Introduction
The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought ethical concerns to the forefront, as AI now influences nearly every facet of modern life, from healthcare to peacebuilding efforts. Existing AI ethics frameworks, like many technological frameworks, are grounded primarily in Western epistemologies that emphasize autonomy, individual rights, and procedural transparency.1 While these principles offer value, they often lack the relational depth and community-centered perspectives critical to peacebuilding in diverse global contexts. By contrast, African epistemologies, rooted in interconnectedness, human dignity, and communal well-being, provide an essential, underrepresented lens in AI ethics. Decolonial thinkers like Walter Mignolo,2 Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o,3 Achille Mbembe,4 and Frantz Fanon2 advocate for pluralism, decoloniality, and the value of diverse knowledge systems, offering perspectives that challenge the limitations of Western ethics. This article explores how their contributions can inform a more inclusive, context-sensitive AI ethics framework for peacebuilding.
Epistemological Perspectives
African epistemologies are centered on communal knowledge, relationality, and shared values, diverging significantly from the individualistic orientation typical of Western epistemologies. In African philosophy, knowledge is not an isolated endeavour; instead, it emerges from and is sustained by community ties and interdependence. Concepts like Ubuntu (“I am because we are”) exemplify this, stressing that individual identity is deeply intertwined with communal well-being, and that ethical actions should serve the collective.
This interconnected approach to knowledge aligns with a call to develop ethical frameworks for AI that go beyond individual autonomy to address societal impacts and shared responsibilities—critical for AI systems used in peacebuilding. In contrast to Western frameworks that often focus on individual rights and procedural transparency, African epistemologies prioritize community cohesion and social harmony, values essential for fostering peace and reconciliation. Embracing these principles allows for the creation of AI systems that are socially responsible, contextually relevant, and equipped to support peacebuilding, thus fostering ethical guidelines that serve broader societal interests in conflict-affected areas.
In African thought, knowledge is not pursued in isolation; it emerges and is sustained through community bonds and shared responsibilities. This principle is exemplified in the African philosophy of Ubuntu — which emphasizes that individual identity is deeply intertwined with communal well-being. As Walter Mignolo observes, African epistemologies engage in “border thinking,” a form of knowledge that resists the compartmentalization of knowledge structures often found in the West, instead seeing “relationships and interconnectedness” as foundational.6
Walter Mignolo’s critique of Western epistemology centres on its dominance and self-proclaimed universality, which marginalizes other knowledge systems by imposing itself as the “totality of knowledge.” He argues that Western epistemology frequently dismisses non-Western perspectives, categorizing them as incomplete or inferior—a process he describes as epistemic colonialism.7 To counter this, Mignolo proposes “border thinking,” a concept which captures how marginalized epistemologies resist Western dominance by asserting their unique insights and values. Border thinking is a decolonial strategy that seeks to “redefine what constitutes valid knowledge” by valuing diverse perspectives as integral to a “pluriversal” ethics framework, rather than deviations from a Western norm.8
Mignolo’s vision of pluriversal ethics embraces the coexistence of multiple, equally valid worldviews, aligning well with African epistemologies that prioritize inclusivity and plurality. By rejecting the idea of a single universal ethics framework, pluriversal ethics allows African epistemologies to inform AI ethics, making space for community-based values and relationality. Such an approach could challenge the rigid, universalist assumptions often embedded in AI, promoting an ethical framework that is both adaptable and sensitive to diverse social realities. Through this lens, AI ethics would better support and represent the collective needs of varied cultural contexts, contributing to a more just and inclusive technological landscape.
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o champions the “great return” to African languages, arguing that reclaiming indigenous languages is essential for cultural and intellectual decolonization. In his view, language shapes identity and provides the foundation for self-definition, allowing African societies to connect with their histories and cultural expressions. He sees language as not just a tool for communication but as “a profound act of cultural and intellectual decolonization” that enables a society to reclaim its narratives and values.
In AI ethics, Ngũgĩ’s insights emphasize the importance of recognizing that language and identity inform ethical decision-making.9 Ethical choices made by AI are inherently cultural expressions; thus, incorporating linguistic and cultural diversity into AI systems fosters a more context-aware and respectful technology. African epistemologies, with their emphasis on the value of diverse languages and cultural frameworks, could guide AI ethics frameworks to support local relevance and inclusivity, ensuring AI respects and represents the communities it serves.
Achille Mbembe, another decolonial thinker, highlights Africa’s “complex order,” which he describes as a landscape rich with “unexpected turns, meanders, and changes of course”—a complexity that Western frameworks often fail to capture. Mbembe argues that African ways of knowing embrace multiple temporalities and trajectories, allowing for a more layered understanding of society that considers diverse socio-cultural realities and non-linear progressions.10
This approach can deeply inform AI ethics by encouraging frameworks that recognize and adapt to social complexities rather than imposing rigid, universal norms. With their flexibility and sensitivity to context, African epistemologies provide a model for creating AI systems that can navigate varied cultural landscapes, accommodating the nuanced dynamics of different communities. Such ethics would support responsive and relevant AI, fostering a more inclusive and adaptable approach to technology.
Lastly, Frantz Fanon argues that African epistemologies are deeply intertwined with the struggle for liberation and the formation of a national culture. He views culture as a “dynamic, lived practice” that emerges from collective resistance and the pursuit of self-definition against colonial subjugation. Fanon’s vision of liberation calls for structures that support rather than dominate, advocating for dismantling social hierarchies that perpetuate oppression.2
Drawing from Fanon’s emphasis on liberation in AI ethics can help prevent the reinforcement of biases or hierarchies within technology. African epistemologies, rooted in resistance and the safeguarding of individual and communal identities, can inspire AI frameworks that actively work against cultural erasure and bias. This approach would ensure AI respects and promotes diversity, safeguarding identities rather than imposing homogenizing or oppressive standards.
In rethinking AI ethics frameworks for peacebuilding, African epistemologies offer vital insights by emphasizing interconnectedness, cultural relevance, and communal harmony. Drawing on the philosophies of Mignolo, Ngũgĩ, Mbembe, and Fanon, this essay has explored how African thought, rooted in decolonial resistance and community-centred values, provides a counterbalance to Western individualism and proceduralism. By integrating these relational perspectives, AI systems that are more context-aware, culturally inclusive, and aligned with peacebuilding goals can be developed. African epistemologies encourage an ethics of care, adaptability, and inclusivity, supporting AI technologies that not only respect individual and collective identities but actively contribute to conflict resolution and social cohesion. This philosophical foundation challenges existing frameworks to foster a more just, responsive, and ethically responsible AI that serves global peacebuilding efforts.
Conclusion
The essay connects to Africa-centered policy and regulatory approaches to technology (especially AI) and how this policy environment supports or constrains democratic transitions and peacebuilding interventions, including how attendant social media applications, through algorithms, are potentially threatening the information environment in Africa through industrialising gossip. The latter erodes public trust and impacts human solidarity and agency. As opposed to the scholarly over-emphasis on the negative implication of adoption and adaptation of social media technologies, it also addresses the “tech for good side” where social media acts as a powerful tool for mobilisation, public education, peace activation, humanitarian support, and digital activism within the “tech for good mantra” and the “do no harm” approaches to digital peacebuilding in Africa both online and offline. While recent trends in some African countries bring about a positive outlook of the future of social media as a tool for democracy and peacebuilding in Africa, especially through digital activism and digital democracy (as demonstrated by the case of Gen Z protests in Kenya), we need to acknowledge the looming challenges that are centred on tech infrastructure, policy environment, and regulatory frameworks touching on issues of tech adoption and adaptation in African ecologies characterised by cultural differences. However, some of the ethical and auditing dilemmas on the adoption of AI on the continent are revealed by some of the emerging digital peacebuilding observations in Southern Africa.
The bias that comes with tech design must be called out and addressed to democratize Africa’s AI transition. Technological designs tailored for Europe and North America will not be successfully adopted and adapted if Africa is not part and parcel of innovative designs. This is why AI innovations and applications invented, or tailor made for Africa presents the best promise of success. African epistemologies, rooted in resistance and the safeguarding of individual and communal identities, can inspire AI frameworks that actively work against cultural erasure and bias, an approach that would ensure AI respects and promotes diversity, safeguarding identities rather than imposing homogenizing or oppressive standards. AI systems that are more context-aware, culturally inclusive, and aligned with peacebuilding goals are more promising for African users.
Finally, a comprehensive body of knowledge showing the true impact and uniqueness of social media peacebuilding strategies in Africa should be developed in order to address the complicated dual-nature of social media in peacebuilding on the continent, equally captured by the disconnection between cyber optimists and cyber pessimists in the Southern Africa case, evidenced by the minimal literature in the Nigerian case, like many other cases in Africa.
Endnotes
- Mhlambi, S., & Tiribelli, S. (2024). Correction: “Decolonizing AI Ethics: Relational Autonomy as a Means to Counter AI Harms.” Topoi, 1-1.
- Mignolo, W. D. (2000a). Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton University Press.
- wa Thiong’o, N. (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. James Currey.
- Mbembe, A. (2001). On the Postcolony. University of California Press.
- Fanon, F. (1963). The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press.
- Mignolo, W. D. (2000). The many faces of cosmo-polis: Border thinking and critical cosmopolitanism. Public Culture, 12(3), 721–748.
- Mignolo, W. D. (2009). Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(7–8), 159–181.
- Mignolo, W. D. (2000a)
- Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. (1986)
- Mbembe, A. (2001).
- Fanon, F. (1963)
