**3. Critique of Western epistemology**

Objectivity may be defined as neutrality or observer independence. This entails that epistemological claims must be free from subjective or cultural bias. Truth claims should be free from observer bias and not depend on the fact that a particular person is conducting investigation. Every person, including the epistemologist, looks at the world from a particular perspective, shaped by personal and cultural facts [9]. Critics of objectivity argue that hidden cultural assumptions distort our investigation of truth. Hidden cultural assumptions that distort the conclusions of science can be made visible by beginning from a marginal perspective. Instead of occupying a "view from nowhere," thought begins from somewhere. Once that is understood, the task is which somewhere should we examine the world. Philosophy should challenge its own picture of itself by criticizing both the project and assumed goal of Western philosophical reflection [10]. Philosophical investigations are subject to historical and cultural particularities. Philosophy is written and explored within cultural contexts. The timeless nature of reality, justice, and truth is ought to be challenged. The assumption that reason is a transcendent, noncultural standard ought to be rejected. Reason is actually justified not as timeless truth but as a local ideal. Reason is used by philosophy to show particular versions of truth. It is easy to write about the "other" or voice from the margin. What appears about embracing the other is largely rhetoric. A standpoint theorist sees possibility, promise, and hope as emanating from the margins [11]. A conceptual scheme is a way of seeing the world. Incommensurable conceptual schemes [12] are schemes that are so fundamentally different from each other that they cannot be compared or ranked or united into a single scheme. Different cultural traditions provide incompatible ways of separating valid truth claims from invalid ones. These ways are internal to cultures, and there is no transcultural way of sorting out the contradictory truth claims. The West should recognize the failures of its own traditions and open up to new traditions especially the ones that promise to overcome our failures by providing clear and careful standards of justification.

Eurocentric thinking is internally limited by its own narrowness and perspective. "Eurocentrism is unable to deal with the assumptions and complexities of colonialism and it is unable to reject the use of Eurocentric theory or its categories" [13]. So eurocentrism is a self-limiting approach which African universities have no justification in following. It is a form of provincialism that has to be evaluated using the lenses of pluriversality.

Eurocentric epistemology is a kind of provincialism whose narrowness contradicts the spirit of genuine knowledge. If knowledge should be open-ended and tentative, then why should gatekeeping be done using the myths of universality, objectivity, and neutrality? The idea of the universal is that of a universal rich with all that is particular, rich with all particulars, the deepening and coexistence of all particulars [14]. Pluriversality respects both multiplicity and diversity. It picks the best elements from each culture and tradition. This means that it is the sum total of the best elements from each culture and it takes the dimension of multiple thinking without disregard on any of the cultures. This kind of thinking brings in the idea of pluri-cultural perspectives that engage in honest dialog for the enrichment of knowledge in particular and humanity in general [4]. Le Grange writes, "for too

**145**

*An Epistemological Critique of the African University Education System*

long what has been taught and learned in African universities has been dominated by Western science disciplines and more importantly by a representationalist perspective of science or knowledge" [15]. What is taken as genuine knowledge in African universities is a perspective that requires revisiting and reconceptualization. In Le Grange's view, Western science "is not only local but located" or situated. The locality is hidden in abstract universalism. Abstract universalism is used to dismiss other knowledge systems as non-knowledge. The narrowness and fallacies of Western science should allow indigenous knowledge to stamp authenticity in the

The use of Eurocentric epistemology in African universities disrespects the epistemic concerns of students. Arguably, "many spaces within the university do not recognize the knowledge and cultural capital that first-generation students bring with them to the university as valid forms of knowledge and as valid forms of cultural capital" [16]. This gives a mismatch between the learners' epistemological background and university learning. As a result, graduates from a contradictory learning process fail to attain relevance in their own communities because there is unequal participation in the learning process. "Higher education must be made relevant to the material, historical and social realities of the communities in which universities operate" [17]. Such unequal participation is called "hermeneutical injustice" [18]. In instances of hermeneutical injustice, the power imbalance is such that certain people's positions, and the knowledge they bring from those positions, suffer from a deficit of credibility. For instance, if a student of law brings into the learning process the indigenous court system, that knowledge is likely to be dismissed as "unsystematic and unscientific." Experiences of learners are therefore dismissed when the Eurocentric way of thinking is given domination in African universities. Although hermeneutical injustice was academically defined almost a decade ago, this form of injustice is as old as racism and colonialism. "In South African higher education, this is a hermeneutical injustice with its roots in a colonial past, where other knowledge systems and ways of being were systematically disregarded and perceived negatively" [16]. Education should be liberating instead of enslaving. This means that all processes linked to education such as research, teaching, and learning must free the mind. Freeing the mind entails thinking in diverse positions that involve criticism and evaluation without any blinkers,

Three issues can be drawn from the observation that education ought to be mentally liberative. Firstly, it is a contradiction in terms to talk of education that fails to liberate the mind. Secondly, education should liberate rather than enslave the mind. Colonial epistemology fails to achieve mental liberation in the African university, and it therefore fails to promote intellectual independence and growth. Thirdly, the skills from education are the practical aspects that are relevant for society. If educa-

Universities should be critical about the curriculum by an examination of its theoretical and practical aspects. Theory must feed the practical, and the practical must allow further examination of theory. In other words, ideas must be tested in terms of usefulness to the community. As a result, a curriculum that relates to the community is more appropriate than a borrowed curriculum that tends to be inconsistent with community knowledge systems and experience [20]. To cross the boundaries of one's culture without realizing that the other person may have a radically different approach to reality today is no longer admissible [21]. A university should therefore use the standards of openness and dialog to assess knowledge claims without dismissing them on the basis of prejudice. If still consciously done, disrespect of knowledge from other cultures would be "philosophically naive, politically outrageous and religiously sinful" [21]. The philosophical naivety

tion lacks the practical dimension, then it fails to serve its key purpose.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85879*

African university.

whether imposed on acquired [19].

#### *An Epistemological Critique of the African University Education System DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85879*

*Education Systems Around the World*

**3. Critique of Western epistemology**

ing clear and careful standards of justification.

the lenses of pluriversality.

of these ideals.

Critics of universalism see the point zero approach as beyond human capacities and an approach applicable to some kind of deity [2]. The ideals of objectivity and universality are not immune from criticism, and the next section examines the flaws

Objectivity may be defined as neutrality or observer independence. This entails that epistemological claims must be free from subjective or cultural bias. Truth claims should be free from observer bias and not depend on the fact that a particular person is conducting investigation. Every person, including the epistemologist, looks at the world from a particular perspective, shaped by personal and cultural facts [9]. Critics of objectivity argue that hidden cultural assumptions distort our investigation of truth. Hidden cultural assumptions that distort the conclusions of science can be made visible by beginning from a marginal perspective. Instead of occupying a "view from nowhere," thought begins from somewhere. Once that is understood, the task is which somewhere should we examine the world. Philosophy should challenge its own picture of itself by criticizing both the project and assumed goal of Western philosophical reflection [10]. Philosophical investigations are subject to historical and cultural particularities. Philosophy is written and explored within cultural contexts. The timeless nature of reality, justice, and truth is ought to be challenged. The assumption that reason is a transcendent, noncultural standard ought to be rejected. Reason is actually justified not as timeless truth but as a local ideal. Reason is used by philosophy to show particular versions of truth. It is easy to write about the "other" or voice from the margin. What appears about embracing the other is largely rhetoric. A standpoint theorist sees possibility, promise, and hope as emanating from the margins [11]. A conceptual scheme is a way of seeing the world. Incommensurable conceptual schemes [12] are schemes that are so fundamentally different from each other that they cannot be compared or ranked or united into a single scheme. Different cultural traditions provide incompatible ways of separating valid truth claims from invalid ones. These ways are internal to cultures, and there is no transcultural way of sorting out the contradictory truth claims. The West should recognize the failures of its own traditions and open up to new traditions especially the ones that promise to overcome our failures by provid-

Eurocentric thinking is internally limited by its own narrowness and perspective. "Eurocentrism is unable to deal with the assumptions and complexities of colonialism and it is unable to reject the use of Eurocentric theory or its categories" [13]. So eurocentrism is a self-limiting approach which African universities have no justification in following. It is a form of provincialism that has to be evaluated using

Eurocentric epistemology is a kind of provincialism whose narrowness contradicts the spirit of genuine knowledge. If knowledge should be open-ended and tentative, then why should gatekeeping be done using the myths of universality, objectivity, and neutrality? The idea of the universal is that of a universal rich with all that is particular, rich with all particulars, the deepening and coexistence of all particulars [14]. Pluriversality respects both multiplicity and diversity. It picks the best elements from each culture and tradition. This means that it is the sum total of the best elements from each culture and it takes the dimension of multiple thinking without disregard on any of the cultures. This kind of thinking brings in the idea of pluri-cultural perspectives that engage in honest dialog for the enrichment of knowledge in particular and humanity in general [4]. Le Grange writes, "for too

**144**

long what has been taught and learned in African universities has been dominated by Western science disciplines and more importantly by a representationalist perspective of science or knowledge" [15]. What is taken as genuine knowledge in African universities is a perspective that requires revisiting and reconceptualization. In Le Grange's view, Western science "is not only local but located" or situated. The locality is hidden in abstract universalism. Abstract universalism is used to dismiss other knowledge systems as non-knowledge. The narrowness and fallacies of Western science should allow indigenous knowledge to stamp authenticity in the African university.

The use of Eurocentric epistemology in African universities disrespects the epistemic concerns of students. Arguably, "many spaces within the university do not recognize the knowledge and cultural capital that first-generation students bring with them to the university as valid forms of knowledge and as valid forms of cultural capital" [16]. This gives a mismatch between the learners' epistemological background and university learning. As a result, graduates from a contradictory learning process fail to attain relevance in their own communities because there is unequal participation in the learning process. "Higher education must be made relevant to the material, historical and social realities of the communities in which universities operate" [17]. Such unequal participation is called "hermeneutical injustice" [18]. In instances of hermeneutical injustice, the power imbalance is such that certain people's positions, and the knowledge they bring from those positions, suffer from a deficit of credibility. For instance, if a student of law brings into the learning process the indigenous court system, that knowledge is likely to be dismissed as "unsystematic and unscientific." Experiences of learners are therefore dismissed when the Eurocentric way of thinking is given domination in African universities. Although hermeneutical injustice was academically defined almost a decade ago, this form of injustice is as old as racism and colonialism. "In South African higher education, this is a hermeneutical injustice with its roots in a colonial past, where other knowledge systems and ways of being were systematically disregarded and perceived negatively" [16]. Education should be liberating instead of enslaving. This means that all processes linked to education such as research, teaching, and learning must free the mind. Freeing the mind entails thinking in diverse positions that involve criticism and evaluation without any blinkers, whether imposed on acquired [19].

Three issues can be drawn from the observation that education ought to be mentally liberative. Firstly, it is a contradiction in terms to talk of education that fails to liberate the mind. Secondly, education should liberate rather than enslave the mind. Colonial epistemology fails to achieve mental liberation in the African university, and it therefore fails to promote intellectual independence and growth. Thirdly, the skills from education are the practical aspects that are relevant for society. If education lacks the practical dimension, then it fails to serve its key purpose.

Universities should be critical about the curriculum by an examination of its theoretical and practical aspects. Theory must feed the practical, and the practical must allow further examination of theory. In other words, ideas must be tested in terms of usefulness to the community. As a result, a curriculum that relates to the community is more appropriate than a borrowed curriculum that tends to be inconsistent with community knowledge systems and experience [20]. To cross the boundaries of one's culture without realizing that the other person may have a radically different approach to reality today is no longer admissible [21]. A university should therefore use the standards of openness and dialog to assess knowledge claims without dismissing them on the basis of prejudice. If still consciously done, disrespect of knowledge from other cultures would be "philosophically naive, politically outrageous and religiously sinful" [21]. The philosophical naivety

observed is a result of lack of facts, while there is rashness predicated on prejudice. Given the context of colonialism, meaning has to undergo contestation, negotiation, and dialog. In the politics of knowledge, it is irresponsible to dismiss knowledge claims without their contribution taking into account. This thinking opens up for the content of African epistemology as shown in the next section.
