Sunday, November 29, 2009

Remembering apartheid with fondness

What does it mean for black South Africans to remember life under apartheid with fondness? This is the question Jacob Dlamini explores in his debut book aptly entitled Native Nostalgia. Dlamini is the most lyrical South African writer since Johnny Steinberg drifted off to New York. Like Steinberg, he delivers reflective insights with rhythmic beauty. It is worth reflecting on his main claim - which will surely stimulate debate in the months ahead - that many black South Africans harbour nostalgic memories of life under Verwoerd's government.

His key premise is that life within South African townships during apartheid was rich and complex, contrary to widespread descriptions of them as mere sites of socioeconomic depravity. Life happened in the township both despite apartheid and in complex relation to apartheid. Fond recollections by blacks are not an inadvertent legitimation of an immoral political system. Of course, fear of being seen to retrospectively endorse apartheid explains why a book like Dlamini's might not have been written before - it invites a lazy accusation that the writer wishes apartheid had never ended.

By arguing that not all aspects of life in townships were hell, Native Nostalgia humanises township residents. It recognises that township residents have always exhibited complex agencies with which they built and negotiated daily life during apartheid. These lived realities - lying at the heart of nostalgic recollections by blacks - include music, art, games, partying and other markers of normalcy that showcase the human spirit's defiance of the psychological insult that was apartheid. Dlamini adds to this rich characterisation with a number of thought provoking related claims.

He claims that Afrikaans is the language of nostalgia for many black South Africans. Phrases such as a ‘Waar was jy?' - which also became the title of a hit song for the outfit Skeem - and ‘Toeka!' and many others instantly evoke a litany of fond memories. A jazz track may invite a lover or friend, for example, to implore another to ‘Hoor net daar!' The appearance of Afrikaans across the cultural landscape of township life means that there is an Afrikaans cultural grammar that white Afrikaans speakers might never recognise. This is not to deny the fact that Afrikaans still has an oppressive resonance for many black South Africans. The salient point is that the relationship between black South Africans and the ‘oppressors' language' is more ambiguous than simplistic accounts of that relationship that start and stop with the 1976 Soweto uprisings.

There are interesting academic insights too that flow from this analysis. There is often a temptation in the social sciences to trot out an overarching narrative that can explain human behaviour particularly at a group level. This is why many liberal researchers mistakenly think they are doing township inhabitants a favour by viewing the township as an object of pity. It is, as Dlamini points out, telling that townships are often referred to as ‘sites' to be examined rather than as ‘places' to be experienced. Sites can be placed under an outsider's microscope for a couple of weeks and then written about as a social science thesis project.

Places, on the other hand, are a challenge to be avoided. They imply the existence of irreducible complexities in the details of a community's life and the lives of its individual members. Few theses and books engage South African townships as places of ordinariness. Even contemporary black writers like Eric Miyeni unreflectively assume that the ultimate marker of upward mobility is whether one can run from a Johannesburg township to Melville or Sandton more quickly than one's township friends can kill one of those township rats that look like a cat.
A moment of critical reflection should reveal an implicit assumption that township life is one dimensional. As Dlamini puts it, many wrongly assume that township life is poor just because many of those who live in the township are poor. He urges researchers to put the senses at the heart of their research methodology. In order to understand the inner lives of communities, it is important to live with them- through the senses.

One cannot help but feel, smell, listen, touch and see with Dlamini as he locates us successfully within his world. It reminded me of Fhazel Johennesse's poem Living in a flat in Eldorado Park which also succeeds in using mere words on a page to evoke in the reader the full range of experiences that constitute the messy, busy life in the block of flats in Eldorado Park that the poem focuses on.

Dlamini recounts his stories with the same kind of linguistic magic. He also describes it with honesty reminiscent of Dambudzo Marechera's account of Zimbabwean township life in the classic novella House of Hunger. Unlike Marachera, we are painted a picture of South African township life in nonviolent language that helps to keep an ignorant reader's prejudices at bay. Academics chipping away in the social sciences would do well to take Dlamini's methodological challenge seriously.

The overall analysis suffers two shortcomings. First, Dlamini promised too much. The book initially gives the impression that hard answers will be provided to the question of why many black South Africans remember life under apartheid with fondness. We never quite arrive at an actual answer. The book is better described as a bouquet of insightful anecdotes that render township lives more complex and more human than countless outsiders assume.

Of course, it was always going to be difficult to step back from such an account of township life and ask, "Have I succeeded in accounting for native nostalgia or did I create something else?" The answer is, "Something else of equal value." That "something else" just is a rich narration of life in the township. But that is very different from delving into philosophical and psychological territory about memory which a more genuine account of nostalgia anywhere would have to provide.

This connects with the second weakness. Dlamini does not explore the real possibility that there is ultimately nothing special or puzzling about black South Africans remembering the past with fondness. It may simply be a universal human tendency. The English saying "the summers were hotter when we were kids!" captures that universal tendency to think nostalgically about the past. Of course, in the context of life under an oppressive regime, this tendency seems somewhat bizarre. But ultimately it might still say more about the general psychology of remembering than about anything peculiar about black South Africans.

No doubt many Germans have fond memories of life before the fall of the Berlin wall. And it would not take long to elicit some charming stories from Ugandans about elements of normal life during Idi Amin's reign. The thrust of Dlamini's book provide material for ‘remembering' to be explored. But the full exploration of the act of remembering, with all its conceptual, psychological and philosophical complexity, awaits another day.

These weaknesses are not jarring. It is a magnificent achievement to detail the tapestry of township life so completely. Dlamini forces us to ponder uncomfortable truths. In the end many of these truths do not (as some readers will wrongly claim) invite us to review our moral assessment of apartheid.

Instead, these uncomfortable truths disturb the racist spirit of Verwoerd by adding to his defeat with memories that scream, "Despite your violent apartheid evil, we've got news for you! Our humanity and agencies were never entirely within your racist control!" We have no reason to fear native nostalgia.

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=152786&sn=Detail

9 comments:

  1. Excellent post as usual. But I have a suspicion that you yourself do have one or two ideas about the nostalgia felt for apartheid over and above the normal human tendency to remember the past with fondness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kameraad, I have not thought it through much beyond that. What are your own intuitions? I suspect YOU have a few ideas ;)

    My friend Aubrey Matshiqi and I were discussing this yesterday. He referenced a book about the Holocaust and historical memory ... a book that tries to understand why it was only (I think?) around the 1970s or so that collective memory about the holocaust, in the US, starter surfacing in public, political terms. The book's hypothesis, apparently, is that memory tells us more about the present, since facts about/in present reality provide the trigger (materially or psychologically) for such (collective) recollection.

    I am dying to read the book myself. Will get the title and author for you.

    BUT ... it instantly took me back to Jacob's book. Transposing that thesis to the SA context implies that one avenue to go looking for further explanation of native nostalgia is to make sense of what it is about present socio-political (and other) facts in SA that might trigger such recollection.

    [ The difference, of course, is that these recollections are still held fairly privately and not through collective public expressions, politically or otherwise, so the analogy with the holocaust stuff in the US only gets you so far ... but the idea that present realities (dissatisfaction with the present?) partly account for nostalgia strikes me as not absurd... ]

    your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, I appreciate your feedback.

    It's almost trite to say I'm not black so I can't really put myself in the shoes of black South Africans, but of course its true.

    Having said that I'm going to presuppose stuff and speculate.

    One has to make a clear distinction between the psychological trauma that was the ideology and practical petty and grand implementation of apartheid.

    I think that is what caused most damage then and I think it is what causes most anger now.

    Then we have to look at the material conditions of poor black South Africans today, AND their perceptions of to what extent the state has the ability to take care of their basic needs. Some say the future is not evenly distributed. I agree and I don't think you will find one unified answer to your question across South Africa

    But I think that very many poor black South Africans experience their lives as materially worse thna in the apartheid era, especially when healthcare, job security and security is factored into the equation.

    And there are even middleclass yearnings for certain elements of apartheid.

    I think what many black South Africans fail to interrogate (yet) is that apartheid was more complex than run of the mill racism theories suggest.

    It stood on two legs, a crude and nasty racism, similar to those found in the US and also born out Darwinist theories about superiority, but it also stood on another leg - which was not found in the West or Western theory. Fear of annihilation.

    South African white racism and in particular Afrikaner racism is a peculiar beast mixing affection with disgust - I wrote about it here.

    Perhaps by understanding the violators paradoxical closeness to the violated can we understand native nostalgia?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks. I agree with the substance of your response. I do not understand the last sentence -do have another crack at explaining?

    But, yes, you're right: the complex nature of the racism of apartheid can easily be misremembered when one - even a poor black person, say - makes comparisons between life now, and life under apartheid.

    I remember, a few years back, my grandfather moaning about how, under apartheid, he 'at least got [his] pension on time!' By definition, nostalgia implies recollecting the more pleasurable elements of an earlier life - like 'at least getting my pension on time!'

    but of course, as I pointed out in my initial article, it is not logical to then impute to those experiencing these fond memories an inadvertent longing for apartheid per se, let alone a moral preference for it over democracy. If we did that we would be over-intellectualising what it means to have a couple of pleasant memories about otherwise rather nasty by-gone days....

    ReplyDelete
  5. The sentence "Perhaps by understanding the violators paradoxical closeness to the violated can we understand native nostalgia?" is a bit convoluted.

    I wrote a blog post (link above) on the peculiar nature of Afrikaner racism, which posits that there is (was?) a paradoxical closeness and affection AND racism at the same time. That sentence refers to this.

    I agree with you that one could not make the jump that fond memories mean a longing for apartheid per se.

    On a finer point, I would also not put apartheid in direct opposition to democracy as you do. In some limited but significant respects (like the inner workings of parliament), apartheid SA were more democratic, than South Africa today, (particularly in the Mbeki era).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Two points. Now it gets interesting ;)

    1. I would HATE for us to spend too much time on a side issue, so will put this fairly tersely. If it generates interest, I'll write a fuller post. In relation to your last point: no, there were zero respects in which apartheid was more democratic than a yet-to-mature democracy. Since apartheid both definitionally and in practise was undemocratic - i mean this analytically, not just emotional-rhetorically - the very question, 'how internally democratic is an exclusive parliament?' is incoherent. To pose that question, let alone trying to evaluate the 'internal degree of democracy within the whites-only parliament' is to show a misunderstanding of democracy itself as a system of government that conceptually requires participation by all.

    Now, of course, non-democratic systems can have bits of democratic culture - on the surface. (Conversely, and in fact, as you're alluding to, democracies can be infected with non-democratic norms.) But the mimicking of genuine democratic processes should not deceive one. A pig with lipstick, to uhm borrow from US politics, remains a pig ;)

    If you wanted to rephrase your claim more accurately (with which I may/may not disagree - but that's another issue, again ... ) it should read like this: 'If I imagined there were no black people in SA in 1980, and the electoral rules and political culture excluded no one arbitrarily, then the behaviour of parliament in 1980 showed bits of democratic maturity that the one in 2009 does not.' That's an important qualifier, lest you inadvertently show confusion about the conceptual accuracy of when to use the tag 'democracy'.

    I know what you intended to convey, but nuance matters, alas.

    2. The second point relates to the more interesting thesis about apartheid including a bizarre mixture of affection AND racism. I promise I will give a full response to this. I agree with you. I think it is worth unpacking this apparent fact a bit more. Will read your post on it, think a bit more about it, and write futher.

    [ My gut is that the affection is perverse, not familiar affection akin to what I feel for my boyfriend or sister. The character of affectiion in that context is pscyhologically complex. So 'affection', too, needs careful qualification and unpacking.... ]

    Later.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. Nuance matters yes. Your obviously right that black South Africans did not have the vote.

    But let's talk about specifics and how it affects ordinary people.

    When Thabo Mbeki lectured the parliamentary party on his Aids views, nobody stood up for ordinary South Africans, and when this speech was leaked by Feinstein, the microphones is parliament was removed. That is quite a metaphor.

    It is my contention that the ANC's commitment to democracy will only really be tested when they face a real threat of loosing power.

    But their are numerous signs that the ANC conflates itself with government and does not brook opposition and pays only lip service to democracy when it suits them.

    Helen Suzman were no friends of the Nats but she said that the Nats at least respected parliamentary democracy and added:"I used to be a fan of proportional representation, but I am not at all now I have seen it in action. Debate is almost non-existent and no one is apparently accountable to anybody apart from their political party bosses. It is bad news for democracy in this country. Even though we didn't have a free press under apartheid, the government of that day seemed to be very much more accountable in parliament." And added "For all my criticisms of the current system, it doesn't mean that I would like to return to the old one. I don't think we will ever go the way of Zimbabwe, but people are entitled to be concerned. I am hopeful about any future for whites in this country - but not entirely optimistic."

    Gavin Evans, no fan of liberal Helen, says much the same at the end of the last video (7) on my site.

    China is not a democracy either, but as I argued in this post - it's government is more accountable than ours.

    Even outside of parliament the apartheid state was very aware of the limits of its legitimacy, and at times that made it more responsive than the current government.

    If given a choice between a responsive undemocratic state where the lives of the majority are trending for the better in the metrics that matter (life expectancy, poverty reduction) and an unresponsive and dysfunctional democracy - I'd choose the former.

    2. Looking forward with a mixture of anxiety and excitement of that unpacking.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Unpacking to follow re: the issue of racism-mixed-with-affection...

    On your latest posting: it leaves me cold. This is my last engagement on that front. Only remaining one will be the much promised 'unpacking...'

    I'm left cold because of a number of reasons:

    The silly claim that the Chinese government is more accountable reveals either a deadly ignorance about Chinese socio-political reality (unlikely, since you are clearly not an ignoramus, Sir...) or a shocking misreading of the SA socio-political landscape (more likely, since this is a popular sport).

    Invoking Helen Suzman is not an argument; it is simply a quote thrown in for rhetorical effect, and one that needs to be justified, quite independent of the fact that she uttered it. It is not an agrument, just a claim - if anything, it detracts from her (historic) stature - unless you, on her behalf, can tell us why the claim sticks. I'm not sure why you are replacing argument with appeal to an authority suddenly?

    There is indeed poor to zero debate in parliament. And, indeed, there are reasons to be concerned. NONE OF THESE unpleasant truths about our developing democracy entail that the apartheid system had a greater degree of parliamentary democracy. That is a shockingly callous jump in logic, given that the racially exclusive nature of the apartheid system means that it is an inherently undemocratic system, and so its parliament fails to qualify as a chamber of whom the question, 'how democratic are thee?' could arise. To persist in raising it, and answering it, as you do, betrays a refusal to accept the criteria for the successful use of the concept 'democracy'.

    As for your final statement...it is quite revealing, as a summary thought. Recall:

    "If given a choice between a responsive undemocratic state where the lives of the majority are trending for the better in the metrics that matter (life expectancy, poverty reduction) and an unresponsive and dysfunctional democracy - I'd choose the former."

    Translation: if i got my pension on time 30 years ago, i'd rather relive those days then having to be saddled with hiccups in the system now...

    Utter simplicity: of course it was easy for an undemocratic system to deliver efficiencies. Too many folks - especially disenchanted whites - fail to appreciate that the driver of efficiency (to the extent that efficiency existed, which was not wholly the case) during Apartheid was *precisely* a lack of democracy. Cheap labour, and lack of human rights, for example, are VERY conducive to delivery...not unlike in China.

    So there is a telling shortsightedness in not thinking through why the pockets of efficiency during Apartheid, were easily achievable.

    [ That said, I have not even got stuck into the tapestry of MASSIVE inequality & inefficiency of black lives/areas during Apartheid...which puts a dampener on any excited claim that life in many respects were fundamentally better...but that premise is irrelevant to my wider critique that your hasty criticism of democracy's growth pains reveal poor reflection on the meaning of democracy, and the price of apartheid 'efficiency'.]

    I'm disappointed, Mr, Uhm, Mhambi

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Eusebius, I tried to leave a comment but it was too long. So I posted it on my blog if you care to read it.

    ReplyDelete