Ubuntu!

We bandy about, these days, terms like "cultural fluency" and "ethnic diversity" and "ethical values" without truly reflecting upon the deeper psychosocial nuances that evolve from embracing their fullest meaning.

This idea of "ubuntu" is profound in its simplicity and blatancy; it touches upon the wisdom of many religions and philosophies. But, instead of recognizing our shared humanity, instead of living reciprocally and benevolently, we rush headlong to grab and grab and grab (just look at any Black Friday sale or any city in devastating disarray and the looters that emerge en masse from the muck).

It is enough to make one despair.

Yet, there remain these beautiful, "tribal" values like ubuntu. "Primitive" notions that we, of the high and mighty techno-civilizations, seem to have long forgotten outside of the immediate sphere of our own legacies.

It seems, to me, to reflect a base malaise of self-despite in our societies and in ourselves. A despite so severe and entrenched that we have come to consider it (if we consider it at all) our norm, our baseline and foundational state. We pour these internal loathings out onto all those around that validate our target of the moment - vacillating fads of antipathy that are constructed and dressed in the shapes and tones the loudest minions shout out. Language becomes a weapon (the pen being less mighty by far than the keyboard) to be most perversely used when it overly rigorously follows the Orwellian fear that, "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought". Peter Kreeft put it this way: "Control language and you control thought; control thought and you control action; control action and you control the world." We now live in that "newspeak" world although we have yet to enter the times of greatest horror, when "thoughtcrime becomes literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." But we are close!

As a personal anecdote related to this theme:

I used to - in a very good-natured way - call someone I regarded (naively, as it turns out) a close and trusted friend, a “maggot” whenever they did something silly and/or subjectively wrong or said something deliberately and absurdly/blatantly and consciously provocative.? It was, to me, an equally deliberate, absurd, and falsely mocking sobriquet intended solely as affectionate jest - an amicable beratement.? However, I later found that, although they themselves were amused and embraced the benevolence of friendship inherent in being enabled to engage in such exchange, they feared that others, overhearing, would take vicarious offence.? I expressed disdain at such a concern: why heed the distaste of others and censor our camaraderie with their narrow-sighted view of linguistic freedom?? However, their sense, their perception and fear of being disturbed was so significant I conceded and ceased the gameful name calling.? Many will think I was in the wrong, and my once-friend’s view of society was right.? But I would never concede to such peer pressure again.? This same galloping knight of social morality subsequently broke all bonds of fellowship, loyalty and trust - betraying faith in history and displaying their own absence of ethics by being unfaithful to contracts and objectivity and reporting false results.? So, I distanced myself from them - as there is more to an ethical conscience than towing the line of political correctness for appearance’s sake alone.?

In precedence of balance, I have been called names of varying degrees of malice for my entire life - my name, my dress style, my cultural background and accent, my studiousness and absence of football skills even!? Most amusingly, whilst I have very little hair, and what I do have is certainly not red, I am routinely identified as “the Ang Moh” (sometimes the even better “Sing Moh”) - and I love it!? This is because I fully embrace the concept that offence is never given (and more rarely intended than most might choose to believe), it can only ever be taken.? Because offence is, after all, entirely subjective - some people are offended by equal rights, some are offended by freedom of choice.? Everyone has a right to offend and a right to be offended.? But, to live or seek to live in a world where everyone agrees with everyone else (either truly or because they are simply afraid to disagree and become a pariah or get “canceled”), a world without the risk of offence, without the provocation of incongruence in thought or opinion? That is a boring world where no true exchange of ideas will happen, where no progress can really be made because there is no driver for change or development, no evolutionary pressure.

You can choose to be offended or you can choose to be amused.? You can choose to consider words as weapons, or as just words.? Opinions and perceptions are just that - they are subject to the whims and vacillations and vagaries of personal history and current circumstance, and the biases that result. Moreover, mostly, and as I noted above, you will probably find that little malice is intended in most “name calling” - it is more often just shorthand: a tool of labeling to convey identification.? Even when not, even when words are used with ill intent; it is only intent. In an interview with The Guardian a while back, Ricky Gervais put it this way: “Insults don’t mean anything to me. I think they’re funny. If someone genuinely tries to insult me, I laugh, because how can you insult me? I’m too happy. You can’t ruin my day by calling me something.”? What a blessed and wise way of seeing things - one, perhaps, founded upon the sage counsel of the grandparents we almost all can probably recall but which so many seem to have elected to ignore or forget:

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me!”

As an aside, I asked an AI to define “psychosocial”.? Here is the definition it provided: “The term psychosocial refers to the interaction between psychological factors such as thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, and social factors such as family dynamics, cultural values, and societal norms. It essentially describes the interplay between psychological and social influences on a person's overall well-being.”

That is pretty good!? And it captures the essence of this brief article - a piece I was prompted to write upon reading a post on Ubuntu - the Nguni Bantu term for "humanity" or "community”. It is a glorious single word conveying ideas of interconnectivity and interdependence and how everyone’s actions affect everyone else around them - the butterfly wing effect in a sociological context.

In the Zulu language they say: "Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu" - which means, gloriously, that a person is a person through other people.

The African Journal of Social Work defined Ubuntu as "a collection of values and practices that people of Africa or of African origin view as making people authentic human beings. While the nuances of these values and practices vary across different ethnic groups, they all point to one thing – an authentic individual human being is part of a larger and more significant relational, communal, societal, environmental and spiritual world." Even the AI I asked to review my article (that was quite good fun) seemed to understand it better than many people: “Ubuntu promotes collaboration and empathy as essential values for societal coexistence.”

Oh, what else can we learn from a computer brain that our organic ones seem so determined to deny??

BTW:? here is what the AI said of this article: “The text is discussing the importance of being culturally fluent and how limitations on language can restrict societal progress. This is an interesting topic, as it touches upon issues such as inclusivity and diversity in communication. Additionally, it highlights the need for individuals to be open-minded about different cultures and languages…The text reads well. It is clear and easy to understand…well-written, clear and informative with no inaccurate words or phrases.”

So, all I can hope is that all the organic minds out there also find something in the piece to enjoy and, perhaps, to comment upon so that we can all explore the amazing complexity of threads we are - each of equal value but only of purpose when woven into the tapestry of our truly global, if rarely united, community.?