Ubuntu feminism: Tentative reflections

Abstract

The starting-point for the article is to provide a brief background on the Ubuntu Project that Prof. Drucilla Cornell convened in 2003; most notably the interviews conducted in Khayamandi, the support of a sewing collective, and the continued search to launch an Ubuntu Women�s Centre. The article will reflect on some of the philosophical underpinnings of ubuntu, whereafter debates in Western feminism will be revisited. Ubuntu feminism is suggested as a possible response to these types of feminisms. The authors support an understanding of ubuntu as critique and ubuntu feminism accordingly as a critical intervention that recalls a politics of refusal. The article ends by raising the importance of thinking about spatiality through ubuntu, and vice versa. It may seem strange to title an article Ubuntu feminism when feminism itself has often been identified as a European or Western idea. But, this article will argue that ubuntu offers conceptions of transindividuality and ways of social belonging that could respond in a meaningful way to some of European feminism�s own dilemmas and contradictions. Famously, one of the most intense debates in feminism was between those who defended an ethic of care in a relational view of the self, on one side, and those feminists who held on to more traditional conceptions of justice, placing an emphasis on individuality and autonomy, on the other side. The authors will suggest that ubuntu could address this tension in feminism. Thus, in this article the focus will not simply be on ubuntu, in order to recognise that there are other intellectual heritages worthy of consideration, other than those in Europe and the United States. It will also take a next step in arguing that ubuntu may be a better standpoint entirely from which to continue thinking about what it means to be a human being, as well as how to conceive of the integral interconnection human beings all have with one another. This connection through ubuntu is always sought ethically, and for the authors it underscores what we have both endorsed as ethical feminism. In this essay it is considered how ubuntu feminism could refuse the demands of patriarchy, as well as the confines of liberal feminism. The authors are interested in thinking about ubuntu in general as critique, as a critical response to the pervasiveness of a liberal legal order. Their aim is also to explore tentatively ubuntu and spatiality � how could one understand ubuntu in spatial terms, and more pertinently, how could ubuntu and ubuntu feminism relate to spatial justice? Before turning to the theoretical discussion, some of the on-the-ground history of the Ubuntu Project will be reviewed, including the Project�s attempt to build an Ubuntu Women�s Centre in Khayamandi in the Western Cape, South Africa.

Occupational Consciousness

“…The authors further asserted that “these collective occupations may have consequences that benefit some populations and not others” (p. 10). They grounded this teleological or explanatory approach to collective occupation on the notion of ubuntu ; an African interactive ethic defined by Cornell and Van Marle (2005) as referring to human interconnectedness, or how peoples’ humanity is constantly shaped in interaction with each other, assigning responsibility to both the individual and the community for the other’s existence.…”

FLaK: Mixing Feminism, Legality and Knowledge

“…She argues against a mainstream opposition of culture and rights and for a recuperation of the ways in which African culture ''promotes and develops women's rights.' ' Cornell and van Marle (2005) have provided another inspiring 5 For examples of critical socio-legal thinking on the 'embeddedness' of law within socio-economic interactions see further Ashiagbor et al (2013) and Lange et al (2015). 6 For an argument that the feminist project is impeded by failures to integrate critique of the impact of colonialism and racism, see Ruparelia (2014).…”

May the Real Ubuntu Please Stand Up?

“…Though in this article I focus sustained attention on a single account of ubuntu (Shutte, 2001), one that more or less represents the prestigious definition of ubuntu and exemplifies the problems of theorizing it, ubuntu (or its variants) has in fact been the subject of a number of attempted definitions (Samkange & Samkange, 1980;Menkiti, 1984;Broodryk, 2002;Bujo, 2001;Gyekye, 1987;Mokgoro, 1998;Masolo, 2004;Ramose, 1999Ramose, & 2003Tangwa, 1996;Verhoef & Michel, 1997;Wiredu, 1996;Enslin & Horsthemke, 2004;Cornell & van Marle, 2005;Metz, 2007Metz, & 2011Metz & Gaie, 2010;Mokgoro & Woolman, 2012;Bamford, 2007;Praeg, 2008;Letseka, 2012;Cornell, 2011Cornell, , 2012. The settled definition of choice seems to always return, again and again, to the saying "umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu" (in Nguni languages), "motho ke motho ka batho" (in Sotho languages), "a person is a person through other persons" (in English), and so on.…”