Role Name Affiliation

National Coordinator

Department of Sociology,
Subject Coordinator Prof Sujata Patel
University of Hyderabad

Paper Coordinator Dr Dev N Pathak South Asian University,

New Delhi
Research Scholar, Department of
Content Writer ANU K ANTONY Sociology, University of
Hyderabad

Content Reviewer

Language Editor

Technical Conversion

Module Structure

Indigenous sociology, who is Akiwowo, contributions of an

INDEGENOUS SOCIOLOGY African oral poetry to the sociology of knowledge, McKim
Marriot and Indian ethno sociology

Description of the Module

Items Description of the Module

Subject Name Sociology

Paper Name Contemporary Social Theory

Module Name/Title Indigenous Sociology

Module Id

Pre Requisites None

Objectives

Key words Indigenous sociology, Akinsola Akiwowo, lucknow school, Indian ethnosociology
 THE INDIGENOUS SOCIOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

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)).

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’t hold any significance in the present. ‘Indigenous’ is not the knowledge
which existed in the past and the attempt of indigenous sociology is not to retrieve this
‘outdated’ knowledge.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.

What is meant by Indigenous Sociology?

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
to formulate alternate theoretical traditions outside the language of ‘universal sociology’. 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.

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.

AKINSOLA A. AKIWOWO

Akiwowo is a Nigerian sociologist who wrote the paper titled “Contributions to the sociology of
knowledge from an African oral poetry” 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’s
paper. Their engagement with this paper raised several questions such as, ‘what is indigenous
sociology’, ‘how can it be practiced’, ‘how can it communicate with the rest of the world’ and
‘how far Akiwowo was successful in doing this’. In the next section, we will discuss Akiwowo’s
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.

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– 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
will look in to the works of Akiwowo in the next few paragraphs and Marriot later in this
module.

Akiwowo’s Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge from an African oral poetry.

In 1986, Akinsola A. Akiwowo wrote a paper titled “ayajo asuwada: an oral poetry on the
doctrine of creation: with contributions to the sociology of knowledge.” Later in the same year
he changed the title of that paper as “Contributions to the sociology of Knowledge from an
African oral poetry”. This paper attempted to “contribute 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”. (Akiwowo, 1986: 343-4)

Akiwowo invokes the phrase “the general body of explanatory principles” used by George
Homans in his book “Nature of Social Science”. David J Hanson, who reviews the work by
Homans, writes that,

“The title of Homans’ most recent book might more accurately have been the nature of Social Scientific
Explanation. It is Homans’s 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”. (Hanson, 1970)

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 ‘body of general
explanatory principles’ 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 ‘general body of explanatory principles’, from an African Oral Poetry.

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
oral poetry. This is inductively inferred, to contribute to the formation of a sociological
theoretical framework.

Myth, Doctrine and Belief System

Akiwowo explains that both ‘myth’ and ‘doctrine’ are part of a belief system. These three are
important categories within the social theory. A ‘myth’ is a ‘purely fictitious narrative usually
involving supernatural persons etc, embodying popular ideas on natural phenomena etc,
allegory… fictitious person or thing’(1986 :344). The term doctrine means ‘what is taught; body
of instruction; religious, scientific, political etc, belief, dogma or tenet.’(1986: 344) Quoting Beth
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 “if 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”. (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, presented through the Yoruba oral poetry, Ayajo Asuwa 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 larger philosophy in to the
sociology of knowledge, which is dominated by Eurocentric perspectives.

Ayajo Asuwada: Meaning, Interpretation and Propositions

The oral poetry studied in the paper “Contributions to the sociology of Knowledge from an
African oral poetry”, by Akiwowo is called Ayajo Asuwada. 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 is the source of all things, by which
everything is created. Alasuwada is the myth behind this oral poetry. Alasuwada is the myth of
creation. 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’s paper is a Yoruba oral poetry which narrates that Aisuwa (the self- alienation from
community) is a result of selfishness and functions against the harmony and common good of
the community. Not only Aisuwa, Goodness also starts from the community. (Akiwowo, 1986:
352) it can be observed here that Akiwowo generalizes the particularities of ‘Yoruba’ 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.

The Yoruba tradition has a complex belief system. Alasuwada 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 oral poetry starts with a declaration of the Asuwa 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, 1986: 347-352)

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 is a collectivity of
existence or beings. Olofin otete is the source of all the earthly beings of iwa susu. Olofin otete
is addressed as Alasuwada or the author of all things. (ibid, 1986: 350)

Alasuwada 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 is the

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

The poetry titled orin osuwa 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 ‘ontology of error’. According to this the moral offence of the world
began with yakangi who attempted to steal iru, from olugamo, the divine mother. Towards the
conclusion of verses in this poetry Akiwowo cites the concept of ‘emotional contagion’,
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’s
behavior without any such intention. Alasuwada 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, 1986)

In short, this oral poetry infer that there is a universal principle called asuwa, 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 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.

Akiwowo, introducing, translating and interpreting this oral poetry, develops a set of
propositions from the spirit of the doctrine of Asuwa, 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’s paper refers to as philosophical
principle of asuwada.
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 “intended to be statements of relationships between some significant
elements of the subject matter of sociology, namely human society.” (Akiwowo, 1986: 353)
Akiwowo believes these as contributions “to the sociology of Knowledge from an African
(Yoruba) oral poetry. The propositions are on

1) The understanding on the unit of life as individuals,

2) This individual self’s requirement of fellowship,

3) The impossibility of the corporeal individual to continue without a community,

4) Self-alienation for selfish pursuits as a sin,

5) The good society being the society in which the self expression and creativity of the
individual is possible,

6) A good individual being one who is hardworking and the one who sacrifices for the common
good,

7) Every individual as having the capacity to be the initiator of goodness or the recipient of good
or bad conducts,

8) The social value of an individual depending upon this conduct and

9) Finally the necessity of a social scientist who intends to understand the people and society of
Africa to know these concepts. (ibid, 1986: 353-354)

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. In the next session we will look in 2 criticisms which
Akiwowo 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.

Criticisms for Akiwowo’s paper

Akiwowo’s 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’s paper.
Makinde thinks that the strength of Akiwowo’s paper lies in the philosophical potential of it.
This ‘philosophic part’ is essential for the development of social theories, while undertaking any
‘intellectual enterprise’. (Makinde, 1988: 61) Makinde introduces the terms Asuwada eniyan
and Asuwada eranko, two other aspects of the asuwada principle which Akiwowo has not
discussed in his first paper. These terms mean asuwada of human beings and asuwada of the
lower animals, respectively. He prefers to use the word ‘axioms’ instead of what Akiwowo
referred to as ‘propositions’ and scales down Akiwowo’s 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’s life and existence and it requires a community of fellowship to continue. 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, 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 to the asuwa principle. That is, ‘why certain choices of ori lead to success and
why certain other choices lead to failure’? Makinde thinks that the concept of ori,
philosophically creates unnecessary confusions to someone who is attempting to understand
Akiwowo’s paper and hence needs to be worked out clearly in order to explain its relevance in
connection with the Asuwada principle. (ibid, 1988)
The principle of asuwada in its larger sense, speaks about all life forms, but Makinde suggests
that it is Asuwada eniyan which is concerned with the principle of human association. The
concept of ‘the sociality of man’ about which Akiwowo elaborates has to be understood in the
context of Asuwada eniyan. 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. Ajobi and Ajogbe
are concepts which represent family and society. Akiwowo interpreted these as the strong
manifestations of the principle of asuwa. There are also two other derived concepts, Alajobi
and Alajogbe. Alajobi is ‘that which sustains all kinds of linear and collateral relationship.’
Alajogbe is ‘that which sustains persons or individualized groups who are living together under
one group or in contiguous shelters in a locale’. In Makinde’s interpretation, Ajobi represents
the concept of nuclear/extended family and alajobi ‘the individuals in the family or related
families sharing a common bond under similar environmental and social conditions’. (Makinde,
1988: 67) ajogbe is understood as the coming together of different families as well as
individuals and alajogbe is ‘people living together from different kinds of ajobi’. But he is
strongly hopeful in this new approach developed by Akiwowo. In other words, Makinde adds
newer dimensions with clarity to Akiwowo’s arguments while also simplifying his propositions
in to Makinde’s ‘axioms.’(ibid, 1988: 68)

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. For Akiwowo,
ifogbontaayese simply means use of wisdom to remake the world. But Makinde ifogbontaayese
means something which requires the coming together of disciplines and its practicing scientists.
Makinde’s interpretation of ifogbontaayese invokes another concept to the context, the
concept of arinjole, which means profound thinking. Arinjole 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 ifogbontaayese is crucial. Makinde argues that the relevance of this concept
extends from natural sciences to social sciences. This concept, according to Makinde, gives a
proper theoretical background for the ideas of unity of all knowledge and also to remake the
world in to a better one. (ibid, 1988: 68-9)

This rejoinder to Akiwowo’s paper by Makinde is not intended at criticizing Akiwowo’s

arguments. Makinde considers Akiwow’s paper as relevant within the tradition of indigenous
sociology. He rejoins Akiwowo in expanding the concepts by adding dimensions to it and
provides his interpretations to lead the arguments to newer possibilities. He validated
Akiwowo’s 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’s paper received,
thoroughly criticized his attempts. This was from the scholars [Link] and Olufemi Taiwo.

Comments from Lawuyi and Taiwo

Unlike Makinde, Lawuyi and Taiwo presented an elaborate and thorough criticism to Akiwowo’s
paper. They accused Akiwowo for the “fuzzyness” in his language, while translating and
explaining the Yoruba oral poetry. They appreciate Akiwowo’s 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 Taiwo also agree that it is completely possible to do
sociology in African idioms, but the way Akiwowo has presented it, according to them, is ‘fuzzy’.
(Lawuyi and Taiwo, 1990)

Lawuyi and Taiwo, in their paper takes four major concepts discovered by Akiwowo, which are
the concepts around which Makinde’s paper is also organized. These are Asuwada, Ajobi,
Ajogbe and ifogbontaayese. 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’s and
Makinde’s paper. Lawuyi and Taiwo notes that Akiwowo used the concept of Asuwada 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 “indistinctness” in Akiwowo’s paper. So by pointing out
the ‘indistinctness’ in Akiwowo’s paper, they suggest that this can act as a hindrance to the use
of these idioms for sociological analysis. (ibid, 1990: 58-9)

Akiwowo gave two responses to Lawuyi and Taiwo which was impatient and rejected their
criticism with scorn. The first response didn’t even attempted to clarify on what they have
raised as the limitations of Akiwowo’s 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.

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’s paper confuses the reader. When Lawuyi and Taiwo, the Yoruba
speaking intellectuals find it difficult to understand the concept of Asuwada in Akiwowo’s 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)

Taking in to account all these, it can be concluded that Akiwowo’s 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
to 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.

Marriot and Indian Ethno Sociology

Akiwowo’s paper is an important attempt in understanding the 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 [Link] Marriot’s 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 ‘On Constructing an Indian Ethno sociology’ 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)

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 ‘anti-
equivalent’ or ‘non-symmetric’ 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)

Marriot presents the Indian logic through ‘cubes’. The cubes represent ‘incompleteness’, 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
of west. The property space of the cubes is three- dimensional. The cube, unlike a uni-linear
conception, allows the multiplicity of perspectives. “Only the diverse qualities of its spaces
generated through permutations of its variables, seem able to accommodate the actual
diversities of Indian life.” (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 Ayurvedic 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
“betweenness” of remote networks of communication which increases the possibilities of
Ethno social science, according to Marriot. (Marriot, 1991)

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 “Indian Ethno sociology”. He failed to
mention about the diverse cultural realities which together construct the category “Indian”.
Instead, he generalized the Brahmin perspectives as Indian. Still, it is worth discussing Marriot’s
attempt. Like Akiwowo, Marriot’s 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)

What are the limitations of Akiwowo’s and Marriot’s Indigenous Sociology?

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 which underlie the ‘Indian’ logic, by which he actually homogenizes the category
‘Indian’. 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 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 ‘indigenous’
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’s 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.

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’s paper the sources which he used for his
arguments are Brahminical. “Indian” is understood at “brahmin” throughout the paper. In other
words, the categories of “Brahmin” and “Indian” 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 ‘endogenous
knowledge’ which is worth juxtaposing here.

The difference between “Endogenous”, “Indigenous” and “Traditional”.

The term endogenous knowledge is developed in the introductory discussions of a seminar

organized by Hountondji. This term ‘endogenous’ was preferred over ‘traditional’ to represent
the knowledge systems of Africa. So instead of using ‘traditional knowledge systems of Africa’,
the scholars preferred to use ‘endogenous Knowledge systems of Africa’, since a group of
scholars thought that ‘traditional’ is not the right term which can be used for a set of ideas
which they intended to communicate. (Hountondji, 1997) The so called ‘traditional’ knowledge
was always understood as a system of knowledge which has nothing to exchange with the ‘true
processes’ 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’s 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 ‘traditional’ is used, even inside quotation marks, it invokes the idea of ‘traditional’ as
opposed to ‘modern’. ‘Endogenous’ 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. “What 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.”(hountondji, 1997)

On the other hand, the term “endogenous” is also different from “indigenous”. Akiwowo used
the term ‘indigenous’ 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. ‘Endogenous’ 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
introduction of the term leads to some other questions about the origins of this knowledge.
“What 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.”(hountondji, 1997) The question of origin of a particular 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.

“The 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 ‘market’ in which these perforce are pushed down
to inferior positions. The ‘endogenous’ becomes ‘indigenous’ 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’s imaginary beginnings. Worse still, if that person doesn’t take care, he
or she can very quickly interiorize the new values and looking at him or herself henceforth with other people’s
eyes, perceive him or herself as an indigenous being.” (2009)

Houtondji’s criticism of the concept “indigenous” 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 ‘indigenous’ is
a term which emerged from within the Eurocentric perspectives. ‘Endogenous’ is a concept
hence worth discussing in this context.

Conclusion

Indigenous sociology is not something which has nothing to do with the discipline’s 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 theories is a false claim. They are the ones who attempted to develop an
alternative 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.