Yesterday, Februar 14, I went out with a couple of friends to one of the usual bars in Melville's entertainment mile on 7th. street. The bar was full and babylon water flowed freely. We were all in a jolly mood - after all, it was thursday night and Valentine's day!
I noticed two women dancing with ambition in the middle of the bar, but I was soon diverted by the exciting company at my table.
Suddenly, much commotion struck at the entrance of the bar. The two women were engaged in a brutal fist fight with the bouncer and other bar employees. They rolled on the pavement in front of the bar, exchanging blows and tearing each others' shirts apart.
Some at my table intervened but to no avail. A friend inquired as the reason of the fight and one waiter said the boss had told the two women to stop dancing.
The commotion did not entirely die down and one of the women, after they were unceremoniously ejected from the bar, was taunting the bouncer, asking him where he was from, what he was doing here and why he did not understand her language.
My friend was now very angry and she felt that it was typical for a male-dominated, violent and patriarchal society to treat women in such a way. Also, that the two women were apparently a couple turned this into a homophobic incidence as well.
I was struck by the sudden violence, partially fuelled by too much alcohol consumption, but foremost by the indifference with which the violence was greeted by the people around. Some tried to say that the women deserved such treatment since they caused the trouble. Others had smirks on their face, taking the misery of others as entertainment, completely ignoring pain and distress.
This is what made me pause - how casual we have become in our response to violent and socially pathological behaviour.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Sunday, December 16, 2007
For Susan and Susan
I found another interesting article about the world of work in the Sunday Times today.
What better occasion than using the summer break, while lying at the beach, to reflect about your place of work and where you want to go with your career.
Jonathan Cook, from GIBS, suggest contemplating seriously a change of work, based on the following considerations:
1. at work, you are mostly bored or fearful
2. in the new year, everything seems set to continue as in all the previous years
3. to the question, 'why do I work?', all I say is: 'it is a necessity!'
4. thinking about 2008, you immediately want to go back to 2007
5. you don't have any goals for 2008
If thinking about this issues, while slurping a caipirinha and contemplating the ocean, suddenly the coconut drops, Cook suggests to go through the following questions:
A. The first and most important question is what do you want to contribute? Clarify your most important objectives: to write a book, to have more power, to earn tons of money, to sit quietly in an office, to help others, to have a family, to launch a business, to conquer the oil market, to launch a new product or service, and so on.
B. Now, is the moment to ask yourself what you are good at. Review your qualifications, your skills, your knowledge and your experience and write down what gives you the edge. Ask where your intelligence lies: verbal, numerical, perceptual, musical, physical, interpersonal or personal.
C. What is your style? Do you like to have it quiet with as little contact with others as possible? Then you rather opt for a writer/researcher career over being a marketeer or a teacher/trainer.
D. What is your personal capacity? Its not only about making the right choice, getting the right job but also what you are capable of doing given your circumstances, in your position to advance your career and improve your job satisfaction.
E. What are the opportunities you face? This is about what your dream is but also about making realistic choices. Think about who you are and where do you want to go. Before you take on that seductive offer, think if it fits your values and matches what you believe in.
Fo sho, I am using this summer time-out to think harder about where I want to go and what I have to offer. More than ever, satisfaction in life and at work relies on constantly interrogating yourself and your ambitions. What really matters is the question, not the answer.
What better occasion than using the summer break, while lying at the beach, to reflect about your place of work and where you want to go with your career.
Jonathan Cook, from GIBS, suggest contemplating seriously a change of work, based on the following considerations:
1. at work, you are mostly bored or fearful
2. in the new year, everything seems set to continue as in all the previous years
3. to the question, 'why do I work?', all I say is: 'it is a necessity!'
4. thinking about 2008, you immediately want to go back to 2007
5. you don't have any goals for 2008
If thinking about this issues, while slurping a caipirinha and contemplating the ocean, suddenly the coconut drops, Cook suggests to go through the following questions:
A. The first and most important question is what do you want to contribute? Clarify your most important objectives: to write a book, to have more power, to earn tons of money, to sit quietly in an office, to help others, to have a family, to launch a business, to conquer the oil market, to launch a new product or service, and so on.
B. Now, is the moment to ask yourself what you are good at. Review your qualifications, your skills, your knowledge and your experience and write down what gives you the edge. Ask where your intelligence lies: verbal, numerical, perceptual, musical, physical, interpersonal or personal.
C. What is your style? Do you like to have it quiet with as little contact with others as possible? Then you rather opt for a writer/researcher career over being a marketeer or a teacher/trainer.
D. What is your personal capacity? Its not only about making the right choice, getting the right job but also what you are capable of doing given your circumstances, in your position to advance your career and improve your job satisfaction.
E. What are the opportunities you face? This is about what your dream is but also about making realistic choices. Think about who you are and where do you want to go. Before you take on that seductive offer, think if it fits your values and matches what you believe in.
Fo sho, I am using this summer time-out to think harder about where I want to go and what I have to offer. More than ever, satisfaction in life and at work relies on constantly interrogating yourself and your ambitions. What really matters is the question, not the answer.
Friday, November 30, 2007
"I have black friends"
This week, the owner of a tourist complex at the outskirts of Johannesburg was murdered. He had immigrated in the 1950s from Germany. In reporting about the incident, it was emhpasised that he loved Africa and that he said he wanted to make Africa work, with Africa. Or something similar, I do not recall the exact wording.
In the blog 'Constitutionally speaking', a heated debate ensued over HIV/Aids. http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/One black participant wrote that he was tired of white people who felt the need to say that they had black friends, how they liked black people or that they had voted for the ANC.
Why is there such a need to say these things in contemporary South Africa? Because race is still over burdened with history. White people who do not recognize themselves in the history of apartheid, who do not think that a black government is equal to failure, who do not contemplate emigration and who don't see themselves as superior to black people seem to feel the need to distinguish themselves from those who do all these things. (That they are still alive, but not necessarily in the country, tells you Aubrey Matshiqi in his recent BD column.)http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A644543
But it is also because the label 'racist' is easily deployed in order to silence critiques. And "new" white South Africans feel the need to distinguish themselves from "old" ones.
Suspicion and lack of trust looms large in debates straddling the colour line.
In the blog 'Constitutionally speaking', a heated debate ensued over HIV/Aids. http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/One black participant wrote that he was tired of white people who felt the need to say that they had black friends, how they liked black people or that they had voted for the ANC.
Why is there such a need to say these things in contemporary South Africa? Because race is still over burdened with history. White people who do not recognize themselves in the history of apartheid, who do not think that a black government is equal to failure, who do not contemplate emigration and who don't see themselves as superior to black people seem to feel the need to distinguish themselves from those who do all these things. (That they are still alive, but not necessarily in the country, tells you Aubrey Matshiqi in his recent BD column.)http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A644543
But it is also because the label 'racist' is easily deployed in order to silence critiques. And "new" white South Africans feel the need to distinguish themselves from "old" ones.
Suspicion and lack of trust looms large in debates straddling the colour line.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Branding the self
Some might be concerned that marketers now want us to extend branding from products and corporations to countries and individuals. Why should everything be commercialized, they may ask? Yet, have human beings not always worked on their image and tried to fashion themselves according to certain ideals? In Renaissance France, the 'in' man wanted to be a 'gentilhomme', well versed in poetry and literature, with loads of panache and wit, and capable of horse riding and fencing. So the six steps to develop your brand are the following:
1. Purpose. You want to have a higher, guding principle in your life - making money alone will not do. Rather, think where you would like to make a difference: what is your contribution to humanity?
2. Passion. What gets you excited? Whatever you do, your passion (or non-passion) will come out, so identitfy what you like to do and go for it.
3. Planning. Develop your brand does not happen overnight. It requires continuous work. Plan and strategize, and work on developing your own brand.
4. People. Your brand is related to the people around you. A strong individual brand reflects the people network around you.
5. Play. Brand development has to be fun. Whatever you do, make sure you enjoy it. And you and your brand will see much appreciation.
6. Perseverance. There will be fat and meagre years. In meagre years, stay put and continue on the road you embarked. Hard times build character, as some say. A strong brand develops its distinctive characteristics in tough times.
1. Purpose. You want to have a higher, guding principle in your life - making money alone will not do. Rather, think where you would like to make a difference: what is your contribution to humanity?
2. Passion. What gets you excited? Whatever you do, your passion (or non-passion) will come out, so identitfy what you like to do and go for it.
3. Planning. Develop your brand does not happen overnight. It requires continuous work. Plan and strategize, and work on developing your own brand.
4. People. Your brand is related to the people around you. A strong individual brand reflects the people network around you.
5. Play. Brand development has to be fun. Whatever you do, make sure you enjoy it. And you and your brand will see much appreciation.
6. Perseverance. There will be fat and meagre years. In meagre years, stay put and continue on the road you embarked. Hard times build character, as some say. A strong brand develops its distinctive characteristics in tough times.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The perpetuation of racial ideology in South Africa today
Neville Alexander addressed the Wits Democracy Debate on October 30, 2007. A summary of his presentation follows:
Affirmative Action and the Perpetuation of Racial Identities in Post-Apartheid South Africa
While Alexander recognizes that affirmative action may serve a purpose, and that only conservatives are outright against it, there are some serious problems with this policy. He argues that the problem is that affirmative action is based on a racial ideology that perpetuates racial identities; hence, the issue is how to do affirmative action without perpetuating racial identities? He is quick to add that while he may end up in the same camp with white conservatives who want to protect their racial privileges, he believes South Africa is stuck with affirmative action policies because no social revolution was implemented.
The ANC in government applies affirmative action and continues with a racial ideology to show to a majority of black people that the new regime has something to offer to them. Otherwise, the current regime would just be seen by black people as a neo-apartheid regime. However, in order to work towards non-racialism, what is needed is to re-imagine socially constructed identities and communities.
The maintenance of a racial ideology through race classification contradicts the constitution which requires non-racialism. Race thinking is entrenched through racial classification when in fact the real issue is disadvantage, not race.
Under the current regime, broad based poverty reduction is neglected and preference is given to policies that support the advancement of the black middle class. Alexander asks why it is that a white capitalist is seen as a foreigner and not one of ‘us’, but a black capitalist should be belonging to the people? This shows that racial awareness and racial ideology is still very much present and the task is then to problematize racial identities.
Affirmative Action and the Perpetuation of Racial Identities in Post-Apartheid South Africa
While Alexander recognizes that affirmative action may serve a purpose, and that only conservatives are outright against it, there are some serious problems with this policy. He argues that the problem is that affirmative action is based on a racial ideology that perpetuates racial identities; hence, the issue is how to do affirmative action without perpetuating racial identities? He is quick to add that while he may end up in the same camp with white conservatives who want to protect their racial privileges, he believes South Africa is stuck with affirmative action policies because no social revolution was implemented.
The ANC in government applies affirmative action and continues with a racial ideology to show to a majority of black people that the new regime has something to offer to them. Otherwise, the current regime would just be seen by black people as a neo-apartheid regime. However, in order to work towards non-racialism, what is needed is to re-imagine socially constructed identities and communities.
The maintenance of a racial ideology through race classification contradicts the constitution which requires non-racialism. Race thinking is entrenched through racial classification when in fact the real issue is disadvantage, not race.
Under the current regime, broad based poverty reduction is neglected and preference is given to policies that support the advancement of the black middle class. Alexander asks why it is that a white capitalist is seen as a foreigner and not one of ‘us’, but a black capitalist should be belonging to the people? This shows that racial awareness and racial ideology is still very much present and the task is then to problematize racial identities.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Comparative race relations
I have been writing a piece comparing whiteness and race relations in the United States of America and South Africa. Almost all theoretical writings on whiteness originate in the US. This is the theoretical toolbox we use when writing about whiteness in South Africa. However, I find that there are considerable pitfalls when we try to do so.
Let me just analyze one such pitfall, and arguably the most important one. In South Africa, Africans have always been a majority. The white colonial masters were always a minority who had to rely on the suppression and cooperation of the majority. Even at the height of dominance, control was rather tenuous. Today, as Africans make inroads into many areas of South African life in which they are a minority, they do so from a numerical and political position of strength. In contrast, on the Northamerican continent, the descendants of African slaves are a minority that struggles to be accepted as equal. In this quest, they are very much dependent on the white majority. Inclusion into the mainstream is a slow process and remains arduous.
Dynamics of relations and the politics of race proceed along different avenues. In Northamerica, it seems to me that affirmative action cannot be discussed beyond the two camps, either for or against. What should be serious discussion about how people live together degenerates into political bickering, replete with suspicion and grand-standing.
In contrast, the South African public debate on affirmative action and race shows intriguing levels of maturity. Over the last week, public commentators and newspaper editors discussed the effects of racial politics without the usual labels of reactionary, right wing and so on bandied about but by the most ideological and narrow-minded commentators. The aversion to enforced racial apartheid awareness leaves many with a deep suspicion of racial arguments and politics. Indeed, this is ground for hope that something new will come out of South Africa, despite the continuing legacy of apartheid.
Let me just analyze one such pitfall, and arguably the most important one. In South Africa, Africans have always been a majority. The white colonial masters were always a minority who had to rely on the suppression and cooperation of the majority. Even at the height of dominance, control was rather tenuous. Today, as Africans make inroads into many areas of South African life in which they are a minority, they do so from a numerical and political position of strength. In contrast, on the Northamerican continent, the descendants of African slaves are a minority that struggles to be accepted as equal. In this quest, they are very much dependent on the white majority. Inclusion into the mainstream is a slow process and remains arduous.
Dynamics of relations and the politics of race proceed along different avenues. In Northamerica, it seems to me that affirmative action cannot be discussed beyond the two camps, either for or against. What should be serious discussion about how people live together degenerates into political bickering, replete with suspicion and grand-standing.
In contrast, the South African public debate on affirmative action and race shows intriguing levels of maturity. Over the last week, public commentators and newspaper editors discussed the effects of racial politics without the usual labels of reactionary, right wing and so on bandied about but by the most ideological and narrow-minded commentators. The aversion to enforced racial apartheid awareness leaves many with a deep suspicion of racial arguments and politics. Indeed, this is ground for hope that something new will come out of South Africa, despite the continuing legacy of apartheid.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
How to do anthropological research?
On friday we presented our paper about youth identities in Johannesburg. The focus of our in-depth interviews and ethnographies was on the intersection of race, gender, class and sexuality. The results will be compared with Cape Town, Chicago, San Francisco, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. A young and ambitious man was very scathing in his critique saying that it lacked depth, was not anthropological and was spending donor money with little results. In sum, it was deemed a fashion and not proper research.
I was trying to understand what his beef was. But I am still not clear. A large part of the presentation was about race and how it evolves and how people of different "races" relate to each other - was he unhappy with what we said about race? I mean he never criticized the substance of what we presented. He only talked about methodology and what proper anthropology was and what was not.
My experience with race-talk in South Africa is that in any public forum, people will rarely express in any direct way what they actually mean. So one is always faced with trying to figure out what they are trying to express. So over the next week I will try to understand better what was actually going on during discussions.
Saturday night I had a great dinner with good friends and dancing and partying in Melville. It was very cathartic. One can bemoan many things in Jozi, but the people here are great to go out and party with.
I was trying to understand what his beef was. But I am still not clear. A large part of the presentation was about race and how it evolves and how people of different "races" relate to each other - was he unhappy with what we said about race? I mean he never criticized the substance of what we presented. He only talked about methodology and what proper anthropology was and what was not.
My experience with race-talk in South Africa is that in any public forum, people will rarely express in any direct way what they actually mean. So one is always faced with trying to figure out what they are trying to express. So over the next week I will try to understand better what was actually going on during discussions.
Saturday night I had a great dinner with good friends and dancing and partying in Melville. It was very cathartic. One can bemoan many things in Jozi, but the people here are great to go out and party with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)