Latest News Archive

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

As we as a South African nation prepare to celebrate Heritage Day on 24 September, and as we reflect on our heritage during Heritage Month, what stands out clearly is that this year’s heritage celebrations will be somewhat … different. It will not be like previous celebrations because as a country, we – along with our fellow continental and global citizens – have experienced what can be described as one of the greatest health, social, and economic challenges that we as a species have ever faced. The repercussions and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will be felt for some time to come. And it is this realisation that may cast a little damper on our celebrations during this #Heritage Month.

But what can our shared heritage as South Africans teach us about who we are as a people, and how can this knowledge help us to adapt to and overcome the long-term challenges wrought not only by the pandemic, but also by the many other challenges facing us? 

Heritage Day is a celebration of our cultural heritage and diversity as a nation. It presents us with an opportunity to reflect on our individual and collective heritage. It is also an opportunity for us to take stock of the cultural and other resources that enable and empower us to take ownership of what we want to be as a nation, as a country, as a people. 
So, in view of the questions raised earlier, here are some ideas on what I think our shared heritage can teach us:

1. The heritage of where we come from

Inasmuch as our past is a painful one – a past that still has lingering effects decades after the transition to a democratic dispensation – it still plays a fundamental role in shaping who we are now, and who we want to become.
Colonialism and apartheid sought to suppress our indigenous cultures and traditions, and had a negative impact on our psyche, self-confidence, and dignity as indigenous and African people. But one positive that came from this, is that if it was not for our shared heritage of colonialism and apartheid, we probably would not have become the nation we needed to become to bring it to an end.  

Instead of destroying symbols of that painful past, we need to shift our perspective to re-interpret those symbols in a new way. The power of cultural symbols lies in their meanings. Symbolic anthropologist Victor Turner spoke about the ‘multivocality of symbols’, meaning that we can ascribe whatever meanings to our cultural symbols we choose. Let us reflect on how we can change the current meanings we ascribe to our cultural symbols that reflect an awareness of how the heritage of where we come from does not keep us trapped in negative and painful meanings of these symbols, but instead inspire us to create new positive meanings.

2. The heritage of where we are now

After 1994, we began the process of creating a new contemporary heritage as a nation struggling to free itself of the burden of a painful past. And while it was difficult, we have made significant strides. Yes, we do still face challenges rooted in the past: institutional and structural violence; race and diversity-related issues; intercultural and intergroup conflicts; crime and violence against men, women, and children; corruption at various levels of governance; and others. We are also faced with ‘newer’ challenges as a country that is part of the globalised world. Poverty, inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, and ailing infrastructure are all contemporary problems, some of them rooted in the past, others the product of the contemporary context. 

What can we learn from our shared heritage of where we are now that can help us to overcome these contemporary challenges? We need to remind ourselves of what we are capable of as a nation. We have ended an oppressive regime, not once but twice. And, with all of the challenges, problems, and obstacles, we are still here.

3. The heritage of where we are going

This might sound strange, because heritage usually refers to the past and present. Rarely do we speak of heritage in a future-oriented context. However, as a nation, given our past and given our present, where we come from and where we are now determines where we are going. 

As South Africans, we need to ask the question: where do we want to go? Are we heading in that direction? If not, how do we change course so that we do go in the right direction? I have no simple answer. But what I can suggest is that it should start with critical self-reflection, both individually and collectively. We also need to ask ourselves what legacy we want to leave for future generations. Do we want them to still be struggling with the same problems and challenges that we are dealing with right now? Or do we want to leave them a legacy of a nation that stood up to its challenges, took ownership of them, and found a way to overcome them?

A globally devastating pandemic. A painful past. A present wrought with seemingly insurmountable obstacles. As a South African, as a child of the soil, I know that as a nation we can overcome, and we can emerge better and stronger. That is our heritage. The heritage of hope.

 

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

News Archive

You touch a woman, you strike a rock
2004-11-02

Prof. Engela Pretorius van die Departement Sosiologie in die Fakulteit Geesteswetenskappe by die Universiteit van die Vrystaat het die kwessie omtrent feminisme aangespreek tydens haar intreerede met die onderwerp, You touch a woman, you strike a rock: Feminism(s) and emancipation in South Africa .

Prof. Pretorius het gesê: “Die geskiedenis van feminisme oor die algemeen kan in drie fases verdeel word, waarna verwys word as golwe. Eerste-golf-feminisme (19de eeu) het die fokus geplaas op die beskerming van vroueregte in die openbare terrein, spesifiek die reg om te stem, die reg tot onderrig en die reg om middelklas beroepe en professies te betreë.

Vroeë tweede-golf-feminisme word onthou vir hoe dit moederskap geteoretiseer het as synde ‘n onderdrukkende instelling. Slagspreuke van die 1970s was die persoonlike is polities en susterskap is magtig. Prof. Pretorius sê beide slagspreuke bevestig die idee dat vroue universeel onderdruk en uitgebuit word en slegs deur erkenning van dié situasie kan vroue die strukture wat hul onderdruk verander.

‘n Belangrike aspek van die derde golf van die feminisme-teorie is post-moderne feminisme wat diversiteit en verskille onderstreep. Die poging van hierdie feministe is afgestem op alle vorme van onderdrukking. Vroue van kleur het ook hul ontevredenheid uitgespreek gedurende die derde-golf-feminisme. Die feminisme van vroue van kleur word gekenmerk deur verskeie kwessies en talryke intellektuele standpuntinnames wat neerslaga vind in verskillende terme, soos Afrika feminisme of ‘womanism, sê prof. Pretorius.

Afrika-feminisme dui protes aan teen die wit/westerse geskiedenis en die wit/westerse dominansie binne feminisme. Afrika-vroue het besef dat hul onderdrukking verskillend is van dié van wit vroue en daarom is ‘n ander proses van bevryding nodig. Die Westerse feministiese praktyk om swart vroue by die bestaande feministiese ontologie te voeg, is nie voldoende nie omdat hul unieke ondervindings van slawerny, kolonialisme, onderdrukking deur mans en armoede nie uitgedruk word nie.

‘Womanism’ het tot stand gekom as gevolg van ‘n eksplisiete rassekritiek teen feminisme. Dit is ten gunste van die positiewe uitbeelding van swart mense. Dit word gekenmerk deur kulturele kontekstualisasie, die sentraliteit van die gesin en die belangrikheid daarvan om mans in te sluit.

Die geskiedenis van vroue in Suid-Afrika is verwant aan hul geskiedenis van onderdrukking as gevolg van patriargie. Vroue van verskillende rasse, kulture en klasse het patriargie op verskillende wyses in en variërende mate van erns ervaar. Onder voor-koloniale patriargie het vroue min sê gehad oor huwelikskeuses omdat mans dié besluite gedomineer het.

Die Nederlandse en Britse patriargale erfenis het neerslag gevind in die ideologie van die volksmoeder. Onderwyl dit veral manlike skrywers was wat die beeld van die vrou as versorger en tuisteskepper bevorder het, het vroue self ook hieraan ‘n aandeel gehad, sodat die volksmoeder volwaardig deel geword het van die Afrikaner nasionalistiese mitologie. Alhoewel middel- en werkersklas vroue met dié beeld geïdentifiseer het, het nie alle Afrikaanse vroue die ideologie aanvaar nie.

Onder die Victoriaanse erfenis was Britse vroue beperk to die private eerder as die openbare lewe. Die skeefgetrekte onderrigsisteem wat vroue in huishoudelike loopbane gekanaliseer het, die mag van mans oor hul vroue se eiendom en ‘n tekort aan toegang tot mag en geld het verseker dat vroue by die huis gebly het.

Wit Engelssprekende-vroue het die grootste geleentheid gehad om patriargie uit te daag vanweë hul toegang tot onderwys en die blootstelling aan liberale waardes, sê prof. Pretorius. Liberale vroue soos Helen Joseph en Helen Suzman het ‘n belangrike rol gespeel om in 1930 stemreg vir wit vroue in Suid-Afrika te verseker en het voortgegaan om ‘n rol te speel in die bevryding van swart vroue gedurende die vryheidstryd.

Die feminisme wat onder swart vroue ontwikkel het, was ‘n erkenning van die gemeenskaplike stryd met swart mans om die verwydering van die juk van eksterne onderdrukking en eksploitasie. Swart vroue in aktiewe en onafhanlike politiese rolle het tegelykertyd mans se aannames omtrent hul meerderwaardigheid asook die rassewette van die staat uitgedaag. Daarom kan ons sê dat die feminisme wat hier ontwikkel het, te voorskyn gekom het as gevolg van vroue se betrokkenheid by en toewyding tot nasionale bevryding, sê prof. Pretorius.

Institusionalisering is nie herlei tot magsvoordele nie, want gelykheid is nie in beleidsprogramme geïnkorporeer nie. Die hervestiging van sleutel aktiviste van die vrouebeweging in die regering het die stryd om genderbillikheid verander na ‘n projek wat deur die regering gelei word, sê prof. Pretorius. Ongelukkig word terreine van verandering buite die grense van die regering verwaarloos. Dit kan slegs aangespreek word deur ‘n aktiewe en feministiese stem in die burgerlike samelewing.

“Dit is my oortuiging dat formele instellings vir vroue binne die staat oor die lang termyn slegs effektief kan wees indien daar ‘n effektiewe feministiese vroue-beweging buite die staat in stand gehou word wat die grondslag waarop sosiale beleid gevorm word, kan uitdaag en bevraagteken. Daarom, A luta continua (die stryd duur voort),” sê prof. Pretorius.

Mediaverklaring
Uitgereik deur: Lacea Loader
Mediaverteenwoordiger
Tel: (051) 401-2584
Sel: 083 645 2454
E-pos: loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za
2 November 2004

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