the opening of the National Conference on Cultural Legislation
21 April 2007
Programme Director
Advocate Mancotywa, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of National Heritage
Council
Traditional leaders here present
Members of our legislatures here present
Distinguished guests and representatives from the many organisations and bodies
representing our diverse multi-cultural society
This is a landmark conference and it is indeed an honour for me to address a
gathering representing so wide and diverse a spectrum of our democratic South
Africa. I believe that the outcomes of this conference will place us in a
better position to discuss and enrich our understanding of the promotion of
cultural diversity and nurturing the diversity of cultural expression in our
society.
The "term cultural diversity" is a concept that under-girds certain
intangible, yet very important human rights. Indeed it is enshrined in our own
Constitution along with recognition of the right of freedom of expression, the
right to artistic creativity, freedom of the media, the right of citizens of
this country to use the language of their choice and the right to participate
in the cultural life of the country as they choose.
An old song says, "You never miss your water till your well runs dry". I
shall recast that somewhat to say, "You never realise the value of a right
until it is under threat!" I say this because the pressing need for discourse
around cultural diversity is no accident. The urgency that attaches to these
discussions today is not unrelated to real, to perceived, to imagined and
sometimes, to misconstrued threats to our cultural diversity.
As South Africans we come to this debate with a particular experience as a
society, as diverse cultural communities living in the same country, as former
victims of cultural aggression, as the former perpetrators of such aggression
and as an emergent democracy.
One might say that term "culture" and cultural issues have historically been
among the most abused in the policy making of this country. This was especially
so during the days of colonial and apartheid rule. We should always bear that
abuse in mind when debating cultural practices. We should never lose sight of
the manner in which colonial administrators, native affairs "experts",
"ethnographers", homeland politicians and others linked to past regimes have
employed the term "culture" as a one size fits all alibi for abuses of power,
for the manipulation of people and their outright oppression. The lessons to be
gleaned from that experience might well be very negative but that experience
also carries within it important warning signs that should alert us to the glib
use and misuse of notions of culture, of cultural integrity, cultural
authenticity and even the "preservation of cultural diversity".
A few months ago I had the honour to host the President of the People's
Republic of China at the Cradle of Humankind. He visited that site in order,
among other things, to make a substantial donation to the African World
Heritage Fund. That site, where it is believed the first humans emerged, is the
profoundest testimony to our shared humanity. There could not be a more
eloquent assertion that all of us are members of the same human family. But
that common descent has not reduced the individual members of our single family
into a colony of ants, all identical in every respect, our common humanity does
not make for sameness. Just as within a single family unit, there are
individuals each of who is distinct from the other so too the human family is
as varied, as diverse and is made up of dissimilar units.
But what do the terms we use actually mean? There are probably so many
definitions of culture that probably each one of us has his/her own. The
definition I tend to prefer is that culture embraces virtually the totality of
socially transmitted behaviour patterns including language, belief systems,
institutions, customs, traditions, the arts and all the other products of human
work, imagination and thought. What is important in this definition is the
notion of "socially transmitted behaviour". This implies that this thing we
call culture is not pre-ordained, it is not sent down from on high and it is
not coded into our genes. Culture is the outcome of the variety of ways that
human societies have adapted to, made, remade, reconstructed, deconstructed and
recreated their environment. This suggests that culture is not genetically
transmitted and is exceedingly dynamic, it is always in motion and is never
static.
One can by extension also accept that since culture is "socially transmitted
behaviour" it is eminently transferable from one geographic location to
another, from one group of people to another, from one person to another, from
one environment to another, from one time to another, from one generation to
another, etc.
My third premise is that this human family of ours has over the ages built
up a huge fund of knowledge and experiences that have been shared amongst us in
a myriad of ways. Humans are compulsive communicators, humans are fast learners
with an inexhaustible capacity to imbibe knowledge and experience as well as
integrating the experience of others into our own. No section or portion of the
human family can therefore claim to be the exclusive repository of wisdom,
knowledge, valid experience and worth. We all have something to teach to
others, we all have learnt from others, we all have been enriched by such
inter-action with others and what is more is to precisely that capacity to
teach, to learn and to be enriched through such exchanges that makes us
human.
Our own conference should, I believe, proceed from the recognition that all
human civilisations have been shaped by such interaction within, between and
amongst differing and diverse cultural communities. The idea that there is some
pristine, unaffected, totally stand-alone culture or cultural community is a
foolish but often, extremely dangerous myth. Cultural autarchy is a pipedream
at best, an unrealisable fool's errand that when pursued has inflicted untold
damage on individuals and society at large. Mutual cross-fertilisation among
cultural communities has been and continues to be the leavening of progress
within the human family. It is something to be welcomed and not rejected.
Our South African experience demonstrates the dangers that can lurk behind
misguided attempts to seal off cultural communities from each other like silos
of different grains. The Verwoerdian nightmare of "separate development" was
built on such absurd assumptions. Colonial conquest, the commercialisation of
agriculture, industrialisation and a host of other factors having thrown
African, white, coloured and Asian together in one society the notion that this
historic omelette could somehow be unscrambled was bound to result in tragedy.
The pretext for these hare-brained policies was "culture", at times even the
"preservation of a distinctive culture".
But our country's past abounds in experiences that warn against the converse
attitude. Intolerance towards cultural diversity can be as destructive a force,
resulting in forced "assimilation", cultural denigration, racial chauvinism,
racial oppression and cultural aggression. Colonial administrators, their
conscious and unconscious helpers and very often the colonised themselves,
always proceeded from the premises that their own way of doing things was
better, that their own way of interpreting the world was superior, that their
belief systems were "civilised" and that the sooner the colonised behaved like
them, the better. The liberal "assimilationism" advocated by many opponents of
naked racism, like colonial policies and those of apartheid, all denied the
multi-dimensional character of our human family seeking to suppress it or
otherwise snuff it out by pressing all of humanity into one mould of their
making. "Assimilation" yielded as terrifying an outcome as undisguised racial
oppression. Cultural diversity is the living expression of our very humanity.
But that humanity finds equal expression in our capacity and willingness to
learn from others.
From that primeval group of hominids there evolved the human family with its
rich medley of hues, hair textures, facial features and the like. As South
Africans our identity is rooted in our past. What we call "South African" is
the outcome the dynamic interaction on African shores of at least three streams
of human experience, African, European and Asian. We have no choice but to
accept these outcomes as the verdict of history and we should not feel
threatened by cultural wares from other parts of the world. Each and every one
of the cultural communities in this country, however we may define them, has
been impacted upon by co-existence with the others. And if you doubt that just
think about how South Africans speak .Think of the vocabularies of any of our
languages. Think of the distinctive South African expressions that you wonât
hear anywhere else.
If what I have said is true, what is it at this time, in this country that
necessitates a conference like today's?
What is it that is happening amongst us today that compels us to discuss the
promotion and protection of the diversity of cultural expressions within our
society?
Perhaps that is the question we should examine today?
One conjecture is that the manner in which many are experiencing the
cultural interaction amongst South Africans makes them feel that it is one
sided. That what we are witnessing today is not cultural cross-fertilisation
but rather the forced homogenisation of South African culture because of the
economic dominance of one section of our society, because of the economic
dominance of that one cultural community.
In affirming the importance of the diversity of human culture are we by so
doing suggesting a sort of uncritical cultural relativism? I think not.
As the treasure trove of human knowledge expanded and increased
exponentially as a result of inter-human contact, so too has the corpus of
values and ethics. Progress has been achieved both by adding as well as by
subtracting, as we learnt, so too we discarded and we discarded to take on what
was new.
Upholding cultural diversity does not, nor is it intended to imply the
fanatic defence of any and everything pertaining to a particular culture. There
are practices that experience has demonstrated are harmful, dangerous and even
destructive. This is an appeal that while we should treat the cultural
practices of others and our own with respect that does not require us to shed
the faculty of reason. We should always retain the ability to judge even those
things we hold close to our hearts with a measure of objectivity. Sentiment
should not shut out the cold light of reason.
To take an example, I see that according to the guidelines issued one of the
matters we shall be discussing is what is referred to as "the traditional
African family". It is important that we interrogate that concept, the
traditional African family.
How "traditional" is what we might conceive of as the traditional African
family?
I have just been to the Eastern Cape for izimbizo. I the non-urban areas, I
noticed the inordinate number of women in the audiences. This is the result of
labour migrancy. Many men are away from the villages, working in urban areas.
That has been a pattern in the Eastern Cape since about 1858. That is one and a
half centuries!
Now the migrant labour system did not put an end to the family. But the
family had to adapt to the reality of the migrant labour system. Does that not
imply a redefinition of roles in the family? Did that not require adjustment of
certain norms to cope with new realties? Bombarded by all these pressures,
could the African family remain unaffected?
So I raise again the question, How "traditional" is what some imagine is the
traditional African family? Does such a "traditional" African family exist at
all, or is it merely some romantic image of our imaginations?
I raise these not because I have the answers but to pose the sort of
challenges you will have to wrestle with.
Some two years ago in an argument with an old friend, my interlocutor
suggested that our Constitution was somehow deficient because it defined a very
specific role for traditional leaders. He went on to suggest that the
institution of monarchy, what we euphemistically refer to as traditional
leadership, was peculiar to Africa and that our Constitution makers had ignored
this very African reality. I immediately pointed out that while eight members
of the European Union (EU) are constitutional monarchies, there are only two in
Africa, one absolute monarchy but that most African states are republics.
How many of the cultural practices we imagine are Africa specific are in
fact quite universal? And how many that we imagine are universal, are in fact
Africa specific? How has the inter-human contact over decades, centuries or
even millennia altered and transformed our cultural practices such that our
ancestors would not recognise them? How many of our most sacred rituals are in
fact borrowings from others? What have we done with borrowings in order to
indigenise them and thus integrate them more easily into existing practice?
Again, these are questions that cry out for answers.
If we borrow so readily, shed just as easily and absorb so calmly why at
other times do we find it so difficult to let go? Is the past like the rubble
from a derelict building on a construction site? Can it just be carted away for
disposal as waste?
We know that entire communities, groups and individuals have internalised
aspects of the past as defining their identities. Yet others, in order to cope
with the complexities and trauma associated with rapid change and
transformation, cling on to the past or rather what they perceive to be the
past for security.
Are the romantic ideas many have of the past at all relevant in the 21st
century? Do they make us more effective or do they impair our effectiveness in
the present?
I have no answers. They most emerge from the exchanges at this conference,
which hopefully will help guide our legislative interventions and inform how we
respond to the challenges thrown up by a pluralist society.
As we celebrate our 13th year of democracy and we recall the commitment made
by all South Africans 12 years ago to value, respect and nurture cultural
diversity, it is my sincere belief that this conference and debates in it will
equip us to face the next 13 years with even greater confidence.
I wish you success in your deliberations and you can all look forward to an
enriching day as the collective wisdom assembled in this room engages in one of
the most important topics of the African century.
I thank you!
Issued by: Department of Arts and Culture
21 April 2007
Source: Department of Arts and Culture (http://www.dac.gov.za/)
