Western versus African Medical Knowledge Systems

Abstract

The epistemic foundation of reality, especially Westernderived knowledge, is often por trayed as universal and, therefore, as a given, while other forms that do not subscribe to the logic of Western paradigm are challenged and summarily dismissed as inferior to Western form and unworthy of any scientific investigation. The rhetoric of Western versus nonWest ern knowledge (especially those of African tradition), seems to be characterised in patron ising ways that suggest a knowledge form that is inferior to mainstream knowledge system of Western rationality. This rhetoric and ideological orientation are deeply entrenched in academic discourses regarding knowledge production and utility. For the most part, they have become entrenched in Western education and have remained dominant for centuries. The underlying assumptions of the discourse, however, remain unsubstantiated primarily because they are grounded in a scientific tradition that is antagonistic towards other forms of knowledge systems. We argue in this paper that the real difference between Western and African medical knowledge systems is not so much the outcome of the knowledge derived, but in the epistemic foundations that give rise to these knowledge systems. We contend that all forms of knowledge are contingent on specific contexts, and the evaluative criteria designed to measure their universal truth do not serve any useful function except to propa gate a false hegemonic narrative for the sole purpose of domination and exploitation. We conclude by advocating for the expansion of mainstream medical knowledge by researching other forms of epistemology without prejudice.