Download this publication - PULP

Difference between ubuntu and dignity 235
belonging and interconnectedness, which underscores how mutuality,
acceptance and inclusiveness reinforce one another. If we ignore the needs of
those who have become part of us, then we are at risk of losing our own
humanity. The emphasis, then, is not so much on dignity as an individual
right, although Justice Mokgoro does appeal to dignity, but dignity
understood as the ethical core of relations of mutuality.
6 Criticisms of ubuntu
Again, we will paint the criticisms of ubuntu in broad brushstrokes. First, there
is the criticism that ubuntu is a communal ethic that denies the importance of
individual autonomy. It emphasises obligations to the group at the expense of
individual rights. Some critics read umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu to mean that
a person is only a person through other people. This reading promotes the
criticism that there is no place for individuality and creativity in an ubuntu
ethic. Secondly, there is a criticism that ubuntu is inherently conservative.
Worse yet, its appeal to cohesion privileges, dangerous hierarchies, corrupt
tribal authorities over the people they supposedly lead, men over women,
etc. Thus, ubuntu is both authoritarian and patriarchal and should be
mistrusted as such. Thirdly, even if ubuntu was once an important value in the
struggle for liberation and indeed, for survival in horrific circumstances, it is
dying out under the force of advanced capitalism. Thus, what remains of
ubuntu is a shadow of what it used to be and as a result, it easily falls prey to
manipulation, not just by corrupt traditional authorities but also by the
African National Congress leaders who want to maintain a compliant
workforce in the face of the demands of neo-liberal capitalism. Given these
three criticisms, ubuntu is rejected for being backward looking and not
forward looking. Thus it is denied that ubuntu has the same aspirational edge
as dignity as an ideal.
Before turning to the contrast with Kantian dignity, let us just remember
that some of these criticisms involve a fundamental misunderstanding of
ubuntu. Often, critics of ubuntu make the mistake of reducing ubuntu to an
ethical ontology of a purportedly shared world. What is missed in this
criticism is precisely the activism in participatory difference. This activism is
inherent in the ethical demand to bring about a humane world. Ubuntu clearly
has an aspirational and ideal edge – there is no end to a struggle to bring about
a humane world, and who makes a difference in it. More has given us a rich
definition of ubuntu which captures the specificity of how ubuntu has an
aspirational edge. To quote More:
In one sense ubuntu is a philosophical concept forming the basis of relationships,
especially ethical behaviour. In another sense, it is a traditional politicoideological
concept referring to socio-political action. As a moral or ethical
concept, it is a point of view according to which moral practices are founded
exclusively on consideration and enhancement of human well-being; a preoccupation
with the human. It enjoins that what is morally good, dignity,
respect, contentment, and prosperity to others, self and the community at