t,2003

\ c rober,

::ics of-- .o the

.'. iscr),

: rltre).

. iirr

.on

: ice

..s),

il t-i;.'l't-: :r I

Wt:z"rj, {i*t":lbiz t:nd *cm f4*Citll:el*

ln the name of culture

-.,. Rr.clx'r RESURGF-NCE OF CULTURE - both as an authorising platform for the

:.rtbrmance and practice of everyday life and as an explanatofv categorv in academic

:,.courses - has been one of the truly remarkable developments of the contemPorary

:roment. Culture has become a ubiquitous categorv invoked in both everyday speech

,.rd intellectual analyses. tWhen a young woman or man donning a particular dress

: sporring a specific hairstyle tells you that they are doing this because it is part of

.:eir culture and thel'are proud of it, then we know that we are u'itnessing the use of

:,rlture as authority for a lifestyle choice. \(hen social relations between groups and

:lrrerns of behaviour previously explained in the language of economics, employing

: re grammar of class, are suddenly accounted for by recourse to culture and difference,

:ren u,e know that culture is being invoked as a medium of intellectual analysis.

tlulture is suddenly presenr everywhere - from the smallest event of everyday life to

:i-re most rarefied levels of academic analysis.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of neoliberalism, it would

rppear that the convenrionai paradigms which provided the frameworks of intellectual

:nalysis of society and history have given way and, in their place, there is a new

:mphasis on rhe importance of culture. 'when, for example, someone tries to draw

upon culure as an explanation for the difference in the level of economic development

between South Korea and Ghana today, countries which were at roughly similar levels

$,hen Ghana became politically independent in the 1950s, then rn'e know that culture

is being used in new ways (Huntington 2000)'

It is fair to say that there has been a discernible shift from the grand economic

or materiaiist explanattons to a greater recognition of the importance of the cultural

d.imension. In the name of culture, there have opened up new domains of social life

Cubure 35

and activism, political struggle and economic competirion over resources, as well asnew avenues of academic inquiry. In the academic disciplines, culture as an object ofintellectual analysis used to be the speciar preserve of anthropologists who studied'primitive' societies' But in the last two decades or so, virtualllevery other disciplinein the humanities and social sciences has laid its own claims to this previously exclusiveturf The multidisciplinary field of cultural studies that developed from this extendedthe study of culture to modern, urban societies and to the popular culrure previouslyignored by the academic apostles of 'high culture,. But beyond the themes and issuesforegrounded in the fieid of cultural studi.s, questions of culture have i' generalbecome pertinent to many more disciplines than we would traditionally associarewith it.It is, of course, simplistic to see the rise of currure only as a consequence of rherise of neoliberalism and to attribute it mainly to the recession or collapse of oldparadigms. There are certainly many more factors responsible for it than this. Among

these' we can immediatery identify three that are highly significant fbr the purposesof this chapter. Firsr, there is the recognisecl failure of the Enrighrenmenr projecr ofmodernity. This project, we may recail, was premised on the idea of a harmoniouscommunity of affiliation based on a homogeneous citizenry with equal rights, inpolitical and juridical ,.1-r, iiving within a pority defined by social equaiitl,.But, as the historical experience of African-Americans ancl women, to take justtwo examples, showed, this was never in rearity an objective ever realised, nor, for thatmarrer, was it activeiy pursued. This historical faiiure of the dream of homogeneiry.,horizontal affiliation and juridicar citizenship with respect to blacks and womendemonstrates that craims in the name of sameness and a common humanity did notamounr to much in practice when applied to minorities and other marginaiised groups,whether they were marginalised on the basis of race, religion, curtr-rrar practices,gender or sexual orjentation.

-fo these groups, ir b^ecame increasingly evident that claims for access and rightsstood a better chance of recognition if they were framed in the ranguage of cultureand difference. 'Disiilusionmenr r.vith the legislati.,e and judicial pri.ri.., of liberar

democracies a'd their moders of neutrar j,-rstic. and formar .qu"riti, red to ,attemptfs]to change societai discrimination fbecoming] focused o., i..-,l,ur.,'ar

the level ofdiscourse and representation' (Cou.an et al. :OOi, :t.Asecond factorrvas the historr-oicolonialisn.r in ri'hich racialand cuirural differences

were deployed as'rases for sociai and poliricar tliscriminition,rnd oppression. Therheroric of the 'cir',iising mission rihich coic.nialism.rciopred..,.,,, pr.mised on thisidea of difference ar' a cate-qorical disrincrio: rhit ir.r:ilr.-liscriminatio' valid. Thisdifference, often constructed rn raciar o:;Lr,:,.r:.,..:r.r'r). ro.used on a morphorogyof physicai features or a detailed in'enlo:'. .-.:;.:,:.-:::. ::acrices. Taken si'gry or in

36 New Soutb Afican Ke1,11s77,

Defining culture: pn r tr.-,.J\a\-mond \\ t, :.--

combinarion, these defined some groups as somewhat lower down on the scale of

human evolution and rvere thus somewhat less than fuliy human'

The third factor foilowed from this construction of difference on the ground

of cultural evolution. oppressed on the basis of culture' subjected people, in turn,

converted culture into a domain of political resistance. In this way, culture became a

site of contestation and struggle against oppression, domination, and marginaiisation'

In short, culture came to be used as a shorthand for many of the claims - political,

social and economic - that the oppressed would make for equality and access to

resources. And rvith the advent of globalisation, this has led, inevitabl,v, to calls for the

recognition and revaluation of culture - constructed as the ultimate site of difference

_withincontemPoraryimaginingsofliberaldemocracyandmulticulturalism.

Through this tangled hir,ory, ,h. Enlightenment ideas of homogeneity and equality

$,ere turned on their head as the demand for equality now came to be made on the

basis oFdifference.

It can hardl,v be disputed, therefore, that cuiture has taken centre-stage in the

analysis of the construcrion of identities and modes of self-identification' in many

rvays overshadowing the significance once accorded to class consciousness' From

being seen as marginal to rhe constitution of modern subjects and identities - the

p.rrirr. object within the rationalisation of all spheres of modern life - culture has

become central to thinking about forms of subjectivity and sociality, social life and

age ncy, knowied.ge and knowledge sYstems, and the very nature of our be ing-in-the-

rvorld.

vhere does one then begin to untangle culture's implications - through this

circuitous history - in all these discourses? 'we are tempted to follow the beaten

track and ask, as many others have clone: tirhat is this thing called 'culture' in which

so much is invested in so many domains of life and thought? But we will resist this

remptation and ask instead: How has the concept of culture been produced, together

rvith the many usages and meanings that now attach to it? A good way of approaching

this question is to begin broadly with a look at the ways in which culture has been

describedanddefinedingeneral,andthenexplorethewaysinwhichculturaltheorists and social s.ier-rtirts ha,re approached the question of culture in colonised and

postcolonial societies. Thereafter, we proceed to examine the ways in which culture

has been appropriated and transformed within the new discourses of globalisation'

Proceeding in this manner, we believe, will lead us to a better understanding of

what culture means and why it has become so important in contemporary social and

political life.

Defining culture: patterning the weeds

Ravmond villiams noted that cuiture is one of the two or three most complicated

Cubure 37

,

words in the English language and has come ro acquire a number of different meaningsand usages. These have been usefully summarised br. Robert Bocock e992:234) asfollows:

i. Culture = cultivating the land, crops, animals.2. Culture = the cuitivation of the rnind: the arts; cir.ilisation.3. Culture = a general process of social development; culture as a

(the Enlightenmenr conception of culrure).4. Culture = the meanings, r,alues, rr,ar-s of lifi (cultures) shared bv particular narions,

groups, classes, periods (follon.inq Herderr.5. Culture = the practices rvhich produce meaninsr signifving pracrices.

we wouid like to flesh out rhis summa.' as brieflr. as possible ro put it intocontemporarv perspective . It is importanr to do rhis so that r,ve can identify whichof these available meanings those *'ho

'se the term ,culrure'are

drawing on in theirusage. !7e should note also that it is possible to drarv upon these either singly or invarious combinations simultaneoush,.

- The first meaning obviousir-derir.es fiom the etr.molosical roots in the Latin wordfrom which 'culture' de rir-es. Firrt r-r,ed in rhc flfieenrl, ..i.,,urr.to refer to the tending

of crops and animals, it can srill be seen in such modern rvords as,agriculture,and'horticulture' or when. scientists speak of a ,serm culture ,.

The idea of tending andcuitivating presenr in the root *.ord is ,.ror.-h.r. crose to disappearing in modern times;rather it seems ro have acquired more specialir.d _."r,i,rgr.

Indeed, it would appear that the second meaning if .ur,u.. as civirisation issimply an extension of the first from the physical i'to the domain of the abstract, thecultivation of minds. If minds, like crops, can be curti'ated, rvhar were seen as themarks of this culti'ation? From the sixteenth cenrury, when this r-rsage first appeared,tili the present' this idea of culture as the cultivation of mi',d, i.,"s been closelyassociated with the arts and philosophy. $Zhen we describe a ri,ell_bred gentlemanwho understands and enjovs riterature, crassical music, painting and sculpture as a'cultured' man, we are dra'"ving upon a meaning of culrure that is ver1, differe't fromwhat we mean, for instance, *.hen *.e spe ak of rhe 'culture' of rhe san. Here we beginto discern a hierarch' of significance. curture as a way of e'aluating people on thebasis of the possession of certain qu:rliries. Ideas of ,high

culture', ,fo]k.ui..r.e,and,in our da1', 'popular culture' all flori'irorn this Lrsaqe as a mark of distinction betweenthe 'cultivared' or 'civilised' ,rnd rhe .uncir.ilisecl..

The third idea of culturc as:r g.r1-ff,1 p.roc:-is oihurn,rn ar.rd social de'elopment,conceived of as a unilinear hi.:oij;.li ir:rr.ii! in ri,hich some nations or peopiewere further up the scale rhlr u:ir;:.. -: r,::r-:har is usuall'associated with theEuropean Enlightenment. \or surpr.::rii,.. irg:r,r up o1 rhe jadder of.culture andcivilisation was Europe and all orhe i icu.r,r ...,rr< placed lo*-er dou,n, depending on

38 New South Af.ican Key,u,ot.a

universal process

':) LrliI

:-. --. :t o:

\\e shouic :. ..-r this deiin::.,.:s something.:..-..:\\'hile the fir*::.- :.urtten denie s L-): ;::::to re cognise ::.. : -

'::r\'.tiling conceptions of the wavs in rvhich cultural and civilisational value werebc derermined. In general, rhe closer a culture or group \va5 ro European crireria

: ;i'ilisation, the higher up it could be found on rhe scale. This process of ranking' .ri one of the justificarions for the colonisation of other peoples and places, and:-.uch of the rhetoric of the'civilising mission'was predicated on this conception of, -riture.

The German philosopher JG Herder was one of the first ro quesrion this idea: culture and civilisation, arguing that er.ery group of people or narion has irs'."'n distinctive way of life, its shared system of beliefs and values, and thus its own

-.rlture'. Instead of speaking of 'culture' in the singular, he argued it was best to.;ognise the presence of 'cultures' in the plural. Debunking the universalised historv: the world that placed European civilisation ar rhe apex, he claimed that the idea

I a universal history uniformly applicable to all corners of the globe was an insult to:re 'majestv of Nature'. Raymond \Wiliiams argues rhar Herder's ideas were decisive

.:r promoting an alternative idea of culture from the Enlightenmenr-sancrioned one

:nen prevailing. This fourth definition was to become central to the discipline of:nthropology and is often now referred to as the (old) anthropological definition of:r-Llture . So influential has this idea become that many claims made by minorities and

:ndigenous communities are predicated on this idea of culture. The entire discourse,rf multiculturalism draws on this notion of culture as the unique, distinctive way oflife of a particular group thar marks it aparr from orher groups.

The fifth definition, which has become increasinglv important in academic circles,

o\\'es something to the fourth but is more solidlv anchored in nerver conceprions ofrneaning-making processes within society.

It differs in emphasis from the fourth dehnition, hower.er, by concentrating more on the

svmbolic dimension, and on what culture does rarher than rvhat culture zl'. It sees cultureas a social practice rather than a thing (the arts) or a srate of being (civilisation). Thisway of thinking about culrure is grounded in the studv of /anguage, a practice which is

seen as Fundamental to the production of meaning ... According to this definition, then,'culture' is rhe set of practices b1 which meanings are produced and exchanged within a group(\Tilliams 1976:233).

tJ7e should note the emphasis placed on rhe process of production and exchange

in this definition, in contrast with conceptions of culture which basically see itas something inherited, passed down over time from one generation ro rhe other.

\X/hile the fourth definition presents a monolithic, ahistorical notion of culture thatoften denies or erases present agenc% the fifth does not: in fact, the fifth allows us

to recognise the process of contestation that is at the heart of signifying pracrices

Culture 39

and processes rarher than simpry seeing curture as a homogeneous set of beriefs andpracrices consensually shared by _._b".., of a group.These ways of looking ar culture h".,. b..o-. f"irlr. r,"nd"rd in the iiterature onculture' However' there have been specific de'elopmenr, in,h. d.firition of culturethat can be traced to the historv of coronialism. The ways i, *ii.r, culture has beenconceived and theorised in colonial and postcolonial contexts are somewhat differentfrom the 'canonical' narrative that rve h"r,. p..r.r,,.d above. Let us now examine theuses (and abuses?) ofcuiture in these conrexrs.

Culture in colonial and postcolonial contextsEarlier in this chapter, we nored thar one of the reasons that curture has become sucha powerful cateSory of identitv and social and political mobilisation in recenr times isthe failure of the Enlighrenmenr projecr of equari*.and its dream of.homogeneity andjuridical citizenship. If we recail ,t-r", - .to.rg

'r.ith the project of a common humanity- the old berief in a cultural 'merting po,: h", .,.,.po."r.d even in places where itwas ar least formalry pursued, \ve ma\. rhen ask rvhat happened in praces where thisshared humanity was nor affirmed tu, ,.rir.r..n.gr,.d. And, more imporranrry.what happens when'curture'is recognised in.the fourth, ,anthropological,,

sense ofthe word but praced alongside '.,rrrui' in the hierarchical, evaluarl r. ,.rr. describedin the third definition? The resurt, as we see from rhe history of colonialism, wasinstitutionalised discrimination and oppression.The idea of the 'civiiising mission' that was genera'y deproyed as the rationalefor colonisation rested o.r ,h. notion that there were peopres whose cultures werefixed at the iower rung of the iadder of h,,civ'ised,and

moved up this iadder. rh. Jl;:iil:fi:;i,;LT...i,:1j;,.7was implemented by the imperial powers advocated ,1,. .r,"utiri-ent of separateinstitutions for different groups in accordance with the level of their placement onthis iadder. Mahmood Mamd"ni (1996.;t describes ,h. ,-,r,u.. of the state thatemerged from this process as ,bifurcated,.

The African colonial experience came ro be crvsrallised in the nature of the state forgedthrough that encounter' organised differentlv in rural areas from urban ones, that statewas Janus-faced, bifurcared. Ir conrained a duarirv: *r.o Forms of porver under a singrehegemonic authoritv. urban po*'er spoke rhe language of civi.r society and civil rights, ruralpower of communitv and currure. Ci'ir po*.er claimed ro prorect .igh,r, .u.,u-ary powerpledged to enforce tradition. The fbrrner ri.as orto check the concenrration or pori er.,n"'",,":",.:,:: ;ii:ffi ,5?:iff ::T::l:unitary aurhoriry ( I BJ.

40 New South Afican Keywortls

Institutionally, therefore, a state-enforced policv of separation was implementedthat created an 'outer domain' of civil society and rights from which the colonised

were excluded and an 'inner domain' of cuiture and tradition into which they were

inserted (see Chatterjee 1993). Defined officially as subjects of culture, not yet ready

for civil society, the colonised began to see 'culture' as the domain over which theycould claim sovereignty and thus convert into a site of resistance. As Mamdani (1996:

24) argues, 'Every movement of resistance was shaped by the very strucrure of poweragainst which it rebelled.'The colonised turned culture into an instrumenr of politicalresistance by affirming their exclusive proprietorship of this domain and asserting its

fundamental vaiue beyond the denigrations of coionialism. Culture was what you

could truly own and where you could truly be yourself beyond the dispossession

and alienation of colonialism. Herein lay the origins of the modern depioyment of'culture' as a platform ofpolitical resistance.

Historically, in South Africa, while race was used as the overarching rationale

for discrimination, culture was employed more specificaliy in the apartheid years

as the rationale for dividing the country into various 'homelands' or Banrusrans

where Africans could (so it was claimed) enjoy political rights and give expression

to their own culture and language. This strategy ensured that culture and language

would also be seen by dominated groups as instruments of resistance. For black South

Africans, from as early as the Rev. Tiyo Soga through to Steve Biko and the Black

Consciousness Movement of the 1970s, an interest in African culture - either in the

mild form of cultural preservation or the more radical form of cultural self-definition

- was seen as one of the ways of reclaiming and reaffirming an African identity.Between the two momenrs in rime represenred by the figures of Soga and Biko,

we can place a host of other figures and the ir literary and cultural output. Cuituralresistance has been just as ciosely part of the history of Afrikaner nationalism as weli.Because the growth of Afrikaner nationalism is seen as a response to subjugation bvthe British, an almost instinctive recourse to culture and language as instruments ofresistance and identity persists in much of post-apartheid discourse on the place of the

Afrikaner in contemporary South African society.

Since within this framework cuiture was 'read' in the somewhat essentialisr rerms

of Raymond \Williams's fourth definition as the shared beliefs and bonds that markthe identity of a nation, postcolonial nationalist leaders and thinkers have returned

again and again to the category ofculture as a marker ofnational identity and as a tool

for popular mobilisation. From Leopold Senghor's philosophy of Nigritude, whichprioritised intuition, emotion, music, dance and rhythm as common denominators ofa shared African culture and civilisation, to Jomo Kenyatta's Facing Mount Kenya, an

auto-ethnography of Gikuyu cultural practices and beliefs, nationalisr politicians ofall shades found it necessary to locate themselves in the domain of culture either in

Culture 41

the broad, pan-Africanist sense or in rerms of a local ethnicity. Two major narionalistthinkers who advanced the use of culture :rs an insrrument of resistance wereFrantz Fanon and Amilcar Cabral. In their s'ritir.rg. ther. added new dimensions toconceptions of culture and colonisation. ri'hich are uorth noring.

In the essal''On National Cultr,rre'. Fanon critiqued the idea of a pan-African orpan-Negro culture , such as senqhor proposed. seeinq it onlv as a phase i1 the struggleagainst colonial domination. For Fanon. the proper arena for the cultural struggleagainst colonialism n'as rhe nation. He argued that it is ultimately in the domainof culture that'the legitimacr-oithe clajms of the nation'can be affirmed because'Colonialism is not satisfied n.rerel'*'ith holding a people in its grip and emptyingthe native's brain of all form and conrent. B' a kind of perverted logic, it turns rothe past of the oppressed people. and distorts. disfigLrres and destroys it. Thiswork of devaluing pre-colonial historv takes on a dialectical significance today' (2001:167, 169).

what we want ro emphasise in this ofien-quoted passage is the 'dialecticalsignificance'which arises from the color.rialist devaluation that Fanon speaks about.What he is saying here is that bv devaluing the past, the colonialisr draws the truenationalist's attention to the past as the site from n'hich cultural affirmation shouldbegin. The nationalist should therefore focus on retrievir-rg or recuperating a culturalpast and revaluing it and affirming its rvorth and dienitv. As the novelist ChinuaAchebe put it, the goal was to teach Africans 'thar their pasr - rvith all its imperfections

-was not one long night of savagery from rvhich the first Europeans acring on God'sbehalf delivered them' (1989:45).

But Fanon was also quick to poi'rt out that this focus on the past as rhe siteof cultural restoration was at the same tin.re the result of the 'native' intellectual'srealisation of the failure of the assimilationist claims of European culture as well as

his or her alienarion from the culture of his or her own people in the present. perhaps

Fanon's most fundamental contribution to the debate on coloniaii.sm and culture wasthe clear distinction he drerv betu.een culrure as located in the pasr (as in RaymondWilliams's fourth definition) and culture as a pracrice of the present (as in the fifthdefinition). He sar'v this distinction as the difference between 'cusrom' and 'culture'.In a stringent critique of the 'native' inteilectual's hankering for the glories of thepast and ancient African civilisations, he dreu' out this distinction between past andpresent, saying that'the intellectual runs the risk of being out of date'.

He wishes to atrach himself to rhe people: bur instead he only catches hold of their outergarments. And these oilter garments are merelv thc reflecrion of a hidden life, teeming

and perpetuaQ in motion ... Culrure hns netei. tl.,e l,ztts/t.rcidi4, of cttstom; it abhors al/simplifcation. In its essence it is oppased r0 .t/jr0j/t..iitr 6s1rso,, ls dlway the deterioration of

42 Neu South AJrican Keluords

t'ulture. T:.. :., :

agarn doe: ::-: -

people rlt"'-:-.:

For Fanon. :.'..He clariiied t]::,:-.:esistance: lr i. :: :

:hey har-e alre ;c. =

s'hich thel ar-'--,.-L- ^-^^t- .1., = - -- rrr fruuyrL

'ite ofresistanc-: :

.rlso ven- carefu, :

Amilcar Ca5:...

in culture. In l'i:, ..no instance in r.: :

imposing itseli;--:-]. ,, '-rL-

ihe culture oi ti- ,

. Lr: --^--- .^-^.,:. l ll5LUl\ Pru\ a:

r people u'hose :--.:

For Cabral. iike .siruations of do::-, :..

,-.,,-1. ^ ^^ll.; -. --LLrLrLll d PUrrLr!;- '

mar- have mobl,.,.:rl-re need to mo\ i -

ln South -{ir:-..and resistance a::.;. --^-,-l- .- :-

in Another So,.r:'.. -

-..:-L -L^ ^..^ -:---\\ lLlt Lltc 9ug)tlt,..

SanCtlOnS aqaln:: )

organised bv \1.:.-Resistance: Dui::-December 19El .'

as an instrumel: :

Biko had envi.:r,:...

instrument ior i- :..Participanr, .:..

communlt\'. ln -.:.

lisr

to

or

It

\c

-to

rs

t:

j

I

culture' The desire to attach oneself to tradition or bring abandoned tradirio's to lifeagain does nor onry mean going against the current of history but arso opposing one,s ownpeople (2001: 180_1; emphasis added).

For Fanon,'culture'was a practice of the presenr rather than a thing of the past.He clarified this further in terms of using culture as an insrrument of anti-colonialresistance: 'It is not enough ro rry ro g.t b".k to the people;r, ,i", p"r, out of whichihey have already emerged; ,rth.. *. must join them in that fluctuating momentr'vhich they are just giving a shape to ... it is to this zone of occurt instabiliry wherethe peopie dwell that we musr come' (2001: lg2-3).It is clear, in sum, that culture assite of resistance to coronial domination was central to Fanon,s thought rhough he wasalso verv careful to derineate the kind of 'curture, that he was talkirig about.Amilcar cabral also saw colonialism and nationalist resistance as highly investedin culture. In his essay 'National Liberation and culture,, he claimed that there wasno insrance in recorded history where a coronial power had succeeded in completeryimposing itself culturaily on the colonised. He later extended this point by arguingthat 'The grearer the differences between the curture of the dominated peopre andthe culture of the oppressor, the more possible such a victory lof cultural resistance]is' History proves rhat it is much less difficurr ro dominate and continue dominatinga peopie whose currure is similar or analogous to that of the conqu eror, (1973:4g).For cabral, iike Fanon before him, cultuiar resistance was therefore imperative insituations of domination. For both theorists, a'ti-colonial nationalism was thus asmuch a political struggle as it was a culrurai one, and though mosr narionalist leadersmay have mobilised wilriams's fourth definition of culture, Fanon and cabrar sawthe need ro move to rhe l.ifth, rhat of a practice of the present.In South Africa, culture has arways been regarded as a significant toor of struggreand resistance and, more recentry, as a means of constructing new identities. rn r9g7,for example, an historic conference was herd in Amsterdam with the theme ,culture

in Another South Africa' (.ASA). It foliowed two other conferences that had deartwith the question of culture at a time of increasing economic, educational and culturalsanctions against south Africa. The earlier conferences were 'culture and Resistance,organised by Medu curturai Ensembie in Gaborone in July 19g2, and the ,voice ofResistance: Dutch and South African Artists Against Apartheid, in Amsterdam inDecember 1982. While rhe earlier conferences N.ere explicitiy concerned with cultureas an instrument of resistance in the sense in which Fanon, cabral and indeed steveBiko had envisioned it, the 19g7 conference was more concerned with cuiture as aninstrument for forging identities in a new Sourh Afiica.

Participants invited to GASA came from within South Africa and from the exirecommunitv' in an effort to bring together ail the various strains of culture in an

Culntre 43

oppressive sociery. A conference of this nature would seem improbable in any normalsociery, but precisery because of the abnormality of south Africa and the role thatculture had piayed in the struggle to o'errhrorv apartheid, it was important thar thosewho had been involved in that struggle shourd articurate a vision of the new society.The fields covered at the confer..,.. i,r.lud.d prose, poerry, fine art, photography,journalism, music' theatre and video. In his kel.note address, pallo Jordan (1992)argued that culture in South Africa r.vas rhe product of the melding of.people fromrhree continents: Africa, Asia and Europe . Thus, to seek to unscramble rhe ,historicalomelette' was unsound because the emergent democratic culture, rhough distinctlySouth African, would not be animated brlhailor..chauvinism. It would acknowiedgeits debt to other culturai traditions and conrinue to pride itself not only on its abilityto absorb and learn from others but arso on its capacity to teach others, infused withan internationalist spirit and a humanisr perspecrn.e.

In the present, post-1994 age ofreconciliation in south Africa, rhere are concerredefforts to ignore the past, e'en though the 'historical omeretre, spoken of by palroJordan conrinues to bind sourh Africa together. It is impossible not to be remindedof the past if the awarci--"vinning pra, Ghie,ab'Da'id Kramer a'd rariep perersenis anything to go by. This musical returns south Africa to its very roots in theDutch cape ar.rd makes it clear that the coron' *,as buirt on the backs of slavesfrom zanzibar, India, Mala."sia and Madagascar. In the rendirion of ghoemariedjieslies the very hybridisation of South Africai .uiru.. that neariy four hundred yearsof oppression and manipulation courd not eradicate. And the resilience of a hybridculture is manifest too in inrernationall'accla.imed plar.s like Lrmoja,with the artistryof the gumboot dances harking back ro rhe davs of'1oh"nr.,.rbu.*.,

" sma, miningtown' and Lebo M's Tbe Lion King, which recasrs the narrative of good and evilin an African setting. curture in South Africa contirlues to be vibrant, erastic andmultifarious, iliustrating Ravmond wilriams's dictum that curture is really aboureveryday life.

Culture and globalisationPerhaps the most significant new feature that globalisation has added to these uses ofculture has been to turn curture itself into an object of consumption. Befbre the adventof contemporary globalisation, it'"r'as already clear to social theorists that culture hadbecome subject to the process of objectification and commodification to which allthings in capitalist society invariabry succumb. Alr the same, it was giobalisationthat finally blew offthe veir that had conceared trris metonymic reduction of curtureto marketabie objects a'd signs. It is true that in the crassicar age of empire in thenineteenth cenrur\" objects from distant rands were coilected and dispraved as signsand representations of particular curtures. But these were signs of Eur'up.". masterv

44 Neu Soutlt Afican Ke1woruls

References

-\chebe. C:,: -(Nes \'. :.:

Bocock. Ri,:::.B (eds. ,r .

Cabral..{n::.:=:Rettr r,: : :*'ith ,\:: :.

Charrerjee . - .:Press .

Cos'an. Ja::.'-

,rl

.tt

\c

'\'er rhe world, expressions of the domestication of thre atening others by the imperial:orver and a celebration of that power. They had nor yer b..ol. objects of individuar' onsumption on a general scale in the full-blown manner of today when it is possible:o buy a piece of Ghan aian lzente clorh from a srreer in New york or ro have dreadlockscraided in onet hair in salons from London to Paris.

The commodification and consumption ofAfrican culrure, or, more appropriatery,rhe objectified, metonymic signs of this culture, are evident in dress and hairstyles,rlusic and dance forms, sculpture and art, all over the world. Indeed, one can say thatIt is the overt or perceptual'cultural labeiling'of goods that makes them marketablein the global market of cultural commodiries - lrom a piece of Ghanaian cloth to theaesthetically accomplished novels of chinua Achebe, to take two exampres.

Globalisation has made it possible to combine rhe essentialist rhetorics of cultureti'ith the srylistics of muiticulturaiism and identity in ways that package the nationalistdesires of old (rvith their emphasis on narionaiism and ."ristrn.e) ..rf, ,.drr.. them tomarketable commodities available for consumption. On the literary plane the work ofZakes Mda comes ro mind, as does the music of kwaito artists ,, ih. t.,r.r of popularculture. There is certainry a whiff of irony and paradox here, evident in the coilapseof grand political resistance into stylistic appropriation. But we need not overstare rhecase because in essence this reversal is no different from the one we began with whenwe traced the circular route through which the Enlightenmenr dream of equarity,initialiy premised on a common, culture-neutral humanity, came to be staged on theground of cultural difference.

To sum up, what do we do with a term as protean as 'curture,, whose meaningstend to go in several directions at the same time, a word that resists reduction to aneat, singular definition? Though the term'culrure,tends to present itself as existingoutside the temporalities of history as onrology and essence, what we should alwayswatch out for whenever the term is evoked is the historical context in which the specificusage is embedded. For, ultimately, it is the specificity of its historical production andusage that gives culture its meanings.

ReferencesAchebe' Chinua 1989' 'The Novelist as Teacher' in Hopes dnd Imperlirtents; selected Essays(New York: Doubleday), pp. 40_6.Bocock, Robert. 1992.'The cultural Formations of Modern societv, in Hall, s and Gieben,

^ .U !.Or ), Formations of Modernity (London: polity press).

Cabral' Amilcar' 1973. 'National Liberation and culture' in Africa Information service (ed.),Return to the source: ,gelected speeches by Amircar Cabrar (Ne,,vyork: Monthry Revier,,. presswith Africa Information Service)

tn"j::::r' Partha. 1993. The Narron and lts Fragments (princeton: princeton universityl-fcss)-

cowan,Jane K, Dembour, Marie-Benedicteandwilson, RichardA (eds.).2001. ,Introduction,.

l)

I

Culture 45

Culture and Rights;Press).

Anthropologicdl perspectiues (Cambriclge: Carnbridge Universityt"";:;fiffi 2001 [196t 'on National culture' in flte wretchetl of the&rrl,. (Nerv yorlc

'"iTfi}

":n:i

:?:i, fr::::::,r7"I,"ii,Harrison, Lawrence E and Hun,ins,on,

- Books), nol .;t-*;:"e'c lvt.tLtr(rs" rtow values Shape Human Progress (New york: Basic

"'t: ;1T,"5:?:i.T'i'a ?J3; S:#:::,:iff ., .' B e h ai r or,h e Na,i o n a r Exe c u,ive

nn^!1o'n,r,toirllfr;ra {tondon: Zed Books). tam and Divendal' Joost (eds.), Culture in

:,"fiil::{;,'?T"i:ftf,ll:!{{;,Co''"-po*'1'AfricaandtheLegacvofLateColonidlism*ttl'jilj;"l"vmond' 1976' Keytaorrls;'A vocabulary of Curture antl society (London:

46 New South Afican Keywords