Odera Oruka’s Own Criticism of Sage Philosophy
Despite his pride in launching what many consider an important project in African
philosophy, the writings of Odera Oruka himself express some doubts about the project. For
example, in his essay "Philosophy in East Africa and the Future of Philosophical
Research in Africa," he seems to refer to his own project as one of passing
historical significance. There, after criticizing Tempels and other ethnophilosophers, he
admits that he himself "indulge(s) in some kind of anthropological-cum-philosophical
research." He said projects like his own sage philosophy and Sumner's researches into
historical texts of Ethiopian philosophy were necessary at that historical point, but
would soon give way to nationalist-ideological and professional-technical philosophy,
trends he saw as more central to the future of African philosophy. In "Sage
Philosophy Revisited," he states that "sage philosophy started as a reaction to
a position which Europeans had adopted about Africa that Africans are not capable of
philosophy." So, does this imply that once Europeans change their perceptions of
Africans, there will no longer be a need for professional philosophers to search out the
ideas of wise rural sages? Even in this late essay, Odera
Oruka continues to suggest that his work merely serves as a "base" for other
forms of philosophy which will emerge in the future, but which he can't imagine right now.
By "base" he seems to mean a collection of texts to which professional academic
philosophers can turn, instead of always consulting European ones [Odera Oruka (1996,
Ch.17)]. In some places he refers to the written interviews with rural sages as the
"raw material" professional philosophers will need as the focus of their work in
the future.
Odera Oruka, in the earlier essay on the future of philosophical research in Africa,
goes on to say that although research into the traditional beliefs of African society
would be a significant contribution of Africa to the world, such research "...will be
of no or little scientific and philosophical value in the modern sense. And this is not
because African traditions in particular offer no contribution to science or philosophy in
the modern sense, but because ethnological beliefs in any society are not much of a
contribution to the current level of scientific and philosophical thoughts" [Odera
Oruka (1996, Ch.23)]. One must wonder how Odera Oruka can possibly make such a cutting and
dismissive critique of his own project. I can only surmise that although he refers to his
entire book, Sage Philosophy, as the site of his anthropological- cum-philosophical
project, his criticisms regarding the limited value of the study are actually aimed only
at those he calls "folk sages," those who uncritically hold the beliefs of their
community.
Yet, in his August 1995 interview with Kai Kresse, Odera Oruka instead voiced much
enthusiasm and hope about the expansion of studies in sage philosophy. He suggested that
many more sages should be interviewed [Kresse (1995)]. But along with this insistence that
research continue came a redefining of who should be considered a sage, and therefore what
kind of interviews should be done. In fact, in the 1993 radio broadcast he explained how
he answered the charges of skeptics, that since sages must be illiterate, and there are
now projects to decrease illiteracy in Africa, sages will disappear and sage philosophy
will become obsolete. Odera Oruka clarified, stating that sages don't have to be
illiterate. He explained the historical reason why illiterate sages were chosen first (to
debunk certain European skeptical remarks regarding Africans and philosophy). But he
explained that "...in the future it will not be so... sage philosophy should not be
restricted to rural areas and in a place where people are illiterate... We have done
research on non-educated sages. There is still a large room for somebody else to do the
research on the educated sages" [Odera Oruka (1996, Ch.17)]. He suggested that his
interview of Oginga Odinga should be seen as the first in a series of expanding works on
sage philosophy [Kresse (1995)]. Certainly Oginga Odinga is not illiterate; he has written
a famous book.
Who Counts as a Sage?
In a way, Odera Oruka's expansion of the term "sage" is helpful, in that it
answers certain charges of inconsistency in his earlier position. For example, Jay van
Hook has argued that in these times, it is impossible to do what Odera Oruka said he was
accomplishing in the early study of his sages, which is to find people not influenced by
contemporary Western ideas and education.
Van Hook notes that of the twelve sages presented in Sage Philosophy, "three are
identified as Christians, one a preacher in the Anglican church; one attended a colonial
school; another talks about Socrates; one is identified as the son of an anti-European
activist; and still another is described as inseparable from his radio and as having
satisfied all his ambitions except owning a car" [Van Hook (1995, pp. 54-65, esp.
58)]. One could add that Odera Oruka praises Paul Mbuya Akoko when he exclaims, contrary
to the beliefs of the average Luo, that the Luo god and all other gods are One; for there
is only one God [Odera Oruka (1990, p.137)]. Yet this concept was probably the first thing
that Christian missionaries taught people on entering Luoland; if Akoko said he had
learned it from foreign missionaries, however, it would have undercut the rationale for
the study.
While Odera Oruka praises the wisdom of the sages, he is frustrated with the way in
which most rural people focus on them. He argues that philosophy is popularly misconceived
as "having to do with wisdom and conventionally acknowledged wise persons." He
notes, in a reductio ad absurdum argument, that if this were true, philosophy departments
would be impossible to manage, since the real philosophers, the elders, would lack
qualifications to teach at the universities [Odera Oruka (1996, Ch. 23)]. Indeed, Odera
Oruka insists that neither age nor gender should be considered a requirement for being a
sage. Yet, overwhelmingly, his designated sages have been elder men. In his book, out of
twelve sages, one is young, and one is a woman. The social connotations of the word make
identifying particular "wise old men" as sages too easy, while the young or
women are immediately met with suspicion. As in other cases of discrimination, they have
to "try harder" to merit the same laudatory title. Although Odera Oruka defines
"sage" as someone with wisdom, insight, or ethical inspiration who uses his or
her talents for the betterment of the community [1991, pp. 9-10], not all who show such
commitment are regarded as "sages."
There is a crisis of meaning and definition at the heart of the sage philosophy
project. In a radio interview, Odera Oruka stated "'Sage' simply means... a wise
person, but sometimes it is more complicated than that" [Odera Oruka (1996, Ch.17)].
Sometimes philosophers are known for giving a common, everyday term a narrower, stricter
meaning than in common usage. Conversely, "sage" has acquired a very wide scope,
given Odera Oruka's modifications, while it has a much narrower scope in daily
conversation. However, its extension to women, the young, the urban, the literate, is not
adequately reflected in his own researches, nor in most M.A. and Ph.D. theses subsequently
written as exercises in sage philosophy. In fact, in recent research he conducted on ideas
of family planning in Africa, he interviewed two groups, "sages" and
"non-sages," particularly making sure that the group of non-sages comprised at
least 50% women. Although he did so specifically to include women in his study, since
there is no documentation of the percentage of sages who were women, it reinforces the
perception that women possess common sense and general wisdom, but not enough to warrant
the title of sage [Odera Oruka (1995)]. Thus, it can be said that Odera Oruka failed to
provide a clear model in his own actions for those who would follow him.
It could be that the decision to emphasize the word "sage" in "sage
philosophy" originally reflected the desire to secure for some Africans (mainly
elder, rural men whose reputations made them good candidates) recognition as philosophers.
This was a useful apologetic strategy in the fight against cultural imperialism. Only
later did the desire arise to extend the word's application, as the aim of fighting
cultural imperialism became nuanced by concerns to bring the excluded and marginalized
into the study. For example, in his article "Cultural Fundamentals in Philosophy:
Obstacles in Philosophical Dialogue," Odera Oruka shows sensitivity to the plight
of women who feel excluded by the language used in philosophical discourse. With this
increased concern to avoid exclusion, and a decreasing need to prove that someone not
exposed to the West could philosophize, the category of "sage" grew more
inclusive.
In a 1993 interview with Kai Kresse, Odera Oruka complained that many recent
dissertations submitted in Africa focussed on sage philosophy or, relatedly, on African
philosophy of culture. Regarding this trend, he counselled that this was not "the
only area" of philosophy in Africa needing growth and attention. He then referred to
the need to help "get Africa out of its turmoil" by philosophical analysis of
its social, political, and legal problems. Coupled with his remarks about
national-ideological and professional philosophy being the "growth areas" of
philosophy in the future, this seems to designate sages as a passing phase of African
philosophy, needed at one historical moment, but ultimately to be sidelined. Certainly,
Odera Oruka did not limit his research to sage philosophy, but continued to write articles
on contemporary topics of professional philosophy, such as environmental ethics.
His reference to his book on Oginga Odinga as the first in a proposed series of
in-depth interviews of sages illustrates a tension in Odera Oruka's views about his own
project. Although, by the larger definition of "sage," Oginga Odinga's literacy
does not disqualify him, one might wonder if he better examplifies the very
nationalist-ideological trend that Odera Oruka said needed more attention from African
philosophers. This particular work also raises questions of the importance of the
interview format for sage philosophy. Is Oginga Odinga, when writing his own book, a
practitioner of nationalistic-ideological philosophy, and a sage when he is interviewed?
Since part of Odera Oruka's stated rationale for sage philosophy is to create texts for
professional philosophers to analyze, we can say that Oginga Odinga has already created
his own texts. Odera Oruka helped create yet another text by publishing a collection of
interviews with Oginga Odinga. But it can't be the method or format alone that makes
someone a sage. Otherwise, Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvior would qualify as sages
just because someone has published interviews with them. Certainly no one would question a
philosopher's desire to interview the two French philosophers, but would the resulting
interview be considered part of a French sage philosophy project? And did Odera Oruka
himself become a fitting subject for sage philosophy when he was interviewed by Kai
Kresse?
Where to Go from Here
It seems that many young researchers are attracted to sage philosophy as a project
because they are interested in finding and explicating the philosophical ideas of certain
ethnic communities.
Usually researchers are interested in studying communities whose pre-colonial cultures
are somewhat intact. Their studies differ from ethnophilosophy insofar as individual
informants are named and quoted at length, and differences in views between informants are
noted. Since this is the group most attracted to sage philosophy, how is one to find those
interested in interviewing, for example, bright, articulate, young urban African women
intent on solving social and political issues of their day? And if one found a researcher
eager to undertake such a project, would the title "sage philosophy" then sound
like a misnomer?
Naming this method "sage philosophy" has the consequence of putting the
emphasis on the status of the author of any particular idea, rather than the idea itself.
Sometimes Odera Oruka suggests that anyone who's thought up one pithy saying should be
considered a philosopher; at other times he complains that people are using the term too
loosely, applying it to anyone. The method would change significantly if the goal were to
search for good ideas, wherever they may be found, rather than searching for the right
people, and then hoping they have good ideas.
Such a change in focus should not overlook, however, the need to guard against
sidelining rural people, considering them "backward" or out of touch with the
pulse of the present. Part of the attractiveness of sage philosophy was the idea of
finding wisdom where the world did not expect it. Indeed, in the contemporary world
context before "sage philosophy," the wisdom of rural African male elders was
belittled; they were the marginalized, even if in their own communities they commanded
considerable power and fame. Philosophers should not, therefore, run after the
"limelight" and court only the famous and successful; we should take our cue
from Odera Oruka and listen especially for overlooked voices and ideas.
Such an approach mirrors the ambivalence and restless search found in Odera Oruka's own
writings. He loved the wisdom of the rural elders in Africa; he wanted to protect them
from being maligned in the larger world of philosophy. But he also wanted change; he loved
most those rural elders who could criticize their own traditions and look for improvements
of ideas and practices.
Whether, and in what way, sage philosophy continues and grows will be determined in
part by the ideas of those who have the will to continue it; their works will help define
the terms "sage" and "sage philosophy" in the future. As Tsenay
Serequeberhan puts it, as contemporary Africans in a post-colonial context, "we are
all historical beings and the bearers of multiple identities," here referring both to
ethnic identities, and identities born in the context of modernization and domination. As
"inheritors of a past... which constitutes our lived present and the possibilities of
our future" [Serequeberhan (1996, pp. 110-118)], the challenge of African philosophy
as a whole and sage philosophy as well, is to understand the contemporary African people
and context for what it is, a mix of ideas and influences, some good and some bad, from
many different sources.
As Odera Oruka states, "Philosophy is a perspective of the whole or part of the
whole human predicament and insightful suggestions... This sort of perspective can be
found in anybody (white, black, yellow, female or male). But in every community, there are
always persons who specialize in offering or studying such perspectives. (In traditional
Africa, this role was left to the sages)" [Odera Oruka (1996, Ch. 20)]. While we owe
proper attention to the traditional African sages, it seems that Odera Oruka is suggesting
to us that we look to anyone who is able to offer perspectives and helpful suggestions
regarding the challenges facing Africa today.
|
