2025-12-31
Thabang Dladla
Western philosophy projects itself as possessing knowledge that is of universal relevance, emanating from no position in time and space, which denies the context within which its discourses arise. Such a claim rests on the assumption that European life is qualitatively superior to all other forms; hence, what they produce as knowledge is applicable to all other societies, regardless of what those particular societies presume to be knowledge, precisely because of the possession of this human quality that is exclusively European. This can be understood as the foundations of racism: the denial of the quality of being human of those nations that are not European. The exclusion of women, Africans and Amerindians from equal normative consideration by Western philosophers (such as Aristotle and Kant) can only serve the political interest of European male dominance. It is from such a realisation that a philosophy of resistance or liberation is born, which is also liberation of philosophy insofar as it challenges the oppressive, exploitative, patriarchal and colonial character of modern Western philosophy, which Archie Mafeje was particularly useful to delineate . This article grapples with the questions of racism and Eurocentrism in the Western paradigm of thought from the position of Africa through Mafeje’s selected writings . It is argued that Mafeje’s theoretical contribution demonstrates a liberatory practice of philosophy and the social sciences in Africa. Such an articulation recognises the inherently political nature of philosophical and social science discourse, something Western social science and philosophy have not been successful in obscuring.
2025-12-31
Keolebogile Mbebe
This article argues that South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) instrumentalised ubuntu to promote forgiveness as a moral obligation for victims of apartheid violence. It argues that the TRC’s ethical framework misrepresented ubuntu by conflating it with amnesty and emotional closure, thus imposing undue pressure on victims to forgive in service of national unity. Drawing on transitional justice theory, the article traces how the TRC positioned restorative justice as a “third way” – a mechanism meant to achieve the goals of both retributive and reparative justice. Through public truth-telling and full disclosure by the perpetrators, the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995 (PNURA) sought to validate the victims’ suffering while ensuring a form of moral accountability. However, in practice, truth-telling was framed as a substitute for accountability, and reconciliation was treated as contingent on the victims’ willingness to forgive. The article contends that this framework not only marginalised those unwilling to forgive but also transformed personal trauma into a political tool, thereby reinforcing state narratives of unity at the expense of the victims’ autonomy. Through a critical reading of ubuntu – particularly as interpreted by the philosopher Mogobe Ramose – the article shows that genuine ubuntu is not reducible to forgiveness, but rather grounded in accountability, restitution, and relational integrity. It concludes that the TRC’s approach betrayed the very ethical principles it claimed to uphold, undermining both justice and reconciliation. Instead of fostering healing, the TRC’s demand for state-mediated forgiveness risked retraumatising victims and distorting ubuntu into an instrument of political expediency rather than a meaningful path to communal restoration.