Poster Presentation • SRCD Biennial Conference 2013 • Seattle• April 2013

Rural Zulu adolescents in transitional South Africa: The right to literacy, cultural practices, and historic

change.Kathryn Day UC Berkeley

kthrynday@gmail.com • https://kathrynlday.wordpress.com/

AbstractThis research explores questions about the development of conceptions of humanrights during transitions to constitutional democracy in the developing world.Little is known about how human rights are contextualized in traditional cultures: how strongly they are endorsed, and whether their key principles areheld identical in different settings. In hierarchical societies children’s rights need to be reconciled with parental authority, and gender equality withmale privilege. Here, historic, social, and psychological moral development intersect.

The study examined the conceptions of the right to literacy of adolescents from the first post-apartheid generation of South Africa in rural KwaZulu Natal. Interviews were held with Zulu adolescents from two traditionalcommunities, in three age groups evenly divided by sex (n = 72, M(age) = 11:1, 15:9, and 18:9). They evaluated abstract assessments of the right to literacy

in the general; its generalizability; violating a law prohibiting literacy; and the government’s duty as provider. They then evaluated assessments posing conflicts between literacy and collective cultural practices such as oral traditions, parental authority, and gender roles.

Ninety-two percent of the participants endorsed all four abstract assessments, and the remainder endorsed all but the law violation assessment. They supported their evaluations on grounds of gains in knowledge, acquiring jobs, and self-reliance. Their endorsements of hypothetical conflict assessments (64%-100%) showed that they affirmed the importance of literacy incontext. The participants retained traditional practices selectively, placing great value on formal respect, but largely rejecting traditional “son preferences” and child labor. They provided novel strategies to integrate rights into family discourse. This data offers evidence on how adolescents maydevelop concepts of social and moral progress and cultural continuity in a period of historic change.

AbstractThis research explores questions about the development of conceptions of human rights during transitions to constitutional democracy in the developing world. Little is known about how human rights are contextualized in traditional cultures: how strongly they are endorsed, and whether their key principles are held identical in different settings. In hierarchical societies children’s rights need to be reconciled with parental authority, and gender equality with male privilege. Here, historic, social, and psychological moral development intersect.

The study examined the conceptions of the right to literacy of adolescents from the first post-apartheid generation of South Africa in rural KwaZulu Natal. Interviews were held with Zulu adolescents from two traditional communities, in three age groupsevenly divided by sex (n = 72, M(age) = 11:1, 15:9, and 18:9). They evaluated abstract assessments of the right to literacy in the general; its generalizability; violating a law prohibiting literacy; and the government’s duty as provider. They then evaluated assessments posing conflicts between literacy and collective cultural practices such as oral traditions, parental authority, and gender roles.

Ninety-two percent of the participants endorsed all four abstract assessments, and the remainder endorsed all but the law violation assessment. They supported their evaluations on grounds

2

of gains in knowledge, acquiring jobs, and self-reliance. Their endorsements of hypothetical conflict assessments (64%-100%) showed that they affirmed the importance of literacy in context. The participants retained traditional practices selectively, placing great value on formal respect, but largely rejecting traditional “son preferences” and child labor. They provided novel strategies to integrate rights into family discourse. In sum, this study presents evidence on how adolescents may develop concepts of social and moral progress and cultural continuity in a period of historic change.

IntroductionWhen constitutional rights are established in developing world countries, individuals’ conceptions of human rights are a vital element of substantive social change. The right to literacy promotes justice for poor women in particular (Sen 1990, 2004; Okin, 2003). But in poor rural areas, rights must be discussed and integrated into daily household practices for them to be effective. Literacy must be seen as a priority so powerful that it supersedes conflicting customs and rules: a moral imperative, a children’s right. This must take place even in widely dispersedrural communities. The question of how this transformation takes place is of practical import and theoretical interest.

Cultural theorists hold that human rights are not compatiblewith the collectivistic ethos of many African and Asian cultures (Haidt, 2012; Shweder, 2006), and that their introduction to these cultures results in a global shift towards individualism and the erosion of their original communal values (Kitayama, Conway, Pietromonaco, Park, & Plaut, 2010). The introduction of the right to literacy would, in this model, pose a fundamental threat to indigenous culture.

In contrast, developmentalists maintain that the individualistic/collectivistic dichotomy is overdrawn, and that these broadly drawn values are not deterministic (Turiel, 1983). The interactions of individuals’ cognitive processes and aims, their adaptations of collective practices, and historical change,result in bidirectionality and heterogeneity in psychological, social, and historical development (Saxe, 2012). This process inevitably results in the production of novel individual values

3

that diverge from communal norms; these may be adapted through social discourse, contributing to sociogenetic change. This modelof cultural change does not predict deterministic global shifts. It predicts that individuals take an active role in transitions, accommodating some new values, and retaining traditions that provide important cultural and psychological continuity.

The predictions of this study, examining adolescents’ conceptions of the right to literacy in traditional Zulu villagesin a remote mountainous area of post-apartheid South Africa, werethat participants would strongly endorse the right to literacy, grounding their arguments in their appraisals of their needs, thefit of the right to their historical setting, and their own goals. A second prediction was that conflict assessments would produce heterogeneous rates of endorsement and rationales, ratherthan global changes.

MethodThe setting was two Zulu communities, Stepmore and Lotheni,

in the mountains of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. These were homogeneous populations who maintained traditional social practices, including strong intergenerational obligations, respect, children’s obedience, and gendered work roles. Here, in the post-apartheid era, new rural schools and the South African Bill of Rights had engendered a period of steep social and political transition.

The participants were 72 indigenous Zulu adolescents in three age groups, 10-11, 15-16, and 18-20 years old, each with 12males and 12 females. The youngest were in the 4th and 5th years of primary school, and the two older groups were in the fifth andsixth forms (the two highest classes) of secondary school. They spoke isiZulu as their mother tongue and English as a second language.

Responses were collected in single private interviews lasting 15-30 minutes. Interviews were held at the schools. The researcher attended each interview with a Zulu interpreter. The interview protocol was read in isiZulu; the student responded, and their response was translated into English. The researcher asked probes when appropriate, translated back into isiZulu by the interpreter.

4

The interview protocol was made up of thirteen assessments. There were four on the right to literacy in the abstract (See Rights as Principles, below). There was one appraisal of the right to literacy in the general (“Do you think each and every child should have the chance to learn to read?”). Three more appraisalsexamined whether the participants’ understandings of rights were in accord with formal criteria that distinguish moral precepts, such as rights, from other social rules (Gewirth, 1982). There were nine assessments on conflict scenarios where traditions, cultural values, or economic difficulties stand as barriers to the right to literacy. (See Rights in Conflict for examples).

ResultsThe endorsements for the abstract assessments were 92% for

the law violation assessment and 100% for all other assessments. There were no significant effects for sex or age. A univariate ANOVA on proportions of cognitive/communicative justifications showed a significant decrease with age, F (2,69) = 4.19, p = .019.

Endorsements for conflict assessments were 64% or more. The mean of the endorsements of literacy for the conflicts

between literacy and culture was 88% with non-significant differences between age groups. The justifications referred to the benefits and functions of literacy or culture. There were no moral justifications. Assessments favoring culture referred mainly to the benefits of culture for individuals rather than thepreservation of culture.

Evaluations of conflicts for the parental authority assessments showed a range of proportions from 64% for the children’s obedience assessment to 100% for the parental prohibition assessment, M = 87, SD = 18.97. Justifications for the children’s obedience assessment showed that evaluations endorsing obedience were based on the importance of respect, witha univariate ANOVA showing a significant decrease with age, F (1,70) = 5.84, p = .009. Univariate ANOVAs used to compare the rightto literacy in the general with each parental authority assessment showed significant increases for justifications for children’s entitlements to development: for the parental prohibition assessment, F (1, 70) = 22.68, p < .001, for the

5

children’s obedience assessment, F (1, 70) = 10.18, p = .001, andfor the child labor assessment, F (1, 70) = 24.55, p < .001.

The mean of all the gender evaluations was 93%. A GLM repeated-measures test with the generalizability justifications as a baseline demonstrated the strong value of fairness with significant increases for all assessments: equal opportunity, F (1, 69) = 73.42, p < .001, government protection, F (1, 69) = 12.59, p < .001; family poverty, F (1, 69) = 4.28, p < .042.

6

4. Rights as principles

Evaluation

Justifications

Assessment Develop

CogCom Benefit

Moral

Family

Should each and every child be able to learn to read? Why do you think so?

100% 0 7 7 0 12

Should they be able to learn to read regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or wealth? Why do you think so?

99% 5 1 6 1 6

If there is a law forbidding some children to read, should they obey or disobey that law? Why do you think so?

92% (disobey)

4 6 8 4 0

Is the government responsible for teaching children to read?Why do you think so?

100% 2 1 0 2 6

Development: growth, opportunity, independence, a future

7

Cognitive/communicative functions: knowledge, vocabulary, making

records, writing letters, signing forms Benefits: a job, higher education, money, housesMoral: fairness, well-being, rightsFamily: benefits to family and community

8

Question (Type, assessment) EvaluationJustification

Benefits

Development

Justice

Would culture or reading bemoreimportant, if you had to choose?(Culture, general)

83%read

48% 20% 0

If parents forbid a child to learn to read, is that all right? (Parental authority,parental prohibition)

100%no

17% 31% 0

If parents forbid a child to learn to read, should that child obey or disobey?Why do you think so? (Parental authority, children’s obedience)

64%disobey

2% 35% 0

Should boys and girls have the same opportunity to learn to read? (Gender, equal opportunity)

97%yes

14% 8% 50%

A family has two boys and two girls. They can only afford to send two to school. They choose to sendthe boys.

89%no

3% 43% 15%

9

Question (Type, assessment) EvaluationJustification

Benefits

Development

Justice

Would culture or reading bemoreimportant, if you had to choose?(Culture, general)

83%read

48% 20% 0

If parents forbid a child to learn to read, is that all right? (Parental authority,parental prohibition)

100%no

17% 31% 0

Is that all right?(Gender, family poverty)

10

6. Integrating human rights and cultural practices.

“If parents forbid their children to learn to read, should thechildren obey or disobey?

Why do you think so?” (n = 72)

disobey (46) obey (26)

rights, future (29) authority restrictions (17) respect (17) coercion (9)

theory (10) practice (7)

Respect: “If I must choose I must respect my parents, they are the only people who choose for me to come on this earth.” (Male, 11:0)Authority restriction, theory: “You must obey an adult in small things, but if she forbids you [to learn to read], you must disobey.” (Female, 11:3).Authority restriction, practice: “It is hard to disobey a parent,but you must at least try to explain how important education is. But if they don’t allow it, you can disobey them because they aretaking away the rights.” (Female, 18:0)

DiscussionThis study in rural South Africa explored conceptions of a

human right in a traditional society. Interviews with Zulu adolescents of the post-apartheid era (2008) sought evidence on how they accommodated the right to literacy in a collectivistic society, and how they resolved conflicts between literacy and traditional communal values, including gender roles and children’s obedience.

The results of the abstract assessments fulfilled the prediction that a majority of the participants would endorse the

11

right to literacy. Their responses to the generalizability assessment gave unanimous endorsement to gender equality. In the law violation assessment, they demonstrated their conviction thatthe right to literacy should supersede an unjust law. The law violation assessment received over 90% endorsement in every age group; in comparison, 30% of 10-year-olds and 71% of 22-year-oldsin Canada endorsed breaking a law prohibiting the freedom of speech (Helwig, 1997). The youngest age group tended to use concrete justifications about escaping poverty, with nine citing jobs, and five, development, while the older groups used moral rationales more frequently.

There is no evidence that the Zulus’ communal characteristics affected their endorsement of the right to literacy, or how they distinguished individual entitlements from those of family and community or moral from social rules. Their primary aims were to overcome their poverty: to obtain knowledge,find employment, and strive for development, cognitive and socioeconomic. Therefore the justifications for the abstract assessments met the prediction that the Zulus would ground their endorsements in their own aims and values rather than collectivism.

The adolescents responses to the conflict assessments revealed patterns of different rates of endorsement and evaluative criteria for each set of assessments: culture, parental authority, and gender.

The three assessments on culture were evaluated according topragmatic considerations, such as making records as opposed to memorization, or literacy’s usefulness in finding jobs. Those whoendorsed culture did so because of their belief that ancestor practices, nurturing deceased spirits, ensured that they would be protected. Whether for literacy or for culture, these considerations were practical, rather than moral.

The parental prohibition and children’s obedience assessments produced authority restrictions that integrated the right to literacy with children’s respect for their parents – a powerful social value. These responses provided a novel variationon civil disobedience (See Integrating human rights and cultural practices, below). Some responses were theoretical, upholding respect but specifying conditions where disobedience was justified. Others

12

were procedural: An adult must join the parents in a formal (and extensive) discussion about the problem. A relative must represent a younger child. If the parents continued to disagree, the child was morally justified in disobeying as a last resort. These adaptive positions saw the superordinate position of a human right, but also specified the need to adhere to cultural practices that met both traditional and modern discursive requirements.

Twenty-two percent of participants evaluated the family poverty assessment (gender) in terms of children’s obligations tolook after their parents in their old age. Girls could do as wellor better, or boys were more reliable. These participants saw literate children as instrumental to their families as well as having an individual right to literacy.

While respect and care for elders were often upheld in the conflict assessments, gender roles and the more material aspects of culture were not. The preservation of core cultural practices maintaining interdependent relations and well-being was combined with a willingness to discard dated or peripheral cultural forms.

Evaluating cultural change using the independent-interdependent continuum posits modern industrialized culture as the sole endpoint of progress. It forecloses on other possibilities. It does not distinguish adaptive change from cultural breakdown. The data suggests that the Zulu adolescents intended to uphold human rights while retaining selective interdependent values, respect and elder care. The novel responses they made to hypothetical scenarios suggest that these could contribute to the integration of tradition and progress.

13

References

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon Books.

Helwig, C. C. (1997). The role of agent and social context in judgments of freedom of speech and religion. Child Development, 68(3), 484-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131673

Kitayama, S., Conway, L., Pietromonaco, P. R., Park, H., & Plaut,V. C. (2010). Ethos of independence across regions in the United States: The production-adoption model of cultural change. American Psychologist, 65(6), 559-574. doi:10.1037/a0020277

Okin, S. M. (2003). Poverty, well-being, and gender: What counts,who’s heard?Philosophy and Public Affairs, 31(3), 280-316. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00280.x

Saxe, G. B. (2012). Approaches to reduction in treatment of culture-cognition relations: Affordances and limitations. Human Development, 55, 233-242.

Sen, A. K. (1990). More than 100 million women are missing [Electronic Version]. The New York Review of Books, 37(20), December 20. Retrieved 11 February, 2007, from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3408

Sen, A. K. (2004). Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32(4), pp. 315–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2004.00017.x

Shweder, R. A., Goodnow, J. , Hatano, G., Levine, R., Markus, H. & Miller, P. (2006). The cultural psychology of development:One mind, many mentalities. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, (6th ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons.

Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge of University Press.

14

15