Since the last time I wrote much has happened. Including me being exposed to some nasty international bugs that put me out for a few days, and me managing to get a mild bit of food poisoning. Other than that it has all been positive. I’m drinking far too much Coca Cola (99p stores are evil - 3 cans for 99p I tell you!), but on the flip side I’m eating hardly any meat and am loving smoked tofu. And I’m walking everywhere, so I’m getting quite a bit of exercise.

My most urgent goal over the past few weeks has been to buy clothes. Warm clothes. Number one on that list has been to acquire a pair of boots. Not going to well: I’ve been distracted by far too many goodies. Including a pair of formal *very shiny* silver shoes (which everyone loves, so they’re well-purchased); a bright green houndstooth hoodie; high heels (see below); hot pants (see below); and fishnets (see below!). So the quest for sustainable clothing continues.

Of course, I have now started lectures. Sussex has a beautiful campus. It’s very similar to the architecture of UKZN, but the lecture halls are ALL equipped with projectors (that aren’t stolen), computers and Internet connections, sound systems, and coffee machines. Ok, well, there aren’t coffee machines in the lecture rooms, but close enough! What I find fantastic is the number of trees on campus. It’s so GREEN. So the architecture doesn’t stand out as much as it does, for example, in Durban. It’s great to sit on the grass in between lectures. Provided, of course, that you can avoid being stalked by murderous seagulls with lust in their eyes. They hunt you down on foot, take to wing and snatch the food from your hands. I jest not. Beware the seagulls.

My course is fantastic. I’m particularly enjoying the gender studies aspect. We’re only just getting through core approaches, but I can tell that this term is going to be very interesting. My classmates include a Fijian, a Romanian, an Iranian, and a Pakistani - so all our conversations integrate examples from across the globe. I’ve found it fantastic to hear how their respective societies function. I’m looking forward to learning more.

I’ve also been rather active outside of class - whenever I haven’t been in my room reading, which is most of the time. I was lucky enough to be selected for a chorus part in the University production of West Side Story. Because it’s not a major role I don’t rehearse that often, so it isn’t affecting my studies. The cast and crew are great, and I’m really enjoying the dancing and acting releases from academics. Combined with the different evenings over the week - such as open mic nights, quiz evenings, tours of the city - I’ve been very busy. I went on a tour to Stonehenge and Bath: incredible. I’ve posted the link to my photo album below. My greatest excitement, however, is the approach of next Thursday, when I’m going to see Rocky Horror live. We’re dressing up, thus the reason behind the purchasing of the heels etc. Everyone in the city seems really excited about it: all the costume shops are running out of corsets and Frank outfits. I’ll be sure to take photos!

Tonight, 24 October, was the “White Night” festival. It’s a celebration of setting the clocks back 1 hour. The basic concept is that we have an extra hour, so why not use it to celebrate the arts? There were various exhibitions, gigs, tours and concerts happening throughout the city - most free - that one could wander around to. It was a beautiful evening to walk around. We started off by catching a bus tour of the city. Little did we know it lasted 1.5 hours. And we were placed on the top half of an OPEN double-decker  bus. Well. “Freezing” and “wind-swept” are hardly adequate in describing our condition after that. But we warmed up in a lovely burger bar, and set about exploring the scene. The Royal Pavilion, Brighton’s “palace”, built during the 1800s but sold by Queen Victoria later on, was open for the night. It’s not usually open during the evenings, so it was a real treat to get to see inside with all the lights lit. Wow, WHAT an incredible experience. The palace is a museum, decorated with a Chinese theme. What’s amusing is that none of the original decorators or designers had ever been to China, so it’s a typical colonial period depiction of “the Other” - OTT and exotic. But breathtakingly beautiful. The music room was particularly magnificent: its high ceiling, elaborate velvet curtains, lit fire and incredible chandeliers created the perfect atmosphere for the members of the Brighton Philharmonic Orchestra playing Mendelssohn.

This wonderful festival ended for me on a very special note. Quite by chance, Peter and I walked past the Brighton Town Hall, where a large crowd had gathered to watch one of the acts. We looked up, and on the balcony of the beautiful town hall building, surrounded by massive red velvet drapes that were billowing in the wind, was a drag queen. She was wearing a magnificent white ballgown, complete with sequins, Eva Peron hairdo and a diamante necklace/earring combo. She sang a few numbers, and ended her performance with “Don’t Cry for Me Argentina” (of course). As she reached the crescendo of the chorus, the crowd below, gazing lovingly up at her, began to sing along. I spotted several tears glistening off the faces of the participants. As any good drag queen would do, she raised her arms in a mock Madonna/Evita pose, and the crowd of cheered.

I love Brighton.

Where else in the world could you assemble a random crowd that would know all the words to an Andrew Lloyd Webber number and clap in wild support of their gender-defying leader?

Links to my photos:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=158211&id=503735358&l=68034a2880

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=163244&id=503735358&l=1cdd534b1b

Love to all

Share on Facebook

Greetings family and friends.

Again I find myself not having blogged in many months. Donovan, you must be giving up on my by now. As soon as I’m back I will voluntarily walk with you to the gallows, and I’ll even put the noose around my own neck. However, this is the easiest platform to reach everyone.

I left SA nearly a week ago already. I’ll start at the beginning (it’s a very good place to start, you know) for those of you I haven’t filled in already. For those who know this part, tough. Haha.

After a relatively uneventful flight to JHB from Durban, I finally arrived at the Virgin Atlantic check in counter. Now as you know, I’m paranoid about getting things wrong. I’m obsessive about knowing EXACTLY what I need to do. So you can believe me when I say that I had checked Virgin’s website many times about baggage allowances and rules. The website expressly stated that I can take 23kgs, but up to 32kgs if I was willing to pay an extra £35. Sure, that’s not a great deal for 9 extra kgs. Great. So I trotted up to the counter, with an enthusiasm to match Maria’s as she was calling to the hills. That little bubble was soon deflated. The check-in lady looked and me and said I was only allowed to take 23kgs. “Yes,” I replied, “but your website says I can take 32kgs for an extra £35”. “No,” she said, “That only begins in November”. “But I checked your website today! It didn’t say that – it said that the policy is already in place!” At this point the blond lady behind the other counter chipped in with a: “No, it’s not on the website. He can go look right now – it’s not on there. It’s not our problem”. Panic. The thought of emptying 6 kgs (as I had only packed 29kgs) at the airport was horrifying. After much pleading and begging, I eventually played the scholarship card – thank goodness for the British Council. A quick flash of the letter giving me permission to take in an extra 10kgs was all it took, apparently. But not after Virgin Atlantic charging me an extra R300/kg!

Needless to say, I’m not flying Virgin again.

After that it was a mere 3 hour wait until my flight. All proceeded well enough. It was a very cramped flight, and the food was awful. My Nationwide flight to the UK a few years back was actually better than this Virgin flight. Anyway, enough complaining. The best is yet to come. Arrival at Heathrow: 6:45. Departure from Heathrow: 11:20. The queues. THE QUEUES!! Apparently every student in the world has decided to study in the UK. The queue was insanely long. And of course, the mandatory x-rays and medical report for SA students are useless: it is evident that the British do not trust SA doctors, as I had to stand in ANOTHER queue to get confirmation that my xrays were real and that my doctor is credible. Ugh.

Fastforward: 2 hours, a calm coach drive, and an exhausting walk with a 30kg bag and 6kg handbag later I arrived at my residence. Missing several fingers and surely suffering from dehydration, but alive.

My location is amazing. I’m on the 5^th storey of a University-managed building right on the beach. And my room is sea-facing! It’s our building, the main road, the promenade, then the beach. It reall is as close to the sea as possible. There are about 180 students from all over the world staying in my building, and I’ve only met a handful of them. My roommates are all very friendly: I haven’t spent much time with them, but we get on well. I have 5 roommates, from China, Japan, America, Iran and Singapore. Over the past few days I’ve managed to connect with to fantastic people – Peter and Beth. Beth is from SA and is on the same Scholarship as me. She’s doing her DPhil, in a field that I can’t do justice in my filtered and watered-down understanding. Peter is from America, and is also into theatre. He’s doing the same course as me, which is fantastic as I don’t have to travel around alone!! There are so many South Africans around: the Residential Advisor is from Cape Town, and there’s a guy on the 1^st floor who actually went to St Charles 10 years before me. So I certainly do not feel isolated or alone.

What have I been doing? Walking!! I’ve never walked this much in my life. Brighton is an amazing city – it’s a beach town, but a big city as well. It reminds me of Durban in many ways. If Durban was cleaned up, made extra extra safe, and given a good shot of tolerance it could be Brighton. The history is incredible. My res is right by the Royal Pavilion, build by the Prince Regent in the early 19^th century. There are Gothic churches, modern libraries, tudor homes, European-style squares..everything you can think of. There are lanes and gardens all over, with so many different shops. I haven’t even begun to explore the shops! I’m thinking about getting some rollerblades to get around – loads of people have them, and there are lanes on the roads dedicated to cycling/skateboarding/rollerblading. I’ve been out every night – not to clubs, but just exploring the city. It’s amazing to be in a place where there are police patrolling 24/7, and I don’t feel afraid to walk around alone or in a small group. Beth, Peter and I spent one night wandering around a suburb, and eventually made our way onto the beach to discuss politics and gender theory. Last night we went to an open mic evening at a bohemian coffeehouse where we heard incredible live music and spoken word. It’s so refreshing to be in a city where tolerance is infused with the mainstream. There was a girl last night who read a poem dedicated to her girlfriend for their 3 year anniversary – and everyone cheered. I haven’t encountered any hate (except towards the government). I’m not naive to think that it’s not there. But it’s certainly not as tangible as in South Africa.

What else to fill you in?

Tomorrow I’m going onto campus to meet my lecturers and classmates for the first time. I’m looking forward to starting classes on Monday! The link to my program is below:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/publications/pgrad2009/areasofstudy/Gender%20studies/20442

I’ve taken loads of pictures already. You can view them here:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=158211&id=503735358&l=68034a2880

It’s very expensive living here. I’ve stopped converting to Rands, thank goodness, because if I carried on I’d die of heart failure. The transport is pricey, but I purchased a rail saver card today. And as for the food…I’ve been living on Pepsi and Mars Bars. No, not really. I made lasagne the other night that I’ve frozen for the next week. Come Sunday I’m going to have to plot out exact meals for the week, because otherwise all of my money is going to be spent on food. Which I don’t want.

I can’t WAIT to go into London and spend all of my money on musical theatre! Wicked! Les Mis (again)! La Cage aux Folles (with John Barrowman!!!!!!!). Ah, bliss.

I think that’s all for now. I’ve been sick for the last day (lack of sleep and general travel fatigue I think), so my mind is a bit hazy at the moment. I’ll keep you posted on what’s happening in my life!

Watch this space.

Miss you all

Share on Facebook

—–

To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to competently govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories.

Except Utah, which she does not fancy.

Your new Prime Minister (The Right Honourable Gordon Brown MP, for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a Minister for America without the need for further elections.

The House of Representatives and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up “aluminium.” Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘favour’ and ‘neighbour’; skipping the letter ‘U’ is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut’ without skipping half the letters.

You will end your love affair with the letter ‘Z’ (pronounced ‘zed’ not ‘zee’) and the suffix “ize” will be replaced by the suffix “ise.”

You will learn that the suffix ‘burgh’ is pronounced ‘burra’ e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to re-spell Pittsburgh as ‘Pittsberg’ if you can’t cope with correct pronunciation.

Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up “vocabulary.” Using the same thirty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “uhh”, “like”, and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

Look up “interspersed.”

There will be no more ‘bleeps’ in the Jerry Springer show. If you’re not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn’t have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary, then you won’t have to use bad language as often.

2. There is no such thing as “US English.” We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter ‘u’ and the elimination of “-ize.”

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn’t that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier).

You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents — Scottish dramas such as “Taggart” will no longer be broadcast with subtitles.

While we’re talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is “Devon.” If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become “shires” e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters.

British sit-coms such as “Men Behaving Badly” or “Red Dwarf” will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can’t cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness. Popular British films such as the Italian Job and the Wicker Man should never be remade.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, “God Save The Queen”, but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American “football.” There are other types of football such as Rugby, Aussie Rules & Gaelic football. However proper football - which will no longer be known as soccer, is the best known, most loved and most popular. What you refer to as American “football” is not a very good game.

The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays “American” football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football.

Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American “football”, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies).

We are hoping to get together at least a US Rugby sevens side by 2010.

You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the ‘World Series’ for a game which is not played outside of North America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls’ game called “rounders,” which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

7. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don’t believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

8. The 4th of July is no longer a public holiday. The 2nd of November will be a new national holiday, but only in Britain. It will be called “Indecisive Day.”

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap, and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call ‘French fries’ are not real chips. Fries aren’t even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called “crisps.” Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat.

Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.

12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling “beer” is not actually beer at all, it is lager . From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as “beer,” and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as “Lager.” The substances formerly known as “American Beer” will henceforth be referred to as “Near-Frozen Gnat’s Urine,” with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as “Weak Near-Frozen Gnat’s Urine.” This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in the Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

13. From the 10th of November the UK will harmonise petrol (or “gasoline,” as you will be permitted to keep calling it until the 1st of April) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $10/US gallon — get used to it).

14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you’re not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you’re not grown up enough to handle a gun.

15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us crazy.

16. Tax collectors from Her Majesty’s Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your co-operation.

Share on Facebook

And that got me thinking: do we judge him as a pioneer for gay rights? As a symbol of the young gay man today? As an icon in a continuous struggle for equality?

And my personal answer would be no to all of the above. Adam Lambert, for me, represents something far more complex and yet simpler at the same time. He speaks to the nature of sexual identity politics for so many ‘gay’ people today (young, maybe old?). He does not flaunt a personal struggle to come to terms with identity - indeed, as far as I’m aware he hasn’t specifically said “I am gay”…he’s just said that he has nothing to hide.

Nor does he speak out for any cause.

What this symbolises from my perspective is a frustration with labels and the media. Friends I have spoken to are tired of being labeled “gay”, because what does GAY mean? They’re tired of having to clarify, they’re tired of being judged by just ONE aspect of their life.

So whilst some people who watch AI are chatting about whether there’ll be a GAY winner, Adam Lambert is standing there as the epitome of the pomosexual man - the man who has moved beyond petty sexual identity politics.

Instead of lashing out about the Miss California issue, or speaking about gay marriage or whatever other issues, he just continues to do what he does best: perform.

And the message he sends is very clear:

“I’m here, and I can sing. I may be gay, I may not be, but who gives a f**k if I am? I still rock your world”

And that’s exactly what pomosexuality is, that “who cares??” aspect of life in relation to identity - who cares if he’s gay? If you’re asking, then it’s an issue for YOU, and YOU need to deal with it. Either that or you’re gay yourself and want to have some sort of common connection fantasy to him (no judgement here…). He’s beyond it - so don’t judge him or analyse him according to a set of predetermined values.

Adam, for me, is the pomosexual man. He may label himself as gay for convenience, but by no means is that a defining feature of him. He’s a testament to contemporary existence for many people - move on. Get over sexual labels, they’re not nearly as important as you think they are. There are bigger things to worry about in the world.

No, I’m not hero worshiping him. Nor am I putting pressure on him to live up to any expectations. I am simply observing his projected image. I don’t expect him to do certain things in terms of his life outside performing, nor do I expect him to say certain things about certain issues. And it is this lack of expectation that defines a pomosexual mode of representation - not a lack of ethics, but rather a lack of ‘hype’ around who’s gay/straight/bi/tri/trans/a/etc etc etc.

And so no, his presence on TV has not increased gay visibility. It instead serves as an insight into a segment of society that has evolved beyond dominant ideologies of heteronormativity and patriarchy. His presence has increased pomosexual visibility - it leaves those outside to the familiar prejudices of the Othering process thinking “WTF??”. And that is why Adam Lambert is incredible as an artist.

Viva the pomosexual. Viva Adam Lambert.

Share on Facebook

So here’s the first draft of my proposal. Well, part of it at least - I haven’t included some of the sections…In fact, I’ve only included 3 of the 12 sections

1) Short descriptive title:

From Homo to Pomo: ‘gay identity’ amongst young white men in contemporary South Africa

2) Background and outline of research problem:

There is presently a lack of representation around the demographic consisting of young, white, urban gay men in post-apartheid texts. This new generation of those who may be conventionally labelled a part of a ‘gay culture’ exists in a space of liminal tensions based on issues of local South/African identity and Western influence. Assumptions of belonging by virtue of a perceived common and homogenous homosexuality currently erode a sense of progression or concern that such a lack of representation may symbolise. This demographic, in my experience, knows little about the international gay rights movement of the 1970s onwards and the later unifying experience of a struggle against Aids (Sullivan, 2008). Similarly, despite numerous historical documentations, little appreciation and understanding is shown for the struggle against legalised persecution in South Africa and the synonymity of sexual politics with racial politics (Hoad in Hoad, Martin and Reid, 2005: 17). My peers from this demographic fail to recognise the significance of Constitutional protection from discrimination and the battles fought to reach such a point. Yet this group, through the presence of international glossy magazines, are perceived to be the essentialised representations of a transnational, cosmopolitan ‘gay culture’ (Rushbrook, 2002; Sender, 2003). There exists a transnational influence in the form of ‘coming of age stories’ available on the shelves of commercial bookstores and ‘coming out’ films popularised on the Internet and television. Working in unison with these cultural presences is the lack of South African cultural artefacts which could explore and deconstruct the variety of contemporary experiences coupled with the pressures of ideological state apparatuses such as the family and the schooling system. These factors have immense implications for understandings of sexuality, sexual identity, identity politics and social reconciliation. It is the aim of this dissertation to explore the influences on this demographic and explore their possible implications.

The research problem at hand is the lack of post-apartheid textual representation of contemporary white, ‘gay’, urban South African men.  As far as a ‘mainstream’ Westernised popular understanding of ‘gay culture’, how does this demographic function in South Africa? Based on existing texts, what are the possible emic perceptions of a ‘homosexual identity’? Similarly, in a context where magazines exist as links to a transnationalised identity how can we move away a representation based on regulated superficial cosmopolitanism (Sender, 2003: 332) towards a localised literary exploration of ideology?

This dissertation seeks to explore an underlying trend of ‘pomosexuality’ in contemporary ‘gay’ texts and apply it to a South African context. It hypothesises that as a result of identity instability, ideological pressure and cosmopolitan influence (evident in transnational texts) contemporary internal attitudes about ‘gay identity’ in South Africa have moved away from a reactive all-encompassing view of community and unity, and away from a model based on a struggle for gay rights. The demographic at hand has instead potentially developed the basis of a model of an idealised and yearned-for state of indifference to sexual identity whilst instead being ethically concerned with human rights at large. This demographic has ultimately shifted from being “homo” to being “pomo”.

3) Preliminary literature study, and reasons for choosing topic:

The struggle for human rights in South Africa is historically synonymous with the quest for gay rights and the recognition of homosexual identities as viable spheres of existence in society. There is a wealth of literature, anthologies and poetry available in post-apartheid South Africa that explicitly explores the complexities of sexual identity politics, both before and after 1994. Such cultural artefacts deconstruct tendencies that homogenise ‘alternative’ identities as simply the ‘Other’ to heteronormativity. The essentialised notion of “the gay experience” (Gevisser and Cameron, 1994: 3) has shifted away from a white, middle class, urban homosexual identity to embrace a wider discourse of sexual identity which includes accounts of lesbian sangomas, “boy wives” (Epprecht, 2004: 3) and transnational gayness (Sullivan, 2008). Fifteen years after South Africa’s entry into democracy the legal framework for equality and tolerance exists in the form of a highly progressive Constitution and the Civil Unions Act (Stobie, 2007: 14). This is coupled with the ‘mainstream’ publication of novels dealing with sexual identity, and a relatively free media that offers various periodicals and websites that cater for gay concerns and interests. Whilst dominant ideologies are far from tolerant and accepting, it is important to acknowledge the progress on the front of gay rights that is evident in historical accounts of the struggle for freedom.

However, a distinct chasm has become evident in the textual representations of sexual identities in post-apartheid South Africa. The previously essentialised demographic of homosexuality has all but vanished from the focus of local literature and studies. Outside the realm of magazines, which in context can exist as products of a mode of representation  focused on developing “consumers and commodities” (Rushbrook, 2002: 184; Sender, 2003; Sigusch, 1998) my generation of white, middle class gay youths raised in a post-apartheid South Africa remain unrepresented  on matters of identity, belonging and sexual politics. The maze of identities that my peers walk potentially speaks to the nature of a contemporary South African existence. Texts exist that deal with pre-democracy identity politics and ideological pressure, such as André Carl van der Merwe’s Moffie (2006), and highlight the gauntlet of obstacles designed to suppress difference and undo steps toward the development of a healthy sense of Self (Creet, 1995). Similarly, contemporary international texts such as Alex Sanchez’s American Rainbow trilogy (2001; 2003; 2005) highlight the socialisation roles that schools and families play in creating “anxieties” about identity (Creet, 1995). An unsettling lacuna is evident, however, if one attempts to fully transpose this trilogy to a South African context. The demographic of young, white, urban ‘gay’ men is one which is transnationally perceived to be that of the ideal gay consumer (Sender, 2003: 335) or the identity that participates in a Western notion of gay culture. Certainly, a fluid presence in the form of cosmopolitan magazines exists. However, it is bizarre that this group’s exposure to these and other international texts has not led to the development of local texts equivalent to cultural artefacts such as the Rainbow trilogy in  to explore similar issues in a South African context.

From a race perspective my reason for choosing this particular demographic stems from a personal interest and not a desire to essentialise any aspect of identity, nor a desire to organise homosexuality in South Africa into any homogenous hierarchy. Gay-themed films and magazines that are available locally, even in a relatively conservative city such as Pietermaritzburg, reflect a transnational capitalist based interest in this particular demographic. The magazines and films are intentionally marketed to and directed at these men (Sender, 2003: 360). Similarly, from an age perspective personal experience has reflected a growing uncertainty amongst my generation – namely 16 to 30 year olds. It is this generation that has grown up in a democratic South Africa free from conscription and legalised persecution, with Constitutional protection largely taken for granted. I have found that the content of these texts has placed me and my peers, as members of this demographic, in a liminal space of non-identity: exposure to this content has allowed us to explore and develop aspects of ourselves in a lived cultural environment which otherwise often discourages and punishes such exploration. In this space lies the tension of international awareness and comparison, with a generalised lack of knowledge of local struggle history, against a lacuna of localised representation. Certainly magazines such as Wrapped and Gay Pages deal explicitly with gay-based issues and concerns. However, this demographic has no easily available textual representation in the form of literary information for young readers — such as the information provided in Alex Sanchez’s American Rainbow trilogy (2001; 2003; 2005). This very personal and subjective experience is the main motivation behind this research. By no means does this dissertation seek to suggest that this demographic is the most important or the one most lacking in representation. Neither does this dissertation suggest that texts representing other demographics are more readily available. It rather seeks to piece together the pre-existing international and transnational focus on this demographic with an authentic South African perspective where a lacuna currently exists in textual representation equal to that of a transnational presence and availability. The dissertation seeks to destabilise assumptions about this identity, including the connotations behind the label of ‘gay’ and assumptions of identity hierarchy currently reflected in magazines (Sender, 2003: 334).

In the context of such a lacuna models of identification and theories regarding “the formation of homosexual identities” (Troiden, 1989: 43) do exist. Richard Troiden’s model (1989: 43) suggests a progression through stages of homosexual identity development, culminating in the eventual “commitment” to “the homosexual role” (1989: 63). Such a model is antiquated and risks homogenising a group that, historically speaking, is exceptionally diverse. Whilst other models exist this particular model illustrates the unstable and unquantifiable nature of identity through its two-decade-old contextualisation. Judith Butler’s (1999) exploration of “gender trouble” is useful in understanding a “climate of contesting the singularity and stability of identity categories” (Creet, 1995: 181), and yet such contestation is lacking with regard to understanding a minority within a minority – young, white, urban ‘gay’ men. I wish to emphasise that by no means is this demographic a homogenous group. Rather, based on trends of masculinity and identity formation extended from Sean Nixon’s (1997) investigation of masculinity evident in certain texts, and Robert Morrell’s work (2001; Ouzgane and Morrell, 2005) on contextualising the changing landscape of what it ‘means’ to be a man in South Africa, I seek to explore how this demographic may exist in South Africa, and how it fits into the tension of a history of human rights advocacy and reputation of superficial cosmopolitan consumerism (Sigusch, 1998; Sender, 2003; Rushbrook, 2002). 

In such a context I seek to extend the notion of pomosexuality (Queen and Schimel, 1997) to a South African setting. Current identity discussions on texts are limited by discussions of community, activism and ‘gay rights’. The challenge, it seems, is to offer an explanation that combines a recognition of ideological obstacles with a revolutionised sexual identity that does not limit a generation seemingly grudgingly opposed to gender troubles, predefined identities and allocated modes of existence. This needs to be done in a manner that does not dismiss the achievements of the past and does not delve into a realm of superficial trends all the while losing a sense of ethos and purpose. I seek to extend the notion of pomosexuality not as a passing craze, but rather as a viable model to explore masculinity and homosexuality as reflected in texts; to explain a future of identity politics in South Africa; and maintain an ethical approach to realistic pop-culture existence (which is often lacking in magazines) in an increasingly mediated and transnational world. This will be done by using Alex Sanchez’s Rainbow trilogy (2001; 2003; 2005) as a textual starting point for insight into this transnational and cosmopolitan identity. This will then be integrated with the ideological barriers presented in André Carl van der Merwe’s novel Moffie (2006) to explore the “loaded words” (Christina, 1997:29) which mould identity in South Africa. Ultimately this insight will be combined with the archetypal ‘pomosexual man’ presented in Jonah Markowitz’s film Shelter (2007) to offer a new direction in understanding and exploring sexual identity politics.

I have selected these key texts for the base structure they offer in navigating the lacuna of representation. Alex Sanchez’s American Rainbow trilogy (2001; 2003; 2005) offers an archetypal insight into contemporary assumptions about and challenges facing a demographic of young, white, gay men. The trilogy, explicitly written for this particular demographic, explores the lived cultural experiences of ‘gay’ men progressing from high school into a university/‘real world’ environment. The trilogy is structured in a way that offers support to those readers living in similar conditions, evident in the numerous helpline numbers and websites included at the back of each novel. As such, this trilogy forms the basis of an understanding of the transnationalised cosmopolitan ‘gay experience’ offered in local magazines, as well as an understanding of the ideological forces that direct and shape identity development. The archetypes and experiences presented will be linked to a South African context through the use of Moffie (van der Merwe, 2006). The novel, though drastically different to the Rainbow trilogy in tone, structure, characterisation and intended reader offers an insight into local ideological forces that shaped (and continue to shape) attitudes and perceptions of homosexuality. Set in the 1980s Moffie explores the roles of the family and the state (through the national defence force) in implementing conceptions of ‘proper’ masculinity and acceptable behaviour– often through brute force and abuse. The novel marks a close localised form of representation available to the demographic at hand: although the reader may not relate directly to the specific instances of South African life during apartheid, one can easily relate to the ideological forms of oppression it explores, which are similar in consequence to those expressed in the Rainbow trilogy. The novel offers insight into the changing nature of politics and identity alongside the period Richard Troiden developed his model of identity development (1989: 43). The final text, Jonah Markowitz’s American-based Shelter (2007), will form the basis of developing a notion of ‘pomosexual identity’ and analysis by extending van der Merwe’s depictions of identity and Sanchez’s explorations of struggle and resolution to a contemporary South African context. The depiction of the unification of homosexuality with traditionally heterosexual activities (particularly surfing); the instability of heterosexual family life; the lack of discomfort around ‘gayness’; and the underlying critique of what it ‘means’ to be gay offers the framework for both creating local representations and understanding contemporary sexual identities. The film highlights the unsuitability of sexual labels, and from this point the dissertation will present the argument for pomosexuality.

I am potentially limited in this research by a lack of ethnographic evidence to support my discussions and conclusions. The issues I shall discuss have merit only through textual analysis and auto-ethnographic illustration. The use of auto-ethnography similarly raises some potential limitations (Wall, 2008:42). However, this will be avoided and any potential limitations overcome by the careful use of personal examples as a member of the analysed demographic solely to “advance sociological understanding” (Wall, 2008: 39) as is necessary to give postmodern insight into a postmodern concept. This dissertation is based in the discipline of English Studies, and it primarily draws on textual analysis. As such I emphasise that personal examples will be used with the thorough purpose of illustrating such analyses to the end of linking discourse with authentic South African experiences. It cannot be assumed that my subjective position is a reflection of all members of my demographic, but my experiences and the experiences of my peer group certainly illustrate the struggles and concerns that this study’s key texts raise, which in turn speaks for the deep ideological workings of South African society. This combination is necessary in order to offer a critique of current models of homosexual identity development, which this dissertation argues are outdated and out of touch.

The value in pursuing this research topic lies in a goal of reconciliation and education. Whilst contemporary studies have focused on the diversification of sexual identity politics in post-apartheid South Africa little exists in the realm of understanding and offering ‘support’ for this demographic. My exploration of representations of sexuality and the transposition of these representations to a viable pomosexual model for analysis, understanding and engagement will ideally serve as a platform for increased awareness of the difficulties that this demographic faces, and the direction that a movement of education and human rights should take. I seek to reconcile misunderstandings and misconceptions about those who claim this identity with a practical approach to what literature and cultural resources need to be provided in a step toward realistic equality.

Share on Facebook

But I’m back and trying to give it a go again! So here goes…

Life check:

- Completed Honours (yay)

- Now doing Masters in English, with a focus on Gender Studies

I think my first proper post will be about what I plan to research

Share on Facebook

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

Although there are many contradictions in contemporary beliefs, trends and ideas, I shall not delve into them all. That would take pages and pages. What I wish to address is the much-debated issue of “gayness” and “homosexuality”. Having a number of openly gay friends, I find the hostility and prejudice against Christianity disturbing - isn’t it sad that a religion that preaches love and universal acceptance isolates such a large portion of humanity? I do not wish to condemn those so-called Christian’s who believe that “homosexuality” is wrong - I just wish to open their minds to other possibilities.

The premise for my analysis lies on the idea that there are so many versions of the Bible, so many denominations, so many interpretations that ALL believe that they are “right”. We need to understand that the Bible IS man-made - although writings may be by holy men and women or inspired by God (which is not what I am arguing here), the Bible was compiled by man. Certain texts were left out completely - refer to E Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985) for the Gospels that are not included in the popular Bible.

Combine this with hundreds of translations through many languages over many generations and you’re bound to have a few misinterpretations and incorrect assumptions. Yes, we can trust that the Bible contains the will of God. But we need to remember that MAN is not trustworthy - interpretations and translations contain the prejudices of those doing the translations.

Similarly, many ministers and preachers are NOT trained in interpretation and translation. Those who are our religious anchors are often no more educated in reading texts than the average congregation member.

So all of these elements form the basis of my interpretations. I am not trying to convince anyone in this note - merely open your minds. Bare in mind that I am not an expert - I do not speak Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. I am not skilled in translation. I have merely exposed myself to those who DO, and have formed my own opinions. I do not blindly accept that which is taught to me: people have their own motives, and so to argue “But the Bible says…” is reflecting ignorance.

I shall now briefly look at some Bible verses used to condemn “homosexuality”. In this note I consider “homosexuality” from today’s context. This context includes a liberal constitution, whereby “gay” people have emotional feelings for members of the same sex, and their sexual “preferences” are perspectives of normality. I am not simply referring to sexual acts. We also need to remember that what defines ‘homosexuality’ is also a highly contentious issue. Several scholars argue that the term and concept of ‘homosexuality’ only arose in the 19^th century. In his article “How to do the history of male homosexuality”, Halperin illustrates how our contemporary understanding of “gayness” is drastically different to historically documented forms of sexual behaviour. Baring in mind that we cannot infer any contemporary concepts onto completely different contexts, allow me to explore some ‘alternative’ interpretations to the Bible.

Genesis 19:1-11
This verse has caused much debate and argument. Lot, living in the city of Sodom, offers two strangers hospitality for the night. The enraged men of Sodom demand that Lot “Bring them out to us so that we may know them.” The problem lies in the word know. Modern interpretations have translated this word to have sexual meaning - the Good News Bible translates it to “The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them.” Immediately we see a huge difference in meaning. The city immediately becomes immoral because of the men’s desire to “have sex” with other men.

However, Jesus himself says that Sodom was not destroyed because of “homosexual” tendencies:

• Matthew 10:14-15: “And if some home or town will not welcome you or listen to you, then leave that place and shake dust off your feet. I assure you that on the Judgement Day God will show mercy to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah than to the people of that Town!”

• Luke 10:10-12: “But whenever you go into a town and are not welcomed, go out in the streets and say, ‘Even the dust from your town sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. But remember that the Kingdom of God has come near you!’ I assure you that on Judgement Day God will show more mercy to Sodom that to that town!”

Now place this into the context of Genesis: custom of the time dictated that strangers in cities could not be hosted or entertained after nightfall without the permission of the elders. Lot thus entertains the men without permission, and subsequently violates custom. Surely then “know” simply can mean KNOW, and have no sexual connotations in the traditional text? Similarly, no further reference is made to Sodom as a place of “homosexuality” in the Bible.

Leviticus

Let us place this book in context. Male priests of the time were clearly defining Jewish cultural practices and customs in order to distinguish them from surrounding “pagan” practices in the new region. We thus need to constantly refer to each verse in this book in relation to previous verses and overall context. Please note: all Greek and Latin translations are courtesy of the University of KZN, Classics Department.

• Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”.

This word “abomination” is problematic - look at other versions of the bible to see what it has been translated to. In Hebrew this word is TOEVAH, the version of the original Greek word BDELUCMA. These words translate to English as “Ritually unclean”.

In context of 18:21 (”You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.”), one can see that the verse relates to idolatry practices of surrounding groups.

Thus, verse 22 is a highly probable reference to temple prostitution and male prostitution as part of idolatry worship of the time. The verse does not refer to “gay” behaviour in a modern sense - it does not refer to today’s notions of “homosexuality”. The verse basically says, “We are Jews - we do not behave like pagans and follow their ritual practices”.

• Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination…” Again the context of this verse is idolatry: refer to 20:1-5. The verse is referring to the popular Molech (also known as Baal) cult. Referring to other commands, all aspects of the book refer to “ritually unclean” practices - such as eating pork, or sleeping with a woman during her period. It has been strongly suggested that “homosexual” references refer to curbing male temple prostitution as seen by Molech followers.

Thus, Leviticus does not refer to “homosexuality” as being inherently evil as many people have tried to suggest. Again, we simply cannot impose Biblical understandings of same-sex-sexual encounters onto a contemporary context.

Let us now turn our attention to the New Testament. Referring to letters of the St Paul, which were written in Greek, we need to understand that they were being written from the perspective of a Hellenised Jew - Paul was combining elements of the Greek and Jewish tradition.

1 Corinthians 9-11
This letter is addressed to the people of Corinth, a city well-known for its mixture of cultures, races, and competing religious systems. These verses refer to those who will not “inherit the kingdom of God”. The first on the list is the “immoral” (Greek pornoi). This is followed by:

• Idolaters
• Adulterers
• Homosexuals
• Thieves
• Drunkards
• Revilers
• Robbers

Referring to “homosexuals”, let us look at the Greek that Paul uses. Paul uses two Greek words here - MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI. These two words have caused much confusion in terms of translation: there are no agreed upon meanings as to what the words mean.

• Malakoi: In Greek this word means “soft” or “gentle”. In relation to pornoi, Paul probably means someone with “loose morals” or a “lack of self control”. Before modern interpretations, the word was used for both men and woman, completely independent of sexuality. Thus, Paul is using it as a general term for those with loose morals.

• Arsenokoitai: This word is highly problematic. Paul created this word as a direct translation of the Hebrew words found in Leviticus. As we know even from Afrikaans or French to English, direct translations do not accurately reflect the meaning behind the original words. The direct meaning of the word can be broken into “arseno” (male) and “koitai” (lying with; going to bed with). However, we need to consider the context behind the Hebrew word. Is Paul referring to male prostitution in general? He cannot be referring to today’s conception of “homosexuality”, as that word was - in fact - only coined in 1892.

We thus need to be careful of using Corinthians to condemn “homosexuality”. Understanding that the word “homosexual” is a very modern construct, the ideologies and discourses surrounding Paul’s context simply cannot be placed alongside contemporary ideas and attitudes.

1 Timothy 8-10
Here the law is being laid down for the lawless and disobedient, the “ungodly and sinners”. Another list is given, including: murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, immoral persons sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers. Again, immoral persons refers to the Greek word “pornoi”, and Paul uses “arsenokoitai” again for “sodomites”. We need to reflect on the contexts discussed above, and whether the modern term “sodomites” is an accurate translation for the Greek word and Hebrew context.

Romans 1:26-27

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Paul here is speaking about how the ancients knew about God, but did not honour Him - they created images and idols. As a result, they surrendered to idolatry passions:

• Women: Exchanged natural relations for unnatural
• Men: Gave up natural relations with women for each other - they committed “shameless acts”

It is clear that Paul is condemning “homosexual” acts committed by previous “heterosexuals” - this passage refers not to “gay” people as we understand it today and “homosexuals” in general, but to the behaviours of deviant heterosexuals.

Conclusions?

As can be seen, there are huge problems in translation: it is essential to go back to the original text and context. Sadly, many modern Christians are not aware of this, and many spiritual leaders are uneducated and narrow-minded. The Bible is not a text that can simply be translated for modern reading - images and context constantly change.

Similarly, there was not concept of modern “homosexuality” in the ancient world. Paul’s words he created contain ambiguous meanings, and it is wrong to just assume that “the bible says being gay is wrong”. Although the bible condemns male-same-sex-sexual-relations in Leviticus and Romans, this needs to be understood in a context of idolatry, male prostitution, and temple prostitution.

And what about “lesbianism” we must ask?

Let us turn to Jesus Christ’s teachings: surely if “homosexuality” in modern terms was an issue Jesus would have said something? And if “homosexuality” was such a sin and big issue, the bible would deal with the subject in depth and clearly?

We need to understand that sexuality is culturally constructed: we cannot transfer modern beliefs and understanding to an ancient context. We are too dependent on literal, direct translations of the bible. As Christians we need to remember that our beliefs command love, acceptance, tolerance and understanding. God loves all and is not narrow-minded: you believe He created the world, and so everything and everyone exists for a reason.

Remember that nothing is cast in stone, and that as a “Christian” people should follow your example and admire you. Judgement and condemnation of the way some people are in their very being does not, in my opinion, seem like a very Christian attitude.

Perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on the ability to speak in tongues, or be “slain” by the spirit. It seems to me that we’ve lost sight of what it means to be a Christian. Certainly we can preach against promiscuity, but I have a feeling that Paul would be condemning such hypocrisy and superficiality as opposed to condemning “homosexuals”.

I believe that in a world with so much blatant evil, the Christian “community” should be focusing on love, acceptance and peace. Far too much energy is being spent on the condemnation of homosexuals - the condemnation of people who often are gay and simply cannot ‘do’ anything about it. If religious leaders like Desmond Tutu believe that homosexuality is not a sin (he has written the introductions to many books on homosexuality and it’s acceptability in terms of religion), and that we should be focusing our energy on more relevant and tangible issues, then perhaps fundamentalists and followers of TV-Evangelism should take a step back and realise what harm that are doing in the name of ‘Christianity’.

[All information from University of KwaZulu Natal]

Share on Facebook

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Provinces of South Africa, and to the Republic for which it stands …

Then again, maybe not.

I have run into a fair amount of criticism for not being completely patriotic and enthusiastic about the construction of a compulsory South African identity.

No, I am not “proudly South African”, and I am proud to say it. In the seemingly desperate battle for a uniform that everyone — regardless of race, creed, background or shoe size — can don, we have lost sight of what should truly define us as a country: our diversity.

The recent proposal to introduce a pledge into schools is a backward step in defining a sense of national pride. While I fully support the notion of being made aware of the sacrifices that great people have made in the past so that we may have the future we are currently living, I struggle to come to terms with the expectation that in order to qualify as a true South African, one must be proud of all people, values and traditions deemed worthy.

Don’t get me wrong — I realise that the pledge and the drive toward a national ethics include an appreciation for some of the most fundamental human rights. But the motivation behind it is warped: the ANC is mimicking the strategy of less complicated countries in a bid to say: “Yes, it means this to be a South African: [insert list of worthy adjectives here].”

The existence of a national ideology, a national identity, is a foreign concept for South Africans: it is irrational to assume that we can simply set aside all our differences.

What is also bizarre is to assume that we have a reason to place our “national identity” above any other that we may have. People usually do not enjoy placing a singular identity above others — I am sure no gay man, for example, likes to be defined solely by the fact that he is gay, or a black woman by the fact that she is black.

So why, then, do we assume that in such a culturally diverse country, where ties to heritage, family or self-formed identity run deep, we should naturally choose to place an imposed national identity above all others?

Of course the pledge and the extended “Proudly South African” campaign goes hand-in-hand with the need to create a tangible definition of what it means to “be” South African: what the country as an entity stands for, and thus what it means to be a part of it. I am all for entrenching a notion of human respect among all citizens. My problem lies with the shroud of superficiality that surrounds the eradication of difference in the process.

For some reason there seems to be a chilling fear when it comes to difference. Differences are thought to be absolutely synonymous with conflict, rebellion and nation-degeneration. Far from celebrating difference and encouraging an understanding about other cultures (in the broadest sense of the word), there appears to be a continuing tendency to conform towards an idealised and irrational Westernised paradigm of normality.

Our Constitution shines with talk of equal rights, tolerance and acceptance, yet the powers that be frequently act in ways that seem to oppress sub-groups and reverse any change that may have taken place. And generally if one complains about an approach, one is either called counter-progressive in one form or another, or simply told to leave the country.

Now that’s what I call forward thinking.

So what, then, am I expected to be proudly South African about?

Is it the history of the land into which I was born, through no choice of my own? Is it the achievements of individuals from the past, whom I shall never know personally? Is it the country’s peaceful shift into democracy, of which I was oblivious due to my age? Or is it something more trivial — such as the friendly people, or the weather? I would not die for “my country” if we were called to war. Nor would I get into an argument of blind and violent defence if a foreigner began criticising it.

Ironically, the majority of patriots that I have encountered are proud of the quirky sayings, the food, the weather or the geographical features of the country — not the surface values or the institutions.

For me to say: “I am a proud South African”, and be proud to take on a national identity, we as a people (defined by geographical borders) would have to realise that no, we cannot simply forget our differences. And, as opposed to shying away from the possibility that we may all be different (horror), embrace our plurality with the mindset of realising that there are alternatives to our narrow ways of life. The key here is to advocate a negotiation of understanding, not a compromise of beliefs.

Perhaps the decision to introduce a pledge was a move in this very direction. But I hardly think so. We cannot hope to forge that common link between groups when difference is suffocated and ideals are introduced merely to mask variation and smother true tolerance.

Of course I am being idealistic — but so is the current approach. Which is more far-fetched: to work towards convincing people to set aside their differences because “essentially we are all equal” (but of course some are more equal than others), or to work towards convincing people that through our differences we can appreciate the fact that we deserve equal rights and respect? Difference is deeply entrenched in this country. Why not celebrate it first and become united through it later? The current ideology needs to shift away from simply saying we encourage difference.

I agree we need some common sense of social cohesion. The fact that I have used “we” throughout this post shows that there is a space for the development of a mutual identity. National identity is something from which we paradoxically cannot shy away in our apparent postmodern existence.

However, a South African should be defined in terms of something completely unique — something that does not mimic other national identities. There is a need for an executive that sets an example: we need new leaders who show the people what it means to be tolerant and accepting, and who do not try to enforce values from the bottom-up.

We need to build a notion of pride and unity around a society that has truly managed to overcome ideological walls and identity barriers, and not simply been forced to sweep them under the ANC welcome mat.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook