Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
16 October 2020 | Story Prof Theodore Petrus | Photo Supplied
Prof Theodore Petrus is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of the Free State.


The recent events in Senekal in the Eastern Free State have, for the umpteenth time, thrust the related issues of farm murders, racial tension, violent crime, and the responses of political leaders to these issues on the national agenda. The latest outrage was sparked by the murder of farm manager Brendin Horner. On Tuesday 6 October 2020, demonstrators – mostly white farmers – embarked on a violent protest at the Senekal Magistrates’ Court, following the appearance of two suspects for allegedly murdering Mr Horner. According to reports, a gunshot was fired, and a police vehicle was set on fire. 

In response, EFF leader Julius Malema called on his ‘ground forces’ to attend the Senekal trial of the murder accused, scheduled for 16 October 2020, to ‘defend’ state property and democracy. This response has generated a polarised reaction from the public, with some supporting this call, while others criticised Malema for inciting violence and racial division.

This drama is playing out while the country is still reeling from continuing incidents of gender-based violence and violence against children.

Violence in South Africa

This begs the question: Do we have a culture of violence in South Africa?

The concept of culture is often used (and misused) to refer to a range of different things. For some, culture refers to the observable distinctive traits of a particular group or collective, such as dress, food, or technology. For others, it refers to more abstract traits such as language, beliefs, or customs and traditions. For still others, culture refers to an appreciation for human expression in the form of art and music. Culture is all of these things, but it is also more than this. 

Anthropologically, culture is a central concept that helps us to make sense of human social dynamics and behaviour across all times and locations. As such, culture is seen as a complex system that both shapes, and is shaped by, humans within specific contexts. Culture thus has three key characteristics that concern us here. First, culture is shared. Second, culture is learned. Third, culture is symbolic.  

The question of whether or not we are in a culture of violence in South Africa raises further questions about whether we can, or should, speak of a culture of violence in the first place. What can we observe if we analyse this concept in relation to the three characteristics of culture outlined above?

Is violence shared?

As a country, we indeed share a history of violence. We share a history of multiple levels of violence, including structural, political, economic, social, and even cultural violence. We also share in the mass media consumption of violence, be it through movies, television, or even news reports of violence in our society. 

Is violence learned?

A culture survives over time because it is learned by successive generations. Values, beliefs, customs, practices, language, and many other symbols of culture are transferred from generation to generation through enculturation or socialisation. Experiences of violence, whether as perpetrators or victims or both, are inherited by successive generations. This is why we see many examples of history repeating itself in, for example, violent protests, or excessive force by police, or perceived violence inciting rhetoric. None of these are new, as there are various examples throughout our history as a country.   

Does violence have any symbolic significance?

What does violence mean in South African society? What is its symbolic value? Violence has become like a language. It is a form of communicating or expressing a range of negative emotions and attitudes, including anger, frustration, fear, anxiety, intolerance, and disrespect for basic human rights. It is still perceived by many as a valid symbol of resistance and may be justified on this basis. How often do we hear people involved in violent protests saying that “violence is the only language the government understands!” Thus, violence certainly has symbolic value in the South African historical and contemporary context. 

From the above, it could well be argued that, in terms of the three characteristics of culture, there indeed exists a culture of violence in South Africa. 

Addressing the culture of violence 

But what can we do about it?

Perhaps the best way to address the culture of violence, is to start with the successive generations. In any society, if you want to change the culture, you need to start with the youth. Cultural values are more easily shaped and adopted by the youth than by older generations who tend to be more rooted and set in their ways of thinking and behaving. If we want to change the culture of violence, we need to start changing the values, attitudes, and traits that may engender violence among the youth. These changing values then need to be enculturated among the youth in the hope that it will be internalised sufficiently to promote new ways of thinking and behaving.

How do we achieve this? By demonstrating proper leadership and by being the examples that we want our youth to become. We cannot expect to dismantle the culture of violence if we have leaders who, whether intentional or not, are perceived to be promoting the very values that encourage violence and anarchy. We need to demonstrate a willingness to use more productive and constructive ways to resolve differences or conflict, other than resorting to destruction of property or harming others. 

Lastly, it is imperative that we address the structural violence of an enduring social and economic system that continues to victimise and marginalise many. Culture and environment are interlinked. In order to change the culture of violence, we need to change the environment of violence. 

 

Opinion article by Prof Theodore Petrus, Department of Anthropology, University of the Free State .

News Archive

Research on locomotion of giraffes valuable for conservation of this species
2016-08-23

Description: Giraffe research 2016 Tags: Giraffe research 2016

Technology was used in filming the giraffes.
According to research, giraffes will slow
down when a drone is positioned
approximately 20 - 30 m away. When the
drone moves closer, they will revert
to galloping.
Photo: Charl Devenish


The meaning of the Arab term Giraffe Camelopardalis is ‘someone who walks fast’. It is precisely this locomotion of their longnecks that encouraged researchers, Dr Francois Deacon and Dr Chris Basu, to study the animals more closely.

Despite the fact that giraffes are such well-known animals, very little research has been done on the manner in which these graceful animals locomote from one place to the next. There are only two known ways of locomotion: the slower lateral walking and the faster galloping. Most animals use these ways of moving forward. It is unknown why giraffes avoid intermediate-speed trotting.

Research of great value to the industry

Research on the manner in which giraffes locomote from one place to the next will assist the industry in understanding aspects such as their anatomy and function, as well as the energy they utilise in locomoting from one place to another. Information on the latter could help researchers understand where giraffes fit into the ecosystem. This data is of great value for large-scale conservation efforts.

Universities working together to collect data

Dr Basu, a veterinarian at the Royal Veterinary College in the UK, has studied the animals at a zoo park in the United Kingdom. He visited the University of the Free State (UFS) in order to expand his fieldwork on the locomotion of giraffes. This study was done in cooperation with Dr Deacon from the Department of Animal, Wildlife, and Grassland Sciences at the UFS. Dr Deacon is a specialist in giraffe habitat-related research in South Africa and other African countries.

The fieldwork for the research, which was done in the Woodland Hills Wildlife Estate and the Willem Pretorius Nature Reserve, preceded research on the movement and the forces involved in the locomotion of giraffes. Due to the confined fenced area in the zoo park, it was practically impossible to study the animals at speed. “The study of actions ‘faster than walking’ is crucial for gathering data on, inter alia, the frequency, length, and time associated with each step.


Technology such as drones offers unique
opportunities to study animals like giraffes.



Technology used to ensure accuracyTechnology such as drones offers unique opportunities to study animals like giraffes. Apart from the fact that it is possible to get high-quality video material of giraffes – moving at speed – it is also a very controlled device that ensures the accuracy of data.

It is the first time ever that a study has been done on the locomotion of giraffes with this level of detail.
Research on the study will be published in the Journal of Experimental Biology.

The project was approved by the UFS ethics committee.

 

 

 

Previous research articles:

9 March 2016:Giraffe research broadcast on National Geographic channel
18 Sept 2015 Researchers reach out across continents in giraffe research
29 May 2015: Researchers international leaders in satellite tracking in the wildlife environment


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