The Multiplicity of Truth :
An inquiry into African Epistemology
In this brief article I would like to reflect on how the African people look at truth. (I am grateful to my friend Babu Ayindo. A conversation with him has been the real confirmation of my own postulations. Some of the examples used here are his too.) The concept of truth is based on a metaphysics – a way of interpreting reality. Thirdly, it has its implications on ethics.
I would like to speak of these three aspects in the following theses:
1: A ‘Yes’ may mean a ‘No’.
2: The different aspects of reality are not contradictory but only complementary.
3: That is good which simply preserves relationships.
I noticed that in stating these theses I had to be extra careful to state them without absolutizing them – in the African way. Therefore, I notice that English being a non-African language has its limitation in expressing African thought. Once we are aware of this our communication can go on much better.
The aim of this reflection is also to initiate a discussion on an important aspect of philosophy in Africa. If I claim to have the full truth I would be contradicting the following lines.
1. A ‘Yes’ may mean a ‘No’.
Consider a husband who walks into his home in the evening, tired from work. He greets his wife, and as he settles down to relax he asks, “Mama Fulani, would there be some Tea to drink?” After some silence, the wife replies respectfully and rather reluctantly, “You see, Baba Fulani, I am sorry, the milkman has not appeared today.” The husband, being an African, understands that in reality there is no tea available. Perhaps he must ask for something else or he should just wait for supper. He knows very well that milkman may not really be the cause of not having tea! But having influenced by Western education and having completed his post-graduate studies in the US, he wonders, why doesn’t she simply say, “There is no tea, I am sorry.”
It is said that most African languages do not have a precise word for ‘no’, meaning ‘blunt refusal’, as it may have for affirmation, though they all do have concepts to negate something. In Swahili for instance, the word for ‘yes’ is ‘ndiyo’, and it is very emphatic. The word for ‘no’ is ‘hakuna’, ‘hapana’, ‘hamna’, all these literally mean ‘the place does not have’. And the word ‘si’ is used as a negation. Speaking of Kiswahili speakers, among them especially in Tanzania, it is almost an unwritten taboo to use strong negative words. For instance, ‘Huyu si mzuri sana’ is preferred to ‘Huyu ni mbaya.’
Many more examples can be cited. But as a whole from the above facts we can say that in Africa ‘yes’ can mean ‘no’. But of course the tone of saying that ‘yes’ is significant. An African may not even notice it. On the other hand, a foreigner may misunderstand it if he listens only to the word and not to the tone and the body language.
Now I begin to wonder, is this just a matter of social etiquette or does it portray a world-view?
2. The different aspects of reality are not contradictory but only complementary.
Meetings and discussions are very telling evidences of how the African people search for the truth, or how they make decisions. The first speaker puts forth his opinion. The second speaker comes up, “The previous speaker has spoken well. I myself would like to add this:…” When he sits down you may wonder, especially if you are not an African, now did the second speaker really add to the first speaker or did he as a matter of fact deny him totally? Then why did he begin with phrases like, “You have said well, … I would like to add….”?
The African world-view very humbly understands that truth cannot be completely grasped. Therefore when you say something about reality, it is your truth. “You have said well, but I would like to add to it.” This is my truth. Even if to the Western mind it may seem contradictory, to the African mind it is only an addition to the truth. Actually your truth and my truth add to our understanding of reality. For, in reality there is nothing that can be absolutely negated but only better clarified.
Therefore, decision making is not based on who is right and who is wrong, but on what is meaningful at a given circumstance. In any case it is important that no relationships are broken. Hence meetings seem endless. Clocks come to a stand still. People may not emerge with very clear opinions, but they would emerge as friends, at least apparently. Yes, everyone is right if everyone seems happy.
3. That is good which simply preserves relationships.
What is the implication of all this on the judgement of the human act? What is a good and evil act?
Just as “what you said is true and what he said is true, even if the latter has just said the opposite”, what you have done is good and what he has done could also be good, even if both have done just the opposite. But the crucial criterion is that one has not broken a taboo or a norm, which usually preserves social order. Therefore too if your action has not been affirmed to have a social implication, it may not be judged immoral.
Conclusion
As I said in the beginning I do not intend to absolutize my reflections. Nor do I wish to be judgemental. But I see further implications of the above simply stated theses on many more vital questions in the socio-political context of Africa:
Would the English system of parliament work in Africa? In a situation where people only keep adding opinions, delaying a precise plan of action, would not the young get frustrated and resort to violence and dictatorship? Even in the traditional African society the Chief or the Tribal leaders acquired some extreme powers due to this frustration that “adding opinions” can cause. The frustrated participants may at one time say to the leader, “Okay, we have said enough, now what you say will be the truth.” Thus the leader acquires absolute authority. Next time what he says becomes the truth even without dialogue. On the other hand, in today’s context when a president is openly opposed by a Western educated gentleman in the parliament he takes him to be his enemy who is to be gotten rid of. Because you are not supposed to oppose, you have only to add opinions.
Can a religion or an Ethical system that is based on the Roman law survive? The Roman law is said to understand very objectively and coldly, the Truth, the Good and the Beauty. The traditional judiciary system was very much social; it was immediate in space and time. The contemporary judiciary system in most African countries, often blindly borrowed from the West, necessitates family feuds and village quarrels to be taken to be heard by strangers, to go through the ordeal of endless visits to the courts, and finally wait patiently for delayed justice.
And what is wrong if I go to the Church on Sunday and during the week I continue to fear and appease the powers of the ancestors and the witches? In fact that is the most logical way of doing. Christianity has taught me that there is one more god to be feared, fine, I shall appease him too. Because you never know!
Yes, you never know. So let us keep discussing.