Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Previous Archive
08 October 2020 | Story Motsaathebe Serekoane | Photo Supplied

We need to acknowledge that inherent in opening up spaces that were previously reserved for exclusive inhabitation and use is problematic in the contestation for place and symbolic public representation. Broadening the heritage landscape allows us an opportunity to bridge the existing gaps in the heritage space, in particular, askew representation through monuments and declared sites.

The country’s 2030 Developmental Plan requires South Africa to continuously reflect on progress made since the dawn of democracy in 1994. The scope is big; my focus here is on the heritage landscape. I do not want to create an impression that this matter exists in isolation, the intersectional engagement is imminent. The conversation on heritage is vast. My summary of all I have read and heard is that at stake in South Africa, with the historical legacy of segregation policies, is the competing notion of space, conflicting and often-competing ideological notion of commemoration or memorialisation, and the lack of shared collective memory and meaning of public representation. Effectively we don’t know what to do with our historical text and footprints. 

“A community is divided when their perception of the same thing is divided” …Steve Biko

Three questions 

This is a challenge for the notion of inclusion (aka social cohesion) and a threat to preservation and conservation of the country’s heritage resources material. It is equally important that I bring to your attention related conversations with a position that asserts that forfeiting the past for the sake of the future is perhaps an overly simplistic way of conceptualising and describing how society moves beyond conflict or pain. The argument for imagining inclusive spaces necessitates a paradigm shift in our thinking. The literature argues for a move from multiculturalism to interculturalism because of cross-cultural overlaps, interaction, and negotiation. The interculturalism approach goes beyond opportunities and respect for existing cultural differences, to the pluralist transformation of public space, civic culture, and institutions. In line with this view, reconfiguration of public spaces towards inclusive ends would have to emphasise the politics of recognition and negotiation of difference. So where does this leave us? There are no easy answers. As the country embarks on the process of auditing and spatial identity transformation I put forward the following three questions:
• Whose conception of the past should prevail in the public realm?
• Whose conception of the present should prevail in the current realm for the future?
• How do we balance the old and the new so that we do not dump history?

Sustainable change will require consultation and participation

Advancing change affords interested and affected communities to develop an awareness of layered complexities of our history and intersectional voices (some louder than others), and promotes the practices of collaboration and capacity-building with community members to advance sustainable change. Sustainable change will require, in line with the democratic principles, that the review process acknowledges consultation and participation. Ideally, the audit and review process should be designed to encourage conversation, reflection, and social analysis. The transformation of spatial social milieu should assume collective ownership and management of space founded on the permanent and temporary participation of the 'interested and affected parties', with their multiple, varied, and even contradictory political interests. In the review of the current symbolic landscape for inclusion, the spatial identity transformation must be negotiated. It must be developed from a focal point that understands the interrelationship between space and spatial inscription through the form of street names, symbols, and public art. 

I can’t pre-empt the end of the process, the process should inform the outcome. Should it be that some of the statues are to be “repositioned and relocated”, as also stated in the president's speech, this should not be equated to dumping history/historical dumping. Reposition and relocation are plausible alternative arguments in the spatial reconfiguration discourse. If it is done well it should contribute to the educational programme of the country. It should also be kept in mind that memorabilia are protected by the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No 25 1999. Subsequently, the audit and review will require a nuanced approach guided by the NHRA (including relevant legislation) and leaning towards a process-oriented, person-based approach to allow for agency/agility and new possibilities (cf. SONA pronouncement of imagining the New City). Imminent is a guiding or reference document that draws lessons from review processes demonstrated by, among others, the University of Free State’s review and ultimately relocation of the president MT Steyn statue to the War Museum. I believe the South African Heritage Resources Authority and its Provincial Heritage Resources Authority should guide the process. 

Heritage serves a social and economic function

Just as a footnote, it is prudent that we remind ourselves that heritage, in addition to many things, serves a social and economic function. Although I acknowledge the views that some of the symbols in the public spaces trigger painful memories of the past, losing those will rob the country of its rich narrative that, in line with NHRA, is to be bequeathed to the next generation, but also that can boost the country’s economy through heritage cultural tourism footprints. 

Ultimately, “Our heritage is unique and precious and it cannot be renewed. It helps us to define our cultural identity and therefore lies at the heart of our spiritual well-being and has the power to build our nation. It has the potential to affirm our diverse cultures and in so doing, shape our national character” …NHRA, No. 25 1999

Opinion article by Motsaathebe Serekoane, Lecturer: Anthropology at the UFS.


News Archive

UFS council elects Nwaila and Hancke
2005-03-15

Dr Charles Nwaila, Superintendent-General of Education in the Free State, was elected Vice-chairperson of the UFS Council and Judge Faan Hancke was re-elected as Chairperson today.

According to the Rector and Vice-Chancellor, Prof Frederick Fourie, the election of Dr Nwaila is an important achievement for the UFS as Dr Nwaila is a well known leader in education in the Free State.

Dr Nwaila pledged to work constructively with the UFS council and management to ensure that the UFS benefits all people of the province and the country.

The appointments are valid for a term of three years from 1 June 2005 to 31 May 2008.

The elections took place at the quarterly meeting of the UFS Council where a number of other key transformation steps were approved.

The Council approved a Strategic Plan for the UFS which reflects a renewed focus on transformation of the institution, calling it an important roadmap for the future of the UFS.

According to Prof Fourie, the Strategic Plan tried strike a balance between continuity and change, addressing the need to remain an excellent university in an ever-changing context and environment.

Prof Fourie said transformation had many aspects and dimensions and could not be reduced to an issue of numbers.

The Strategic Plan identifies five strategic priorities and corresponding challenges in the next phase of transformation.

The priorities are:

  • quality and excellence

  • equity, diversity and redress

  • financial sustainability

  • regional co-operation and engagement.

  • outward thrust

Prof Fourie said that besides the five strategic priorities the plan also reflected concrete actions and interventions to address them.

He said the renewed focus on transformation is embedded in the priorities and specific actions that are identified.

The Council congratulated the management for the roadmap and for the achievements that have already been achieved in terms of transformation.

In order to draft a comprehensive Transformation Plan that will give substance to certain aspects of the UFS Strategic plan – or roadmap – the Council approved the establishment of a Transformation Plan Team.

The team will consist of about 16 people, which includes the two coordinators, Prof Teuns Verschoor, Vice-Rector: Academic Operations, and Dr Ezekiel Moraka, Vice-Rector: Student Affairs.

According to Prof Verschoor, the team was chosen and approved by the Executive Management earlier for the individual contributions that they could make.

While the individuals do not represent particular constituencies on campus they are a very diverse group of persons in terms of race, gender and various sections of the campus and the satellite campuses.

Prof Fourie, said there was an urgency and importance attached to the work of the Transformation Plan Team.

He said that while the team must produce a plan within a tight deadline, the task must be carried out very well, which could mean different stages in the work of the team.

According to the Rector, the UFS must take the lead in best practice transformation, while not underestimating the complexity of the issues facing the UFS.

The full list of names will be finalized soon.

MEDIA RELEASE
Issued by: Mnr Anton Fisher
Director: Strategic Communication
Cel: 072 207 8334
Tel: (051) 401-2749
11 Maart 2005

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept