The General Convention: Ubuntu

THE GENERAL CONVENTION: DAY TW0
UBUNTU

Descartes: “I think; therefore, I am.”
Ubuntu: “I am, because you are; you are, because I am.”

Much is being made, this General Convention, of Ubuntu, a traditional African way of relating that is touted as being inclusive, mutually respectful, and just. Ubuntu’s faith is based in the collective wisdom of the community rather than the energy, drive, and ambition of the individual. It emphasizes the good of all, not the power of a few. It recognizes our inter-dependence, rather than one’s independence.

These concepts could, presented fairly, be very helpful and corrective. I’m a big fan of inter-dependence and justice. Still, one of the advantages of being my age (there aren’t many) is the perspective of having seen catch-words and phrases come and go over the years, making scarcely a ripple of change in the way things are actually done. Apparently, Ubuntu is somewhat like Aloha, an all-occasion sort of word. I can’t help feeling that, a handful of years from now, we’ll wonder what Ubuntu was all about. It’s all a kind of fashion-statement. Here’s a summary of the present status of in’s and outs.

Africa is good: Europe is bad. The United States is VERY bad.
Color is good: white is bad.
Feminine is good: masculine is bad.
Community is good: individuality is bad.
Indigenous is good: mainstream is bad.

I do not claim that white men of European ancestry have done such a bang-up job of running the world and managing its resources over the last half-millennium that they should continue to be given free and exclusive reign over it. Far from it. I do claim that, however fair it might be to hand over the scepter to women of color for the next five hundred years, that would not serve us all that much better (and besides, it ain’t going to happen!) I like to see power being shared more widely and broadly. I like to see white males of the Establishment changing not only their attitudes, but their ways, and some of them being toppled from their pedestals of power. I like the concepts of nationalism, rugged individualism, and capitalism, which—let’s face it, comprise our true religion far more than Christianity ever has done—challenged fairly.

But both Ubuntu and its immediate predecessor catch-word (which we hardly hear any more) Endaba bother me, in that no one ever mentions their negative side. Likewise, it is almost socially unacceptable in some quarters to mention the positive side of western individualism. We need to keep both before us as well as their opposites.

Western individualism did not bring us slavery or poverty. The world had both of those already, and Africa has both still. Western individualism brought us democracy, the termination of slavery (through abolitionism, which was a minority movement), and the creation of the middle economic class. Western individualism did not invent the inferiority of women: it allowed the women’s movement to bring about greater liberties for women.

The actual practice of Ubuntu in African society devalues women almost entirely. It also inhibits the open expression of ideas that question those of the group’s leadership. It leaves no room for dissent or loyal opposition. It thwarts experimentation by an individual or a few, which could flop ignominiously, or provide a major new advance to the benefit of all. In the end, it is essentially authoritarian, not democratic. Incidentally, I’m seeing some of that last right here at General Convention 76: it is not cool to question the agenda of the leadership of the House of Deputies.

In other words, exchanging one partial truth for another partial truth won’t save us. I’ve heard “the spirit of Ubuntu” invoked here in Anaheim as if it were synonymous with the Holy Spirit. It isn’t. Ubuntu conveys some truth: it is not The Truth. As there are negatives to western culture and philosophy, masculinity, and individualism, so there are negatives to African, native American, and Eastern cultures and philosophies, to feminism, and collectivism as well. We should not be looking to replace one flawed cultural outlook with another. We should be looking for balance.

We should also be looking for meaningful and productive change, not just jargon. I find it amusing that, in all of this talk of Ubuntu, we at General Convention continue to act like the United States Congress (because we are structured and governed that way). If we don’t change our structures and rules, we can never change our way of acting.