Does Chimakonam stand up for Metz’s defence of ubuntu at the expense of Matolino’s criticisms? A response to Cees Maris

Abstract

Cees Maris challenges Bernard Matolino and Wenceslaus Kwindingwi for not presenting an alternative to ubuntu following their claim that it is moribund for modern application and proposes political liberalism as the possible alternative. Although Maris discussed other scholars such as Mogobe Ramose and John Locke, I only respond to his reading of Chimakonam’s intervention in the Matolino-Kwindingwi-Metz debate on the ubuntu discourse. Maris asserts that Chimakonam stands up for Metz’s defence of ubuntu at the expense of Matolino’s criticisms. In what follows, I argue that Maris misreads Chimakonam’s intervention and reject the view that Chimakonam stands up for Metz’s defence of ubuntu at the expense of Matolino’s criticisms.