Jean Marie Haluska
African Art History
Nkiru Nzegwu
March 6, 1999

The binary opposition is ubiquitous in theology and philosophy. It seems to be the logic that underscores most statements that are considered profound. How often have we heard such statements like, “no mindedness is using the whole mind” (48) or “it grasps nothing but it refuses nothing” (47)? It would seem that these statements use contradiction to describe something that is beyond words. However, this content is not beyond words: it is beyond the logic that underscores our words. It is beyond the binary opposition. For example, let’s look at a statement, “when it is nowhere attached it is everywhere” (49). If this is true we should understand that there is something wrong with the initial construction of these terms in opposition. Stated differently, the “yin” and the “yang” are not inherently profound, but their relationship to one another may be.

We create oppositions as we process our experiences. Often, when we think, we process our thoughts using a fundamental logic of the binary structure. We “plug” experiences into a pre-existing mold that has binary logic. This logic, simply stated, is the logic of black and white. It is the structure of two opposite poles in a spectrum. This bias has great philosophical implications. Oppositions follow a one-to-one correspondence of negation. When opposites are taken as a whole they “cancel each other out.”

Binary thought is embedded in western languages; therefore, it underscores a huge amount of western discourse. This type of logic is dangerous for artists because of the categories it produces. Sokari Douglas-Camp’s art and the art of the Ibo people have been re-contextualized to the detriment of their work. Their art has been miss-understood because of a limited understanding of the category traditional. To expose the binary nature of “tradition” I use examples of Polish history, the veil, and the subversive art of Enwonwu and Dike. Finally I will introduce a new understanding of tradition, which is based in Yoruba philosophy. My references to Yoruba thought come from the ideas articulated by Olabiyi BabololaYai in his article "In Praise of Metonymy”.

The western conception of “tradition” emerged from an underlying binary philosophy and the Yoruba definition was born from a non- centered world sense. The Yoruba tradition implies free innovation whereas western tradition encapsulates creative expression through a referential world. The term “tradition” itself signifies a referent in the west. It is an abstract summation of the western artistic achievements of the past, which serves as criterion upon which all new art is judged. This way of thinking imbues art with static essences and facilitates the construction of stereotypes, which translates into racism given a global context. I will try to show that the Yoruba mode could never limit art and people in this way since its paradigm has no referent. Yoruba conception of reality is radically different. It stresses departure rather than similarity. All of these ideas will be exemplified and clearly articulated in the pages to follow.

Sokari Douglas-Camp
The danger of the analysis of so-called “third world” art by “first world” art historians becomes apparent when one considers how “first world” art historians categorizes “third world” artists. Colonialism sets-up a racist framework that lumps all art done by those that are not European or Americans together. People from vastly different cultures and from completely different time periods are grouped as a homogenous whole. When someone mistakenly identifies a Dominican as a Puerto Rican he or she has grouped many different people as “other.” Something similar has happened to Sokari Douglas-Camp. Her works The Ali aru Festival Boast with Masquerade- and Clapping Girl were exhibited at the Natural History Museum in NYC last year. She was inaccurately grouped as “other.” Douglas-Camp is an artist of international renown. Her work should be shown in reputable galleries and art museums, not in natural history museums so that her work can be compared to what is deemed traditional or "primitive." In the context of natural history museum her art becomes an artifact.

New York’s natural history museum does more than remind us of the exploitation of numerous cultures: it is a catalog of crime. The worldly treasures housed in the museum are artifacts of the colonial era; they prove that cultural genocide prevailed. Actually, at the turn of the century Inuit were put on display! They died within the museum walls! When Sokari's work was placed in this index the fundamental discriminatory logic of the curatorial staff and the wider culture was exposed. Apparently, Sokari is “ethnic” to most Americans. And she is only accepted as "ethnic" if she connects her art with popular notions of what traditional African art should be. The pre-conceived notion of traditional art has a static and unchanging essence of savagery. To the general populous, this savagery is most notably embodied in masks, which are viewed as symbols of evil paganism. These criteria are, of course, linked to a completely false construction of Africa and Africans; yet, they are the ideas upon which Douglas- Camp’s work is legitimized. The very positioning of her contemporary art within a natural history museum, is material "proof" of the west’s categorization of Africa’s contemporary art within a racist paradigm of binaryism.

The notion of Africa as "primitive" is embedded in the minds of most Americans. This notion is part of the conceptual framework upon which western museums are constructed. The racism of colonialism is clearest when one realizes westerners have created their own identities in contrast to the- backward, female, seductive, and exotic "other.” We, in the US, are the good, intelligent, progressive people, and the "primitives" are our foils. One can not miss this principle of categorization in western museums. It is physically embodied by the segregation of the “primitives” via a false notion of race. Western racist expectations become reality when they are constructed through each identification card of each object in each exhibition of our racial other.

Would any curator dream of showing Matisse or Picasso's work in the Museum of Natural History? Both of these European "masters" painted directly from African sculptures. Their works might be appropriately linked to an exhibition of African art. Sokari’s work is motorized sculpture; which, is normally thought to be in the contemporary genera of conceptual art. It is true that Sokari’s work deals with Kalabari masquerades; however, western artists have painted from the bible for hundreds of years. When western artists derive inspiration from their cultural events they are applauded, but when “non-western” artists derive inspiration from cultural events they are labeled illegitimate. Colonialism confers a double standard. Penetration is the right of the colonial power, but counter-penetration is deemed un-thinkable for the other. Picasso can blatantly steal the form of an African sculpture but the modernity of Sokari’s art will not be recognized.

Igbo
Not only has the inappropriate categorization and exposition of Sokari's work jeopardized its interpretation; western analysis combined with ethnocentrism has failed to properly record the first installations! Installations are an integral part of contemporary western art. Stanley Okoye believes that the modern era, according to the western definition of modernity, was first manifest in the installation to the deity of Anyanwu in southeastern Nigeria before the turn of the century.

The Igbo people imaginatively created a "found object" installation out of imported Schnapps’ bottles stacked around a tree. The cylindrical mass of stacked bottles bent and channeled the light making it shimmer. Colored luminosity created the presence of Anyanwu, a deity believed to be manifest in sunlight. This piece should not be interpreted solely as a spiritual phenomenon. Neither should it be considered as just creative recycling. …However sometimes I wonder if recycling is the extent of many western installations.... The “Schnapps’ bottle installation” is not just a shrine, it is also a political commentary "on the power of industrialized production- to standardize and replicate taste" (Okoye, 615). Since Schnapps’ is a European product, Schnapps bottles were believed to embody the colonial force. Therefore, the Igbo radically reversed the signification of the bottles by using them to honor their own spiritual deities. This empowering action made the "English... no longer [more] crucial to [aesthetic] power's multiplication than" the Igbo (Okoye, 615).

If you are skeptical about the political commentary of this work of art my social commentary should convince you. At the turn of the century, only the very wealthy Igbo could afford to drink enough alcohol to get drunk. Therefore, a bacchanalian swagger through the streets was not only acceptable; it was a sign of a high social standing. Given this information, it is easy to understand that a huge pile of Schnapps’ bottles symbolizes the power and wealth of the consumers. So this work is spiritual, social, and political commentary that incorporates text and uses found objects.

Since westerners failed to categorize this phenomenon correctly they failed to see the revolutionary impact that this art could have had on their own artistic tradition. Fifty years later, installations became an integral part of the shift from the modern to the post-modern. Not only does European discrimination inhibit cultural diffusion; the faulty categorization facilitated by colonialism created and still creates a faulty and all-powerful cannon that inhibits this phenomenon from surfacing. It effectively erases the installation from history! Therefore, hegemony is created that excludes everything that is not part of European expectations. Sadly, this conceptual force structures our lives even though it is fraught with fallacy and exclusion.

Poland (1945-1989)
The most “traditional” institutions and behaviors can become subversive. The Catholic Church is the epitome of a traditional institution in the United States. It is an extremely limiting and dogmatic establishment, which imposes its guilt-laden morality on its constituents. This ultimately effects the rest of the populace through its political power since it is a massive force in the production of “secular” laws. Of course, the Catholic Church has even greater power in Europe, its “birthplace.” For example, in Poland the Church had more power than the communists during the cold war. The Poles were and still are such devout Catholics that the communists could not dismantle the Church in Poland as they did in other countries without massive uprisings. Therefore, the Church remained in power and it became the venue for rebels and political dissidents. A space, which once embodied a dogmatic and megalithic ideology, ironically, became the site of a grassroots rebellion. The old becomes new. The traditional becomes subversive. Again, Polish feudal and humanistic architecture became the venue for the birth and dissemination of ideas of a "liberating" capitalism. Maybe this situation should not be ironic. Maybe, this reversal of the notion of tradition points to the limitation of the initial notion of traditional. This situation might be understood as a natural growth in the eternal motion of history if we didn't classify and categorize so rigidly in a paradigm of centrality. Maybe, the praise of the "ironic" by the "postmodern" is an irony created for its own humor.

Algerian War (1951-1962)
An example of the political reversal of traditional art on the continent of Africa is understood through the veiling of the Muslim women in Algeria. The traditional dress, the haik, was used to carry weapons past the controls of the French military to the liberation forces during the Algerian war. Again, the traditional becomes a camouflage for subversion. The French were duped because they did not consider the Algerian women to be intelligent, brave, or even politically aware enough to help fight for freedom. Interestingly, the French were so stubborn in this ethnocentrism that the Muslim women were able to fool them twice! "In a later phase the militants reversed the tactic of veiling and were able to carry bombs through check points by unveiling and dressing as chic Europeans, a strategy that succeeded in radically inverting Orientalist stereotypes" (Macmaster, 123). Again, when politics change, the limitation of the categorization of art is apparent. The French would not have been duped if they had a more flexible notion of art and history. Their stubbornness inhibited an "open out look" or a fluid understanding of peoples and cultures.

The Veil
The veil provides further subversion when one looks to the broader political mechanisms of colonialism. It serves a very non-traditional function by subverting and deflecting the colonial "gaze." Thus, it challenges the colonial framework through radical re-identification. One must consider some of the political history of the region to fully understand this statement. During the first stage of colonialism, the French along with the French "feminists" imposed their view of the veil on Algerian women. They professed the veil to be limiting, uncivilized and backward. Initially, Algerians assumed this European opinion during their quest for modernization. However, many Muslim women have since realized the subversive aspect of their veil. The women have become empowered through deflecting the objectifying western gaze. This voyeuristic gaze is recorded in numerous travel logs of Europeans during the beginning of the colonial era. To cater to this voyeurism, Lady Mary Montegue, "penetrated" the harem and temporarily fulfilled the desires of a few western men, only to heighten the societal obsession that European men have developed for illicit contact with "exotic," "sensuous," Muslim, eastern and southern women. Since, the visual interrogation of the "gaze" is a manifestation of European othering; the veil serves daily subversion as well as Algerian subterfuge. (Yeglinoglu)

Ndidi Dike & Benedict Enwonwu
Dike (pronounced dee kay) does not need to transform the meaning of the traditional in order to make a subversive political commentary. Her very existence is subversive as a female artist. On the most superficial level this is understood through her use of typically "male" power tools, like the chain saw. Dike challenges sexist paradigms in present day Nigeria by refusing to perform a domestic role. She offends an even greater segment of society by making sculpture. In so doing, she creates new concepts demonstrating that she is not a passive receiver of popular thought. This creation gives Dike the opportunity to write women back into the history of Igbo art. Not only does Dike challenge gender and cultural roles, she uses the traditional visual language of Uli for the basis of her work.
This is a subversive move since men took over the traditional female language of Uli for their own use. Interestingly, Dike uses the subversive language of Uli in order to make art that directly challenges sexism. In this way, she "fights the battle" from multiple fronts.

The sculpture, The Sages, is a piece which is intended to wake up modern women and remind them of their innovative language, Uli, which transformed society. This should not be hard since "Igbo women have always been concerned about the equality and the preservation of their own histories and contribution to societies" even before the growth of western feminism (Nzegwu, 117). Since Uli was the political and aesthetic language of empowered women Uli was originally subversive: it subverted the power of men. For a woman to continue this tradition, she becomes subversive. Dike's Sages bulge with the unrecorded story of the appropriation of Uli that is a pre-requisite for a more holistic conception of Igbo history. In order to understand this sort of appropriation one must consider the politics of colonialism. Colonialism created a commodity market for art and placed the men at its pinnacle. Since the entire western world-sense was forced upon the Igbo, sexism grew and flourished. It was natural, in this context, for men to be the first who were trained (or re-trained) in art. This new male empowerment catered to Igbo men's chauvinistic impulses. Therefore, men used their new power to appropriate Uli, which effectively destroyed the female language's meaning. Men used Uli for the inspiration of their abstract, sometimes, non-representational paintings. They transformed Uli into a "formal aesthetic goal" rather than an effective means of creative communication (Nzegwu, 113). When an artist takes a letter from an alphabet and obscures it into abstraction, he is no longer using the letter to signify something through language: it becomes the sole character in a new language.

Men’s transformation of Uli was dangerous for women because it silenced more than just their political voice through art. Uli is the embodiment of ideas. It is change incarnate. Therefore, when the creation of Uli was stopped men truncated women’s political existence. Women no longer were transformative agents of social change. However, we see this transformative quality of Uli in Dikes work: Cloth from the Apprentice's Weaver's Loom. Dike personally underwent transformation through her introspective aesthetic study of Igbo women. She identified weaving as a basis for Igbo women’s empowerment, while concentrating on the principle of transformation through analysis of the apprentice’s process of maturation. Dike's use of Uli in the "traditional" spirit of social commentary is subversive because it regains all that was lost. She subversively returns to a tradition of subversion. (Nzegwu, 105-134).

Art has agency. It causes political change. It is not only the language of change or the focus for the battle cries of the suppressed. Like Uli, Enwonwu's art possesses another dimension of influence. Enwonwu's sculpture of Queen Elizabeth positioned a subversive metaphysical intention directly into the seat of power of the leaders of the colonial British Empire. From a racist paradigm of the west, Enwonwu's action might be likened to a "curse" placed on the British for the righteous liberation of peoples of Nigeria. This intention becomes even more beautiful when one realizes that the British were completely ignorant of Enwonwu's role in the destruction of their empire.

From a superficial analysis a Nigerian might say that Enwonwu was a traitor to his people by allowing himself to become the official artistic representative of Nigeria and honored member of a British art association. One could mistake him for being complicit with imperialism and thus gaining from the suppression of his people. Ironically, the British thought of Enwonwu as a protege since he continued in the "European" tradition of realism. They did not understand that his traditional upbringing gave him a different conception of art. Art has a different significance for Enwonwu; it is imbued with spiritual power. Considering this, it is curious that he used realism the realistic style for the portrait of Queen Elizabeth. Furthermore, is realism really "traditional" for Enwonwu? The art of his surroundings may very well have been semi-abstract. Maybe, the genre of realism is revolutionary for an artist whose immediate context is abstraction. I have chosen the abstract slide printed here to show you that Enwonwu is capable of much more than strict representation. Therefore, we should conclude that his representation was intentional. In effect he was paid and thanked to “curse” the queen in her own aesthetic idiom.

Realism is revolutionary in Enwonwu's case for many other reasons. Representation confers an objectifying gaze upon its subjects and makes them objects. The artist is the central unseen figure, the omniscient creator, who creates work that is thought not to be biased; it is thought to be objectively real. Realism was and is an objectifying paradigm. By painting the queen he objectified her! Enwonwu returned the gaze of Europe back on to itself. He created a work of art with subversive content that reversed the objectification of colonialism.

In order to understand the severity of these charges, one must also consider the symbolism and the power that the royal visage. Royal portraits were stamped on currency used in daily life by colonial subjects. The royalty are integral to the British identity. They are a symbol of colonialism. To take creative license with this British symbol is a completely subversive action of counter-penetration. Enwonwu "boldly inscribed an African aesthetic ideal of womanhood on the Queen" by giving her larger lips (Nzegwu III). Ironically, the queen consummated Enwonwu's subversion by sitting for him personally! And later- she silenced the press who tried to make her Africanized portrait controversial! She sanctioned her own loss of power through her conscious acceptance of the subconsciously subversive portrait. (Nzegwu, www article).

Yoruba Thought
The Yoruba society birthed a profound aesthetic theory that is radically different from western constructions. It is so different from anything that we know that one must have a very open mind in order to grasp it. One must try to put aside their biases as well as realize that many things that we take for granted can be radically different. Fortunately, the Yoruba aesthetic ideas that will be discussed here are somewhat simple. However, they are so different, that if you are western or speak English you will need many examples from different contexts to get a glimpse of the profound cultural logic of the Yoruba. Luckily, this aesthetic is fundamental; so, examples abound. I will write about the conceptions of itinerants, language, diaspora, and the use of Alada as well as more direct aesthetic philosophical discourse.

The essence of art is seen as universal biurification. An artist creates works that are constant departures from pre-existing works. No bodies of work can accumulate to serve as a referent for future work because the artist is always departing. The process of creation is so consuming that there is no time to develop an analysis of past work and there is no reason to because work that is not departure is not interesting. The artist’s focus is continually on what they are creating. When the work is finished, it is finished, and the artist proceeds with a new concept. The work is not necessarily related to the past because it does not seek legitimacy from the past. This is very important because in the west there are always referents that define the present in terms of the past. The very meaning of the word “tradition” embodies this statement. A tradition is the abstract summation of specific prior achievements. In the west the artistic tradition is often viewed as a “rule” for an artist to “break.” If the artist “breaks the rules” then that rebellious work will become the new rule for future artists. Ironically, western people praise art as part of an “open tradition” since its aim is to continually break the rules. I maintain that the art world can not be “open” precisely because of those rules. There is a set pattern to this movement. The rebellious always becomes the traditional. The center continually expands at its periphery. The periphery is defined and bound to its center. There is no way to break this is linear progression of meaning. There is no art in the west that is not defined or categorized by the center or the tradition of work that came before.

However the Yoruba model is not centered. There is no center or periphery because the conception of tradition is not the same. No central position has been defined. No categories have been created as cannon. Since the artist constantly departs the periphery and the center are not defined as such. No binary logic existed in Yorubaland in order to create the polar conceptions of center and periphery . This is liberating since it allows a space for things that are not so easily categorized. Phenomenon are not necessarily defined by there others. Phenomenon are not “cancelled out” by their other when some views both in tandem. So non-binary phenomenon do not inherently define and limit reality. A being is free to construct its identity without the confines of past experiences. However in the west it is necessary that the concept of center define periphery because of what “center” means. Future work will always be defined by the tradition. In Yoruba land this makes no sense.

My first example to support these claims is the Yourba’s conception of the artist as itinerant. Since art is departure Yoruba artists must be in a state of psychological departure during creation. However, the artist is also thought to be in a state of physical departure as well. Yoruba artists are wanderers. They can not be permanent anywhere because their concepts are never permanent. Literally, artists are nomads. This is a very interesting phenomenon because it tells us that the mind and body were never conceptualized in the same way that they have been in the western tradition. The psychological and physical states of the Yoruba artist have always been inextricably related. It was natural for the Yoruba artists to travel because they were conceptually traveling and it was natural for the general populous to expect this because it makes sense in a world where the mind and body are not viewed as discrete. The Yoruba have never struggled with the mind vs. body dichotomy that has plagued the west since this dichotomy is a product of binary and oppositional logic.

Another example of departure is understood through the use of language among the Yoruba. Comparison of a Yoruba artist’s work to the work of a European master would be the highest compliment from a European. However, the same comment would be a great insult to a Yoruba artist. The very linguistic structure of the metaphor “Yoruba art is to Picasso” eclipses the Yoruba intention. Yoruba want to depart. European thought stresses similarity and Yoruba thought stresses dissimilarity. European art is only legitimate it if it is connected though similarity with the past, Yoruba art is legitimate if it is a departure from the past. Therefore, a lineage is constructed in the European tradition, and no lineages are constructed in the Yoruba tradition. The European model implies goal-oriented thinking whereas Yoruba thought is capable of movement towards a variety of goals simultaneously. In this way, constant departure allows for alternate ways of thinking.

However the focus on departure does not imply that there is no conception of similarity. Yoruba have a different conception of sameness. Similarity is understood as a “family resemblance” not as a “one to one correspondence.” Therefore, family resemblance creates linkages while allowing for critical differences. Since constant departure continually re-negotiates the present psychological state of a Yoruba, connections of Yoruba “family resemblelences” are constantly changing. Fundamentally, the Yoruba focus on departure comes from a profound understanding of flux. Nothing is ever static the can be no one-to-one correspondence of anything to anything else because everything is continually changing. The conception of similarity that follows a one-to-one correspondence denies flux. In order for one thing to be mapped onto another both must be static. The control must stay the same since it functions as a referent and the entity under question must also stay the same long enough to be analyzed. In the western art world the referent or the tradition is static and the avant-guard work is new and moving.

Since Yoruba do not concentrate on similarity as a criterion for categorization, Yoruba conceptualize identities in a different manner. Differences among people are expected; so, no notion of “other” has been defined in Yorubaland. Nationalistic distinctions are not made. All the people of the world are living in "lands of Ife"(Yai 113). Since Yoruba do not separate themselves so markedly from “others” the binary opposition of self vs. other is artificial. Discrimination and racism make no sense to Yoruba. This is obvious when we study the Yoruba conception of diaspora.

Diasporic expansion is considered positive and natural; whereas, diasporic movement has been historically lamented by the Jews as a product of injustice. One need not stray any farther than the Wailing Wall for physical proof of this Jewish lament. The destruction of the temple was an affront to Jewish homogeneity, which will never be repaired, forgiven or forgotten. In fact, all the synagogues that have been built for the past 2,000 years have been left partially incomplete to symbolize the destruction of the temple by the gentiles. The Jews define themselves through this loss. Incompleteness typifies the Jewish identity since the Jewish think in terms of filial roots. This notion of “being rooted” comes from a static conception of the past . The Jewish identity becomes fixed in a way that Yoruba identity is not since no claims to filial roots are made. The Yoruba have no conception “of individuals, lineages, or races beyond their original cradle" because there is no original cradle (Yai, 108). Furthermore, the diasporic experience is not negative. It is positive. Any work done by a Yoruba in a “foreign" land is considered to be an asset and honorable achievement to the Yoruba. There is no sense of betrayal in this construction since there is no foreign corruption (idea, mine).

A historical example of the success of Yoruba philosophy is understood through the widespread use of the Yoruba language in West Africa. The Alada as well as many other societies in western Africa used Yoruba for trade during the times of western colonial expansion. When the colonialists encountered Alada speaking Yoruba they were completely confused. They could not understand how the Alada came to speak Yoruba without the Yoruba forcing the change. This underscores the differences between Yoruba and European paradigms. Since Yoruba thought concentrates on the acceptance of differences, the expansion of languages seems logical. Yoruba thought facilitates cultural borrowings because of its concentration on departure. If the Alada have similar conceptions it seems logical that they would embrace Yoruba freely. I am sure that the European colonialists did not expect that a radically different cultural logic created this phenomenon. They could not have understood constant departure and the multiculturalism that it engenders, because their word-sense concentrated on conquering or “canceling out” their other.

The categories that seem natural from a binary perspective have not and could not be created by the Yoruba. Yoruba conceptions of language, history, and art point to a paradigm that stresses departure rather than the binarism. The western problem of peripheral, excluded art becoming the new standard is not an issue. Art is not encapsulated via a referential world. Referential, categorical thought creates static essences. Without static essences there can be no construction of stereotypes that trap people and things with artificial identities and meanings. In this way discrimination and racism is not possible. The western hegemonic world-order of binary-logic creates a static notion of tradition. It is this limited understanding of tradition that has expedited the French lost the Algerian war and the British lost of Nigeria as a colony. Western logic has miss-categorized the work of Sokari Douglas-Camp and it has erased Igbo history. The work of Enwonwu and Dike subvert the colonial legacy.

Further Thoughts
The structure of this paper is ironic. It conforms to the very western mode of hegemonic, categorical thought that it seeks to critique. My construction of the western vs. Yoruba definitions of tradition itself uses binary logic. If you scan the structure of the third paragraph of this essay you will see a blatant binary structure. The western is limited and non-western is unlimited. The terms that I used in the above sentence are also binary! The very term “not-western” is oppositional. This is a problem. If you try to speak for a short while without using word “other” or any other negating terms you will realize how fundamental the binary opposition is in English. It patterns the way that we think. English is structured upon oppositional thought. Meyda Yeglenoglu agrees with this statement. She maintains that it is difficult if not impossible to speak of the injustices of "othering" without continuing the binary structure that causes othering. These objections are great problems to people who are margenalized as well as those who do not want to continue margenilization.

However, there is a catch, the goal to “escape” binarism is itself a binary goal. To “escape” is the conscious effort to do something different from what has been done in the past. To “escape” is the desire to “break the rules.” Escaping necessitates a reference, because one must escape from something. The new category created by the desire to escape is “binarism” itself. “Binarism” is the category that groups concepts based on similarity (goal-oriented thought, central-peripheral thought, filial roots). Binarism is the new reference. To escape binarism is the conscious effort to break from this newly constructed category. In so doing I re-affirms that category and define my present position in terms of it as its opposite. Therefore, by trying to escape from the western logic I inadvertently create another binary opposition and support western logic. So what is the solution? Shall I surrender to the binary opposition because I can not possibly escape from it? No, the problem lies in the pursuit of a solution- the pursuit of a “way out” or an escape.

The problems with communicating these ideas do not effect the ideas themselves. Departure is still a viable mode for structuring reality. There is a subtlety in language that can be exploited to show the non-direct association of western and Yoruba thought. Let us analyze the phrases, “western philosophy is centered and Yourba philosophy has never had a center. The phrase, “Yoruba philosophy is non-centered” would follow a one-to-one structure of negation, however, what has been written is, “Yoruba thought has never had a center.” There is a critical difference. The process of de-centering is an oppositional process; the phenomenon of never being centered does not go through an oppositional process.

If colonialism is to have an end people need to incorporate departure into their lives. This would necessitate radical social change. People would need to structure their thoughts differently. Edouard Glissant thinks that it is possible to do this at the level of a language. Apparently oral languages circumvent binarism. The “grammatical structure of … the Creole language, consists in always being open, …perhaps (because it has) never become fixed except [in] accord (ance) to systems of variables, that we have to imagine as much as define” (Glissant, 34). Meanings and uses in Creole languages are constantly being redefined because there is no rigid grammatical structure that keeps it tied to the past. Maybe we can develop a grammar of departure. Slides (chronologically ordered, then read left to right)