Julius Chua 1

Please select one paradigm or ontology that offers an alternative roadmap to in-
ternational development via ‘the good life’, wellbeing and/or flourishing from
grassroots communitarian spaces: buen vivir, degrowth (aka ‘unxdeveloping the
North’), Ubuntu, or swaraj (aka Radical Ecological Democracy). Consider how
this paradigm is or might be applied and deliberately practiced in the pursuit of
decolonising development.

The international development project has been a failure. It has resulted in immense levels of in-
equality within the communities it pledged to serve (Coulthard, 2014), widespread ecological de-
struction (Clapp and Dauvergne, 2005), and relies on a set of Eurocentric discourses that legitimate
the violent subordination of various marginalised communities (Escobar, 1995). In an attempt to
de-link from this current political economy, decolonial scholars have called for a radical shift away
from development and have looked to non-Western and/or indigenous ontologies as possible alter-
natives (e.g. Holland & Blackburn, 1998; Gudynas 2001). Ubuntu, a southern African concept em-
bodying relationality and interconnectedness amongst all living and non-living things, is one such
alternative (Le Roux 2000). It suggests that a person’s humanity is “ideally expressed in relation-
ship with others: we are, therefore I am” (Le Grange, 2019: 324). In this essay, I will argue that the
relational ontology of ubuntu holds immense potential as an alternative to international develop-
ment. It offers us a way of knowing the world that disrupts dominant western epistemologies, and
refutes discourses that legitimate development and neoliberal practices. This justifies the possibility
for an alternative to the development project, and puts forth an alternative way of conceiving well-
being. Ubuntu might also be applied to the production and dissemination of radical knowledges,
which is necessary in our pursuit of decolonising development. Lastly, ubuntu obliges us to con-
ceive of our natural environments in a non-exploitative manner, and can aid in efforts to address the
current ecological crisis. Notably, some development scholars have also highlighted some possible
risks when considering indigenous ontologies as alternatives to development- I build on this to out-
line a few key considerations we might take to minimise such risks.

Ubuntu offers us an alternate way of knowing the world that disrupts dominant Western ways of
knowing that have been universalised as truth. It refutes development discourses that have been
used to justify neoliberal capitalism as the only possible path to achieve well-being through individ-
ualistic capital accumulation. Salleh (1997) points out that inherent within Western ways of know-
ing the world is a tradition of dualistic thought- for example, man is constructed as separate from
nature. This particular dualism legitimises the commodification and exploitation of nature as it pro-
Julius Chua 2
duces men as independent from and superior to nature, thus justifying its subjugation (Ramose,
2002a). This ideological orientation remains pervasive today within neoliberal thought and develop-
ment discourse, resulting in an exponential increase in the exploitation of natural resources as a re-
sult of neoliberal expansion (Merchant, 1980). The end goal of the development project has notably
also become conflated with consumerism and commodification. Individuals are encouraged to accu-
mulate wealth and attain status through consumerism, encouraging a “rivalrous and narcissistic in-
dividuality” (Konik, 2018: 276). Ubuntu, however, rejects this trajectory and end-goal of develop-
ment, and instead defines well-being in relational terms. As opposed to attaining status through con-
sumerism, ubuntu puts forward an alternative trajectory where each person attains personhood
through fulfilling one’s obligation to their community and engaging in “deliberate ethical conduct”
(Masolo, 2010: 142). It outlines a path where one slowly attains personhood “through and together”
with others, and aspires towards a different kind of good life from the one prescribed by conven-
tional development (Ramose, 2010: 300). The process of achieving this is much less socially and
ecologically damaging than that of neoliberal capital accumulation. Adopting ubuntu as an alterna-
tive ontology thus reaffirms the existence of alternative ways of achieving well-being, and disrupts
narratives that seek to produce neoliberalism and development as unquestioned, unnecessary
projects.

A fundamental aspect key to our pursuit of decolonising development is the production and dissem-
ination of radical knowledges. Ubuntu can be applied to serve this purpose, as it calls for the build-
ing of solidarities between radical knowledge producers, as well as the recognition of intergenera-
tional knowledges. Ubuntu emphasises the importance of a collective intelligence- this is in re-
sponse to the varied, subtle and complicated challenges our societies face today (Goleman, 2009).
Ubuntu posits that one’s humanity depends on the humanity of others- the problem of one is thus
the problem of the community, and the community should in turn mobilise to jointly find solutions
to their problems (Shumab, 2011). A deliberate practice of this, for instance, might involve the plac-
ing of different non-Western or global South epistemologies or traditions in conversation with each
other, especially those searching for alternatives to developments. For example, Konik (2018)
brings together ubuntu and ecofeminism to highlight possible areas for integration, whereas Bell
and Metz (2011) compare ubuntu and confucianism. These endeavours can be productive in bring-
ing to light new knowledges and best practices, and inspire further dialogues between different tra-
ditions (Hountondji, 1983; Wiredu, 1996). Ubuntu also emphasises the importance of recognising
the intergenerational transmission of knowledge through oral tradition- this tradition is referred to
as Nhorowonda (Gelfand, 1970). In many Southern African societies, knowledge is passed down
over generations through storytelling, rituals and ceremonies- these oral modes often encode inter-
Julius Chua 3
generational knowledges about local ecosystems and land use management (Bowers 2009). The jus-
tification and benefits behind ‘slash and burn’ cultivation of land in Southern Africa is an example
of a body of knowledge that has been passed down orally. Although this practice is often described
as simplistic and backward, paying attention to knowledge transmitted through oral tradition reveals
that the practice evolved under the need to adapt to marginal areas of bioregions, and allows for
crops to be sustainably grown under unfavourable conditions (Chidumayo, 1999). In this sense,
ubuntu helps us recognise valuable knowledges that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. The
recognition of intergenerational knowledges, as well as the building of solidarities between radical
knowledge producers, can result in new knowledges being produced that advance our agenda of de-
colonising development. Ubuntu is thus useful in this aspect.

Lastly, adopting ubuntu as an ontology compels us to conceive of the natural environment in a dif-
ferent way. As opposed to viewing nature as a resource to be enclosed, commodified and exploited,
we might view nature as an extension of ourselves and our community and thus work towards sus-
tainable utilisation and conservation instead. Ubuntu inspires a reverence for nature- this arises from
a belief that the natural environment possesses a vital force, and is thus sacred and could be re-
spected (Shumba 1995). The utilisation and conservation of natural commons is thus a collective re-
sponsibility, and any form of wastage and denigration would be viewed as a transgression (Shumba,
2011). Adopting ubuntu as an ontology might thus result in a more sustainable relationship between
people and nature, and reduce the extent of the current ecological crisis- for example, only collect-
ing an amount of resources adequate to satisfy needs, and not an excess. We might also see an ethic
of ubuntu within some environmental justice activist movements- as these activists view the natural
environment as interconnected with their well-being and common humanity, they are thus willing to
drive movements that engage in the healing and restoration of damaged environments. For example,
Ken Saro-Wiwa launched one of the most successful protest movements- the Movement for the
Survival of the Ogoni People- on behalf of the Ogoni people and their homeland, against Shell and
the governments of Nigeria and the UK in the 1990s (Britain, 2015; Pegg, 2015). The threat posed
by Shell constituted to a threat to the interconnected relationships between the Ogoni people and
their home- Saro-Wiwa thus organised this movement to ensure ubuntu was maintained. Ubuntu
thus changes our relationship with nature from one of exploitation for the development project to
one of care and mutual reciprocity, and thus inspires us to utilise nature with respect, and defend it
where necessary.

It is evident that ubuntu has great potential as an alternative to development, and can be applied in a
variety of ways in our pursuit of decolonising development. However, we cannot view it as an easy
Julius Chua 4
way out of our current paradigm. Postcolonial scholars have critiqued past efforts to include indige-
nous knowledges to development thinking as incomplete, tokenistic, and superficial. Spivak (1988)
argues that the ‘subaltern’ cannot speak- they are “always caught in translation, never truly express-
ing [themselves], but always already interpreted” (Briggs & Sharp, 2004: 662). Similarly, hooks
(1990) questions the degree to which the Western world actually wants to engage with alternative
ontologies and ways of knowing. There exists a risk of indigenous ontologies like ubuntu being co-
opted by western organisations as superficial add-on. We must be cognisant of these risks, and en-
sure that our engagement with ubuntu- and other development alternatives- takes place at a funda-
mental level, not just at a technical level. More importantly, we cannot expect these alternatives to
be brought together with existing modes of development in unproblematic ways (Briggs & Sharp,
2004). These alternative ontologies cannot be reduced to a single overarching policy for administra-
tion. Instead, we might consider the possibility of a pluriverse- a “world confluence of alternatives
provoking strategies for transition” (Kothari et al., 2019: 8), where ubuntu is one of many alterna-
tives to development. Only then would long-lasting, positive transformation be possible.

1493 words
Julius Chua 5

References
Berghs, M., 2017, ‘Practices and discourses of ubuntu: Implications for an African model of disabil-
ity?’, African Journal of Disability 6, a292. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod. v6.292
Briggs, J. and Sharp, J. (2004) Indigenous knowledges and development: A postcolonial caution.
Gudynas, Eduardo (2011) Buen Vivir: Today’s Tomorrow. Development 54(4), pp. 441-447.
Hoffmann, N. (2017) What can the capabilities approach learn from an ubuntu ethic? A relational
approach to development theory. World Development.
Icaza, R. and Vázquez, R. (2013) Social struggle as epistemic struggles. Development and
Change 44(3), 683-704.
Konik, I. (2018) Ubuntu and ecofeminism: Value-building with African womanist voices. Environ-
mental values.
Kothari, A. and Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F., Acosta, A. (2019) “Preface” and “Introduc-
tion” in Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary. New Delhi, India: Tulika Books.
Le Grange, L. (2019) “Ubuntu” in Kothari, A. and Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F., Acosta, A.,
eds., Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary. New Delhi, India: Tulika Books.
Shumba, O. (2011) Commons thinking, ecological intelligence and the ethical and moral framework
of Ubuntu: an imperative for sustainable development. Journal of Media and Communication Stud-
ies.