Practising Pluriversalism in Africa

This special section focuses on encounters between African and non-African actors, both Western and Chinese, on the African continent and how knowledge is (re)produced pluralistically in these interactions. Adopting a pluriversalist lens, it conceptualises the world as consisting of multiple, coexisting, and relationally constituted “worlds,” each shaped by distinct cosmologies, worldviews, and knowledge systems (Escobar, 2020). This perspective stands in direct opposition to universalism, which promotes a Eurocentric “one-world-world” that seeks to align all ways of knowing within a singular worldview.

The contributions in this section demonstrate how African and non-African actors alike draw on their own epistemic traditions, and how these are co-constituted through encounters among diverging “cosmologies” – often challenging dominant Eurocentric frameworks of understanding the world, and Africa in particular (Ling, 2014; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2020). In doing so, the special section aligns with ongoing efforts to decolonise knowledge production by advancing a vision of the world as plural and pluralistic, rather than universalistic (Katzenstein, 2010; Kessi et al., 2020).

This section is important, first, because behaviour by non-Western actors – in this section, Ghanaian, Rwandan, and Chinese – in African contexts is still predominantly explained through “lenses” informed by Eurocentric epistemologies. De Sousa Santos (2018) refers to this knowledge hegemony as the “cognitive empire,” which commits “epistemicide” by portraying Eurocentric theories as the only universally valid ones to explain actors’ practices and by silencing alternatives. As a result, observers tend to explain the practices by non-Western actors in Africa by conveniently replacing “Western” former colonial powers with other non-Western actors (e.g., China or the Emirates) while keeping “African” actors passive (Said, 1978). Although this approach might seem to imbue new “outside” actors with “agency,” it also simultaneously eliminates the possibility of non-Western actors having “agency/ies” informed by epistemologies that diverge from “the West” (Bunskoek and Shih, 2021).

Second, there is a bourgeoning literature on non- or post-Western theorisations of International Relations (IR) based on epistemologies of the Global South (Acharya and Buzan, 2019; De Sousa Santos, 2018; Ketzmerick and Sydiq, 2021), which is intimately connected to the concepts of “relationality” and “pluriversality” (or, “pluralicity”) (Shih, 2016; Spies and Seesemann, 2016; Trownsell et al., 2022). Yet, there is still a lack of research on how the situational practices by non-Western actors are reflective of these theorisations, much less on how their epistemologies are (re)produced in the encounters with other non-Western actors, as Mingqing Yuan (2025)'s article demonstrates. One notable exception is Lina Benabdallah's (2020) work analysing relationship building between Chinese and African actors through a “Chinese” lens of relational theory provided by Qin (2018). Yet, Benabdallah's work, although important, provides only a beginning; more epistemological viewpoints need to be incorporated (e.g., Ling, 2014; Shih et al., 2019), as well as a broader spectrum of non-Western actors needs to be analysed and compared.

This special section helps address the lack of epistemological viewpoints by, first, engaging with the literature on “decolonising” knowledge production in African Studies (Kessi et al., 2020; Ketzmerick-Calandrino, 2024; Ndlovu-Gatsheni et al., 2022) and IR/politics (Capan, 2017; Shilliam, 2021), drawing on earlier attempts at “decolonising the mind” by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o (1987) and other renown authors in the “African archive,” such as Mamdani, Mazrui, and Amin (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018, 2020). Second, it embeds itself in the literature on relationality in both African studies and IR (e.g., Qin, 2018; Shih et al., 2019; Spies and Seesemann, 2016), illustrating how epistemologies are (re)created in specific situational contexts by multiple actors. Third, the section contributes to discussions on African and non-Western agency (Hobson and Sajed, 2017), addressing the gap in research on how non-Western epistemologies shape this agency. Finally, the articles contribute to the literature on “pluralicity” in African studies and “pluriversality” in IR (Spies and Seesemann, 2016; Trownsell et al., 2022), emphasising the coexistence of multiple relationally constituted worlds versus one Eurocentric world.

In short, this special section explores how the epistemologies legitimising the practices of non-Western actors can have universal appeal by engaging in critical dialogue with both Western and non-Western ways of knowing (Nyamnjoh, 2013; e.g., Ubuntu, Sankofaism, Imihigo, Tianxia). Drawing on empirical cases from Rwanda, Ghana, and Kenya, the section uncovers how actors’ practices are shaped by and reflect their respective epistemologies. It also highlights how epistemologies are (re)produced in situ through interactions with other non-Western actors. By examining home-grown concepts such as Rwanda's Imihigo and Ghana's Sankofa (Sabbi, 2025), the section reveals how these countries strategically challenge Western dominance while negotiating their place in global development cooperation. Similarly, the section delves into the dynamic, hybrid knowledge-sharing processes between Kenyan and Chinese actors, moving beyond traditional narratives to map new relational networks and identity formations (Yuan, 2025).

Rather than marking an endpoint, this special section on pluriversalism is better understood as a starting point for debate. Recent developments in IR, particularly the disintegration of the transatlantic relationship and, with it, the concept of “the West,” point to the emergence of a post-Western world in which multipolarity is the norm. In such a context, both policymakers and scholars around the world will increasingly need to deal with pluriversalism on a daily basis in order to engage in effective policymaking and research.