Not+black+and+white+at+Native+Club,+Prof+Sipho+Seepe,+B+Day

Business Day, Johannesburg, 09 May 2006
=Not black and white at the Native Club=


 * Sipho Seepe**

LAST week I argued on these pages that the Native Club conference risked sacrificing intellectual engagement for political correctness, and that the terms of engagement must make a distinction between the rules for genuine intellectual inquiry and those of propaganda. I argued that the material benefits associated with submission to power blunt engagement, and that the blanket exclusion of white intellectuals is inconsistent with open intellectual inquiry. The conference in some ways sadly confirmed these expectations, and in others ways I was delighted to be proved wrong.

Despite strong political backing, the organisers, Titus Mafolo (presidential political adviser), Prof Muxe Nkondo, and Dr Pakiso Tondi, encouraged robust debate. My article, intended to provoke debates, was part of the conference folder.

However, this did not prevent government’s apologists from performing their perfunctory role. Nkondo calls this organic subservience.

For the apologists, criticism of government by black intellectuals is political betrayal. A few were perplexed that I could associate with the “club” while being critical of it.

Arts and Culture Minister Dr Pallo Jordan led the charge against me and began his contribution by dismissing an article written by a certain “self-proclaimed intellectual”. I am pleased that he was sufficiently provoked to publicise the article. I am disappointed that he failed to enrich the debate by engaging the ideas and responding to these in the public domain. Criticism is welcomed by those committed to ideas. It helps to sharpen thoughts, and to dislodge ideas that are not sustainable.

Rubbishing the messenger is easy, engaging ideas presents an intellectual challenge. The minister preferred the former. His approach sums up the dialectical relationship that has prevailed between intellectuals and governments over the ages.

Politicians clamour for uncritical endorsement by intellectuals, while the intellectuals are captivated by the power wielded by the rulers. This creates a sometimes contradictory dynamic. In practice, the outcomes of this relationship will be determined mainly by the ability of the rulers to give a dialogic, as opposed to a dichotomous, meaning to the engagement.

There was no mistaking that this conference comprised a disgruntled lot. A mood of resentment of historical racial injustice pervaded the conference. This shared experience, and the absence of whites, encouraged people to speak freely about their sense of alienation within the dominant white culture. That this grievance is felt so strongly by this privileged class is understandable. It is this group that has to traverse traditionally white spaces.

This grievance speaks to the unfinished business of nation-building. The depth of grievance, while real, is disproportionate to the depth of material deprivation. White domination was the subtext of most discussions. So much for the South African miracle!

The presentation by Chris Landsberg summed up the mood of the conference and crystallised my concerns. First, he confused the terms intellectual and intelligentsia. We can’t invent definitions to suit our position. He then regaled the audience with the fact that he has never proclaimed himself to be an intellectual. He would leave this to the director-general who assesses the work he does for government. He looks to politicians and bureaucrats for scholarly approval. Instead of seeing his role as asking government to account, he feels accountable to government.

To much approval, Landsberg derided those who are in the business of criticising government simply for the sake of criticism. The correctness of the views expressed seemed irrelevant. This approach is intellectually bankrupt as it relieves him, and others, of the responsibility of engaging the issues. Government has enough praise singers and highly paid spin doctors. It also has access to the public broadcaster and other resources.

Criticism helps to raise the level of conversation and increase the rigour of thought. Ideas and policies that are correct do not need protection.

The second point was an invocation of an intellectual race war. Landsberg painted a picture of a white establishment bent on frustrating and holding captive the black intellectual and African agenda. For Landsberg, the University of the Witwatersrand is a case in point. In a display of double standards, Wits has recently appointed six undeserving whites as professors. To exclamations of shock, he informed his audience that one of the professors had only an honours degree. Yet, many blacks with PhDs are overlooked. More is expected of blacks than of whites. The university can answer for itself.

But this practice is not confined to whites. There are many instances of underqualified and inexperienced but politically connected blacks and mediocre whites being preferred by panels dominated by blacks. In some cases, the individuals concerned did not meet the stipulated basic requirements. The new black vice-chancellor at the University of Johannesburg, for instance, was preferred over candidates with impeccable academic credentials while he does not have a single academic publication to his name. Landsberg does not quibble with the dizzying speed with which black and Afrikaner universities have been conferring honorary doctorates and professorships on politically connected black individuals.

A third point raised by Landsberg, with which I agree, was that blacks tend to be ruthless with each other. This has less to do with substantive issues but more to do with ideological and political location. Support is based on whether one’s home is within, among others, the black consciousness, Marxist, African National Congress, or Pan Africanist tradition. Political divisions override the possibility of meaningful dialogue. This underscores the need to separate intellectual from political projects.

On the positive side, the conference explored a number of issues. It started on a high note with participants addressing each other as “natives”. This appropriation of a negative label turned it on its head.

The issue of identity animated the discussion — with explorations of the primacy of identity and self-determination in postcolonial systems as well as the imperative of accommodating the perspective of victims in history, anthropology, science and economics.

Passionate debate ensued regarding the conflict between the intellectual and the political elite. Central to this debate is the negotiation of the complex dynamic between commitment to truth, to power and to political solidarity. Participants agreed that this was not the time for mutual accusations but the time to teach and learn from each other. The club was encouraged to ensure that deliberations impact on policy. Organisers were challenged to explore institutional structures that can sustain dialogue between government and the native intellectuals. Reservations aside, this could be a start of an exciting intellectual journey.


 * Prof Seepe is academic director, Henley Management College, incorporated in the UK.


 * From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A196752**

1092 words