De-Westernization of communication theory is the ultimate aim of this edited volume. This is in part because Min-Sun Kim cites Stephen LittleJohn admitting that ācommunication theory in the United States is a Eurocentric enterprise. That is, communication theory has a strong Western biasā (Min-Sun 2002, p. 1). We intend to ācorrectā this bias through the panoply of Afrocentric-driven theories in this collection. In fact, the Black race has been despoiled of its inalienable right to self-hood and self-expression for the longest period in human history. And given the fact that they, too, like any other human species on planet earth have been given voice that distinguishes them from non-human subjects, it has become imperative for a comprehensive study of this nature to examine the role of the Black voice within the cosmological, and more importantly, the ontological human communicative spaces. We did not want to fall prey to the Achebiana African proverb that āunless the lions produce their own history, the story of the hunt will glory only the hunterā (Achebe 2000, p. 73). We want the story of the hunt in the future to be all inclusive. Of course, we are well aware of the Eurocentric āstandardā theories in communication that have been tested and retested within the Black communication circle with little or no success. We are also conscious of the contours of human communication that are rooted in the historical being of mankind, in the sense that no human creature on this universe can lay claim to a universal communicative pattern that explains interpersonal, group, and mass communicative levels for all human species on planet earth. To echo Patrice Loch Otieno Lumumba , the celebrated Kenyan Law Professor, āBlack people of African descent are not descendants of a lesser Godā (see Lumumbaās YouTube Speech, Tanzania , 2017). We are all unique in our own ways because of the geo-historical context of our birth. Consequently, assembling a coterie of communication scholars of the Black race to theorize various unique communicative strands of their people in given settings at home on the continent and abroad has been long overdue. This is the driving force behind the birth of this companion.
Additionally, a reading of Houston Bakerās āCritical Memory and the Black Public Sphere ā chapter in his brilliant edited volume title The Black Public Sphere triggered our interest for this book. In it he argues that it is not only the knowledge of the past that is critical in understanding African Americans but a much more critical memory of that past. So, there is need for theorizing Black/Africana communication that captures communication dynamics between and among the Black race on the continent and in the Diaspora. Since the separation of the two ethnic groups almost 300 years ago, there have been contacts both physical and virtual between the two groups. Some of the group communication traits that set them apart from other ethnic groups constitute the research goal for this project. Some of the known salient characteristics of Black intergroup communication theory are: (1) Inter-subjective thought sharing, (2) Communalism (i.e., recognition of collective essence), and (3) Ethnocentrality (ethnic/tribal affinities).
We are also aware of the fact that there have been several communication theories that have roots in European cultural, political, and historical traditions. In fact, Young (2014) believes that the majority of theories have what he calls āWestern biasā (p. 29). Other scholars sharing that view include, Craig and Muller (2007) and Hofstede (2007). This creates difficulty to burgeoning scholars whose research focus is on Africa/Black ancestry or any other non-Western subjects. A few African-driven theories have seen the light of day. For example, āNegritudeā a term coined by Leopold Sedar Senghor and now Molefi Asanteās Afrocentricity are theories/paradigms that encapsulate the philosophical, cultural, socio-psychological, and political worldview of the Black man. But hardly do we have unique Black communication theories that have captured the inter-human communication dynamics of Blacks in Tropical Africa , the United States of America , the Caribbean , and Latin America during and after the slave trade movements. Writing about Afrocentricity, Jackson (2003) affirms that āAfrocentricity is a direct counter narrative to a most obvious and hegemonic grand narrative presupposing that all that is not of Europe is not of worthā (117). Of course, there is some worth in the communicative dirges, divinations, incantations, myths , and folktales by Black folks on the continent, and abroad and that is where their humanity has symbolic meanings. Communality, group cohesion, love, and pain are always present within in-group interaction within the Black community in any given geographical location. The historical root of this tendency can be traced back to communality in Africa pre-and post colonization. On the other hand, a plethora of Western-driven theories have been criticized for guiding Black-centered discourse notably, feminism that made scholars like Patricia Phil Collins to come up with Black feminism to include the experience of Black women . Other scholars like Leslie Ogundibe preferred the term āwomanismā to include Black African women in the discourse of feminist theory . Most Western-driven theories do not have a place in Black communicative experience especially in Africa. A lot of scholars interested in Black communication scholarship are on the crossroads of either using a Western-driven theory to explain a Black communication dynamic or use a hypothetical rule to achieve their objectives since they cannot find compelling Black communication theories. This situation creates confusion in the communication field.
A sizeable number of communication theories, which have roots in Euro-American tradition and culture only, exists in literature. For instance, JĆ¼rgen Habermasā Public Sphere theory emanated from his observation of Europeans using cafeteria, coffee shops, and saloons to discuss political issues affecting the government of their countries. Agenda Setting Theory by McCombs and Shaw was derived from the study carried out by voter sampling in the USA in the 1930s. Cultivation Theory by George Gerbner originated after the 1950s when television was having an impact on the daily lives of people in the United States and people were cultivating violence and other attributes from it. The same can be said of the Internet and Computer Mediated Communication Theory that is beginning to take shape with the influence of computer communication. But most of these theories are alien to the Black community communication experiences. There are a plethora of forms of communicative attitudes and behaviors rooted within the Black experience on the continent and abroad that need theorization and that is the focus of this book.
I am always reminded of my PhD defense on the influence of Internet discourse in constructing the Black immigrant public sphere. One of my chief examiners kept hammering on the fact that I used a European theory, Habermasā Public Sphere to discuss Black communicative experience on the Internet. He wondered why I did not use a Black communication theory. And my answer was simple: I have researched literature and have not come across any appropriate Black communication theory necessary for me to examine and validate my research questions. I was able to go through that debacle by being forced to include it as a limitation in my dissertation. And I did. Now is the time to resolve that limitation. We need a book of this nature so that the next generation of Black communication scholars have readily available theoretical frameworks rooted in their culture and experience to test in their research.
Several articles have appeared in journals and some book chapters on and about Black communication theories. For instance, Owusu-Frempong (2005), uses the Afrocentricity theoretical sign post to study the festival ceremony in Africa. He argues that it helps readers understand the cultural symbolisms of the rituals and customs in Africa. But he does not elaborate if this can be functional in carrying out similar study with Blacks in the Diaspora. Kelley (2002) theorizes on what she terms āGood Speechā as a conduit that propels the discourse of African Americans in political debates with their rival white counterparts in the United States . The element of this good speech also has roots in Africa though she limits her analysis to African Americans only. Martin et al. (2011) posit in their article that their āstudy investigates conversational strategies used by African Americans to communicate with European Americansā (p. 1). Moore and Toliver (2010) conducted a focus group in a predominantly white university campus to find out communicative patterns between Black professors and Black students. Bassey (2007) and Molefi Asante (1987) have described differing communication dynamics within the Black community and beyond. But they have not described a communicative pattern that is typically Black, rooted in the African continent be it during group communication setting.
Afrocentricity has been widely acclaimed as the theory for African or Black studies. But it is not typically a communication theory per se. It does not address the contours of interpersonal/intercultural, mass, and group communication dynamics between and among Blacks in Africa and abroad. Black people the world over may have the different pigmentation and their communicative skills have been influenced by Euro-American communicative techniques. Maybe the modern communication characteristics have infiltrated in-group communication within the Black community. It is these tendencies that we seek to examine and describe in this book. African slave trade and colonization brought with it assimilationist tendencies that dealt a serious blow on the cognition of most Blacks on the continent and abroad. As a result, their inter-personal as well as in-group dialogic communication witnessed dramatic shifts. This shift differed from region to region. The Gullah lang...