A central element of African thought is the conception of communal personhood. In this essay, we will examine three such communal conceptions of personhood in light of their interrelation with individual responsibility.
First, we will have a closer look on Menkiti’s communal conception of personhood and will argue that his account alone is not able to justify individual moral responsibility, but that it is compatible with Gyekye’s communal conception of personhood that underlines certain mental features that hold communal agents individually responsible for their actions. After having discussed and responded to the problem regarding the extent to which a person’s reasoning and her moral sense is shaped by the communal culture she was socialized in, we will have a look on the third communal conception of personhood that arises in a Yoruba allegory and will discuss its implications for individual responsibility. At first, we extract the preferred Yoruba communal conception of personhood out of the allegory. Then, we apply our finding of ‘self-determined but communal’ action on three possible options of receiving one’s destiny in heaven and clarify for each the realm of individual responsibility.
Table of Contents
1. Within communal conceptions of personhood, can the idea of individual responsibility remain morally relevant?
2. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay examines whether the concept of individual responsibility remains morally relevant within various African communal conceptions of personhood, specifically analyzing the accounts of Menkiti, Gyekye, and the Yoruba tradition.
- Analysis of Menkiti’s communal conception of personhood and its limitations regarding moral responsibility.
- Evaluation of Gyekye’s moderate communitarianism and the role of individual mental capacities.
- Investigation into the Yoruba allegory of destiny and its implications for autonomous choice.
- Synthesis of 'self-determined but communal' action as a model for individual agency.
Excerpt from the Book
The Yoruba allegory of a person’s choice of destiny
The Yoruba allegory of a person’s choice of destiny is also relevant when assessing whether within communal conceptions of personhood the idea of individual responsibility remains morally relevant. One of the stories of the Odu Corpus, the collection of verses constituting the basis of the Yoruba divination system, is about how an unborn human being chooses/receives its Ori (destiny) in heaven. This story contains several elements that illustrate the Yoruba’s notion of communal personhood and its interrelation with the idea of individual responsibility. The first mention manifests the consequences of different ways of engaging with community in heaven: Three unborn friends were warned by their friends to go directly to the house of Ajala, the place where they would choose/get their Ori. Two of the friends followed the advice of their friends, the third one decided to go see his father before choosing his Ori. The two who went directly to get their Ori received a bad destiny and the third, after having met some divination priests at his father’s place, having followed their advice to perform sacrifices and after having overcome some obstacles, received a good Ori. The friends, the father and the divination priests symbolise the community. Whereas the two friends that unquestioningly follow the community’s advice, are punished, the third friend who both acts autonomously (when rejecting the external communal imperative about what he ought to do) and shows an openness for communal advice (when following the priests’ advice) is rewarded for his behaviour. Letting the question of how unborn beings can be agents aside, this allegory shows that the Yoruba tradition favours a notion of communal personhood that does let room for self-determination (and thereby individual responsibility) over a notion of communal personhood in which the individuals follow blindly communal norms.
Summary of Chapters
1. Within communal conceptions of personhood, can the idea of individual responsibility remain morally relevant?: This chapter investigates how communal frameworks influence individual agency, contrasting the views of Menkiti and Gyekye while utilizing the Yoruba allegory of destiny to demonstrate that self-determination can coexist with communal values.
2. Conclusion: The concluding section synthesizes the findings, asserting that communal socialization does not negate individual moral reasoning and that individuals maintain responsibility even when their life paths are influenced by community expectations.
Keywords
Communal personhood, Individual responsibility, African philosophy, Menkiti, Gyekye, Yoruba, Destiny, Ori, Moral agency, Self-determination, Communitarianism, Autonomy, Socialization, Rationality, Normative framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this essay?
The essay explores the compatibility of individual moral responsibility with communal conceptions of personhood within African philosophical thought.
Which specific philosophers are discussed?
The work primarily engages with the ideas of Ifeanyi A. Menkiti and Kwame Gyekye.
What is the central research question?
The author asks whether individual responsibility remains morally relevant when communal notions of right and wrong are the primary determinants of personhood.
What methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a philosophical analysis of communal frameworks, incorporating an interpretive reading of a specific Yoruba allegory concerning destiny.
How is the Yoruba allegory utilized in the main body?
The allegory of receiving one's 'Ori' (destiny) is used to illustrate that the Yoruba tradition supports a model where autonomous, reflective choices are rewarded, even within a communal structure.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include communal personhood, individual responsibility, African philosophy, autonomy, and moral agency.
How does the author define the relationship between the community and the individual?
The author suggests a 'self-determined but communal' model, where the individual remains responsible for their choices while being open to and engaging with communal advice.
What does the author conclude about the impact of culture on moral reasoning?
The author concludes that human reasoning is fundamental and that individuals are capable of evaluating and rejecting communal norms, even in restrictive cultural environments.
- Citation du texte
- David Schneider (Auteur), 2017, Conceptions of personhood. Can the idea of individual responsibility remain morally relevant?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/385488
