Building a Foundation for Africana Sociology: Black Sociology,Afrocentricity,and Transdisciplinary Applied Social Justice

Introduction

The current challenges, barriers, and obstacles faced by people of color and by women of color, in particular, require comprehensive transdisciplinary approaches that acknowledge the role of intertwined, socially-constructed identities, such as race, class, and gender. In addition, creative and strategic efforts should recognize the powerful influence of interlocking social structures and hegemonic ideologies. Africana Sociology can play a critical role in addressing these challenges by demonstrating the contributions that African-centered and gender-informed theories play within sociology to address issues of inequality and injustice.

One of the key opportunities for Africana Sociology lies in exploring its theoretical and methodological linkages with other areas. Imbo (1998) recognizes the importance of connections and intersections in his exploration of African, African American, and feminist philosophies. He notes that each of these social and political forms of thought can be seen ‘as a struggle against colonialism, domination, and marginalization’ (Imbo, 1998: 124). The connections between these three forms of thought relate to deconstructing and challenging the dominant narratives, traditions, frameworks, institutions, languages, cultures, and structures of power. Each has a commitment to create new perspectives in order to facilitate liberation and a movement to the center from the margins in the thoughts, experiences, and ideologies of people of color and women of color (Imbo, 1998: 124–5, 139).

Similarly, Black Sociology, Afrocentricity, and Transdisciplinary Applied Social Justice have significant connections with each other, and as such, offer important contributions to Africana Sociology. The value and potential for Africana Sociology lies in its ability to incorporate relevant concepts and approaches from these areas. These concepts include a recognition of the importance of socially-constructed and intertwined race, class, and gender identities; an acknowledgment of the prominence of African-centered thought and theory; and a commitment to praxis and transforming social institutions through the use of multiple disciplines. These concepts provide a strong foundation for Africana Sociology to serve as a theoretical, methodological, and practical approach for implementing transformative change in the experiences of traditionally marginalized and disenfranchised populations, including African American women.

Black Sociology

Black Sociology provides a strong foundation for Africana Sociology. Several scholars have explored the impact and influence of Black Sociology on mainstream sociology. The initial scholarship was very critical of mainstream sociology’s treatment of race and race relations. Watson (1976: 121) argued that mainstream sociology tended to focus on social control and a gradual change in race relations through regulation by existing institutional structures. Mainstream sociology also assigned responsibility to the oppressed for their own oppression, rather than to the effects of institutional racism and classism. In addition, it focused on interpreting data objectively without values or beliefs attached to them (Watson, 1976: 121).

This criticism of mainstream sociology was echoed by Taylor (1999). Prior to the emergence of African American studies, he argued that mainstream sociology’s analysis of race relations focused on adaptation, adjustment, and normative consensus based on the order-equilibrium model. In this model, ‘society is a structural arrangement made up of interdependent parts, each contributing to the equilibrium of the system’ (Taylor, 1999: 518). As a result, ‘any phenomenon that upsets this equilibrium is regarded as problematic and must be resolved so that the system may be restored to its homeostatic state’ (Taylor, 1999: 518). In relation to African Americans, this approach ‘emphasized the reactive and pathological in African American life, denied that African Americans possessed any inherited culture of their own, lacked the capacity to act effectively in their own interests, and aspired to be assimilated and to disappear as a racially distinct population’ (Taylor, 1999: 519). This approach further assumed that prejudice, discrimination, and institutional racism would disappear without conflict or disorder. The discipline defined itself as one focused on detachment, objectivity, and value neutrality (Taylor, 1999: 519).

In response to the shortcomings of mainstream sociology, and as Black Studies was developing in response to the Black Power and civil rights movement, the discipline of sociology was also evolving in its approach to race. Black Sociology emerged as a response to the 1960s with the objective of correcting ‘the dominant myths, stereotypes, and misinterpretations of the African American experience presented in the sociological literature’ and developing ‘definitions, concepts, and theories that better reflected that experience’ (Taylor, 1999: 520).

In an early look at Black Sociology, Watson (1976) explored the meaning of the term Black Sociology and identified core themes. He noted that ‘Black Sociology raises questions about the bearing of (1) inequalities in the distributions of political and economic privilege, (2) social conflict, and (3) race-related social identities on the conduct of sociological inquiry in a society deeply influenced by institutional racism’ (1976: 121). He emphasized that ‘the ideal type of Black sociology’ (1976: 121) involved research by a Black sociologist that had a major focus on Black social behavior and included a commitment to the liberation of Black people from social oppression. Watson identified three consistent areas of research emphasis:

(1) Identifying factors that contribute to an understanding of Black people’s behavior including determinants of social oppression, which when eradicated will facilitate the release of Black people from race-related social oppression; (2) racial- and class-based analyses of intergroup relations, especially focusing on social conflict and social change; and (3) critical perspectives in analyses of ‘established’ social institutions with a focus on identifying racist survivals in the structures and social effects of existing organizations. (1976: 121)

More recently, Wright and Calhoun (2006) identified similar principles of Black Sociology based, in part, on the Atlanta University monographs. They define Black Sociology as

an area of research, which may be performed by Black or White scholars, that is focused on eliminating Blacks from social oppression through objective scientific investigations into their social, economic, and physical condition for the express purpose of obtaining data aimed at understanding, explaining, and ameliorating the problems discovered in the Black American community in a manner that could have social policy implications. (2006: 16)

This definition is based on five fundamental principles of Black Sociology. These principles are that the research should be conducted primarily by African American scholars; the research should focus on the experiences of African Americans; the research should be interdisciplinary; the findings, if possible, should be generalizable beyond African Americans; and the findings, if possible, should produce data that have implications for social policy (Wright and Calhoun, 2006: 16).

In comparing Black Sociology to mainstream sociology, Wright and Calhoun (2006) have concluded that there are no differences in methodological techniques or theoretical assumptions. They do, however, emphasize that Black Sociology has a ‘more focused line of inquiry into the social, economic, and physical conditions affecting Black Americans and the production of findings that may be utilized for social policy purposes’ (Wright and Calhoun, 2006: 16). A key strength of Black Sociology, then, is its commitment to changing the lived experiences of African Americans through theoretically-informed strategies. This focus on praxis is an important distinguishing characteristic between Black Sociology and mainstream sociology.

The American Sociological Association (ASA) recognized this shortcoming of mainstream sociology, noting that ‘sociology as a discipline has never fully developed its promise to apply the tools and knowledge of sociology beyond the academy’ (ASA Task Force Report, 2005: 2). In response to this reality, the Task Force on Institutionalizing Public Sociologies was created in 2004 and it issued a report in 2005. In defining public sociology as ‘a sociology that seeks to bring sociology to publics beyond the academy, promoting dialogue about issues that affect the fate of society’, the Task Force sought to emphasize the importance of encouraging research that addresses ‘social problems, conveys sociological insights, and applies sociological knowledge to solving social problems’ (ASA Task Force Report, 2005: 3, 15). According to the Task Force, public sociology links ‘sociology to other academic disciplines, to the communities affected by the particular social problem, and to the decision makers in key positions to bring about positive changes in addressing the pressing issues’ (ASA Task Force Report, 2005: 11). Despite the controversy associated with the Task Force Report on public sociology (Clawson et al., 2007), the report raised real concerns about the theoretical application of sociological research and the relevance of the discipline to social problems. Africana Sociology has the potential to respond to these concerns by incorporating Black Sociology’s focus on praxis and integrating an Afrocentric approach.

Afrocentricity

As defined by Asante (Pellebon, 2007: 171), ‘Afrocentricity is a mode of thought and action in which the centrality of African interests, values, and perspectives predominate. In regards to theory, it is the placing of African people in the center of any analysis of African phenomena.’ Four pervasive goals of Afrocentricity include exposing and resisting White racial domination; redirecting African Americans toward their cultural center; converting African Americans to an ideology rooted in values, spirituality, and rituals; and analyzing traditional disciplines from an Afrocentric perspective (Pellebon, 2007: 171). He (Asante, 2006: 248) asserts that ‘Afrocentrists seek to examine the conditions for harmony and stability by analyzing social conditions, asserting rhetorical metaphors, determining human possibilities, and reorienting, if necessary, the quest for definitional and textual power’. Asante emphasizes the ‘primacy of the classical African civilizations, namely Kemet (Egypt), Nubia, Axum, and Meroe’ (Asante, 1990: 14; Graham, 1999). Pellebon (2007: 174) asserts that Asante ‘presents Afrocentricity as a worldview, paradigm, theory, and ideology of thought and action in which the centrality of African interests, values, and perspectives predominate’. As a theoretical perspective, Afrocentricity can be seen to have three pyramidal elements: grounding, orientation, and perspective (McDougal, 2011). Grounding focuses on African history and experiences; orientation focuses on the needs and concerns of African-descended people; and perspective focuses on the emancipation and empowerment of African-descended people (McDougal, 2011).

Viewing Afrocentricity as both theory and movement enlarges its potential as an instrument for transformation: ‘As a theory and movement, Afrocentricity challenges the defining principles of the European supremacist domination of African people and other majority peoples of the world’ (Gwekwerere, 2010: 110). As both a theory and a movement, Afrocentricity is ‘about re-membering the dis-membered, re-connecting the dis-connected, re-orienting the disoriented, and emancipating the enslaved’ (Gwekwerere, 2010: 118). In particular, it focuses on liberation of spaces and ‘information, images, concepts, definitions, and symbols from European hegemonic control’ (Gwekwerere, 2010: 110). Asante (2006: 658) affirms the importance of praxis in Afrocentricity asserting that ‘Afrocentricity is characterized by its commitment to a political program in conformity with the idea that theory is not disconnected from practice’.

Afrocentric scholars, then, are charged with a dual responsibility of being both scholars and activists. As scholar-activists, they are expected to commit themselves to using their knowledge and training to improve their communities (Mazama, 2001). Du Bois (Rabaka, 2007: 8) recognized the comprehensive responsibility and role of an Africana scholar:

accenting and highlighting classical African contributions to culture and civilization with an eye toward: first, confronting and combating the white supremacist theses of, of course, white superiority and black inferiority and, also, blacks’ purported lack of history and culture; second, providing contemporary Africana people with classical Africana cultural paradigms and traditional motifs; and, finally, offering a caveat to continental and diasporan Africans that their task is not so much to give the definitive Africana message to the world (something, on second thought, that may never really be possible), but to contribute to and continue the Africana struggle for freedom and justice in their age and leave a legacy for succeeding generations.

Du Bois’s conceptualization of the role of an Africana scholar highlights the centrality of praxis in race, racial identity, and race relations. While this emphasis on praxis related to race is critical, it also illustrates an important void of both Black Sociology and Afrocentricity: a silence about the role of gender.

Africana Sociology has the opportunity to address this silence. It has the opportunity to avoid being subject to the criticism leveled at the treatment of gender in Africana Studies (Aldridge, 2003). Aldridge (2003: 187, 191) argues that the joint pursuit by men and women of liberation through Africana Studies became separated into a Black male hegemony as the ‘major scholarship, theories, and orientation of the field became dominated by males’, thereby ‘excluding, minimizing, or distorting the reality of Africana women’. Combating this criticism requires acknowledging that Africana women have always played a critical role in African society.

Monges (1993: 562) emphasizes the critical role of women in the success of Ancient Kemet and the relevance of gender equity for African people to reach their full potential: ‘the Kemetic mythology informed the Kemetic society that the merits of both genders were vital and necessary’. A critical component of Kemetic mythology was the concept of Ma’at. Martin (2008: 951) noted that:

Maat is a comprehensive construct that existed throughout ancient Egyptian civilization. In its cosmological sense, maat is the principle of order that informs the creation of the universe. In its religious sense, maat is a goddess or neter representing order or balance. Last, in its philosophical sense, maat is a moral and ethical principle that all Egyptians were expected to embody in their daily actions toward family, community, nation, environment, and god.

Ma’at was the original ‘Lady Justice’. On the familiar Egyptian funerary scene of the weighing of the scales, Ma’at was often shown at the top of the scale. Her scope and power was immense. Ma’at was institutionalized in ancient society as an organizing principle for individuals, social structures, and laws. Ma’at ‘was established as the fundamental concept, power, and practice for the organization, maintenance, and development of human society’ (Karenga, 1984: 4). Black scholar and social philosopher Oba T’Shaka’s explanation captures the comprehensive scope and application of the role of Ma’at: ‘It is the cosmic, earthly, ethical, and social law that invisibly guides the heavens and the earth.… Maat is the way of harmony, truth, justice, balance, and right order’ (Aldridge, 2003: 173).

As a ‘modern moral principle’ (Kiros, n.d.), Ma’at presents the opportunity to replace the morals, values, and ideology of the White capitalist patriarchy, and its accompanying racism, classism and sexism, with a different counter-ideology. An alternative ideology is suggested by Oba T’Shaka’s theory of the African Mother Principle of Male and Female Equality (Reed, 2001). The ‘African Mother Principle’, as an ideological approach, is grounded in the equality of males and females. It is in the area of gender, then, that Ma’at offers a valuable contribution to Africana Sociology. It encourages recognition of gender equality and a realization of the critical importance of gender and women in society and in social movements.

Africana Sociology, then, in its incorporation of Africalogy, as both a theory and movement, should ensure that it recognizes the complexity and intersectionality of socially constructed identities, including race, class, and gender. This recognition will broaden its impact, influence, and relevance as an approach for addressing critical social issues. The use by Africana Sociology of the Transdisciplinary Applied Social Justice model as a gender-informed, African-centered approach to justice and praxis can further this objective.

Transdisciplinary Applied Social Justice (TASJ)

TASJ is ‘the application of concepts, theories, and methodologies from multiple academic disciplines to social problems with the goal of addressing injustice in society and improving the life experiences of marginalized individuals and groups’ (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 27). It requires the recognition of the importance of race and gender; it places individuals, their narratives, and their experiences in the center of the analysis; it emphasizes praxis, outcomes, and transformation; it acknowledges the role of social institutions in influencing society; and it reflects the prominent influence of ideologies, values, and beliefs. As such, TASJ enhances the potential of Africana Sociology to serve as an instrument for transformative change for African Americans by integrating theory, method, and praxis.

The TASJ model is an analytical tool for engaging in social justice activism. The TASJ model has three components: a theoretical foundation; a methodological approach; and an emphasis on praxis (Pratt-Clarke, 2010). This model promotes a comprehensive examination of social problems involving race, class, and gender from a transdisciplinary lens. It incorporates multiple disciplines in its theoretical foundation; it uses discourse analysis as its methodological approach; and it pulls from social movement framing theory to inform ideas related to praxis.

The foundation for the TASJ model is the life experiences of individuals and groups. These individuals are often on the margins because of their intersecting, socially constructed identities and their multiple status memberships in traditionally disenfranchised groups. Ken (2008) has created a uniquely comprehensive perspective and metaphor about race, class, and gender as products. She notes that they ‘encompass categorization schemas, processes, sets of embedded relations, histories, structural locations, practices, social institutions, distortions, products of discourse, elements of symbolic representations, structural arrangements, tropes, dimensions of identities, and opportunities to express power, get produced, occasionally in isolation but usually in interconnected ways’ (Ken, 2008: 153). Holvino (2001) encourages us to ‘reconceptualize the intersections of race, gender, and class as simultaneous processes of identity, institutional support, and social practice in order to support new theory-making, research, and practice in organizational studies’. The complexities of how race, class, and gender operate in society demonstrate the necessity of the TASJ model since these identities often determine life chances, life opportunities, and access to resources. Individuals are at the center of the TASJ model in recognition of the centrality of identity in experiences of oppression and activism (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 39). In addition to these identities, the experiences of individuals are influenced by the operation of power domains (Collins, 2009).

As a comprehensive construct from sociology and Black feminist thought, power domains provide a conceptual framework for analyzing the experiences of individuals as a precursor for implementing effective social justice activist strategies. Collins (2009: 274) encourages us to see power ‘not as something that groups possess, but as an intangible entity that circulates within a particular matrix of domination and to which individuals stand in varying relationships’ (Collins, 2009: 274). Collins discusses the four power domains – hegemonic, structural, disciplinary, and interpersonal. The hegemonic domain is the domain of ideas, attitudes, beliefs, values, and ideologies (Collins, 2009). As Collins (2009: 284) notes, ‘the significance of the hegemonic domain lies in its ability to shape consciousness via the manipulation of ideas, images, symbols, and ideologies’. Racism, sexism, classism, capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, and imperialism reside in this domain. The ‘White supremacist capitalist patriarchy’ (hooks, 2004) is a concept which reflects the integrated power of the hegemonic domain to combine multiple ‘isms’ into a powerful and dominant ideological construct that legitimates and justifies oppression and discrimination. The hegemonic domain is often the foundation for the ideology that undergirds and informs the operations in a majority of social institutions.

These institutions are part of the structural domain. The structural domain provides an organizational framework for power and includes large-scale, macro-level interlocking institutions and systems, such as the education system, the legal system, the economic system, the political system, the media, family, and religious institutions. It includes the larger systems and structures, as well as their manifestations, such as schools, courts, banks, and governmental bodies (Collins, 2009: 295–9). What is important to recognize with this domain is that the systems and structures are integrated and entangled in a complex web. What affects one system affects others. Thus, a banking crisis will affect the financial market, which will affect the housing market and the employment market. Understanding the intertwined relationships is critical for undertaking and developing social justice initiatives to change these often permanent and long-standing institutions. These institutions operate through the disciplinary domain.

The disciplinary domain ‘is designed to perpetuate, advance, and institutionalize relationships of power, privilege, dominance, and advantage’ through bureaucratic and internal control structures, such as policies, procedures, and practices – some written and many unwritten (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 31). This domain also includes laws, statutes, rules, and regulations. This domain defines consequences for conduct that could threaten, impede, and undermine the permanence of existing social structures or organizations (Collins, 2009: 299–302). Policies and procedures of the disciplinary domain are implemented and enforced through individual interactions and relationships in the interpersonal domain.

The interpersonal domain is the micro-level, day-to-day interactions and relationships. It is through these everyday relationships and interactions that oppression is both perpetuated and challenged (Collins, 2009: 306–7). An oppressor in one interaction may be a victim in another. The fluidity of the nature of interactions in this domain must be recognized. It is also important to acknowledge the varying levels of authority accorded individuals on the basis of their identities and memberships in certain groups – some with more privilege and power than others. The role of gatekeepers, leaders, and managers is critical in this domain in order to determine whether an individual is in a position to be an instrument of transformation and an ally, or when they are an impediment and obstacle.

Understanding each domain’s interplay with other domains is necessary in order to use the TASJ model to its fullest potential. Not only does the theoretical foundation of the TASJ model incorporate sociology and Black feminist thought, as a transdisciplinary approach it is also influenced by the legal concepts and ideas of critical race theory (CRT) and critical race feminism (CRF). CRT and CRF are integral to the foundation of TASJ. CRT challenges the ‘historical centrality and complicity of law in upholding White supremacy (and concomitant hierarchies of gender, class, and sexual orientation)’ (West, 1995: xi). CRT has two common interests: understanding the role of the law in perpetuating White supremacy and racism; and a commitment to the action required to liberate and change the experiences of people of color (Crenshaw et al., 1995). CRF expands CRT to emphasize the role of gender and the intersectionality of race and gender in the experiences of women of color in the law. It incorporates feminist theory and race, class, and gender studies (Wing, 2003: 2–7). CRT and CRF both acknowledge the role of narrative and storytelling in understanding the experiences of injustice of African Americans and African American women, in particular. They also recognize the importance of using multiple disciplines, such as sociology, political science, and history to study and analyze the legal experiences of traditionally and historically marginalized individuals.

TASJ’s comprehensive theoretical foundation requires an equally comprehensive methodological approach. Discourse analysis is a multi-disciplinary, qualitative, methodological approach that ‘focuses on the structure of arguments, the categories constructed, the meaning involved, and the historical context in which the text was produced’ (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 33). Its flexibility enables it to be used to study political, educational, legal, media, and policy discourse (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 34). Its use in policy discourse facilitates the advancement of social justice and social policy.

Policy discourse analysis is ‘designed to respond to … policy problems, solutions, and images, and the ways in which discourses shape and reproduce subject positions’ (Allan, 2008: 54). Policy discourse is both passive and active. It can be used retrospectively to analyze existing policy and prospectively to create new policy. Policy discourse is an ideal methodology as its use enables analysis of the operation of each of the power domains. In the hegemonic domain, it questions ideas, attitudes, values, beliefs, and ideologies. In the disciplinary domain, it challenges policies, procedures, rules, and regulations. Policy discourse analysis places individuals and their experiences in the interpersonal domain at the center of the analysis because it uses their narratives to understand the impact of policies on their lives within particular social structures and institutions in the structural domain. Policy discourse analysis, as a methodological tool, helps connect theory with praxis.

A critical strategy in policy debates involves ‘understanding how groups and individuals define, describe, and frame their group interests in order to achieve political and social objectives’ (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 36). The focus on outcomes and praxis is the third component of the TASJ model. The social movement concepts of frames and framing provide the glue for the model by connecting method, theory, and praxis. Social movement collective action frames ‘are ways in which individuals and groups interpret, explain, and organize issues and concepts to achieve a particular outcome’ (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 36; Snow and Benford, 2000). They are the ‘result of combining the methodological tool of discourse analysis with the theoretical lenses from different disciplines’ (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 37). A critical component of collective action is recognition of the importance of mobilizing individuals to engage in action. This mobilization often draws upon ‘available cultural themes by using and redefining existing images, institutions, and beliefs in the hegemonic domain’ (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 37; McCammon et al., 2007). It also requires an understanding of the operation of the structural, interpersonal, and disciplinary domains. Ultimately, any change through social movements is rooted in a sensitivity to discourse: what is said; how it is said; and who it will influence and affect (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 37).

The goal of TASJ, then, ‘is to understand the manner in which the life experiences of individuals and groups are entangled and influenced by the operation of systems of power with the objective of designing effective intervention strategies’ (Pratt-Clarke, 2010: 38–9). TASJ seeks to determine an effective strategy that can impact and reverse the operations of particular domains on the experiences of individuals. TASJ reveals that social justice projects should be informed by recognition of the power of ‘institutions, conceptual schemes, and their texts’ (Harding and Norberg, 2005: 2011). This finding was demonstrated by the use of the TASJ model to analyze the 1991 Detroit Male Academy initiative (Pratt-Clarke, 1997, 2010).

As a short background, the Detroit Public School system created three all-male academies. In response to a federal gender discrimination lawsuit, a settlement agreement set aside 136 seats out of 560 for girls. Only 36 girls enrolled. A TASJ analysis revealed that the outcome was the result, in part, of the use of Black nationalistic and sexist discourse which created a climate and environment in Detroit that marginalized, minimized, blamed, and stereotyped Black women in their roles as mothers, teachers, and students. The low enrollment of girls was influenced by the way in which race, class, and gender were socially constructed in the discourse resulting in Black males being constructed as victims and Black women as the victimizers and oppressors. In addition, the TASJ analysis illustrated the interlocking role of social institutions at the micro and macro levels, including the education system, the legal system, the political system, and the family; the power of hegemonic discourse to legitimate and perpetuate ideologies of patriarchy, nationalism, and sexism; and the powerlessness of White civil rights organizations (American Civil Liberties Union) and feminist organizations (National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund) to be effective advocates for the interests of Black women and girls. As such, the TASJ model demonstrated that effective social justice strategies for Black women must be theoretically-grounded and intersectionality-based.

The TASJ, model, then, provides a comprehensive tool for the discipline of Africana Sociology with its integration of theory, method, and praxis; its incorporation of Afrocentricity and African-centered principles; its use of Black Feminist thought, sociological concepts, and social movement theory; and its recognition of the role of intersecting identities of race, class, and gender. The TASJ model is consistent with Fanon who urges the ‘creation of new principles, new definitions, and new agendas’ and the finding of unique values, methods, and styles to move away from European hegemony (Gwekwerere, 2010: 110).

Conclusion

The potential of Africana Sociology lies in its ability to incorporate concepts from Black Sociology, Afrocentricity, and TASJ. The complex and intertwined conditions affecting people of color and women of color through the operation and the manifestation of White patriarchal capitalist hegemony can only be addressed through comprehensive counter and oppositional approaches. Incorporating the key principles can enable Africana Sociology to serve as a more nuanced, comprehensive, and integrated approach for the study of the experiences of African Americans and African American women, in particular. It also allows Africana Sociology to build upon African American scholarship in sociology which has reconfigured conventional sociological, theoretical constructs in order to highlight important areas of the African American experience within social movement literature and race, class, and gender scholarship (Taylor, 1999).

As such, Africana Sociology can realize its full potential by recognizing intersections and connections with Black Sociology and African-centered thought; acknowledging the role of transdisciplinary approaches to transform interconnected social institutions; appreciating the critical importance of gender equity as symbolized by Ma’at; and encouraging a commitment to praxis and justice. These intersecting and overlapping themes demonstrate the value and potential for Africana Sociology to serve as a theoretical, methodological, and practical tool for implementing transformative change. Africana Sociology’s ability to integrate, theory, method, and praxis create the possibility for transforming our society and our experiences as African Americans and African American women, in particular.