Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk Vol 55 No 4; Issue 6

http://socialwork.journals.ac.za/pub doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.15270/52-2-762
DEVELOPING THE NOTION OF UBUNTU AS AFRICAN THEORY FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
Adrian D. van Breda
Ubuntu is an African concept referring to humanness. It gives expression to deeply-held African ideals of one’s personhood being
rooted in one’s interconnectedness with others. Social workers seeking to develop an African framework for decolonial social work
practice turn repeatedly to ubuntu for aid. But the term has, for the most part, been limited to the idea of mutual aid – people helping
each other in a spirit of solidarity. This article endeavours to extend and deepen the ubuntu concept to strengthen its potential as a
theory informing social work practice. This is done by interweaving other African ideas with ubuntu in three domains: ethics,
sustainable development and ecospirituality
Prof. Rev. Adrian D. van Breda, Department of Social Work, Faculty of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg,
South Africa.
KEYWORDS: Ubuntu, indigenous, decoloniality, African, solidarity, social work

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

 439
DEVELOPING THE NOTION OF UBUNTU AS AFRICAN THEORY FOR
SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Adrian D. van Breda

Adrian van Breda ORCid id: 0000-0002-9984-9180
KEYWORDS: Ubuntu, indigenous, decoloniality, African, solidarity, social work

INTRODUCTION
The African construct ‘ubuntu’ has garnered increasing recognition in academic literature over the past
years, arguably as part of a broader move towards foregrounding African constructions of the world
and unravelling the legacy of colonialism (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018). Ubuntu has been taken up by a
wide range of disciplines, including philosophy (Metz, 2014), theology (Shutte, 2001), nursing
(Marston, 2015), psychology (Mkabela, 2015), leadership (Ndlovu, 2016), literary studies (Stuit, 2016)
and anthropology (Mawere & van Stam, 2016). It appears that ubuntu has a paradigmatic numinosity
that appeals not only to African scholars, but also to scholars across the world.
In social work, however, while ubuntu is a well-recognised concept (Twikirize & Spitzer, 2019), there
has been little work on articulating what ubuntu means for this discipline. A Google Scholar search on
1 June 2019 for the terms ‘ubuntu’ and ‘social work’ in the title yielded just four publications
(Mugumbate & Chereni, 2019; Mugumbate & Nyanguru, 2013; Mupedziswa, Rankopo, Mwansa,
2019; Rasheed & Rasheed, 2011), two of which were published only this year. When ubuntu is used in
social work writing (e.g. Sekudu, 2019), it is typically used in a rather descriptive way to support the
argument that people need to come together in mutually supportive and respectful ways.
There has, however, been little work on developing the conceptual foundation of ubuntu in such a way
that it begins to constitute a ‘theory’ for social work practice. Van Breda (2019) argues that theory in
social work serves two main purposes: to make sense of the world (explanatory theory) and to guide
social work practice (practice theory). It is currently unclear to what extent ubuntu could serve either of
these purposes. Notwithstanding this lack of theorisation of ubuntu for social work, the term and its
intuitive meaning have significant credence among social workers in South Africa and across the
African continent.
In this article I aim to make a start on theorising ubuntu by stretching the concept more widely than it
has been to date, not only to focus on present social relations, but also to include a focus on respectful
relationships with wider and more diverse groups of others (i.e. ethics), accountability to past and
future generations (i.e. sustainable development), and a commitment to the earth (i.e. ecological or
ecospiritual social work). While this will not yet constitute a fully-developed practice theory of ubuntu,
it is my hope that it will serve to deepen, broaden and specify the notion of ubuntu in such a way that it
gathers together a wider spectrum of social work concerns, thus helping to strengthen its potential as a
theory informing social work practice.

INTRODUCING UBUNTU
The concept and meaning of the term ubuntu have been well documented, such that repeating the
information is not warranted in this article. In brief, ubuntu is an African concept that refers to
humaneness between people within a community (Nyaumwe & Mkabela, 2007). It is summarised in
the isiZulu phrase, ‘umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu’, which translates as ‘a person is a person through
other people’. The concept of ubuntu is found in most African cultures, though the word differs by
language (Mugumbate & Chereni, 2019). It is a concept thought to date back to precolonial days and
part of a long oral tradition. The first written use of the word dates to 1846 (Gade, 2012:488).
Contemporary research shows that ubuntu continues to play an important role in African society. It is
regarded as a key cultural strength of families (Nkosi & Daniels, 2007), emerges as an important

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

440
foundation for resilience among the youth (Theron & Phasha, 2015), can shape community responses
to disaster (Sapirstein, 2006) and has been used to inform an approach to psychotherapy (Van Dyk &
Matoane, 2010).
In possibly the only empirical study on the contemporary meaning of ubuntu among South Africa
people of African descent (with a sample of more than 50 individuals), Gade (2012) found two distinct
clusters of meaning. First, ubuntu refers to the moral qualities of a person, particularly features like
generosity, empathy, forgiveness and considerateness. Some refer to ubuntu as the presence of the
divine, directing a person away from bad behaviour towards good. Second, ubuntu refers to a pattern of
interconnectedness between people, in the form of a worldview or philosophy. Gade (2012) argues
from written documents that this second construction of ubuntu emerged only about a century after the
first, and that the Nguni proverb umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu was used in writing to describe ubuntu for
the first time in 1993.
In addition, given that ubuntu is used to define personhood, Gade (2012) investigated who are
considered to be persons (umuntu). Again, he found two distinct answers. Some participants indicated
that all humans are persons, though not all persons embody the ethic of ubuntu. Others indicated that
not all humans are persons. Some said only black people are persons, while white people are ‘whites’
(abelungu); others said that one becomes a person through a process of maturation into personhood;
and others said that only humans who behaved in a morally acceptable way could be considered
persons.
Nyaumwe and Mkabela (2007) provide a vivid account of what ubuntu life was like in a traditional
community. They acknowledge, however, that this idealised way of life has irrevocably passed, with
the modernisation of society, and that what is now required is a new incarnation of ubuntu that blends
ubuntuism and modernisation.
Considering Gade’s (2012) study, which shows that ubuntu is not a fixed, singular construct, Nyaumwe
and Mkabela’s (2007) article opens the way for fresh conceptualisations of ubuntu to be constructed. A
contemporary author may feel duty bound to honour an ancient concept by not introducing new
elements. However, within some limits, it appears that there is room to work with ubuntu as a living
and present construct, fit for our purposes in our time. Metz (2011:536) justifies such actions:
Some would say that it is fair to call something ubuntu only if it mirrors, without distortion, how
such peoples have traditionally understood it. However, I reject such a view, for two reasons. First,
analogies with other terms indicate that it can be appropriate to call a perspective ubuntu if it is
grounded in ideas and habits that were salient in pre-colonial Southern Africa, even if it does not
fully reproduce all of them. … Second, there is no single way in which pre-colonial Southern
African peoples understood ubuntu; there have been a variety of different Nguni (and related)
languages and cultures and, with them, different values. One unavoidably must choose which
interpretation of ubuntu one thinks is most apt, given one’s aims.

A BRIEF REFLECTION ON WHITENESS

Gade (2012:486) writes, “before the 1950s, all written sources mentioning ubuntu were authored by
people of European descent. Similarly, much of the recent literature on ubuntu has been authored by
non-Africans.” He makes this claim based on an exhaustive survey of written texts on ubuntu from
1846 to 2011 (Gade, 2011). It is thus ironic – or perhaps unsurprising – that this article is authored by a
white man (abelungu). Yet another article about ubuntu from a white perspective! A reflection on my
whiteness is thus appropriate.
My whiteness (Müller & Trahar, 2016) and white privilege (Kindle & Delavega, 2018) have given me
numerous opportunities in life – nutritious food from infancy, excellent health care, solid (Western)
education, opportunities to see other parts of the world, freedom from fear and anxiety, and so on. For
the most part, whiteness is invisible to white people; I am no exception, however much I endeavour to
be self-aware. But in the context of writing about African ideas and practices and about decoloniality,

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

 441
my whiteness is a major limitation. As a child, I did not grow up hearing about ubuntu, I did not live in
a communalistic culture and I was not immersed in African spirituality.
I thus come to this topic as an ‘outsider’, perhaps not even as a ‘person’ (umuntu). Writing this paper is
particularly daunting, as I am taking an African concept and stretching it. I recognise that I have no
right to work with an African concept in this way; it does not belong to me. I have endeavoured to do
this work in a respectful and humble way, by drawing on other African concepts to inform the
stretching. Thus, my methodology has been to use African concepts to expand an African concept,
rather than to use white concepts to expand an African concept. It is only after having done this that I
attempt to link these expanded concepts to ideas that have emerged in the Western literature.
I am mindful that my method is itself ‘white’ (Müller & Trahar, 2016:5). I use language “to analyse,
systematise and order” African concepts, values and mythologies. I have learned to value this approach
to the academic project and to knowledge development. But this obsession with “order and
categorisation” is a peculiarly ‘white’ phenomenon. It is an academic expression of the need to be in
power, to control, to colonise.
Because I am aware of these challenges, I have held back from writing this paper for some time, feeling
I do not have the right to write it. But I have since decided to write it for a few reasons. First, I believe
that we need African concepts that can powerfully inform social work thinking and practice, and that
ubuntu has great promise. I am committed to its ethic and write this paper in its spirit. Second, I believe
I am proposing fresh ways of thinking about ubuntu that have not been written about in this way, and
that these may contribute to further writing on the topic by African scholars. And third, I believe I am a
person, who has a voice, and thus offer this paper, albeit humbly and with some trepidation, for
consideration by other people.

UBUNTU IN THE SOCIAL WORK LITERATURE

Mupedziswa et al. (2019:21) are among the few to explicitly endeavour to make ubuntu central to
social work. They aim to explore its “potential as a philosophical framework for social work practice in
Africa”. Ubuntu is regarded by these and other authors (e.g. Mugumbate & Nyanguru, 2013; Sekudu,
2019) as consonant with the values and ideals of social work, notably “human solidarity, empathy, and
human dignity” (Mupedziswa et al., 2019:29). Ubuntu is regarded as a key concept in the broader
context of indigenisation, Africanisation or decolonisation of social work in Africa (Osei-Hwedie,
2014).
Ubuntu’s emphasis on human relationships, and the notion that ‘a person is only a person through these
relationships with other people’ resonates with the ecological or person-in-environment (PIE)
perspective in social work (Weiss-Gal, 2008; Mbedzi, 2019). The PIE has long been argued to be
central to and even definitive of social work as a distinct discipline and profession (e.g. Strean, 1979).
However, ubuntu in social work goes further than most Western understandings of PIE, in that PIE
tends to still focus on the individual (in their social context), while ubuntu focuses on the relationships.
It has much in common with the African maxims, “It takes a village to raise a child” (Mugumbate &
Chereni, 2019:28) and, “your neighbour’s child is your own [child]” (Mugumbate & Nyanguru,
2013:86). Ubuntu thus decentres the individual as the prime unit of analysis, and centres rather the
relationships between people. Van Breda (2018:8) emphasises this when he writes, “Relationship-
centred resilience aligns well with African ubuntu values, which emphasise social connections as the
crucible of personhood.”
This principle of relatedness is now strongly embedded within the global social work statement of
ethical principles (IASSW, 2018:1), which states, “Far from being autonomous and independent beings
as constructed by liberal theory, as human beings we are all embedded in societies and dependent on
their socio-political, economic and cultural structures and conventions”. This extends to a clause on
confidentiality that recognises the emphasis on communitarianism in some cultures, such as African
society: “In some cultural contexts, characterized by we-centred, communitarian living, social workers

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

442
respect and abide by the people’s right and choice to shared confidentiality, in so far as this does not
infringe on the rights of individuals” (IASSW, 2018, section 6.5).
Mugumbate and Chereni (2019) emphasise this by showing that individuals are part of a family,
families are a part of a community, and communities are part of the environment, which is part of a
larger spiritual community. These nested relationships, like Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological
framework, turn our attention towards the relationships between the levels, which is a key focus of
ubuntu. Drawing on a range of Shona-language terms, Mugumbate and Chereni (2019) construct a life-
cycle model of human development and an ecological model of the responsibilities of different layers
of the ecosystem for the development and wellbeing of a child. All of this, they argue, is rooted in
ubuntu philosophy.
Mupedziswa et al. (2019:30) write about “the concept of community as an organising principle”. While
not disregarding the individual or small group, the authors emphasise that “community practice has
become a natural method of social work” in Africa because of its alignment with ubuntu philosophy.
Mugumbate and Nyanguru (2013:95) similarly emphasise that the focus is on communal living,
underpinned by values of “cooperation and collaboration”. The notion of ‘community’ is not an
impersonal structure or system, but a living collective or network of people, whose wellbeing and
functioning are inextricably intertwined. There is thus a commitment to addressing macro issues in a
way that is beneficial to all members of the community; an approach that is consonant with
developmental social work (Midgley & Conley, 2010).
Ubuntu is also associated with the core social work value of social justice, which refers to “an ideal
condition in which all members of a society have the same basic rights, protection, opportunities,
obligations, and social benefits … [and] is also about ensuring that resources are equitably distributed”
(Patel, 2015:147). Mupedziswa et al. (2019) argue that ubuntu similarly is vitally concerned with the
dignity and worth of individuals and communities. According to ubuntu, no individual’s rights are
greater than another’s; thus every individual in a community, including both children and adults, for
example, is important and should be heard and respected. Ubuntu emphasises norms for interpersonal
relationships that contribute to social justice, such as “reciprocity, selflessness and symbiosis” (Osei-
Hwedie, 2014:109).
Ubuntu also connotes generosity, consideration and humaneness towards others (Mugumbate &
Nyanguru, 2013; Sekudu, 2019). Generosity requires people to be aware of and attentive to the needs of
those around them, rather than focusing only on their own needs. It shares much in common with the
strengths perspective’s emphasis on “caring, caretaking, and context” (Saleebey, 2013:20). Writing for
an American audience, Saleebey emphasises that this principle requires shaking off “the treasured
value of rugged individualism” that is typical of American society. African society, however, is far less
individualistic, and care for and generosity to others are far more central. In the African context this
translates most strongly into young people taking care of the elderly (Mugumbate & Nyanguru, 2013).
The importance of ubuntu for African life is emphasised by Dziro and Rufurwokuda (2013:274), who
argue that children in residential care in Zimbabwe are enculturated into a Western paradigm that does
not centre on ubuntu. As a result, when they age out of care, they struggle to fit in with cultural patterns
of interaction and are perceived as being “culturally immoral”. Similarly, Moodley, Raniga, Sewpaul,
(2019) argue that young people transitioning out of care need to be assisted, in line with ubuntu
principles, to be interdependent rather than the more typical focus on independence.
In summary, the literature on the place of ubuntu in social work has, to date, emphasised that ubuntu
centres on interdependent human relationships, favours community or macro practice, champions social
justice, fosters generosity and has implications for professional ethics. In the rest of this article, I wish
to open out three new areas for consideration. First, I interrogate the notion that ubuntu champions
human relationships, social justice and relational ethics. Second, I expand the reach of ubuntu in time,
to include both ancestors and descendants, to make the argument that ubuntu is vital for sustainable

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

 443
development. And third, I draw on creation mythology to argue that the earth itself is part of the ubuntu
community and thus central to the self.

UBUNTU-INFORMED ETHICS
Ubuntu is often thought of in idealised ways, suggesting that all Africans love each other, being united
by a common value system. In truth, experience shows that this is not the case. Ethnic genocide in
Rwanda (in 1994) and xenophobic violence in South Africa (particularly in 2008 and periodically since
then) are just two among numerous examples of anti-ubuntu behaviour in Africa (Ndlovu-Gatsheni,
2011). Sekudu (2019, section 6.1) argues that “the breakdown of Ubuntu can still be seen across
communities in Africa today, including South Africa”. I suggest that such patterns of exclusion,
violence and degradation are unethical and antithetical to true ubuntu humanism.
The causes for such a breakdown can arguably be attributed to two main factors: colonialism
(Nyaumwe & Mkabela, 2007) and apartheid (Sekudu, 2019; Maphosa & Keasley, 2015). Both epochs
contributed to the profound devaluing and marginalisation of African ways of thinking and being, and
the imposition of Western, capitalist ways, particularly individualism. Both resulted in the
fragmentation and polarisation of families and communities, through the Group Areas Act, forced
removals, pass laws and the establishment of tribal homelands. While no longer legislated, these
divisive dynamics continue to reverberate in contemporary South Africa (Ray, 2015). They point to the
ways in which centuries of cultural violence have led to the “dehumanisation” of both the self (Biko,
2004:28) and the other (Maphosa & Keasley, 2015:33-34).
It now seems apparent that when ubuntu is expressed in contemporary post-colonial South Africa, it is
within groups, rather than between groups. Maphosa and Keasley (2015:42) refer to this as “a
dangerous and damaging kind of rainbow nationalism”. Paradoxically, therefore, strong in-group
ubuntu can result in strong out-group hostility, resulting in persistent and deepening fracturing of
society.
This dehumanisation of other people is termed ‘othering’ (Brons, 2015). Othering divides the world
into in-groups and out-groups, as a way of building the self in relation to inferior others. Van Breda
(2012:181) explains: “We insiders are viewed as good and virtuous, while those outsiders are bad and
evil … They are less than us, … less than human, and less than worthy”. Benton (2008:316) writes,
“This is us – and they are not us”. While othering is considered to be an inherent part of all societies
(Cromer, 2001:191), contributing in potentially positive ways to identity, it does so at the expense of
others: “Clearly, a society does not simply discover its other/s. It creates them.”
What is then required is a construction of ubuntu that recognises the full humanity of every person, not
only those who are like us or part of our in-group. “This … is achievable only if people consciously
refuse to perpetuate the prejudices that are held against them, embracing the ubuntu ideals of
connection and compassion over selfishness and revenge” (Wilkinson, 2016:40). Similarly, Maphosa
and Keasley (2015:34) refer to the importance of imagination in opening creative thinking spaces that
allow one to be curious about the other and imagine that they may be both pleasingly similar and
interestingly different. They write that “rehumanizing must occur … in order to achieve the
humaneness urged in Ubuntu thinking”.
Such a process of expanding ubuntu to be inclusive of all humanity, rather than just my clan, is not a
simple task, particularly given the generations of investment in dividing South African society.
Maphosa and Keasley (2015) provide some guidelines for this, and Rogerian encounter groups, used
with good effect in the apartheid days, could continue to be beneficial today (Spangenberg, 2003).
Metz (2011) provides strong conceptual and philosophical grounds for ubuntu as the basis for morality
and human rights in contemporary South Africa.
However, the social work theory point is that ubuntu requires a strong ethic of commitment to
eliminating division and othering, and to championing unity across diversity (in terms of race,
language, culture, religion, gender, sexuality, age and so on). Such notions are, idealistically, embedded

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

444
within the ethic of ubuntu, and thus are not alien to it or imposing on it. However, in the everyday
expression of ubuntu, dehumanising and othering are all too easy and require conscious, deliberate and
moral decisions to avoid this and rather champion an inclusive social justice and human rights
foundation. Engaging with people in this way is, fundamentally, ethical. This is a community ethic
informed by ubuntu.

UBUNTU-INFORMED SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

In the previous section I argued for a widening of the ubuntu community in space, that is, to include
people from other communities, countries and continents, as well as those who look or live differently
from ourselves. In this section I argue for a widening of the ubuntu community in time, that is, to
include those who have gone before us and those who are yet to come. I will link this to sustainable
development, because the word ‘sustainable’ refers to the maintenance of something over a long time.
Most literature on ubuntu speaks about people in the here-and-now, with no or only passing mention of
the ancestors. In African spirituality, the ancestors (our forebears who have died) are regarded as part
of the living community (Mndende, 2016; Nyaumwe & Mkabela, 2007). African spirituality and
African Traditional Religion hold that the human spirit continues beyond death, that the deceased
remain part of the family circle after death, and that they mediate between the living and the Creator.
Ancestors are thus part of everyday present life and are included in all rituals and celebrations,
particularly life transitions. They play an important role in “protecting, healing, rewarding and
punishing the living” (Mndende, 2016:188).
The respect African spirituality shows for the ancestors enables the present generation to be mindful of
their historical roots, of where they came from and of what was sacrificed to get them where they are.
In South Africa, where countless lives were lost in the struggle for freedom from colonialism and
apartheid, veneration of the ancestors is particularly poignant. Such rootedness in the history of one’s
clan can increase the sense of responsibility for those living in the present. One must live up to the
expectations of those who have gone before. On the other hand, those, such as myself, whose ancestors
colonised, enslaved or oppressed the original occupants of this land, need to engage in critical discourse
with our ancestors and find mindful ways to contribute to the undoing of the harm they have done.
However, not only are the ancestors, who represent the past, central to the present, so too are those yet
to be born. Mbiti (2015:104) explains:
Marriage is the meeting-point for the three layers of human life according to African Religion.
These are the departed, the living and those to be born. The departed come into the picture
because they are the roots on whom the living stand. The living are the link between death and
life. Those to be born are the buds in the loins of the living.
Since the unborn are regarded as family members who are merely residing “in the loins of the living”,
they are a vital and present part of the family. The present generation thus has a responsibility not only
to themselves and their ancestors, but also to future generations. One’s present life must be lived in a
way that honours and ensures the wellbeing of those yet to come.
Behrens (2017) applies this argument about past and future lives particularly well to environmental
conservation (which will be a greater focus of the following section). Among the various reasons
Western thought might not be interested in future generations is the belief that these future beings do
not yet exist. But African philosophy is quite clear that the unborn do already exist. Wiredu (as cited in
Behrens, 2017:50) writes,
The rights of the unborn play such a cardinal role that any traditional African would be non-
plussed by the debate in Western philosophy as to the existence of such rights. In upshot there is a
two-sided concept of stewardship in the management of the environment involving obligations to
both ancestors and descendants which motivates environmental carefulness.

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

 445
The land, then, is a shared resource that belongs collectively to the ancestors, the presently alive and
future generations (Behrens, 2017). From a Western perspective, this would be framed as the land
being ceded as an inheritance to successive generations, thus passing from one generation to the next.
From an African perspective, however, all generations (including past and future) are currently present,
and thus ownership does not pass through the generations, but is currently held by all generations
simultaneously. Wiredu’s use of the term ‘stewardship’ is thus appropriate, because it means that the
earth is only temporarily in one’s direct physical care; we are not owners, but caretakers.
Ubuntu, then, relates not only to present community, but also to preceding and following communities,
that is, to ancestors and descendants. My personhood is through not only my present relationships, but
also my relationships with my ancestors and with my family members who are yet to be born. This
applies not only to the environment (as in the case example drawn above from Behrens’s work), but
also to the whole of life, including the economy, politics, society and personal health and wellbeing.
Such a construction of ubuntu links well with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United
Nations, 2015). Sustainable development was defined by the United Nations in the Brundtland Report
(1987:54) as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.” This definition emphasises that present actions have an
impact on the future, implying that present behaviours should be checked or moderated by future
possibilities.
the 2030 Agenda (United Nations, 2015:3) envisages a world free of poverty, hunger, disease
and want, where all life can thrive; free of fear and violence; a world with universal literacy, equitable
and universal access to quality education at all levels, to health care and social protection, where
physical, mental and social wellbeing are assured.
It is a wide-reaching, inclusive document, with 17 sustainable development goals and 169 targets, to be
achieved over a 15-year period (from 2015-2030). The 2030 Agenda focuses on three main domains of
life: economic, social and environmental, all of which are crucial. Lombard (2015) has neatly shown
how the Global Agenda for Social Work (IASSW, ICSW & IFSW 2014) aligns with the 2030 Agenda,
thereby placing social work at the core of the large global project.
Ubuntu can significantly enhance social work’s understanding of, and promote the achievement of,
sustainable development through the recognition that our embeddedness in the human community is
not merely in the present community, but also in both past and future communities. While Western
notions will regard these latter communities as remote, African ubuntu philosophy regards them as
immanent. An ubuntu-informed sustainable development would, therefore, have significantly greater
leverage in interventions focused on promoting social, economic and environmental development.

UBUNTU-INFORMED ECOSPIRITUAL SOCIAL WORK

In the previous two sections I endeavoured to expand the ubuntu community in both space (a larger and
more inclusive definition of community) and time (incorporating both ancestors and future
generations). In this section I extend this further by arguing that ubuntu has the capacity to incorporate
the earth itself as part of its community. To make this argument, I draw primarily on African creation
mythology.
Mbiti (2015:36) argues that African Traditional Religion believes that there is a God who created the
universe, including the earth. Many African people consider the earth to be a “a living being, and call it
‘Mother earth’, ‘the goddess earth’, or ‘the divinity of the earth’”. Mbiti continues to explain that some
societies perform rituals to pay their respects to the earth, and during times of natural disasters (such as
a drought) may make sacrifices to the divinity of the earth. He also notes that earthly objects (such as a
mountain or river) may be ascribed divine respect. Within the realm of African spirituality, therefore,
the earth is a divine person, comparable to a human person.

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

446
There are a variety of African myths about the creation of humankind. In some, people were created in
the sky and lowered to the earth; in others, people were formed on a tree, like fruit, and then fell off
(Mbiti, 2015). But the most prominent myth, particularly in eastern and southern Africa, is that people
came out of the earth. In some, the Creator shaped people from clay, in others, people were created in a
river and pulled out onto dry land, and in still others, people were created in the ground and then
emerged from a hole in the ground up onto the earth. In almost all creation myths, the Creator made a
male and female, that is a reproductive couple or a community.
According to Mbiti (2015:44), African Traditional Religion sees humanity as being at the centre of the
created university. The earth is seen as having been created for the good of humankind. However,
humans are “not the master of the universe; [they are] only the centre, the friend, the beneficiary, the
user”. Thus, a balance must be struck between the earth and humankind, so that neither suffers at the
hands of the other. “Therefore, [people have] to preserve nature and use it wisely, indeed mercifully,
for [their] own and its survival.”
These creation myths are important, not for providing facts about the origins of the universe, but for
gaining insight into how traditional African spirituality constructs the place of humans on the earth and
the relationship between people and earth. Despite their differences, these myths unanimously point to
an intimate and reciprocal relationship between humans and earth, with humans often being created out
of earth, and sometimes being given birth to by the earth, emerging from it as if from a womb.
Furthermore, the view of the earth as a living or divine being makes it easier to think about the world as
a person with whom humanity has a relationship.
Given the widespread influence of both Christianity and Islam in Africa, and the extent to which many
contemporary African people have spurned African spirituality in favour of Christian or Muslim
orthodoxy, it is worth noting the similarities between African, Judeo-Christian and Islamic creation
mythologies. The Bible and Qur’an are in broad agreement that God/Allah created everything – the
universe, the earth and finally humankind – and that humanity was created from the earth/mud/clay and
that a male-female couple was created. The Bible adds that the first humans were instructed to take care
of the earth and to enjoy its fruits, an echo of “stewardship” previously mentioned (Wiredu, as cited in
Behrens, 2017:50).
Considering the convergence of African, Judeo-Christian and Muslim thought about the earth and the
earthy origins of humanity, it seems reasonable to say, “We are persons through the earth” or “We are
because the earth is”. In other words, it seems reasonable to regard the earth as a member of the
community of persons and thus part of ubuntu. In as much as ubuntu is expressed in generosity,
dignity, humaneness and mutuality towards other people, it is similarly expressed towards the earth
itself or herself.
Care for the earth (through reducing pollution, decreasing our reliance on plastics, reducing water and
electricity usage, ensuring sustainable farming methods, etc.) is not only about stewarding the earth out
of respect for our ancestors and for the benefit of future generations (as argued in the previous section
on ubuntu-informed sustainable development). It is also about treating the earth as a member of our
clan, as one of us, deserving as much respect and care as our mother or cousin.
There has, relatively recently, been a growing consciousness of the environment in social work (Gray,
Hetherington & Coates, 2013). While social work has, since its earliest days, considered the social
environment, there has been little attention given to the natural environment, and even less given to the
natural environment as a client system in its own right. This has, since 1994, begun to shift with the rise
of environmental or ecological social work (Besthorn, 2015), also known as green social work, deep
ecological social work and ecospiritual social work. These approaches seek to decentre humans from
our understanding of the world, viewing humanity as merely one member of a larger collective. They
are also critical of the ways in humanity, particularly through unchecked industrialism and capitalism,
exploits natural resources and the majority world for the benefit of small numbers of wealthy

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

 447
individuals (Ferreira, 2010). They are particularly consonant with indigenous perspectives on the earth
and its people (Coates, Gray & Hetherington, 2006).
Ubuntu offers fresh and potent ways to advance ecological and particularly ecospiritual social work in
Africa, by drawing on indigenous ways of understanding the interconnectedness of people and earth,
and by contemplating the earth as a person who is a member of our community, not merely an
inanimate object to be exploited.

CONCLUSION
Ubuntu, regardless of the extent to which it actually exists in modern Africa, has traction among the
people of Africa. This is true also for me as a white person and may well be true for most white people
who have been raised in Africa. It is, arguably, a value system that has the potential to cut across and
unify races and ethnicities, class and gender (Rasheed & Rasheed, 2011). It causes deep resonances in
us for the kind of world we want to live in, the kind of world we imagine our ancestors enjoyed, and the
kind of world we’d like our descendants to enjoy. It has been much written and spoken about and
appears in a growing body of social work literature. But its meaning and utility for social work theory
and practice remain underdeveloped. There is a tendency to settle with ubuntu referring merely to being
generous to our neighbours, when ubuntu has the potential to be a far more foundational and impactful
conceptual framework or “organising principle” (Mupedziswa et al., 2019:30) for social work in
Africa.
In this article I have worked to expand ubuntu’s potential as an explanatory theory for social work.
That is, I have endeavoured to show that ubuntu can help us make sense of, interpret and even explain
societal functioning in ways that are both authentic and innovative. I have endeavoured not to impose
new, foreign meanings onto a ‘hallowed’ construct, but rather to dig more deeply into the inherent
implications of ubuntu within a broader understanding of African cosmology and spirituality.
Through this, it becomes apparent that ubuntu has important social work implications for three areas of
African life. First, ubuntu calls us to embrace the whole of humanity as part of our global community
or clan, not only those who are related to us or those who are like us. This has particularly important
implications for addressing xenophobia and genocide, as well as for nation building. I’ve constructed
this as ubuntu-informed ethics, because it informs the ways in which we engage respectfully and
generously with those who are ‘other’.
Second, ubuntu calls us to consider our history (in our ancestors) and our future (in our descendants)
and to live our lives in the world in a way that honours the former and ensures the wellbeing of the
latter. African worldviews, unlike Western worldviews, see both ancestors and descendants as present
beings, not merely memories and hopes. They are actual persons, who are immanently present, though
not usually visible. Such a view of our lineage inspires greater commitment to the sustainability of
human and socioeconomic development.
Third, ubuntu calls us to consider the earth as a member of our community, both because we are made
from earth and because earth is a divine being with whom we have a reciprocal relationship. These
ideas, which are rooted both in traditional African and in Judeo-Christian and Islamic perspectives,
contribute significantly to the requirement that we take care of the earth, not only for future
generations, but also for the earth’s own sake, and out of respect for our interconnectedness with earth.
Such a view reinforces ecological and ecospiritual social work perspectives.
These three fresh extensions of ubuntu help to widen the footprint that this concept has in human life in
this world, thereby deepening its relevance for social work practice. These ideas do yet not constitute
practice theory; ubuntu is not a method of social change. But they do constitute a more robust
theoretical framework, providing conceptual and paradigmatic material that can be used to inform and
develop practice theory for social change practices, thereby enriching indigenous, African and
decolonial approaches to social work.

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

448
REFERENCES
BEHRENS, K.G. 2017. An African account of the moral obligation to preserve biodiversity. In:
CHIMAKONAM, J. O. (ed). African philosophy and environmental conservation. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
BENTON, K.W. 2008. Saints and sinners: Training Papua New Guinean (PNG) Christian clergy to
respond to HIV and AIDS using a model of care. BESTHORN, F.H. 2015. Ecological social work:
Shifting paradigms in environmental practice. In: WRIGHT, J.D. (ed). International encyclopaedia
of the social & behavioural sciences. (2nd ed). Oxford: Elsevier.
BIKO, S. 2004. I write what I like. Johannesburg: Picador Africa.
BRONFENBRENNER, U. 1979. The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
BRONS, L.L. 2015. Othering, an analysis. Transcience, a Journal of Global Studies, 6:69-90.
COATES, J., GRAY, M. & HETHERINGTON, T. 2006. An ‘ecospiritual’ perspective: Finally, a place for
indigenous approaches. The British Journal of Social Work, 36:381-399. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcl005
CROMER, G. 2001. Amalek as other, other as Amalek: Interpreting a violent biblical narrative.
Qualitative Sociology, 24:191-202.
DZIRO, C. & RUFURWOKUDA, A. 2013. Post-institutional integration challenges faced by children
who were raised in children’s homes in Zimbabwe: The Case of “Ex-girl” Programme for one
children’s home in Harare, Zimbabwe. Greener Journal of Social Sciences, 3:268-277.
FERREIRA, S. B. 2010. Eco-spiritual social work as a precondition for social development. Ethics
and Social Welfare, 4:3-23. doi: 10.1080/17496531003607891
GADE, C.B.N. 2011. The historical development of the written discourses on ubuntu. South African
Journal of Philosophy, 30:303-329. doi: 10.4314/sajpem.v30i3.69578.
GADE, C.B.N. 2012. What is Ubuntu? Different interpretations among South Africans of African
descent. South African Journal of Philosophy, 31:484-503. doi: 10.1080/02580136.2012.10751789
GRAY, M., HETHERINGTON, T. & COATES, J. (eds). 2013. Environmental social work,
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
IASSW. 2018. Global social work statement of ethical principles [Online] Available:
https://tinyurl.com/iasswethics. [Accessed: 25 July 2019].
IASSW, ICSW & IFSW 2014. Global agenda for social work and social development: First report:
Promoting social and economic equalities. International Social Work, 57:3-16. doi:
10.1177/0020872814534139
KINDLE, P.A. & DELAVEGA, E. 2018. Increasing awareness of white privilege among social work
students. Multicultural Education, 26:24-30.
LOMBARD, A. 2015. Global agenda for social work and social development: A path toward
sustainable social work. Social Work / Maatskaplike Werk, 51:482-499.
MAPHOSA, S.B. & KEASLEY, A. 2015. Disrupting the interruptions: Re-considering Ubuntu,
reconciliation and rehumanization. African Renaissance, 12:16-47.
MARSTON, J. M. 2015. The spirit of “ubuntu” in children's palliative care. Journal of Pain &
Symptom Management, 50:424-427. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.05.011
MAWERE, M. & VAN STAM, G. 2016. Ubuntu/unhu as communal love: Critical reflections on the
sociology of ubuntu and communal life in sub-Saharan Africa. In: MAWERE, M. & MARONGWE,
N. (eds). Violence, politics and conflict management in Africa: Envisioning transformation, peace
and unity in the twenty-first century. Bamenda, Cameroon: Langaa RPCIG.
MBEDZI, P. 2019. Ecosystems. In: VAN BREDA, A.D. & SEKUDU, J. (eds). Theories for
decolonial social work practice in South Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press South Africa.

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

 449
MBITI, J.S. 2015. Introduction to African religion. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
METZ, T. 2011. Ubuntu as a moral theory and human rights in South Africa. African Human Rights
Law Journal, 11:532-559.
METZ, T. 2014. Ubuntu: The good life. In: MICHALOS, A. C. (ed). Encyclopedia of Quality of Life
and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
MIDGLEY, J. & CONLEY, A. (eds). 2010. Developmental social work and social development:
Theories and skills for developmental social work, New York: Oxford University Press.
MKABELA, Q.N. 2015. Ubuntu as a foundation for researching African indigenous psychology.
Indilinga African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, 14:284-291.
MNDENDE, N. 2016. African Traditional Religion. In: LEWIS, C. & COHN-SHERBOK, D. (eds).
Sensible religion. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
MOODLEY, R., RANIGA, T. & SEWPAUL, V. 2019. Youth transitioning out of residential care in
South Africa: Toward ubuntu and interdependent living. Emerging Adulthood, OnlineFirst. doi:
10.1177/2167696818812603
MUGUMBATE, J. & CHERENI, A. 2019. Using African Ubuntu theory in social work with children
in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Social Work, 9.
MUGUMBATE, J. & NYANGURU, A. 2013. Exploring African philosophy: The value of ubuntu in
social work. African Journal of Social Work, 3:82-100.
MÜLLER, J. & TRAHAR, S. 2016. Facing our whiteness in doing Ubuntu research: Finding spatial
justice for the researcher. HTS Theological Studies, 72:1-7. doi: 10.4102/hts.v72i1.3510
MUPEDZISWA, R., RANKOPO, M. & MWANSA, L.-K. 2019. Ubuntu as a pan-African
philosophical framework for social work in Africa. In: TWIKIRIZE, J.M. & SPITZER, H. (eds).
Social work practice in Africa. Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Publishers.
NDLOVU-GATSHENI, S.J. 2011. Pan-Africanism and the 2010 FIFA world cup in South Africa.
Development Southern Africa, 28:401-413. doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2011.595996
NDLOVU-GATSHENI, S. J. 2018. Epistemic freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and
decolonization. London: Routledge.
NDLOVU, P. M. 2016. Discovering the spirit of Ubuntu leadership: Compassion, community, and
respect. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
NKOSI, B. & DANIELS, P. 2007. Family strengths: South Africa. Marriage & Family Review,
41:11-26.
NYAUMWE, L.J. & MKABELA, Q. 2007. Revisiting the traditional African cultural framework of
ubuntuism: A theoretical perspective. Indilinga: African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge
Systems, 6:152-163.
OSEI-HWEDIE, K. 2014. Afro-centrism: The challenge of social development. Social
Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 43:106-116.
PATEL, L. 2015. Social welfare and social development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
RASHEED, M.N. & RASHEED, J.M. 2011. Reflection on King’s ‘Beloved Community’ and Tutu’s
Ubuntu theology, and implications for multicultural social work practice. Paper presented at the
Convention of the North American Association of Christians in Social Work, Pittsburgh, PA.
RAY, M. 2015. Not yet ubuntu: A Fanonian perspective on the politics of nation-building in post-
apartheid South Africa. In: PAHAD, A., LE PERE, G. & STRYDOM, M. (eds). Promoting
progressive African thought leadership. Pretoria, RSA: Africa Institute of South Africa.
SALEEBEY, D. 2013. Introduction: Power in the people. In: SALEEBEY, D. (ed). The strengths
perspective in social work practice. (6th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)

450
SAPIRSTEIN, G. 2006. Social resilience: The forgotten dimension of disaster risk reduction. Jàmbá:
Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 1:54-63.
SEKUDU, J. 2019. Ubuntu. In: VAN BREDA, A. D. & SEKUDU, J. (eds). Theories for decolonial
social work practice in South Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press South Africa.
SHUTTE, A. 2001. UBUNTU: An ethic for a new South Africa. Pietermaritzburg, RSA: Cluster
Publications.
SPANGENBERG, J.J. 2003. The cross-cultural relevance of person-centered counseling in
postapartheid South Africa. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81:48-54. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-
6678.2003.tb00224.x
STREAN, H.S. 1979. The contemporary family and the responsibilities of the social worker in direct
practice. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 56:40-49.
STUIT, H. 2016. Ubuntu strategies: Constructing spaces of belonging in contemporary South
African culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
THERON, L.C. & PHASHA, N. 2015. Cultural pathways to resilience: Opportunities and obstacles as
recalled by Black South African students. In: THERON, L. C., LIEBENBERG, L., UNGAR, M.,
THERON, L. C., LIEBENBERG, L. & UNGAR, M. (eds). Youth resilience and culture:
commonalities and complexities. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
TWIKIRIZE, J. M. & SPITZER, H. 2019. Social work practice in Africa. Kampala, Uganda:
Fountain Publishers.
UNITED NATIONS 1987. Report of the world commission on environment and development:
Our common future (Brundtland Report). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
UNITED NATIONS 2015. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable
development. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
VAN BREDA, A.D. 2012. Stigma as ‘othering’ among Christian theology students in South Africa.
SAHARA-J: Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS, 9:181-191. doi: 10.1080/17290376.2012.745272
VAN BREDA, A.D. 2018. A critical review of resilience theory and its relevance for social work.
Social Work / Maatskaplike Werk, 54:1-18. doi: 10.15270/54-1-611
VAN BREDA, A.D. 2019. Introduction to social work theory. In: VAN BREDA, A. D. & SEKUDU, J.
(eds). Theories for decolonial social work practice in South Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University
Press South Africa.
VAN DYK, G.A.J. & MATOANE, M. 2010. Ubuntu-oriented therapy: Prospects for counseling
families affected with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 20:327-
334. doi: 10.1080/14330237.2010.10820382
WEISS-GAL, I. 2008. The person-in-environment approach: Professional ideology and practice of
social workers in Israel. Social Work, 53:65-75.
WILKINSON, R. 2016. Dangerous othering in Meg Vandermerwe’s Zebra crossing: Ubuntu – ideals
and realities of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies -
Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity, 11:34-44. doi: 10.1080/18186874.2016.1212462

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 2019:55(4)