|
Complementary Reflection, African Philosophy and General Issues in Philosophy |
COMPLEMENTARY REFLECTION AND THE
by
IKEGBU, EPHRAIM AHAMEFULA
Preamble
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapter Two: Complementarism and individualism:
A Synthesis
Chapter Three: Complementarism and Hierarchy of Social
Order
Chapter Four: Complementarism, Globalization and the
21st Century Challenge
Conclusion
Works cited
The International corporations
have evidently declared ideological war on the “antiquated” nation-state… The
charge that materialism, modernization and internationalism is the new liberal creed of
corporate capitalism is a valid one.
The implication is clear, the nation-state as a political unit of democratic
decision-making must in the interest of “progress” yield control to the new
mercantile mini-powers… while the structure of the multinational corporation is
a modern concept designed to meet the requirements of a modern age, the
nation-state is a very old-fashioned idea and badly adopted to serve the needs
of our present complex world (Gilpin, 20).
Complementary reflection or
harmonious complementarity is a philosophical ideology, which seeks to build bridges
of unity between and among competing interests recognizing deeply the
potentialities of each other. It is a
philosophy that conscientiously and consciously seeks to banish the tendencies
of individualism, capitalism and all manner of “selfish” and personal or
private “estates”.
The attempt to free society and
humanity from the misuse of personal acquisition of wealth and other
domineering influences as an integral dimension of complementary reflection
expressed above is not an easy task, considering the human nature and
psychological state of man. In this
21st century, Professor Asouzu discovers the gainful ingenuity associated with
harmonious complementarism, and the need for unity among people as the only
therapy for building a sound and virile society.
Accordingly, the harvest of his
intellectual brilliance as he captures the glimpse of harmonious
complementarism was empirically exhibited, in his two recent works: “Effective
Leadership and the Ambivalence of Human Interest: The Nigerian Paradox in a complementary Perspective” and; “The
Method and Principles of Complementary Reflection in and beyond African
Philosophy.”
The two volumes however, seek to
address the perennial problems associated with leadership in
A concept that best captures
this trend and some of the ideals driving it is the idea of globalization. Fundamentally, globalization seeks to
express a sort of universal humanism designed to make the world a better place
for all based on equal opportunities, rights and privileges. It is an attempt at eradicating all forms of
injustice and at encouraging mutual support among communities, peoples and
nations (2004, 27).
From the face value
of the above presentation there appears to be wisdom in the expression. But does this concept capture the above
meaning? Does humanity really exist in an atmosphere of equal opportunity
devoid of dominance and exploitation by a perceived upper class? To what extent
has this concept addressed the sinister of dominance, inequality and other
social absurdities? How careful is
humanity to trace the implications of this concept? Could it not be another
international propaganda to further imperialise the peripheral countries?
The above questions are cardinal
when interpreting and explaining the epistemic framework of globalization,
especially, as it seeks to negate the sovereignty of nations, believing
strongly in the spirit of new world order.
The assignment bothers principally
on the need to build a strong, united and virile society using the advocacy of
Professor Asouzu as an epistemological gateway to drive home the argument. As a puzzle in social phenomenon, concepts
that are common occurrence in the cause of the exercise shall be explained for
proper understanding and philosophical absorption.
CHAPTER TWO
In the introductory aspect of this
exercise, I had argued that the need to remove/eradicate in our psychology, “selfism”
and act of parochialism is the major reason for introducing in the vocabulary
of philosophy and social phenomenon, the concept of complementarism.
In our daily affairs, we are
completely saddled with the responsibility of seeking for our personal
intentions and goals, disregarding the existence of others around us. We are only interested on things that would
improve our personal ego, welfare, and other personal achievements. This kind of thought pattern dominates our
activities, and it is the same spirit that guides our relationship with
others. With the spirit of
individualism scattered all over our psychology, or being our mental attitude,
we tend to exhibit care-free attitude on the affairs of other humans in the
society.
This implies that, in all our daily
programmes, we are determined to seek for our personal interests alone. This is the attitude we exhibit in politics,
education, religion, economy and other aspects of life. To what extent do we intend to make
progress, if we continue to work alone, and seek for personal interests?
However, progress is earmarked when
humanity realizes to function cooperatively and complementarily. The dream of building a strong, united,
crime free and virile society can not be achieved neither now nor in future if
humanity continues to exist individually.
This is premised on the logic that progress requires collectivity of
responsibility. If humanity is
conscious of this obvious fact that individualism does not promote social
engineering then, advancement in all spheres of human endeavour can be
achieved. It is an error to completely
isolate or annihilate a certain class and perhaps label them “worthless
individuals in the scheme of things”.
By the time we adopt this principles of individualism and isolationism,
it becomes difficult to know who is what in the scheme of things. As a result of this, we are cut short of
reality, as we are unable to determine the exact position of the fellow or
group we have abandoned due to our self-seeking philosophy. This development is what Professor Asouzu
summed up as “missing links”. According
to him:
The missing links are the
diverse components or entities of which any existing reality is constituted. Now if the different components that make up
a system are viewed in isolation and singly, we can say that they are missing
in relation to one another in a way.
They are missing in the sense that, as discrete entities, each can be
viewed in isolation to each and in total disregard to each other. When this happens, a unit can be unaware of
the other and in this moment, the one that it is unaware of is missing (Asouzu,
2003: 58-59)
The above expression reminds us of
the two principal theories of the state: The Machine theory and the organist
theory. The machine theory views the
state as an artifact created by man for a particular purpose, and it is useful
only in the context to which it is created.
While the organist theory or the contrary, views man to be the product
of the state, which in collectivism with the component units makes
progress. The best fitted theory in
line with the above expression is the later.
The logic in the later hinges on the need for cooperation and collective
efforts of all members of the society.
The organist theorist sees wisdom in collective efforts of individuals
as a therapeutic measure for progress and even development. Through this collective progress and unism,
it becomes easy to know what progress is being expected and what is happening
to any member of the society. This is
because, in an organic state, what affects a part, affects the whole.
To further elucidate on this, the
philosophy of complementarism is a fruit-yielding ideology tactically expressed
in the philosophies of “Ujamma”, “Negritude”, “consciencism” etc. These philosophies by African philosophers
were targeted at re-awakening the “African consciousness” which is centered on
brotherhood. The philosophical latitude
of Africans before the invading of the colonialists was on the concept of
“brotherhood”, aligning centrally with the postulation of the organic theory of
the state and also in conformity with the complementarity thesis of Professor
Asouzu. To justify the above claim,
Nyerere argues that:
All of us have to accept the
paramountcy of Africa, and Brotherhood and cooperation with Africa, over all
outside relationships (13)
Actually, Africa
had a consistent pattern of administration, which was unique before the
colonial masters took over the land of Africa. Africa before this century was a continent with recognized
administration whose centrality is on unity of purpose. The African continent before this period was
a continent that recognizes the potentialities of others, a continent that
seeks to abhor in its entirety all manners of individualism. It is a society that builds its foundation
on the spirit of egalitarianism. For
the Africans, the community exist only in the context of the individuals, and
when the individuals are completely absent it no longer exist, the community
also, ceases to exist. Therefore,
within a complementary framework, the individuals and community need each
other, and each cannot claim to be superior to the other, but needs harmonious
complementation. The wisdom depicted in
the above lies on the expression that the community is part of the individual,
and by accepting the existence of the community, it has given the individual a
self definition.
This
is necessary because, within a complementary framework, pains, joys, happiness,
blames and other attendant benefits are shared in line with this spirit of
complementarism as Prof. Asouzu posits:
Here we seek to draw all the
consequences associated with our rights and obligations as beings that live in
close complementary relationship with others similar to ourselves. In the consummation of complementary
reflection in this regard, something striking becomes evident to the mind. This is the fact that every human being is
beneficiary of the infinite goodness that sustains the experience of
transcendent complementary unity of consciousness. The same is applicable to the obligations that derive from this
(478).
African society before the
colonialist was conscious of building an harmonious and peaceful community,
which is based on the concept of brotherhood.
For Africans, the act of individualism is an aberration. It is foreign and anti Africa, and in the
thinking of Africans, has to be ignored and pushed aside. This expression is validly articulated in
Nwoko’s The Rationality of African Socialism, as he argues that:
African traditional society is
a society where the individual is always considered a free, integrated member
of his community, a communion person.
It is a society where individualism is considered a taboo, where each
member takes the interest of the community as his own. His pride is community is power. The more united he is to the community, the
more he sees the community as a mere extension of the family (71-72)
This philosophy of
communalism, cooperatism, brotherhood and complementarism were replicant of
African civilization and socialization before the incursion of the whiteman. The Europeans used religion as a dangerous
tool or weapon to collapse the African civilization and heritage. Africa’s value system was exploited and
extinct from relevance. This stream of
thought is evidently showcased in the writings of Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall
Apart. The symbolic display of
characters and events in the said book is an analyses of the traditional
African Society with harmonious complementarity in all aspects of their
existence before their collapse.
What Achebe displayed in the book
symbolizes the complete African traditional model of administration in all
facets of life in dispensing judgement, and punishing offenders. The obvious act of complementing each others
responsibility and sharing the pains of each other were not left out. To buttress this claim, Achebe presented an
African way of dispensing judgement and instant punishment when tragedy fall on
Okonkwo during the burial rites of Mazi Ezeudu, Okonkwo had committed female
crime when he inadvertently killed the son of
Mazi Ezeudu. The punishment was
for him to flee from Umuofia for seven years including his family and his
compound was set ablaze. This was done
in order to appease the gods of the land.
For the interest of the community surpasses that of the individual.
This attitude was the communalistic
and complementarity spirit that characterized the Africans before the advent of
colonialism. Suffice it to say that
individualism which contradicts the principles of harmonious complementarity is
a foreign policy that is packaged by the western countries to further exploit
the African values, and further display their colonialistic tendencies.
Within the length and breadth of
scholastic and intellectual debates, it is a truism that individualism, no
matter how one tries or attempts to defend it, does not promote social justice
and equality. The spirit of
individualism is accompanied by forces of domination, exploration, cheating,
maiming, and other obnoxious or harshy conditions that do not allow their
victims to grow.
Individualism promotes inequality
and this inequality is a dangerous social phenomenon. This is because, the bulk of the problems and spectre of violence
in Nigeria and other third world countries are consequences of inequality. The capitalist tendencies, which promote
individualism, have sown the seed of destruction and monumental violence as a
result of man’s parochial needs without accommodating the interest or needs of
his fellow.
The implications of social
inequality predated history. This is
hinged on the fact that human beings by nature are equal. Rousseau assumes or constructs a pre-social
original state in which there was complete equality of all, where no one was superior
to anyone else in either rank or status.
He (Rousseau) argues that:
Inequality came about as a
result of leaving the state of nature; it is a kind of original sin, which he
links with the emergence of private property… The first man who fenced in an
area and said, “This is mine”, and who found people simple enough to believe
him was the real founder of civil society (22)
From the above
expression , it is latent to believe strongly that individualism is associated
with private property. And when one
begins to pursue personal or private estates, he completely dissociates himself
from the harmonious complementarity of the whole members of the society. The character of individualism is heavily
reflected in all his activities. A
question may be put in this perspective – is it possible in this century to
have an harmonious society devoid of individualism? Actually, the above question may appear simpler but it has a
network of complexities. To say the
least, the life of every individual ‘is full of emotions, psychological
dispositions and separate value system.
With these emotions and other peculiar circumstances being pursued,
issues are viewed and assessed individually and privately basically on how they
affect or influence the fellow. As a
result of the above prevailing circumstances, to foster a co-operative and
harmonious task becomes too cumbersome to achieve. This is because of the obvious implications of relating with a
society that has a common philosophy and ideology.
The game plan of ensuring an
individual – free society necessitated the formation of a radical movement of
Marxism. Marxism takes up the challenge
of attacking the exploitative, explorative, domineering and the capitalist
tendencies of the upper class. The
capitalist as an advocate of individualism does not believe in complementary
efforts of the members of the society for such attitude will not advance its
profiteering measures. Rather, it
believes in the act of investing its resources for the purpose of profit
maximization. With this attitude, we
begin to see the American campaign for globalization as both a false start and
fraudulent, especially in alliance with the International financial
conspirators.
As argued earlier, individualism
creates a widespread gap between two classes of being. Those that are in control of the resources,
who have the commanding heights of the economy and, purposely invested on it
for profit maximization; and the lunpen workers who had nothing, but are hired
by the capitalist, whose labour and overtime the Capitalist used to create
surplus value for itself. The two
distinct economic and social poles are continuously in parallel, as the gap
between the haves and not-haves widens daily.
The haves enjoy economic monopoly and carefully invest in the core areas
of economy exploiting and explorating the best of the state. Their policy of domination is being carried
out by the multinationals or trans-national corporations as the case may be.
Within the economic axis, some
analysts have viewed the activities of these corporations as agents of
civilization and development especially in the third world countries while
others have argued that the multinationals are basic tools for imperialism and
underdevelopment. In the light of the
above, Gilpin argues that:
Since the end of the second
world war no aspect of international political economy has generated more
controversy than the global expansion of multinational corporations. Some consider these powerful corporations to
be a boom to mankind. Superceding the
nation-state, diffusing technology and economic growth to developing countries,
and interlocking national economics into an expanding and beneficial
interdependence. Others view them as
imperialistic predators, exploiting all for the sake of the corporate few while
creating a web of political dependence and economic underdevelopment (231)
The above extract
by Gilpin in a nutshell captures the mix-feelings and different perception
people have about the multinational corporations or advanced countries. From the argument, it is gathered that their
activities had benefits the developmental strides of the third world countries,
while in some areas, they were viewed negatively, as agents of
underdevelopment. Taking a bold
position, within a complementary framework, the advanced countries or the
developed nations who parade high rated technologies and world-class industries
could not hae achieved these without the cooperation and the raw materials from
the third world and African countries per se.
Their deals with these less privileged and technologically backward
states are prosecuted with dishonesty as they indicate interest in the core
areas of the economy. They claim to be
the engine of development among the third world disregarding any material
benefits from the third worlds when in the actual sense, the core countries are
explorating and exploiting the third world values for their own parochial
gains, negating any complementary linkage.
Being mindful of the individualistic
mindset of the capitalist countries and their agents, R. Caves argues that:
… and oligopolistic
corporation in which ownership, management production, and sales activities
extend over several national jurisdiction. It is comprised of a head office in one country, with a cluster
of subsidiaries in other countries.
The principal objectives of the corporation is to secure the least
costly production of goods for world markets; this goal may be achieved through
acquiring the most efficient locations for production facilities or obtaining
taxation concessions from host government (R. Caves cited by Bassey, 152).
Having gone far on individualism and complementarism, and also x-rayed
to discover that individual’s lives today is characterized by personal motives,
and interest. The concept of
altruism and universal complementarism as a social creed, is better imagined,
as such concept may not find a place in our social vocabulary.
CHAPTER THREE
One
can attempt in broad terms, to apply this comparative perspective to the
American racist phenomenon. No
doubt, society did not completely cease to be society, as a hierarchized whole,
on the day it willed itself to be simply a collection of individuals. In particular, the tendency to make
hierarchical differentials continued.
In another angle, racism is more often than not, understood to be a
modern phenomenon its economic causes of its emergence have sometimes been
sought, while much closer and more probable ideological connections were
ignored. Arguing this path, the
simplest hypothesis is to assume that racism fulfils an old duty under a new
form. It compels us to assume that it
was representing in an equalitarian society a resurgence of what was
differently and more directly and naturally expressed in a hierarchical society.
The
perceived domineering tendencies and obvious claim of superiority between and
among people and countries is a complete negation of the theses of harmonious
complementarity. This is
because, in a complementary framework, the whole and part (unit) are one and
the same. The whole makes meaning in
the context of the part vice versa. The
above reasoning implies that an individual cannot be its complete self in all
circumstances without the positive or negative influence of other(s).
We
are aware of the psychological dispositions and self-seeking posture of human
beings as the determining factors of their behaviour which incidentally drive
people to their actions. The
truth of the matter is that human beings are not completely or absolutely
conscious of their existence so as to understand the complementary linkages of
their being. In the event that humanity
is aware of this obvious complementary linkage, it would be easier therefore,
to understand that every being is a combination of beings in all
ramifications. Implying that, at any
time one is pursuing a self-seeking goal, the goal is targeted against oneself
in a complementary understanding. TO
use the exact word of Prof. Asouzu, which could be seen as the theme of this
book: “Consequent self interest is anti self-interest”. Within a complementary framework with its
conscious understanding and application, hierarchy of being does not exist. This is because, people(s) are to complement
each other without recourse to social stratification. What this implies is that, in a complementing understanding,
equality of purpose and ideals are utmost. No individual is superior to the
other, as every individual is defined in the context of other individuals, without
which the complete understanding of the individual will be impossible.
Within
this complementary framework and understanding, can there be a hierarchy of
social order? Can there be a
western hegemony? Can the west be
adjudged superior to the Africans after sapping the raw materials from African,
refine them, and produce them as finished goods and send them back to
Africa? Can they claim supremacy in
isolation with the units? The truth is
that thee can not be absolute claim to superiority and hierarchy by the west or
any individual when the units complement each other.
In
the light of the above complementing understanding, whatever anyone is today or
any nation, is a mutual complementation of component units.
I want
to believe strongly that hierarchy or hierarchical distinctions in the globe
and its attendant racial discriminations are the consequences of social
inequality and disorder in the universe. For instance, make distinction illegitimate and you get discrimination;
suppress the former modes of distinction and you have a racist ideology. It is historically evident that societies in
the past knew a hierarchy of status bringing with it privileges and
disabilities among others the total juridical disability of slavery.
Dumont
arguing in defense of social inequality in the United States of America posits
that:
Now the history of the United
States tells just this – that racial discrimination succeeded the slavery of
the Negro people once the latter was abolished – one is tempted to wonder why
this all-important transition has not been more systematically studied, from
sociological point of view, then it seems to have been but perhaps one’s
ignorance is the answer (356-357)
The distinction between
master and slave was replaced by the discrimination of the white against the
Black. The issue of class
distinction, racism, discrimination, slavery and social inequality in the
society is as old as humanity. These
anti-social attributes developed the moment civil society was founded. To clearly justify this claim, for the
Greeks as for others, foreigners were barbarians strangers to the civilization
and society of the “we”; for that reason they could be enslaved. This accounts for why slavery played a
tremendous role in the economy of the Greeks.
And Aristotle ably argued that slavery is both expedient and natural”.
The phenomenon of hierarchical
structure of the society into upper and lower, north and south, core and
periphery and other perceived institutional structures have really impaired on
the peaceful co-existence of men in the society. Proliferation of arms and hitech, have equally made it possible
for some countries to claim dominion over others. By so doing, countries that are industrially and technologically
advanced view their position as an advantage to impose their selfish policies
and trade pacts with other countries of less economic, industrial, political
and technological powers.
Today, it is a growing belief that
the African continent and her related cousins in the third world depend on the
western countries for all manner of development. It is also, assumed that, trade and economic relationships
between these countries are merely for the development of the third worlds
without the western countries benefiting from such relationship. But we know of a truth that this kind of
argument does not only lack merit but flies on the face of culture and
tradition. The underdevelopment
paradigm of the African continent today was as a result of her unholy romance
with the west. There was during this
period of economic relation, absolute absence of the sense of complementarism
as it relates to western countries that consider themselves absolutely independent
on others. That was why the western
countries sapped the African raw materials for their own development.
With these absence of the
consciousness of mutual complementation prevalent in social relations, it
becomes difficult to subscribe to the western ideologies or policies of unilaterianism. For their policies would negate the
principle of harmonious complementarity.
Professor Asouzu making case for a worthwhile complementarism to reflect
in all our programmes argues:
… any form of human
relationship that does not aim at comprehensiveness and universality curtails
our chances of fully actualizing our potentialities and living authentically. For this reason, complementarism sensitizes
us about the preceding conditions for the realization of the goals we set to
ourselves as rational being. These
conditions subsist in defining our interests in a way that they harmonize with
the interests of others, which is concretely represented by the common good
(Asouzu, 2004, 47).
How do we harmonize our interests or
define them to reflect the interest of others?
Do we negate completely and absolutely the existence of psychological
drives and personal motives and emotions that direct our affairs? This is where the problem lies, and the
difficulty in realizing global peace and order, because, our actions and
behaivour are primordially and parochially situated. As a result of this phenomenon, supremacy and superiority of
countries over others come into play and collapse the sovereignty of the
countries. A leading example is the
American hegemonic influence over other countries especially as it relates to
its recent attack of Iraq. We accept concretely that harmonization of
interests will definitely bring global and regional peace if this principle of
complementarity is religiously implemented as a global ideology.
COMPLEMENTARISM, GLOBALIZATION
AND
THE 21ST CENTURY CHALLENGE
Complementarism as a reconciliatory
philosophical drive is timely in this century owing to the growing tendencies
of usurpation, global conflict, and display of economic and hegemonic
influences. This principle
nevertheless, serves as a unifying force, which seeks to relax the excessive
display of superiority over and above other parts of the world.
Complementarity thesis as a healing
balm is strategically required in the homes, the states, nations and the world
at large as a result of its overbearing hypotheses. . The growing and
overbearing influence of human interest had given capitalism a feat over
socialism and this has necessitated the campaign for the nullification and
total collapse of socialism world over American cannot deny being the chief
protagonist of this campaign.
In order to achieve this economic
and political dreams, there is a coalition forces between the policemen of
democracy (America) and the international financial agencies – IMF, World Bank
who are viewed as economic predators.
With the collaboration of these forces, America seeks to unite the world
and impose its economic policies on the world at large. The sale of this American ideology or
policy, or even the Americanization of the entire world is an arduous
challenge, which is gathering momentum through the new economic regime. This American opinion is expressible through
the concept of globalization.
Arguing against the strength of
globalization as a homogenous concept, Professor Asouzu posits:
The mass hysteria occasioned
by such conceptualizations of globalization often triggers off emotional
fantasies that sediment to animosities and uneasiness among people of divergent
interests. It is for this reason
that globalization is easily identified with neo-imperialism and
neo-colonialism and with the re-emergence of old ideologies and techniques of
colonization and exploitation in new cloaks and in new languages with the view
of playing the same old games with new rules.
Here some believe that such new concepts as international co-operation,
privatization, deregulation, indigenization, and commercialization of public
assets are mere ploys devised by a few smart individuals and countries towards
political, economic, and cultural hegemony over their less fortunate
neighbours. In this way, globalization
has come to be equated with a despicable form of internationalization and
homogenization of the world towards the loss of sovereignty and autonomy of
nations, ethnic nationalities and other minority groups (Asouzu, 2004, 30-31)
The understanding
here is that the capitalist states have joined hands and come up with this
concept in order to continue perpetrating their obnoxious ideals on the less
powerful states. By this
expression, it implies that globalization is a terminology ideally used to
confuse the peripheral states, as the concept still shares the characters of
imperialism and colonialism.
Giving credence to the negative
understanding of the concept, Giovanni Arrighi notes that:
As we coin new terms, such as
“globalization” to capture the novelty of emergent conditions, we compound the
confusion by carelessly pouring old wine in new bottles… we must preliminarily
recognize that key aspects of these transformations are either not new at all
or are new in degree but not in kind (1).
Globalization is not a concept the whole world should all embrace as if
it has reached the peak in all ramifications. Thus, globalization, is an economic as well as political design
to further imperialize and sap the best of their victims by the world
capitalists. No matter how they try to impress
the world through the advancement in technology, it is another economic regime,
which is not new at all as Harvey notes:
As critics of the notion have
pointed out, many of the tendencies that go under that name are not new at all. The newness of the so-called information
revolution is impressive but the newness of the railroad and the telegraph, the
automobile, the radio, and the telephone in their day impressed equally… even
the so-called actualization of economic activity is not as new as it may appear
at first sight (9).
The required spirit
that should guide and bind the world in this century is the spirit of
harmonious complementarity
. The wisdom in complementanism
is that which seeks to recognize the contributions of all and sundry. It is not a spirit that dwarfs any segment
of the world. It believes that we can
complement one another and make progress from there. Therefore, for there to be a global peace, this philosophy of
complementarism should be seen as a global sermon that ought to be preached in
all areas of our endeavour. The idea of
supremacy, superiority and display of hegemony can not lead us to the path of
progress and peace. The 21st century
wisdom is geared towards cooperation, complementation and not excessive display
of power. Promoting the concept of
globalization as a virtue, implies further promotion of imperialism and
neo-colonialism. The ideals enshrined
in the idea o globalization can be subjected to the transforming influence of
complementarism as the philosophy of the new world order.
We have the misfortune of being in a
world that is characterized by competition, domination, strife etc. The above characterizations do not come from
the blues, but are antecedence of human nature. The obvious display and acquisition of these attributes make it
possible and convincing enough for human interests to be pursued above and
beyond the public good. In a world of
this kind, it becomes pretty difficult to harmonize peoples’ interests so as to
reflect the character of an ideal society.
More worrisome is the proliferation of arms, display of hegemony, new
economic regime, and consequent collapse of recognizable values.
In the face of the above anomalous
situation complementary reflection as a new philosophical attitude is a
packaged therapeutical weapon to address this confusing phenomenon. What we as humans desire in this 21st
century is to harmonize our parochial interests so as to accommodate others in
line with public good. The attitude of
self-preservation, self-realization and other motives are anti humanism.
Achebe, Chinua. Things
Fall Apart. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books, 1978.
Andre, Beteille ed.
Social Inequality. London: Penguin Books, 1969.
Asouzu, Innocent I.
Effective Leadership and the Ambivalence of Human Interest:
The Nigerian Paradox
in a complementary Perspective. Calabar: University of Calabar Press, 2003.
_______________ The
Method and Principles of Complementary Reflection in and
beyond African Philosophy.
Calabar: University of Calabar Press, 2004.
Bassey, Celestine O.
“Multinational Corporations and the Nigerian Economy”.
Ozumb, G.O. ed. Nigeria
Government and Politics. Aba: Vitalis Books, 1997, 142-178.
Dahrendorf, R. “On
the origin of Inequality among men”. Andre Beteille ed.
Social
Inequality. London: Penguin Books, 1969, 17-44.
Dumont, L. “Caste,
Racism and Stratification: Reflections of a Social Anthropologist”.
Andre
Beteille ed. Social Inequality. London: Penguin Books, 1969, 337-361.
Gilpin, Robert. U.S.
Power and Multinational Corporation. London: Basic Books Inc.
1975.
______ The
Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton: Princeton Univ.
Press, 1987.
Giovanni Arrighi.
“A Crisis of Hegemony”. S. Amin, et al
Dynamics of Global Crisis.
New York: Monthly Review Press,
1982, 55-108.
Harvey, David.
“Globalization in Question”. Rethinking Marxism. 1995
Source:
Google. Com
Ikegbu, Ephraim A.
“African Communalism”. Ozumba, G. O. ed. A colloquium on
African
Philosophy Volume 1, Calabar: Pyramid Publishers, 2003, 31-46.
Nwoko, Matthew I. The
Rationality of African
Socialism. Roma, 1985.
Nyerere, Julius. Ujamaa:
The basis of African Socialism. Dares Salam: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1970.
______________. Freedom
and Socialism. Nairobi: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968.