Languages Are Not the Problem: Re-thinking Language Planning in Post-colonial Ghana Through African and Africana Philosophical Frameworks

Abstract

This article extends discussions on decolonizing language policy and planning in African contexts to include African and Africana philosophical concepts. Drawing on Kwasi Wiredu’s project of conceptual decolonization and Molefi Asante’s concept of Afrocentricity, the article argues that the challenges facing Ghana and other African contexts in terms of educational language planning are primarily ideological which means “language-focused” concepts (e.g. mother–tongue bilingual education) alone might not be able to describe the complexities of the situation, instead theories that emphasize emancipation of the African mind might help us better understand the genesis of this problem and how it could be re-envisioned.

Introduction

Most students who enroll in elementary education in Ghana and other African contexts are proficient in an African language even before they start their formal education (Heugh, 2002). However, educational policies in the Ghanaian context are geared toward disregarding students’ home languages and using English as the sole language of instruction (Ansah, 2014). These policy decisions underscore a complete disregard of the linguistic repertoire of students, and they ultimately affect their academic achievements. The disregard of students’ linguistic experiences means that they cannot properly transition to a foreign language medium of education, and this poses significant challenges to student retention, academic achievement, and job prospects.

Over the past several decades, language planning systems in African contexts have problematized linguistic diversity, especially in educational contexts. Linguistic diversity has been described as a chaotic problem that needs to be fixed to pave the way for national development (Bamgbose, 2000). In this regard, governments and other language planning officials have embraced monolingualism and the myth of homogenizing societies regarding language. An overarching argument advanced throughout this study is that Ghana and many other African countries do not have a “language problem” as it has been framed in the existing literature on language planning (Odugu, 2011). Instead, these societies have a problem that involves language. This means that the source of the “language problem” is not limited to language or education but can be observed in the general approach of describing cultural diversity as a problem. The common challenge here is an ideological disposition whereby Ghanaian educational and cultural systems help individuals to look down on themselves and their culture, including language. For example, it is common to find teachers in Ghana who argue that having African languages in the classroom is problematic, and, thus, African languages should be discarded, and English should be the sole language of instruction in schools (Ansah, 2014). This attitude is very visible in how teachers disregard the multilingual nature of their classroom in teaching. The classroom then reflects the larger struggles of our society against Eurocentric and monolingual ideologies. As such, language-focused theories alone do not help enable us to re-envision the “language problem” in Ghana. Instead, there is a need for theories that emphasize the emancipation and liberation of the African mind, especially in education and language planning.

We discuss concepts from two scholars and the implications of their projects for educational language planning (ELP) in Ghana. We begin with Conceptual decolonization by Kwasi Wiredu, a Ghanaian philosopher, and conclude with Afrocentricity by Molefi Asante, a professor of Africology and African American Studies. These scholars discuss contemporary problems that African and African Diasporic societies face, and they suggest ways in which these problems can be addressed. While some studies have explored the implications of an English-only approach to ELP in Ghana (e.g., Ansah, 2014; Owu-Ewie, 2006), others have analyzed nuanced ways for decolonizing educational practices (e.g., Adjei and Dei, 2008; Dei, 2004), very few projects have attempted to re-think ELP in Ghana through African and Africana philosophical concepts. This study contributes to the existing literature in that regard.

The language problem in African contexts

The periods between the middle and latter parts of the 20th century saw the rise of African nationalist movements and the political independence of most African societies. Following their independence, most African countries retained colonial languages as their official languages, and this is enshrined in their constitutions (Roy-Campbell, 2006). In addition to retaining foreign languages, policymakers have perpetuated the colonial myth that African languages do not have the linguistic complexity needed to be the language of instruction, especially in post-secondary education (Whitehead, 1995). Despite the disregard for African languages, Kamwangamalu (2018) reports that instruction in foreign/colonial languages (e.g., English-medium education) has not been successful and language planning is very complicated.

The preference for colonial languages in Ghana and other African contexts can be alluded to several factors. There is an incontrovertible obsession with “oneness” and homogenization in language planning discourses in these contexts (Bamgbose, 1999). This means the abundant linguistic skills learners bring to the classroom are undervalued, and it creates enormous tensions in educational practices. Odugu (2011) remarks that the push for linguistic homogenization is rooted in 19th-century European concepts of the nation-state, which advocate for a singular identity encompassing one people, culture, and language. Language planners have historically approached linguistic diversity as a barrier to the socioeconomic and socio-political advancement of African societies (Fardon and Furniss, 1994). This perspective has favored monolingualism and contributed to what is often referred to as the language problem in post-colonial Africa (Fardon and Furniss, 1994; Odugu, 2011).

Staunch defenders of the homogenization approach to language planning argue that selecting a colonial language as an official language is a logical choice because colonial languages are ethnically neutral, and they help unify “divided” societies into a nation (Bamgbose, 1999). Tollefson and Tsui (2004) also indicate that in Africa, education in foreign languages is preferred mostly because it enhances an individual’s socioeconomic status and prestige. Indigenous African languages, on the other hand, are not seen in a prestigious way (Tollefson and Tsui, 2004). The imposition of colonial languages, especially English, has played major roles in the linguistic marginalization of African societies. For example, Kamwangamalu (2018) reveals that the dominance of colonial languages has had significant impacts on the distribution of linguistic resources. Similarly, Martin-Jones (2000) remarks that “the language situation is embedded in the economic, political, and social interests of groups and it has consequences on the life chances of individuals, as well as for the construction of social categories and relations of power” (p. 174). Several studies have consistently documented their skepticism and dissatisfaction with how African governments handle ELP (Kamwangamalu, 2018; Odugu, 2011).

The language problem in the African context is a diversity problem. Colonial legacies across the continent have always described diversity as backward and problematic, with the hopes of uniting societies into a homogeneous unit. As Fardon and Furniss (1994) remark,

Africans are not starved for words or the capacity to use them with skill and purpose, Africa’s language problem like its problem of “tribalism,” is imagined at the extreme condition of plenty, when Africa is not thought to suffer from undersupply, its fate is to suffer from oversupply, in short Africa seems to be marked by dearth or glut, but never an appropriate measure. (p. 1)

Colonial inscriptions reveal Africa’s numerous languages, but none perform their intended functions (Fardon and Furniss, 1994). This provincial ideology undergirds language planning discourse where African languages are inadequate for any purpose (Bamgbose, 1999). The proponents of the colonial approach also highlight the challenges multilingualism poses to governing nations and operationalizing educational systems. However, after several decades of working with the colonial approach of trivializing multilingualism, most African societies continue to struggle with their educational systems.

Language planning in Ghana

Ghana is characterized by its rich linguistic diversity, with around 80 indigenous languages (Owu-Ewie, 2006) spoken across the country, while English serves as the official language. Since gaining independence, various governments in Ghana have implemented educational language policies (ELPs) that have consistently favored colonial languages over indigenous ones (Ansah, 2014). These policies have provided ideological justification for the prioritization of English, leading to the marginalization of indigenous languages. The impact of these ELPs has been significant, as they empower English and diminish the value of Ghana’s indigenous languages, thereby undermining linguistic diversity (Ansah, 2014). The prioritization of English in educational settings has resulted in a perception that indigenous languages lack the capacity for academic discourse, further entrenching their devaluation in the educational system (Mfum-Mensah, 2005). Consequently, they have been denounced as colonial mechanisms operating within the context of global capitalism (Tupas, 2016).

Existing research shows that in multilingual societies such as Ghana, there is a significant relationship between language and power, where certain languages are perceived as more valuable, prestigious, and powerful than others (Rosekrans et al., 2012). This perception leads to a preference for English as the primary language of instruction in schools. In response to these ideologies, various studies highlight the benefits of multilingual education, suggesting that embracing diverse language practices can enhance learning outcomes and promote social justice in education (Milligan et al., 2016). Specifically, recognizing and utilizing students’ full language repertoires as educational resources can facilitate improved content comprehension and language acquisition, particularly for learners who might struggle with instruction in a foreign language.

Even though multilingual education models have achieved some success in creating an awareness for the integration of Ghanaian languages and multilingualism in schools, their bottom-up and logistical modification approach does not usually disrupt the hegemonic tendencies and monolingual ideologies that are actively present in language planning in Ghana. The current study argues for an engagement with theories outside the disciplinary fields of applied linguistics and language policy to rethink language planning in Ghana. These concepts tackle hegemonic thinking at its core in African societies.

At the nation-state level, the English language has grown to become a primary means of communication and a medium for teaching and learning in Ghana (Rassool and Edwards, 2010). English affects societal multilingualism and the use of indigenous Ghanaian languages in schools. Rassool and Edwards (2010) note that, at the elementary level, most Ghanaian learners receive their education in languages that they do not necessarily understand or use in their everyday lives. This discrepancy affects the quality of education in schools, and, thus, there is a need for more studies that explore ideologies that shape language planning in Ghanaian contexts.

We argue that the “language problem” goes far beyond logistics and resources; it is an ideological issue. Over the past several decades, there have been many studies that have explored the challenges of language planning in the Ghanaian context including Opoku-Amankwa’s (2009) exploration of the discourses of parents, Appiah and Ardila’s (2020) focus on teachers and students, Mfum-Mensah’s (2005) examination of the perceptions of community leaders, Davis and Agbenyega’s (2012) description of the experiences of school principals, and Rosekrans et al.’s (2012) reflections on the role of politicians and government officials. This study, on the other hand, explores how theories or concepts that emphasize the emancipation and liberation of the African mind can help in re-thinking ideologies that underpin language planning in Ghana.

Decolonizing language planning and education in Ghana

Decolonization is a widely discussed concept, particularly within academic settings. Its interpretation varies significantly across different disciplines and contexts. This variability highlights the complexity of decolonization as a concept and its implications in various fields of study. Schramm and Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2024) regard decolonization as an epistemological and political movement that aims to liberate formerly colonized countries and peoples from the long-lasting structural legacies of colonialism. Decolonization seeks to eliminate inequalities rooted in power structures, cultural dominance, and knowledge production in post-colonial societies (Schramm and Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2024). In short, decolonization can be understood as a conceptual framework that enables us to describe the ongoing cultural, social, economic, political, and epistemic hierarchies woven into the fabric of modernity in the post-colonial era and the struggle to end these hierarchies. This study adds to the existing body of research that critiques coloniality, especially in language planning.

In the field of applied linguistics, decolonization efforts in Africa have focused on how colonial legacies need to be dismantled to restore African-centered language policies and practices. For instance, Makoni et al. (2024) argue that modern-day applied linguistics reflects and reinforces Eurocentric colonial frameworks at the expense of non-European languages and cultures. The authors further contend that most applied linguistic theories are rooted in colonial legacies, and they fail to capture the complex linguistic realities of African societies. Instead, Makoni et al. (2024) suggest that to decolonize applied linguistics, we must embrace theoretical frameworks, indigenous epistemologies, and ontologies emerging from the Global South, which have been historically colonized and marginalized. Decolonial scholars have also called for a reconceptualization of multilingualism and ELPs. For example, Makoni and Pennycook (2005) argue that language policies in Africa and other post-colonial contexts are rooted in the “census ideology” of European colonial governance. This ideology treats languages as distinct, enumerable entities, and consequently conceptualizes multilingualism as the presence of multiple monolingual languages. Other scholars (Makalela, 2016; Odugu, 2011) argue that there is a need to transform and challenge monolingual biases in education. Governments and policymakers need to promote multilingual policies and pedagogies and integrate indigenous knowledge systems into academic curricular.

In Ghana, conversations on decolonization have largely focused on schooling and education (e.g., Adjei and Dei, 2008; Bonney, 2022; Dei, 2004). Adjei and Dei (2008) define decolonization in Ghana as examining colonial misrepresentations of colonized people, their knowledge, culture, values, and languages to the benefit of the West. Decolonization also involves challenging the political economy of knowledge production in Ghana, which privileges certain forms of knowledge while invalidating indigenous cultures and languages (Dei, 2004). The process includes reclaiming and integrating indigenous Ghanaian cultures, languages, values, and worldviews into the education system. Adjei and Dei (2008) indicate a noticeable Western control over knowledge production and dissemination in Ghanaian schools, which affirms Western worldviews and devalues local knowledge. The current school curricula and pedagogical practices lead to a disconnection for students from their local cultures and worldviews, pushing them into a different reality that does not reflect their culture (Dei, 2004).

Concerning language planning, decolonization research (e.g., Dei, 2006) highlights the colonial legacy of foreign languages. Dei (2006) emphasizes that colonial languages contribute to exclusion, othering, and stigmatization, effectively silencing certain experiences and identities in education. Also, Adjei and Dei (2008) assert that Ghanaians cannot achieve true decolonization while relying solely on English as the dominant language in education and society. The use of English as the primary language of instruction in Ghana has been critiqued for its role in linguistic imperialism, which threatens the nation’s cultural identity (Yeboah, 2023). Some studies (Adjei and Dei, 2008; Dei, 2006) suggest that neglecting indigenous languages undermines efforts to address Africa’s challenges, suggesting that the foundation for educational solutions is flawed if indigenous languages are not prioritized. The centering of indigenous languages at the national level in Ghana might diminish the dominance of English, and the choice of indigenous languages will also serve as a medium for expressing communal histories, cultures, values, and perspectives. Existing literature (e.g., Adjei and Dei, 2008; Bonney, 2022) on the decolonization of educational systems in Ghana emphasizes the need for more studies that explore re-conceptualizing language ideologies in Ghana, and this is a motivation for the current study.

The current study explores ways in which Kwasi Wiredu’s theory of conceptual decolonization and Molefi Asante’s Afrocentricity can help in re-thinking language planning in Ghanaian educational circles.

Kwasi Wiredu

Kwasi Wiredu (1931–2022) was a Ghanaian philosopher and a distinguished university professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of South Florida. He was born in 1931 in the British colony of Gold Coast (presently called Ghana). Wiredu spearheaded a project that he called the “conceptual decolonization” of African thought, and this concept has received considerable attention in the field of African Philosophy (Osha, 2023).

Wiredu’s conceptual decolonization

Wiredu’s project of conceptual decolonization has had far-reaching implications for African philosophy and development. Wiredu suggests a re-examination of current African epistemic systems to accomplish two aims. First, he hopes to challenge the negative aspects of “tribal” culture embedded in modern African thought to make the culture more viable. Second, he argues for the need to dislodge unnecessary Western epistemologies that are found in African philosophical practices (Osha, 2023). Wiredu’s main concern here is “a systematic subversion of western concepts and forms of knowledge that can be embedded in a modern African knowledge system and has utility for the continent and can lead to growth and advancement” (Osha, 2023: 175). This decolonial project, especially as it relates to philosophy, consists of some competencies. The first is that the philosopher needs to have knowledge of Western cultures and languages, as well as their disruptive effect on African cultures. The second is a deep familiarity with indigenous cultures and languages before their infiltration by Western traditions. Finally, the philosopher needs to have the ability to confront the colonial legacy (Wiredu, 1998). Wiredu argues that, in addition to having these three competencies, researchers need to interrogate the divide between tradition and modernity in African contexts. Wiredu (1998) defines conceptual decolonization as follows:

It requires an African divesting his thought of all modes of conceptualization emanating from the colonial past that cannot stand the test of due reflection. This divesture does not mean automatically repudiating every mode of thought having a colonial provenance. That would be absurd beyond description. What it calls for is the reviewing of any such thought materials in the light of indigenous categories, as a first step, and, as a second, evaluating them on independent grounds. Of the indigenous categories of thought, one can take appropriate cognizance by simply trying to think matters through in the vernacular. To do this, however, requires a conscious and deliberate effort, because if you are trained in philosophy exclusively in a second language, it tends to become your first language of abstract meditation. (p. 17)

In his project, Wiredu (1998) does not romanticize the magnificence of ancient African cultures and traditions. Rather, he suggests adopting parts of African culture that he finds useful and abandoning others. This process of adoption and abandonment is not always clear in his writing, but Wiredu makes an attempt to do it as part of the decolonial process. Osha (2023) describes Wiredu’s approach as an idea of cultural synthesis, whereby Wiredu re-examines Western philosophical concepts within his native Akan conceptual frameworks to determine whether they make sense. In this synthesis, Wiredu sees several existential and cognitive dilemmas from the colonial encounter. The conceptual decolonization project is espoused in two major books by Wiredu: Philosophy and an African Culture (1980) and Cultural Universals and Particulars: An African Perspective (1996). His broad goal is to “address the challenge of re-building African societies and epistemic frameworks in post-colonial spaces” (Osha, 2023: 175).

Implications for ELP in Ghana

A major challenge with language planning in Ghana has been the foundations of the educational system itself. The system requires the selection of a single language for medium of instruction (MOI) purposes. This means the enormous linguistic diversity existent in society must be “contained” in the classroom. Some studies (e.g., Owoo, 2022) blame the colonial and Eurocentric nature of the educational system for this deficit-oriented perspective toward multilingualism, and other studies (e.g., Táíwò, 2019) argue that African languages are not even developed enough to be considered as MOI. Therefore, selecting a language of instruction is an unarguable process of selecting a developed language such as “English”. We disagree with the claim that African languages are not developed enough because the issue of whether we deem it fit to even consider African languages as MOI is a disappointing situation. The educational system problematizes multilingualism because we control the system, and our inability to envision ourselves beyond colonial impositions has made it so. Wiredu’s project of conceptual decolonization can help us rethink ELP in Ghana by approaching ELP from a cultural synthesis perspective. This perspective, unlike the current Ghanaian ELP, would require a critical reflection of when and how we should use our indigenous Ghanaian languages together with English in the classroom. A critical assessment of ELP in Ghana should lead to a change in policy. As Wiredu (1980) suggests, we should be able to question aspects of our culture and knowledge systems to create viable institutions.

The viability of African languages and conceptual decolonization

There have been several discussions on the need for African languages to be used as languages of instruction and research across all levels of education in African societies (Bamgbose, 1999; Wiredu, 1980). Táíwò (2019) presents a critical perspective on the viability of African languages for intellectual activity, arguing that many of our African languages are not yet developed to the level necessary for complex academic discourse. If we extend Táíwò’s (2019) argument to ELP in Ghana, the process of selecting a language of instruction will not be a neutral or open-ended cultural choice but an unavoidable decision to use a language that is already developed, such as English. Táíwò also challenges Kwasi Wiredu’s call for African scholars to “think through” philosophical problems in their indigenous languages by highlighting the considerable linguistic limitations many African scholars face. According to Táíwò (2019), many African scholars are not bilingual in the philosophical or academic sense, that is, they are not able to conceptualize or express abstract thought in their indigenous languages. This, he suggests, stems from a broader issue of linguistic fossilization, in which African languages have stagnated outside every day and cultural domains, failing to expand into technical, scientific, or intellectual registers. The issue is not simply one of preference or linguistic pride, but one of functionality: African languages, he contends, lack the terminologies and conceptual resources required for what he calls “recondite intellectual activity” (Táíwò, 2019: 146).

We do not fully agree with Táíwò’s conclusion, particularly in the context of Ghana’s complex multilingual and educational landscape. While we recognize the structural limitations of Ghanaian languages in formal education, such as the scarcity of academic vocabulary, inconsistent orthographic standards, and uneven teacher preparation, we also see the enduring value in their use as languages of instruction, especially in the early years of basic education. Several studies (Bonney, 2022; Davis and Agbenyega, 2012) in Ghana have shown that children learn to read, write, and think more effectively when instruction begins in a familiar language. At the same time, we are careful not to romanticize indigenous languages or to assume their automatic suitability for all educational domains. Our position is between Wiredu’s critical assessment of Westernization and Asante’s emphasis on African agency. We argue for a critical balance: an advocacy for the deliberate and sustained development of Ghanaian languages for educational use, while acknowledging the need for realistic assessments of their current limitations. Effective language planning in Ghana must move beyond the binary of indigenous authenticity versus colonial utility. Crucially, it must also interrogate the ideological foundations of existing language policies, particularly their colonial origins, which continue to shape perceptions of linguistic value, authority, and legitimacy. Rather than taking the current language policy framework as a given, we must critically examine whose interests it serves, what histories it reproduces, and what alternatives it may foreclose.

In this regard, we posit conceptual decolonization as a valuable lens for re-thinking the challenges with ELP in Ghana. This framework urges us to re-think inherited Western conceptual frameworks through the prism of indigenous thought systems; this will create an alignment between language use and educational practice and the lived experiences and rationalities of the Ghanaian society. Conceptual decolonization also calls for an emphasis on African cultural perspectives in all spheres of knowledge production. We see this perspective as a critical unraveling of the colonial logic embedded in language hierarchies and promoting the development of policies rooted in African epistemologies. ELP in Ghana must therefore commit not only to the long-term work of intellectualizing indigenous languages but also investing in teacher education and curriculum development and fostering a public discourse that values multilingual education as both culturally grounded and intellectually viable. This approach demands institutional coordination and community engagement to expand the functional capacity of Ghanaian languages and shift the dominant narrative that associates English with modernity and progress, and indigenous languages with informality and constraint.

Decolonization of African culture

A large part of Wiredu’s project is dedicated to his ideas about the need to decolonize African culture. His two books and several of his articles systematically engage this topic. Wiredu (1998) explains that colonialism was not only a political imposition but also, fundamentally, a cultural one. This imposition greatly affected the indigenous systems of education and culture in African societies. Wiredu further explains that removing a colonial mentality inherited through cultural imposition requires conceptually critical studies of African traditional systems, especially philosophies. This removal also involves intensive studies of elements of culture that play crucial roles in the constitution of meanings. Wiredu believes that language plays an important role because one cannot disentangle the conceptual impositions that have been made upon Africans without a keen understanding of indigenous languages.

Mabhena (2023) explains that in Wiredu (1980), Wiredu identifies some cultural traits that Africans engage in that need decolonization. One main trait is cultural anachronism. Wiredu (1980) indicates that when one speaks of African culture, many people immediately think of drums, dancing, and tradition. Although traditions are part of a culture, Wiredu believes that they are not the totality of a culture. A simplistic classification of culture into ethnic dressing, singing, dancing, and other performances reduces culture from a whole to its parts. Furthermore, many people emphasize the non-Western aspects of African culture, which are about traditions and art (Mabhena, 2023), and there is rarely a focus on the social habits and tendencies, political ideas, and systems, which are also part of the culture (Wiredu, 1980).

Wiredu (1980) believes that the phenomenon of thinking about culture in terms of art and traditions has had the effect of making some Africans fanatics of the past, and it has created an unhealthy obsession with nativism and primitivism. Culture, in this strand of thought, is frozen in the past and celebrated on specific days and occasions. This gives the illusion that it is just an event when it is meant to be a life experience (Wiredu, 1980). Traditions should not be mistaken for culture, but certain traditional practices could be proven “wrong” over time, and fanaticism could mean that they are still practiced and justified as “our culture” in Africa (Wiredu, 1980).

The opposite of this situation is that Africans are attracted to foreign cultures and that of our colonizers because they appear to be more modern and liberal, but we forget that sometimes we have similar forms of culture (Wiredu, 1980). The craving for foreign things makes Africans look down on their culture as backward and embarrassing. In the overarching sense, Wiredu (1980) reveals that cultural anachronism encourages coloniality and demotes indigenous culture and knowledge by making foreign cultures look attractive. For Wiredu, African cultures should be dynamic enough to compete with other cultures to remain relevant in a fast-changing world system. Furthermore, the popularization of concepts such as ubuntu and other communal-oriented philosophies means that the world could benefit from African culture (Mabhena, 2023).

In relation to language planning in Ghana, Africans, in this case Ghanaians, are attracted to foreign cultures. This situation is unsurprising when we consider the scenario of how we prefer colonial languages to Ghanaian languages in the classroom (Ansah, 2014). Even though the ELP suggests the use of an indigenous language where possible, the continued preference for colonial languages shows our enormous attraction to foreign languages and cultures. This comes from the viewpoint of seeing African languages as primitive and ineffective. We would need to re-orient our minds and work toward making indigenous languages dynamic enough to include them in the educational system. We also need to integrate indigenous languages meaningfully into our educational system. They should not be used as merely transitional tools, but as legitimate carriers of intellectual and cultural capital. Indigenous knowledge systems rooted in African languages have the potential to enrich education if these languages are given the space to thrive within formal educational structures.

Implications for ELP in Ghana

Wiredu and Molefi Asante (Asante’s works are discussed later in this paper) argue that the challenges that African societies face begin with the consciousness of Africans. Our minds and consciousness are not free, and we are still trapped in colonial impositions (Asante, 2020). In relation to language planning, the pertinent issue is not necessarily the best language practices, the most efficient teaching methodology, or even just including African languages in the classroom. All these suggestions, while plausible, might not be able to yield results if the minds of the teachers, students, and politicians are not liberated from our inferiority complex and entrenched belief in Western superiority. Without clarifying these unsettling assumptions, it is difficult to see any potential progress in African societies, in general, and education systems, in particular. Many critics of ELPs assume that the mere inclusion of African languages will help learners to effectively transition into school spaces. There is also an assumption that the inclusion of African languages helps with language rights and upholds cultural norms and indigenous ways of knowing and thinking. Although these assertions might be true, Wiredu’s project of “conceptual decolonization” helps us to understand that the mere addition of African languages in the classroom or curriculum does not mean that African cultures are being preserved. It also does not mean that such an addition is the most profitable and prudent thing to do in all situations.

Wiredu’s decolonization of culture helps us to reflect on what African languages are or what constitutes African languages in the first place. We ask: Are African languages, as we know them, designed by Europeans? Would the use of these languages make any difference in the problematic educational system? We can also think about whether some African languages are even suitable to be taught in classrooms and, if they are not, how can we make African languages competitive enough to be used in the classroom? In a sense, Wiredu’s conceptual decolonization will lead us to reject the wholesale idea of African languages as the ultimate solution to our educational problems in African spaces.

As we have indicated earlier, the “language problem” is a deeply ideological issue. The way forward might be to think through ideas from our African culture that have led us to prefer colonial languages to our own indigenous languages (Wiredu, 1997). This reflection might suggest that colonial impositions and a lack of criticality or questioning in our culture have affected our use of African languages. The argument here is not against the inclusion of African languages or even a lack of inclusion. The dichotomy tends not to be necessary when there is a deep-rooted ideological problem. The suggestion is for critical inclusion and careful evaluation of the educational system, as we may think of African languages as an untouchable element in our societies that should not be developed or modified to suit the contemporary demands of societies. We have, however, insatiable cravings for colonial languages and other elements of Western culture (Wiredu, 1997). Sometimes when African politicians think about African languages, they perceive them as outmoded cultural elements that have no economic importance.

We might also have to reconsider how we think about our languages across all levels. We also need to question why we see African languages as chaotic and deficient. These questions could lead us to a self-awareness that could be a foundation for the implementation of policies or programs. We can develop African languages or think through how they can be developed. Some possible questions here can include: What does the development of a language mean to us? How do we develop our African languages? Is the problem the language itself or how we think about the language? Is it even possible to develop these languages? We use the word “development” here not as a linear process of growth but as a state of accepting, embracing, and being self-aware of the value of African languages. A critical introspection of our culture based on Wiredu’s suggestions would also allow teachers to consciously use language in classrooms in a way that is beneficial to learners. This will help teaching and learning, and, in the long run, it will help the progress of our societies.

Molefi Kete Asante

Molefi Kete Asante is an American academic and a professor in the Department of Africology at Temple University. Asante has written extensively on the concept of “Afrocentricity” for several decades, and this school of thought has influenced several disciplines.

The concept of Afrocentricity

Afrocentricity has been extensively explained by Asante, the Temple University Circle of Afrocentrists, and other scholars interested in Afrocentric thought. The premise of Afrocentricity is an argument that any meaningful and authentic study of people of African descent must begin and proceed with Africa as the center and not the periphery, as the subject and not an object (Asante, 1983). Afrocentrists argue that Eurocentric concepts, history, and traditions have been the indelible benchmark with which every other culture is assessed. Thus, there is a need to liberate Africans and people of African descent from the hegemony of Eurocentric scholarship. Asante (1983) advances the idea that “Afrocentricity is the ideological centerpiece of human regeneration, systematizing our history and experience with our own culture at the core of existence” (p. 7). Afrocentricity is also a methodology for discovering the truth about intercultural communication. Asante (1983) notes that the principal theoretical analyses by Africans have been reactionary and often Marxist or capitalist, but he does not support capitalist and Marxist positions because they are rooted in European ideas and derived from European experiences. Even though that is not the sole reason to reject these positions, Asante (1983) further indicates that these positions exclude African interests in exchange for dominant ones. In a revised definition, Asante refers to Afrocentricity as “a conscious process by which a person locates or relocates African phenomena within an African subject content or agency and action” (p. 3).

Afrocentric theory helps to explain how conceptual distance from a person’s actual self leaves Africans on the margins of European reality and how history plays a key role in Afrocentric thought (Asante, 2002). For example, Asante and most Afrocentrists reject the idea that modern civilization started in Greece and find this assertion a typical Western disregard of true history (Asante, 2002). Asante (2002) argues that Kemet (an ancient Egyptian black figure) should be the foundation of any rewriting of African history and understanding of African personality and any African intellectual project must “avoid defaulting to Eurocentric perspectives or remaining intellectually indebted to Europe; instead, we must stand on Africa’s own foundations and perspectives” (p. 104). He does not, however, claim that the discourse on Kemet is the only discourse for Afrocentrists, as they must be engaged with the contemporary world. He urges Afrocentrists to question all forms of oppression and enact their agency. Asante (2017) cites Diop’s (1979) work on Ancient Africa, especially Egypt and Nubia, as fundamental to Afrocentricity. Diop asserts that the history of Africa cannot be written without a connection to the Nile Valley, which can inspire indigenous scholars to re-think the nature of their local histories.

Implications for ELP in Ghana

Teachers in Ghana face several ideological and logistical challenges in implementing ELP. These challenges usually cause discrepancies between what the language policy dictates and what the teachers do. However, as noted earlier, the language policy itself is very ambiguous and a result of colonial practices. Appiah and Ardila (2020) indicate that many teachers prefer using English in Ghanaian classrooms regardless of the level or grade of the students. These teachers are usually concerned about the low proficiency of learners in English and the disadvantages it carries in neoliberal Ghana. An Afrocentric approach will emphasize the agency of Ghanaians and their culture. It will explain the conceptual distance we have from ourselves and the inability to rely on our cultural systems in education. Such knowledge will serve as a counter-narrative to colonial English discourses that misrepresent local people and their cultural heritage.

Requirements for Afrocentricity

Asante (2006) identifies some requirements for an Afrocentric redefinition of an individual or an institution. Asante (2006) suggests that for an Afrocentric redefinition, conscientization is crucial. The European project of marginalizing Africans in education, art, and communication was successful. The response is a re-centering of people and a new chapter of liberation (Asante, 2006). The second requirement is an interest in psychological location. Asante (2006) states that Afrocentric analysis involves focusing on psychological location and how individuals relate to information about Africa. Dislocation toward Africans indicates referring to Africans as the “other.” In response, an Afrocentric curriculum design should consider the perspective of Africans and their culture (Asante, 2006). The third requirement is to find the African subject place in all circumstances. Asante (2006) addresses the issue where African phenomena are often based on European thoughts. The Afrocentric idea engages the African subject place in every event, text, and idea, overcoming identity and place complications. The final requirement is to commit to a new narrative history of Africa, as Eurocentric writers have significantly falsified African history, particularly in the context of making Africans inferior in every subject field.

Implications for ELP in Ghana

Asante’s requirements for Afrocentricity have several implications for ELP in Ghana. For example, in applying the requirement of conscientization, Ghana’s language planning should prioritize Ghanaian languages, focus on indigenous knowledge systems, and celebrate multilingual education for true liberation in education. For the requirements of psychological location and the commitment to find the African subject place, Ghana’s ELP should shift from foreign languages to Ghanaian ones, promoting an Afrocentric approach and avoiding marginalization of indigenous languages. The re-imagined ELP would emphasize indigenous African knowledge systems. With the final requirement, a new narrative for ELP in Ghana will emphasize Ghanaian languages and challenge colonial ideologies in the educational system. This shift will promote an approach that goes beyond just classroom pedagogies to inspire social change.

The Nexus-conceptual decolonization, Afrocentricity, and language planning in Ghana

The project of decolonizing language policy and planning (LPP) in Ghanaian and other African contexts necessitates a critical re-examination of the colonial legacies that continue to shape linguistic hierarchies and educational structures across the continent. Colonial regimes imposed European languages as official languages and mediums of instruction, while systematically marginalizing African languages and epistemologies. In the post-colonial era, many African states have adopted multilingual ELPs, yet in practice, these policies often reinforce the primacy of European languages. This disjuncture reflects a deeper ideological problem: language policies remain embedded within colonial logics that privilege Western epistemologies and modes of communication (Odugu, 2011).

Decolonizing ELP in Ghana, therefore, involves more than expanding the use of Ghanaian languages in the curriculum; it demands a paradigmatic shift in how language, knowledge, and identity are conceptualized in relation to education. Drawing on conceptual decolonization theory and Afrocentricity, one can locate two complementary philosophical frameworks for this shift. Wiredu’s notion of conceptual decolonization emphasizes the need to interrogate and revise the inherited conceptual schemes that underlie policy thinking. He advocates for a process of critical synthesis, where African societies neither uncritically accept Western models nor romanticize indigenous practices but rather reconstruct frameworks that are both culturally grounded and critically evaluated. In contrast, Asante’s Afrocentricity calls for a more assertive epistemic shift that centers African cultural and historical experiences as the foundation for knowledge production and institutional reform. From this perspective, language policy must begin with African worldviews and affirm African agency in determining the role of language in education and society.

From these two positions, we can also begin to sketch a more philosophically informed and context-sensitive approach to language policy in Ghana. Both perspectives help illuminate the ideological tensions at the heart of Ghana’s language policy debates; tensions not merely about language choice but about whose knowledge, culture, and worldview are privileged in formal education. Colonial residues and negative self-perceptions within African cultural ideologies continue to constrain the effectiveness of well-meaning reforms. A more transformative approach to ELP, then, must grapple seriously with the ontological and epistemological foundations that Wiredu and Asante bring to light. These foundations determine which languages are taught and how language, identity, and power are imagined in educational spaces.

Wiredu’s framework invites policymakers to examine the underlying assumptions that shape educational goals, and the role language plays in achieving them. Rather than taking English as a neutral or inherently superior MOI, a conceptual decolonial perspective compels stakeholders to ask: what kinds of knowledge are being prioritized through English, and whose values are embedded in these choices? ELP, from this standpoint, must be rooted in a critical reassessment of what education is for, moving beyond utilitarian goals such as economic competitiveness or global marketability, toward broader cultural, civic, and philosophical aims.

Asante’s Afrocentricity takes this further by offering a more assertive position: that language policy in Africa must be fundamentally reorganized around African epistemologies and cultural perspectives. Afrocentricity resists any framework that treats African languages as supplementary to European languages. In the Ghanaian context, Afrocentricity would likely advocate for a policy that not only prioritizes Ghanaian languages as mediums of instruction but also centers them as carriers of African thought, logic, and identity. From this standpoint, English is not merely a global lingua franca; it is a symbol of epistemic domination. Afrocentric policy thus pushes for the use of African languages as the foundation of all educational levels. While this position may seem radical or difficult to implement, it presents an important provocation: can education in Ghana truly serve African interests if it continues to rely on European languages and frameworks?

These theoretical perspectives also have clear implications for curriculum development and teacher education. Wiredu’s emphasis on critical reflection suggests that teachers and policymakers should be trained to engage not only with pedagogy and linguistics but also with the historical and ideological foundations of language policy. In other words, ELP should be philosophically informed. Teachers must understand how colonial legacies and internalized language hierarchies continue to influence classroom practice, school culture, and student self-perception. Afrocentricity calls for a thorough reconstruction of the curriculum to center African worldviews—where languages like Twi, Ewe, Dagbani, or Ga are not simply taught as subjects, but used to teach science, mathematics, history, and other subjects from a culturally grounded standpoint. Teacher education programs, in this view, would serve as sites of cultural recovery and transformation, preparing educators to become agents of African-centered knowledge production rather than mere transmitters of foreign curricula. Furthermore, both Wiredu and Asante’s ideas emphasize the importance of community-based, participatory approaches to ELP. Wiredu’s notion of conceptual decolonization suggests that language policy should emerge from the dialogue and agreement of all stakeholders, including local communities, parents, students, and educators. This challenges the often top-down, bureaucratic models of policymaking that dominate ELP in Ghana (Ansah, 2014). Similarly, Afrocentricity emphasizes that any educational reform must be embedded within the communal, cultural, and ethical structures of African societies. Language policy, in this light, is not merely a technical or administrative issue; it is a moral and cultural responsibility that must be guided by African values, authority systems, and social realities. Crucially, both frameworks challenge current forms of educational assessment that privilege English proficiency and Western forms of literacy. Wiredu would call for the recognition of diverse modes of African reasoning and expression, including oral narratives, proverbs, and indigenous logical systems. Asante would insist that assessments validate African cognitive styles, cultural metaphors, and ways of knowing. Together, these perspectives push us to re-think the very foundations of language policy: not only which languages are used, but also how knowledge is constructed, whose knowledge counts, and what kinds of futures are being imagined through language choices in education. The frameworks also challenge policymakers to design language policies that affirm African identities and reflect the realities and aspirations of the Ghanaian society.

Conclusion

Wiredu’s project of conceptual decolonization and Asante’s project of Afrocentricity can help us re-think ELP in Ghanaian and other African contexts. Whereas Wiredu’s conceptual decolonization project is asking us to search for what it means to be African and to be aware of the depth to which colonization has affected Africans, Asante’s project is certain that there is a unique African personality that exists in the ancient past and that this African personality needs to be centered in any contemporary study of Africa. These two positions might appear contradictory, but they are very complementary in nature. Both Wiredu and Asante seek to understand the African problem and recommend solutions; however, one is searching for an identity, while the other is certain about an identity.

The “language problem” in Ghana is part of the larger African problem. The proposals by Wiredu and Asante enhance our understanding of the enormous depth of challenges facing ELP in Ghana, especially in the aspects of ideology. These two projects can help ELP stakeholders see the “language problem” in relation to several other challenges, such as cultural identity. Wiredu’s primary argument is for cultural synthesis and criticality in any study of African culture. His ideas are beneficial for ELP in Ghana because they help us to question what it means to even be African and what critical processes we need to undergo to be able to create a multilingual system in language planning. The key point of departure is that Asante believes that the discourse of colonialism should be avoided at all costs because it offers nothing beneficial to Africans; rather, we should treat colonialism as though it never happened. In contrast, Wiredu believes colonialism has affected Africans so much that we might have no memory of the numerous pre-colonial practices. Asante’s perspective leads him to emphasize the complete de-Westernization of African culture and systems and a return to a pristine African identity. In line with Asante’s ideas, ELP in Ghana might require a complete rejection of European languages and the use of African languages as the sole MOI in schools. European languages, in this case, are those languages that originated from Europe. Asante does not see the importance of adopting European languages or frameworks in Africa and would most likely suggest the pursuit of an “authentic” African identity in Ghanaian classrooms.

The perspective of complete de-Westernization is very utopic and impractical for Wiredu. First, Wiredu does not agree with a wholesale rejection of Western influence in African culture and explains that there are both good and bad aspects of Western influence, just as there are good and bad aspects of African culture. Wiredu, in contrast, might question whether European languages have not been Africanized after centuries of Africans using languages such as English, French, and so forth. As Kachru (1986) has argued, English is not a homogeneous language that belongs to the Western world. Wiredu’s concept suggests a synthesis between the use of English and an African language to help preserve an African identity while pursuing a global orientation toward education.

We have argued throughout this article that a change in language practices might not necessarily solve the “language problem” in the Ghanaian educational system. Instead, we have to engage the philosophies underpinning the language policy, and its implementation in classrooms. There have been many suggestions (e.g., Reilly et al., 2022) to change teaching methodologies, theorize multilingualism in a more fluid way, incorporate translanguaging perspectives in teaching and learning, and increase funding for schools in Ghana and other African contexts. Even though these recommendations are good and have enormous potential to impact the educational system of Ghana, the existence of colonial and negative African cultural ideologies in ELP might render these suggestions pointless and restrict any meaningful impact they could have on the educational system.