|
The Foundation’s liveliest roundtable to date was held at the
Johannesburg Country Club, 10 March 2010. The varied panel comprising
Antjie Krog (Begging to be Black), Eusebius McKaiser
(columnist and blogger), William Gumede (political analyst) and Ivor
Chipkin (Do South African’s Exist?) provided provocative,
contrasting and stimulating presentations.
Francis Antonie, the Director of the Helen Suzman Foundation, and
Chair for the evening’s proceedings introduced the panelists and set
the tone for the evening by referring to Identity as a fluid and
layered phenomenon.
Antjie Krog opened for the panelists by stating that she does not care
about identity, what matters to her is to live her life as a moral
person. She went on to share an emotionally charged view point from her
work ‘Begging to be Black’. She spoke of her struggle find a fit in the
post 1994 South Africa and her uncertainty about how to enter the new
debates, not as an Afrikaner, but as a South African. She quoted from a
book called African Ethics: An anthology of comparative and applied
ethics edited by Munyaradzi Felix Murove which asks one to
consider a system which focuses on consensus decision-making in a
search for unanimous agreement. She highlighted the profound
implications consensus decision-making would have for opposition
politics. She also questioned the constant labeling of the government
and of government officers as corrupt, and the potential implications
of these labels as identifiers of their own.
Eusebius McKaiser followed with his presentation: ‘There are no South
Africans and that’s ok’. He elaborated on his opening statement by
highlighting why he felt the concept of a common national identity, or
South African essence, is, as he put it, incoherent and dangerous, and
susceptible to many ills. A common identity is either likely to be so
broad that it will allow non-South Africans to fall into the
definition, or it will be too narrow, and thus exclusive, he
said. Even the idea of defining subgroups by culture or race, he
felt would prove difficult, as the danger here would be being too
prescriptive.
He proposed an alternative to the (dangerous) concept of a common
national identity. This would entail a uniting around a
complete/national/united understanding of liberal constitutional
democracy based on a constitutional vision: giving people the maximum
space possible to self identify, without harming others.
His final question dealt with why South Africans are anxious about
having a national identity and why national identity is unnecessary. He
spoke of the benefit of difference and emphasised the importance of
cross cultural dialogue where difference would form the basis for rich
relationships. He concluded by highlighting the common characteristics
needed to enable sustainable democracy, namely a respect for each
other’s rights to speak, as well as respect for rights and values which
make debate possible.
Third panelist, Ivor Chipkin, began with an allegory which humorously
highlighted our perceived need to label people we meet according to a
specific identity. He followed by reading an extract from an essay by
Nat Nakasa which told a story of two people, from different racial and
ideological backgrounds, finding a common identity based on similar
interests. He questioned what produces subjection to an identity and
under what conditions, we, as South Africans could be liberated from
the oppressive identities which hold us. He also questioned Steve
Biko’s notion of authentic Africanism and cautioned against setting
essentialist characteristics to gain access to particular
identities.
|
Final panelist, William Gumede, began by stating that he did not
think that there was a simple answer to the question: What is a South
African?
He also cautioned against getting carried away in trying to find
simple answers to the question. He mentioned the danger that as
citizens, we might resort to ‘laager’ type identities in order to seek
refuge in uncertain times created by political, economic and social
crises. He observed that at the most basic level, if you live in South
Africa, you are South African and therefore, in the context of such a
diverse society, identity is actually a political construct. He
recognised that as a nation we needed to look at characteristics of
commonality, other than culture and skin colour, that can unite us. His
suggestion was to move away from uniting around superficial forms like
World Cup sporting events and to instead look at the institutions that
hold our society together. This he explained would mean that rallying
around the Constitution could be a pragmatic way to define South
Africanness and unite the country.
The debate continued with comments from the panelists and the
audience:
♦ if there was a pill that would turn people black if taken, how
many people would take it?
♦ it is a question of solidarity not just identity: on what
conditions do we develop bonds of solidarity?
♦ we overcome our past by the glue of social justice--
♦ you can’t change some facts about your upbringing that
influence you, but as an adult, you can choose how you react to other
communities
♦ you form an identity by things that happen to you
♦ we need more black narratives to stop being blocked into
frameworks
♦I am a brown woman
Comments and questions from the audience reinforced the Chair’s
opening remarks as participants grappled with society assigned and even
self assigned identity labels. More questions were posed, than answers
offered but one left the event with a sense that debates of this nature
are essential for the deepening of our democratic understanding. The
discussions resonated with Eusebius McKaiser’s observation that cross
cultural debate could be a starting point in paving the way for rich
relationships.
A fuller, verbatim report from this event is coming soon.
If you’re interested in continuing the debate, please send us your
comments and questions and we’ll publish them on the website, Twitter
and Facebook. Alternatively, go straight to Twitter and
Facebook to post your comments. We have started a discussion on
Facebook entitled Are there any South Africans? Please note
that racism, hate speech and ad hominem attacks will not be
tolerated.
The debate continued.....
Eusebius Mckaiser Why there are no South Africans and its OK
Robert
Stone
Black racism not valid
Louis Volschenk A real freedom fighter
Steuart Pennington Actually there are South Africans
Eusebius McKaiser More South Africans
Mayihlome Tshwete Pleasurable letter
|
Who We Are
