Asuwada Epistemology and Globalised Sociology: Challenges of the South

Introduction

In recent times, the need to curtail the hegemony of western social science epistemologies and methodology by advancing alternative approaches with indigenous relevance is increasingly taking the centre stage in global social science academy. The advances aimed at indigenising the social science are aimed at building a science of the humanities with the capability of objectively contextualising indigenous social relations and culture, which have more often than not been described as primitive, crude, backward and a bane to development by the dominant and hegemonic theoretical postulations and supposed empirical findings of western scholars (Dubey, 2010; Omobowale, 2008, 2010). The attempt at indigenising the social sciences is not entirely nascent. Literature shows there have been such advances among social scientists from Latin America (Beigel, 2009, 2010; Garreton, 2005; Reyna, 2005), India (Patel, 2010; Welz, 2009), Philippines (Tatel, 2010) and Russia (Kultygin, 2003) right from the early 20th century.

In Nigeria, Professor Akiwowo pioneered the effort at indigenising sociology as from the 1970s (see Akiwowo, 1974). In his Inaugural Lecture on 10 June 1980, Akiwowo made an initial in-depth presentation of his theoretical postulations on the Asuwada Theory of Sociation with a special focus on the values of Ajobi (consaguity) and Ajogbe (co-residentship) (see Akiwowo, 1980). Akiwowo (1980: 18) further states: ‘consanguinity … [is] … lineal and collateral relationships based upon blood and birth; while co-residentship … [is] … sharing same or contiguous shelter whether or not the sharers are related by blood’. He later published two articles in 1986 in Yoruba and English, which further advanced the conceptual basis of the Asuwada Theory (Akiwowo, 1986a, 1986b). Akiwowo’s (1986a) article published in International Sociology took his ideas on the Asuwada Theory of Sociation into the international spotlight. Scholarly reception of the article almost immediately engendered intellectual responses from Nigerian scholars who were domiciled in Akiwowo’s Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University). First Makinde (1988) further clarified and extended Asuwada while Sanda (1988) described Akiwowo’s effort as a right attempt at particularising and indigenising sociology; whose universalist theories have failed to properly explain indigenous cultures. On the contrary, Lawuyi and Taiwo (1990: 61) dismissed it as ‘unhelpful to sociological analysis’. Nevertheless, between then and now, Akiwowo’s contribution has continued to attract scholarly attention as a theoretical postulation of great importance in global social sciences (Martin and Beittel, 1998; Martin et al., 2006; Quah, 1993b, 2011; Sitas, 2006, 2011). In spite of the scholarly attention Akiwowo’s theory has received internationally, it has received little reception in Nigeria and it is hardly acknowledged or taught (Omobowale, 2010). This is somewhat a reflection of Nigeria’s position in the global academy where the dominant western-oriented theories retain their universal positions while relative epistemologies are hardly acknowledged.

This scenario is captured in the older Alatas’ (1969, 1972, 1974) description of the ‘captive mind’ and the younger Alatas’ (2003, 2008) proposition of academic dependency. Alatas describes the captive mind as the educated native, trained locally or in the developed world that is incapable of creativity and ingenuity. He is subject to the dictate of western hegemony and its Universalist dictum and oblivious of his own ‘captivity’. The younger Alatas’ postulation of Academic Dependency is a theoretical idea of the dependence structure in global social science where social science epistemology and discourse of the North dominates those of the South. Alatas (2008: 9–10) defines academic dependency as

a condition in which the knowledge of certain scholarly communities are conditioned by the development and growth of knowledge of other scholarly communities to which the former is subjected. The relations of independence between two or more scientific communities, and between these and global transactions in knowledge, assumes the form of dependency when some scientific communities (those located in knowledge powers) can expand according to certain criteria of development and progress, while other scientific communities (such as those in the developing societies) can only do this as a reflection of that expansion, which generally has negative effects on their development according to the same criteria.

Alatas went further to identify the USA, Great Britain and France as the dominant knowledge countries. That Akiwowo’s theory at present lacks popular appeal in contemporary social science discourse and community in Nigeria, may be because it is yet to be ‘authenticated’ and accepted by the dominant social science academy of the developed world. The next section examines Akiwowo’s Asuwada Theory of Sociation.

Examining the Asuwada Theory of Sociation

The main pre-occupation of the Asuwada Theory is the local context of association. It views association as a pivotal social phenomenon that is integral to social survival and societal development. Against the individualist approach of most western theories, Asuwada views the individual within the context of the group (i.e. his/her community) and so failure to associate is against social expectation and thus disapproved. Akiwowo derived the Asuwada Theory from the Yoruba Asuwada social thought that was usually chanted when a new settlement or community was to be established (Akiwowo, 1986a, 1986b). The Asuwada chant emphasises the need to associate for community development and social survival. Asuwada Theory describes and emphasises the relevance of the individual within the group and the integral importance of association for social good (see Akiwowo, 1986a: 353).

Asuwada Theory recognises the sanctity of the individual. The individual is situated within a community where he exists and is also socially constructed into a social being. There exists therefore a symbiotic relationship between the individual and his community. Without the contribution and participation of constituent individuals, the community becomes void, and likewise, the community gives meaning to an individual’s being. As much as each individual is unique, he requires the association of other interacting individuals to be socially whole and complete. Hence, the sanctity of the physical individual is rather meaningless without the community, as the essence of an individual lies within the community within which he exists. The physical and individual being must thus be transformed to a social being in order to be relevant in his/her society. Therefore, since association is integral to social existence, self-alienation is tantamount to deviance. Nevertheless, an ideal or good society recognises the fundamental right of the individual to his uniqueness, nature, self-expression and self-actualisation in spite of the bound of sociation. A social being hence, selflessly works for personal and community progress because without the individual, the community cannot be and without the community, the individual becomes meaningless. Every individual within a community could either be an initiator or recipient of a good or bad conduct depending on the context of the society within which the individual exists. The value or worth of an individual is however dependent on the ‘quality’ of value of the conduct he initiates or receives. Finally, Akiwowo identified the concepts of iwa (character), ihuwasi (behavioural pattern), isesi (pattern of doing or action) and ajumose (unison) as vital elements that must be understood in the study of actors especially in African communities.

Furthermore, it is important to note Akiwowo’s spiritist conceptualisation of the individual as a ‘unique emanation’ from the divine being. This conceptualisation is associated with the Yoruba contextual typification of the individual as a derivative or creation of a divine being called Olodumare. Akiwowo’s spiritist position, which he also extends to the Orunmila mythology (see Akiwowo, 1986a) somewhat detracts from the potential and real empirical worth of the theory as Akiwowo neither provided empirical justification for the spiritist claim nor debunked it in all his papers consulted. Nevertheless, it is important to note that belief in the supernatural is an essential part of the socially embedded belief systems of most traditional societies, and it also serves the purposes of social control and social conformity in the societal quest for social order and social survival (see Durkheim, 1976). In this context, therefore, a native’s belief in the supernatural also conditions his actions as he/she sociates with other individuals, with the awe and fear of an adjudicating and penalising Supreme Being, with the capability to sanction the deviant.

An individual’s quality of action is measured by the value of the character (iwa), behavioural pattern (ihuwasi), pattern of doing or action (isesi) and unison (ajumose) the individual expresses within his sociating community. A close scrutiny of these concepts shows their importance to the indigenous community, especially where elements of kin-communal value predominate. Iwa means character. The Yoruba of south-western Nigeria from whose culture Akiwowo derived the Asuwada Theory, lay premium emphasis on character. The high value placed on Iwa is encoded in extant aspects of the indigenous social thought (including proverbs, idioms and songs) emphasising the primacy of an individual’s character in social relations and social survival. For example, a Yoruba proverb states, iwa rere l’eso eniyan (that is, good character is an individual’s adornment (or protection)). Other proverbs state: Iwa ni yoo fi on’iwa han (A man’s character will reveal him), Iwa, l’ewa (A person’s character is his beauty) (Omobowale, 2008). These are just some of the numerous proverbs on iwa (character). These proverbs show the relevance of a person’s character within his/her social context. It is the individual who conveys the socially acceptable iwa (character) who is deemed a good person. Good person in Yoruba context is described in the construct and/or value of Omoluabi. An omoluabi is a person found worthy in character and every aspect of socially approved norms and values. Omoluabi is a person who could be trusted and expected to act right at all times. Omoluabi is differentiated from omoburuku (bad person) who is a social misfit because he/she is socially non-compliant and fails in conduct and observance of acceptable norms and values of the society. An omoluabi has the capacity to sociate, because his/her character is in tandem with societal expectations and of course, he/she would be ultimately interested in societal good and social survival. This is against the ‘survival of the fittest’ construct of social evolution theory which is also embedded in many western-oriented theories.

Akiwowo (1980: 13) defined ihuwasi as ‘behavioural pattern’ and isesi as ‘pattern of doing, or simply action’. Ihuwasi depicts an actor’s pattern of behaviour or acts of expression of character. Isesi refers to an individual’s action and/or habitual acts of expression of character (Omobowale, 2008). Both ihuwasi and isesi are germane in normative expression of iwa (character). An omoluabi is thus an individual who habitually expresses socially approved character. It is such an individual who could appropriately sociate for societal good because his actions would be compliant with contextual societal expectations. The actions of the normatively sociating individuals as expressed in internalised social values, which are reflected in actors’ habitual characters would advance societal cooperation and/or networking in social survival and progress. This is captured in the concept of ajumose (doing or working in unison) (Omobowale, 2008). Working in unison (ajumose) entails working with unity of purpose for the advancement of the society and social survival. The value for unison social survival is very much entrenched in an indigenous communal system whereby the individual is expected to contribute to the welfare of the society through his actions and deeds. The social elements of iwa, ihuwasi, isesi and ajumose are congruent for successful ajobi (consanguinity) and ajogbe (co-residentship) and by extension, sociation in the larger society.

Asuwada Theory provides a framework for contextual explanation of African social relations and culture. It reveals the ontology of normative character that will inform behavioural patterns and actions consciously and unconsciously aimed at unison values for social survival. Hence, African indigenous values that ontologically emphasise kin support and communal unity of purpose for social survival are not primitive. Rather communal value for social survival which demands normative character and actions from all interacting group members is a constructive indigenous value which evolved out of the need to survive and progress within the context of the immediate social environment. It is important to note that centuries after Africa was introduced to western modernity and about six decades after independence of most African countries, relative and contextual values of character, behaviour, action and unity remain extant in prevalent social relations and action.

Universalism versus Relativism: Asuwada and Globalised Social Sciences

Akiwowo’s attempt at postulating a theory capable of providing a theoretical explanation to indigenous social life and context underlies relativists’ arguments against universalism. The social sciences (sociology in particular) emerged in Europe in the 18th century in response to the social changes, which accompanied the French revolution and industrial revolution. Sociological theoretical postulations evolved as explanations for the social situation within Europe, in isolation of theoretical ideas from other areas such as that of Ibn Khaldun (Weiss, 1995). The universalisation of European ideas accompanied the colonisation of the Third World. The transposition and application of western theories in the study of the indigenous population was aimed at understanding the culture of the native within the context of mainstream (universal) ideology. European anthropologists were thus the precursors who pioneered the study of the natives and wrote numerous intelligence reports based on their findings (Blommaert and Bulcaen, 2000; Errington, 2001; Onyeonoru, 2010). By the time the social sciences were established in Nigerian (and African) universities, it followed the pro-western Universalist precedence of colonial anthropology. The first sets of lecturers and researchers were either western scholars or Africans who were trained by western scholars in universities in Europe and North America (Alatas, 2008; Ekpo, 1985; Erinosho, 1994). Western theorists alongside western trained natives have over the years described African cultures within the precincts of the crude, savage and primitive; needing the westernisation process in order for Africa to be developed. This assumption is simply the kernel of modernisation theory and its other Universalist variants.

Attempts at correcting the supposed and/or real misnomer of Universalism have informed Relativism which aims at contextual explanation and/or interpretation of non-western indigenous cultures. The differing ideological dispositions of Universalism and Relativism have resulted in a bipolar state in social science scholarship. Margaret Archer (1991) recognised this polarisation and rather clamoured ‘Sociology for One World’, which accentuates unity in diversity, in her presidential address at International Sociological Association Congress in 1991. Archer (1991: 134) presents her position thus:

that the real task of what I call international sociology is to theorise the progressive ‘integration of diversity’ (which determines the contours and contents of emerging globality) and to generate a new ‘theoretical variety’, which can explain the heterogeneous impact of this holistic process upon the constituent parts of One New World.

Archer appreciated the glocality of the supposed ‘global’ irrespective of the increasing dominance of western ideas in a globalised world. No matter the seeming unipolarity of the world towards westernisation, that diverse cultures receive globalisation trends differentially within the context of indigenous cultures presupposes that globalisation does not entirely unify world cultures. Societies acculturate aspects of diffused dominant cultures into the indigenous culture forming glocal realities that are distinctive from the supposedly ‘unified’ global reality. For Archer, therefore, globalisation has transformed the universal social world dynamically such that the integration of the world has also informed a diversification of the unification process. Hence, theorising the ‘integration of the diversity’ should be the primary focus of sociologists (social scientists).

Archer seemingly takes a balanced position that may be non-offending to either party. That of Sztompka ¹ (2011) is rather very critical and out-rightly objectionable to Relativism or the possibility of alternative theories. Sztompka’s essay is a critique of a three volume publication edited by Burawoy, ² Chang and Hsieh (2010) titled Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology. Sztompka (2011: 392) states:

the crux is … finding ‘alternative theories’ to ‘metropolitan sociology.’ Ever since Akinsolo Akiwowo made a call for ‘indigenous African sociology’ (1986) I have been puzzled by such claims and searched for possible examples of those alternative, indigenous sociologies. Akiwowo did not provide one … Thus I put my last hopes in the three volumes by Burawoy et al. What a disappointment; again I have not found a single, convincing case of new original indigenous theory.

Burawoy’s (2011) rejoinder to Sztompka’s critique instructively situates Sztompka’s conception of sociology within the early Comtean ideas of the 19th century that are less applicable in contemporary sociology. Burawoy (2011: 397) states:

Piotr Sztompka’s review of Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology courageously resurrects Comte’s nineteenth century vision of science – the idea of a singular universal sociology, modeled on the natural sciences, … For Sztompka, anything less than ‘universal laws of human society’ is retrograde, a manifestation of ‘anti-scientific obscurantism’ – a return to the metaphysics of the dark ages.

Burawoy (2011: 397) further rightly stated: ‘[s]cientific thinking, however, has moved on since Comte’. Since human cultures differ, the Universalist Europe-centred ideas of early sociologists may only tangentially explain definitive, distinctive and particularistic nuances of cultures of non-western societies. Lacking the capability for apposite theoretical proposition on the native due to its technical oblivion of the workings of the indigenous structure, Universalism presumes the native within the construct of Comtean traditionalism, giving some sort of simple explanation to very intricate cultural systems. Akiwowo’s contribution thus shows the integral place of sociation in Yoruba social structure. Asuwada value normatively demands association among constituent members of the society for the common good. This kind of association with communal tenets that contradict individualistic value of Universalist theories would of course be readily described as backward. Of course, ‘backward’ to the pontificating-ethnocentric theorist; but very much in tune with the realities of contextual relations and social survival for the relativist that examines the contextual social structure. Hence, it is pertinent to note that Asuwada Theory rightly identifies the four concepts of iwa (character), ihuwasi (behavioural pattern), isesi (pattern of doing/action) and ajumose (working in unison) as values that sustain and advance sociation processes aimed at societal stability irrespective of the type of social organisation whether ajobi (consaguity) or ajogbe (co-residentship). Hence, even at the stage of ajogbe where the society might have experienced sociocultural transformation and breakdown of kin ties, due to modernity and urbanisation, the society is held together still, through the sociation of its members who mutually express and exhibit socially approved iwa, ihuwasi and isesi for the purpose of ajumose (unison). Asuwada Theory is indeed a relative ‘epistemic opening’ (Adesina, 2002) which benefits the global social sciences in the study of Yoruba in particular and other African natives who have cultural traits similar to the Yoruba in general.

Asuwada: Dependence and the Challenge of Acceptance

In this section, we provide a case-study example of teaching sociology in Nigeria as indicative of practical/real experiences in many southern intellectual and epistemological contexts. We, thus, move from theoretical discussion to an important case-study example from Nigeria. Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa (Akanle, 2011; Akanle and Olutayo, 2012) and it has one of the highest numbers of universities in Africa. According to the Executive Secretary of Nigeria’s National University Commission (NUC), Professor Julius Okojie, as at 2016, there are 141 accredited universities in Nigeria – 40 federal government owned, 40 state governments owned and 61 privately owned (NUC, 2016). Importantly, from our experience/observation, nearly all the federal/state governments owned universities offer sociology as a course (with full-fledged departments) at undergraduate and postgraduate levels while many of the privately owned universities also offer sociology either as full-fledged course/department, sub-department or General Studies. Since its establishment in Nigeria in 1960 at the University of Ibadan and University of Nigeria, Nsukka (Ogundipe and Edewor, 2012), sociology has grown to become one of the most subscribed courses in the Social Sciences particularly in public universities.

While a lot has been written/debated about the methodological, intellectual and epistemic complexities/challenges of Akiwowo’s intervention as one of the issues in teaching/studying sociology in Nigeria/South (Adesina, 2002; Keim, 2011), more needs to be done in scholarly terms. This is more so relative to objective examination and adoption of inter-layered complexities of southern theoretical and epistemic interventions by both northern and southern intellectuals – especially among southerners themselves. While it is often common to implicate northern epistemologies of hegemonic complicity in southern epistemic marginalisation in sociology (Bhambra, 2013; Connell, 2007; Keim, 2008a, 2008b, 2011) and canvass for a southern counter-hegemony, there is a need to understand the sociointellectual landscapes of the South as a unique and problematic context that may not represent a homogenous theoretical front ready to present and accept a common theoretical narrative against the North. Southern scholars and scholarship may therefore not be an objectively homogenous category ready to present a common theoretical and epistemic category contrary to what many may assume or imagine (Onyeonoru, 2010). This is the issue we somewhat engage in this section as a counter-narrative to present a more balanced perspective from the South. We allude to a broader perspective of African scholars’ epistemological dependence on the North, ³ poverty of knowledge, resistance to local initiative (even by local scholars) and the language and cultural challenge (fundamental epistemic concepts, like Asuwada, used in Akiwowo’s work are Yoruba). ⁴

A general question is why is it difficult for African and southern scholars in general to adopt and teach their own (southern) theories and epistemologies? For instance, even many of the issues and ideas showcased in Connell’s ground-breaking book Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science (2007), are not/little known and not taught in most southern universities/schools even almost a decade after publication of the book. This is contrary to the common experience when northern authors showcase even little known epistemologies and theories. Such theories are immediately adopted and taught in northern and southern schools as a sign of intellectual currency of the southern teachers especially. Akiwowo, though controversially still, gave an alternative, regardless of its degree of crisis of intellectual and epistemic nerve (Adesina, 2002: 108). While many westerners have rejected the intervention, ⁵ largely, the intervention is even still more popular in the North than the South and more has been written about the intervention in the North than in the South. The reality is that many southern scholars even in Africa do not pay attention to the intervention and teaching it is not an issue for most. Most southerners themselves criticise the theory, almost to death/oblivion, and disparage it with a wave of hand (Makinde, 1988). Why?

In terms of southern epistemic interventions, the challenge is the constellations of western/northern hegemonic dominance and resilience on the one hand and southern epistemic and sociocultural divisions on the other (Mawere, 2011; Olutayo et al., 2013; Udefi, 2014). Southern epistemologies do not represent and do not present a common front against age-long and intellectually systematic western intellectual orthodoxy. Therefore, the challenge of southern epistemic adoption is not entirely with northern intellectual rigidity and intellectual allergy but also complex subjective southern intellectual cleavages. Northern epistemic dominance is actually not as rigid and not really uncritically domineering. This is demonstrated in the high number of accommodating northern articles on southern epistemic interventions. ⁶ Western articles/journals do sometimes even publish such interventions even when they stand as counter-establishment and counter-hegemonic narratives. Most times, unlike when northern scholars are involved, the usually negative, or at best ambivalent, attitude of most southern/African, scholars to Akiwowo’s intervention does not have to do with the epistemic substance of the intervention. Most often, the ambivalence and outright rejection are due to generation gaps, sociocultural complexities, traditional familiarity with the argument/concepts and associated consequences (Otite, 2008). For example, many of the current social scientists themselves were not taught the intervention as students. Many later heard or read it in passing. Most existing southern scholars themselves were taught Eurocentric contents in Eurocentric ways and did not have the opportunity to challenge such orthodoxies especially in a system like Nigeria with extensive intellectual power distance akin to lecturers/teachers are all-knowing. This learners’ exclusion from an objective knowledge production environment creates weak intergenerational interrogation of northern intellectual hegemony and weakens southern epistemic development of formidable counter-hegemonic positions. There is also the challenge of internal intellectual rivalry among many southern scholars who find it difficult to teach ideas from other southern colleagues who they see as either contemporaries or even junior academics. Even when the intervening colleagues are seniors, their epistemic interventions tend to be seen as commonsense, mundane and inferior to established intellectual renditions of the North.

Many southern scholars believe, uncritically though, that northern epistemologies are popular, superior and globally acceptable unlike controversially evolving local ideas of a local scholar (Olutayo et al., 2013). Many in this category neglect the fact that all knowledge started as a local idea of an individual at a time in history be it Marxism and Structural Functionalism or even Structuration, Macdonaldisation or Ethnomethodology in more recent times. Sociology syllabi in the South still regurgitate universalistic knowledge and do not interrogate such intellectual universalism especially as many southern intellectuals see sociology as northern and conformity to the northern universalistic models is the only way to guarantee acceptability of southern sociology certificates/knowledge in the standard North (Olutayo et al., 2013; Onyeonoru, 2010; Uche, 2011) especially when transcripts will be requested for further study or employment in the North – dream lands of most southerners. How then will such scholars teach what may be considered local ⁷ and not taught in the North; southern interventions? These intellectual and territorial counter-hegemonic contradictions pose a huge threat to teaching of Akiwowo in Nigeria and the global South generally.

Based on our observation across universities in the context, even when some colleagues, especially junior ones, in southern sociology departments attempt to introduce southern theories, other colleagues, particularly senior ones are quick to resist such initiatives claiming such southern theories and interventions are not standard and not approved by the authorities – academic and administrative. This is indicative of a general situation in the context/the South. ⁸ We also observed, and it is our opinion, that there have been attempts by younger group of southern sociologists to teach and introduce southern theoretical thoughts like Akiwowo’s into the curricular or course outlines. These attempts were often rejected especially by senior colleagues who are considered superior, by the system, and have the right to determine what goes into curricular/course outlines. In many southern universities, especially in Africa and Nigeria, junior colleagues, are often attached to senior ones to teach compulsory courses like Sociological Theories.

The senior ones usually determine the course outlines and course contents and this process is also considered as a mentoring process – a process of indoctrination – for the junior ones. It is therefore understandable why very many senior colleagues take the liberty to selectively teach theories and reject new theoretical introductions especially when such introductions come from junior ones. How will such theories be tested, approved and taught when they are not introduced at all? Even the institutionalised sociological theories now taught across the world were first ideas of individuals only accepted into sociology curricula after they were experimentally taught before they became popular. This is another major reason Akiwowo’s intervention remains little known among students and scholars in the South, and even in Nigeria – Akiwowo’s country of birth and scholarship.

Sociology in Nigeria remains at crossroads between global universalism and southern denials of southern epistemic interventions. While it is not our intention in this article to advocate for an insulated African sociology and uncritical Nigerian sociology, a more robust objective glocal space in terms of content and delivery is however in order. Insulated and uncritical African and Nigerian sociology will not even be sustainable as attraction to sociology in Nigeria, and many other parts of Africa, is due to the absolutely elaborate western contents and global identity of the discipline. This position is justified based on our many years of experience in researching and teaching sociology in the South and interaction with our students. For example, students’ attractions to less western contents are far less compared to when western contents like Origin of Sociology, Capitalism, Globalisation and Modernisation are taught. While such contents are usually well received by students, contents like History of African Social Thoughts are often considered boring and irrelevant by students meaning lecturers have to force students and struggle throughout the periods (Akanle, 2011).

When compared to indigenous disciplines like Nigerian Languages and African Studies, sociology is indeed queen and the discipline of choice as enrolments continue to soar and cut-off marks continue to increase. In the order of Burawoy’s (2009) position therefore, the notion of a national and/or continental sociology may be unpopular and strange to many Nigerian/African sociologists and students who are already used to universalistic sociology and who are attracted to the discipline because of its global outlook and marketability especially in Nigeria where disciplinary popularities are intricately linked to marketability. While French, German and Indian sociologies may exist with their own distinctive disciplinary features, the existence of a Nigerian sociology is uncertain/unclear. It is possible to maintain that there is no Nigerian sociology even in terms of hybridity and/or outrightness.

Aside from the challenge of Nigerian and African scholars to present a common positive attitude towards accepting and teaching southern interventions like the Akiwowo’s, the complex ethnolinguistic and cultural diversities of Nigeria is a major challenge. Nigeria is among the most ethnolinguistically diverse countries in the world with over 400 languages and cultures (Akanle and Olutayo, 2012). Even when it is commonly noted that there are three major ethnic groups in Nigeria – Hausa, Yoruba and Ibo in order of population dominance – there are hundreds of smaller ethnic groups subsumed under these dominant ones (Otite, 1971). Hence, all the minority ethnic groups have their unique linguistic and cultural identities separating them from all the rest. And, every ethnolinguistic group struggles/negotiates for development benefits through their cultural and linguistic identities. The implication of this for a Nigerian sociology is that as the nation is not a homogenous category in terms of culture/language, it will be a challenge to have a Nigerian sociology. This is especially so when there is identity contest/quest for self-determination, disciplinary existences being a veritable vehicle that is commonly recognised. Challenging questions would be; in whose language will the Nigerian sociology be taught? Whose social ramifications will be predominant in the Nigerian sociology? Since Nigeria is not a nation but a state, how much Nigerian sociology will emerge if sociologies become more nationalised and contextualised?

This is why global sociology and established theories in sociology are more easily accepted and taught than emerging contextual ones as different ethnic groups move further towards the global than the local (Olutayo and Akanle, 2013). The more global and western the sociology, or the course, in Nigeria, the more popularly acceptable. In terms of recent development, the common trend in teaching sociology in Nigeria is deeper alignment of the discipline with the North/West in terms of teaching and content to make the discipline more PAM (Popular, Acceptable and Marketable). This PAM formula is very important because Popularity, Acceptability and Marketability of disciplines are strongly related to employability of graduates. And employability of graduates ultimately determines the perceived relevance of disciplines in Nigeria.

Another case that demonstrates the ethnic cleavages in Nigerian sociology is the case of faculties (lecturers). In academic staffing, sociology departments, like other departments though, are populated by ethnic nationalities of the region in which the university/school is located even in federal universities that are supposed to be national in outlook/catchment. It is common to see a university in northern Nigeria heavily populated by the Hausa/Fulani people in terms of staff and students just as it is also the case in western Nigeria with the Yoruba people and eastern Nigeria with Igbo people preponderance. This presents the complicated social contexts militating against a national sociology and adoption of a common Nigerian epistemic intervention that may be coming from another ethnolinguistic national(s). This is also why teaching sociology in an indigenous language may not be possible in Nigeria (Adesina, 2002, 2006), at least in the foreseeable future. The Nigerian lingua franca is English and the discipline is taught in English leading to continuous perpetuation of colonial disciplinary identities even when the discipline struggles with decolonialities. The complicated ethnolinguistic situation of the country however makes a challenge to English as the language of sociology in Nigeria impracticable. The complicated/complex local contexts of Nigeria’s education and development play a huge role in the non-acceptance of Akiwowo’s intervention. The neglect of southern/non-western ideas from mainstream sociology is thus due to the interplay of many co-relating factors among the global and local ones and the local ones are by no means less implicated. While it is possible to counteract western and Eurocentric universalistic approaches to knowledge creation with propagation and acceptance of more cultural and multicultural ones, it must be noted that these cultural, multicultural and national ones themselves are not free of complications and dangerous competitions.

In countries like Nigeria, it is difficult to have a popularly acceptable national sociology in terms of syllabi and teaching as parochial and deep-seated national issues affect disciplinary outlooks’ contents and adoption. The roles played by the local academic community in Nigeria within the broader local sociocultural and political frameworks of Nigeria are thus very critical and important in totally understanding the challenges facing the glocal acceptance of Akiwowo’s epistemic intervention within global sociology. This has been our major engagement in this section as we engage internationalisation and territorialisation of sociology with Akiwowo’s and Nigeria’s case study. This is as a critique of dominant epistemic hegemonies and presentation of territorial incorporations feasibilities.

Conclusion

Disciplinary epistemologies and (de)territorialisation of knowledge production and adoption are certainly complicated issues as demonstrated through the Akiwowo and Nigeria/Africa case in this article. Although disciplinary and intellectual, epistemologies and (de)territorialisation of knowledge are moderated and affected by complex webs of global and contextual relational issues with critical multiple subjective implications and consequences. While it is very common to easily indict the global and northern, it is always important to understand the local contextual flipsides to prevent vacuous analysis and dangerous conclusions that can endanger knowledge production/adoption, disciplinary drives and epistemic interventions. An important point is to determine what is critically necessary for the discipline at a point in its development and what is the best approach to enhance the discipline, scholarship and scholars even across spaces and time.

In complicated and complex contexts like Nigeria, until a general national policy to localise and contextualise knowledge is put in place, and there is none on the horizon anyway, isolated adoption of southern theoretical and epistemological hegemony may be counter-productive, or even remain impossible. This is against the background of multiplicity of existential values of that society, like identical ones especially in Africa. Local understandings of values, norms, beliefs, cultures, practices, economics of knowledge and, in fact, deep-seated broader educational politics of nations and region are particularly very important when pushing for any epistemological and theoretical hegemony and agenda whether in/of the North or in/of the South. This is not to undermine continued recognition of the need for more inclusive epistemological and theoretical spaces in sociology: as many relevant and useful theoretical and epistemological interventions and developments may be recognised in the discipline once they add value but not in isolation of sufficient understanding of the local, contextual and global issues that determine and moderate their existences and disciplinary possibilities.

Akiwowo’s Asuwada Theory of Sociation is a positive and innovative epistemic intervention and disciplinary possibility. It presents a relativist epistemological explanation to indigenous social relations and conceptions of community. Asuwada emphasises sociation for unity and social survival. It somewhat serves a veritable explanation for kin and/or communal system which modernist ideology describes as primitive and anti-progress. Asuwada rather explains that an individual is meaningless unless he becomes a social being who suwa (sociates) for common good as the aisuwa (a person who does not sociate) is a social misfit. Suwa transcends the ordinary meaning of ‘relating’ or ‘associating’. The values of iwa, ihuwasi, isesi and ajumose are integrally associated to sociating for common good and progress. A person who relates without exhibiting the socially approved values of iwa alongside the other associated values is deemed a social misfit (omoburuku), while the individual who exhibits the right iwa (character), internalises it (ihuwasi) and habitually expresses the socially approved iwa through his/her actions (isesi) contributes to social survival, order and development because he/she works in unison (ajumose) for societal progress. The sociating being (asuwa) exhibits the interest of the common good which could be achieved only if and when the society acts in unison for social survival.

As important as Akiwowo’s epistemic intervention might be however, the intervention remains at the margins of epistemic and theoretical existential developments in sociology. While some works have been done on the intervention, many existing arguments relative to the correctness, acceptability and adoption of the intervention in mainstream sociology remain ambivalent. As most of such arguments point to the role of northern epistemic hegemony as the major challenge to Akiwowo’s intervention and either canvass for formidable counter-hegemonic from the South or outright territorialisation of the discipline, it has been shown in this article that the whole challenge to the intervention does not rest entirely in the North. Southern scholars themselves are directly/indirectly intellectual accomplices and epistemically indictable as they exist, knowingly or unknowingly, within complex/complicated sociointellectual and ethnocultural multiplicity that can make even glocal adoption of Akiwowo’s intervention a near impossibility.

In furthering critical and objective discourse around Akiwowo’s epistemic intervention therefore, while northern hegemonic resistance may be important, southern complicity, by omission or commission, and complexity are just as important and until the northern epistemic intelligentsia correlate with southern ones, while appreciating peculiar contextual variables, as objective critical epistemic stakeholders working together for common purpose of furthering the frontiers of objective sociology glocally, Akiwowo’s intervention may remain comatose for even the longer foreseeable future. If the subsisting southern and northern distant epistemic frontiers are bridged objectively however, the future of sociology and Akiwowo’s intervention is certainly bright. The objective bridging of existing epistemic frontiers may be in forms of scholarly dialogues and continued delayered academic engagements that further create ventilated scholarly and professional spaces for epistemological research agenda, inclusive and dynamic reflexive/reflective sociology curricula in both the North and the South and more innovative pedagogic practices devoid of power distance especially in the South.