i. The Problem of Identity and Alterity
With Rene Descartes (1596-1650 AD), philosophy started a new way, that of gnoseology. 
He defines a person in relation to self-consciousness. Descartes (1637), through his 
methodical doubt, discovers that something resists doubt. That is, the fact that it is he who 
doubts, and who can be deceived. He thus, arrives at Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore, I 
am). To the question, who am I? Descartes answers, a “thinking thing”. His transformation 
of the person from an ontological to a psychological fact, opened the door to a series of 
either great diminutions or of enormous exaggerations of the concept of person (Kanu 
2012 and 2015). Since the time of Descartes, individual consciousness has been taken as 
the privileged centre of identity, while 'the other' is seen as an epistemological problem, or 
as an inferior, reduced or negated form of the same (Kanu 2013).

ii. Igwebuike and the Other
Contrary to Descartes' position, Igwebuike provides an ontological horizon that presents 
being as that which possesses a relational character of mutual relations (Kanu 2016a). 'To 
be' is 'to be with the other', in a community of beings. (Kanu 2015a). Igwebuike 
understands life as a shared reality. And it is only within the context of complementarity 
that life makes meaning. Life is a life of sharedness; one in which another is part thereof. A 
relationship, though of separate and separated entities or individuals but with a joining of 
the same whole (Kanu 2017a). A relationship in which case the two or more coming 
together make each of them a complete whole; it is a diversity of being one with each other. 
Thus, to put the other away removes the balance of being. Kanu (2018) avers that this 
presupposes a tailor-made-cloth, measured, cut and sewn to fit into the curves, contours, 
shape and size, peculiarities and particularities of a being. Therefore, every being has a 
missing part and is at the same time, a missing part. Ewulu (2010), writes that:

If the other is my part or a piece of me, it means that I need him for me to be 
complete, for me to be what I really am. The other completes rather than 
diminishes me. His language and culture make my own stand out and at the same 
time, they enrich and complement my own. (p.189). 

From the foregoing perspective, the self is not only completed in relating with the other, 
but attains self-realization through the other. Ewulu (2010) writes further:

8. “IGWEBUIKE”, Identity and Alterity

39

Maiden Inaugural Lecture, Tansian University, Umunya



I realize myself in the other because it is in the 'Thou-ness' of the Thou that my 'Is-
ness' is realized. I am 'I' because you are 'You'. Without Thou there is no I. We are 
'We' because they are 'They', and without 'They', there is no 'We'. (p. 189).

 As a result of the dynamics of the relationship between the I and the thou, the Igbo 
would refer to the 'Other' as Ibe, which means 'a piece of' or 'a part of', as in ibe anu (a piece 
of meat) or ibe ede (a piece of cocoyam). The Igbo would, therefore, refer to the 'other 
person' as ibe m which means 'my piece' or mmadu ibe m (my fellow human being). This is 
the concept employed in reference to relationships and reciprocity: love one another (hunu 
ibe unu n'anya), help one another (nyere nu ibe unu aka), respect one another (sopuru nu 
ibe unu), etc. Since the 'other' refers to my own piece, it would mean that to love the other is 
to love oneself, to help the other is to help oneself and to respect the other is to respect 
oneself. Put the other way round, to hate the other is to hate oneself, to refuse help to the 
other is to refuse help to oneself and to disrespect the other is to disrespect oneself. From 
the African perspective, there is a link between the self and the other. This is because the 
self carries with it the mark of otherness. If reality is one with itself and consistent with 
itself, that is, different from others, then its uniqueness is always in reference to the other. 
In the I and the other relation, both participants exist as polarities of relation.

iii. Chi as the Ontological Basis for the Other as Ibem
The concept Chi has been used in various capacities by the Igbo; first, in the capacity of the 
Supreme Being, and second, as a guardian angel or a spiritual being or force which every 
person possess. Its essence lies in the commonest everyday expression of the word Chi; 
verbally, in possessive singular adjectival form: Chim (my Chi), Chigi (your Chi), Chiya 
(his or her Chi), Chi anyi (our Chi) an Igbo interjection for surprise Chim o (My God) or a 
common curse among the Igbo Chi ne'ke kpo gi oku (May God burn you) (Chukwukere 
1980). 

Plate 2: Ibe ji

40

Professor Ikechukwu Anthony KANU, O.S.A.



However, the nuance employed here is the later in which Chi is understood as the divinity 
in every human person or the spark of the divine in created things. Chi has been represented 
by the Igbo in different ways: for some it is a special tree planted in the person's compound 
like the ogilisi or oha; for others, it could be a small clay pot and filled with sand with three 
sticks cut from a special plant thrust jointly into the sand. These representations are usually 
kept in a special place and an altar built around it for the offering of sacrifice. 
 It is this Chi, which is a thumb print or mark of Chukwu in each and every one of us that 
places the other in a special place in relation to the self. If I and the other have the thumb 
print of the same Chukwu, the spark of the Supreme being, it then means that we relate in a 
special way that goes deeper than our individualities. Our rootedness in Chukwu is what 
makes the other a part of me. To treat the other in a way that is undeserving of the divine 
mark in him or her not only affects the person but the ontological order we are all part of.

41

Maiden Inaugural Lecture, Tansian University, Umunya