Of all the Zulu / Southern African concepts that have crossed into English usage, Indaba has had perhaps the strangest journey. Indaba and Self-Care? The journey itself is part of the answer. To understand Indaba now, you have to understand both the original and the diasporic version, and the gap between them.
What Indaba Actually Means
The most commonly cited definition: Indaba is a Zulu and Xhosa word for a council meeting — historically of elders, today of any group that needs to make a decision worth keeping. The form has been borrowed by international climate negotiators, corporate boards, and community organisations because of one quality: it produces decisions that hold. It does this by refusing the Western meeting model — the loudest voice, the rushed vote, the unread minutes — in favour of structured listening, ritualised speech, and visible consensus. That sentence is true, as far as it goes. It is also incomplete. Indaba is held inside a wider Zulu / Xhosa grammar — a set of related concepts, social practices, and proverbs — that the standalone definition cannot carry.
The wise listen before they speak; fools speak before they listen.Akan
The Question This Post Is About
What Indaba would say to the modern self-care conversation. (Not what you'd expect.) The question is worth taking seriously, because Indaba is one of those concepts that loses its shape when handled carelessly — and recovers it as soon as the reader is willing to slow down and listen.
Outside the workplace, Indaba reads differently — and harder. In a household, it is not a leadership philosophy; it is a daily, sometimes irritating, set of obligations. The phone call you owe. The message you have not answered. The relative whose problem is now your problem because no one else is closer. No decision of consequence is made in a meeting under one hour, and no one speaks twice before everyone has spoken once. Indaba does not let you opt out of these.
A Second Angle
Take the modern workplace as a test case. The dominant Western model treats the team as a coalition of individual contributors who happen to share a Slack channel — each evaluated alone, promoted alone, and let go alone. Indaba starts somewhere different. It assumes that the unit of analysis is the team, that performance is co-produced, that to praise a single person without naming the people around them is a kind of category error. The implications are uncomfortable for managers trained in the Western model. No decision of consequence is made in a meeting under one hour, and no one speaks twice before everyone has spoken once.
Where the Concept Resists
Indaba is sometimes presented as the answer to the diseases of Western individualism. It is not, exactly. It is a different answer to a different question. Pretending it is a drop-in replacement for the modern self-help bookshelf does Indaba a disservice — and the reader, too. The work of taking it seriously is harder than that.
What to Do With This
If you are new to Indaba, the most useful place to start is not with a study or a course but with a question, asked of yourself, at the end of an ordinary day: who held me up today, and whom did I hold? Sit with the answer. Do not improve it yet. The concept will deepen on its own, repeated, over weeks. This is how Indaba actually enters a life.
The full philosophy, as a book
How to run meetings where everyone is heard — and the decisions you make actually stick.
Read on Amazon