---

What even is "decolonisation", asks the author and philosopher Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò in his book Against Decolonisation. He then proceeds to provide two distinct definitions of what he refers to decolonisation1 and decolonisation2. The former refers to the physical act of decolonisation that started and ended with the colonizers leaving their colonies and the colonised gaining their territory back. The latter refers to the more insidious colonisation of the mind, ways of living and thinking. This latter form of decolonisation, that is, decolonisation2, is the target of Táíwò's book.

Decolonisation2 vs. Decoloniality

To understand decolonisation2, it might be helpful to contrast it with decoloniality. In a short and brief passage, Táíwò notes that his work is not about decoloniality, because this concept has a different history, coming from the South American authors such as Aníbal Quijano and Walter Mignolo. But even though Táíwò dismisses this concept quickly, it is helpful to brief contrast the two.

The South American authors writing about decoloniality sometimes write about the problem of colonisation in a very universal sense. We need to delink from the West and more specifically, Western modernity and coloniality. Decolonisation2, in almost similar forms, calls for the decolonisation of X (language, educational curricula, and so on). For many years in South Africa with various student protests (#feesmustfall and #rhodesmustfall), headlines read almost daily: Decolonise science, math, education, schools and so on.

---

---

There are some similarities between the two concepts. But Táíwò does not want to speak to decoloniality because it has a different history. He is speaking and writing against decolonisation (i.e., decolonisation2).

And his argument is rather simple: we need stop with the narrative that everything from and influenced by the West needs to be erased from especially African languages and philosophy in order to successfully decolonise the mind, and thus to achieve decolonisation2.

---

The Failure of Decolonisation2 and Taking African Agency Seriously

Táíwò takes aim at especially 2 areas: Language and philosophy. Both, Táíwò notes, failed to live up to the promise of decolonisation2 but that this in itself is not a failure but in some cases deliberate forms where African agency is most visible.

Because why can African philosophers themselves not choose to incorporate Western elements into their language, music and philosophy? And why should African philosophers (and those speaking African languages) listen to those from the West about what they should do? Is this not again a form of colonisation and the West denying African agency again? Is this not Western paternalism in telling Africa what is good for them?

Táíwò notes that most of these decolonise this and decolonise that comes from Western academics, and if it comes from African philosophers, that they cannot live out their promise. And at this stage, Táíwò provides some names that he feels did not live up to the promise. One of them is the philosopher who I did my PhD on.

And at this stage, this book review might take a short detour (into a rant of some kind).

---

---

Táíwò vs. Serequeberhan

Even though I agree almost 100% with Táíwò, and as I read the book, I wanted to cheer the writer on with every page, until I read what he wrote about Tsenay Serequeberhan, one of the main philosophers my PhD focussed on. I read and reread almost everything written and translated by Serequeberhan, almost 15 articles and 4-5 books.

At first, I paged to the back of the book to see what articles and books Táíwò referenced, and I was really disappointed to see only one book chapter of Serequeberhan referenced. It is not even one of the major works. Táíwò is not a Serequeberhan scholar, so obviously he did not read all of the work, but it feels a bit disingenuous to put words into another author and only having read a single chapter/article.

but the biggest problem for me personally is that Táíwò's claims and Serequeberhan's claims seem to me almost exactly the same. And that is why I felt that Táíwò's arguments on Serequeberhan fell flat. In short, Serequeberhan, according to Táíwò, is still part of those calling for decolonisation2, decolonise the mind, decolonise this or that, which then takes away African agency. But to me, Serequeberhan in fact does the opposite. He provides through various publications exactly what Táíwò is trying to do: give Africans back their agency to choose, even if it is to choose badly.

Taking African Agency Seriously

I really appreciated the claim, that African can and should be able to make their own decisions. Even though I do not wholly agree with Táíwò's dismissal of some key African philosophers (Serequeberhan but also wa Thiong'o and Wiredu), the claim to take African agency seriously is important and crucial. Because even today, people from the West knows "best", dictating what Africans should think even in the attempt to decolonise language, philosophy, and so on. Shouting decolonise this and decolonise that does not help, but trying to create a pristine image devoid of external influence is also not helping.

And this is where all these philosophers hit the nail on the head: do not dictate from afar what others should do, especially not in terms of decolonisation and decoloniality.

***

This was not the most coherent book review. It reads more like my own reading and ideas emerging from reading this book. But I hope that it means something in the bigger scheme of things.

I really enjoyed the arguments made by Táíwò and I feel like more people need to read it for the core arguments. If I had the time, I would write a rebuttal against Táíwò's discussion on especially Serequeberhan.

But that is for later.

For now, happy reading, and keep well!

All of the musings and writings are my own. The photographs are also my own, taken with my Nikon D300.