Irrelevant, irreverent or idealistic: (White) debate around the (theoretical) possibility of a ‘post-race’ academy
By Clinton Rautenbach, UKZN
Talking about race is always interesting and challenging in contemporary South Africa. Indeed, as Erwin (2010) astutely observes, invoking the concept of race in both academic and lay contexts takes on a particular specificity in the South African milieu: “It is entangled in the project of nation building, deeply entrenched in politics, written into policies, continues to mediate everyday interactions, and questions how we define our humanity in this geographic location” (p.1). Yet, despite the pervasiveness of race thinking in South African institutions and discourse, there are some ‘progressive’ academic positions that advocate for the “theoretical rejection of race” (Brown, 2009, p.3).
For example, Miles (1982, in Brown, 2009, p.4) argues that “race is an ideological construct whose use for social scientific analysis serves only to reinforce its legitimacy”. Other authors, such as Alexander (2007, p. 92), issue admonitions relating to the production of racialised identities by institutions such as the state and the academy. They draw our attention to the “genocidal potential” of these identities as demonstrated in Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and so forth. However, opposing this position are powerful voices such as Erwin (2010) and the American Sociological Association (2003), who argue that the erasure of the term from academic discourse, and a failure to conduct research into ‘race’ as a ‘socially significant category’, would “preserve the status quo and hamper progress towards understanding and addressing inequalities in primary social institutions”.
I recently presented some of these arguments at a SPLAB seminar, in an attempt to generate debate around the (theoretical) possibility of a world without race and the labels - such as Black and White – that fall within this category. As part of this presentation, I proposed the idea of an “index of previous disadvantage” that could potentially replace the political and administrative use of race for, amongst other things, race-based legal requirements, form-filling, policy formulation and the census process (see, for example, Mare, 2001). For example, could social scientists not come up with a measure of ‘previous disadvantage’ that makes no reference to ‘race’ per se, but still ensures that socio-economic transformation is effected? Could we not combine one’s geographical location in both pre- and post-apartheid South Africa, with one’s language and name-based ethnicity (Mateos, 2007), as well as one’s gender and level of ability, to compute a score of ‘previous disadvantage’ with no reference to ‘race’ whatsoever? Of course, one’s ‘class’ or income would also have to form part of such an index, and “the large overlap between ‘race’ and ‘class’ in South Africa” makes this an important factor to consider (Alexander, 2007, p. 102). Indeed, it has been argued that by using the “shorthand of race” in policy planning, middle-class ‘black people’ are given an advantage over those that are classified as working class (ibid.). Given these factors, would an index such as this not be far more useful insofar as the state’s commitment to ‘non-racialism’ and ‘transformation’ is concerned?
What was most interesting about this seminar was that debate around this topic appeared to become completely polarised, with ideas such as an “index for previous disadvantage” being constructed as either utterly ‘utopian’ or ostensibly ‘racist’. This occurred despite my reflection on whether or not I, in my historical position of privilege (white, able-bodied, male), can even enter into a debate concerning the erasure of a category upon which this privilege was, and continues to be founded – especially since labels within this category (such as ‘Black’) have been appropriated as politically useful identifiers for marginalised positions within society, and continue to be a “source of strength and psychological liberation” (Moodley & Adam, 2002, p. 64) for many.
My questions then, are simple:
1) Do I, as a young white male, have a place in debates such as these in contemporary South Africa, or do I simply “embrace my irrelevance”. See, for example, Simon Hartley (2012) http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/simonhartley/2012/03/27/embracing-irrelevance-is-a-bitter-thing/
2) As Gilroy (2001, p.29) asks: Why have there been so few projects such as those of the libertarian and cosmopolitan left in the twentieth century, “capable of articulating anti-racist hope in anything other than the negative moment: as a systematic conjuring with the possibility of better worlds rather than embattled criticism of this disenchanted one”.
Alexander, N. (2007). Affirmative action and the perpetuation of racial identities in post-apartheid South Africa. Transformation 63(1), 92-126.
American Sociological Association. (2003). The importance of collecting data and doing social scientific research on race. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Brown, L. (2009). From West Street to Dr Pixley KaSeme Strett: How contemporary racialised subjectivities are (re)produced in the city of Durban. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Pietermaritzburg : University of KwaZulu-Natal
Erwin, K. (2010). Theory and practice in the field of race and race thinking: Critical reflections from, and for, South Africa and beyond. Unpublished paper. Durban: The Centre for Critical Research on Race and Identity, UKZN.
Gilroy, P. (2001). After the great white error…the great black mirage. Transformation, 47(1), 28-49.
Mare, G. (2001). Race counts in contemporary South Africa. Transformation, 47(1), 75-93.
Mateos, P. (2007). A review of name-based ethnicity classification methods and their potential in population studies. Population, Space and Place, 13(4), 243-263.
Moodley, K., & Adam, H. (2000). Race and nation in post-apartheid South Africa. Current Sociology, 48(3), 51-69.
