An Introduction to African-Centered Sociology: Worldview,Epistemology,and Social Theory

Introduction

This article attempts to provide a basic ‘introduction’ to the possibilities of an African-centered sociology grounded within the African worldview. By analyzing the worldviews framework as utilized by African-centered scholars, the first goal of this article is to introduce sociologically-minded scholars to discussions of worldview that have taken place within other areas of the social sciences (primarily psychology, economics, political science, and history). Second, this essay surveys the intellectual development of what Robert Staples (1973, 1976) has referred to as ‘Black Sociology’. In doing so, this survey of the intellectual history of Black Sociology attempts to show how and why an African-centered sociology has never developed. Finally, we conclude with an overview of the impact of the worldview concept and framework on the development of African-centered sociology by highlighting its impact on epistemological issues and the construction of social theories.

The worldview concept and framework has been utilized by numerous scholars of African descent within the social sciences as means of accurately assessing Africana life, history, and culture (Azibo, 1992, 1999; Carroll, 2008, 2010, 2012; Carruthers, 1984, 1999; Dixon 1971, 1976; Jones MH, 1972, 1976, 1992; Kambon, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2004; Myers, 1987, 1988, 1991, 2001). Many of these scholars have taken the lead advanced by economist Vernon Dixon (1971, 1976) who initially utilized the worldview concept and framework in the analysis of the intersections of race, culture, and economics. Dixon’s pioneering contributions have been an essential component to the development of African-centered approaches within Africana (Black) Studies (Azibo, 1992, 1999; Carroll, 2008, 2010, 2012; Myers, 2001). Similarly in the path of Dixon, the political scientist Mack Jones argued that ‘[t]he establishment of academic disciplines … is a normative purposeful exercise, the content of which is determined by a people’s worldview and normative assumptions’ (Jones, 1976: 12). Advances within Africana Studies have taken heed to Jones and Dixon, and attempt to utilize worldview as an essential component of African-centered analyses in Africana Studies. Through worldview and culture, social scientists and social theorists within Africana Studies have two important conceptual tools which immensely contribute to the accurate interpretation of Africana life, history, and culture.

To date, the articulation of an African-centered sociology grounded within the concept of worldview has not been engaged by sociologically-minded scholars; neither has it occurred for African-centered sociology as a sub-discipline of Africana Studies, African-centered sociology as a sub-discipline of traditional sociology, or for African-centered sociology as a stand-alone discipline itself. This essay attempts to rectify this void by providing a rudimentary ‘introduction’ to the possibilities of African-centered sociology grounded within the African worldview and, by extension, connected to Africana Studies.

Worldview and Culture as the Methodological Basis of African-Centered Scholarship ¹

Current advances in Africana Studies utilize an African-centered conceptual framework in the study of Africana life, history and culture. African-centered scholars posit that culture and worldview are two essential tools in the analysis of human and social relations. By doing so, these scholars suggest that the cultural variation which is pervasive throughout all of humanity significantly impacts the responses one has to social phenomena. African-centered scholars argue that only by taking into account these varied cultural realities does the social theorist and social scientist truly engage in meaningful social analysis.

Wade Nobles’s definition of culture has been heavily relied upon in order to shape discussions within the African-centered scholarship (Azibo, 1992, 1999; Carroll, 2008, 2010, 2012; Grills, 2004; Kambon, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2004; Myers, 1987, 1988, 1991). Culture, as defined by Nobles, refers to ‘a general design for living and patterns for interpreting reality’ (Nobles, 1985: 102). African-centered scholars have relied upon this understanding of culture to generate a model of culture based upon two levels. Nobles and others posit that we can understand culture as it relates to a deep structure and surface structure of culture. From the above definition, the surface structure correlates with ‘a general design for living’, while the deep structure correlates with the ‘patterns for interpreting reality’. Together the deep and surface structures of culture encompass the depth and pervasiveness of culture, especially as it relates to the investigation of social phenomena.

‘A general design for living’ or the surface structure of culture refers to any aspect of one’s lived reality that is engaged through the five senses. Thus, most aspects that we use to define cultural differences are reflective of the surface structure. Whether we speak of food, dress, or beauty, each aspect is accessible through reliance upon what we can see, touch, taste, hear and/or smell. Surface structure manifestations represent culture at its most simplistic level. While cultural variance at the surface level is important, it is also important to recognize variance at a deeper level.

The ‘patterns for interpreting reality’ or deep structure of culture, provides a more profound understanding of culture and refers to the manner in which we engage social and lived phenomena on a conceptual level. That is, how do we understand that which we engage with the five senses? This understanding of deep structure is interchangeable with the concept of worldview. Both are concerned with philosophical questions that are essential in understanding varied experiences based upon that which is materially apprehensible. Generally speaking, ‘A worldview refers to the way in which a people make sense of their surroundings; make sense of life and of the universe’ (Ani, 1980: 4). Mack Jones adds clarity to this definition by stating that all ‘people have a worldview that is a product of [their] lived experience and that constitutes the lens through which the world of sense perceptions is reduced to described fact’ (Jones MH, 1992: 30). As the above definitions suggest, worldview can be understood on multiple levels, from the simplistic ‘how one sees the world’ to a more complex articulation as suggested by Jones. Building upon the work of Vernon Dixon, African-centered scholars posit that the concept of worldview centers on the role of philosophical assumptions. These philosophical assumptions include cosmology, ontology, axiology, and epistemology. Together, a cultural group’s understanding of the universe (cosmology), nature of being (ontology), values (axiology), and knowledge (epistemology) all contribute to the ways in which a people make sense of reality, i.e. their worldview (Azibo, 1992, 1999; Bell, 1994; Carroll, 2008, 2010, 2012; Grills, 2004; Kambon, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2004; Myers, 1987, 1988, 1991).

Cosmology (cosmos – Greek, universe), ontology (ontos – Greek, being), axiology (axios – Greek, values), and epistemology (episteme – Greek, knowledge) function as the four core elements of worldview systems and are essential to African-centered thought (Azibo, 1992; Carroll, 2008; Kambon, 1996, 2004; Myers, 1987, 1991). Distinctions between African and European cosmologies are based upon an African cosmogony that rests upon the universe as being interconnected, interrelated and interdependent, and a European cosmogony that assumes an independent and separate universe (Kambon, 1992, 1996, 1998; Myers, 1987, 1991). Distinctions between African and European ontologies are based upon an African ontology that posits that the nature of being/reality is fundamentally spirit with material manifestations, and a European ontology which suggests that reality is only material (Ani, 1980; Kambon, 1992, 1996, 1998; Myers, 1987, 1991). Distinctions between African and European axiologies are based upon an African axiology that places the highest prioritization upon interpersonal relationships among people and the collective group, and for the European axiology the highest prioritization is on acquisition of objects and individual gain (Kambon, 1992, 1996, 1998; Myers, 1987, 1991). Epistemological distinctions are found in relation to the previously mentioned philosophical assumptions, in that an African epistemology argues that knowledge can be acquired beyond the five senses (thus a direct outgrowth of an African ontology), and a European epistemology posits that knowledge only comes from what you can apprehend within the five senses (thus a direct outgrowth of the European ontology) (Bell, 1994; Kambon, 1992, 1996, 1998; Myers, 1987, 1991). Together the cultural and worldview differences of Africans and Europeans leads one to infer that social reality is not only lived differently, but also understood differently. While the African worldview prioritizes an interconnected and interrelated reality that relies upon the immaterial aspects of reality to make sense of the lived experience and favors relations of the whole, the European worldview prioritizes the separation of social reality, only utilizing that which can be apprehended with the five senses to validate and provide meaning for that which we engage through our lived experience.

This comparative analysis of components of the African and European worldviews implies basic distinctions at their fundamental core. As Kobi Kambon argues,

our worldview system determines our definitions, our concepts and our values; whether we consider events that we experience important, true, good, etc. or whether we attend to them at all. Thus, we make assumptions about events that we experience based on our ‘predisposed’ values, beliefs and attitudes toward the nature of things. These values, beliefs and attitudes comprise an organized body of ideas or a conceptual framework for viewing, defining and experiencing the nature and meaning of events that constitute our phenomenal reality, and even determine what phenomenal reality will in fact be. (Kambon, 1992: 4)

Thus one’s worldview is essential to one’s very being and the basis of how one comes to know, make sense of and engage one’s social reality.

The varied discussions by the above social scientists of African descent provide a foundation from which we can not only understand the importance of the worldview concept and framework, but, more importantly, can recognize its potential impact upon the investigation of social phenomena. The understanding of an African-centered sociology as an outgrowth of an African-centered perspective rooted within Africana Studies provides an accurate avenue for this introduction. However, we first must understand the previous attempts at engaging the intersections of race, culture, and sociology.

From Black Sociology to an African-Centered Sociology: An Intellectual History

The ability to shift from a Black Sociology to an African-centered sociology requires an analysis of the varied attempts by African descended sociologists to develop a workable social analysis of Africana peoples. This current analysis is concerned with theoretical, philosophical and conceptual arguments on behalf of sociologists and social theorists of African descent. This review will suggest that due to the inability of these sociologists to ground their work within a culturally-specific conceptual framework, along with conservative trends within mainstream sociology, the development of a Black Sociology has never truly occurred. However, this analysis suggests that the development of African-centered sociology is possible only once it is wedded to an African conceptual framework (i.e. the African worldview).

Attempts at the discussion of an authentic ‘Black Sociology’ began in the early 1970s following the inception of Black Studies, disgust among Black sociologists with the American Sociological Association, and the continued failure of white and Black sociologically-trained scholars to accurately access the social reality of African descended peoples in America. However, as Young and Deskins (2001), Semmes (2004), Collins and Makowsky (2005), and Wright and Calhoun (2006), among others, have argued, the foundation of the call for a ‘Black Sociology’ in the early 1970s was laid down by an earlier generation of African descended scholar-activists, many of whom produced scholarship within the discipline of sociology. It is the pre-1970s foundation of Black Sociology that informed Bracey et al.’s (1971) and Blackwell and Janowitz’s (1974) investigations of scholarship on the intellectual contributions of early Black sociologists. This same foundation also contributed to attempts by Staples (1973, 1976) to introduce a ‘Black Sociology’, and Ladner (1998 [1973]) to call for ‘the death of white sociology’.

Robert Washington and Donald Cunnigen clearly recognize this issue in their 2002 volume, Confronting the American Dilemma of Race: the Second Generation of Black Sociologists. This collection of essays developed out of critical discussions and subsequent presentations that took place at a series of Association of Black Sociologists conferences. For example, Benjamin Bowser’s (2002) and Jerry Watts’s (2002) dialogue on the role of theory within the second generation of Black sociologists is emblematic of the lack of a clearly autonomous discussion of theory building within Black Sociology. As Bowser (2002: 61) argues, early Black sociologists ‘did not simply get their degrees, begin careers, and then do their work independent of their sponsors and the foundations, which made their sociological careers possible. To put it bluntly, they did the research and their white sponsors were guardians of what is most important in any science, the theory’. Thus without the development of theories, methodologies, and culturally-specific conceptual frameworks, the development of an authentic Black Sociology has been inaccessible.

Robert Washington (2002) adds clarity on the failure in developing an authentic Black Sociology, when he argues that much of the work produced by sociologically-trained Black people in the early to mid 1900s was in fact sociology produced by Blacks and not ‘Black Sociology’. According to Washington, ‘Sociology by [B]lacks developed from an early intellectual marriage between [B]lack sociologists and liberal white sociologists, with the result that liberal ideology dominated [B]lack sociological writings. Put somewhat differently, we might say, sociology by [B]lacks emerged under the hegemony of white liberal ideology’ (2002: 334). The intellectual and sociopolitical interests of the white scholars who trained the early generations of Black sociologists guided the ‘liberal ideology’ of which Washington speaks. Central among this group of professors and students was the relationship between the Chicago School of sociology and the first generation of scholarly-trained Black sociologists.

At the University of Chicago, Robert Ezra Park and W. Lloyd Warner worked to develop a school of sociology that would eventually contribute to the intellectual development of Charles Johnson, E. Franklin Frazier, and future Black sociologists. Washington argues that early in their careers Johnson, Frazier, and other Black sociologists trained at the University of Chicago by Park and Warner ‘identified with the liberal ideological perspective, which, in their view, embodied universally valid ethical and scientific principles of social organization’. Washington further adds that ‘having internalized a naïve scientific positivism, [these Black sociologists] never questioned mainstream sociology’s cultural suppositions’ (Washington, 2002: 343). The blind acceptance of liberal ideology among Black sociologists continued from the early 1900s until the mid-1960s with the transition of Civil Rights to Black Power within the Black Freedom Movement. However, the remnants of liberal ideology were conceptually influential and informed the assumptions of many African descended sociologists as they made their call for a ‘Black Sociology’. Much like superficial calls for ‘Black Power’ during the 1960s which merely turned into duplications of the current social order but only in Blackface (Allen, 1990), the development of Black Sociology has been marred by the inability to develop an authentic culturally-grounded framework to analyze the social reality of African-descended people.

Examples of the inability to develop a culturally-grounded framework to analyze Africana social reality began with Robert Staples’s (1973, 1976) initial attempts at introducing the idea of a ‘Black Sociology’. In ‘Race and ideology: an essay in Black sociology’, Staples (1973: 395) sets out to ‘delineate the components of a theoretical system designed to meet the needs of Black people’. The goal of which is to ‘relate the field of sociology to an understanding of the Black condition which will ultimately be applied in some effective way to the resolution of the oppressed condition of the masses of Black folk’. However, what one soon finds is an analysis of racism and its negative impact upon the life chances of African descended people in America. While racism must have a function within any theoretical system that analyzes people of color living under white supremacy, Staples seems to suggest that clarity on the historical development, psychological cost, and social consequences of racism is the basis for a conception of Black Sociology. Staples’s attempt at developing a conceptual model for Black Sociology thus becomes lost and marred in one consequence of white supremacy rather than providing a conceptual framework for understanding white supremacy along with its deadly consequences.

Staples worked further to clarify his notion of ‘Black Sociology’ in Introduction to Black Sociology (1976). Early on within this text Staples engages the conceptual grounds for a Black Sociology by distinguishing it from white/traditional sociology. Staples argues that white/traditional sociology develops from the privileged position of the dominant group and thus, a Black Sociology must define itself on its own terms. Staples (1976: 11) states ‘Afro-American sociology is an applied science because it has as its primary objective the application of sociological knowledge to the development of the Black community’. Staples then follows with the major conceptual components of his Black Sociology. The Colonial, Marxist, and Pan-Africanist Models all inform Staples’s conception of Black Sociology. While Staples suggests that notions of African continuities and cultural relativism will work within his conceptual framework, they seem rather nonexistent as he develops the conceptual contours of his thesis. Thus Staples is still left without a truly authentic conceptual framework that is grounded within the lives of African descended peoples.

Joyce Ladner’s influential anthology The Death of White Sociology, originally published in 1973, included numerous essays that suggested a genuine Black social science was on the verge of developing (Jones RS, 1992). Work by Alkalimat (1998), Staples (1998), and Walters (1998) all added elements to the possibility of this new Black social science. While stronger than initial claims made by Staples, these attempts still lacked clarity on a conceptual foundation that is grounded in Africana life, history, and culture, and cuts across space and time. For example, in Staples’s ‘What is Black Sociology? Toward a Sociology of Black Liberation’, he contrasts the differences between white sociology and Black Sociology. However, the theoretical and conceptual grounds in which he places Black Sociology are still wedded to white sociology. Thus Staples argues that Black Sociology relies upon historical analysis as understood through general sociology (Staples, 1998: 168). However, Staples goes on to argue that ‘much of the theoretical framework in Black Sociology’ comes from the work of C. Wright Mills and Karl Mannheim (p. 169). This must be understood in relation to Staples’s previous argument that the Colonial and Marxist models inform the conceptual framework of his conception of Black Sociology. As Bowser (2002) and Washington (2002) have argued, the inability of Black Sociology to develop its own theoretical foundations separate from traditional sociology only makes the field conceptually contingent upon traditional sociology and, to some, merely an afterthought or an addendum to traditional sociology.

Yet, while Alkalimat (1998), Hare (1974), Jackson (1974), Staples (1973, 1976, 1998), and others were working hard to develop an authentic Black Sociology, there was another group of sociologists who were so engrossed with liberal ideology that to suggest the possibility of a race or culture-based model of social scientific analysis was utterly foolish and ethnocentric. McKee (1993) correctly connects this trend of scholarship with the inability of traditional sociology to develop a perspective that truly acknowledges the centrality of race in social analysis. Two prime examples are William Julius Wilson (1974) and Wilson Record (1974, 1975). Both Wilson and Record questioned the validity of the work of Staples and others who attempted to advance Black Sociology. Wilson’s conservative stance on the ‘insider/outsider controversy’ and Record’s ideological detachment from liberatory knowledge both work as sociologically conservative counter-attacks upon the thought of an authentic and culturally-specific sociology among people of African descent.

More recently, the work of Clovis Semmes has attempted to include an African-centered perspective within Black Sociology. Semmes’s (2004: 3) ‘Existential sociology or the sociology of group survival, elevation, and liberation’ provides a context for understanding the ‘call for a [B]lack Sociology’ and why ‘[B]lack sociology has not realized its potential’. Still, all the while Margaret Hunter (2004) asks ‘is White sociology really dead?’ and Vernon Williams (2011) inquires, ‘Was there a distinct “African American Sociology”?’ Additionally, Ray Von Robertson (2011: 103–104) suggests the reality of an African-centered sociology yet argues that it is conceptually underdeveloped. Though Semmes, Von Robertson, and others within African-centered social work (Graham, 1999; Schiele, 1994, 1999) provide elements for the development of African-centered sociology, its evolution still has not taken place for the same reasons that marred its development in the 1970s. This author posits that the inability to develop a clear conception of Black Sociology and lay the foundation for an African-centered sociology was negatively influenced by two factors: first, the inability to coalesce around a common conceptual framework, and second, the role of conservative trends among current and future generations of sociologists of African descent. If Mack Jones is correct in arguing that ‘[a]cademic discipline[s], especially social science disciplines, are developed within the constraints of worldviews’ (Jones MH, 1992: 30), then it is imperative for African-centered sociology through Africana Studies to develop on its own conceptual ground. This is only done through an engagement with conceptually grounded arguments that are rooted within worldview systems.

African-Centered Sociology and the Implications of the African Worldview

As previously discussed, a worldview consists of a cosmology, ontology, axiology, epistemology, and other philosophical assumptions. Together, a cultural group’s understanding of the universe (cosmology), nature of being (ontology), values (axiology), and knowledge (epistemology) all contribute to the ways in which a people make sense of reality, i.e. their worldview (Azibo, 1992, 1999; Bell, 1994; Carroll, 2008, 2010, 2012; Grills, 2004; Kambon, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2004; Myers, 1987, 1988, 1991). As these components relate to the investigation of social phenomena, it is incumbent upon African-centered sociologists and social theorists to develop theories, concepts, and models and produce research that is within the cultural parameters reflective of African descended people (i.e. the African worldview). Thus the African worldview provides necessary grounding for work that can be produced by sociologists generating scholarship within African-centered sociology.

As previously expounded upon, the worldview framework provides a basic set of inquiry for the African-centered researcher (Carroll, 2008). Developing out of an African cosmology, ontology, axiology, and epistemology, the African-centered sociologist must bring to his/her research on Africana social phenomena these preliminary questions of inquiry:

Through the engagement of these basic questions, the African-centered sociologist has the potential to develop theory and research that generates out of the philosophical assumptions of the African worldview. More importantly, it is also incumbent upon African-centered sociologists to critically engage the central role of epistemology in the advancement of theory and research.

African-Centered Sociology: Some Epistemological Considerations

Essential to the development of concepts, theories, and models within African-centered sociology is the serious engagement of the role of epistemology and its impact upon data acquisition and, by extension, knowledge production. The normative epistemological assumptions generating out of the European worldview suggest that the only means of acquiring data and knowledge is through the five senses. These approaches to data acquisition among African-centered sociologists can only go but so far and there are alternative mechanisms for acquiring data and knowledge. Thus the utilization of an African epistemology within African-centered sociology will manifest itself through a variety of approaches. First, by relying upon the intuitive self, African-centered sociologists and social theorists can utilize metaphysical approaches to data acquisition that come from nuanced processes of re-membering (Bynum, 1999). These processes consist of recognizing that the fundamental basis of all knowledge is self-knowledge (Myers, 1987, 1988, 1991, 2001) and the usage of historical, epic, and cultural memory (Bynum, 1999) provides alternative avenues to acquire information about the self and by extension Africana people. If these alternative avenues prove fruitful they can then inform explanations of social phenomena that are reflective of Africana reality. Reliance upon self-knowledge and cultural memory comes through keeping one’s self on an African continuum of time and space, looking for and utilizing the cultural connections that unite the Africana experience, and attempting to situate the deeper meaning of life experiences beyond a one-dimensional experiential reality. Since all things within the universe are interconnected and interrelated, the current experiences of Africana people are directly related to the historical experience of Africana people across space and time.

Second, African-centered sociology must critically investigate what are usable experiences that can inform research and the interpretation of data. For example, what we consider to be dream/awake states of consciousness can be considered a false dichotomous binary in which what we believe to be a dreaming state is in fact an awake state, and vice versa (Bynum, 1999). By utilizing information and experiences gained through various states of consciousness, we can develop alternative parameters that inform explanations of social phenomena. The ability to reach into these varied states of consciousness and utilize this information will require that alternative methods of inquiry function just as much as normative ways of knowing, with equal validity and fallibility. As Cheryl Grills (2004) has articulated, African people have recognized the epistemological implications of varied forms of consciousness and this has impacted on how ancient and traditional Africans have engaged the world. These ways of knowing that go beyond our current physical reality have a functional role for Africans in the diaspora, as they did for the Ancient Egyptians, the Yoruba, and the Dogon. Thus as a means of continuity, Africana social scientists must work to develop similar methods of data acquisition because these are also accurate means for investigating Africana life, history, and culture.

In addition, the usage of mixed method approaches relying upon quantitative and qualitative methods should also be utilized, developed, and expanded upon within African-centered sociology. While mixed methods approaches are already utilized within certain areas of Africana Studies (McDougal, 2011), African-centered sociology should exhaust their usage as they relate to accurately understanding Africana life, history, and culture. Fourth, we must fully exhaust the teleological assumption generating out of the African worldview (Carroll, 2008). Thus building on the initial inquiries of W. Curtis Banks (1992), an African-centered sociology should generate purpose-driven research that is ultimately prescriptive and not merely descriptive. The ability for research conclusions to be prescriptive speaks to the solution-driven nature of Africana Studies and African-centered sociology, and not merely the ability to highlight problems within the Africana world.

Finally, data acquisition and knowledge production within African-centered sociology should require active membership with phenomena under investigation. No longer can the sociologically-minded researcher be detached from that which s/he is investigating; we must be active participants who knowingly and willingly divulge our role as interested scholars, committed to the development of liberatory knowledge (Curry, 2011). The previously discussed epistemological considerations informed by the African worldview are the initial steps in an attempt to develop the conceptual parameters of an African-centered sociology. The future of African-centered sociology is contingent upon further expansion of these and similar ideas that are grounded within the philosophical assumptions of the African worldview.

African-Centered Sociology and Social Theory

Building on the previously discussed epistemological considerations is the important role that social theory must play within African-centered sociology. By the development of workable social theories for Africana people, African-centered sociology not only provides descriptive explanations for the conditions of African descended people, but also offers prescriptive explanations with solutions to alleviate the negative conditions that govern the social reality of Africana people. Arguably much of the work in Black Sociology from the 1970s and onward engaged the importance of developing explanations and analysis of the social reality of African descended people, along with some arguments for the need for workable social theories for people of African descent (Alkalimat, 1998). The inability of the early attempts at a Black Sociology to develop social theories grounded in a set of normative philosophical assumptions reflective of African people across space and time has limited the current feasibility of such theoretical developments. However, given the advances within African-centered knowledge production, discussions of normative philosophical assumptions can be the basis from which we discuss the function of social theory within African-centered sociology.

Prior to discussions of Black Sociology in the early 1970s, Africana thinkers provided a number of approaches to social theory. All of these attempts assumed that social theorists work to commit their mental energy to the alleviation of the social issues that impact their communities. The experiences of African people in America has contributed to the development and nurturing of numerous social theorists who have been committed to the transformation of Africana life and social reality. As early as the 1800s, African descendants in America were developing social theories that functioned as descriptions and prescriptions for the social conditions of African people under white supremacy. Martin Delaney, Henry Highland Garnett, Maria Stewart, John Lewis, Mary Ann Shadd, J. Theodore Holly, Alexander Crummell, and T. Morris Chester, among others, all worked to use their mental prowess to alleviate the conditions of African descended people within the African world, and the United States in particular (Newman et al., 2001). For example, on 9 December 1862 T. Morris Chester delivered a powerful address at the 29th anniversary of the Philadelphia Library Company. In this lecture Morris focused upon the ability of African descendants to reach their highest potential only through knowledge of Black history and culture, in addition to the cultivation of self-respect, self-love, and racial pride. Morris stated that,

It cannot be denied that we need a higher cultivation of self-respect and pride of race. Public sentiment and legislation have been sufficiently ungodly to somewhat distract the councils of Afro-Americans – to suppress every [hu]manly attribute, and cast doubts upon the superiority of our people. These influences have been so unfortunate that they have prevented a thorough union of feeling and sympathy among all classes. (Newman et al., 2001: 307)

Chester was concerned with the elevation of the moral and ethical character of African descendants in America and believed that this could only be done for African people themselves. By focusing upon the importance of history and culture, Chester further argued that ‘histories and geographies, adapted to the use of your schools, written by one of you, with a view to inspire and cheer the youths in their difficult ascent up the hill of knowledge, are much needed’ (Newman et al., 2001: 309). Thus through knowledge of Black history and culture, and through the cultivation of self-respect, self-love, and racial pride, Chester worked to develop a descriptive and prescriptive social analysis for African descendants in the late 1800s.

More recently, social science-trained scholar-activists have also provided useful discussions on the role and function of social theory. Both Bobby Wright (1984) and Daudi Ajani ya Azibo (1992, 1999, 2007) discuss the importance of social theory as it relates to the survival and future of African descended people. Azibo (1999: 1) argues that a social theory refers to ‘those principles that determine the relationship of a people to one another (i.e., to collective “self”), to other humans (i.e., who are other than “self”), and to nature. Social theory, then, establishes a people’s guidelines of life including their values, rituals and ways of dealing with “the other”’. As Azibo suggests, the basis of social theory for Africana peoples must be grounded in the unique way in which we understand the world around us and our place within it.

African-centered sociology has the potential to produce the strongest social theories once it is wedded to a conceptual framework that is rooted in the current and historical social realities of Africana people across space and time. This can be found in a cultural group’s understanding of the universe (cosmology), nature of being (ontology), values (axiology), and knowledge (epistemology), and all contributing to the ways in which a people make sense of reality, i.e. their worldview (Azibo, 1992, 1999; Bell, 1994; Carroll, 2008, 2010, 2012; Grills, 2004; Kambon, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2004; Myers, 1987, 1988, 1991). African-centered social theories grounded within the African worldview become the solution to accurate and authentic descriptions and prescriptions of Africana social reality. Grounding African-centered sociology and Africana social theories within the African worldview will solve the conceptual problems that have marred the work of Staples (1973, 1976, 1998), and it will also allow for the development of theory and methodology on Africana cultural grounds as suggested by Bowser (2002) and Washington (2002).

Conclusion

This article has attempted to introduce sociologically-minded scholars to the role and function of the worldview concept and framework within African-centered research and scholarship. Building upon this foundation, a critical review of the intellectual history of Black Sociology has allowed for the elucidation of the weaknesses within the historical development of Black Sociology due to the inability of its earliest practitioners and theoreticians to develop an authentic conceptual framework for Africana social analysis. However, by placing the subject matter of Black Sociology in dialogue with African-centered scholarship, the possibility of an African-centered sociology has been articulated. Essential to the development of an African-centered sociology is usage of the African worldview as the conceptual framework, thus allowing for the advancement of African-centered epistemological modes of inquiry and a focus on the development of African-centered social theories.

As Mack Jones, Vernon Dixon, and others have argued, worldviews are essential components in the development of academic disciplines. The inability of Black Sociology to develop in relation to an African worldview has only hindered its development into an African-centered sociology. Today, given the advances in African-centered knowledge production, it is only logical that an African-centered sociology develop from a foundation within an African worldview. It is only through utilization of the worldview assumptions of Africana peoples that a truly authentic African-centered sociology will come into existence. This development of an African-centered social analysis is connected to other advances throughout the various sub-discipline components of Africana Studies. The advances in African-centered psychology, history, and literature all allow for more than merely blackenizing traditional disciplines (Akbar, 1984; Baldwin, 1992). All, in fact, call for new conceptual frameworks that can be applied to accurately analyzing Africana life, history, and culture. The implications of the above analysis have impact for both Africana Studies and Sociology, especially for courses such as ‘Black Sociology’, ‘Race, Culture and Sociology’, and ‘Race and the Sociology of Knowledge’, among others. Furthermore, the above analysis adds to the essential project of advancing African-centered analyses within Africana Studies.