The subject of political correctness is probably politically incorrect in itself.
South Africa has a racial past that is toxic to all manner of discourse on any aspect of our co-existence as humans. The reasons for this toxicity can be traced to our developmental path as a nation that continues to entrench its race and ethnic based nationalism. The degree, to which we as a society are ready to confront our nationalist pasts and make them congruent to the rainbowism we are purporting to build, will be determinate on how politically correct or otherwise our discourse can be.
In South Africa political correctness is directly linked to the race relations sub-context that society is avoiding to tackle. The absence of a platform or arena where ideas on how to neutralise the race based tensions that South Africans have to contend with on a daily basis make the nation-building assignment illusive for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the South African nation-building project is more subjective and political hence its foundation is always related to political power aggrandisement and what the constitution protects and guarantees. The survival of our form of nationalism is anchored by policy created ‘democratic institutions’ that convey national identity through cosmetic artefacts such as flags, compromise anthems and so on.
Secondly, the absence of an objective and cultural nationalist feeling that aggregates our various historical experiences of being South African into a potent vision, breeds enclaves of ethno-cultural re-awakenings disguised sometimes as minority rights protection. As a consequence of this, national identity gets trapped in ‘sub-national ethnic’ interests that are ‘legitimately’ represented as ‘minority rights’ within a ‘race defined majority’. It is interesting to note that the majority is aggregated whilst the minorities are segmented.
Thirdly, South African nationalism is contextualised from vintage points that require a cross-racial intellectual discourse for them to be redefined. There is a foundational body of knowledge that has over a historical period defined the culture in minority terms and had that culture intertwined with state power as a dispensing centre. On the other hand there is a foundational knowledge that saw this culture-state relationship in race preservation terms and not as a normal nation-state crafting exercise.
The change in state and ‘majority’ culture relations have over the fifteen years of democratic breakthrough created a debate of what then should be an acceptable culture for South Africa. Since the conduits of cultural identity are language, ethnicity, ‘race’ and religious orientation; the fight for preservation of resource endowed minority ‘cultural’ preferences ensued and got disguised with a diffused civil society movement creation environment.
The resultant tension between fountains of knowledge has been the continuously suspicious and critical review of the congruence of state and culture. The difficulty with the review is the vacuum of cultural and historical homogeneity about being South African. The convergence of oneness in conditions where there is a perceived outside threat such as a foreign sports team is indicative of how this sub-national diversity is melt able.
These matters created therefore a template within which political correctness was defined in South Africa. The defence for your ethnic rights became in the process either a racialised or tribalised matter even if its context is for all intents legitimate.
The above context has even created conditions where critical lessons from the pre-1994 dispensation can only be reintroduced in the policy space in plagiarised formats or disguised as being of foreign origin. It is politically correct for a politician to say the critical posts in local government are CFO, Human resources, City Engineer and Municipal Manager; when this is in essence saying we need to reintroduce the old town clerk, town treasurer, town secretary and town engineer.
The correct naming of these would come with the orientation such office represented. But guess what it may be politically incorrect to accept such. If you ask me, I think political correctness exists in societies that embrace self-censorship at the altar of some perceived balance when the fulcrum is invisible.
The more challenging issue is embedding the right attitudes in the socio-political structure of those charged with the task of nation-building. All socio-political, cultural and economic revolutions and evolutions require a set of congruent attitudes if they are to be of any significance and successful. With our vector of identity being race, our greatest possessions as a nation should be a common rich heritage of memories, good and bad, as well as an agreement detailing a desire to live together and make the most of the joint inheritance as bequeathed by past generations.
The importance of recognising, and sometimes at the cost of discounting some of the group pride emanating from past tribal or ethnic heroic feats, as a larger society that a nation possesses a common stock of thought and feelings acquired during the course of common (territorial) history should be elevated only to build a mental homogeneity about going forward.
The task of becoming politically correct under these circumstances becomes therefore an emotional and intellectual assignment procuring for a togetherness that must be able to transcend established social patterns, rituals and socio-political stereotypes created by that society’s past and perceived future. Since humanity will always, and notoriously so, be prejudiced in its memory; the need to reconcile a society’s memory of its past with an envisaged future should form the basis for the legitimisation of political correctness interests.
South Africa has a racial past that is toxic to all manner of discourse on any aspect of our co-existence as humans. The reasons for this toxicity can be traced to our developmental path as a nation that continues to entrench its race and ethnic based nationalism. The degree, to which we as a society are ready to confront our nationalist pasts and make them congruent to the rainbowism we are purporting to build, will be determinate on how politically correct or otherwise our discourse can be.
In South Africa political correctness is directly linked to the race relations sub-context that society is avoiding to tackle. The absence of a platform or arena where ideas on how to neutralise the race based tensions that South Africans have to contend with on a daily basis make the nation-building assignment illusive for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the South African nation-building project is more subjective and political hence its foundation is always related to political power aggrandisement and what the constitution protects and guarantees. The survival of our form of nationalism is anchored by policy created ‘democratic institutions’ that convey national identity through cosmetic artefacts such as flags, compromise anthems and so on.
Secondly, the absence of an objective and cultural nationalist feeling that aggregates our various historical experiences of being South African into a potent vision, breeds enclaves of ethno-cultural re-awakenings disguised sometimes as minority rights protection. As a consequence of this, national identity gets trapped in ‘sub-national ethnic’ interests that are ‘legitimately’ represented as ‘minority rights’ within a ‘race defined majority’. It is interesting to note that the majority is aggregated whilst the minorities are segmented.
Thirdly, South African nationalism is contextualised from vintage points that require a cross-racial intellectual discourse for them to be redefined. There is a foundational body of knowledge that has over a historical period defined the culture in minority terms and had that culture intertwined with state power as a dispensing centre. On the other hand there is a foundational knowledge that saw this culture-state relationship in race preservation terms and not as a normal nation-state crafting exercise.
The change in state and ‘majority’ culture relations have over the fifteen years of democratic breakthrough created a debate of what then should be an acceptable culture for South Africa. Since the conduits of cultural identity are language, ethnicity, ‘race’ and religious orientation; the fight for preservation of resource endowed minority ‘cultural’ preferences ensued and got disguised with a diffused civil society movement creation environment.
The resultant tension between fountains of knowledge has been the continuously suspicious and critical review of the congruence of state and culture. The difficulty with the review is the vacuum of cultural and historical homogeneity about being South African. The convergence of oneness in conditions where there is a perceived outside threat such as a foreign sports team is indicative of how this sub-national diversity is melt able.
These matters created therefore a template within which political correctness was defined in South Africa. The defence for your ethnic rights became in the process either a racialised or tribalised matter even if its context is for all intents legitimate.
The above context has even created conditions where critical lessons from the pre-1994 dispensation can only be reintroduced in the policy space in plagiarised formats or disguised as being of foreign origin. It is politically correct for a politician to say the critical posts in local government are CFO, Human resources, City Engineer and Municipal Manager; when this is in essence saying we need to reintroduce the old town clerk, town treasurer, town secretary and town engineer.
The correct naming of these would come with the orientation such office represented. But guess what it may be politically incorrect to accept such. If you ask me, I think political correctness exists in societies that embrace self-censorship at the altar of some perceived balance when the fulcrum is invisible.
The more challenging issue is embedding the right attitudes in the socio-political structure of those charged with the task of nation-building. All socio-political, cultural and economic revolutions and evolutions require a set of congruent attitudes if they are to be of any significance and successful. With our vector of identity being race, our greatest possessions as a nation should be a common rich heritage of memories, good and bad, as well as an agreement detailing a desire to live together and make the most of the joint inheritance as bequeathed by past generations.
The importance of recognising, and sometimes at the cost of discounting some of the group pride emanating from past tribal or ethnic heroic feats, as a larger society that a nation possesses a common stock of thought and feelings acquired during the course of common (territorial) history should be elevated only to build a mental homogeneity about going forward.
The task of becoming politically correct under these circumstances becomes therefore an emotional and intellectual assignment procuring for a togetherness that must be able to transcend established social patterns, rituals and socio-political stereotypes created by that society’s past and perceived future. Since humanity will always, and notoriously so, be prejudiced in its memory; the need to reconcile a society’s memory of its past with an envisaged future should form the basis for the legitimisation of political correctness interests.
Comments
Post a Comment