The sexual mores of our President have landed him again in hot water, and as any other shrewed politician would do, he deploys diversion tactics to make the issue go away.
All around the world, when there is a big problem that threatens to subsist, what you do is to instigate a Commission. It gives the impression that you do something and by the time the findings are published, no one will be interested in it anymore -other current affairs will have taken over. It is no different with Jacob Zuma's proposal for a Commission to probe South Africa's morals.
Yet, to focus on morals in solving social and political problems is also the typical stuff of the right wing, straight out of the conservative style book. John Kane-Berman of the South African Institute of Race Relations, taking his cue from US and UK conservatives, usually claims that the statistical absence of the proper South African family (mom, dad, and two children living under one roof) explains many social ills. And the restoration of the "family" will somehow solve the problem. Neglected are then the historical, social, and political dimensions of the problem.
While morality matters, the real question is what kind of morals are we talking about? Concern for morality often serves as a smoke screen for promoting conservative, political values. The scourge of rape and violence against women is hardly caused by young women wearing mini-skirts; pregnant school girls are not the ones to be blamed for their early pregnancy, but rather the (usually older) men who trade sex for (material) favours; HIV/AIDS cannot be controlled by ostracizing those who have contracted the virus, as through marking their buttocks, but by treating it as an illness that requires medical and preventive measures, and so on.
Conservative moralists want to suggest that if only people would be follow the right morals, the social, economic, and political conditions would improve. To me, this seems barking up the wrong tree.
If the zeal to enforce conservative family values was as big as the desire to demand fair behaviour by those with power, be it in government or the private sector, be it by those high up or by exerising merely parental authority, we would go a long way addressing the problems that bedevil us.
Acting in morally sound ways involves more than policing sexual and social behaviour - a starting point would be to reflect as to how power and authority are, should and could be, exercised.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Are South Africa's business ethics Wild West?
On Monday 4 January 2010 I bought Gillette Razor blades with a value of R 185.00 at the Clicks store at Campus Square shopping centre, Johannesburg. I realized that I had bought the wrong blades after I had opened the packet at home. Gillette has two razor shaving systems that look quite similar but that require different and specific razor blades.
I had merely cut the cover paper of the razor blades but I did not take the blades out of their plastic covers.
The next day, 5 January 2010, I was told by the store manager that he would not refund the blades as I had opened the packet. I told him that I had no use for the blades and that I would have to throw them away. He told me that I should have consulted properly with staff in order to buy the right blades. I accepted that I had bought the wrong blades by mistake but since I had no use for these blades, I required a refund. He refused.
I then called the Clicks Customer Centre. The agent repeated the same argument from the store manager: it was my mistake as the packet had been opened and the hygiene of the packet was compromised. The agent even asked me if I would buy blades from an open packet. Then, I was told that they would call the store manager to convince him to refund the blades. I told the agent that I would like to speak to the Regional Manager as it seems to me Clicks has a policy of refusing refunds. I was not called back the same day as I had requested.
On 6 January 2010, I called them again. No progress was reported. One hour after my call, another agent called to tell me that the Regional Manager would call me within the hour. He duly called and repeated the same: how thankful I should be that they refund the blades as they were wasted for them. Clicks would carry a loss from the refund. When I asked if Procter and Gamble, the owner of Gillette, would refund them, he said no. He denied that it was Clicks policy to discourage refunds.
I find this statement, that Procter and Gamble, would not refund Clicks hard to believe. I had contacted their Customer Care Line and they agreed without any questioning to refund me. All I had to do was to send them the purchased blades. If Procter and Gamble refunds an individual consumer, would they not refund a much more powerful retail company?
On 7 January 2010, I went back to the Campus Square Clicks and my purchase was refunded. Which raises the question: why could the store manager issue a refund only once I had contacted the Clicks Customer Centre? Why would he agree to do something three days later which he had previously refused?
Or has Clicks so little confidence in their store managers that they require these safety measures as to avoid internal corruption? Is it then a safety measure in order to avoid abuse? Or is this an administrative system that tries to make it as cumbersome as possible for Clicks clients to receive a refund?
If you look up Clicks on the ‘Hello Peter’ consumer complaints website, you will see that there are a high number of cases that individuals report and in which store managers refuse refunds for all kinds of reasons.
A colleague of mine had purchased in November 2009 prescription glasses with a value of R 400.00 at the Clicks store in Pretoria CBD. When she realized that they had the wrong strength, she brought them back. The store manager refused a refund on the grounds that the security label had been removed and hence she would not refund the glasses. My colleague accepted this and she had to buy another pair without the benefit of a refund.
The Consumer Protection Act of 2009 makes it quite clear that consumers are entitled for refunds under certain conditions. In the case of the razors, since the goods were in a packet, and I could not clearly establish that these were the correct blades I required, I should be legally entitled to a refund. The store may deduct a certain amount of the purchasing price for repackaging, but to claim that since the packet had been opened, no refund could be given, appears to be a contravention of the Act. In the case of the prescription glasses, the contravention of the Act seems to be even more blatant.
I find it quite unacceptable that a national retail chain seems to have instructed store managers to refuse refunds. Only when going through the call centre will a refund be granted. Clearly, this is highly consumer unfriendly, probably illegal and if they would state this refund policy openly, customers would be more careful when making a purchase at Clicks.
I wonder how many people have the means and the stamina to follow up on a mere refund. Most other retail stores accept refunds in the store with a receipt without having to go through a call centre. I wonder how many people have accepted the ‘no’ from the store manager and how much money has been taken out of South African consumers pocket and transferred to Clicks without any merit, any service rendered, and without any benefit to the consumer.
I have contacted The Star newspaper, the Sowetan, and the Speak Out tv program and hope their consumer reporters will pick the story up. Also, I have launched a complaint with the South African Consumer Protector at the local government call centre.
While I did eventually receive a refund, Clicks policy that renders getting a refund very cumbersome reflects poor business ethics. It is about time that South African business steps out of its Wild West attitude and lives up to the high moral values of a Nelson Mandela for which our country reached world-wide fame.
I had merely cut the cover paper of the razor blades but I did not take the blades out of their plastic covers.
The next day, 5 January 2010, I was told by the store manager that he would not refund the blades as I had opened the packet. I told him that I had no use for the blades and that I would have to throw them away. He told me that I should have consulted properly with staff in order to buy the right blades. I accepted that I had bought the wrong blades by mistake but since I had no use for these blades, I required a refund. He refused.
I then called the Clicks Customer Centre. The agent repeated the same argument from the store manager: it was my mistake as the packet had been opened and the hygiene of the packet was compromised. The agent even asked me if I would buy blades from an open packet. Then, I was told that they would call the store manager to convince him to refund the blades. I told the agent that I would like to speak to the Regional Manager as it seems to me Clicks has a policy of refusing refunds. I was not called back the same day as I had requested.
On 6 January 2010, I called them again. No progress was reported. One hour after my call, another agent called to tell me that the Regional Manager would call me within the hour. He duly called and repeated the same: how thankful I should be that they refund the blades as they were wasted for them. Clicks would carry a loss from the refund. When I asked if Procter and Gamble, the owner of Gillette, would refund them, he said no. He denied that it was Clicks policy to discourage refunds.
I find this statement, that Procter and Gamble, would not refund Clicks hard to believe. I had contacted their Customer Care Line and they agreed without any questioning to refund me. All I had to do was to send them the purchased blades. If Procter and Gamble refunds an individual consumer, would they not refund a much more powerful retail company?
On 7 January 2010, I went back to the Campus Square Clicks and my purchase was refunded. Which raises the question: why could the store manager issue a refund only once I had contacted the Clicks Customer Centre? Why would he agree to do something three days later which he had previously refused?
Or has Clicks so little confidence in their store managers that they require these safety measures as to avoid internal corruption? Is it then a safety measure in order to avoid abuse? Or is this an administrative system that tries to make it as cumbersome as possible for Clicks clients to receive a refund?
If you look up Clicks on the ‘Hello Peter’ consumer complaints website, you will see that there are a high number of cases that individuals report and in which store managers refuse refunds for all kinds of reasons.
A colleague of mine had purchased in November 2009 prescription glasses with a value of R 400.00 at the Clicks store in Pretoria CBD. When she realized that they had the wrong strength, she brought them back. The store manager refused a refund on the grounds that the security label had been removed and hence she would not refund the glasses. My colleague accepted this and she had to buy another pair without the benefit of a refund.
The Consumer Protection Act of 2009 makes it quite clear that consumers are entitled for refunds under certain conditions. In the case of the razors, since the goods were in a packet, and I could not clearly establish that these were the correct blades I required, I should be legally entitled to a refund. The store may deduct a certain amount of the purchasing price for repackaging, but to claim that since the packet had been opened, no refund could be given, appears to be a contravention of the Act. In the case of the prescription glasses, the contravention of the Act seems to be even more blatant.
I find it quite unacceptable that a national retail chain seems to have instructed store managers to refuse refunds. Only when going through the call centre will a refund be granted. Clearly, this is highly consumer unfriendly, probably illegal and if they would state this refund policy openly, customers would be more careful when making a purchase at Clicks.
I wonder how many people have the means and the stamina to follow up on a mere refund. Most other retail stores accept refunds in the store with a receipt without having to go through a call centre. I wonder how many people have accepted the ‘no’ from the store manager and how much money has been taken out of South African consumers pocket and transferred to Clicks without any merit, any service rendered, and without any benefit to the consumer.
I have contacted The Star newspaper, the Sowetan, and the Speak Out tv program and hope their consumer reporters will pick the story up. Also, I have launched a complaint with the South African Consumer Protector at the local government call centre.
While I did eventually receive a refund, Clicks policy that renders getting a refund very cumbersome reflects poor business ethics. It is about time that South African business steps out of its Wild West attitude and lives up to the high moral values of a Nelson Mandela for which our country reached world-wide fame.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What does 'meddling' say about South African governance?
Today in the news, it is reported that Joel Netshitenzhe, a senior policy figure in the Presidency, urged the African National Congress (ANC) not to “micro-manage” the state. He said that this would undermine the legitimacy of the state.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=84165
This sort of meddling across competencies is a common experience of governance in South Africa. The question is where does it come from and how can it be fixed? For no society can be organised and develop along a steady path without having clear procedures and practices on who and how can meddle in other people's affairs. The flipside of this coin is that without proper channels, people with grievances will have to find other avenues to make themselves heard. If there is no proper channel for the residents of Sakhile Township to air their grievances, how can we expect that they do not use any other means to draw the attention of those in power?
At Wits, students could not use meaningfully the proper channels to have someone pay heed to their grievances. The only way to get things moving, or at least to have the semblance of it, was to protest and seek a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor. The other people in the chain would just ignore the students who were usually considered a nuisance, not individuals who deserve attention and a clear answers to their questions.
To make matters worse, the Council was meddling in the affairs of the University's management. Proper governance sees more of a guidance role for the Council, an advisor but also an authority to correct the path of management if things go wrong. In civil society organsiations and parastals, too many Boards do not exercise proper supervision. Either they are too close to management or they drag their turf and ideological wars into the management of the organisation. The SABC is an example of how the Board failed to steer a struggling organisation onto safer shores. In Business, despte numerous reports and recommendations on good governance, too many dubious practices persist.
So why this? In a nutshell, I can think of two explanations. First, we are still a society in transition. Our institutions and organisations are far from having digested the installation of a new order. We live in the post-colony, with all the problems attached to it. Exclusionary establishments, as in the case of Wits for instance, lack legitimacy. So those in positions feel weak, in that they feel they do not have the support to decide and act, and those with grievances feel they cannot expect to get a fair hearing, and the concomitant action to remedy their situation. At state level, the transition from the Mbeki to the Zuma era highlights a typical problem of a young demoracy, and which many African states have not addressed in a meaningful way: the relationship between the ruling party and the state.
The second explanation deals with trust. The trust levels in our society are very low. While cheating, deception, fraud, and so on, occur in any society, in South Africa they probably thrive at exceptional high levels. Unless we learn to trust and confide with people we deal with on a daily basis, the urge to enforce and control will prevail. However, no working and happy society can be built on such a basis.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=84165
This sort of meddling across competencies is a common experience of governance in South Africa. The question is where does it come from and how can it be fixed? For no society can be organised and develop along a steady path without having clear procedures and practices on who and how can meddle in other people's affairs. The flipside of this coin is that without proper channels, people with grievances will have to find other avenues to make themselves heard. If there is no proper channel for the residents of Sakhile Township to air their grievances, how can we expect that they do not use any other means to draw the attention of those in power?
At Wits, students could not use meaningfully the proper channels to have someone pay heed to their grievances. The only way to get things moving, or at least to have the semblance of it, was to protest and seek a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor. The other people in the chain would just ignore the students who were usually considered a nuisance, not individuals who deserve attention and a clear answers to their questions.
To make matters worse, the Council was meddling in the affairs of the University's management. Proper governance sees more of a guidance role for the Council, an advisor but also an authority to correct the path of management if things go wrong. In civil society organsiations and parastals, too many Boards do not exercise proper supervision. Either they are too close to management or they drag their turf and ideological wars into the management of the organisation. The SABC is an example of how the Board failed to steer a struggling organisation onto safer shores. In Business, despte numerous reports and recommendations on good governance, too many dubious practices persist.
So why this? In a nutshell, I can think of two explanations. First, we are still a society in transition. Our institutions and organisations are far from having digested the installation of a new order. We live in the post-colony, with all the problems attached to it. Exclusionary establishments, as in the case of Wits for instance, lack legitimacy. So those in positions feel weak, in that they feel they do not have the support to decide and act, and those with grievances feel they cannot expect to get a fair hearing, and the concomitant action to remedy their situation. At state level, the transition from the Mbeki to the Zuma era highlights a typical problem of a young demoracy, and which many African states have not addressed in a meaningful way: the relationship between the ruling party and the state.
The second explanation deals with trust. The trust levels in our society are very low. While cheating, deception, fraud, and so on, occur in any society, in South Africa they probably thrive at exceptional high levels. Unless we learn to trust and confide with people we deal with on a daily basis, the urge to enforce and control will prevail. However, no working and happy society can be built on such a basis.
The Goldstone Report
The UN Security Council was recently deliberating what to do with the report. Judge Goldstone received much criticism from all sides for it. Judge for yourself. The human toll in this conflict is unbearable, and clearly, there is no military solution unless full-scale ethnic cleansing is considered. I hope that such fact finding missions contribute to a peaceful setttlement.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Executive salaries: when is high too high?
Since Barack Obama became US President amidst a global economic crisis, how private capitalist enterprise relates to public enterprise and the common good, as assumed in a liberal democracy, is again the focus of much debate across the globe. The bankruptcy of General Motors brought the issue of executive remuneration to the fore: how can you justify millions of salary expenses for executives of a firm that is bankrupt and is being bailed out by the taxpayer?
In a global economy, this is a global debate. In Switzerland, the Chief Executive of the UBS AG, one of the largest Swiss banks that was bailed out by the Swiss government with a more than US $ 42 billion injection, said that salary caps are not feasible as one would not know how high would be high enough. When asked if his million dollar bonus was too high, he said that it was maybe too low. This made the news as UBS announced to fire some 8 700 employees to save costs.
The CEO of Nestle, the largest global food processing company, weighed in the debate by declaring that if salary caps were legislated, he would move the company out of Switzerland.
In South Africa, private enterprise is largely save from such debates. After all, here, no big bailouts were necessary. However, the discussion turns around public enterprises or parastatals, and if their executives should receive similar pay and bonus as those in private industry.
Arguably, a developing state that has to be careful with its expenses and make sure that the money goes to those who need most urgently support. Executive salaries seem to be a good place to save. High salaries, however, are justified with the reasoning that in order to attract the best talent for the job, parastals have to compete with private industry.
Both these cases show a clear conflict between economic reasoning in a world with no boundaries and a sense of ethics and responsible thinking that is tied to place and people.
CEOs operate in a sphere of thinking devoid of boundaries and attachment, physical and ethical. All that counts is an economic logic that subjects any other considerations to the maximization of profits. However, democratic governance, based on the sovereignty of the people, tied to a community and the common good, requires ethical behaviour. It is only through ethics that the meaning of a community is maintained.
It speaks perhaps to the failure of the reproduction and education of a globalized, Westernized economic and political elite, that we are faced with this situation. As, some observers pointed out, was the extreme risk taking of the banks based on the institutional loss of memory about the perils of banking, so is the arrogance of those at the top of our economic system endangering the very foundations of our democracies.
Rethinking economic models alone will not do. Leaders of multinatinals need to rediscover their social responsibility, beyond marketing speak, or there will not much to be left to be lead.
In a global economy, this is a global debate. In Switzerland, the Chief Executive of the UBS AG, one of the largest Swiss banks that was bailed out by the Swiss government with a more than US $ 42 billion injection, said that salary caps are not feasible as one would not know how high would be high enough. When asked if his million dollar bonus was too high, he said that it was maybe too low. This made the news as UBS announced to fire some 8 700 employees to save costs.
The CEO of Nestle, the largest global food processing company, weighed in the debate by declaring that if salary caps were legislated, he would move the company out of Switzerland.
In South Africa, private enterprise is largely save from such debates. After all, here, no big bailouts were necessary. However, the discussion turns around public enterprises or parastatals, and if their executives should receive similar pay and bonus as those in private industry.
Arguably, a developing state that has to be careful with its expenses and make sure that the money goes to those who need most urgently support. Executive salaries seem to be a good place to save. High salaries, however, are justified with the reasoning that in order to attract the best talent for the job, parastals have to compete with private industry.
Both these cases show a clear conflict between economic reasoning in a world with no boundaries and a sense of ethics and responsible thinking that is tied to place and people.
CEOs operate in a sphere of thinking devoid of boundaries and attachment, physical and ethical. All that counts is an economic logic that subjects any other considerations to the maximization of profits. However, democratic governance, based on the sovereignty of the people, tied to a community and the common good, requires ethical behaviour. It is only through ethics that the meaning of a community is maintained.
It speaks perhaps to the failure of the reproduction and education of a globalized, Westernized economic and political elite, that we are faced with this situation. As, some observers pointed out, was the extreme risk taking of the banks based on the institutional loss of memory about the perils of banking, so is the arrogance of those at the top of our economic system endangering the very foundations of our democracies.
Rethinking economic models alone will not do. Leaders of multinatinals need to rediscover their social responsibility, beyond marketing speak, or there will not much to be left to be lead.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Are European politics turning more African?
With the recent European elections, and 60% of voter abstinence, we have one more proof that democracy is in crisis world wide. Not that this is news, we have been reading about this for many years now, but clearly, citizens feel that it matters not much for their daily lives what goes on in the palaces of power. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the leader of the European green party, and the big winner of this election, stated that it was also the irrelevant media coverage, turning politics into a soap opera, that fuelled a diminshed interest in politics.
The Dutch anthropologist, Peter Geschiere, in a little and insightful article 'Le politique "par le bas": les vicissitudes d'une approche' (in Konings, Van Binsbergen, Hesseling, 'Trajectoires de liberation en Afrique contemporaine, Karthala, 2000) suggested that European politics was taking more and more its cue from Africa. It seems now that after the empire had written back, it was now the empire's politics that returned to the metropole.
Under the impact of globalisation, and such far-reaching policies as structural adjustment and the concomitant inequalities, post-colonial states saw a context with few political and policy options to spurn development and few, clearly defined political-ideological choices. Politics did not offer any clear alternatives.
Geschiere argues that it was the restraining influence of a global and transnational constellation on national politics, and the absence of space for alternatives that led to an increasing disentchantment with politics. In Africa, Geschiere writes, this restrained context had created the dominance of personalised politics, and the development of clientelist networks that asphyxiated the body politic.
Is the advent and triumph of Silvio Berlusconi emblematic for this transfiguration of post-colonial realities?
The Dutch anthropologist, Peter Geschiere, in a little and insightful article 'Le politique "par le bas": les vicissitudes d'une approche' (in Konings, Van Binsbergen, Hesseling, 'Trajectoires de liberation en Afrique contemporaine, Karthala, 2000) suggested that European politics was taking more and more its cue from Africa. It seems now that after the empire had written back, it was now the empire's politics that returned to the metropole.
Under the impact of globalisation, and such far-reaching policies as structural adjustment and the concomitant inequalities, post-colonial states saw a context with few political and policy options to spurn development and few, clearly defined political-ideological choices. Politics did not offer any clear alternatives.
Geschiere argues that it was the restraining influence of a global and transnational constellation on national politics, and the absence of space for alternatives that led to an increasing disentchantment with politics. In Africa, Geschiere writes, this restrained context had created the dominance of personalised politics, and the development of clientelist networks that asphyxiated the body politic.
Is the advent and triumph of Silvio Berlusconi emblematic for this transfiguration of post-colonial realities?
Monday, December 15, 2008
The death of Chris Hani: the more things change, the more they stay the same
In April, 15 years ago, right-wingers gunned down Chris Hani, the popular ANC leader, outside his home.
A the time, South Africa was at the height of transition negotiations from white minority rule and white rightwing leaders featured much more prominently in public debates than today. Their incendiary talk, depicting Hani as the militant leader of ANC terrorist shock troops, contributed to a climate in which the murder became possible.
15 years later we still have prominent politicians, like the ANC youth league's Julius Malema, Cosatu's Zwelinzima Vavi and others who see no problem in a war talk that wants to kill for the supreme leader, exterminates cockroaches and does other ghastly things to the enemy. And then they feign ignorance, engage in linguistic and non-sensical acrobatics when these things indeed happen.
No such war talk is mere 'figures of speech'. And it was never so.
In 1993, Shaun Johnson observed:
"Before the assassin made up his mind to take Chris Hani's life, Hernus Kriel, from the platform of parliament, described Umkhonto we Sizwe as 'a bunch of criminals'. A powerful newspaper told its readers Hani was mustering a terrifying, vengeful 'Black People's Army'. Before lawless youths went on their stabbing and stealing spree on Wednesday, ANC Youth League leader Peter Mokaba told a gathering of youngsters: 'The young lions must not only bark and roar, but you must bite'. And before this whole sorry saga started, we had Eugene Terreblanche exhorting his followers to revolution, Inkathata members being encouraged to 'bugger up' the ANC, PAC leaders endorsing the slogan 'one settler, one bullet'. The list goes on.
Every one of these people will today swear they didn't mean what you thought they meant. These were euphemisms, metaphors, allegories, parables...they didn't really mean it literally. Well. It is too late to tell that to the people who listened to, and believed, those words. They missed the subtleties. Not nearly enough people in our country can read. Pitifully few will have been familiar with John Locke's wise observation that 'we should have had a great many fewer disputes in the world if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves.' ...Chilling statements are commonplace in South Africa today. It is fair to ask whether we are not now reaping their mean harvest." (Strange Days Indeed, Bantam, 1993)
Words matter. Discourses circulate, from the mundane and everyday life to politics, to academic discourse, and so on. How can we combat crime and violence when the words of our leaders mirror and perpetuate these?
A the time, South Africa was at the height of transition negotiations from white minority rule and white rightwing leaders featured much more prominently in public debates than today. Their incendiary talk, depicting Hani as the militant leader of ANC terrorist shock troops, contributed to a climate in which the murder became possible.
15 years later we still have prominent politicians, like the ANC youth league's Julius Malema, Cosatu's Zwelinzima Vavi and others who see no problem in a war talk that wants to kill for the supreme leader, exterminates cockroaches and does other ghastly things to the enemy. And then they feign ignorance, engage in linguistic and non-sensical acrobatics when these things indeed happen.
No such war talk is mere 'figures of speech'. And it was never so.
In 1993, Shaun Johnson observed:
"Before the assassin made up his mind to take Chris Hani's life, Hernus Kriel, from the platform of parliament, described Umkhonto we Sizwe as 'a bunch of criminals'. A powerful newspaper told its readers Hani was mustering a terrifying, vengeful 'Black People's Army'. Before lawless youths went on their stabbing and stealing spree on Wednesday, ANC Youth League leader Peter Mokaba told a gathering of youngsters: 'The young lions must not only bark and roar, but you must bite'. And before this whole sorry saga started, we had Eugene Terreblanche exhorting his followers to revolution, Inkathata members being encouraged to 'bugger up' the ANC, PAC leaders endorsing the slogan 'one settler, one bullet'. The list goes on.
Every one of these people will today swear they didn't mean what you thought they meant. These were euphemisms, metaphors, allegories, parables...they didn't really mean it literally. Well. It is too late to tell that to the people who listened to, and believed, those words. They missed the subtleties. Not nearly enough people in our country can read. Pitifully few will have been familiar with John Locke's wise observation that 'we should have had a great many fewer disputes in the world if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves.' ...Chilling statements are commonplace in South Africa today. It is fair to ask whether we are not now reaping their mean harvest." (Strange Days Indeed, Bantam, 1993)
Words matter. Discourses circulate, from the mundane and everyday life to politics, to academic discourse, and so on. How can we combat crime and violence when the words of our leaders mirror and perpetuate these?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)