Being Human Together
The African School of Conversation Philosophy
and Whitehead’s Metaphysics
The Conversational School of Philosophy, developed by Jonathan O. Chimakonam, is a philosophical movement that began in Africa and now reaches different parts of the world. Participants in the movement understand philosophical thinking as an ongoing, dialogical engagement among diverse perspectives rather than a quest for final, unified truths. It emphasizes the productive tension between differing viewpoints, where disagreement is not a problem to be solved but a resource for deepening understanding. In this way, philosophy becomes a dynamic, relational process that sustains multiplicity rather than resolving it into closure.
This school of philosophy has at least four stong benefits in our age of global diversity.
Each of these benefits is important to those participating in another philosophical tradition: process philosophy as influenced by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. Process thinkers speak of the importance of working toward world which is a network of communities not controlled by any single community: a community of communities of communities.
Nevertheless, the school of conversation philosophy presents both a challenge and an opportunity to process philosophers and theologians influenced by Alfred North Whitehead.
It is important to consider the challenge, which is twofold.
First, it calls for a deeper level of personal self-critique among Western process thinkers. I specify Western process thinkers because process thought is by no means confined to the West. There are important and creative expressions of process philosophy in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In Africa, Emmanuel Ofuasia’s Ìwà: The Process-Relational Dimension to African Metaphysics offers a powerful contribution to global process thinking. Likewise, there is significant and growing work in East Asia, especially in China. Process thinkers, in other words, are not exclusively Western, even if certain canonical formulations of process philosophy have emerged in Western contexts.
For Western process thinkers—particularly those who define themselves in relation to what is often taken to be the canonical tradition—the themes of the Conversational School of Philosophy call for a careful critique of lingering tendencies toward philosophical enclosure. Too often, engagement with other traditions can take the form of subtle assimilation, in which alternative perspectives are absorbed into pre-existing frameworks under the guise of philosophical “conversion.” What is needed instead is not the advancement of this tendency but its critique. Conversational philosophy invites a different posture: one of mutual engagement without domination, in which traditions encounter one another as partners in an ongoing, open-ended process of inquiry rather than as objects to be subsumed.
Second, the school of conversation philosophy invites a reconsideration of process metaphysics itself—specifically, whether it subtly privileges synthesis over multiplicity, as if a unified resolution, rather than an ongoing conversation amid differences, were the ultimate aim of philosophy.
At the same time, conversational philosophy offers a significant opportunity. It encourages the further development of a process philosophy that includes a strong emphasis on multiplicity and contrast, along with an emphasis on non-final synthesizing perspectives that remains faithful to the creative advance of the many without presuming their final unification.
Whitehead's philosophy as articulated in Science and the Modern World, Process and Reality, and Adventures of ideas was itself such a non-final perspective; it sought to synthesize points from science, art, religion, and ethics into a coherent whole that speaks to the needs of an otherwise fragmented western mind. And yet Whitehead was clear that any hint as to finality of statement is an exhibition of folly, and it includes within its "eight categories of existence" the twin ideas of multiplicity and contrast, suggesting that they are inherent features of a cosmos in process.
These two ideas lay the ground for humility; for a recognizing that 'contrasts' between competing points of view are part of the aesthetic beauty of the human world: contrasts between ideas, to be sure, but also contrasts of cultures and, of course, of many forms of life on earth and beyond. In this way it can be a partner in the larger movement of global conversational philosophy.
This school of philosophy has at least four stong benefits in our age of global diversity.
- Decolonial method: It challenges Eurocentrism and the hegemony of Western thought while fostering more just and humane intercultural relations.
- Collective learning: It affirms that wisdom is not located in any single individual but emerges through shared inquiry and dialogue.
- Bridge across traditions: It creates a hospitable space for engagement among differing intellectual frameworks—especially those shaped by dialogical and dialectical reasoning—thereby enabling the creative refinement of ideas through the practice of arụmarụ-ụka.
- Ongoing, non-hierarchical exchange: It sustains respectful, horizontal intercultural relationships in which diverse perspectives interact without being reduced to a single dominant framework.²
Each of these benefits is important to those participating in another philosophical tradition: process philosophy as influenced by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. Process thinkers speak of the importance of working toward world which is a network of communities not controlled by any single community: a community of communities of communities.
Nevertheless, the school of conversation philosophy presents both a challenge and an opportunity to process philosophers and theologians influenced by Alfred North Whitehead.
It is important to consider the challenge, which is twofold.
First, it calls for a deeper level of personal self-critique among Western process thinkers. I specify Western process thinkers because process thought is by no means confined to the West. There are important and creative expressions of process philosophy in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In Africa, Emmanuel Ofuasia’s Ìwà: The Process-Relational Dimension to African Metaphysics offers a powerful contribution to global process thinking. Likewise, there is significant and growing work in East Asia, especially in China. Process thinkers, in other words, are not exclusively Western, even if certain canonical formulations of process philosophy have emerged in Western contexts.
For Western process thinkers—particularly those who define themselves in relation to what is often taken to be the canonical tradition—the themes of the Conversational School of Philosophy call for a careful critique of lingering tendencies toward philosophical enclosure. Too often, engagement with other traditions can take the form of subtle assimilation, in which alternative perspectives are absorbed into pre-existing frameworks under the guise of philosophical “conversion.” What is needed instead is not the advancement of this tendency but its critique. Conversational philosophy invites a different posture: one of mutual engagement without domination, in which traditions encounter one another as partners in an ongoing, open-ended process of inquiry rather than as objects to be subsumed.
Second, the school of conversation philosophy invites a reconsideration of process metaphysics itself—specifically, whether it subtly privileges synthesis over multiplicity, as if a unified resolution, rather than an ongoing conversation amid differences, were the ultimate aim of philosophy.
At the same time, conversational philosophy offers a significant opportunity. It encourages the further development of a process philosophy that includes a strong emphasis on multiplicity and contrast, along with an emphasis on non-final synthesizing perspectives that remains faithful to the creative advance of the many without presuming their final unification.
Whitehead's philosophy as articulated in Science and the Modern World, Process and Reality, and Adventures of ideas was itself such a non-final perspective; it sought to synthesize points from science, art, religion, and ethics into a coherent whole that speaks to the needs of an otherwise fragmented western mind. And yet Whitehead was clear that any hint as to finality of statement is an exhibition of folly, and it includes within its "eight categories of existence" the twin ideas of multiplicity and contrast, suggesting that they are inherent features of a cosmos in process.
These two ideas lay the ground for humility; for a recognizing that 'contrasts' between competing points of view are part of the aesthetic beauty of the human world: contrasts between ideas, to be sure, but also contrasts of cultures and, of course, of many forms of life on earth and beyond. In this way it can be a partner in the larger movement of global conversational philosophy.
Conversation Philosophy
In“What Is Conversational Philosophy? A Prescription of a New Theory and Method of Philosophising, in and Beyond African Philosophy”¹, Chimakonam explains that the Conversation School builds upon two ideas: (1) that of relationality, or mutual inter-becoming, a perspective that is found throughout Africa and the world; and (2) the practice of arụmarụ-ụka.
The term arụmarụ-ụka draws from the Igbo language. It is composed of two parts: arụmarụ, meaning skill, craft, or disciplined practice, and ụka, meaning talk, speech, or dialogue. Etymologically, then, arụmarụ-ụka signifies the skillful or disciplined practice of conversation.
In the philosophical usage developed by Chimakonam, the term refers not merely to conversation in a casual sense, but to a structured and creative mode of reasoning. It names a practice in which participants engage one another critically and constructively, sustaining differences rather than dissolving them, and allowing thought to advance through ongoing dialogue rather than through final synthesis.
Arụmarụ-ụka can be anglicized as arumaristics, and it refers both to the activity of engaging in creative and critical discussion with another and to the practice by which that activity best occurs. As we engage in the activity of arumaristics, we do not envelop ourselves in a closed position, nor do we seek to envelop the other in our own position.
Indeed, we resist the notion that we must arrive at a synthesis of two competing points of view. Arumaristics is:
In“What Is Conversational Philosophy? A Prescription of a New Theory and Method of Philosophising, in and Beyond African Philosophy”¹, Chimakonam explains that the Conversation School builds upon two ideas: (1) that of relationality, or mutual inter-becoming, a perspective that is found throughout Africa and the world; and (2) the practice of arụmarụ-ụka.
The term arụmarụ-ụka draws from the Igbo language. It is composed of two parts: arụmarụ, meaning skill, craft, or disciplined practice, and ụka, meaning talk, speech, or dialogue. Etymologically, then, arụmarụ-ụka signifies the skillful or disciplined practice of conversation.
In the philosophical usage developed by Chimakonam, the term refers not merely to conversation in a casual sense, but to a structured and creative mode of reasoning. It names a practice in which participants engage one another critically and constructively, sustaining differences rather than dissolving them, and allowing thought to advance through ongoing dialogue rather than through final synthesis.
Arụmarụ-ụka can be anglicized as arumaristics, and it refers both to the activity of engaging in creative and critical discussion with another and to the practice by which that activity best occurs. As we engage in the activity of arumaristics, we do not envelop ourselves in a closed position, nor do we seek to envelop the other in our own position.
Indeed, we resist the notion that we must arrive at a synthesis of two competing points of view. Arumaristics is:
“a procedure for reasoning in which thesis and anti-thesis complement rather than conflate and maintain their individualities in order to frustrate the emergence of synthesis.”
This restistance to homogenizing differences is part of what gives conversation its creativity, and this creativity benefits all sides:
This restistance to homogenizing differences is part of what gives conversation its creativity, and this creativity benefits all sides:
“thoughts are shuffled through disjunctive and conjunctive modes to constantly recreate fresh thesis and anti-thesis each time at a higher level of discourse, without the expectation of synthesis.”
For such creativity to unfold, there must also be a healthy sense of respect and rivalry—one in which participants both defend and critique one another.
“It is an encounter between philosophers of rival schools of thought and between different philosophical traditions or cultures in which one party, called nwa-nsa (the defender or proponent), holds up a position and another party, called nwa-nju (the doubter or opponent).
With these ideas in mind, I turn to how the school of conversation reality opens up new possibilities in Whiteheadian thinking.
Multiplicity and Contrast in Whitehead's Philosophy
At the heart of Whitehead’s metaphysical vision lies a decisive break with substance-based ontologies that privilege stability, identity, and final form. In their place, Whitehead offers a process-relational account of reality in which the fundamental units are not enduring things but momentary events--actual occasions—each of which arises through a process of becoming. This becoming is not arbitrary. It is structured by the way each occasion inherits a multiplicity of influences from the past and integrates them into a new unity. Whitehead famously summarizes this dynamic with the phrase: “the many become one, and are increased by one.”
This formula captures a delicate balance between unity and multiplicity. On the one hand, each moment of experience achieves a kind of unity; it is a momentary synthesis of diverse influences. On the other hand, this unity is never final or all-encompassing. The many are not exhausted in their becoming one. Rather, they persist as a multiplicity that continues to feed into future acts of becoming. Each new occasion adds itself to the many, contributing to what Whitehead calls the “creative advance into novelty.” Reality, in this sense, is an ever-expanding field of multiplicities in process.
Within this framework, multiplicity is not a deficiency to be overcome but a fundamental feature of existence. It names the irreducible diversity of actualities, perspectives, and possibilities that constitute the world. Without multiplicity, there would be no becoming, no novelty, no creativity. Yet multiplicity alone is not sufficient to generate meaningful experience. It must be organized, patterned, and rendered significant. This is the role of another key category in Whitehead’s thought: contrast.
Contrast, for Whitehead, is the principle by which differences are brought into relation in such a way that they enhance one another. It is not mere opposition or contradiction. Rather, it is a structured interplay of distinct elements that produces intensity, richness, and depth of experience. A world without contrast would be a world without interest—a flat, undifferentiated field lacking aesthetic and experiential value. By contrast, a world in which differences are held together in dynamic relation becomes a site of creative expression and meaningful order.
Importantly, contrast does not eliminate difference; it depends upon it. The elements that enter into contrast retain their distinctness even as they contribute to a unified experience. In this way, contrast allows for a form of unity that does not collapse multiplicity into sameness. It is a unity-in-difference, a patterned togetherness in which diversity is preserved and intensified rather than negated.
Yet a tension remains within Whitehead’s framework. While he affirms multiplicity and contrast as fundamental features of reality, his account of concrescence—the process by which the many become one—can be read as privileging the achievement of unity, even if only momentarily. Each actual occasion reaches a “satisfaction,” a completed form in which its internal tensions are resolved for that moment of experience. Although this resolution is immediately followed by new processes of becoming, the language of concrescence can suggest a recurring movement toward synthesis.
This raises the question: can multiplicity be affirmed without even momentary resolution? Can contrast be sustained as an ongoing condition of thought and experience, rather than as a stage on the way to unity?
It is precisely at this juncture that African conversational philosophy enters the discussion. By transforming contrast from a metaphysical category into a methodological principle, it offers a way of preserving multiplicity without resolution—not only in the structure of reality, but in the practice of philosophy itself.
This formula captures a delicate balance between unity and multiplicity. On the one hand, each moment of experience achieves a kind of unity; it is a momentary synthesis of diverse influences. On the other hand, this unity is never final or all-encompassing. The many are not exhausted in their becoming one. Rather, they persist as a multiplicity that continues to feed into future acts of becoming. Each new occasion adds itself to the many, contributing to what Whitehead calls the “creative advance into novelty.” Reality, in this sense, is an ever-expanding field of multiplicities in process.
Within this framework, multiplicity is not a deficiency to be overcome but a fundamental feature of existence. It names the irreducible diversity of actualities, perspectives, and possibilities that constitute the world. Without multiplicity, there would be no becoming, no novelty, no creativity. Yet multiplicity alone is not sufficient to generate meaningful experience. It must be organized, patterned, and rendered significant. This is the role of another key category in Whitehead’s thought: contrast.
Contrast, for Whitehead, is the principle by which differences are brought into relation in such a way that they enhance one another. It is not mere opposition or contradiction. Rather, it is a structured interplay of distinct elements that produces intensity, richness, and depth of experience. A world without contrast would be a world without interest—a flat, undifferentiated field lacking aesthetic and experiential value. By contrast, a world in which differences are held together in dynamic relation becomes a site of creative expression and meaningful order.
Importantly, contrast does not eliminate difference; it depends upon it. The elements that enter into contrast retain their distinctness even as they contribute to a unified experience. In this way, contrast allows for a form of unity that does not collapse multiplicity into sameness. It is a unity-in-difference, a patterned togetherness in which diversity is preserved and intensified rather than negated.
Yet a tension remains within Whitehead’s framework. While he affirms multiplicity and contrast as fundamental features of reality, his account of concrescence—the process by which the many become one—can be read as privileging the achievement of unity, even if only momentarily. Each actual occasion reaches a “satisfaction,” a completed form in which its internal tensions are resolved for that moment of experience. Although this resolution is immediately followed by new processes of becoming, the language of concrescence can suggest a recurring movement toward synthesis.
This raises the question: can multiplicity be affirmed without even momentary resolution? Can contrast be sustained as an ongoing condition of thought and experience, rather than as a stage on the way to unity?
It is precisely at this juncture that African conversational philosophy enters the discussion. By transforming contrast from a metaphysical category into a methodological principle, it offers a way of preserving multiplicity without resolution—not only in the structure of reality, but in the practice of philosophy itself.
¹ Jonathan O. Chimakonam, “What Is Conversational Philosophy? A Prescription of a New Theory and Method of Philosophising, in and Beyond African Philosophy,” Phronimon, https://unisapressjournals.co.za/index.php/Phronimon/article/view/2874.
² Josie Bunting, “Towards a Processual Social Movement Theory: Diachrony, Dialectics, and Danda,” Sociological Research Online 30, no. 3 (2025): 748, https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804241293732.
² Josie Bunting, “Towards a Processual Social Movement Theory: Diachrony, Dialectics, and Danda,” Sociological Research Online 30, no. 3 (2025): 748, https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804241293732.