Higher Education in Africa. Crises, Reforms and Transformation

Chapter Two - Cultural Colonisation by Force and by Choice

Chapter Two Cultural Colonisation by Force and by Choice This chapter addresses the question of the reproduction of European cultural domination of African societies and institutions, both in the colonial and neocolonial contexts. It is argued that by force the colonial powers reshaped African education. In spite of their criticism of colonial education, African leaders who were influenced by this education displayed a mindset that viewed European education as good for the African. Thus, through the dynamics of European colonial education and African leaders’ own well-meaning, but misguided, demand for the integral transfer of European education into their respective societies , African education was caught in a dependence trap. Thus, even the institutions created after independence have been modelled in the form of the systems of the colonial powers and their extensions in the West. The Dependency Trap The validity of a theory about social process is sustained by the reality that it helps explain. Dependency theory was born out of the broader conflict theory when its proponents came to the conclusion that classical Marxist theory explained development but not the underdevelopment of some nations. In the dependency framework that conceives resources as zero-sum commodities, the necessary condition for the continued and sustained development of countries in the centre is to maintain the countries of the periphery under control of those of the centre, using different means and mechanisms. However, despite the validity of dependency theory, it did not displace Marxist theory because the sociological reality that it explained back in the nineteenth century has been reproduced . Similarly, the social reality that made dependency theory refreshingly relevant from the 1950s to the 1970s has not disappeared. In fact, in Africa, there Cultural Colonisation by Force and by Choice 49 has been an accelerated (and backward) process of impoverishment in the contextoftheimplementationoffull -forceandbarelydisguisedre-colonisationagendas and their procession of misery. The assault on the entire population following the measures adopted by the WTO, and the various effects of globalisation not only in the area of trade but also production, distribution, and access to knowledge, are showing this backward movement. It has been argued that Africa has been isolated and that through globalisation it will have a better chance to compete with the others on the same ground. For instance, paragraph 28 of the October 2001 document that was adopted by African heads of state for the creation of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), stipulates that ‘while globalization has increased the cost of Africa’s ability to compete, we hold that the advantages of an effectively managed integration present the best prospects for future economic prosperity and poverty reduction’. In reality globalisation has the potential for serving as a formal mechanism for tightening the dependency grip. Globalisation is sometimes presented as a means of enforcement of old sets of rules and inventions of new ones that are defined and accepted by the people in the global village. However, what is not clearly articulated is that while there are rules that are being set, not all the members of this global village are free and have the prerogative of participating in defining them. In this context of widening gaps between and within nations, despite the illusions of positive returns of globalisation, the dependency theoretical framework acquires a renewed relevance and legitimacy. Dependency best captures the post-colonial general situation and education, especially higher education in post-colonial Africa. According to Altbach (1977), for instance, there are three major types of influence of developed countries on Third World countries which can be articulated as: (i) ‘normal’ dependency from a historical standpoint in the sense that industrial countries are ahead in education specifically in the areas of research, educational facilities and publishing (Altbach 1977:196) and also in the political, military, and economic domains; (ii) ‘centre-periphery’ relationships, on an international scale, between and within countries, with industrialised countries constituting the ‘centre’ where all the elements of a modern technological societyarefoundandwhichcontrolthedistributionofwealthandeducation (Altbach 1977:196), while the Third World countries are the ‘periphery’, relying on various goods and services provided by the centre; and (iii) neo-colonialism characterised by the ‘conscious policies of industrialized nations to maintain their influence and power over the Third World’ (Altbach 1977:205), deliberately working to control them with some degree of consent by Third World countries. Higher Education in Africa: Crises, Reforms, and Transformation 50 Dependency and Education: A General Framework In the specific domain...