The concept of individuality or individual freedom is fundamental in determining human life in society for it underlies human
thought and behavior.1 Individuality co-exists with social cohesion,
which in turn is a basic component of human life in society. They
constitute a dichotomy, without any essential opposites.
As social factors, both concepts exist in the particular epoch of a peoples' existence though in subtly differing relationships. In African traditional society social cohesion was dominant over individuality; unlike individuality, it seems to have been distinctly discernible. But the order of dominance was natural, that is, society evolved in this manner with social harmony rather than tension or crisis between the two.
In contemporary Africa there is a deliberate coercive tendency against individuality in the attempt to build a cohesive harmonious society and realize nation unity.2 Despite its inherent oppression, this has been the foundation of nation building, since the imposition of European colonial rule. The coercion, in turn, provokes reaction in form of resistance, both physical and psychic, thus causing a crisis between social cohesion and individuality.
The thesis of this paper is, first, to examine the concepts of both individuality and social cohesion in African traditional society or culture and, second, to show how these ideas are influencing contemporary African thought, particularly among the political leadership. This influence manifests a perversion by the political leadership of two African cultural realities, namely, individuality and social cohesion, and the will of the individual to restore the status quo of the traditional society.
DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPTS
Individuality may be referred to as metaphysical freedom. According to David Bidney this is the autonomous power of choice and decision of will as essential conditions for the exercise of other freedoms.4 Individuality is the essence of a human being, notwithstanding any form of constraint, control or influence; it is inherent in human nature and survives any form of external influence to one's self or conscience.
Social cohesion is a state of affairs whereby individuals in the society consistently pursue certain fundamental virtues on the basis of enhancing a common or social good. In the African traditional sense this is called African communalism. D.N. Kaphagawani calls it the social structure which pervades traditional Africa in which every member voluntarily cooperates. Each is proud and much obliged to help any other member of his or her community.
The two concepts are dichotomous because individuality sometimes tends towards enhancement of the freedom that entails pursuit of egoistic or selfish interests, that is, negative individualism. On the other hand the social good tends to submerge such freedom. But both concepts are not essentially opposites or antagonistic because if individual freedom is rationally pursued, that is, pursued responsibly or with a sense of duty so as to safeguard the good or what is beneficial to others, it does not contradict the social good. At this level the individual is normatively free.
Bidney calls normative freedom that according to which human action is directed by rational ideals and conforms to rational laws and principles. It presupposes that a rational man makes his own decisions as to how to act in the context of values and standards of his society which are prior to his existence in the society. Thus, one's demand for freedom of conscience and thought depends directly upon recognition of the power of reason to conceive valid ideals of what ought to be done and what can be realized in action. In this normative sense freedom is responsibly pursued. Responsible freedom is the basis of social cohesion, and in African traditional society education played a vital role inculcating this freedom among members of society.
TRADITIONAL SOCIETY
The Role of Traditional Education
In African traditional society through the system of education an individual was brought up to respect the values and standards of his society. Education was the basis of inculcating social and moral values; it pervaded the entire framework of the social system and was the instrument for socialization.
Virtue, defined in terms of a social ethic, was the ultimate aim of traditional education in Africa. The normative dimension found here a very definite expression, being primarily concerned with social and moral values.
The cultivation of social and moral values and hence enhancement of social cohesion played a dual fundamental role. First, it enabled society to be held together; great value was placed upon communal fellowship in the traditional society, which fellowship infused African social life with a pervasive humanity and fullness of life.9 This state of affairs entailed psychological integration of the people and hence enhanced social unity. Second, the social cohesion was instrumental in society's evolution which involved positive inner social and institutional changes. These changes have occurred over time and they provided opportunity for social challenges to ensure social order, integrity and the present and future survival of the society"
Authoritarianism in African Traditional Society
Notwithstanding the basic values of African communalism, there were clear (indirect) coercive elements inherent in it. There was epistemological and political authoritarianism. Wiredu states that authoritarianism refers to any human arrangement which entails any person being made to do or suffer something against his will, or if it leads to any person being hindered in the development of his own will. He qualifies this conception by saying that what is authoritarian is the unjustified overriding of an individual's will.
Kaphagawani says that epistemological authoritarianism was rampant in traditional Africa precisely because the elders were the only ones held to have all knowledge and wisdom, so that what they said had to be believed without questioning.11 This epistemological advantage the elders had over the rest of the community ensued into a political advantage or political authoritarianism,12 from which emerged the core of political leadership in the traditional society. These elders claimed to know what was good or right for the society so their ideas were imposed on the non-elderly. Because of their assumed superiority in knowledge and wisdom as well as political authority and power, they assumed the position of Plato's philosopher kings. Their dual authoritarianism was excessive. They unjustifiably overrode the will of the non-elderly. The authoritarian tendency, a form of indirect coercion, was inimical to the growth of individuality. Though it was a means of social control, it denied the non-elderly a critical appraisal of the social system, hence, deprived them a cognitive active participation in it.
THE STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE AFRICAN
TRADITIONAL SOCIETY
Nonetheless, Kaphagawani says, to assert African communalism (and the authoritarianism of the elders) is not in any way to imply that traditional Africa knows no concept of the individual. Africans of the independent existence of each and every person in their communities. In fact African communalism presumes pluralism in that it is essentially a voluntary pooling together of independent and differing efforts and capabilities that makes the African communal life what it is. Moreover the young are not ontologically less human than the elders. According to Tempels, the name is the very reality of the individual.
Moreover, the overriding of the will of the non-elderly was a kind of benevolent authoritarianism. The elders were not rulers but wise leaders or guardians who were safeguarding the interests of society, that is the good of every individual and therefore order and harmony, which ensured social security and a worthy life for the individual. Besides, in their leadership they were open to everybody; they do not hide behind the institutions they formed such as monopolistic political parties characteristic of the contemporary world. The elders lived up to their status as philosopher kings for after a long period of continuous education they acquired considerable social wisdom.
The fact of the reality of the common or social good and the willingness of the individual to subscribe to it implied a dialogue between the individual and the society. A person was not compelled to be a conformist to the social ethic but was expected to have a moral obligation to behave in a manner that would enhance the social ethic. This moral principle could be analogous to Kant's categorical imperative, i.e., "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law."
Accordingly, in order to ensure cultivation of the moral obligation among the individuals, coercive social institutions were an exception rather than a rule. So while the individual was morally bound to promote the common good, society had a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of the individual. Therefore, both society and the individual were bound to each other.
Despite the virtuousness of African communalism sometimes there were dissenting voices among the individuals, especially from among the non-elderly, due to the elders' authoritarianism. The fact of dissension can be maintained by the existence of the concept and practice of punishment in the traditional society.
INDIVIDUALITY AND SOCIAL COHESION IN
CONTEMPORARY LIFE
The epistemological and political authoritarianism filters into the modern state in Africa. Though some of the African contemporary leaders are not elders, they assume the superior knowledge and wisdom of the traditional elders. The colonial system facilitated usurpation of the authority and power of the traditional elders by the contemporary political leaders. Colonial control and education led to the emergence of a new social and political elite in the African society from among the non-elderly. They were those who accepted the new system, i.e., the colonial system, and collaborated with or helped the colonial regime to sustain it in Africa. Over the time their social and political status was enhanced while that of the elders withered. They then with the struggle for political independence took up the political platform and thus assumed political leadership.
In the post-independent state, under the guise of socialist ideology to realize the common good or social cohesion and also under pseudo democracy, the contemporary leaders impose their ideals and ideas on the people. Through epistemological and political manipulation they invoke the virtues of African communalism. Africa has had abundance of examples of such leaders who in the name of the common good have established `democratic' institutions at the apex of which there is a single political party in which `freedom of expression' is guaranteed. This political monopoly has been the rule rather than exception in post-colonial Africa. It has enabled several presidents to be `elected' to power for several consecutive terms of office. Hence, democracy has always been manipulated in their favor.
The authoritarianism entailed in such monopolistic political system has always inevitably led to a conflictual climate, i.e., conflict between the state and the individual. Thus Africa has witnessed growth of political liberal movements; Africa today is experiencing the liberal tide of the 19th century Europe which was directed against the political control of the monarchs who were the `wise' men of Europe at that time.
In contemporary Africa the ethic of African communalism is an ideal beneath African socialism. Ideally African socialism anticipates a revolutionary change to redress economic and social imbalances in African countries which resulted from European colonialism; African socialism is regarded an antecedent to social cohesion.15 However, African socialism in its contemporary context is founded on authoritarianism; the ideology is developed by political leaders who have over the years in the post-colonial state assumed epistemological and political authoritarianism and have not allowed the citizens adequate means to express their interests, ideas and values. The will of the people has been assumed and `choice' made for them; conformity is forced on the people. In this case the people have been denied political freedom, i.e., real participation in the political process.
The authoritarian political behavior of the leaders negates their ethical legitimacy in society. It erodes the dignity of the individual and becomes a basis of his perpetual unhappiness. Consequently a perpetual, though sometimes illusive, antagonism between the individuals and the society or state ensues. This conflict parallels the social harmony that results from the natural social evolution.
The conflict between the individual and the state is not only a phenomenon of the African world. It is also a social and political crisis which is an inevitable consequence of man's attempt to organize society and establish institutions to ensure a way of doing things. The problem of crisis arises when the attempt is not ethically motivated, that is, when it is not genuinely intended for a common good.
The behavior of the political leadership in contemporary Africa has eroded the moral base of the socialist ideology. Instead of playing its role as "a set of ideas about what form a good society should take,"16 it is used as an instrument for political propaganda and unjustified manipulation of the people as a means for the `philosopher kings' to realize their interests, i.e., political monopoly, a monopoly which is politically and socially unhealthy.
In contemporary Africa the manipulation of the people is greatly facilitated by their ignorance. They lack formal education on codified knowledge, and they also lack political consciousness. In many instances, the manipulation is supported by the use of military force. Under such circumstances, where wisdom has been put aside, political authority and power lacks valid foundation as was the case in the traditional society. Thus it is inherently fragile and bound to disintegrate.
CONCLUSION
The validity of the paper in view of the proposed thesis ought to be evaluated on the following observations. First, the paper emphasizes that in the African traditional society there was a moral imperative or obligatory commitment among the people to the virtue of social good which greatly facilitated social cohesion, and thus enabled growth of a viable society. This moral trait was fundamentally based on society's recognition of the status of the individual, namely, his individual freedom, notwithstanding certain constraints to that freedom. Second, as a consequence of the first, society was devoid of the inherent social crisis that results from tension between individual freedom and society interests. Third, the harmonious link between the individual and society that was a feature of the African traditional society has been perverted by the contemporary African political leadership. This led to deep social or political crisis in Africa between the state and the individual. This perhaps is the greatest tragedy of Africa's political life today. Social cohesion in contemporary Africa is a nightmare.
As social factors, both concepts exist in the particular epoch of a peoples' existence though in subtly differing relationships. In African traditional society social cohesion was dominant over individuality; unlike individuality, it seems to have been distinctly discernible. But the order of dominance was natural, that is, society evolved in this manner with social harmony rather than tension or crisis between the two.
In contemporary Africa there is a deliberate coercive tendency against individuality in the attempt to build a cohesive harmonious society and realize nation unity.2 Despite its inherent oppression, this has been the foundation of nation building, since the imposition of European colonial rule. The coercion, in turn, provokes reaction in form of resistance, both physical and psychic, thus causing a crisis between social cohesion and individuality.
The thesis of this paper is, first, to examine the concepts of both individuality and social cohesion in African traditional society or culture and, second, to show how these ideas are influencing contemporary African thought, particularly among the political leadership. This influence manifests a perversion by the political leadership of two African cultural realities, namely, individuality and social cohesion, and the will of the individual to restore the status quo of the traditional society.
DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPTS
Individuality may be referred to as metaphysical freedom. According to David Bidney this is the autonomous power of choice and decision of will as essential conditions for the exercise of other freedoms.4 Individuality is the essence of a human being, notwithstanding any form of constraint, control or influence; it is inherent in human nature and survives any form of external influence to one's self or conscience.
Social cohesion is a state of affairs whereby individuals in the society consistently pursue certain fundamental virtues on the basis of enhancing a common or social good. In the African traditional sense this is called African communalism. D.N. Kaphagawani calls it the social structure which pervades traditional Africa in which every member voluntarily cooperates. Each is proud and much obliged to help any other member of his or her community.
The two concepts are dichotomous because individuality sometimes tends towards enhancement of the freedom that entails pursuit of egoistic or selfish interests, that is, negative individualism. On the other hand the social good tends to submerge such freedom. But both concepts are not essentially opposites or antagonistic because if individual freedom is rationally pursued, that is, pursued responsibly or with a sense of duty so as to safeguard the good or what is beneficial to others, it does not contradict the social good. At this level the individual is normatively free.
Bidney calls normative freedom that according to which human action is directed by rational ideals and conforms to rational laws and principles. It presupposes that a rational man makes his own decisions as to how to act in the context of values and standards of his society which are prior to his existence in the society. Thus, one's demand for freedom of conscience and thought depends directly upon recognition of the power of reason to conceive valid ideals of what ought to be done and what can be realized in action. In this normative sense freedom is responsibly pursued. Responsible freedom is the basis of social cohesion, and in African traditional society education played a vital role inculcating this freedom among members of society.
TRADITIONAL SOCIETY
The Role of Traditional Education
In African traditional society through the system of education an individual was brought up to respect the values and standards of his society. Education was the basis of inculcating social and moral values; it pervaded the entire framework of the social system and was the instrument for socialization.
Virtue, defined in terms of a social ethic, was the ultimate aim of traditional education in Africa. The normative dimension found here a very definite expression, being primarily concerned with social and moral values.
The cultivation of social and moral values and hence enhancement of social cohesion played a dual fundamental role. First, it enabled society to be held together; great value was placed upon communal fellowship in the traditional society, which fellowship infused African social life with a pervasive humanity and fullness of life.9 This state of affairs entailed psychological integration of the people and hence enhanced social unity. Second, the social cohesion was instrumental in society's evolution which involved positive inner social and institutional changes. These changes have occurred over time and they provided opportunity for social challenges to ensure social order, integrity and the present and future survival of the society"
Authoritarianism in African Traditional Society
Notwithstanding the basic values of African communalism, there were clear (indirect) coercive elements inherent in it. There was epistemological and political authoritarianism. Wiredu states that authoritarianism refers to any human arrangement which entails any person being made to do or suffer something against his will, or if it leads to any person being hindered in the development of his own will. He qualifies this conception by saying that what is authoritarian is the unjustified overriding of an individual's will.
Kaphagawani says that epistemological authoritarianism was rampant in traditional Africa precisely because the elders were the only ones held to have all knowledge and wisdom, so that what they said had to be believed without questioning.11 This epistemological advantage the elders had over the rest of the community ensued into a political advantage or political authoritarianism,12 from which emerged the core of political leadership in the traditional society. These elders claimed to know what was good or right for the society so their ideas were imposed on the non-elderly. Because of their assumed superiority in knowledge and wisdom as well as political authority and power, they assumed the position of Plato's philosopher kings. Their dual authoritarianism was excessive. They unjustifiably overrode the will of the non-elderly. The authoritarian tendency, a form of indirect coercion, was inimical to the growth of individuality. Though it was a means of social control, it denied the non-elderly a critical appraisal of the social system, hence, deprived them a cognitive active participation in it.
THE STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE AFRICAN
TRADITIONAL SOCIETY
Nonetheless, Kaphagawani says, to assert African communalism (and the authoritarianism of the elders) is not in any way to imply that traditional Africa knows no concept of the individual. Africans of the independent existence of each and every person in their communities. In fact African communalism presumes pluralism in that it is essentially a voluntary pooling together of independent and differing efforts and capabilities that makes the African communal life what it is. Moreover the young are not ontologically less human than the elders. According to Tempels, the name is the very reality of the individual.
Moreover, the overriding of the will of the non-elderly was a kind of benevolent authoritarianism. The elders were not rulers but wise leaders or guardians who were safeguarding the interests of society, that is the good of every individual and therefore order and harmony, which ensured social security and a worthy life for the individual. Besides, in their leadership they were open to everybody; they do not hide behind the institutions they formed such as monopolistic political parties characteristic of the contemporary world. The elders lived up to their status as philosopher kings for after a long period of continuous education they acquired considerable social wisdom.
The fact of the reality of the common or social good and the willingness of the individual to subscribe to it implied a dialogue between the individual and the society. A person was not compelled to be a conformist to the social ethic but was expected to have a moral obligation to behave in a manner that would enhance the social ethic. This moral principle could be analogous to Kant's categorical imperative, i.e., "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law."
Accordingly, in order to ensure cultivation of the moral obligation among the individuals, coercive social institutions were an exception rather than a rule. So while the individual was morally bound to promote the common good, society had a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of the individual. Therefore, both society and the individual were bound to each other.
Despite the virtuousness of African communalism sometimes there were dissenting voices among the individuals, especially from among the non-elderly, due to the elders' authoritarianism. The fact of dissension can be maintained by the existence of the concept and practice of punishment in the traditional society.
INDIVIDUALITY AND SOCIAL COHESION IN
CONTEMPORARY LIFE
The epistemological and political authoritarianism filters into the modern state in Africa. Though some of the African contemporary leaders are not elders, they assume the superior knowledge and wisdom of the traditional elders. The colonial system facilitated usurpation of the authority and power of the traditional elders by the contemporary political leaders. Colonial control and education led to the emergence of a new social and political elite in the African society from among the non-elderly. They were those who accepted the new system, i.e., the colonial system, and collaborated with or helped the colonial regime to sustain it in Africa. Over the time their social and political status was enhanced while that of the elders withered. They then with the struggle for political independence took up the political platform and thus assumed political leadership.
In the post-independent state, under the guise of socialist ideology to realize the common good or social cohesion and also under pseudo democracy, the contemporary leaders impose their ideals and ideas on the people. Through epistemological and political manipulation they invoke the virtues of African communalism. Africa has had abundance of examples of such leaders who in the name of the common good have established `democratic' institutions at the apex of which there is a single political party in which `freedom of expression' is guaranteed. This political monopoly has been the rule rather than exception in post-colonial Africa. It has enabled several presidents to be `elected' to power for several consecutive terms of office. Hence, democracy has always been manipulated in their favor.
The authoritarianism entailed in such monopolistic political system has always inevitably led to a conflictual climate, i.e., conflict between the state and the individual. Thus Africa has witnessed growth of political liberal movements; Africa today is experiencing the liberal tide of the 19th century Europe which was directed against the political control of the monarchs who were the `wise' men of Europe at that time.
In contemporary Africa the ethic of African communalism is an ideal beneath African socialism. Ideally African socialism anticipates a revolutionary change to redress economic and social imbalances in African countries which resulted from European colonialism; African socialism is regarded an antecedent to social cohesion.15 However, African socialism in its contemporary context is founded on authoritarianism; the ideology is developed by political leaders who have over the years in the post-colonial state assumed epistemological and political authoritarianism and have not allowed the citizens adequate means to express their interests, ideas and values. The will of the people has been assumed and `choice' made for them; conformity is forced on the people. In this case the people have been denied political freedom, i.e., real participation in the political process.
The authoritarian political behavior of the leaders negates their ethical legitimacy in society. It erodes the dignity of the individual and becomes a basis of his perpetual unhappiness. Consequently a perpetual, though sometimes illusive, antagonism between the individuals and the society or state ensues. This conflict parallels the social harmony that results from the natural social evolution.
The conflict between the individual and the state is not only a phenomenon of the African world. It is also a social and political crisis which is an inevitable consequence of man's attempt to organize society and establish institutions to ensure a way of doing things. The problem of crisis arises when the attempt is not ethically motivated, that is, when it is not genuinely intended for a common good.
The behavior of the political leadership in contemporary Africa has eroded the moral base of the socialist ideology. Instead of playing its role as "a set of ideas about what form a good society should take,"16 it is used as an instrument for political propaganda and unjustified manipulation of the people as a means for the `philosopher kings' to realize their interests, i.e., political monopoly, a monopoly which is politically and socially unhealthy.
In contemporary Africa the manipulation of the people is greatly facilitated by their ignorance. They lack formal education on codified knowledge, and they also lack political consciousness. In many instances, the manipulation is supported by the use of military force. Under such circumstances, where wisdom has been put aside, political authority and power lacks valid foundation as was the case in the traditional society. Thus it is inherently fragile and bound to disintegrate.
CONCLUSION
The validity of the paper in view of the proposed thesis ought to be evaluated on the following observations. First, the paper emphasizes that in the African traditional society there was a moral imperative or obligatory commitment among the people to the virtue of social good which greatly facilitated social cohesion, and thus enabled growth of a viable society. This moral trait was fundamentally based on society's recognition of the status of the individual, namely, his individual freedom, notwithstanding certain constraints to that freedom. Second, as a consequence of the first, society was devoid of the inherent social crisis that results from tension between individual freedom and society interests. Third, the harmonious link between the individual and society that was a feature of the African traditional society has been perverted by the contemporary African political leadership. This led to deep social or political crisis in Africa between the state and the individual. This perhaps is the greatest tragedy of Africa's political life today. Social cohesion in contemporary Africa is a nightmare.
No comments:
Post a Comment