What do you think?
Rate this book
Living the Intersection: Womanism and Afrocentrism in Theology
Womanism and Afrocentrism are the two most influential currents in contemporary African American culture. They both heighten black cultural self-awareness, even as they deepen knowledge of its historical sources. As womanism mines the ways and wisdom of African American women for Christian theology, so Afrocentricity excavates an African past to liberate the oppressed from Eurocentric worldviews. Yet are the two compatible? What does the mostly male Afrocentric scholarship contribute to the survival, wholeness, and liberation of black women? In this volume social ethicist Cheryl Sanders and other leading womanist thinkers take the measure of the Afrocentric idea and explore the intricate relationship between Afrocentric and womanist perspectives in their lives and commitments. Their strong, frank assessments form a creative engagement of these two momentous streams.
Paperback
First published March 1, 1995
1 person is currently reading
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 28, 2025
AN EXCELLENT SELECTION OF ESSAYS CASTING LIGHT ON THIS ‘INTERSECTION’
The Introduction to this 1995 book by Kelly Brown Douglas and Cheryl J. Sanders states, “Womanism and Afrocentricity are two exciting perspectives that have recently emerged in the African American community. African American women have given birth to the womanist idea. In essence, a womanist is a black feminist who is committed to the survival and wholeness of entire people, male and female. While the term ‘womanist’ was coined by … novelist Alice Walker in her 1983 volume, ‘In Search of our Mother’s Gardens,’ its usage now goes beyond her definition. African American women have adopted the term as a symbol of their experience. ‘Womanist’ signals an appreciation for the richness, complexity, uniqueness, and struggle involved in being black and female in a society that is hostile to both blackness and womanhood.” (Pg. 9)
“African American males have taken the lead in articulating the Afrocentric concept. Molefi Kete Asante, however, has brought the term to prominence and clarified its meaning. In his text, ‘Afrocentricity,’ Asante defines Afrocentricity as ‘the belief in the centrality of Africans in post-modern history.’ He delineates the implications of Afrocentric belief for the way African Americans negotiate life in a white racist society. The Afrocentric idea demonstrates the vitality of African American culture and history, as well as the African heritage. It excavates the African past in an effort to free African Americans from an oppressive Eurocentric consciousness and create for them a new, African-centered way of thinking and acting…” (Pg. 9-10)
“The terms ‘womanist’ and ‘womanism’ are used in this volume to refer to the vantage point of those who share Alice Walker’s perspective on the collective experience and struggles of African American women.,. Although the terms ‘Afrocentricism’ and ‘Afrocentrism’ do not appear in Asante’s own writings, in this collection of essays they are used interchangeably with Asante’s preferred, ‘Afrocentricity.’” (Pg. 10)
“At first glance, the womanist and Afrocentric perspectives bear striking similarities to each other. Both have emerged as parts of the oppressed people’s culture of resistance. Womanist scholarship gives expression to African American women’s efforts---political, cultural, emotional, psychological, spiritual---to resist the ‘interlocking system’ of multiple oppressions, i.e., racism, sexism, and classism, that would thwart the life and well-being of African American women and men as well as girls and boys. The womanist perspective, therefore, involves mining the culture and history of African American women in an effort to forge a way of living that fosters life and wholeness for the African American community.” (Pg. 10)
They caution, “[T]he compatibility of womanist and Afrocentric perspectives has become a source of concern. While African American women clearly live in the intersection between the two viewpoints, being at once African American and female, the receptivity of Afrocentricity to womanist concerns is not readily apparent. Womanist scholars have attested to the prevalence of Afrocentric ways of knowing and acting in African American women’s quest for survival, wholeness, and liberation. Yet they have variously questioned whether Afrocentrism, as developed by contemporary male scholars, is a perspective that mitigates African American women’s personhood and freedom. This text is a collective effort undertaken by African American women scholars in the field of religion to explore the intricate relationship between Afrocentric and womanist perspectives.” (Pg. 11)
Cheryl Townsend Gilkes suggests in her essay, “we use the term ‘Afrocentric’ now, but maybe we need, as Asa Hilliard has suggested, to remind ourselves to get the words straight. We say ‘Af-RO-entric,’ but there is no ‘Af-RO-ca.’ It’s Africa, and Africentric. We borrowed ‘Afro’ as a counter to ‘Euro,’ and it has become the convention to say Afrocentric.“ (Pg. 29)
Delores S. Williams argues, “There is no doubt in my mind that Asante’s form of Afrocentricity in the book by that name is women-exclusive while it pretends to be inclusive of all black people. In his chapter entitled ‘The Essential Grounds,’ he lifts up from African American history the figures for an understanding of what Afrocentrism is. The figures are all male…” (Pg. 45-46)
Later, she adds, “Serious problems plague Asante’s Afrocentric vision of male-female relationships. First, it is thoroughly sexist. He apparently adheres to white Western patriarchy’s way of depicting women as either queens, goddesses, or temptresses. While he presents Goddesses and superwomen for black men to prefer as mates, he provides an example of an improper male-female relationship in which blame falls on the black female as a temptress… The ‘brother’ is described as ‘seduced’ rather than as having exercised free choice in this matter. Thus the ‘brother’ is relieved of all responsibility while the ‘sister’ bears the weight of the problem because of her ‘seductiveness’ and ‘shallowness.’” (Pg. 50-51)
Lorine L. Cummings proposes, “Womanists and Afrocentrists confirm and affirm each other in declaring that … we must validate that which is ours---our writers, our historians, our scholars, our theologians. We must validate who we are on our own terms. Sometimes the womanist and Afrocentric concepts merge, making clear distinction difficult. Womanism is Afrocentric, although Afrocentrism is not always womanist. In fact, the African American woman is minimally involved in the foundational precepts of the Afrocentric idea. Its language and images are predominantly male, and it does not evince an attempt to be inclusive.” (Pg. 61)
Cheryl J. Sanders explains in her essay, ‘Black Women in Biblica Perspective,’ about ‘Four African Women in the Bible’: namely, Hagar (Gen 16:1-15; 21:8-20); Zipporah (Exod 2:21-22; 4:24-26; Num 12:1); the Queen of Sheba (1 Ki 10:1-13; 2 Chron 9:1-9); and Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians (Acts 8:27). (Pg. 131-141)
Kelly Brown Douglas states, “The term ‘womanist’ has now become a symbol for black women’s experience. It points to the unique richness and complexity of black women’s lives as they continually struggle to maintain life and to make it better for themselves and their families. In religious scholarship’ womanist’ signals an understanding of God, Christ, the Bible, and the church from the perspective of this particular struggle.” (Pg. 149)
This is a very helpful volume, that will be of great interest to those studying the interaction of those two schools of thought.
The Introduction to this 1995 book by Kelly Brown Douglas and Cheryl J. Sanders states, “Womanism and Afrocentricity are two exciting perspectives that have recently emerged in the African American community. African American women have given birth to the womanist idea. In essence, a womanist is a black feminist who is committed to the survival and wholeness of entire people, male and female. While the term ‘womanist’ was coined by … novelist Alice Walker in her 1983 volume, ‘In Search of our Mother’s Gardens,’ its usage now goes beyond her definition. African American women have adopted the term as a symbol of their experience. ‘Womanist’ signals an appreciation for the richness, complexity, uniqueness, and struggle involved in being black and female in a society that is hostile to both blackness and womanhood.” (Pg. 9)
“African American males have taken the lead in articulating the Afrocentric concept. Molefi Kete Asante, however, has brought the term to prominence and clarified its meaning. In his text, ‘Afrocentricity,’ Asante defines Afrocentricity as ‘the belief in the centrality of Africans in post-modern history.’ He delineates the implications of Afrocentric belief for the way African Americans negotiate life in a white racist society. The Afrocentric idea demonstrates the vitality of African American culture and history, as well as the African heritage. It excavates the African past in an effort to free African Americans from an oppressive Eurocentric consciousness and create for them a new, African-centered way of thinking and acting…” (Pg. 9-10)
“The terms ‘womanist’ and ‘womanism’ are used in this volume to refer to the vantage point of those who share Alice Walker’s perspective on the collective experience and struggles of African American women.,. Although the terms ‘Afrocentricism’ and ‘Afrocentrism’ do not appear in Asante’s own writings, in this collection of essays they are used interchangeably with Asante’s preferred, ‘Afrocentricity.’” (Pg. 10)
“At first glance, the womanist and Afrocentric perspectives bear striking similarities to each other. Both have emerged as parts of the oppressed people’s culture of resistance. Womanist scholarship gives expression to African American women’s efforts---political, cultural, emotional, psychological, spiritual---to resist the ‘interlocking system’ of multiple oppressions, i.e., racism, sexism, and classism, that would thwart the life and well-being of African American women and men as well as girls and boys. The womanist perspective, therefore, involves mining the culture and history of African American women in an effort to forge a way of living that fosters life and wholeness for the African American community.” (Pg. 10)
They caution, “[T]he compatibility of womanist and Afrocentric perspectives has become a source of concern. While African American women clearly live in the intersection between the two viewpoints, being at once African American and female, the receptivity of Afrocentricity to womanist concerns is not readily apparent. Womanist scholars have attested to the prevalence of Afrocentric ways of knowing and acting in African American women’s quest for survival, wholeness, and liberation. Yet they have variously questioned whether Afrocentrism, as developed by contemporary male scholars, is a perspective that mitigates African American women’s personhood and freedom. This text is a collective effort undertaken by African American women scholars in the field of religion to explore the intricate relationship between Afrocentric and womanist perspectives.” (Pg. 11)
Cheryl Townsend Gilkes suggests in her essay, “we use the term ‘Afrocentric’ now, but maybe we need, as Asa Hilliard has suggested, to remind ourselves to get the words straight. We say ‘Af-RO-entric,’ but there is no ‘Af-RO-ca.’ It’s Africa, and Africentric. We borrowed ‘Afro’ as a counter to ‘Euro,’ and it has become the convention to say Afrocentric.“ (Pg. 29)
Delores S. Williams argues, “There is no doubt in my mind that Asante’s form of Afrocentricity in the book by that name is women-exclusive while it pretends to be inclusive of all black people. In his chapter entitled ‘The Essential Grounds,’ he lifts up from African American history the figures for an understanding of what Afrocentrism is. The figures are all male…” (Pg. 45-46)
Later, she adds, “Serious problems plague Asante’s Afrocentric vision of male-female relationships. First, it is thoroughly sexist. He apparently adheres to white Western patriarchy’s way of depicting women as either queens, goddesses, or temptresses. While he presents Goddesses and superwomen for black men to prefer as mates, he provides an example of an improper male-female relationship in which blame falls on the black female as a temptress… The ‘brother’ is described as ‘seduced’ rather than as having exercised free choice in this matter. Thus the ‘brother’ is relieved of all responsibility while the ‘sister’ bears the weight of the problem because of her ‘seductiveness’ and ‘shallowness.’” (Pg. 50-51)
Lorine L. Cummings proposes, “Womanists and Afrocentrists confirm and affirm each other in declaring that … we must validate that which is ours---our writers, our historians, our scholars, our theologians. We must validate who we are on our own terms. Sometimes the womanist and Afrocentric concepts merge, making clear distinction difficult. Womanism is Afrocentric, although Afrocentrism is not always womanist. In fact, the African American woman is minimally involved in the foundational precepts of the Afrocentric idea. Its language and images are predominantly male, and it does not evince an attempt to be inclusive.” (Pg. 61)
Cheryl J. Sanders explains in her essay, ‘Black Women in Biblica Perspective,’ about ‘Four African Women in the Bible’: namely, Hagar (Gen 16:1-15; 21:8-20); Zipporah (Exod 2:21-22; 4:24-26; Num 12:1); the Queen of Sheba (1 Ki 10:1-13; 2 Chron 9:1-9); and Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians (Acts 8:27). (Pg. 131-141)
Kelly Brown Douglas states, “The term ‘womanist’ has now become a symbol for black women’s experience. It points to the unique richness and complexity of black women’s lives as they continually struggle to maintain life and to make it better for themselves and their families. In religious scholarship’ womanist’ signals an understanding of God, Christ, the Bible, and the church from the perspective of this particular struggle.” (Pg. 149)
This is a very helpful volume, that will be of great interest to those studying the interaction of those two schools of thought.
Displaying 1 of 1 review