Globalizations
ISSN: 1474-7731 (Print) 1474-774X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rglo20
Fuck the law: decolonizing nomophilitis with the
discourse of love
Biko Agozino
To cite this article: Biko Agozino (2019): Fuck the law: decolonizing nomophilitis with the
discourse of love, Globalizations, DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2019.1651814
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1651814
Published online: 09 Aug 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 35
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rglo20
GLOBALIZATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1651814
Fuck the law: decolonizing nomophilitis with the discourse of love
Biko Agozino
Sociology and Africana Studies, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
This papyrus questions the assumption that global cultures and especially
Indigenous peoples are to be civilized and modernized by being subjected
to the rule of European law, Euro Reschtaat, under racist, patriarchal
imperialism as a result of centuries of dehumanizing conquest, genocide,
slavery, apartheid and colonization. Giannacopoulos raised similar questions
about how feasible it is to expect that the love of the law, nomophilia,
would be the answer to the institutionalized racism-sexism-classism that
Indigenous peoples and poor refugees face under settler colonialism? This
papyrus raises the additional question of whether young people around
the world are crazy for giving the middle finger salute to the empire of
law or whether defiant Hip Hop artists may be expressing understandable
decolonization discourse against legal imperialism without criminologists
and legal scholars being aware.
Decolonization; law; love;
racism; sexism; exploitation
Introduction: flipping the bird
The papyrus reviews arguments that seek to fortify the fortress of the empire of law in jurisprudence and finds them wanting due to the exclusion of the discourse of love from legal discourse
and also due to the limitation of the discourse of love, when attempted, at the level of liberal individualism. The papyrus concludes that decolonization-centricity in legal discourse will involve the
extension of the ethic of love to the institutions of the state and to research methodologies to such
an extent that any law made or enforced and any methodology or economy devoid of love at the
heart or centre of it would be deemed to be fatally flawed and deserves to be erased through abolitionism or decolonization. Imperialist reason deserves to be allowed to wither away in order for
humanity to thrive through the discourse of love which Gandhi said is like the law of gravity – it
works even if you are ignorant of it and even if you do not believe in it – though love should not be
like gravity that pulls everything down irrespective of age or dissent, lest it becomes abusive selflove, in my view.
The middle finger is one way that artists speak truth to power. Robin Williams gave the finger to
the camera during his 2018 World Cup opening ceremony performance in Russia while President
Vladimir Putin and a Saudi Arabian prince watched from the stands, making some commentators
wonder if he would get into trouble with Russian officials like members of the Russian punk band,
Pussy Riots. In 2012, the Indian-British artist, M.I.A., gave the middle finger salute during the Super
Bowl half-time entertainment by Madonna and she was sued by the NFL for $16 million but they
CONTACT Biko Agozino
agozino@vt.edu
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2
B. AGOZINO
settled out of court after she claimed that it was a spiritual gesture in honour of the Indian goddess
after which she was named.
Kiss My Black Ass or simply Kiss My Ass is sometimes spoken to accompany the upward thrust
of the middle finger. By stressing the loving praxis of kissing as a defiant gesture and sometimes
following this with the middle finger salute which is also not too far from the victory sign with
two middle fingers, the rebellious youth appear to be communicating the contrarian thought
that revolutionaries are lovers, as Che Guevara said, and not haters of justice. When Tupac or
Dead Prez defiantly cried, ‘Fuck the Law’, they admit that they were breaking the law in the lyrical
narratives but they did not care if they got arrested because they knew that the law did not give a
fuck about them. The NFL players refusing to stand for the National Anthem know that there was
no law against kneeling during the anthem to protest against police brutality but they were being
insulted by the president of the country who called them sons of bitches and said that maybe they
should not be in the country after the owners of the NFL teams made up a rule to allow those protesting to stay in the locker room; otherwise their team would be fined if they did not stand for the
anthem. Some say that they hope that the fines will go to #BlackLivesMatter but the players won the
right to free expression eventually.
A Google images search will show millions of the sign, ‘Fuck The Law’, scrawled on walls all over
the world by graffiti artists. Sometimes they rhyme it with ‘Smoke a Draw’. Sometimes it is ‘Fuck da
Police’, the anthem of N.W.A. for which they were raided on stage in Detroit and arrested by cops
who had earlier read them the riot act, demanding that they must not dare to sing that song but they
did and their fans loved it. The lyrics deal with the daily experience of African Americans being subjected to police brutality even when they were not armed and even while they were not breaking any
law in the US where there is a right to bear arms in the constitution, second only to the right to freedom of expression as the First Amendment to the constitution.
In the case of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) the US Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen who wore a T-Shirt to court with the caption, ‘Fuck the Draft’, as a free
speech, not the disturbance of the peace found by the lower court. However, the same Supreme Court
upheld the conviction of David O’Brien for publicly tearing up his draft card to the fury of a crowd
that attacked him in Boston (US v. O’Brien). Free speech is no licence but universities in the US tend
to defend the academic freedom of right-wing speakers to air offensive racial views as if hate speech
was free speech whereas the same universities conduct sexual harassment training to prevent gendered expressions that are not regarded as free speech for good reasons.
The word, fuck, is a bad word probably because prudish western morality tries to repress the sexual urge in order to control the tensions that Freud (2002) hypothesized to be at the core of western
neurotic civilization. To him, the South Pacific indigenous word, taboo, was an accurate scientific
term for the neurotic extreme measures that Aboriginal Australians and Africans take to avoid incest
unlike normal Europeans who had no qualms about marrying their cousins in order to keep all the
family wealth in the family. Freud pulled the Greek tragedy, Oedipus Rex, out of his hat and generalized it as a universal law of the unconscious longing by boys to kill their fathers and marry their
mothers, the little young motherfuckers. To fuck is actually another word for making love and to
condemn it as a bad word suggests that Freud may have had a point that the yearning for free
expression of love was always repressed by the superego which acted as the alter ego of society in
every civilization. No wonder Gandhi said that western civilization will be a good idea.
The universalization of European mores is part of the colonization process that begs for decolonization. Fanon (1963) took a shot at it by observing that he never observed the Oedipus complex in
the Caribbean. This may be because of the hundreds of years during slavery when Europeans
GLOBALIZATIONS
3
deliberately tried to crush the identity of enslaved fatherhood by the overseers and plantation owners
who openly raped African women to make babies as properties to be enslaved and sold like chattel
for profits. Toni Morrison dramatized this dilemma in Beloved where the father of the unborn child
hid in the ceiling and quietly watched as the school teacher and the school children held down the
enslaved pregnant woman and took her milk as if she was a cow. Had he said a word in protest, he
could have been lynched or castrated. So, he fled from the plantation and the raped woman also
escaped with her children to save them from being enslaved with the full support of the fucking
rule of law. The school teacher tracked her down to claim the children as his property but she slit
their throats rather than allow them to be taken back to slavery. She was saying, Fuck the Law to
the Fugitive Slave Act, as she euthanized her beloved children.
Also questioning Freud was Herbert Marcuse who argued that a non-repressive civilization can be
imagined contrary to the assumption by Freud that it was childish to even imagine that. The colonizers saw their repression of indigenous peoples as part of the civilizing process but the colonizers
were relatively free from repression themselves. They styled themselves as the law-givers and they
lived as though they were above the law. Even today, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison
(Reiman & Leighton, 2010), not because the poor are more crime-prone than the rich but because
the rich have the resources to hire dream teams of lawyers to get them off even when they are caught
red-handed while the poor plead guilty even to stuff that they did not do. Marcuse was suggesting
that repression was never generalized to all in any civilization and so he was right in his optimism
that a non-repressive civilization was possible when punitive law would have withered away to make
way for the New Testament principles of communism: from each according to their ability and to
each according to their needs, as the basis for administrative rules where there is no longer any
need for any class-race-gender to oppress and exploit others.
Similarly, Foucault (1978) subjected the repression hypothesis to empirical tests and found it
wanting but without reference to the repression of nine million, mostly women, who were killed
as witches in medieval Europe. The depictions of lovemaking are both antiquitous and ubiquitous
to the extent that the repression hypothesis must be rejected in favour of the null hypothesis. As
far back as the Greek School of Athens, Plato (1951) did not blush when he organized a Symposium
during which Socrates was represented with his friends as they feasted and discussed the idea of love
or sex among homosexual or bisexual men with a preference for love between men and boys and
with suggestions that women should be sent to a different room with their flutes to allow the
men to indulge by themselves. Even when Socrates was credited with the wisdom that love can be
defined as the appreciation of what is beautiful and what is true, the referent was always individual
human beings showing sexual love according to the dictates of the gods. The Greek laws about love
referred to when it was appropriate for a father to reject the love interests of a man in his sons but not
about the duty of the state to make law and enforce them as if the people were beloved. The Greeks
did not hesitate to sacrifice a daughter to their reprobate rapist gods for good luck in their war against
Troy to forcibly return the runaway wife of one on their homeboys when a loving solution would
have been to ask the woman whom she loved.
The holy books of many religions also include many verses that are close to pornography and sexual violence among men even while proclaiming the love of God for humanity. For instance, the men
of Sodom and Gomorrah insisted that they wanted to ‘know’ the beautiful men who came to visit
Lot. They refused when Lot gave them his two daughters to save his angelic visitors from being
defiled (what a father he was). Later, Lot’s wife could not resist looking back at all those handsome
hunks going up in smoke and she was instantly turned into a pillar of salty tears. Later, it was the
daughters who were blamed for getting their old father drunk and ‘knowing’ him because they
4
B. AGOZINO
could not find any man around. Nasty stuff. Sex was far from being repressed though sex is not the
same as love for true love is the love of the enemy as yourself, according to Jesus, who was probably
drawing from the lessons he learned in ancient Egypt where he was educated to know that the sun
that shines for you also shines for your enemies, for men and women, for blacks and whites, for rich
and the poor, irrespective of religious sects or nationality.
Simone de Beauvoir (1952) predated Foucault with the observation that the oppression of women
as The Second Sex was also ubiquitous and antiquitous but not because of psychophysiological differences as assumed by biologists nor due to the Freudian obsession with the incest taboo and the
invention of Electra complex as the other side of the coin of the Oedipus. She said that historical
materialism was more persuasive in the way that Engels outlined The Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the State but she remained critical of the way that Marxism-Leninism led to some kind
of state religion whereby women were once again commanded to stay at home to breed and support
the men rather than usher in the gendered equality of abilities and needs. What de Beauvoir ignored
is that the picture she painted of disempowered women was typically European and not universal as
Nkiru Nzegwu (2006) observed with reference to the right of women to inherit property in Africa;
and as Ify Amadiume (2000) concluded with the observation that patriarchy was accessible to the
male daughters of imperialism and female husbands in Africa. Oyeronke Oyewumi also observed
that the disempowered woman was invented by patriarchal racist imperialism to keep white
women under domination whereas Africans recognized generation as more important than gender
by respecting and loving elders irrespective of gender.
Jean Baudrillard (1990) would agree that it is not sex that is liberated from repression because sex
itself has been eclipsed by virtual reality under the postmodern condition. ‘Nothing today is less certain as sex’, he proclaimed. Of course, there could be transactional sex but no love at all. Even among
married couples who copulate for reproduction, there might be no love lost while the technologies of
reproduction make it possible for the couples to reproduce without sex or love being involved. This
makes the sex-centricity of Freud very problematic. Apart from the fact that human beings do not
automatically possess sex-consciousness from the womb and the additional fact that the interest in
sex tends to decline with age, there are young adults and eunuchs who deliberately choose celibacy
for religious or secular reasons. These large groups of humanity are no less human than the sexcrazed neurotics of Freud. Sex is important as a motivator of animal and even some plant drives,
Freud was right, but sex is not more important than food, shelter, self-actualization, political
power, religion, arts, peace, love and what have you? Freud was guilty of telling a single story, as Chimamanda Adichie would say.
The puzzle is that criminology has gone on for hundreds of years without sparing a thought for
love as a central theme that should be recovered in the pursuit of justice. Hal Pepinsky (1991) pioneered research on Peacemaking Criminology as an alternative to war making. He argued that the
policy orientation of war-making is a choice that individuals and states make, leading to more war
and more violence rather than to justice. He concluded that if individuals and states also make the
deliberate choice to seek peace, that would lead to more peace and more justice around the world. A
counterintuitive proof of what he was saying is the attack against the US on 9/11. President George
W. Bush decided instantly that he did not want to pursue war against the country from which 15 of
the 19 hijackers came, Saudi Arabia. As a result, the US remained friends with the Saudis and no US
troops died in that country while hundreds of thousands of Saudi lives were spared from collateral
damage that could have followed a US invasion that could have been resisted by Islamic militants
from around the world who were ready to defend their holiest land. At the same time, the US neoconservatives chose to make war against Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. As a result,
GLOBALIZATIONS
5
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed along with 5,000 US troops and many more wounded,
not to mention one trillion dollars spent only to result in the destabilization of the whole of the
Middle East with the establishment of the Islamic State with the support of the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization that provided training, arms, and aerial support in regime change attacks against
Libya and Syria. This papyrus suggests that there is a need to go beyond peacemaking and start
attempting lovemaking in legislation and law enforcement by, for example, pushing for penal abolitionism and sovereignty with love (Saleh-Hanna, 2015).
Criminology as lovemaking
Elsewhere, I recommended (Agozino, 2005) the Africana philosophy of nonviolence which has been
articulated by Chinua Achebe (2012) with Igbo communal sculptures called Mbari, or clay models
populated with characters from all over the world to represent tolerance and love in a genocidal
country where ‘starvation was used as a legitimate weapon of war’ with the support of Britain
and Russia, resulting in the death of 3.1 million people in Biafra (Ekwe-Ekwe, 2006). Desmond
Tutu (2014) invoked the concept of Ubuntu or the bundle of humanity to capture what Martin
Luther King Jr. (2010) called the World House as a consistent reminder that punitive justice for enemies of society is a counter-productive way to seek justice when reparations and forgiveness might be
more feasible routes to justice for all. The way that Moses was forgiven for killing law enforcement
agents and still returned to ask the ruler to let his people go, caused many terroristic plagues to affect
the people of Egypt before they were let go without punishment; is an illustration of the love of the
enemy that people of African descent have displayed a lot. There is a story of Prince of Damascus
who demanded independence from ancient Egypt and was invited to a feast by the Pharaoh.
After the feast, he was told that he was free to go home and tell his people that they were free to
rule themselves as they saw fit. The Othman Empire and the European empires had to wage bitter
punitive wars against those who had the temerity to demand the restoration of independence by contrast and Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe (2006) suggests that the UK orchestrated the postcolonial genocide
against the Igbo because they led the struggle for decolonization in West Africa.
The principle of forgiveness has been explored by Derrida to see if it is rooted in the Abrahamic
religions of the book but he found that each of the Abrahamic religions always emphasized that there
were things that were unforgivable that they were not prepared to forgive. It was in his beloved African cultural background that Derrida found abundant evidence of the forgiveness of the unforgivable
(Agozino, 2018b; Derrida, 2001). He illustrated this with the case of apartheid South Africa and the
attempt of Africans to seek Truth and Reconciliation rather than punitive justice (Mandela, 1994;
Cohen, 2001). Africans also went through 400 years of slavery but without seeking revenge or punishment for the crimes against humanity. On the contrary, the people of African descent have
demonstrated enormous love for their oppressors by naming their children after their enemies,
teaching their children the languages of the oppressors, dressing like them, lightening their skin
and straightening their hair, working for the man, shopping in the shops and eating in the restaurants of the bosses, and worshiping the image of the oppressor as the image of God. Of course, this
strange kind of love and troubles traditions of Blues music is not exclusive to people of African descent but is generalizable to the poor who tend to aspire to rise to join the oppressors instead of ending
oppression as Freire found among the illiterate peasants in Brazil who dreamed of becoming oppressive
landlords; and as can be seen in the hyper white supremacy of poor white trash and neo-Nazi scum
(Bauman, 1989) or among poor women who aspire to marry rich men to join the bourgeoisie to exploit
the working class. It may not be exactly love, it may be more like the envy that Fanon (1963) diagnosed
6
B. AGOZINO
among the colonized who dream only of taking the place of the occupier, contrary to the discourse of
decolonization. Bishop Michael Curry was exaggerating at the wedding of Megan and Harry when he
said that love is all that you need: you also need decolonization and reparative justice.
It is assumed that centuries of hunting Africans as prey, of dominating the working class and of
oppressing women may have normalized oppression and exploitation to the extent that the poor
aspire to become rich oppressors. The same cannot be said about women and indigenous people
who cannot become men or Europeans convincingly despite the technologies of transsexuality by
which some men also seek to become women and vice versa or the signifying monkey strategies
of passing as white among some of the colonized indigenous people just as some white anthropologists go native and some rich kids choose to dress in ripped jeans. What Freud meant by penis envy
was probably that he wished that he had a bigger one; since women do not envy that in men.
True love in policy discourse comes from the acknowledgement that a lot of injustice has been
done to people of African descent, Indigenous peoples, poor women and poor workers by the colonialist systems of racism-sexism-classism. Love praxis involves the compassionate search for reparative justice in recognition of the enduring legacies of centuries-old oppressive practices. The
interconnectivity, self-similarity, recursiveness, fractional dimensions, infinity, and non-lineal geometry of humanity and nature call for such reparative justice to go beyond the human species
and include the exploited nature that could only be ruined at the expense of humanity as a part
of nature. The struggle for reparative justice is not engaged in only by special interest groups who
are directly affected by systems of oppression. Part of what makes us human beings is that we are
humane enough to care for other animal species that cannot advocate for themselves but also for
all oppressed nationalities among humanity itself. As Martin Luther King Jr. observed, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That is why Rastafari proclaim one love for all, not just for
some, because love is lovely and war is doubly ugly, as Daddy U-Roy put it.
The ethic of love was missing from The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism with which
Max Weber attempted to debunk the emphasis of Marx on the economic foundation of a loving
society. To Weber, capitalism emerged first in protestant societies because of the unique gospel
that money is not the root of all evils and that wealth is one way to demonstrate divine blessings
here on earth. What Weber missed most of all was that it was not the protestant ethic that produced
capitalism but the enslavement of millions of Africans for hundreds of years by greedy Europeans
who also committed genocide against indigenous people to seize and occupy their land for private
profit (Ezeonu, 2018). Marx (1954) wondered how such violent conquerors could have the straight
faces to call themselves Christians when they all but ignored the gospel of Love preached by Christ.
Marx, Du Bois, Lenin, CLR James (1938), Eric Williams, Amilcar Cabral, Frantz Fanon, Walter Rodney, and Kwame Nkrumah were unanimous in identifying the oppressive exploitation of indigenous
people as the source of the wealth that smothers European ruling classes.
Bishop Michael Curry was superficial in his much beloved sermon at the wedding of Duke Harry
and Duchess Megan – love is not the only way because without justice, love degenerates to a bad
crush or infatuation. Men often claim to love the women that they hurt and women would swear
that they love the children they abuse. Alice Miller analysed pedagogy as an oppressive Eurocentric
tradition that is based on the oppression of children ‘for their own good’. Love without decolonization is like law without justice, it is more like peace as pacification that is guided by the imperialist
reason of might as right. Maynard Keynes captured this at the height of the project of colonization
when the great depression threatened the rising luxury of the leisure class in Europe and many economists called for thrift and austerity measures at the national level. Keynes objected and prescribed
profligacy in national projects funding to create jobs by relying on the huge surpluses expropriated
GLOBALIZATIONS
7
from the colonized. He told Europeans to pretend that fair was foul and foul was fair because fairness
did not work in the favour of imperialist countries while foul means of colonial exploitation was the
end that justified the means. Unknown to Keynes and his devotees was that such a rapacious gangster philosophy was sure to plunge Europe into another imperialist tribal war at the cost of 60 million
lives only a few years after his proclamation that fair was foul and foul was fair as Du Bois (1945)
warned.
The decolonization paradigm in criminology
The legal philosopher, Zenon Bankowski (1996), has wondered what it would look like if people truly
lived their lives in love and in law simultaneously, autonomously and heteronomously. The hypothetical case of Stephen who faced the dilemma of obeying the draft to go to war for his beloved country
even if he was against the war or to refuse the draft has already been solved by democracies that abolished the draft and relied on forcing the poor to ‘autonomously’ volunteer for military service while
the social democracies that retain the draft have no risk of going to war (Zinn, 2003). Similarly, the
fable of Bankowski about arguing with the ATM and begging it to give him some money when his
account had no balance or his dilemma about how to avoid beggars in Edinburgh are problems
solved by talking to the bank manager to arrange an overdraft and by the welfare state by providing
the dole to eliminate Dickensian poor houses. Bankowski is also mistaken in stating that Jesus
preached that you should love your neighbour; the Christian test of love is the love of the enemy
the way the Good Samaritan helped the wounded stranger. Bankowski erred by thinking that marriage is routinized and lacked the passion of love whereas the loving marriages just take different
forms in a long-term relationship in spite of the troubles that come and go and the daily chores
(Mead & Metraux, 1974). Surprisingly, given that Bankowski started with the story of his Polish
parents being admitted to Edinburgh university to avoid the Nazi occupation of their country, he
did not extend his theory of love and law to colonization and decolonization; but he was right to
say that we are not slaves of law.
With emphasis on revolutionary pressures in the law, Roberto Unger (1976) differed from Bankowski by defining love in law as the ‘solidarity’ that goes beyond respect or admiration for intimate
neighbours or tribal community, to share the concerns of strangers. This is especially the case under
an empire where the rule of law is compromised by concentrating the three arms of government in
the emperor who was nevertheless lacking in absolute authority due to the competing forces of custom and sacred laws proclaimed by ‘revolutionary prophecy’. Without discussing decolonization
directly, Unger concluded that in modern society, the autonomy of individuals has revolutionary
implications because the bureaucracy cannot impose absolute authority over all the people all the
time. Unger used the revolutionary socialist Peoples Republic of China to illustrate the view that
the destruction of the ancient regime and the expropriation of the means of production may
empower the people but the bureaucratic rules may hinder them at least until the objective of the
withering away of the state is attained under communism to effectively resolve Bankowski’s dilemma
of how to love beggars, libraries, and cash machines.
Somewhat like Bankowski, John Rawls (1971) offered an atomistic picture of loving families that
socialize their children to become loving people who value morality enough to grow up and show
love to their loving parents. This is consistent with the assumption of Rawls that justice emerges
from a veil of ignorance when children would have to be taught a sense of right and wrong by all
knowing parents. If that is the case, according to Rawls, injustice could only be blamed on those
who love injustice in the form of the pursuit of power and domination without affection for their
8
B. AGOZINO
fellow humanity. The solution to injustice would mean the training of children to adhere to moral
standards before they become adults who obsess about power and domination.
Thus, Rawls appears to be following the psychological model offered by Freud – the problem lies
in the heads of the people and if only educators and parents could shrink those heads, the people will
be more loving and justice would prevail. This formulation does not recognize adequately the institutional structures that maintain injustice in such a way that psychoanalysis would not be able to
deconstruct imperialism without clear historically-specific materialist struggles to deepen democratization by ending the systems of racism-sexism-classism and homophobia. It is true that socialization has something to do with the levels of consciousness but it is mistaken to see socialization as
child-rearing or pedagogy given that socialization is a life-long process that is orchestrated by the
state, by religious and educational institutions and by employers and peers but not exclusively by
parents in the holy family and certainly not by stealing Indigenous children to be ‘upraised’ by
white-supremacist colonizers.
The theory of justice by Rawls (1971) may be flawed but at least he appears to be aware of the fact
that without affection, justice would be unjust conquest and domination by the powerful over the
weak. Ronald Dworkin unapologetically pictured the law as an emperor with decrees of dos and
don’ts that must be obeyed by the subjects. Such a view suggests that the empire or imperialism is a
good social system that works to maintain order in a chaotic world. Such a picture is not strange
because it is the image that imperialism has of itself – the white man’s burden of civilizing the savages
of the Philippines, as Rudyard Kipling put it, prompting Mark Twain to offer a cynical prayer for the
victory of the genocidal imperialist army in foreign wars. If anything, the history of decolonization
proves that the only good thing about colonization or empire was when it was ended, according to
Walter Rodney. It is true that, as a result of neocolonialism, there are people who yearn to return to
the good old days of colonialism and when given the choice, people in Puerto Rico, Falklands, Northern Ireland, Martinique, French Guiana, Scotland, and Gibraltar vote to remain the territories of their
colonizers. The nominally independent Francophone countries sign up to remain in monetary and
military unions with their former colonizers just as Anglophone countries apply to join the Commonwealth and embrace the repressive legislations from the colonial era long after the colonizers had abolished them in their own jurisdictions. Part of the reasons for the yearning to return to classical
colonialism is because progressive intellectuals have not convincingly articulated a viable alternative
to neocolonialism and imperialism or what Stuart Hall identified as authoritarian populism.
I stumbled on the decolonization paradigm while doing my doctoral research on Black Women
and the Criminal Justice System (Agozino, 1997). I discovered that contrary to the preoccupation
of criminology and jurisprudence with the punishment of individual offenders, Black women
have historically been targeted for repressive social control even when there was no doubt that
they were not suspected offenders. From the epochs of slavery onwards, the women who were proximate to suspected black men were subjected to punitive societal reactions as if they were guilty by
association under the assumptions of collective responsibility. I did not find a similar targeting of
Black men who were proximate to suspected Black women and I did not find similar cases of
White women being victimized for stuff that White men were suspected as committing, except in
the unique cases of Irish women under the special history of the troubles when the Irish Republican
Army was engaged in open warfare with the British Army. I concluded that the concept of punishment was imperialist in the sense that it was trying to colonize the concept of victimization and rearticulating it as belonging to the expanding empire of punishment, similar to the colonization of the
lifeworld by monetary power, according to Habermas who failed to articulate the logical struggles for
decolonization. I called on revolutionary scholars to recognize this victimization for what it was and
GLOBALIZATIONS
9
challenge the imperialist state to offer reparative justice to the affected women. One such reparative
justice could be in the form of the legalization of drugs which were the main reasons why the vast
majority of Black women were incarcerated in the UK. If it was the case that White women were
being banged up in Africa and in the Caribbean for drugs offences at the rate that Black women
were imprisoned in Europe and North America or the rates at which Indigenous women were
being criminalized under settler colonialism for possessing substances much safer than legal tobacco
and alcohol, those drugs would not be illegal for another second. Yet, it is not only black women who
suffer from the hysterical war on drugs, large numbers of poor Whites are also seeing their lives
destroyed by the imperialist state of nomophilitis intent on neurotic domination at huge costs to
tax payers (Agozino, 2018; Alexander, 2010). After killing more than 300,000 people in the war
on drugs, Mexico is finally considering legalizing all drugs in line with US voters initiatives to legalize
marijuana and in line with harm reduction in Portugal and The Netherlands, while The Philippines
continues to kill thousands of people suspected of possessing drugs. I hope that voters in New Zealand will overwhelmingly say Yes to the legalization referendum in 2020. African countries should
also end the imperialist war on drugs which remains the excuse for the execution of lots of Africans
in South East Asia while no Asian has ever been executed in Africa.
I challenge those legal theorists who philosophize about love and law to add their voices to the
chorus of reggae musicians who have been at the fore-front of the campaign to Legalize It and
demand that the imperialist states should provide huge grants to the criminalized to enable them
to participate in the rising legal marijuana industries just as huge grants are awarded to rural
White male farmers. Similarly, I challenge the postcolonial and neocolonial locations to reject the
colonial repressive fetishes such as the death penalty, the prohibition of abortion and the criminalization of same-sex relations and sex work; all of which were imposed by European colonizers who
have since abolished them in their own jurisdictions while the former colonized locations cling on to
them as if their lives depended on them. Reiman and Leighton (2010) support abolitionism by pointing out that prohibition has failed but that the huge cost of failure makes it a pyrrhic defeat. They
point out that the prohibitionists are not necessarily evil but may be misguided by a belief that
they were taking tough decisions to improve public safety. The fact remains that prohibition does
not work whereas education allows responsible adults to choose what to consume in the comfort
of their homes without harming anyone else while the public health and education systems would
be there to reduce the harm of addiction.
The decolonization ethic in public policy would disrupt the call to arms against poor people of
other countries or other ethnicities. If all the poor people collectively say Fuck the Law of War,
there is no way the one percent of war mongering chicken hawks could sustain militarism at the wasteful scale that is the case under imperialism. However, it would be foolhardy to start opposing war
after it has been declared as Lenin warned. Criminologists and legal scholars should contribute their
thoughts and activism to the search for a demilitarized world where the armed forces would be
replaced by medical corps, environmental activists, agricultural gangs and home or utility construction teams around the world. Arms are made for hugging and not for fighting and killing. In the case
of African countries where imperialism entrenched genocidal armies of conquest and occupation,
there is even a more convincing need to abolish militarism and erase the colonial boundaries to
allow the loving people to freely travel across Africa and show their love to fellow Africans without
the hindrance of colonial boundaries.
Moreover, imagine that it was Europeans who have been drowning in their thousands every year
trying to cross the Mediterranean to access fortress Africa for better lives and opportunities. That was
always the case for thousands of years when Africa was the cradle of civilization and Europeans came
10
B. AGOZINO
as undocumented immigrants or returnees, having originated in Africa earlier. Europeans would
have been calling for a safe ferry service to be put in place to transport their people across the Aegean
Sea. Legal scholars should add their voices to the call by Giannacopoulos (2011) and by myself to go
beyond the love of the law, nomophilia, and bring in the law of love to welcome immigrants and offer
asylums to all who seek it in a troubled world. Simply mentioning in the constitution that the indigenous people now have a right to their land titles if such titles have not been extinguished by the
colonizers, falls far short in the expectation that a loving government would decolonize the shameful
overincarceration of indigenous people and the detention of refugees without trial. Giannacopoulos
calls for the reparative payment of the sovereign debts owed to the Indigenous peoples and this cannot be done by simply advocating for the adoption of the hypocritical cries of fraternity, equality and
liberty that the slave-holding French republic chanted to the pleasure of liberals like Braithwaite
(1996) who advocate self-regulation for corporations but not for Indigenous nations under settler-colonialism. What the Fuck did President Donald Trump mean when he told graduates at
the Naval Academy in May 2018 that there is nothing that America cannot do, that America
tamed a whole continent and that America has no apologies to anyone? Fuck the Law that seeks
to regulate crimes against humanity?
Decolonization also goes beyond policy scholar-activism to embrace methodological innovations
that challenge the positivism and empiricism of imperialist thought. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) has
outlined the principles that could help us to decolonize our methodologies especially when it comes
to research that concerns Indigenous peoples for whom research is a dirty word. Bagele Chilisa
(2012) has also developed similar principles for Indigenous Research Methodologies that challenge
Eurocentrism. Similar methodological innovations have been going on in Africana Studies with
emphasis on critical, centred scholar-activism. I have added to this paradigm the principle that
we should not be tricked into disowning objectivity by claiming that we are only committed to social
justice as many progressive scholars have done. Instead, we should always aim for what I call committed objectivity because that is the best standard for any researcher, not just for Indigenous
researchers for race-class-gender oppression is a threat to all (Agozino, 1997, 2003; Crenshaw,
1989; Gabbidon, 2010; Hall, 1980, 2016; Kitossa, 2012; Oriola, 2006, 2012).
Conclusions
The decolonization paradigm is gaining currency in the social sciences with support from many
scholars of European descent. Bonaventura dos Santos (2014) has drawn from the World Social
Forum movement and called on scholars to learn from Epistemologies from the South to develop
strategies for preventing ‘epistemicide’ in scholarship. It is important to note that what is at stake
is real genocide and not just epistemicide. With the final solution, no one would worry about the
epistemic contributions from the South. Thomas Kuhn (1962) was generalizing the Eurocentric genocidal tradition when he outlined The Structures of Scientific Revolution. According to this imperialist epistemology that is adopted uncritically even by Indigenous scholars, one paradigm is
hegemonic at any one point until a counter-thesis emerges to contest the hegemony. The two paradigms struggle and are replaced by a new synthesis that combines what is best in both the thesis and
the anti-thesis. Such a natural science model of dialectics is not suitable in the social sciences where a
multiplicity of paradigms populate the fields of study and hardly any of them has ever been subjected
to epistemicide despite withering criticism.
As a result, I am not suggesting that decolonization-centricity is the only way to conduct social
science research or that all other paradigms should be subjected to epistemicide. To me,
GLOBALIZATIONS
11
decolonization is not simply a metaphor because imperialism is not allegorical. The system of colonization remains in settler colonial societies but also in neocolonial locations under the domination
of finance capital or imperialism. There would always be apologists for imperialism and they may
defend their privileges by opposing the decolonization of the universities. We hope that as we battle
against the injustice sustained around the world by imperialism, more young scholars will join the
struggle against unfairness, oppression and exploitation in the real word and in universities (Smith,
1999). The imperialist logic that remains dominant in universities today does not hurt only Indigenous peoples, women and the poor – injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, as the estimated 60 million who died in the second imperialist world war; and the 600 thousand who died in
the pro-slavery American civil war, go to show.
Part of the reasons why criminology has struggled in neocolonial countries and among indigenous
people may be the complicity of the discipline in the project of imperialism as I pointed out in Counter-Colonial Criminology. In his preface to The New Criminology, Alvin Gouldner (1973) pointed out
that there is a need to develop a liberation paradigm in criminology in order to make the discipline
more attractive to critical scholars. In the absence of such a liberation paradigm, Gouldner was generous in recognizing Robert Merton, Charles W. Mills and Howard Becker as contributing directly or
indirectly to the development of such a liberation paradigm that The New Criminology aspired to,
though without critiquing imperialism. If Gouldner (1973) had looked beyond white male criminologists, he could not have had troubles in identifying W.E.B. Du Bois (1904, 1945) as laying the foundation for Liberation Sociology the way that Pfohl (2015), Feagin, Hernan, and Ducey (2014) and
Pearce (1976) suggested. The emergence of Indigenous Criminology by Cunneen and Tauri
(2016), Tauri and Deckert (2014), and Deckert (2014) shows that there will be no racist or sexist
border controls and so criminologists of every colour would be welcome to join indigenous scholars
in the struggle against colonial injustice with the aim of decolonizing the real world and decolonizing
our theories, methodologies and activism as Harry Blagg (2008), Azikiwe (1960), Cabral (1979),
Fanon (1963), Agozino (2003), Abu-Jamal and Vittoria (2018) and others have been harping.
Screw imperialism.
Finally, a major lesson from this papyrus is that we should make efforts to found Love Studies as
an original theoretical, research and policy area of discourse with emphasis on educating the public
on the ethics of love for the self, the family, the community, and especially for the enemy. Throughout the world, there are military academies to teach young people how to kill lots of people with
weapons of mass destruction but there is not a single school for the inculturation of the people in
the One Love philosophy of Rastafari. The neglect of Love Studies is not due to the difficulty of
the subject matter for even rocket science is taught in universities. The neglect of Love Studies is
due to the fact that intellectuals have not devoted efforts to this area of discourse the way classical
philosophers and religious traditions attempted. Let us build on past efforts to construct the beginning of Love Studies for the benefit of all.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding
This work was supported by the Flinders University [International Visiting Fellowship].
12
B. AGOZINO
Notes on contributor
Biko Agozino, PhD, is a Professor of Sociology and Africana Studies, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. He is the
author of the following books – Essays on education and popular culture: Massliteracy, 2019, Cambridge Scholars Press; Critical, creative and centered scholar-activism: The fourth dimensionalism of Agwuncha Arthur
Nwankwo, 2016, FDP; ADAM: Africana drug-free alternative medicine, 2006; Counter-colonial criminology,
2003; Pan African issues in crime and justice (co-edited), 2004, republished by Routledge, 2018; Nigeria: Democratising a militarised civil society (co-authored) 2001; Theoretical and methodological issues in migration
research (edited), 2000; and Black women and the criminal justice system, 1997, republished by Ashgate,
2018. Also Director-Producer-Editor of Reparative Justice, 30 minutes, colour, African Independent Television,
Lagos, Nigeria, 2002; Director-Producer of CLR James: The Black Jacobins Sociology Series, 2008; Director-Producer, Shouters and the Control Freak Empire, Winner of the Best International Short Documentary, Columbia
Gorge Film Festival, USA, 2011. He is Editor-In-Chief of the African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies,
and Series Editor, Ashgate Publishers Interdisciplinary Research Series in Ethnic, Gender and Class Relations.
References
Abu-Jamal, M., & Vittoria, S. (2018). Murder incorporated: Empire, genocide, manifest destiny – dreaming of
empire. San Francisco, CA: Prison Radio.
Achebe, C. (2012). There was a country: A personal history of Biafra. New York, NY: Penguin.
Agozino, B. (1997). Black women and the criminal justice system: Towards the decolonisation of victimisation.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Agozino, B. (2003). Counter-colonial criminology: A critique of imperialist reason. London: Pluto Press.
Agozino, B. (2005). Criminology as lovemaking: An Africa centered theory of justice. African Journal of
Criminology and Justice Studies, 1(1), 4–22.
Agozino, B. (2018). The withering away of the law: An indigenous perspective on the decolonisation of the
criminal justice system and criminology. Journal of Global Indigeneity, 3(1), 1–22.
Agozino, B. (2018b). The African philosophy of forgiveness and Abrahamic traditions of vengeance.
Australasian Review of African Studies, 39(2), 239–252.
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: The
New Press.
Amadiume, I. (2000). Daughters of the goddess, daughters of imperialism. London: Zed.
Azikiwe, N. (1960). Respect for human dignity: An inaugural address. Enugu: Government Press.
Bankowski, Z. (1996). Law, love and computers. Edinburgh Law Review, 1, 25–42.
Baudrillard, J. (1990). The transparency of evil: Essays on extreme phenomenon. London: Verso.
Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Blagg, H. (2008). Crime, aboriginality and the decolonisation of justice. Sydney: Hawkins Press.
Braithwaite, J. (1995). Corporate crime and republican criminological praxis. In F. Pearce & L. Snider (Eds.),
Corporate crime: Contemporary debates (pp. 48–71). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Cabral, A. (1979). Unity and struggles. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.
Cunneen, C., & Tauri, J. (2016). Indigenous criminology. Bristol: Policy Press.
de Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Deckert, A. (2014). Neo-colonial criminology: Quantifying the silence. African Journal of Criminology and
Justice Studies, 8(1), 63–88.
Derrida, J. (2001). On cosmopolitanism and forgiveness. New York, NY: Routledge.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1904). The suppression of the African slave-trade to the United States of America: 1638–1870,
Harvard Historical Studies. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1945). Color and democracy: Colonies and peace. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
Ekwe-Ekwe, H. (2006). Biafra revisited. Dakar: African Renaissance.
GLOBALIZATIONS
13
Ezeonu, I. (2018). Market criminology: State-corporate crime in the petroleum extraction industry. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove Press.
Feagin, J., Hernan, V., & Ducey, K. (2014). Liberation sociology (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. London: Pantheon.
Freud, S. (2002). Civilization and its discontents. London: Penguin.
Gabbidon, S. (2010). Criminological perspectives on race and crime. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Giannacopoulos, M. (2011). Nomophilia and Bia: The love of law and violence. Borderlands, 10(1), 1–19.
Gouldner, A. (1973). Foreword. In I. Taylor, P. Walton, & J. Young (Eds.), The new criminology: For a social
theory of deviance (pp. ix–xiv). New York, NY: Harper.
Hall, S. (1980). Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance. In Sociological theories: Race and colonialism (pp. 305–354). Paris: UNESCO.
Hall, S. (2016). Cultural studies 1983: A theoretical history. Durham: Duke University Press.
James, C. L. R. (1938). The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo revolution. London:
Secker & Warbug.
King, M. L., Jr. (2010). Where do we go from here: Chaos or community? Boston: Beacon Press.
Kitossa, T. (2012, January). Criminology and colonialism: Counter colonial criminology and the Canadian
context. Journal of Pan African Studies, 4(10), 204–226.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Mandela, N. (1994). A long walk to freedom. New York, NY: Little Brown.
Marx, K. (1954). Capital: A critique of political economy. Moscow: Progress Press.
Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1974). A way of seeing perspectives on the changing world: youth, marriage, feminism,
power, politics. New York, NY: William Harrow.
Nzegwu, N. (2006). Family matters: Feminist concepts in African philosophy of culture. Albany: SUNY.
Oriola, T. B. (2012). Criminal resistance? The kidnapping of oil workers. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Oriola, T. B. (2006). Biko Agozino and the rise of post-colonial criminology. The African Journal of
Criminology and Justice Studies, 2(1), 104–131.
Pearce, F. (1976). Crimes of the powerful: Marxism, crime and deviance. London: Pluto Press.
Pepinsky, H. (1991). The geometry of violence and democracy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Pfohl, S. (2015). The criminological imagination in an age of global cybernetic power. In J. Frauley (Ed.),
C. Wright Mills and the criminological imagination: Prospects for creative inquiry (pp. 99–131).
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Plato. (1951). The symposium (W. Hamilton, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2010). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice.
New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Saleh-Hanna, V. (2015). Black feminist hauntology: Rememory the ghosts of abolition. In Penal field (Vol. XII,
pp. 2–28). Abolitionism. http://champpenal.revues.org
Santos, B. d. S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. New York, NY: Routledge.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people. London: Zed Press.
Tauri, M., & Deckert, A. (2014). Editorial comment. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 8(1),
i–iv.
Tutu, D. (2014). The book of forgiving. New York: Harper One.
Unger, R. M. (1976). Law in modern society: Towards A criticism of social theory. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Zinn, H. (2003). Passionate declarations: Essays on war and justice. New York, NY: Harper.