Influential Ethics for October

In the blocks below, please find your weekly bio-politics articles in a blog-style layout. If you have any questions or concerns about the research or writing, please reach out to me! I post one bio-ethics blogacle a week followed by an international relations/propaganda piece the following week. These topics are either about current issues or issues I find important yet not discussed enough.

Questions to consider

Week One:

A Two–Sided Approach of Adoption vs. Fertility Treatments in the E.U. and U.S. Part Two (out of four)

The European Union Approach—IVF Success Rates:

A successful IVF depends on the following considerations:

The same considerations and the United States in addition to
The cost for a successful round of IVF (a live birth) will cost approximately €22,500.00 for the same amount of time. There is a very big difference between the cost of a completed IVF cycle in the European Union compared to the United States, though: The majority of European Union member states cover a substantial or partial portion of the IVF treatment as part of health insurance policies in these countries.

Although eastern European member states don’t receive as much assistance from their government/state related insurance, many private clinics offer these services at a reduced rate or allow for partial IVF treatment where the parents will be covered for a single round, but if the IVF procedures fail, they will need to pay out–of–pocket for any future attempts.

The European Union Approach—The Adoption Process:

*The adoption process in the European Union varies greatly from how it’s done in the United States, and although there are general rules and considerations for adoptees throughout the European Union, some member states differ in this process. Where necessary, I will make a distinction between these outliers and the generally accepted procedures.*

In general, the adoption process in the European Union is done exclusively through the respective governments of each member state. This is because orphans, children, and/or teens in the foster care system are wards of the state. By law, the state is responsible for them if these children or teens don’t have a family of their own.

The main reason for this is the socialistic model of the European Union, where responsibility is shared (as discussed in my previous blogacle: The Moral Responsibility of Others When Human and Medical Rights Are Violated) is the result of two forms of adoption. These forms are either disallowed in the European Union, or not commonly practiced due to social responsibility or the means to protect the child or teen from exploitation.

This can happen in some adoption models where the state gives the adopting family money to assist the child or teen, only for the adoption family to use this money for selfish needs, which is a relatively common practice in the foster care system in the United States. The European model avoids this by focusing on state/government funding for the adoption process and rehabilitation and financial assistance to the child or teen themeslves instead of giving their parents access to money or rehabilatory measures that could be used for personal gain.

The two forms of adoption that are not relevant/illegal in the European Union include:

Independent adoption, and
Private agency adoption.

so the examples below will focus on the two practiced and legal forms of adoption in the European Union: Foster care adoption and international adoption.

Foster care adoption in the European Union is when a child or teen already in state care is permanently placed with an adoptive family. These children or teens are in state care because their birth families are unable to provide a safe or stable environment, and adoption offers them the chance for long–term security and a sense of belonging in a healthy family.

Adopting families with the foster care option usually work closely with government agencies and social workers to ensure the transition from state home to family home is as painless, emotionally safe, and any decisions made are in the child’s best interests with the interests of the family. This process may involve:

Training for the adoptive family—particularly if the child or teen has behavioral issues—to ensure they are prepared for any issues down the road.
Background checks of the whole family, not just the adoptive parents to ensure the child or teen will be in a safe environment, and
Legal steps to safely transfer responsibility from the state to the adoptive family. The average cost of independent adoption is €3000.00 from start to finish, depending on the country/member state.

These fees aren’t technically the adoption fees, though, unlike the adoption fees in the United States. These fees cover adminisrative costs for court paperwork and legal filings; the required background checks on families; medical exams for the child to ensure their health will be prioritized in their new home; translation costs of the child or teen comes from a different region within the European Union and can’t speak the local language; and finally, travel costs if the child or teen is placed in another European Union area.

For example, if the adopting family adopts a child from a member state in the European Union currently at war, their travel costs may be higher compared to a peaceful relocation. In many member states, most of these costs are reimbursed once the adoption is finalized and the child or teen has settled into their new home.

In the European Union, foster care adoption helps reduce the number of children waiting in temporary placements, which allows them to grow up in a permanent and supportive home, regardless of any personal circumstances.

International adoption in the European Union allows families to adopt a child or teen from outside their home country. This provides them with a stable future, particularly when the adoptee is from a warring nation or a third–world country where their basic needs aren’t completely met. With this type of adoption, families typically work with accredited agencies or central authorities under the Hague Adoption Convention, which sets strict safeguards to protect children and ensure ethical decision–making on behalf of the child, teen, and the birth family. Would–be parents must complete successful home studies where their family life, general safety, and economic background are studied to ensure a stable and safe home for the child or teen.

These would–be parents need approval by domestic and international authorities after a series of interviews, and they may need to travel to the birth family’s home country to finalize the adoption and meet their child or teen.

International adoption is more of a lengthy process regarding the interview process and required funds, but most European Union member states reimburse the adoptive family the necessary costs for the adoption, which could include:

Administrative costs from both countries.
Background checks of the adopting family and birth family to ensure the birth family has the legal right to give their baby, child, or teen, up for adoption.
Medical exams (if necessary), and
Translation services.

Travel costs can vary widely, and this responsibility is left with the adopting family. Many member states usually prioritize adoptees from warring or impoverished countries, and if the adoption family requires further assistance regarding funds once the child or teen has been adopted, the family can apply for additional aid from their government. The average cost of iternational adoption is €30,000.00 from start to finish, depending on the country, the child’s country of origin, and the complexity of the legal requirements and number of international borders crossed.

I will add the completed Reference List and Questions to From Piece in the final part.

Please let me know what you thought of this blogacle using this direct [ link ] to the optional forum in the header. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]. If you want to answer the Questions to Consider (not required but you are welcome to!), you can also discuss these questions and answers here.

Questions to consider

In your opinion, what is a successful round of IFV? A live baby or the pregnancy itself?

Why do you think this is? Is this a funds issue, a social issue, a priorities issue, or something else?

What do you understand by 'ward of the state'?

When forms of adoption or IVF procedures are disallowed, what factors are at play? Is this a government–only restriction or do you think this prohibition takes the general population into account as well?

Why do you think this is a relatively common practice in the United States? Is this a social or personal issue? Why do you think this?

Why do you think these two forms of adoption are illegal or not practiced in the European Union?

What are the differences for the baby/child/teen and the adoptive family between these two cases of one being allowed and one not?

Why do you think long term security is important for adoptees?

What kind of training do you think this entails? Do you think this type of training is necessary in all cases or just cases where the adoptee or the adoptive family need additional assistance?

Why do you understand by 'emotionally safe'?

Why do you think background checks are important? Do you think anyone should be able to adopt a baby/child/teen if they have the means and are unable to have children through biological ways?

Should the state share responsibility of the adoptee until everything is finalized or should they back off if the adoptive family know what they are doing?

Do you think high adoption fees are a hindrance or benefit for the adoptee? Why do you think this?

Do you think a peaceful relocation in comparison to a conflict based relocation will be less stress than the alternative or do you think the stress of adoption and growing a family supersedes the stress of a conflicting state or country?

Why do you think a supportive home is a necessity for babies/children/ teens?

Do you think international adoption should be an option if there are children in your home country that need to be adopted (other than children in warring countries whose circumstances are different and prioritized)? Why or why not?

Why do you think the economic background of the adoptive family is important? If they are wealthy, or at least not struggling, at the time of the adoption, why should their past economic decisions matter?

Why is this important? Is this done for the sake of the adoptive family, the adoptee, both, or something/ someone else? Why do you think this?

If medical exams are needed, what do you think they could be? Do you think the adoptee should be examined even if they don't want to be? Why or why not?

Do you think the adoptive family should be 100% responsible for these travel costs? Why or why not? If not, who should the other responsible party be?

Knowing what you know about the average salary in the European Union (even if you had to search for this info), do you think this is a reasonable amount? With such high adoption costs, do you think there are cases where "Buy a child" is part of the process?

Week Two:

African Personhood and the Power of Subtle Propaganda Part One (out of two)

African politics, philosophy, and humanity are all links from the same historic chain. A chain that bears the brunt of the horror stories we’ve heard about the slave ships, the unwilling patrons that were shipped to work as menial labor while those around them grew rich and fat with pride of their successful household. Except, these successful households wouldn’t have (and some still aren’t) been as successful without the unpaid labor of those across the ocean whose heart and soul beat to a different drum.

I understand that this blogacle uses African as a collective and there are 55 African countries (including Western Sahara), but from my experience, the feeling of togetherness or Ubuntu, as it’s called in Africa, is an almost–universal feeling and mindset. There are outliers, of course, but there are far more who believe in this concept.

The Eurocentric and more recently, the American–centric histories, focus on the separation of the arts and sciences. Western philosophy and the ancient political doctrines that came from these practices are hundreds of years old, yet the African diaspora of culture, medicine, politics, and philosophy, spans a greater time frame than that. It’s true that Africa is seen by many as a violent, hot, and unforgiving landscape, but what most people don’t understand is that this scene is only seen from the eyes of the Westerner.

I’m not going to go into the carving of Africa for European exploits in this article—I will, just not now, I am instead going to touch on something more sublte: The act of subtle propaganda and how these tactics have slowly chipped away at the personhood of the African people as a whole—the concept of personhood in most African cultures is fascinating and I’ll go into this later as well—can (and has) shaped African communities by remove their "Africanness" because of the desire (and sometimes necesity to fit into the messages being told by those around them, regardless of who these messages come from.

In African philosophy/politics (I’ll refer to this as pholitcs in the future), to be a person is to exist with and within others. The concept of ego or “I” is rare and often unheard of in African society. This isn’t because they (African people) don’t know there is an ego or “I”, this is because the concept of selfishness doesn’t exist for them. It’s like this: If we meet in the street and I try and convince you that a block of cheese is a slab of cement, but you are 100% convinced that the cheese doesn’t actually exist so it can be neither cheese nor cement, the concept of cheese and cement doesn’t exist for you. You, in turn, aren’t wrong for not knowing cheese and cement exist (or do they really?), you just believe in something different. This could be because you haven’t been taught that cheese and cement exist, or that you don’t need to believe that cheese and cement exist because you are perfectly happy with your meat and marbles.

Anyway, the essential tenet of Ubuntu is that personhood and community is a shared project for the benefit of all, and there is a spiritual life of the collective woven into the world in African philosophy and metaphysics: These have always been holistic concepts. It doesn't separate the individual from the community, or the spiritual from the political. Within this framework, personhood becomes a moral journey rather than a fixed status. Something one grows into through participation, duty, and compassion. Morality in this context is socio-ethical: The measure of one’s goodness is reflected in the well–being of others. Yet, it is precisely this interdependence that makes African personhood vulnerable to negative influence: When the moral compass of the community shifts, so does the meaning of being a person. Enter subtle propaganda. (Thank you, thank you. So good to be here).

Across African thought, thinkers such as Menkiti, Gyekye, Senghor, and Kenyatta have wrestled with the relationship between autonomy and communal identity. Menkiti argued that a person becomes a person through others, that moral and social maturity are the true markers of humanity. Gyekye, however, warned against what he called the “all–engulfing moral authority” of community, which can sometimes silence individuality or dissent. This ongoing conversation reveals a delicate balance: The individual and the community are mirrors. Each reflects the other’s humanity. But what happens when those mirrors are tilted by a steady stream of subtle propaganda instead of war or overt colonisation?

Propaganda is often imagined as loud, forceful, and unmistakable, but the most powerful forms are rarely so obvious. In modern African societies, propaganda often arrives dressed as aspiration and promises of the future of an ailing community or the break the capital city needs to settle a local squabble with a neighboring tribe. It seeps in through advertising, entertainment, and education, which all bleeds into social policy. This form of propaganda redefines what success looks like, what beauty looks like, what progress means, and it replaces the rhetoric of what was accepted five years ago.

Instead of saying “abandon your culture”, the fliers and pamphlets of the next up–and–coming clothes line and appliance factory, these say “modernise”, while replacing the welcoming and familiar colors of advertisements to cool, clear, ‘neat’ colors that are acceptable in the West.
Instead of saying “reject your roots”, these intrusions say “fit in” or else. Or else what? The successful African businessman or woman won’t be accepted in the West? Oh, the tragedy. The thing is, this is how subtle propaganda works. You won’t know until it's too late and your family brand and colors of the rug or spice shop that has put food on your table for the past 20 years becomes another excuse for a millionaire to sell their own branding. On your rugs and your spice bags.

These quiet messages are particularly effective in communal societies because they don’t just target individuals. They reshape the collective imagination. When enough people start believing that true success lies in mirroring Western lifestyles, the social norms of the community begin to shift. The moral expectations, once rooted in reciprocity and shared growth, begin to tilt toward competition, image, and consumption.

Over time, the very foundation of Africanness, the interwoven sense of belonging, duty, and moral personhood, becomes filtered through a new lens. Being “a person” begins to mean being successful by global standards rather than being responsible by communal ones.

Subtle propaganda doesn’t simply change opinions; it changes definitions. When it redefines what counts as progress, intelligence, or dignity, it indirectly rewrites what it means to be a “full person” within African moral cosmology.

This erosion is often slow and polite, focusing on the soft power of social realignment. Communities start searching for what the message promises: Global recognition, modern belonging, and economic inclusion. In reaching for those things, they can inadvertently loosen their hold on the metaphysical heart of African identity: The sense of self that exists through others. Philosophically, this tension mirrors the ongoing debate between autonomy and communitarianism.

African personhood depends on both: The individual must grow into their humanity through community, yet the community must also safeguard the freedom for individuals to express, question, and evolve. Subtle propaganda disturbs this balance by disguising dependency as autonomy. It convinces individuals that independence means separation rather than responsible selfhood. It persuades communities that unity requires conformity to external ideals. The result is a kind of socio-political dissonance where people remain connected in form, but disconnected in meaning, and the gap is only growing.

I will add the completed Reference List and Questions to From Piece in the next part.

Questions to consider

What do you know or understand by "African politics?" Do you know of any African philosophies?

Do you the majority belief is what should be practiced or focused on? Why or why not?

Do you agree with this separation? Can you think of examples where a combined doctrine of all of these would be better? Why do you think that?

Have you heard of 'personhood' before this? Do you think that each culture and society shouls have its own form of personhood? Why or why not?

If a concept doesn't exist for person A, should person B still be held accountantable for breaking the rules of concept/person A?

Do you think happiness negates our responsibilty to question messages we see?

If personhood is a moral journey, who decides on the moral path? The person seeking personhood or those around them on their way to personhood?

What happens when the person seeking personhood has a moral compass with South as the focal point? Will/should they adpapt their moral journey to an upturned compass or should they make a point of turning the compass the right way? What is the right way?

Do you agree with this concept? Why or why not?

What happens when the moral authority engulfs the wrong side of personhood?

When do you think "modern Africa" became modern? Do you think it had the same process of modernization as in the West?

Do you think all these facets bleed into society after some time? Why do you think I used the word bleed instead of lead?

Do you agree that the West has neat and clear colors that symbolize growth and modernity? In my country, these colors are shades of blue and red. Are they different in your country/area? If so, why do you think this is?

What do you understand by a 'communal society'? Do you think this society has links to social responsibility or people in general living amongst each other?

Do you agree with this? Or do you think/know this is happening? Do you think there should be a responsibility of the millionaire to the family who (even subconsciously) supports their brand to provide monetary support?

Do you think this is a fair way to judge success? What about people who have achieved academic or charitable success?

What do you understand by a this? How would a society know they need a realignment? Who would tell them?

How important do you think religion is to personhood? Africa is a large continent with dozens of well known and isolated religions. How does this personhood work in this case?

Could independence mean different things for different people in the same cultural background? If so, do you think this would affect the culture as a whole?

Week Three:

A Two–Sided Approach of Adoption vs. Fertility Treatments in the E.U. and U.S. Part Three (out of four)

The Emotional Cost of Expectations for Adoptees and Their Adoptive Parents in the United States and the European Union.

In the cases of adoption and fertility treatments, the monetary cost is only a part of the issue. Let’s look at adoption first. While almost all adoptions involve all parties from the start, i.e., the adoptive parents and the adoptees, many of these adoptees have had negative past experiences with foster families and the system in general. This could create animosity towards their new family, which sets the example of how they will be treated in the future.

The emotional cost of introducing a new family member with potentially different values and belief systems could create a subconscious line between love and acceptance: Differences of opinion create even more cracks in the family dynamic than overt issues like stubbornness and independence.

The adoption process is emotionally and physically taxing on the adoptee, and this cost is often overlooked by the adoptive family for the sake of a happy family, once the process has been completed. This isn’t the norm, nor should it be, but the emotional cost of a child or teen who feels they don’t fit in can sometimes take longer to heal than the monetary cost that got the child or teen there in the first place.

At times, the adoption process can have emotional challenges that the child or teen wasn’t aware of, and these emotional challenges could lead to disappointment later in life. Some examples of these emotional challenges could include:

A negative reaction to the loss of their birth parents, siblings, and community in their home (birth) town. This could lead to anger issues once adopted and a general feeling of “I don’t belong here, I belong with my birth family”. An exception might be possible in cases where the child or teen knew that their birth family was unfit to parent them regarding emotional and physical safety, but the bonds we develop with those who raised us are difficult to break.

Decreased sense of self and self–esteem, particularly in older children and teens who may ask questions like: Why was I given up for adoption? Why didn’t/doesn’t my family love me? Is there something wrong with me?

Displacement of their own identity, particularly if the adoptee was adopted as an older child (8-12 years) or a teen. As humans, we base our identity on our nuclear family, our community, and our role in society. In the case of adoption, the nuclear family, community, and their influence in society are largely missed because the adoptee may not have had any of this before they were adopted (hence the reason for the adoption).

Past experiences around foster families—both positive and negative—can also lead to emotional challenges for the adoptee by comparison between the two homes. If a foster family abused the adoptee (any form of abuse), they will most probably have a difficult time trusting the new family because they might assume that all families are the same. This is particularly important if the adoptee was moved from home to home without the proper guidance and therapy needed between these homes to ensure that their interests were being considered as well.

On the positive side regarding past experiences around foster families, the adoptee could assume that all families have a similar setup if this is all they have experienced. For example: If the adoptee has lived in three other foster homes before their legal adoption, where the family dynamic was a mom, a dad, a brother or sister, and a dog, in X area with a big yard, and these experiences were extremely positive for them, they might assume that all happy families have the same setup.

If they get adopted by a same–sex couple without any other children, who live in a different area, and they have a cat in an apartment instead of a big house with a yard, the adoptee might assume that this family isn’t a happy family. This means that from the beginning, the adoptee has a negative view of their situation, even if this is subconscious. This negative view could translate to behavioural issues for the adoptee, and an emotional rollercoaster could be in store for the adoptive parents.

From the perspective of the adoptive parents, their own expectations of what parenthood should look like, or what a child or teen should do, or how they behave, influence the emotional cost of the adoption process. If, for example, the adoptive parents have an idea that their child should like X color and Y bedroom set up, and their adoptive child doesn’t like these colors or bedroom set up, they might assume they have done something wrong.

In this case, they could start their new life with their child on a negative note because of the negative (or neutral) reaction their adoptive child had regarding their choice of color and bedroom setup. In a different way, the colors and setup they chose were a gesture of goodwill. If this gesture is rejected, the adoptive parents could feel neglected by the child they felt would complete their family.

From the parents’ perspective, they could also have personal unmet expectations, which adds to the emotional toll on all involved. Parenthood, whether it’s biological, adoption, or through IVF, tests the relationship you have with your partner in ways neither of you thought of in the past.

Different parenting styles from when you and your partner were young could create emotional friction when deciding which parenting tactics to use on your own children, and there could be some deal breakers regarding parenting styles that either one of you will refuse to budge on.
For example, if partner/parent A had a childhood where they were allowed to go into the fridge at any time for snacks and food, while partner/parent B had to ask their parents to eat the snacks and food, this could create tension when they parent their own children, even without the added financial and emotional stress of the adoption process.

If there is an expectation that their child will willingly accept the rules for the fridge (like partner/parent B did in their own childhood), and these expectations aren’t met, partner/parent A and their child could be in the middle of an emotionally charged discussion of right and wrong, which adds to the emotional cost of all involved.

Usually, with biological births, there is an expectation that family members and friends—at least in the beginning—support the new parents and offer a sense of community and safety for the new family so the parents can focus on their new baby.

This support could come in the form of meals being prepared and cooked by the parents of the mom or dad; baby hampers with important items for mom and baby given by other relatives or the siblings of the new parents; or maintance issues handled by the older members of this community like mowing the lawn, keeping up with house maintainance, and general stock taking while mom and dad are settling into their new life with a newborn.

With adoption, these actions from the family’s community aren’t always performed, particularly when the adoptee is an older child or teen. If the adoptive parents have been a part of these giving communities in the past, they could assume that they will receive the same treatment when they adopt their own child or teen.

This brings us to the core point of adoption: Once the adoptee is adopted and finalized, they are their parents’ child. Biology doesn’t need an appearance here. The child is a part of the family and the parents’ community; in theory, it shouldn’t make a difference. There are many families who provide this community anyway, but sometimes they don’t. This creates an emotional cost for the adoptive family that no amount of monetary cost can replace.

I will add the completed Reference List and Questions to From Piece in the final part.

Questions to consider

Can you think of any other issues apart from monetary and emotional that could affect the adoption process?

Do you think these differences of opinion should be handled as much as possible before the final adoption process or is this a "We'll deal with it when it comes up" type of situation?

What do you think the 'norm' is regarding expectations of a family? Are these expectations understood by the adoptee, their parents, their community, or something else? Why do you think this?

Do you think some level of disappointment is to be expected from either party (the adoptee and/or the adoptive parents) or will this initial disappointment only increase the chances of family issues based on expectation in the future?

Do you think the reasons for giving the child or teen up for adoption should be explained to the child or teen from the beginning? In the case of unfit parenting, do you think it should be the child's responsibility to deal with this on their own?

Who should answer these questions? Should they be address by the orphanage, the foster family, or someone else? Why do you think this?

Do you think identity and how we develop our own identity changes from culture to culture or family to family? What happens when an adoptee doesn't have a culture to call their own?

This is understandable, but do you think it's the responsibility of the adoptive family to develop trusting behavior's or should this be handled by a therapist?

If an adoptee is young and never had a stable family life before, how do you think they would base their definition of a "happy family setup" on?

How much influence do you think the subconscious has on a positive or negative first impression when it comes to the adoptive family and their home? Why do you think this?

Without knowing what the child or teen's preferences are, do you think letting the adoptee choose their own color and setup for their bedroom to avoid adding further emotional distress of having a room that doesn't align with their personal tastes?

How do you think the rejected gesture should be handled? Should the adoptee have to explain their reasoning at all?

Do you think these personal unmet expectations should be handled, or partially handled, by the adoptee? Why or why not?

When there are different parenting tactics between two people/ parents, this could cause emotional stress for all involved. Do you think the adoptive parents should ask the adoptee what parenting style (if any) they have had in the past?

While not intentional, emotionally charged discussions cause unnecessary friction. Do you think it's safe (from an emotional perspective) to have these discussions in front of the adoptee, even when the direct outcome doesn't influence the adoptee? Why or why not?

Do you think new biological parents should have a community to lean on at all? If yes, do you think the same applies to adoptive parents? Why or why not?

What do you understand by parental support? Should/does this have a biological vs. adoptive need based on the amount of support given?

If you know an adoptive family and a biological family, have you noticed a difference in how these children/ teens are treated? If you notice a difference, why do you think there is a different in treatment?

Do you think the emotional cost of adoption sometimes outweighs the monetary cost, based on the factors in the article? If yes, what measures should adoption agencies implement to reduce these emotional costs?

There are spaces without written content on either side of the page. This is by design and to avoid me waffling instead of adding thought–out pieces of writing.

These spaces can also be used to rest your eyes between blocks of text and give you, the reader, time to process and analyze what has been said on the page so far.

Not everything needs to be jam–packed with writing and an opportunity to respond. Sometimes we need the quiet moments and empty spaces to reflect and prepare ourselves for what comes next.

This is a website for reflection and asking questions! What type of writer would I be if I made readers like you tired on purpose, just so you can finish sooner and miss the opportunity to think about what you have read?

Questions to consider

Week Four:

African Personhood and the Power of Subtle Propaganda Part Two (final part)

To resist subtle propaganda, African communities must consciously reclaim the language of personhood. This doesn’t mean rejecting globalisation or progress. Instead, these unique and complex African societies should re-root the introduction of globalization into the moral soil that is Ubuntu. The goal of modern African philosophy isn’t to retreat into isolation where new philosophies replace century–old customs, but to ensure that African modernity grows out of African philosophy, rather than replacing it.

African thought has always seen life as interconnected. It doesn’t separate the individual from the community, or the spiritual from the political. In this view, becoming a full person is a moral journey where you grow something by taking part, fulfilling your duties, and showing compassion. As thinkers like P. Mungwini have pointed out, morality here is deeply social: Your goodness is seen in how well others around you are doing, but this close connection also means that African personhood is open to change and may change whether people realize it or not. When the community’s values shift, so does the meaning of what it is to be a person.

The late Ghanaian philosopher Kwame Gyekye suggested that true personhood requires balance: As a people, autonomy should be achieved without losing solidarity within your community and yourself. In today’s world, this might mean developing critical awareness of the forces that threaten the African/Ubuntu way of life. By doing this, African people; those who study their culture; and important African figures who wish to maintain their Africanness, should learn to recognise when external messages about success, morality, or humanity conflict with their ethical frameworks.

In doing so, these advocates of the African way of community will be able to accept globalisation (which will happen whether they believe it or agree with it, regardless) in their own way and offer their people a path that sits in between modernization/globalisation, and a way to use this globalisation as a means to protect the culture and way of life by embracing a new way to connect with the eachother and the world around them.

The future of African personhood depends on memory as much as on innovation. To remain “African” in a world of shifting narratives is not to resist change, but to ensure that change still remembers the I am because we are. Being a person means more than just existing. It means existing with others by discovering your identity through community and nurturing it through relationships. This is the heart of Ubuntu, often summed up as “I am because we are.” It reflects a worldview where personhood is a shared journey, shaped by the moral, social, and spiritual life of the whole community.

Across African philosophy, voices like Gyekye, Kenyatta, Menkiti, and Senghor, have reflected on the balance between the individual and the community. Menkiti argued that being a person requires others and this inclusion leads to a moral and social maturity mark of true humanity. Gyekye, though, warned that community pressure can sometimes be overwhelming, silencing personal voice and difference.

This ongoing dialogue helps us see a balance between the old and the new, between the isolated and the commune: The individual and the community reflect each other’s humanity. Propaganda is usually seen as loud and forceful, but the strongest kind is often quiet and gentle. In modern African societies, it often wears the mask of dreams and hope. It slips in through ads, movies, schools, and policies. It rewrites what success, beauty, and progress mean. Slowly, the foundation of Africanness, which is a deep sense of belonging, duty, and moral personhood, is seen through a new lens.

Being “a person” starts to mean being successful by global standards, instead of being responsible within the community.

Instead of saying:

Leave your culture behind

it says:

modernize

Instead of saying:

forget your roots

it says

fit in

These quiet messages work well in communities because they don’t just target people; they reshape shared ideas, ideas that have a longer historical background than many of us from the West realize.

When the majority of African people start believing that true success means copying Western ways, the community’s values begin to shift. The shared sense of duty and growth tilts toward competition, image, and consumption instead of their roots and a calm entry to the world of philosophy and togetherness.

Subtle propaganda doesn’t just change opinions, it changes what people value. When it shifts what counts as progress, smarts, or dignity, it quietly rewrites what it means to be a “full person” in African thinking. When Western individualism becomes the goal, the concept of Ubuntu shifts from a historical way of life with connections to a wide range of African belief systems, into a buzzword people use in their headlines for clickbait. When genuine community service is replaced by showy activism, moral personhood turns into something for display without the importance of the practice of this philosophy.

When traditional languages and clothing styles are judged as signs of being backward in comparison “to the prosperous West”, cultural identity becomes something to negotiate instead of a lived experience. This change happens slowly and politely. The harshness of colonization and large companies trying to carve up even more territory for material gains isn't as prominent anymore. Instead, through shaping stories and ideas to fit the past instead of the other way around.

Isolated communities without real–world experience of how damaging the consumerism debate can be for those in “the prosperous West” could start searching for this globalisation and modernisation fix, and try to participate in the cult of the new. When this happens, the other side—the historical side— could start expecting the progress in what these messages promise: Global respect for their country, a modern platform for them to trade and share their knowledge, and increased economic access to the raw materials their country produces.

In theory, these are reasonable and somewhat expected of a modern society, but the issue is this: Modern society in the West, compared to a modernized society in Africa, has very different goals and outcomes of chasing this type of life. In chasing the modernity goals for the sake of keeping up with global markets, people may lose hold of the spiritual core of African identity: The sense that the self exists through others.

This tension echoes the debate between autonomy and community. African personhood needs both: People grow through their community, but communities must protect each person’s freedom to grow, question, and change the status quo if it doesn’t serve the greater good of their community anymore. Subtle propaganda shakes this balance by masking dependence as freedom. It convinces people that being independent means being separate, not responsibly connected. It tells communities that unity means conforming to outside ideas.

The result is a kind of social confusion: People stay connected to the world but lose meaningful connections with each other. To push back, African communities could deliberately reclaim how they talk about personhood. This doesn’t mean rejecting progress or the wider world, but rooting these in Ubuntu’s moral heart. The aim isn’t isolation, but for African modernity to grow from African philosophy, not replace it.

The future of African personhood depends on the memory of the past and the importance of community within the ego, and growth in the modern world that encompasses past and present individual developments. Staying “African” in a changing world isn’t about resisting change. Its about making sure those who are going through the change remembers the African/Ubuntu ethos of "I am because we are".

Important Philosophers:

Jomo Kenyatta. Born c. 1897, died 22 August 1978
Ifeanyi Menkiti. Born 1940, died 2019
Kwame Gyekye. Born 1939, died 2019
Léopold Sédar Senghor. Born 9 October 1906, died 20 December 2001
Pedzisai Mungwini. Born 1969 (still living)

Questions from Piece:

Are all African philosophers and their philosophies as valid as the next?
In African philosophy, are there as many branches as found in Western philosophy (metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, etc.)?
Is it possible to reclaim personhood once it has been taken away?
Is personhood and ethics understood as one in African philosophy?
What are the differences between Western and African philosophy?
What is personhood?

References

Behrendt, R.-P. (2020). Self-Preservation at the Centre of Personality. Vernon Press.
Eze, M.O. (2014). What Is African Communitarianism? Against Consensus as a Regulative Ideal. [online] National Inquiry Services Centre. Available at: https://www.nisc.co.za/products/abstracts/16721//what-is-african-communitarianism-against-consensus-as-a-regulative-idea.
Gyekye, K. (1997). Tradition and Modernity: Philosophical Reflections on the African Experience. New York: Oxford University Press.
Metz, T. (2021). Ubuntu: The Good Life. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, [online] pp.1–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_4029-2.
Mungwini, P. (2020). Struggles for Self-liberation in African Philosophy. Phronimon, 21. doi: https://doi.org/10.25159/2413-3086/7509.
Ramose, M.B. (1999). African Philosophy through Ubuntu. WorldCat.
Thiongʼo, N.W. (1986). Decolonising the mind: the Politics of Language in African Literature. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers; London, p.16.
Tutu, D. (1999). No Future without Forgiveness. New York: Doubleday.
Wiredu, K. (1996). Cultural Universals and Particulars: An African Perspective. [online] Bloomington, USA: Indiana University Press. Available at: https://iupress.org/9780253210807/cultural-universals-and-particulars.
Wiredu, K. and Gyekye, K. (1992). Person and community. Washington (D.C.): Council For Research In Values And Philosophy, Cop, pp.171–181.

Questions to consider

Why do you think personhood is a language? Does this language change according to the people seeking personhood?

Do you think one type of personhood is superior to the other (Western vs. African)? Why or why not?

Do you think a non–social morality system can/does exist? Why do you think this?

What do you understand by solidarity in this case/example?

Do you think Africanness can be lost, given the right circumstances? Why or why not?

Do you think everyone should accept globalization for the advancement of thier country/city? Why or why not?

How do you think people can discover their identity through personhood? Is personhood and identity the same?

What if the others don't consent to be used to gain personhood? Should the person trying to gain personhood tell those around them what they are doing and why?

How do you think this is possible of cities have limited access to resources? Are these messages then spread by word of mouth? Will this make them less or more credible and/or practical to use?

Who decided to change how things are understood?

How, do you think, the general population adapts to changes that weren't made for/by them in terms of assimilation? What makes you think like this?

How quickly are ideas reshaped using subtle propaganda? Do you think this method is more affective than overt propaganda? Why or why not?

How would African communities know what to compete with/as if they aren't aware of the global trends? Will the compete with one another? Why do you think so?

Where does this concept come from? Do you think thriving cities in Africa view the West in this regard?

Do you think globalization and modernization solves most problems faced by modern societies? Can you think of an area where these might come short regarding problem solving?

In your opinion, how do countries and communities set goals and outcomes for their people? Is this a collective effort? Why do you think this?

Can you think of a common denominator between Western and African personhood? Do you think these similarities (if any) help either side understand each other better?

Isn't this the opposite of community? What do you think outside ideas usually do for a community: Strengthen them or cause rifts?

Do you think anyone other than those not directly affected by the troubles of personhood should say "could do this" or "should do this" when discussing these issues? If not, is there ever a time where this is acceptable? Why do you think this?

Given the context of this blogacle, what do you think 'ego' looks like from an African perspective?

Do you think value systems are dictated by personhood and morality, or the other way around? Why do you think this?

Why do you think personhood is a language? Does this language change according to the people seeking personhood?

Influential Ethics for October

Week One:

Private agency adoption.

so the examples below will focus on the two practiced and legal forms of adoption in the European Union: Foster care adoption and international adoption.

​

Week Two:

Week Three:

Week Four: