Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 September 2021 | Story Nombulelo Shange | Photo André Damons
Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, asks what it would look like if we looked inward and invested in our own indigenous methods of nurturing and encouraging this and similar practices? Could other important scientific innovations emerge from it?

Opinion article by Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of the Free State.
Last year I wrote an opinion piece on the importance of indigenous knowledge, especially in healing practices. The piece detailed the origins of modern vaccines as an old, culturally appropriated African practice that was instrumental in fighting smallpox in 1700s Europe. That piece is perhaps even more significant this year, as many Africans are afraid of the COVID-19 vaccine. The hesitancy comes from a distrust of Western medicine, which has been responsible for many atrocities all over the world, as well as the South African biological warfare created by the apartheid government and led by Wouter Basson, who was dubbed ‘Dr Death’. 

African knowledge systems have come a long way – from being overlooked as valuable sciences or being misrepresented by Western scholars, who for a long time saw themselves as the only suitable custodians of our experiences, ideals, history, culture, and knowledge. Today, although a lot more needs to be done, we are seeing a rise in African intellectuals, practices, and solutions. In the academy, we see this in the calls for decolonised education, which has emphasised the importance of Southern African scholarly contributions locally and internationally. 

In our day-to-day lives, we also see this shift towards reclaiming African solutions to deal with modern-day challenges. Practices such as visiting sangomas/traditional healers and the general practising of African traditional religion were seen as taboo or often labelled as hedonism. Many were forced to acknowledge their ancestors or perform sacrifices in private. But today, many are openly practising their cultural rituals when they want to give thanks for good fortune, when they are struggling to find employment, and for both physical and emotional healing that individuals or the collective needs. Although not ‘scientifically verified’, the African herb called umhlonyane helped many during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during the major waves that overwhelmed and threatened to cripple our healthcare system. Many have turned to this herb as a solution to help them fight COVID-19. Umhlonyane is commonly used by sangomas for a variety of reasons; to boost the immune system, for patients with illnesses that attack the respiratory system, and many other things. This kind of revitalisation and mainstreaming of indigenous knowledge systems and epistemological pedagogies can undo challenges such as vaccine hesitancy and general distrust of biomedicine, while elevating African knowledge.

The missing link

Despite these and many other positive strides that place African knowledge at the forefront, something is still missing, because we are still far from where we need to be as a continent. There are many things we can draw from to make sense of why the progress is slow. We could draw from the usual arguments around the missing, undervalued African Renaissance. We could also argue that while African ideals are gaining prominence, they are often only invoked as an ‘alternative’ or afterthought. Arguably, even with umhlonyane, it was only from desperation that people turned to it. All of these are valid, but I also what to argue that we are limited by a kind of epistemological slavery, where we use conflicting Western systems of knowledge production in producing African knowledge. We rely on Western methodologies for knowledge production, Western schooling systems for how we engage with and use the knowledge, and even Western systems for how we store and preserve the knowledge. 

Trapping African knowledge in Western epistemology

The April Cape Town fire, which has spread to the University of Cape Town and destroyed the African Studies library, is one illustration of the danger of trapping African knowledge in Western epistemological systems. Much of what was lost in the fire is work that will most likely be lost forever; it is possible that no other records of it exist elsewhere. The issue is that in Africa, knowledge is communally produced, shared, and owned. Western systems encourage the containment and individual ownership of knowledge. Traditionally, African knowledge is often shared in the sense that the process of producing and sharing this knowledge is done as a collective and is built into the day-to-day practices rather than being crafted as a separate experience in the way that mainstream Western education and research is done. 

Reimagining African epistemology 

There is an important method of passing down useful skills that you still find in African households even today. As kids, we often hated it, because it took us away from our games, watching TV, or general leisure time. As Zulus, we refer to it as ukuthunywa/thuma – the English translation of ‘running errands’ does not adequately represent what it means, but it will do. I want to argue that this practice has traditionally been an important epistemological tool for producing and sharing knowledge. As a child growing up in a family of farmers, for example, you are taught how to be a farmer through these ‘errands’. You might start off with small requests, such as having to watch while the grown-ups or older children perform certain tasks; as time goes on, you are expected to take on more and more responsibilities in the family trade or even in helping neighbours and other community members. Even when it came to storing and preserving knowledge, it was done in such a way that it was still easily accessible. It would be stored as rock art, songs and performances, everyday crafts, and practices. And contrary to Western beliefs that Africans never wrote or documented, for cultures such as the Egyptians and Ashanti, knowledge was even stored as written inscriptions. 

When we move away from ukuthunywa towards the more Western mainstream, some challenges arise. Students are almost exclusively taught in theoretical ways, separate from their everyday experiences, which makes it difficult to understand and value the knowledge and its place in society. Knowledge goes from being communally owned to being owned by an individual researcher or institution, which limits who has access to the information, who has the right to use it, and even limitations on how it can be used. At times, even the communities from which the knowledge originally came, are limited by copyright laws. I want to argue that if we had created African knowledge using African practices or possible methodologies such as ukuthnywa, the loss of the UCT African Studies section wouldn’t have felt so bad, because the knowledge would be actively existing in society and the ability to recreate and redocument it would feel within reach. 

The freeing of our indigenous knowledge systems requires that we shift from looking outwards for solutions. For example, instead of looking towards dangerous fossil fuel and expensive Western renewable energy solutions to address our ongoing energy crisis, why not look inward and invest in our own indigenous methods of creating cheaper, sustainable biogas using animal and food waste. Imagine if we did it in ways that empowers black rural women who are the custodians of this knowledge, so that while dealing with the energy issues, we simultaneously address poverty and environmental degradation. What would it look like if we continued to nurture and encourage this and similar practices? Could other important scientific innovations emerge from it? Could it grow to the level of informing global discourse? Could we finally be uhuru?

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered
2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.  

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply.  What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations.  You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?) 

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

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