On 30.09.2005, Linda Hartling kindly writes to us:

Hi All,
Following the Wellesley Centers for Women retreat, Jasmine Waddell, a WCW
post-doc, graciously shared her dissertation with me. I thought you might
like to read her very helpful discussion of the African-inspired cultural
value of "ubuntu," which seems remarkably compatible with the relational
logic of RCT. For example, "At the centre of ubuntu is the idea that
umuntu ngumuntu ngabuntu, persons depend on persons to be persons”
(Schutte 2001: 3)
Ubuntu encourages mutually-caring—perhaps mutually-growth-fostering—social
arrangements in society, rather than individualistic or collective social
arrangements.
Enjoy,
Linda

Jasmine Waddell (2005). Social citizenship and social security in
post-apartheid South Africa. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St.
Anthony's College, University of Oxford

Pg. 86-91:

2.3.3 Africanisation of Social Welfare Planning

In this section, I suggest that within the post-1994 political
transformation there was an ideological change from the Western ideology
of freedom through individuality and independence to the African-inspired
cultural values of ubuntu, which promote freedom through community and
interdependence. I explore whether the new cultural values are pursuant
to the ideas and principles defined in high-level social policy documents.
In subsequent chapters, I examine how these principles are implemented at
the street level.

The White governments in South Africa prioritised liberal or
individualistic economic relationships. Historically, the Western
ideology of social development and welfare concentrates on the ideal of
freedom. The differentiation of freedom as ‘freedom from’ or ‘freedom to’
is a debate central to the discourse of welfare and well-being (Berlin
1969). In pre-1994 South Africa, the White governments interpreted
freedom for Whites as the freedom from non-White South Africans and the
freedom to access the full range of civil, political, and social rights.
The Stallard doctrine is one expression of this conception of freedom.
The doctrine laid the foundation for separate development policies. These
policies were justified with the logic that individual liberty was only
possible in racially homogenous contexts. According to the principles of
separate development, Whites develop better without non-Whites. The
threat of disease and degeneracy were some of the reasons put forward for
the segregation of public facilities and residential communities.
Therefore, freedom to citizenship rights for Whites was directly related
to freedom from non-Whites. The advancement of freedom for Whites based
on the rigid enforcement of racial hierarchies and segregation defined the
pre-1994 approach to nation building.

The new Black African-led government advocates for African cultural
principles which stress shared humanity and non-racial human rights (Abdi
1999: 148). Ubuntu encourages inclusion, unity, shared humanity and
interdependence, rather than development through individuality. Schutte
explains, “ubuntu is almost the exact opposite of apartheid. Apartheid’s
key idea is separation. At the centre of ubuntu is the idea that umuntu
ngumuntu ngabuntu, persons depend on persons to be persons” (Schutte 2001:
3). While some argue that ubuntu has begun to mean everything and nothing,
due to overuse, Desmond Tutu explained that the concept is African because
it has resonance in both Nguni and Sotho languages as ubuntu and botho,
respectively (Tutu 1999: 34). In this section, I examine the original
meaning of the term, and how the concept of ubuntu has been applied to the
policy ideas and principles of the post-apartheid welfare state.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu developed a theology based on the concept of
ubuntu. He admits that the ubuntu ethic is difficult to translate from
the pre-literate, pre-scientific, and pre-industrial origins (Tutu 1999:
xiii, Schutte 2001: 9). Nonetheless, Tutu offers a definition of ubuntu,
which underpins his theological position:
A person is human precisely in being enveloped in the community of other
human beings, in being caught up in the bundle of life. To be is to
participate. The summum bonum here is not independence but sharing,
interdependence. And what is true of the human person is surely true of
human aggregations (Battle 1996: 105).

Tutu goes on to relate the African concept to a Western worldview. He
contends:
Ubuntu is very difficult to render into a Western language. It speaks to
the very essence of being . . .It also means my humanity is caught up, is
inextricably bound up in theirs. We belong in a bundle of life. We say,
‘a person is a person through other people.’ It is not ‘I think therefore
I am.’ It is rather: ‘I am human because I belong.’ I participate, I
share” (Tutu 1999: 35).

Finally, Tutu applied this ideology to the reconstruction project. The
Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRC) are based on his contention
that:
Ubuntu means that in a real sense even the supporters of apartheid were
victims of the vicious system which they implemented and which they
supported so enthusiastically. Our humanity was entertwined. The
humanity of the perpetrator of apartheid’s atrocities was caught up and
bound up in that of his victim whether he liked it or not. In the process
of dehumanising another . . . the perpetrator was inexorably being
dehumanised as well (Tutu 1999: 35).

The TRCs are often justified as representative of the restorative ubuntu
ethic rather than the redistributive Western jurisprudence (Graybill 1998:
47).

Schutte stressed the differences between the Western and African
ideologies in his definition of ubuntu. He argued that:
[Ubuntu] is not individualist, in the way that liberalism and capitalism
are, trying to protect the freedom of the individual by separating them
from the community. But nor is it collectivist, like communism or
first-world socialism, making the individual just a part of the community.
In the African conception persons depend on persons to be persons. It is
by belonging to the community that we become ourselves. The community is
not opposed to the individual, nor does it simply swallow the individual
up, it enables each individual to become a unique centre of shared life
(Schutte 2001: 8-9).

This alternative philosophy of human interaction has been applied to the
public realm in South Africa in areas such as the procedural and
high-level policy documents from the RDP to the WPSW (Gibson 2002).

The RDP referred to interdependence, or ubuntu, as a crucial concept in
the action agenda. Interdependence is discussed as the bedrock upon which
the other objectives, such as efficiency of service delivery and
eliminating access barriers, are to be built. The solid foundation of
ubuntu determines the successful achievement of other reconstruction and
development goals. The WPSW is another example of a high-level document,
which invokes the concept of ubuntu. According to the WPSW, the ideal of
ubuntu or “caring for each other’s well-being . . . a spirit of mutual
support . . . means that people are people through other people.