This is the second part or essay on the method of conversationalism. In the previous post, I could not place all of the thoughts into one meaningful post. I will attempt to briefly summarize the previous post. Chimakonam starts by methodizing or turning relationship into method. His understanding of relationship is also not the colloquial one; he prefers the idea of relationship being a critical and creative encounter. The “other” is thus integral to this kind of relationship. Being critical and creative, a casual (or again colloquial understanding) of conversation cannot be promoted. Again, Chimakonam prefers the Igbo understanding of conversation as being engaged in a critical and creative conversation. This necessitates two positions, subsequently called nwa-nsa and nwa-nju, or the proponent (similar to thesis) and the doubter (similar to anti-thesis). Because these are usually two physical human beings (it can be texts as well) one would not want to reach a synthesis in which these positions are discarded (think Hegelian dialectic). Instead, we want to sustain this creative conversation indefinitely, but each time at a higher level than the previous time. Chimakonam states that such a conversation as having a “transgenerational life-span”. But more on this later.

I hope I sufficiently summarized the previous post. In today’s post, I want to lay on the table the first of two ideas, namely, introducing the five integral or foundational elements of conversationalism. Secondly in a future post, I will discuss the two assumed theses underlying the method of conversationalism. Both these posts will make clear how the method functions. I hope that you learn something from this discussion. Without further ado!

Five Integral Elements of Conversationalism

In my reading of

• Chimakonam, J.O., 2017a. Conversationalism as an emerging method of thinking in and beyond African philosophy. Acta Academica, 49(2):11-33.

• Chimakonam, J.O., 2017b. What is conversational philosophy? A prescription of a new theory and method of philosophising, in and beyond African philosophy. Phronimon, 18, pp.115-130.

I have summarized five integral elements that one should understand to adequately appreciate the method. I want to discuss each element in a little more detail.

1. A Creative Struggle vs. a Creative Surrender

As already discussed in the above summary and in the previous post/Ph.D. dump Chimakonam does not advocate for a dialectical relationship in which one strives for a synthesis of thesis and anti-thesis. Instead, there is only one position “nwa-nsa” and the other party “nwa-nju” whose obligation it is to challenge nwa-nsa in order “to reveal its loopholes and creatively fill up the lacunas” (Chimakonam, 2017b:121). Differences are thus not uncritically smoothed out and actually encouraged. Moreover, in contrast to “creative struggle”, by compromising and surrendering to the demand of a synthesis, the relationship is characterised by what Chimakonam (2017a:17) calls a “creative surrender”. One thus surrenders and effectively ends the conversation due to the demands of the dialectical relationship. The opposite is thus called the “creative struggle” because it always prefers to keep the conversation alive and active, whilst at the same time creating new and improved concepts.

2. Complementation

Nwa-nsa, subsequent to the creative struggle, “reinvents” her position. This is, in part, due to the relentless attacking of nwa-nju. The “reinvented” nwa-nsa is not born from a synthesis but rather from a complementation. This is a continual process which stifles the compromise of synthesis (Chimakonam, 2017b:122). Neither is it similar to Socratic maieutics with the telos/goal being establishing a truth from a negation that leads to problems in the future (think about a situation in which one has “current scientific facts” and a future which disproved those “facts”) (Chimakonam, 2017a:16). Again, emphasis is on keeping the conversation active and ongoing, never halting it.

3. Transgenerational Life-span of the Conversation

This then leads to, what I have already mentioned, nwa-nsa (or thesis) having a “transgenerational life-span”; it does not end as with synthesis in which thesis position is discarded (i.e., generational life-span) (Chimakonam, 2017b:122). In other words, the idea is promoted that the conversation never really ends; there is no immediately identified telos or goal to the conversation beyond that of merely filling the gaps or lacunas of the nwa-nsa position.

4. Conversationalism as Multicultural

Chimakonam (2017b:122-123) states that “conversationalism is necessarily multicultural”. We do not live in independent silos, nor can the confrontation between cultures be excluded from philosophy. Because of our globalised world, the encounter with the other is inevitable and in need of a framework in which differences are encouraged and seen as being on an “equal playingfield” rather than a framework in which differences are placed in hierarchies; the encounter between these traditions in a conversational framework “is the actuality of a critical and fruitful encounter amongst these variables that leads to the opening up of new vistas and the unveiling of new concepts” (Chimakonam, 2017b:122-123). That is, by being open to a variety of different voices, one necessarily will create different and new concepts that one can take back to one’s own philosophy or culture.

5. Conversationalism as Transcultural

But Chimakonam (2017a:14; 2017b:123) also states that “conversationalism necessarily has to be transcultural”. That is, it does away and breaks free from hierarchical thinking especially regarding differences between cultures and philosophical traditions. No single tradition/philosophy is more important/superior than another. This is also important as conversationalism is, for example, born in Africa but it is not exclusively Afrocentrist/peculiar to Africa (Chimakonam, 2017a:14; 2017b:123). It can and should be used by other philosophical traditions.

An Understanding of Conversationalism Based on the Five Elements

It behoves me to now and try and formulated a condensed version of the above discussion into a type of understanding or working definition of conversationalism. In the next post, I will attempt to ground this understanding or working definition by looking at two important grounding theses.

Conversationalism is a method of practicing (African) philosophy in which the other plays an integral role in practicing philosophy. In other words, philosophising cannot happen without the other being present. This other is also not there in a carefree manner. The relationship and conversation are characterised by a critical and creative element. The other, called the nwa-nju, has the duty of critically conversing with nwa-nsa, the “thesis” position or the proponent of the conversation. The proponent, i.e., nwa-nsa, subsequently, has the duty to change her position based on these attacks and critical conversations. However, she does not discard her original position, in fact, she makes it better and stronger to carry on the conversation. But as soon as she changes and strengthens her position, nwa-nju can again critically converse with her. And so on, and so on. The conversation never needs to stop. Because of the preceding, a space opens in which different cultures or philosophical traditions can converse; what might follow is the sharing of different ideas, creation of new concepts, and so on. The different cultures and philosophical traditions can thus enter the nwa-nsa and nwa-nju positions in order to strengthen their philosophies. But this necessitates the method being transcultural in the sense that it is not the property of, for example, African philosophy.

Postscriptum, or A Complex Idea Rendered Understandable

How can one easily “translate” a complex idea into something understandable but at the same time coherent? Does one not somehow lose some of the complexity when you try and say it in a paragraph? But does true understanding of something not enable you to write it so concise that it can be said in a paragraph? I am not sure. I have not yet mastered the skill of writing concisely because I feel you lose the idea in simplifying it. Hence why I tried and failed to summarize this method in one single post. But I have not yet been able to master this!

In any case, I hope you at least could learn something from this very verbose post on the five important elements of conversationalism. In the next post, I will try and ground this method. In possible future posts, I will go a little bit deeper into conversationalism and the history of the method and the school of thought from which it emerged.

For now, happy learning and stay safe!

All of the writings are my own, albeit a reading of Chimakonam’s work, and based on my notes of the module I taught. Chimakonam is one of the main figures in my research and I really appreciate the method he proposes; I feel strong about promoting and growing the method. The photographs in this post are also my own, taken with my Nikon D300. I shared some of these photographs (with different editing) in a previous post.