Dadaisms

In recent international news South Africa has achieved new highs of ineptitude and lunacy. There probably isn’t an individual with half a brain in any conscious country that isn’t aware of the Xenophobic attacks fast becoming a national sport here. Indeed, the Mail & Guardian has an entire section dedicated to updates on Xenophobia (here).

There have been numerous attempts to justify and explain the motivations behind these attacks. Naturally it is common sense that the shock of seeing a person being burned alive with a flaming tyre over his/her neck is eased by ‘official’ rationale.

But allow me to contextualise the attacks. We live in South Africa, and as I have written in the past, our country is one of identity crisis. No-one knows who they are if truth be told:

the ANC is struggling to define what it means to be a “true South African”;

there are different ideas of what constitutes a “real” man or a “real” woman;

there is a struggle between Western ideologies and traditional “African” identities;

there is discord between Constitutional ideals and discursive realities;

and there are tensions between African gender systems and Western sexuality systems.

All this is tantamount to an identity crisis: how do we know are? Who do we define ourselves by? The tension in the ANC is a microcosm for South Africa: conflicting ideologies, lack of cohesion, and near-tribalistic opposition. For me, this identity crisis speaks of the failure of the ANC to advocate a sense of diversity. As I said in a previous post, appreciation for diversity needs to be lived, not just promulgated.

So if the identity of “South African” hasn’t been officially shaped and defined, what has happened?

Any identity is established, in part, by binary oppositions and “Othering” - we know we are men because we are not women; we know we are straight because we are not gay. We turn these so-called binary opposites into “Others”, and everything we see ourselves as ‘not’ we allocate to these “Others”.

So in South Africa, the only tangible ‘difference’ is place of birth - a difference that is so superficial, so colonial it reeks of mass hysteria and mass mentality. We (and I shudder at the use of this word) are South African because we are not Zimbabwean, or Zambian, or Ugandan, or Somalian. It doesn’t matter what we have in common. All that matters is that there is something solid - something absolute (finally!) about our self-identity. We know we are South African because we’re not from somewhere else.

Of course it’s irrational. But that’s how binary opposites work. And of course there are numerous other sociological, cultural, political and economical reasons. But for me a general identity crisis speaks volumes about our levels of tolerance (or rather, lack thereof). I believe that the frustration for some of not knowing who they are has been exponentially escalated by the Zimbabwean crisis. South Africa’s “quiet diplomacy” towards Zimbabwe - a country in utter crisis - has sparked unconscious fears about our future: what if we become like them? what if they come here and take our jobs? if we have no way of being more eligible than them how will we survive?

We, us - they, them.

And so you have a cry for identity. A very violent, messy, tragic cry.

Sadly this lack of identity seeps to a deeper level - the level of Public Spheres. If we understand the concept of a Public Sphere to be a place where people can engage in debate to form opinion about the future of their identities, as represented and transmitted by the media, where does this leave the “South African identity”? We’re part of a globalised world - in order for an identity to be accepted and viable, it needs to be transnational.

The patriarchal isiZulu identity, for example, is not transnational.

The ‘traditional’ female is an identity, for example, that is not transnational.

So do these identities just die? No. They sit and fester if left unattended to. They become infected and turn into constructed touchstones of absolution - points of reference in a reality that holds no certainty.

So what is the solution? Do we just reintegrate these displaced refugees? Come now, that’s not going to solve any problems. It’s not going to tackle the identity crisis.

The danger of any ’solution’ is isolating identities. It’s the paradox of the South African constitution: accept all identities, but experience none. We cannot risk isolation of identity: the world is moving (very slowly) towards gender/sexual/philosophical tolerance, and South Africa needs to be part of this trend.

What the government needs to do is take a firm, absolute stance on South African-ness. No pussy footing about with trying to get in touch with traditional ideals of this and that. No ‘remembering the past’ as a daily mantra. We’re part of a global society, and we need to deal with that.

If our Constitution accepts diversity, then at the top levels we need to make this clear.

Hint hint in relation to Zuma. Homophobic, sexist, tribalist, racist and ignorant is a fantastic combination. Really, it is.

Here we come 2010!

Share on Facebook

This entry was posted on Sunday, June 8th, 2008 at 11:48 am and is filed under Political/Social Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.