\n

5. Hountondji, \u00a0Paulin \u00a0J. \u00a0(2009) \u00a0Knowledge \u00a0of \u00a0Africa, \u00a0Knowledge \u00a0by \u00a0Africans: \u00a0Two Perspectives on African Studies. <\/em>RCCS Annual Review, Vol 1.<\/p>\n

6. Hountondji, Paulin J. (1995) Producing Knowledge in Africa Today: The Second Bashorun\u00a0<\/em>M.K.O. Abiola Distinguished Lecture<\/em>. African Studies Review. Vol. 38, No.3, (Dec, 1995), pp 1-10.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0<\/em>Makinde, Akin M. (1988) Asuwada Principle: An Analysis of Akiwowo\u2019s Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge from an African Perspective. <\/em>International Sociology. Vol. 3; 61.<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0<\/em>Lawuyi, O.B. and Taiwo, Olufemi. (1990) Towards an African Sociological Tradition: A\u00a0<\/em>Rejoinder to Akiwowo and Makinde. <\/em>International Sociology. Vol. 5; 57.<\/p>\n

9. Patel, Sujata. (2014) Colonial modernity and the Problematique of Indigenous and Indegeneity: South Asian and African experiences. <\/span>In <\/em>Biegel, Fernanada and Sabea, Hanan (ed.), <\/span>The Academic Dependency and Proffessionalization in the South: Perspectives from Periphery. Sephis: EDIUNC.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"menu_order":29,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["anu-k-antony"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[74],"license":[],"class_list":["post-163","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","contributor-anu-k-antony"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/163","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/163\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":312,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/163\/revisions\/312"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/163\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=163"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=163"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}