Abbed Kanoor recently delivered a thought-provoking lecture on the Cameroonian philosopher Fabien Eboussi Boulaga, whose critical engagement with African philosophy offers valuable insights into the complexities of ethnophilosophy, collective self-consciousness, and the philosophy of spatiality. In the Research Talk, the GloPhi team had a chance to elaborate on a few of topics in Boulaga’s philosophy in dialogue with Abbed Kanoor.

Ethno-Philosophy and Its Critique

As Abbed Kanoor stressed, a major theme in Boulaga’s philosophy is his critique of ethnophilosophy, which he characterizes as a “philosophy without philosophers.” This view suggests that the philosophical traditions of African cultures are often presented through ethnological lenses that fail to engage with philosophy as a reflexive  intellectual discipline. Boulaga critiques ethnophilosophy for its passive reception of external, often European, conceptions of African thought. He argues that ethnophilosophy was born out of the need to satisfy epistemic curiosity from the outside, particularly from Western ethnologists who exoticized and oversimplified African cultures and traditions of thought.

However, Boulaga does not reject ethnophilosophy entirely. He acknowledges that while ethnophilosophy is problematic, it also contains potentialities that can be critically revised and discussed. His aim is to liberate African thought from these external, ethnological perspectives. Instead of offering a rigid definition of philosophy, Boulaga suggests a more fluid and dynamic approach: a philosophy of the future that exists at the border of current conceptual frameworks, “in a land that does not have a name yet.”

“Even though Eboussi Boulaga is critical of the notion of ethnophilosophy, there is a certain dialectics in his philosophy. He is critical of ethnophilosophy, but he still has a philosophical curiosity  for ethnophilosophy. His intention is to free the potentialities of African cultures, cosmogonies, customs etc. from certain modes of view from outside. Ethnophilosophy was a reaction to the curiosity coming from the European view, which was an ethnological view that operated with a certain language of ‘objectivity.’ Departing from this colonial view, Eboussi Boulaga is suggesting a philosophy of the future. For the same reason, he doesn’t offer a definition of what philosophy is; rather, he chooses to dwell on the border of the ‘land that does not have a name yet.’ He wishes to replace the ‘gaze from the outside’ with a  self-consciousness of African thinkers regarding their own language, myths, traditions, etc.” — Abbed Kanoor

Transmutation and the Process of Deconstruction

As an alternative to translation as a method of transposing cultural phenomena into ethnological categories that often distorts and simplifies, Boulaga proposes the concept of “transmutation.” Translation, in the ethnological sense, refers to the direct conversion of one order (human meaning and interaction) into another order (systematic objective language), often overlooking the lived experience behind the cultural practices. Boulaga’s transmutation involves a deeper process: deconstructing the ethnological imposition and replacing it with a process of self-constitution, which takes place through the lived experience of Muntu—the concrete human being. The comparison between two orders takes the form of an inevitable transition, though not only from the ethnological order to the concrete experience of Muntu. The latter becomes the starting point for a new space that philosophy designates. 

In contrast to the asymmetrical ethnological translation, where a non-reflexive relation between the observer and the observed is established, the location of Muntu and the space it opens is different. This space is from the beginning practice-oriented and a shared space. It has neither an inside nor an outside. This topos in its particularity is not disconnected from the global situation. On the contrary, based on its very partiality and particularity—and not through an abstraction—it participates in the global. It is a “total part,” to use a term from Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

Regarding Boulaga’s critique of ethnology, Kanoor also points to a potential blind spot in Boulaga’s work: 

“Translation in a normal sense means a direct text-to-text relation. What Boulaga has in mind is a translation into the language of ethnology; this language presumes its own objectivity by simplifying, exoticizing, and alienating the very subject of observation. With the [operation of] “transmutation” Boulaga aims to deconstruct exactly this imposition set by the ethnological view, which instead must  be substituted by a process of self-constitution through the lived experience of “Muntu.” But I also sense a blind spot of Boulaga’s proposition. First, there are insights that are genuinely opened up by ethnology, especially in the Western discourse about the culturally Other. Second, ethnology is also reversible.” — Abbed Kanoor

Topical and Topological Dimensions of Philosophy

One of Boulaga’s central contributions to philosophical thought is his departure from the classical, linear view of philosophy as a progressive evolution of ideas. The spatial turn in philosophy that Eboussi pleads for is fulfilled on two levels: the topical and the topological. It is topological insofar as the lived and situated topos of Muntu—in its geographical, linguistic, cultural and historical givenness—is not subordinated to the homogeneous “objective” space of ethnological approach. It is also topical, however, since the recognition of Muntu as the subject of various experiences liberates the dynamics of the various corresponding fields of experience. For example, Muntu’s experience of community and its political dimension is different from bodily experience in both its physical and emotional dimensions. Each field of experience is a topical space irreducible to a simple “objective reality” with determinate factors.

“Muntu as the concrete experience of the human being stands in the center of Boulaga’s thought. He tries to modify the classical historical view of philosophy that sees a continuous evolution of ideas by introducing a pair of difference: topical / topological. Philosophy is a matter of topics and not of progress; it can be conceptualized as topical dynamics of discourses, for example on aesthetics, ethics, or cosmology. It can also be viewed topologically; because Muntu is always the concrete human being, a philosophical thought is equally bodily-situated and is characterized by a certain locality and temporality.” — Abbed Kanoor

Philosophy as Socratic Dialogue

For Boulaga, philosophy is not about finding definitive answers or rigid definitions but about engaging in a process of self-awareness, self-recapture, critique, and transformation. Kanoor drew a parallel between Boulaga’s philosophical method and the Socratic and Platonic approach. Specifically, he highlighted how Boulaga’s work is reminiscent of the early dialogues of Plato, in which Socrates engages in a series of probing questions to explore concepts like justice and the Good. In these dialogues, the goal is not to provide a definitive definition of justice but to foster a deeper sense of understanding about the concept through questioning and dialogue, and only finding preliminary conclusions in repeated aporia.

Similarly, Boulaga does not seek to offer simple, definitive answers to philosophical questions. Instead, he invites his readers and interlocutors into a process of inquiry where they are encouraged to reflect on and engage with philosophical concepts. This method aligns with the Socratic view that philosophy is more about the process of questioning and thinking critically than about arriving at final answers. Kanoor highlighted that this approach is especially apparent in the way Boulaga interacts with his interlocutors in interviews.