Reviving Premodern Africa? The Anointed Objects and the Magical Economy in Un(der)developed Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This essay explores an interesting (if not already explored) topic but is filled with significant flaws. I do think the flaws can be overcome with significant revision. I will list them below:

- the essay is filled with problematic phrases and assumptions. Using terms like superstitious, primitivistic, premodern, etc. are loaded and immediately demonstrate a lack of carelessness and thoughtlessness by the author. If one is going to use such terms there must at least be a discussion of why they are being employed, but I would recommend removing them entirely.

- The link between ATRs and ANPPs on the subject is tenuous at best. That is not to say the link is not present but that the essay does not do an adequate job connecting them. The article is a critique of ANPPs but spends most of its time exploring ATRs without adequately demonstrating the relevance of those materials in the world of ANPPs. For example, there is significant conversation about the "limited cosmic good" in ATRs but this conversation is never extended to ANPPs.

- There is no discussion of why Africa should or even could follow the European model of scientific rationalism the author holds in such high regard. More distressing, the author never explores how that very scientific rationalism was constructed to purposefully exclude Africa. There is no adequate exploration of systemic issues (except for one quote from Kgatle on lines 460-462). This is insufficient. Ignoring systemtic realities ends up blaming individual Africans for their "un(der)development" in ways similar to the author's own critiques of ATRs and ANPPs. For example, the quote that there is a "direct correlation between the occult economy and economic un(der)development in Africa" is a gross oversimplification if not explicitly incorrect.

- the binary between "occult economy" and "scientific rationalism" is way to simplistic and ignores the significant overlap between the two. And to dismiss "occult economies" as inducing excuses for failure and fatalism seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of "occult economies" by the author.

- The essay has almost no concrete examples of point-of-contact objects. There are maybe three quotes I can think of from Makindiwa, Magaya and Nala and that is it. And the quotes aren't great examples because in the "occult economy" material objects matter. Why not strengthen the essay with concrete examples? And to that end, better engagement with the actual topic of study here would open up interesting lines of thought that are currently not in the essay. For example, if you focused on Makindiwa you could talk about the bricks, or oil etc. And you could then explore the cost of such occult economies. The points-of-contact aren't free - quite the opposite sometimes - and how does that impact economies?

- If indeed the argument is for scientific rationalism over and against occult economies (which it should be clear that this reviewer rejects anyway), why appeal to Genesis and the Bible?

- Finally, the paper makes pan-African claims but is limited primarily to southern Africa in both academic resources and data. Do these conclusions hold for other parts of Africa (I think especially of West Africa where these occult economies bear similarities to the examples herein but also significant departures).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments on my article. I have revised the article, please find attached the revised version. I trust that the revisions I have made have improved the article.

Thank you and kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The conclusions are very poor - It is necessary to expand, highlighting the main ideas and results presented in the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments on my article. I have revised the article, please find attached the revised version. I trust that the revisions I have made have improved the article.

Thank you and kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are a number of issues with this paper. The author does not interrogate their own eurocentric, colonizing, modernist, and capitalist assumptions about African ancestor spiritualities. The paper moves back and forth between Indigenous rituals and practices and Pentecostal practices that at times it is hard to know which one they are talking about. Also, there is no interrogation or recognition of how much the notion of dominion of the earth has been criticized and fallen into disrepute. Additionally, the author seems to assume that Modernity, the scienfic method, and capitalist economy are beyond reproach of ethically without problems. There is not clear appreciation of African rituals and practices as pointing to something larger than the immediate material economic aspect but which can inevitably lead to secularization. As you can see, there are far too many issues here that need to be addressed and nuanced before this paper can be considered for publication. There is no clear use of literature that addresses critically issues of dominion, capitalism, and the use of the scienfic method.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments on my article. I have revised the article, please find attached the revised version. I trust that the revisions I have made have improved the article.

Thank you and kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Much improved. Still some editing needs done and there are a lot of spelling errors, but the author has done significant revision making this a much better article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above: there are a lot of spelling errors, etc. Things that careful editing will fix.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback on my reworked version, I have had the article re-edited for language and spelling errors. 

Kind regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article makes a good argument. I really appreciate how the author makes clear that African neo Pentecostal groups are still drawing on traditional African spiritualities. The problem is not the argument; the problem is the author's premise by focusing on un(der)development without really addressing the critical geopolitical forces that contribute to Africa's impoverishment and current exploitation. In line 752 and 753 the author makes a direct correlation between occult economy and economic un(der)development. But the author does not acknowledge the direct connection between Africa’s current impoverishment and underdevelopment and Europe's and USA’s exploitation. Though the author sometimes mentions colonialism, injustice, and other important aspects, the question of un(der)development is blamed on the local Africans with no illusion to how European colonialism contributed to it. This to say that it does not seem that the choice of language of un(der)development is useful, and I would recommend the author to remove it. The same thing goes for the language of syncretism. The use of this language betrays the authors owned Eurocentric orientation.

Again, the author seems convinced the development is desirable, at least in terms of curving poverty. Admittedly the author recognizes that the present structures of capitalism are responsible or have greatly contributed to the contamination of our environment, and the author also refers to the sciences and technology as the only alternative ways to get out of poverty. To that end, readers are told that the solution is for African communities to abandon their traditions. Such an approach is deeply colonizing as well as Eurocentric.

 

Line 602 has a typo: it should read borders not boarders.

Line 845 reads ANNPs  is this a typo? Should it read ANPPs?

The critique that comes out from line 978 two line 993 should appear earlier in the paper.

The author does not seem to want to abandon ideas of dominion by focusing on a God glorifying culture which appears on line 1001 through to 1020. But we are not told what this looks like. What readers find are the authors owned prejudiced attitudes towards African traditional practices and their adoption by African neo Pentecostal groups.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback on my reworked version.

1. I have had the article re-edited to correct the language and spelling errors.
2.  I have added the below text in the introduction to justify the use of the term 'un(der)development' and to acknowledge the role played by colonialism and other geopolitical forces in the impoverishment of Africa: 

   "The term “un(der)development” instead of terms such as “poverty” is used to describe Africa’s economic powerlessness. The preference for “un(der)development” is motivated by the belief that Africa is economically powerless not because it has no resources to be an economically powerful continent. Rather, Africa is economically powerless because, among many other things, it has undeveloped and underdeveloped systems of using its abundant economic systems to create healthy and prosperous economies for its people. Thus, by un(der)development is meant the “inability to use … God-given resources” (Speckman 2007, p. xxiii) to build a meaningful economic livelihood that not only fosters sustainability but also marks the transition away from traditional subsistence economies. However, this critique of the African tendency to resort to spiritual solutions to address its un(der)development firmly acknowledges that a holistic solution to the continent’s economic powerlessness must also vigorously address the geopolitical forces that contribute to Africa's impoverishment and current exploitation. Western colonial powers, and now China, have and continue to actively undevelop and underdevelop Africa so that the continent remains a source of raw materials and cheap human labour. However, a serious problem continues to stunt Africa’s pathway to meaningful economic development. This problem is that during Africa’s ancient economic un(der)developed stages it relied on magical powers for economic survival, and now after being undeveloped and underdeveloped by exploitative and oppressive colonial geopolitical powers and the poor and corrupt governing systems of African leaders, ANPPs continue to prescribe the same magical approach to economic powerlessness through their anointed objects. In Africa, the state of economic powerlessness continues to be a fertile ground for the occult economy as indicated by the high emergence of spiritualists and prophets who provide spiritual and magical objects of attaining wealth".

3. I have moved the critique on magic and science to 3.3. as suggested by the reviewer.
4. In response to the reviewer's concern about the nature of the scientific approach, I have added the below text in section #5: "Furthermore, this article is limited to challenging ANPPs to reconsider their uncritical embrace of the ATR occult economy; therefore, the task of crafting a detailed vision of an African scientific rational approach to development is left to a different study. However, while theologians can provide a theological framework for a scientific approach to development, it should be interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary by incorporating informed technical experts, practitioners, economists and scientists. Pastors and theologians must realise their limitations, unless they have undergone professional training in economics and development". 
5. I have maintained the problematic word "syncretism" because the article is a contribution to a Special Issue dealing with syncretism in the Global South.
6. I appreciated the critical comments, and trust that the article now meets the requirement to be published.

Kind regards.