Updates from CodienaFarie.com

an ism?

Doctor peace — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:17:02 GMT

I think it was on Cape Talk 567 or maybe it was on another talk radio that I heard a doctor of sociology or something else make the claim that Ubuntu and capitalism totally do not mix. Now that's quite a claim to make, isn't it! Well, at least I think it is. In fact it is such a big claim, I have been trying to get my hands around it for a couple of days and now I think I may say a word or two about it.

A couple of days back when I wrote an incomplete comparative analysis of Ubuntu and Christianity, one of the comments that I got back was that Ubuntu was, like all other "isms", an incomplete man made construct that could scarcely explain the nature and origin of man. At that time, I did not take much heed to the statement and just let it rest. In a sense, I agreed with the basic thrust of the comment. Ubuntu should not be put on the same level as the religion of Christ. The two have different origins and purposes. One is a codified religion with answers to all of humanity's questions in one way or the other whereas the other (Ubuntu) is a window through which the world can be seen. It is one of many world views that can easily be incorporated into a religion like Christianity (and has been in some parts of Africa through the process of Inculturation in the Roman Catholic Church in Zimbabwe, for example). However, there was something about making Ubuntu an "ism" that made me somewhat uncomfortable. Still, I just let the feeling wear off. Until, I heard the comment above...

My first hang up was with the whole concept of Ubuntu being an ism. Since some fellow bloggers seem to pride themselves in a richer understanding of the Queen's home language, I thought I should start with a dictionary definition of an "ism". Dictionary.com yielded the following variations of its meaning that are relevant for this discussion:

1. -noun

a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice: This is the age of isms.

noun
a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school [syn: doctrine]

OK then. Ubuntu would be an "ism" according to both of the above dictionary definitions. First point settled.

Now onto the meatier part of my worries: what is Ubuntu's position on Capitalism, if any? And that is where things start getting quite hairy fairy. For those of you who may have followed my posts from the begining you may remember my discussion on the presumed superiority of the written versus the oral source of any information or knowledge. Whilst I feel that the two sources can usually carry equal weight and be equally credible, using oral sources is quite a challenging task. It becomes even more difficult when one tries to glean information about something that may or may not actually have existed. Let's say that one intends to probe the relationship between Ubuntu and Capitalism in antiquity (which is actually recent history...), one would have to ask living sources about the issue. The problem however is that the practices of both Ubuntu and Capitalism in the past differ greatly from what they are now. So maybe one needs a different method of inquiry.

A promising route would be to compare the nature of the two "isms" (for want of a better way of putting it across). In my view, Ubuntu as a world view is primarily interested in the definition of the individual in so far as he relates to other human beings. The main emphasis of its philosophy is that the individual's life derives more meaning by being part of a bigger whole and this is propagated mainly through socialisation. Capitalism, on the other hand, doesn't really care about who the individual is. It's main concern is about how the ownership of the "means of production" which it prefers to be in private hands predominantly. Thus if the individual is to feature in capitalist theory, it is only as either the owner of capital or the beneficiary of such. In fact the difficulty with the theory of capitalism is that there is not one, but many slightly different and elaborate theories of the same. Each with its own nuances. The central concept, however, remains the same. Individuals (natural, legal or corporate) should be owners of capital, they should have sufficient rights to do with their capital as they please, as long as they do not infringe on other individuals' fundamental rights. Nothing, however, in the theory, mentions the place and identity of these individuals within a social framework.

The learned doctor who postulated that Ubuntu and Capitalism may still argue that none of my statements above come close to clarifying or disputing his position. I have to first concede to this statement before proceeding to my second point. In previous posts I tried to show how an individual brought up in the Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic Complex as I understand it is socialised to believe that his identity is co-identical with that of all his other kith and kin in his many social relationships with them. In essence this means that if one such indidual were to become the owner of capital, it could be argued that this capital belonged to the whole of his family/clan/tribe... This is true BUT, and this is a big but, the way in which the whole family/clan/tribe owns this asset is not at the same "level". The "actual" owner, from a western perspective, owns the asset(s) physically, economically, legally, emotionally and spiritually whilst the rest of the people share in his spiritual ownership of the means of production. These assets become theirs not in so far as they can go and make legal or titular claim to them, but in so far as they can "claim" their owner as "one of them". That is why we say "Sisonke, nay Simunye" (We are together, nay We are One!).

I am very much aware that the above paragraph is quite a handful of concepts to grasp at one reading. I can imagine that the ordinary western trained and oriented mind would view personal co-identity with the family/clan/tribe as being a quick road to at best socialism and (at worst?) communism. I would imagine that the clearest way that this mind would see that statement/state would be typified in the statement "Everything that is yours is mine and (sarcastically) everything that I own is MINE!". The problem with this particular world view is that it fails to fully grasp the idea of co-identity in the Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic Complex. I am because of my family/clan/tribe/... in that when people speak about me, they will always reference me back to these same groupings. Moreover, I take my pride (and shame) from everything that these same groupings achieve (or fail to achieve, as the case may be). That is how everything that they own is also mine. They do not have to include me on the title deeds to their possessions for me to feel pride in their and my ownership of these. They are because of me as well. We all are because of each other. It is a concept that has a similar parallel in the western mind to the concept of nationalism and the stereotypes that people normally associate with them. Only that my being a particular family or clan or tribe or totem grouping does not only assign me an existent stereotype, but it actually provides me with the power to shape the particlar stereotype that will be applied to us in future...

So what does it mean to the rights of the individual coming from my linguisitic and cultural complex who is an entrepreneur at heart? Does Ubuntu say that since capitalism is about the individual and his single minded pursuit of profit, the road to it is closed? In my humble and considered view, I think that the answer is a big fat NO. No because even in the normal Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic Complex world, each individual also goes for the pursuit of their individual goals in a manner that is similar to that of "pure" capitalism. Some family/clan/tribe groupings are known to have reputations as master farmers or superior hunters or great masters of one or other field of human endeavour. For them to achieve these reputations and earn these recognitions, individuals from those family/clan/tribe groupings have actually, over time, pursued those professions with single minded passion in order to make the most out of them as individuals. Of course as co-identical individuals with their communities and families, their reputations have rubbed on to the whole communities. In this regard, a capitalistic man from any family/clan/tribe of the Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic complex who goes in pursuit of the modern standard of wealth does nothing inordinately different from what his ancestors and predecessors have been doing for ages. Being the best at what their God given talents direct them to do. Ubuntu has nothing against that.

So why would my learned colleague who also hails from the Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic Complex come to the conclusion that Ubuntu and Capitalism are like oil and water, not able to mix in natural conditions? I can only make some learned guesses as to why this could have been. In my view, one of the possible reasons why one could end up with such a conclusion is due to the assumed behaviour of the capitalist. I must say that in my not too deep understanding of capitalism and the theory surrounding it there is scarcely any mention of how the capitalist behaves as a social animal outside of his/her relationship with the so called stakeholders involved and impacted on by his enterprise. I make this point because the predominant view is that a capitalist has to be some sort of "individualist" in all aspects of life. Granted that capitalist theory says that the ideal capitalist maximises/optimises his short and long term profits by single mindedly pursuing everything that will give his capital the highest returns. In doing this the capitalist acts as an individual who only considers the views or positions of other capitalist only to the extent to which they may hinder or further his/her own interests. It is this strong individualist mask of the capitalist that is viewed to be inconsistent with the "person through others" position of Ubuntu.

In my view the assumed dichotomy between the two positions is a fallacy. It is assumed that when a group of hunters from the Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic complex went out to hunt in the days of old they would have hunted in an uncompetitive manner which would have tried to accomodate everyone in the process. Let's try to imagine how that could have been. A group of hunters go hunting and they see an animal. Each one wants meat to bring back home to the wife, but because they are all one, when one of them sets his dogs on the hunt and takes aim with his spear the others just move on and try to find other prey? Is that how it used to be back in the day? Is that how it is supposed to be? No, is the answer to all these questions. Hunting for this group was as competitive a pursuit as any venture that any capitalist will embark on today. Of course they would go as a group and have some spirit of camaraderie among them, but when it came to the kill, it really DID matter who caught the prey. That is why each one had to have distinctive arrows from the rest so that there would be no doubt as to whom the kill belonged to. Some men, legend has it, were notorious for going back home empty handed.

It is what those who would have caught food would then do when they got back to the village and their wives had finished singing them their songs of praise that distinguishes the man with Ubuntu from other men. If his neighbour had nothing to eat at all, he would not let him go hungry due to no fault of his. Their wives would "lend" each other kitchen goodies from the catch that just came from the hunt to the salt that would be used to season the food. Thus there is a place for individualism, and another for benevolence without loosing Ubuntu.

In conclusion therefore, let me boldly say that being a capitalist does not take away a person's Ubuntu. From what we hear, Bill Gates is not only the world's biggest capitalist. He is also its biggest philanthropist, a respectable character trait in the Ubuntu Linguistic and Cultural Complex...

Now I know why

Doctor peace — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:41:07 GMT

My real pain is that my lot has changed. I am no longer the man that I was in a different place and time. Due to the troubles in the land I call home, I have had to become another man in this new place with less freedoms and opportunities. That is who I am now. A paler shade of the man that I once was. And that is my problem. The reason why I can't think, write or function. The reality of it all has just hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks and now I am numbed into some near comatose state. Vegetative in the brain, now I shrivel. How could I have gotten where I am. Why can I not be the big fish in a relatively large pond that I once was? Do I have to be this tiny little fish in this ocean, with no hope of ever making it past the medium sized fish status? Whose fault is this? The fool! How can he do this to me. I mean ME, of all people. Me!

In the wilderness

Doctor peace — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:15:42 GMT

I am having blogger's block
For real!
Blogger's block!
It all started yesterday
I wrote a piece
On Patience
And my computer
Crushed on it
SO I gave up
Until today
I tried to blog
About the bad times
And found no words
Even for a poem
On getting lost
Which I truly am
So I decided
That maybe
The wilderness
Isn't too wild
Lo! Here I am
With fingers on keyboard
And nonsense in my mind
I blog no blog
Post no post
Wield no Words
But play
Word games
That yield
No results
I'm done!
Am I cured?

Blame it
On the Bloggers'
Block

The meal on Table Mountan

Doctor peace — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:46:56 GMT

The meal on Table Mountan

'Twas on Kloof
That the twelve tribes
Of the Hallowed eleven
And the forsaken twelfth
Rendezvoused, forks in hand
Appettites oh so sharp

Mensa shown up above
The old man smoking his pipe
Invisible hands laying the table
With nice bright white linen
Time to eat, it is time to eat

All ye from Gugs and Camps Bay
Up in the Northen Surbubs
Along the West Coast
Down to the Southern Suburbs
In the townships and
All the informal settlements
Food is served

May, were it pap
Umnqutshu maybe
With Boerewors
Some sprouts in there
Mine, yours, ours?
All for to eat
Rumble stomachs rumble

And the forsaken do
Wash their hands, all in glee
Edge to edge, smiles on faces etched
Now they dip in
Watched, by the eleven
Who should by right partake
But tarry as they parry
'Gainst each other to no end
Oops the food goes cold!

'Twas in Camps Bay
Yes that the drift
Wifty scents of couldrons
So appetising, so inviting
Caught expectant stomachs
Rushing up to Tafelberg road
Time to eat, time to eat!

And now the eleven do eat
Up on Table Mountain
Old man smokes his pipe
Coverin' his children
Who quarrel no more
Food is just too cold
But warmer than the hunger
That made big tummies
Sing so loud
Food is served!

And thus goes
The story of the meal
That old lady
Served, at the foot
Of proud Africa
To the echoes of
Hello Mama Africa
Nkosi sikelel' iAfrica
Her Children, now can eat
Their meal, at her Table
The Table Mountain

(c) Doctor Peace

Perspectives on Ubuntu and the Christian Worldview

Doctor peace — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:14:19 GMT

On this 34th day in the life of my new boss, my little boy D, I have decided to touch a subject that makes most uncomfortable: that of religion. Yet I fear not. I am confident that I will strike a chord with one or two of you out there. Of course some of you may object, but the last time I checked, I was living in a democracy that allowed plurality of views.

When I started talking on the subject of Ubuntu, I touched briefly on some similarities or nearness in Philosophical positions between the Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic Complex's "Umunthu ngumunthu ngabantu" and the Christian perspective and immediately got a quizzical "how so?" response from a fellow blogger who finds time to read these mad rantings of mine. At the time, I did not develop the theme further, and so, as a point of departure, let me start with that point.

Since some readers may not have read the earlier post, let me just quickly recap on the central thesis of my Ubuntu monologue. In that post I started by discussing the now cliched statement, "Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu" and pointed out that the literal translation "A person is a person with/through others" does not adequately capture the rich meaning that it has in what I moved to call the Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic Complex. I tried to highlight this richness of meeting by looking at the ways in which a person in this cultural and linguistic complex is a person through others. I traced the life of such a person from Childhood to Adulthood and pointed out how at birth one of the people in this group becomes a part of everyone's life and draws his/her humanity from them by being "everyone's child". I tried to admonish the western perspective that "everyone's child" equated to a "virtual orphan" by clarifying how this responsibility is taken seriously by everyone in these communities. I also explored how relationships within these cultures extend beyond traditional family lines going into extended families, but go further into totem groupings linking everyone into an intricate web of relatedness. I proceeded to look at how individuals born into these cultures are made to believe and do feel that in all that they do, they represent every single one of their fellow men and women. In all that they do, they actually become their fellow men, bringing pride or shame to their whole collective by their actions. In summary then, "a person is a person through/with others" through a shared parenthood-childhood experience further enriched by intricate family ties and then lived out in a common destiny. That, for me, is the essence of Ubuntu. It may not be the same for other commentators, but it should serve as a reference point for the discussion to follow.

My understanding of the Christian Faith, to which I personally converted late in my teens, is that it has as its cornerstone the Gospel of Jesus Christ whom it preaches as the Messiah for whom the sons of Abraham had long awaited. The central teaching in my view is that of Love. Without thumping Bibles and quoting therefrom, I think that the crux of his teachings are captured in the summary that he gave for the law of Moses: "1. Love God. and 2. Love Your neighbour". Of cause this summary is not complete without reference to the story of the Good Summaritan that he then used to characterise the anonymous individual that we are to take as our neighbour. It turns out that neighbour, in Jesus' sense, is such a flexible term that can even refer to any person including, as in his example, people from enemy groups. Thus put in a different way this summary says that apart from loving the Christian deity by observing His tenets, one also has to go out and be a brother to every man, woman and child that one meets on the way because they are all one's neighbour. In fact, He makes this point in a much stronger way in His exposition of the Last Judgement.

In my reading of this exposition, Christ says that at the last judgement people will be judged according to how they lived the commandment of love to their fellow men and women. Using the example of a shepherd, He talks about how those whose lives are lived in the proper manner will be called forth to the Shepherd's right hand and ushered into the Kingdom of Glory because they would have seen him in his nakedness and clothed him, his loneliness and kept him company... Of course these good souls having been brought up on conventional wisdom cannot understand how they could have done all these things for him and thus pose a question to Him seeking clarification of this claim. To which He answers, "Whenever you did it to one of these little ones of my brothers, you did it to me". A profound statement, indeed! HE goes to say equally profound things to the remaining crowd which is banished to a life away from His Glory. Their failing, also, being that of not having loved "Him" in His brothers and sisters.

Christianity, for me, thus is a religion firstly based on following the teachings of Jesus Christ, who is also God the Son, the second Person in the Most Holy Trinity of God. This God is the same God that the Christian believes has created everything that is on the earth and in fact in the whole universe. Everything in the world came into being through His will. Humanity exists because of him. Thus the Christian, necessarily believes that he/she "is" because of God. "I am because of God". Actually this statement does not only hold for those of us who profess Christianity as our faith, it also holds for anyone else who believes in a Monotheistic Deity of any name. In the Christian sense, however, this "I am because of God" easily translates to "I am because of Christ", which then moves into "We are because of Christ" or "We are because of Him". Hopefully the reader can follow the presumed flow starting from being a creature of God, who is also the Christ, who teaches that we are all related/neighbours and thus as a collective we can make the claim that our being is through Him.

In this Christian sense "being a person" through Christ is both an acknowledgement of the creationist viewpoint that one actually came from Christ "through whom all things were made" and also a profession of faith in the redemptive life giving power of the same Christ through his crucifixation, death and ressurection. All those who claim to be Christians also take their humanity from the same Christ. It is, of course, a new type of humanity which demands that they all become one family with everyone else who takes the same Christ as their God and even those who may not even care for Him. That is until one compares this humanity to that discussed under the Ubuntu model.

In Ubuntu, one is always related to every person that one meets in life. If one is not a blood relative, they could be related through their totems, and if not they could still find a relationship through tracing similar relationship lines in their extended families including those of their inlaws. Thus embracing the concept of being related to all of "creation" does not require, if you'll excuse the pun, a leap of faith. It is simply an endorsement of something that the individual who comes from the Ubuntu cultural and linguistic complex has already always known: that everyone is their brother, sister, mother, father, uncle, aunt, or some other relation.

The main area of difference is the source of "being". For the Christian, being proceeds, as stated above first from being a creature of this Christ/God and then secondly from living a life made possible by His redemptive love using His life as a template. If the people in the ubuntu cultural and linguistic complex had always been Christian they may have coined the phrase "Umuntu ngumuntu lo/ngoKristu" (A person is a person through Christ). In reality, even though they may believe in a monotheistic deity who is their creator, they take the source of their identity as being their community. Through it, each one of them truly becomes themselves and their lives become missions to edify not just themselves but the rest of their family/extended family/totem line/clan... This contrasts interestingly with the Christian quest of living a life guided by Christ who alone makes it possible for them to be even in existence. Clearly the contrast then is that of a starting point in philosophical journeys and the building of world views.

When the Ubuntu cultural and linguistic complex group start by saying that "I am because we are", they do not consider the question of human genesis in the whole matter. Maybe they do consider in other contexts, but it is a question that does not come into their minds for reasons that one can only surmise. The first possible reason for this is that for them the question of where they come from is a no brainer. It need not be asked. Maybe, if they asked the question they may change their views of themselves and decide that their concept of being should incorporate the source and fount of their lives, but since they don't pause to ask it, they find that the source of their identity is actually their society. The Christian world view, however, starts by posing the question "Where did we come from" and thus yields an answer which puts the source of the inquirer into the response. Of course, one never hears the Christian state the mantra "I am because He is/We are because of Him", but I believe it is a fundamental tenet of most if not all Christian Creeds. Thus we clearly see a matter of two different starting points yielding different but interestinly similar end points.

This post is threatening to be another lengthy expose, so I will temporarily pen it off at this point, to resume again when the spirit of writing moves me again. Meanwhile, I hope that I have your attention. You. Whoever you are, reading this post.

Life is good, isn't it?

Doctor peace — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:37:59 GMT

Sometimes one has to stop and ponder at the mysteries of being. For me, today being the first month anniversary of Junior, my first born son, I can't help but be in awe of this great gift called life. How small and vulnerable we all start. How sweet and adorable life begins and how the road to the end of our lives is such an interesting trip, full of twists and turns. How many stories one lifetime can yield!

My boy is just 28 days into this life and do we have stories to tell about him in just this short while! It's funny how life is held together by stories. Each one of our lives is a story that begs to be told. Maybe that is the reason why we all blog. To tell the stories of our lives. Birth. The many stories of all the delivery room dramas that our mothers have to tell. Growing up. All those tales of "world" exploration and the discovery of our own voices and selves. Till we grow older and maybe start to doubt if my story is one of those stories worthy of a read. But we all are. Each one of our lives is a gold mine of experiences that can not be told enough. That is why we should write.

So blog on, blogland. Life is really good! Aint it now?

"Normalising the abnormal"

Doctor peace — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:23:10 GMT

Professor Jonathan Moyo, Zimbabwe's ousted former Minister of (mis)Information is credited with coming up with the phrase "Normalising the abnormal" in his doctoral thesis. Apparently, his basic argument is that there are some things that are patently wrong or simply abnormal, like crime. Normally people should shudder when they hear mention of these things or witness them in progress, however if people are over-exposed to these abnormal conditions they may lose their sensitivities and, in time, may even end up perceiving these abherations as "normal".

I have just been reading an article about crime in Manchester, the United kingdom at this link. This 12 page document which is subtitled 'Guns, Gangs and Ghosts - Normalising the abnormal", makes for interesting reading especially in the South African context. This is not only because it makes mention of the 1976 Soweto uprisings, but also because of the ongoing debate on crime and how it is perceived by local commentators in comparison to global trends. Without trying to "normalise the abnormal", there seems to be some interesting parallels between our situation here and some of the things taking place in Manchester, UK now.

My simple question is this: to what extent do you think that the solutions proposed in the linked document could help assist fight the crime scourge in our own midst?

Corporate Idiocy

Doctor peace — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:20:23 GMT

Am I the only one who thinks that many of the so called big corporates are plain lucky to continue being in business given their current ways of doing business? I am really convinced that if you took many of the management teams of most current big corporates and gave them a totally new business with absolutely no customers and asked them to run it, they would make such a mess of it, the business would never take off. Without letting out a lot, I am convinced that the ability of many of these corporates to survive currently, is just linked to years of goodwill gained for them by previous more astute business people who may have run those businesses in the past. The majority of these businesses are "steamer-rolled" by the momentum of their old established businesses to such an extent that are now immune to the continual bungling of their current inept(?) management teams.

As someone who has been in management for a large corporate, I am priviledged to know the pressures that these guys work with. Many of them are well meaning, intelligent human beings who really want to make a success of themselves. It is just unfortunate that "corporate-ville" imposes certain expectations on their behaviour and some of them don't fully comprehend the limits that they have to work with. A classical case of this is the whole issue of corporate policies that go on beyond their sell by dates, because (some) managers let them go on.

I am sure you've all heard about the monkeys in a cage experiment where the zoo keepers put a group of monkeys in a cage and trained them to develop a dislike for any monkey that tried to collect a banana from a particular spot in the cage. They did this through meting out group punishment whenever any monkey tried to get a banana from a specific place in the cage. After a few iterations of this process, the other monkeys in the cage learnt to punish the one monkey that would have caused them to be punished. In the end, the rules were changed and getting a banana no longer yielded the same effect. However the monkeys were not keen on testing this fact and when new monkeys were introduced into the cage the older monkeys would still punish them for making any attempts at getting any bananas in the enticed but forbiden spot.

Interestingly the new monkeys learnt so fast that when newer monkeys tried to do the same these other ones would mete out more enthusiastic punishment without having any clue as to why it was necessary to do so (the researchers like the rest of us are convinced that monkeys are incapable of communicating a complex issue like telling a newbie not to eat the forsaken banana in the forbiden spot). It is said that after a while the cage was full of only new monkeys, but the custom of beating up whichever new monkey tried to reach out for the banana in that particular spot never died down, even though the reasons for its initial development were no longer valid...

That is exactly what I think happens at most large corporates around the world when it comes to corporate policies. Many managers see their role in the corporate setting as that of maintaining established systems without ever stopping to think, "But why was that ever started in the first place?". So people keep on filling up forms that have been made redundant by technology, and companies hold on to archaic rules that can no longer be enforced even with the best of intentions. Good meaning managers preside over all these rules and roll out "exercises" to do non value adding work, just because "that is just the way we do things here"...

It's really scary when one thinks about it, but the things happening in some large corporates make one want to stand up and really think about pulling some really big pactical jokes at some of the 'okes who have made it their lifetime tasks to maintain these really funny, meaningless corporate practices which only serve to make their businesses more sluggish in the face of competition. Or maybe, one should send a circular to all the sharehoders of some of these large corporates so that they may know just how well their money is being looked after by some of these blokes...

Ubuntu 101

Doctor peace — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:59:08 GMT

OK, now that we have cleared the air on the use of locally offensive language, we can now proceed to the issue that we have been trying to build up to all along. The subject of Ubuntu.

In another damp squib moment, I must confess again that I have found a reasonably accurate account of what Ubuntu means to me at this location .

To summarise my understanding, the most popular tenet of "Ubuntu" (which in my understanding means "Being Human") is the statement "Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu" meaning that "A person is a person with others" the Philosophy and world runs deeper than it is popularily understood. As I tried to show yesterday, Western philosophy and the Western Mind views a person's identity and personhood as either a matter for the individual to decide in the most atheistic view or determined by a higher being in the most pious Christian view. In either case the individual has a duty to THEMSELVES to establish their identity. In the "Ubuntu" world view, however, a person may have some concerns about who they are and how they can develop their personhood and identity, but they are also realise that their personhood and individuality is part of a bigger whole, which could be their local village, or other community.

The above statement is one that is widely circulated but, in my view, sadly much misunderstood. Many people make reference to a person being made by their society only in terms of the society affirming his/her personhood in a very simplistic manner. Being a person through other people is quite a complex statement. It needs to be located in the proper soci-economic organisations of the Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic complex. An individual in this complex derives their "humanity" from the rest of their village or neighbors. This is best illustrated through a trace of a person's life from birth to death and beyond the grave vis:

At birth a child in the Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic Complex of which I make reference to is referred to as everyone's Child. From a western perspective this might appear to be quite an irresponsible thing to do, because in the western mind when no specific responsibility is allocated, noone ends up taking any responsibility for that which has none given. Now for a child to not have a person responsible for them would be in the very least wreckless, but when the people in the Ubuntu Cultural and Linguistic Complex designate a Child as Everyone's Child, they do so in a very literal and real sense. EVERY single member of the community DOES take part in the social, moral and spiritual upbringing of the child. In some instances even the physical needs maybe socially met. Thus when the Child starts to develop a character or personality, this character or personality is indeed a reflection of the peole around him/her: the starting point of him/her being a person WITH the people around him/her.
As the child starts to get into their own, they soon realise that the world around them is linked through many communal and spiritual links. There is a deity somewhere who has created the world and all that is in it, who communicates with the living through some of their long departed who are now in the spiritual realm. Those in the spiritual realm have an integral part in the affairs of the living as much as those who are living commune with them. Some of the creatures in the world are also living vessels of the spirits and most of the traditions in this linguistic and cultural complex also tend to have totems that link particular clans to specific animals, birds or fish which they may ot consume. Some have postulated, but not proven, that the taboos around the eating of the totem may be related to known allergies within a particular tribal or other group, but the important aspect that arises from this is how it further re-inforces familial and clan relationships of an individual. The same person will belong to his immediate nuclear family by birth, and will be the son or daughter of every man and woman in his/her village, whilst also having strong family ties with all their extended family many branches removed from them. Over and above these particular relationships, the totem will, as stated above provide another set of also very close relationships with all those who have the same totem. All in all, these "relatives" all play a significant role in shaping the character and world view of any individual. People will make references to statements like "A Nyati(Buffalo) does not behave in that manner", and these tend to also have a significant effect on how a person then shapes their character. This spiritual aspect is often overlooked by those who want to evangelise the Ubuntu "gospel". I can only presume that this is partially because of their discomfort with the so called "animist/pagan" beliefs alluded to above. What is important, in the above however is the notion that relationships play a very central role in shaping the character of the individual in the Ubuntu Linguitic and Cultural Complex.
The child does grow and then matures into an adult who of necessity must go out into the world and make something of themselves. Being a people through others, the individual coming out of this complex realises that when they take to whatever field of endeavour that they choose to, it is never just about themselves when they do so. They are always cognisant of the fact that they carry with them the whole "family"'s pride and reputation. When a single person from a particular "family" makes a breakthrough, the whole community rejoices. Each individual is not just an ambassador of his fellow "tribesmen" or "tribeswomen", but is actually just one "instantiation" of the same group. In each individual, the whole clan/tribe/family becomes present. That is why when something good happens in the family people can sing with Oliver Mutukudzi "Nhasi ndezveduwo, itai makorokoto, korokoto kwatiri, wedu adadisa!" (Today is our turn, Congratulate us, Our offspring has made us proud!). Maybe, this aspect is best demonstrated in the negative by an example of the dominantly held traditional view of what happens if a member of a particular family or tribal grouping violates the member of another different group by either killing or maiming the other. In these particular cases the guilt for the "crime" goes to the whole family or blood line of the perpetrator of this atrocity. The avenging spirit of the deceased, when it comes, deals not only with the actual guilty party, but it actually goes for all the "family". In atonement, the whole family must say sorry (usually by offering one of their own to be sent into the family of the deceased and bear them a child to replace the one killed by their own people. The penalty is not death. Even the person who is offered is not to be illtreated, but must serve the purpose for which they came, that is bear a replacement, and afterwards be freed of their obligation and return to their now absolved family.) Clearly one's being a person with others needs to be understood in the locus of the community or family that gives the individual their life, sustanance and personal values.

The wife and very youg baby beckon, and I must give this keyboard a rest otherwise...

Anyway, hopefully tomorrow we will find another "minute" to pursue this "matter" further. Good night dear reader.

Foot in mouth

Doctor peace — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:25:57 GMT

There, I have to admit it. I have been caught with my foot in my mouth! Yesterday afternoon I was going on and on about the Bantu Nation without regard to the sensitivities that the word "Bantu" to countless numbers of South African people whose memories of that word "Bantu" are not in the very least fond. Coming from a different country where the word is happily embraced by native speakers of ChiShona in all its dialects and iSiNdebele without any negative connotations, I used the word oblivious of the baggage that it carries in the South African historical context. Now that I know a little more about it, I have to unreservedly apologise to all those who may have been offended by my proud use of a word with such painfull racial and dirty baggage.

Having said that, however, I find myself at a loss when it comes to my pet project which is to discuss the Philosophical context of the mantra "umunthu ngumunthu ngabanthu". My option appears to be that of creating a new method of classification of this set of linguistic and philosophical traditions that subscibe to the "ubunthu" philosophy. Any other option that I may take would be insensitive and highly inconsiderate of the feelings of my fellow men and women whose feelings would be obviously hurt by the use of words that have been used in the past to inflict pain and perpetrate untold inequities on my fellow human beings. So when I make reference to the "Ubunthu Linguistic and Philosophical Cultural Complex", I hope that you, dear reader, will understand it in the proper context.

My next post should be in a few more hours, but for now, let me be off. To dinner.

Prerequisite to Ubuntu 101 - some world philosophical views

Doctor peace — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:37:13 GMT

My take on world philosophies is that they tend to follow three general drifts:

The first general philosophical world view is that of the so called western philosophers and is mostly concerned with answering questions about the existence or otherwise of the individual, an Omnipresent and Omniscient God and the universe. It plays itself out (simplistically) in either the Christian religious view points of a world built for a purpose by a benevolent creater in which every individual life is to be led in a manner that can be judged good by this deity according to a predetermined set of rules or the total rejection of this point and the pursuit of a life centred around the self. So called Western man, tends either to view their life either in terms of their God given duties or in the other extreme as an experiment in coming to realise their own self, one that they can completely invent. In the first extreme, and depending on the shade of Christianity that one subscribes to, relationships are important to the extent to which they help one achieve their "God given" duties. In the other, one chooses how much influence or weight interpersonal relationships with the rest of the world will have on him/herself. In the majority of cases, however, "Western Man" tends to hold sacrosanct their relationships with their immediate or so called nuclear family and holds any other relationships deeper into the family tree with at least some degree of suspicion or at worst as unimportant. To a large extent, the individual is an island and could easily use the assertion "I think, therefore I am" by Descartes to mean that my existence is not only proven by my ability to think, but it also revolves around my ability to think for myself and discover my own knowledge and truths. Thus the Western man, does not see him/herself as needing anyone other than him/herself (and maybe God)... So essentially, I accuse Western philosophy of generating a person whose world view is essentially selfish and self centred. Even many of the so called Christians for whom selflessness is supposed to be a living template, are basically inculcated with the same selfish world views that they have to consciously act out their Christian duties to other fellow men. In fact Christianity poses an interesting philosophical thrust to the issue of being. A particular paraphrasing of the Christian view says that "We are, because He is"... I will explore this particular view in the next post
The second world view which tends to be predominant in the so called Eastern or Oriental world is the one which sees permanent connections between all life and has a strong emphasis towards having "good" relationships with all of creation (for want of a better word). In this view there is a strong belief that one must always act in a way that gives the greatest peace and joy to the largest number of creatures around oneself so that the forces of good that are so generated may come back and increase one's own senses of peace and joy. Of course even in these philosophies or world views, there is quite some divergence on what is important in life. Some Oriental philosophies do emphasize the need for enlightening oneself as the most important goal in one's life whilst others tend to view a life of service to the cosmos as the ultimate goal or purpose of human life. In almost all cases human relationships are extremely valued especially as they aid one in achieving the goal of harmony with the world. Identity to a large extent, as in Western thought, is an individual matter although group affiliations help define who you are.
A third world view which is rarely cited in the scholary study of philosophy is that of the many other traditions scattered in Africa, the Americas and parts of Australasia. It is in this third world view that one finds the Bantu Philosophy and since this will be the subject of a whole new post, I will not delve more into it.

My main purpose in making the above (long?) summaries of world philosophical view points is clearly that I would like to present the Bantu way and the statement "Umuntu ngubunthu ngabantu" into a new light, that of a systematic, but as yet undocumented, philosophical framework, comparable in stature and influence with those of the so called Occident and the so calle Orient. This will be the main thrust of my next post, some day soon.

Written is more sacred?

Doctor peace — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:59:09 GMT

One day, two years ago I was travelling with a friend of mine from my home city of Harare in Zimbabwe to Bulawayo with a religious group of which I was an office bearer. I had with me in the front passenger seat a white priest friend of mine. Neither one of us had been to the particular place where this meeting was going to take place. That being the case my friend, had with him a map and some written instructions on how to get there. I, on the other hand, having called my folks who lived in that city, had been given a verbal set of instructions, also on how to get to the same meeting place. As we got closer to the place, we started haggling about which set of directions to follow. My friend being adamant that since his directions were written, they were of superior value than mine, which had just been spoken and I insisting that mine were even more superior because they came from a source that I held in greater esteem. On that particular occassion, as we found out later, however, the written directions were wide off the mark, whilst my orally received ones were right on the bulls' eye.

If there is anything that sharply differentiates the mainstream Bantu culture from the Western Eurocentic culture that we are now told is the new global culture, I would say that it is the former's reliance on the spoken word versus the later's reverence of the written word. In my Bantu culture, if I say that my uncle, or my aunt, or so and so told me, you MUST take my word for it. That in itself is an authoritative statement. Contrast this with the constant need to have "traceable" written references for any claim that is made in the new global order. We are constantly told to give more value to that which is written, although, in my experience, even the most literate of my fellow Bantu men and women find it much easier to relate to the spoken rather that to the written word. (And we have a way of passing the spoken word faster than e-mail and sms across the proverbial 4 corners of the globe!)

The main reason given for the assumed superiority of the written versus the spoken word, is it's assumed constancy. Once something is commited to paper, it remains constant through further reproductions and onward transmissions of the work. Even if it were to be changed during the course of history, someone with access to the original work can always go back to it and check to see what was actually originally said. The argument, therefore, is that since the spoken word is so maleable with each subsequent transmission and reproduction it should be treated with much sceptism. In fact the second argument for the supremacy of the letter to the voice is based on the assumption that one tends to be much more careful about what they are going to write down given its constancy and ability to outlive one and thus potentially haunt one should they have made careless statements. The assumption of course is that those who use words without writing them down, can do so with open minds and shut minds, and most probably do so most of the time. If this is the case, then why do I and most of "my" people, still value the spoken word?

I think it boils down to a question of values. Societal values espoused by each of the two cultures are markedly different. In my culture, when an elder says something and quotes one of his own elders this word is not taken lightly. These words are taken as real valuable knowledge, and those of us who hear these words gladly pass them on, taking care not to corrupt the message. The wisdon of our people is in these collective statements that we gather from all our uncles, aunts and grand parents. Even though they do not commit them to writing we KNOW that they do not say any of those words in jest, nor with shut minds. Their words are serious pieces of knowledge which can only enrich our own knowledge.

The values of "Ubuntu" (or "Hunhu" as it is called in my nearly native Shona) as stated in the now cliched statement "Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu" (or "Munhu mumhu, nevanhu" - "I am because, we are") have for years been transmitted in a mosty lossless manner for hundreds of years before the advent of writing technology in these parts. Yet in the present day South Africa, where they are now being transmitted via the written medium, they have become a fuzzy guide to morality and life. Few people who make reference to these values have a clue as to what it truly means to be "umunthu ngabanthu". None of the many political statements or written exposes have accurately captured for me what years of oral tradition put across more succintly. You may ask the question, why?

In my view, part of the problem is that some of those who have chosen to write about "ubuntu" simply have no clue about what it truly is (Hear, Hear!). Secondly, I feel that many of the people who have also tried to expose this important cultural cornerstone of the Bantu Nation have been led by wrong motives. These two factors, I must say, have contributed, in the most part, to the miscommunication of the essence of what "ubuntu" stands for and what it does not. I will attempt an explanation of it in a follow up post, but for the purposes of this post, I wanted to bring to the fore the difficulties that one faces when one wants to give greater weight to the written word than the spoken word at all times.

For us to fairly compare the value and importance of what is written versus that which is spoken, we need to first bring the two sources of information to some common denominator. One way we can do this is to compare the assumed authority of the sources of either a written fact or a spoken one. Take for instance, in my directions example, who wrote the map and gave the directions to the meeting place versus who told me the directions on the phone. You may find that both sources were quite credible sources in that the person who wrote the direction had been there themselves and was a resident of the area as well, whilst my uncle who told me the directions regularily attended church just next to the same place and therefore knew it quite well. The person who drew the map was also known to the priest and had not in the past given any inaccurate information. My uncle is my father! (Part of the Bantu Philosophy!) Uncle is such a remote western concept so much that when I speak to him I would never dare to call him by that name because he is much closer to me than could be connoted by that string of English syllables. Thus I also have no reason to doubt my uncle when he tells me to take a particular turn and not the one indicated on the map. In this case, therefore, one can see how both the written and the spoken word square up nicley against each other as clear equals waiting some empirical test to prove the more superior...

Of course the difficulty always comes when the orally transmitted fact does not come from someone who is as easily identifiable or close. That is when the sceptics have a ball. But, that is also where they loose the plot, because, even I would not give as much credibility to oral facts passed down through dubious means and not through a trusted family line. Ubuntu values the spoken word, but only when it is consistently passed down over generations in an uncorruptible and trusted tradition through our elders who take great pride in our own knowledge gathering and dissemination systems. In fact, passing on this knowledge accurately, is part of the method that we use to preserve the "abantu" (peole) who make us "abantu" (us/people).

For me, as a blogger, the written word is great, but I still value the spoken wisdom of my elders, because before they became letters on a keyboard, these thoughts were inspired by the many cleverly crafted stories of my tribal elders who for years have preserved an invaluably large store of Bantu philosophy and culture over countless generations. So there it is, written is not superior to spoken. Not for me, anyway.

Fear

Doctor peace — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:02:04 GMT

The quotation from Marianne Wiliamson's book, Return to love, "Our Greatest Fear" claims that "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous,
talented and fabulous?" which is often wrongly attributed to Madiba makes very interesting reading in our day.

According to her "We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us." and "as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, Our presence automatically liberates others".

This is such a profound statement, and I can't help to feel that few people living in South Africa today have lives that could easily be seen as showing evidence of a belief or at least consciousness of such a world view. The daily debates about crime and the many fears that people push to the forefront of their publicly stated "worst fear" lists never feature an acknowledgement of the power of the individual. Yet the essence of Democracy is essentially this. That each individual is so powerful that their vote can make or break any politician who allows the rules of Democracy to be applied to him. [Of course, the caveat about the politician allowing the people to have power over them is a necessary condition for the liberation of the individual.]

Which brings me back to the issue of the collective national fear of crime and the constant calls by citizens of the teenage Democracy called Afrika Borwa for the government to "do something" about it. All of us appear to presently hold the prospects of being robbed at gunpoint or dispatched to an early rendezvous with St Peter as our greatest fear. We never publicly acknowledge our power to collectively reclaim the power that is vested in us by the mere fact of our humanity and do whatever it is that is necessary to remove the omnipresent sense of fear that we now live with.

Trying to come up with a reason for this, I am tempted to postulate that maybe, just maybe, our greatest fear in South Africa is that we KNOW that we are "inadequate beyond measure" when it comes to ridding the country of this scourge of crime. As individuals we feel powerless to do anything against those of our society who have chosen to follow the darkest parts of their natures and become beasts who terrorise the rest of us. We are convinced that even when we come together, true to the spirit of Ubuntu, daily touted by our political and religious leaders, we may not have an answer to the problem. If this is not the problem, how come we do not all come out as the brave citizenry of this country and declare, as we did against apartheid, that enough is enough. That crime must stop now and we shall no longer live in fear of ourselves or those of our brothers and sisters who hold our peace at ransom?

So these are my question to you, dear reader. Are you powerful beyond measure? If so, is that really your greatest fear? How can we liberate ourselves from this fear of ourselves so that we can start to "make manifest the Glory of God"?