Universalism in Senghor

Senghor’s idea of negritude is “the sum of the cultural values of the black world” and a “way of relating oneself to the world and to the others.” He explains how “the African has always and everywhere presented a concept of the world which is diametrically opposed to the traditional philosophy of Europe.” What becomes apparent at the beginning of Senghor’s analysis is that he uses this notion of negritude in retaliation, in an attempt to separate and somehow—through this separation—elevate the Africans. In doing so, Senghor ends up creating the African identity in contrast and in relation to the European. In doing so, he manages to create an African identity which is different from the rest but does not account for the differences within. What ends up happening is a form of homogenization of African values and culture, something the colonizer too had already tried to do. Thus the same issue of generalization exists here. The purpose of creating an identity, from the colonizer’s point of view, was to associate unpleasant characteristics with the colonized and to have these associations fixed in time. When Senghor tries to establish the essence of being African, he too makes the mistake of not taking time into consideration. He also creates the African in contrast with the European in the way that the African identity becomes a performance put up for the European to see and validate. In this way, there is no universalism in Senghor’s notion of negritude.

The first issue is that affixing an African identity for all time. This mirrors the European mission of categorizing. The only difference is that in Senghor’s version, the African identity is associated with relatively positive attributes. Regardless, homogenizing a culture of different people with different histories and associations with different tribes becomes problematic. Some culture and history is lost while other is mixed in a way that becomes unrecognizable. Such mixed up and homogenized identity is not representative of a real people, but an imagined community. With such a conception of self that they do not recognize, when Africans try to decolonize, they are likely to be confused and angry. The unity, togetherness, and pride in self that negritude wanted to achieve becomes redundant and counterproductive. This affixation in time, that Fanon too rejected, is what diminishes the possibility of universalism in this negritude.

The second problem is the African identity being built in response to the European identity. In doing so, the European again becomes the center and the standard according to which others define themselves. African art and African culture becomes entertainment for the European. Its difference only makes it more exotic and fascinating for the European. Again, a stereotype emerges which only does a disservice to the African people. This kind of recognition takes away from the identity of the African and cannot be considered as an example of universalism. There is thus no space of universalism in Senghor’s negritude.