Afrocentrism as a postcolonial approach to understanding migration

Afrocentricity, borders, colonialism, epistemic justice, migration

In this piece, the PolMig research team challenges Western‑centric migration theories by turning to Afrocentrism as a decolonial way of knowing. Against rising border securitisation and anti‑migrant politics, they expose how colonial borders and racialised hierarchies still shape mobility, citizenship and belonging. By centring African worldviews, they argue that migration emerges not as a crisis to control but rather as a deeply-rooted social process. The discussion traces enduring colonial legacies, and introduces an Afrotheoretical focus as a conceptual and methodological lens for rethinking migration, agency and political life in Africa.

PolMig: The Political Lives of Migrants: Perspectives from Africa

The PolMig project consists of a core five-person team: the principal investigator (Dr Franzisca Zanker), two post-doctoral researchers (Dr Jamila Hamidu and Edwin Mutyenyoka) as well as one PhD student (Sophia Stille). A research assistant supports them (Constantin Herburger). The PolMig team will work with co-researchers in Malawi, Kenya, Liberia and Ghana. An advisory board of eight academic and non-academic experts on refugee and migration research advises them.

Franzisca Zanker

Principal Investigator

Franzisca Zanker is the Deputy Director of the Arnold Bergstraesser Institute (ABI) in Freiburg, Germany, where she also heads the research cluster on “Patterns of (Forced) Migration.” Prior to that, she worked at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies Institute in Hamburg and has a PhD in political science from the University of Tübingen. She is the co-founder of the AEGIS Collaborative Research Group on ‘African Migration, Mobility and Displacement’ (AMMODI). Her research interests include migration and refugee governance, peacebuilding and civil society and she has carried out research in Liberia, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and The Gambia. In her spare time, Franzisca likes to get lost in a good book, cook with friends in cosy kitchens and play Lego with her kids.

Jamila Hamidu

Postdoctoral Researcher

Jamila Hamidu is a post-doctoral researcher at the Arnold Bergstraesser Institute (ABI) in Freiburg, Germany, currently working in the PolMig project. Jamila holds a Ph.D. in Political Sciences from the University of Bordeaux. Before joining the team at ABI, Jamila was a post-doctoral research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity in Göttingen, Germany. Her research topic at Max Planck Institute in Göttingen focused on climate displacement and diversification of settlement in urban and peri-urban areas in West Africa. She was a lecturer and researcher for a number of years in various French Universities namely: SciencesPo Bordeaux, Université de Poitiers, Université Bordeaux Montaigne. Her work in France focused on the political participation of African migrants (Ghanaian and Senegalese) in France and England. She has conducted fieldwork in Europe and Africa namely in England, France, Ghana, Cote D’Ivoire, Togo, Senegal and The Gambia. Jamila is a lover of nature, going for hikes and gardening, but also loves cooking and music. She practices African and Latin dance.

Edwin Mutyenyoka

Postdoctoral Researcher

Edwin Mutyenyoka is a Post-Doctoral Researcher in the PolMig research project at the Arnold Bergstraesser Institute (ABI). His PhD from the Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS) at Osnabrück University, Germany, examined South-South migration and inequalities in post-colonial African contexts, particularly during crises. Using an in-depth case study of a South African township, his work provided a spatially, culturally, and temporally nuanced analysis of social protection access and utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Committed to decolonizing knowledge production, Edwin embraces Afrocentric methodologies which emphasize cultural immersion, the indigenization of research tools, and the interpretation of data through an indigenous African lens. Beyond academia, Edwin is a passionate sports enthusiast who enjoys playing, watching, and discussing basketball and football.

Sophia Stille

Doctoral Researcher

Sophia Stille is the PhD student on the PolMig Project. She holds a BA in International Relations from the University of Groningen and an MA in Migration Studies from the University of Copenhagen. Passionate about research, she has worked in various roles including as a research fellow on the “Slavery and Forced Migration in Western Mali (SLAFMIG)” project at the University of Copenhagen and as a programme assistant for the Mixed Migration Centre’s West and North Africa Office. Sophia is interested in the interplay of migration policies, migrant trajectories & decision-making – and how they affect one another, especially on the African continent. After a work day behind the computer, Sophia enjoys going to a good concert, drifting away on her yoga mat, hosting board game nights with friends or once in a while a night of dancing.

Available in English: Afrocentrism as a Postcolonial Approach to Understanding Migration

ABSTRACT

In this piece, we – members of the PolMig research project on migration and political agency in Africa – discuss Afrocentrism as a postcolonial epistemic approach to migration studies. Against a backdrop of rising border securitisation, anti‑migrant sentiments and restrictive policies, we argue that current migration theories and policies remain dominated by Western paradigms and fail to undo the legacies of colonial borders, racialised hierarchies of mobility, and the politicisation of citizenship, identity and belonging. By centring African worldviews and decolonised ways of knowing, we show how an Afrocentric lens reframes migration not as a problem to be managed but rather as an integral social process. Afro-theoretical perspectives, we contend, enable a critical understanding of mobility and migration in Africa within their proper historical, political and cultural contexts. We interrogate Afrocentricity as an epistemic variant of decolonial scholarship. We ask: should migration theorisation and policy be centred or recentred in Africa or decentred from Europe– and is this even possible? Further, how does Pan-Africanism, as an anti-colonial and Afro-solidarity ideology, manifest and interact with migration-mobility regimes in post-colonial Africa? The conversation begins by outlining persistent colonial legacies, before explaining Afrocentricity as a conceptual and methodological tool for understanding migration, agency and belonging.

In recent years border security and technologies have been on the rise, alongside violent deportations and anti-migrant backlash. However, movement and migration – both the voluntary, long-planned kind and the rushed, involuntary type, although in reality the situation often falls somewhere between the two – are as old as the history of humanity. Migration itself is not the problem; the issue is responses to it. Further, when we think of (forced) migration today, in Africa as well as across the globe, we cannot untangle these movements of people from the colonial inheritance of borders that cut across communities, white supremacist ideals that dictate who can move in what ways, and the very ideas of citizenships and belonging – the right to have rights.

In many cases migration is a result of violence, and migrants can remain affected by conflict or their movements can result in new violence. Indeed, migration policies increasingly result in state violence. Countless issues like climate-induced displacements, land conflicts or socio-economic tensions cannot be properly studied without looking at the role of migration therein. As we discuss in this conversation, migration theories that aim to explain human mobility have historically been dominated by Western constructions and worldviews. Thus, we contend that in order to fully understand migration in Africa – and arguably also elsewhere – in terms of its potentials and policies, research should embrace African and decolonised ways of knowing. We start by taking stock of the colonial legacies that still exist today, before moving on to the concept of Afrocentricity.

Does colonialism even matter for contemporary migration policies? In other words, when we look at migration on the continent and related conflicts, do colonial legacies still have an impact on migration control? In what ways do they affect migration policies in African countries today?

Edwin: The relations between cross-border human mobility and sovereign territory in Africa have been and remain profoundly altered by colonialism. Colonialism and particularly the Partitioning of Africa at the Berlin Conference in 1884 are not just background factors; they are the historical and socio-political lens through which migration (with)in post-colonial Africa should be studied and managed. As a result of the Berlin Conference, different ethnic groups with distinct territories, identities, languages, relationships and rivalries were suddenly bundled together inside an arbitrary line on the ground (a border), while other communities were split apart (e.g. the Maasai across Kenya and Tanzania, the Somali across Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia, the Fulanis in West Africa). For example, pastoral Fulanis continue to roam across West Africa, primarily using ‘people’s border crossings’ to subvert colonial borders maintained by post-colonial states.

Against this backdrop, Africa as we know it today should be seen as an artificial entity whose borders were drawn by Europeans in distant capitals, with no regard for the pre-existing socio-political, cultural and economic landscapes of the African peoples. Equally, management (rather than ‘control’) and policing of migration, mobility, conflicts, identity and belonging on the continent requires sincere acknowledgement and consideration of this historical context.

Sophia: Also, we need to be aware of the harsh realities that borders – a foundational colonial legacy – continue to create on the ground to this day. Border regimes around the world have become tougher and more exclusionary in recent decades. This is not only the case at the external borders of the EU or the US, but also at many African borders. It relates to the externalisation interests of European countries to limit migration from Africa to Europe through border policies outside of Europe, but also to xenophobic policies targeting immigrants, such as in South Africa.

As Edwin mentioned, most official state borders on the African continent today were drawn by European leaders more than 140 years ago. Nowadays migration analysts observe more securitisation and militarisation at borders, which are often framed within a discourse of the alleged protection of citizens or a state of emergency. We need to be aware that these are not neutral processes, but that they developed in specific historical contexts of oppression, power imbalances and a hierarchisation of the dignity of lives. The political theorist Achille Mbembe (2003) termed this ‘necropolitics’ – the determination of whose lives are worth protecting and whose lives remain invisibilised. What this boils down to is that countries can both be affected by ongoing injustices relating back to colonial relationships – such as in visa policies, for example – and at the same time may adopt exclusionary policies themselves.

Franzisca: Interestingly the African Refugee Convention, developed by the then Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1969, was a response to the liberation movements pursuing independence from colonial rule at that time. This means that there was a politically strong openness towards refugees, resulting in one of the most expansive forms of refugee protection until this day. At the same time, however, the newly-independent nations were acutely aware of protecting their own sovereignty, and thus there is a ‘subversion clause’ in the refugee convention stating that refugees shall ‘abstain from any subversive activities against any Member State of the OAU’. This was about interstate relations, but it can be used to this day to repress the right of expression, assembly or association of individual post-independence refugees. In summary, the process of formal decolonisation resulted in a legal clause that still constrains the political agency of refugees today!

Jamila: There are many factors connecting to conflict, migration and colonial legacy. In other words, are we talking about British, French and Portuguese colonial legacies? Was the decolonial process ‘smooth’, or was it uneven and conflicted? Was the umbilical cord cut between the colonial powers and their former colonies, or was it only a ceremonial tie that was severed? Are the colonial powers still very much involved in the running of countries’ affairs, either directly or indirectly? For example, the recent coups d’état and some political conflicts witnessed in West African countries such as Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, which have led to mass displacement and migration within the region, have been in part attributed to the colonial legacies of France’s interference in the politics and economic affairs of their former colonies. Also, to some extent Portuguese interference in Lusophone countries, mainly for natural resources, also involves layers of colonial and postcolonial entitlement.

The Balkanisation of African borders refers to the fragmentation of large, multi-ethnic African states during the colonial era into smaller, ethnically-based nations, mirroring the breakup of the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian empires as described by Sanni (2020). This process is cutting through Indigenous African communities to this day. A final example is the externalisation of EU borders in West Africa, which clearly demonstrates how policies such as the 2009 EU-Nigeria Joint Way Forward migration management and mobility schemes or the 2012 Cape Verde and the EU Mobility Partnership on visa facilitation and readmission were slanted to serve Western interests. In so doing, they perpetuate neo-colonial influences without taking into account the local realities on the continent.

Franzisca: States today still favour certain groups, including migrants, and reject others. At times they reproduce divisions introduced by their colonial forefathers. We can also see colonial legacies when we consider how African states are treated by international communities when it comes to negotiation, for example in repatriation agreements or other forms of cooperation. African states are expected to comply and passively accept their role in the world. Of course, they still pursue their own interests, but they need to adapt to the asymmetries in global relations in order to do so.

So the postcolonial borders are major factors that continue to play a role for African states, and colonial legacies affect state policies, continental legislation and international relations. What about individual migrants? How do colonial legacies affect citizenship and belonging, what are the differences between the two, and how is citizenship conceptualised differently in an African context?

Jamila: Colonial legacies affect citizenship and belonging through colonial languages, both in written and spoken, used in educational institutions, government structures and the legal instruments that govern a country. The difference between citizenship and belonging is that citizenship is a legal definition and recognition which both confers and takes away particular rights. Colonial legacies can take away one’s citizenship because the legal instruments guiding the associated rights are enshrined in colonial text, which often does not include Indigenous African natural laws and rights. On the other hand, belonging is rooted in community, ethnicity and linguistic affinity; in some situations it can be tied to citizenship.

In a nutshell, citizenship is strongly connected to colonial legacy, since European colonialism imposed rigid, racialised hierarchies that fundamentally redefined relationships. This means that the colonial state was a bifurcated state. Colonial administrations in most African countries, especially south of the Sahara, were built on a citizen and subject-divide: racial identity classified the white minority as citizens and the Black majority as subjects. For the Nigerian sociologist Peter Ekeh these ‘two publics’ represented a bifurcated notion of citizenship. Influenced by colonialism, then, internal divisions shaped distinctive forms of citizenship in the post-colonial era; for example, in Nigeria the issue of tribalism arose out of the dialectics between ethnic/tribal and civic/public citizenship.

Belonging is rooted in an African context, grounded in philosophies such as Ubuntu, Sankofa and Teranga that emphasise relationships with others. Belonging refers to a shared identity, which establishes one’s place in the social fabric or shared responsibilities as a community safety net, but equally in shared experiences that reinforce bonds and reaffirm belonging. Belonging can refer to a spiritual geography such as hills, rivers and trees which are often the dwellings of ancestors. These are sacred sites, and hold the collective memories and histories of people. Belonging to the land means belonging to this sacred geography.

For citizenship to be conceptualised in an African context, it should be devoid from the shackles of colonial legal framework. This means borderless, free movement and the assumption of cultural, ethnic and linguistic connections to traditional chiefdom, because African societies were organised around empires. The traditional chiefdoms played – and, in some countries, continue to play – an important role in organising and maintaining traditional and social order.

Franzisca: Your legal label has a huge effect on what you can or cannot do. Legally, refugees and other migrants are sometimes even prohibited from being politically active; this is a right only given to citizens. However, it was a European philosopher and refugee, Hannah Arendt, who asked about the very ‘right to have rights’ as a universal concept that clashes with the liberal post-war understanding of refugees. Building on this, deeper conceptualisations of belonging, specifically from an Afrocentric perspective, would help us to better understand the role that legal categorisations related to the state play in post-colonial African contexts.

Edwin: It is very unfortunate that the term ‘migrant’ itself has become a label that stigmatises those designated as such. Categorisations (citizen/non-citizen, national/non-national, legal/illegal, deserving/undeserving) are not neutral. They are powerful, often state-driven bureaucratic tools that in many post-colonial contexts perpetuate colonial logics of ‘bordering, ordering and othering’ and the ensuing politicisation of processes of identity and belonging. For non-citizens, sub-categories and legal statuses (migrant, refugee, stateless) in turn dictate economic, political and social rights, including residency, access to social benefits and political agency. Such top-down categorisations, while recognised across the board, frequently fail to capture the fluid realities of human movement and the role of the colonial legacy in identity formation, social (dis)cohesion and (non)belonging in post-colonial nation-states. In order to better understand the relationship between colonialism and citizenship in post-colonial African states, the historical and socio-political context in my response to the previous question is important. Using Afro-lenses rooted in history and culture offers us a better chance of understanding how ‘migrants’ operate both within and outside established state categories, political borders and identities, strategically utilising or circumventing them and their agency.

Ok, so we have established that colonialism continues to affect migration policies and the categorisations of people on the move, and that belonging, as an Afrocentric idea – though similar notions may also exist in other cultures – may hold promising insights. What is Afrocentrism all about?

Sophia: Afrocentricity as a philosophical paradigm was first developed by Molefi Kete Asante in 1980. It argues that Africans must be the centre of their own narratives, focusing on African agency and juxtaposing this against centuries of European dominance, colonial atrocities and Eurocentric knowledge production on Africa.

Jamila: I would argue that it goes back further than that. Afrocentricity as an ideology goes back to the Senegalese historian and anthropologist Cheikh Anta Diop, whose early works in the 1940s posed questions about cultural bias in scientific research, particularly postcolonial-era studies of African civilisation. In the 1960s Molefi Asante took the concept of Afrocentricity further by democratising and popularised its study in academia, in popular culture and in the fight against discrimination in the diaspora, particularly during the civil rights movements in the 1960s and on the African continent. This saw a paradigm shift that positioned Africans as subjects or agents of history, rather than as objects that are acted upon. The concept focuses on African cultural values, history and experiences as the primary lens for understanding the world, thereby correcting the Eurocentric dislocation caused by slavery and colonialism by re-centring African identity, agency and contributions in studies and life.

Edwin: Drawing on the work of critical decolonial scholars such as Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, we acknowledge multiple approaches to challenging the Eurocentric scholarship hegemony in migration research, particularly in and about the Global South. In her work Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (2020) dissects questions of decentring, centring or recentring which have emerged in the growing literature on decoloniality. Afrocentrism, as an Africa-centred variant of decolonial epistemic approaches, serves not only to question the comprehensiveness and applicability of Eurocentric models, theories, categories and concepts in understanding African realities and policies; it also centres African worldviews, constructions and ways of knowing. As a methodology, Afrocentrism pays attention to historicity, cultural immersion and the indigenisation of research tools. This approach advances research methods which acknowledge and capture historical, spatial, political and socio-cultural contexts of intra-Africa migration. Importantly, an Afrocentric research design also favours a bottom-up understanding of migrants’ own conceptualisations of their migration experiences, their practices and their identities beyond inherited state categories.

Jamila: Afrocentrism is an intellectual idea, and also a tool of empowerment. It ties back to Pan-Africanism, which in turn was conceived from a set of ideas developed by non-state African actors and the African diaspora, which aimed at pushing against the scourge of colonialism and racism. In its traditional form, Pan-Africanism is both activism and ideology. As activism, Pan-Africanism focused on the decolonisation of Africa as a practical and concrete objective, which was achieved after South Africa became free from the grip of apartheid. As an ideology, Pan-Africanism strongly and emotively adopted a political, social and economic stance against imperialism, racism and the defragmentation of the history, identity and land of the African. Finally, I also want to say that Afrocentricity has an empowering purpose, i.e. recentring African episteme as a legitimate mode of studying, researching and understanding Africa through its history, culture, traditions and aesthetics.

Today, Pan-African ideals have become central in many African governments, and stand against postcolonial and neo-colonial continuity in politics, economics, and regional and international collaborations. Indeed, Pan-Africanism offers hope in a climate of strong migration controls, with governments and regional institutions bypassing pressures on curbing migration by consolidating national and regional migration policies that take African solidarity into account. Such policies acknowledge that migration is a way of life in Africa, meaning that they do not place constraints on free movement across borders from one country to another to visit family, buy merchandise and so on.

Franzisca: Although I do wonder how many countries are really pursuing an ideology of Pan-Africanism, or whether it is actually used as rhetorical window dressing.

Edwin: In a very practical sense, I also share Franzisca’s scepticism about the materiality of Pan-Africanism. Against the background of the (s)low rate of ratification of the African Union’s 2018 Free Movement of People (FMP) Protocol, migration scholars have wondered whether citizens’ (in)ability to move freely across post-colonial boundaries is the true ‘litmus test’ for Pan-Africanism. While some regional economic communities (RECs) such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) allow some form of free movement by their regional citizens, as yet there is no definitive continental legal framework. In fact, in countries such as South Africa the legislative (the 2017 and 2024 White Papers on Migration, the Refugee Act Amendments of 2008, 2011, and 2017) and policy (RROs, ZEPs) adjustments have continually limited migrants’ rights.

Across post-colonial Africa enduring socio-economic inequalities, neo-liberal government models, political scapegoating and intense competition over access to health, livelihoods and social protection have led to xenophobic vigilantism and the erosion of Pan-African ideals of Ubuntu, Ujamaa, Teranga, Sankofa and so on. In principle, Pan-African belief systems, policies and practices are said to be informed by a moral philosophy whose core values are inter-dependency, solidarity and communitarianism, especially among the fellow African down-trodden. On the contrary, however, empirical evidence based on lived experiences in many African cities, such as Johannesburg, Tunis and Tripoli, largely cast doubt on Thaddius Metz’s leading interpretation of Ubuntu. Metz (2007, p. 333) explains that Ubuntu means that ‘an action is right just insofar as it is in solidarity with groups whose survival is threatened; an act is wrong to the extent that it fails to support a vulnerable community’. Pervasive incidences of Afrophobia (Xenophobia by Africans towards fellow Africans) explain my scepticism about Pan-Africanism’s ability to facilitate deeper regional and continental integration, characterised by altruistic solidarity and free movement across the continent, not only of goods and services but also of human beings.

Jamila: I believe Pan-Africanism retains its relevance as an ideological base for the development of an institutional structure that can target the social vulnerability of African migrants in Africa. Pan-Africanism brings to the regional integration question a political response of belongingness, care and social responsibility. It is also in this spirit that African Union finds its utility and relevance.

Afrocentrism as a type of postcolonial theory sounds promising. Are there any drawbacks?

Sophia: A clear issue is the limited visibility of female scholars and Afro-feminist approaches, resulting from patriarchal structures that are also present in the fields of Afrocentric and postcolonial studies. As this is inherently connected to the colonial legacies on the continent that institutionalised patriarchal structures based on European models, Afro-feminism and decolonial studies need to be approached in a joint manner (Tamale, 2020). Afro-feminist approaches centre intersectional realities such as the factors of race, gender, class or age, and examine how multiplicities of oppression particularly affect Black women. An Afro-feminist movement emerged in the US in the 1960s and 1970s as a response to the exclusion and victimisation frequently faced by Black women in white feminist movements. Also on the African continent, however, Afro-feminist writers such as Mariama Ba in Senegal or Flora Nwapa in Nigeria published influential pieces early on. Afro-feminism seeks to create and analyse discourses that directly refer to African realities.

Jamila: It is important to remember, however, that just like any other theory or concept, Afrocentricity has faced a barrage of criticism. Opponents suggest that it excessively glorifies Africa, and depicts it as a place characterised by perennial harmonious relations. For example, critics say that class domination within traditional African societies is ignored or downplayed by Afrocentrists. This criticism that the Afrocentric paradigm lacks social class analysis implies that Afrocentrists do not include social class in their analyses, and that there is a universal concept of social class and, by extension, of power that can be applied to all groups throughout history. However, several Afrocentrists acknowledge the critical role that internal stratification plays in the oppression of people of African ancestry (Karenga, 1988). They recognise that corrupt power within any group is not good, and will undermine the collective interests of that group. As such, at least some Afrocentrists do recognise that an overemphasis on material acquisitions, and material inequality, can place people at risk not only of oppressing others but also of ineffectively fulfilling the humanity that is within them. All of this is to acknowledge that yes, Afrocentrism has pitfalls, just like any other concept.

Edwin: It is also noteworthy that some decolonial scholars are now looking at approaches such as Afrocentrism with a critical eye in the developing field of Critical Decolonial Theory (Cawood & Amiradakis, 2024; Fosu, 2025); Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018). They warn that obsession with rejecting Western ways of thinking can sometimes backfire and lead to ‘epistemic closure’. For example, Helen-Mary Cawood and Mark Jacob Amiradakis (2024) argue that in trying to define ‘African’ knowledge, Afrocentrists risk creating a new and rigid centre that all thought must now fit into. The emphasis in this critique, which we find plausible for our discussions related to the PolMig project, is against reproducing ‘the West’ or creating another centre as the primary point of reference in theorising migration. I discuss this further in my answer to the next question.

Franzisca: Having discussed Afrocentricity as a decolonial lens, we ought to ask ourselves questions about the concept of Africa itself. What is Africa? It is a continent of fifty-four countries – or is it fifty-five? How are the concepts of Africa and Afrocentricity perceived in various geospatial, class and racial contexts on the continent and beyond? With so many different peoples, languages, histories, cultures and interests, it is imperative that we are always critically questioning ourselves when we are essentialising and describing our approach to migration research as Afrocentric. In other words, we want to show commonalities and uniqueness in ways of thinking, and at the same time still highlight all the diversity therein. For a continent and a people that have been so wilfully misunderstood, it is especially important to point to the nuances and differences.

Ok, so there are some issues related to Afrocentricity. Where does that leave us in terms of its importance as a decolonial concept?

Jamila: By centring African epistemics and knowledge systems such as Sankofa, Teranga and Ubuntu when studying migrants, we can offer a paradigm shift that departs from victimhood to empowerment, and a voice for African migrants’ agency.

Sophia: We understand Afrocentricity as a re-centring of Africa in a social, economic, philosophical and political sense, but not as a counter stream to Eurocentrism. The goal is not to ‘make everything only about Africa’, but to relate Africa to the world in new, innovative ways, producing knowledge driven by African people, African epistemologies and African theories.

Edwin: Exactly! We need to acknowledge that (re)centring Africa, or any other context, is itself a perpetuation of the very universalisation, exclusion and inequality that the decolonisation project seeks to resolve. At the same time, decolonial theorists such as Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013; 2015; 2018) and Francis Nyamnjoh (2017) encourage us to produce knowledge that is multi-sited, pluralistic and, especially, inclusive of marginalised African voices, norms, values and practices, and not just to oppose the old ways (Western or otherwise) for the sake of it. Not only does this epistemic approach ‘let the subaltern speak’, as Spivak (1999) says, it also seeks to redress unjust knowledge production systems between the so-called Global South and North.

In other words, the aim is not to simply reject whatever is Western or create another centre (since centres don’t work), but rather to produce inclusive knowledge from the African ground up and then connect it to the global body of knowledge – de-centring. This approach to decoloniality finds that true freedom of thought means breaking free from the old colonial mindset entirely, rather than just flipping it around – this is re-centring.

Franzisca: Reflecting on the importance of Afrocentricity is a constant dialectic between what it brings and what it could constrain. We have spent hours discussing the problem of replacing one universality with another, as Edwin noted, or what the Afrocentrists are potentially leaving out – class, like Jamila said, or intersectional gender issues and women as topics and authors, as Sophia has pointed out. However, we keep returning to the idea because of epistemic justice, and because of its promise of new forms of knowledge production, and ultimately a better understanding of different forms of movement and displacement, as noted above, tied to the search for more peaceful societies. Where possible we use the term Afro-theoretical – to show the value of theorising from an Afrocentric position – rather than Afrocentricity, to try to disentangle our discussion from some of this critique.

Concluding remarks: Migration studies in Africa are often sidelined in the field as ‘African Studies’. This lack of African perspectives in theory-building raises questions related to knowledge production and centring ‘Africa’ in theory-building. The major works of migration scholars are rarely based on a theorisation or conceptualisation of migration on the basis of African empirical material and epistemologies. In the PolMig project we explicitly consider the political agency of migrants in, from and to Africa, not as spaces of exceptionalism outside Westphalian norms but rather to re-centre them as crucial spaces where a significant number of migrants are moving to and now reside. As a particular dimension of decolonial scholarship, Afrocentrism counteracts centuries of Eurocentric hegemony in theorising and managing migration. Through an Afrocentric lens, an alternative – but relational – understanding of migration norms, patterns, nuances and research advances just knowledge production.

PolMig is funded by the European Union (ERC, PolMig, 101161856). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

References

Cawood, H. M., & Amiradakis, M. J. (2024). Intellectual Decolonisation and the Danger of Epistemic Closure: The Need for a Critical Decolonial Theory. In Intellectual Decolonisation, edited by G. Hull, 185–200. Routledge.

Fosu, R. (2025). Towards a Critical Decolonial Turn/Theory: Beyond the Binary of the West Versus Africa. Africa Spectrum, 60(1), 69–83.

Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. (2020). Introduction: Recentering the South in Studies of Migration. Migration and Society, 3(1), 1–18.

Karenga, M. (1988). Black Studies and the Problematic of Paradigm: The Philosophical Dimension. Journal of Black Studies, 18(4), 395–414.

Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture 1 January 2003; 15 (1): 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11

Metz, T. (2007). Ubuntu as a Moral Theory: Reply to Four Critics. South African Journal of Philosophy, 26(4), 369‑387. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajpem.v26i4.31495

Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. 2013. ‘The Entrapment of Africa within the Global Colonial Matrices of Power: Eurocentrism, Coloniality, and Deimperialization in the Twenty-First Century’. Journal of Developing Societies 29 (4): 331–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X13503195.

Ndlovu‐Gatsheni, S. J. (2015). Decoloniality as the Future of Africa. History Compass, 13(10), 485–496.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. (2018). Epistemic Freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and Decolonization. Routledge.

Nyamnjoh, F. B. (2017). Incompleteness: Frontier Africa and the Currency of Conviviality. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 52(3), 253–270.

Sanni, J. S. (2020). Decolonising Borders: Re-imagining Strangeness and Spaces. Theoria, 67(163), 1-24.

Spivak, G. C. (1999). Can the subaltern speak? In A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present, by G. C. Spivak, 266–311. Harvard University Press

Tamale, Sylvia. 2020. Decolonization and Afro-Feminism. Daraja Press.

How to cite this entry:

Hamidu, J., Mutyenyoka, E., Stille, S., Zanker, F. (2026, March 16). Afrocentrism as a Postcolonial Approach to Understanding Migration. Virtual Encyclopaedia – Rewriting Peace and Conflict. BMFTR – Network Postcolonial Hierarchies in Peace and Conflict. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19128513. https://rewritingpeaceandconflict.net/afrocentrism/