PLS1502 SEMESTER 2 ASSESSMENT 2 2026
QUESTION 1: Can Gyekye's Moderate Communitarianism Protect Freedom of
Speech in South Africa?
INTRODUCTION
Freedom of speech is an important right in South Africa and is protected by the Bill of
Rights in the Constitution. However, this right must also be understood alongside
African ideas that place the community first. Kwame Gyekye's moderate
communitarianism and Ifeanyi Menkiti's radical communitarianism offer different views
on the relationship between the individual and the community. The meaning of freedom
of speech is also explained before using a real example from South African social
media to show why Gyekye's approach offers better protection for this right than
Menkiti's.
UNDERSTANDING MENKITI'S RADICAL COMMUNITARIANISM
Menkiti believes that the community comes first. He argues that the African view
"asserts the ontological primacy, and hence the ontological independence, of the
community" (Menkiti, 1984:171). This means the community defines who is a person.
Personhood is not given at birth but must be earned through participation in the
community (Menkiti, 1984:172).
, For Menkiti, personhood can be achieved or lost. He says "personhood is something at
which individuals could fail" (Menkiti, 1984:173). This means the community has the
power to decide who is a person and who is not. People who go against community
values risk being seen as failing to be proper persons.
This view gives the community great power over individuals. Individual rights are not
important in this framework. The community can decide what is right and wrong. People
must follow the community's rules or risk losing their personhood.
UNDERSTANDING GYEKYE'S MODERATE COMMUNITARIANISM
Gyekye agrees that humans are social beings. He says "a person is by nature a social
(communal) being" (Gyekye, 1997:300). However, Gyekye thinks Menkiti goes too far.
He argues that people are also other things. They have rationality, moral sense, and the
ability to make choices (Gyekye, 1997:305).
Gyekye proposes what he calls moderate communitarianism. This view balances
community interests with individual rights and freedom. Gyekye argues that
"personhood can only be partly, never completely, defined by one's membership of the
community" (Gyekye, 1997:306).
In Gyekye's view, individuals can question and challenge community values. He writes
that "individual persons... may find that aspects of those cultural givens are inelegant,
undignifying or unenlightening, and can thoughtfully be questioned and evaluated"
(Gyekye, 1997:305).
QUESTION 1: Can Gyekye's Moderate Communitarianism Protect Freedom of
Speech in South Africa?
INTRODUCTION
Freedom of speech is an important right in South Africa and is protected by the Bill of
Rights in the Constitution. However, this right must also be understood alongside
African ideas that place the community first. Kwame Gyekye's moderate
communitarianism and Ifeanyi Menkiti's radical communitarianism offer different views
on the relationship between the individual and the community. The meaning of freedom
of speech is also explained before using a real example from South African social
media to show why Gyekye's approach offers better protection for this right than
Menkiti's.
UNDERSTANDING MENKITI'S RADICAL COMMUNITARIANISM
Menkiti believes that the community comes first. He argues that the African view
"asserts the ontological primacy, and hence the ontological independence, of the
community" (Menkiti, 1984:171). This means the community defines who is a person.
Personhood is not given at birth but must be earned through participation in the
community (Menkiti, 1984:172).
, For Menkiti, personhood can be achieved or lost. He says "personhood is something at
which individuals could fail" (Menkiti, 1984:173). This means the community has the
power to decide who is a person and who is not. People who go against community
values risk being seen as failing to be proper persons.
This view gives the community great power over individuals. Individual rights are not
important in this framework. The community can decide what is right and wrong. People
must follow the community's rules or risk losing their personhood.
UNDERSTANDING GYEKYE'S MODERATE COMMUNITARIANISM
Gyekye agrees that humans are social beings. He says "a person is by nature a social
(communal) being" (Gyekye, 1997:300). However, Gyekye thinks Menkiti goes too far.
He argues that people are also other things. They have rationality, moral sense, and the
ability to make choices (Gyekye, 1997:305).
Gyekye proposes what he calls moderate communitarianism. This view balances
community interests with individual rights and freedom. Gyekye argues that
"personhood can only be partly, never completely, defined by one's membership of the
community" (Gyekye, 1997:306).
In Gyekye's view, individuals can question and challenge community values. He writes
that "individual persons... may find that aspects of those cultural givens are inelegant,
undignifying or unenlightening, and can thoughtfully be questioned and evaluated"
(Gyekye, 1997:305).
