The politics of perspective and the power of dissent

South Africans are never short of things to argue about, but the level of debate (for want of a better word) at the moment is staggering. Never mind race, land and cricket, the arguments raised since Winnie Madikizela-Mandela died have turned us on our heads. History is rewritten because new information emerges all the time. Fresh accounts of experiences, sometimes from unexpected sources, can alter the way we look at the past and change our minds about what we thought we knew. But seldom have so many minds been changed so sharply during such a short period as in South Africa this past fortnight.

In the space of two weeks, Winnie has gone from being a somewhat muted political presence, revered for her sacrifices, although questioned for a few of her choices, to a towering figure of justice who was sidelined and silenced by the forces ranged against her, including some of those she once called comrades.

New revelations have caused many to reassess the way we view South Africa’s recent history and in particular Winnie’s role in it.

Reactions have been extreme, with some denouncing Nelson Mandela as a traitor and Winnie as a martyr, while others cling even more furiously to the idea that Winnie was a cunning manipulator who tried the patience of her saintly husband to breaking point.

The shifting kaleidoscope through which Winnie is seen is in many ways a reflection of where we are, as individuals and as a nation, because what the watcher sees depends on where the watcher stands.

As the late art critic and Booker Prize winner John Berger wrote in Ways of Seeing: “The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled.”

What we see is not only interpreted through a filter of context and knowledge; our perceptions are also shaped by what we want and moulded by what we need.

When Nelson Mandela died, the collective outpouring of grief was comforting in a society riven by disenchantment and distrust. It might have been illusory, but that brief period of united heartache made many South Africans feel, as sad as we were, that one day everything would be OK, because our countryman was, after all, the greatest statesman the world had ever known. We needed belief in a saint to unite us.

Four years and four months later, everything is not OK. Many would say that COMCMOEMNMTEONTNOTNHITSH: economically and socially things are less OK than they were at the end of 2013. Gaps have widened and become canyons. Disappointments have been massive and manifold. Anger is erupting everywhere.

What we need now is not an event that plugs the potholes in our national psyche with dissolving marshmallows. We need an event that fires us up to speak of the things we fear; a figure who provides a place for us to question everything we are expected to take for granted about our socalled rainbow nation. We need to break down the myth so that we can build something more robust in its stead.

Winnie is that figure. In the bitter arguments that have ensued since her death, South Africans of all persuasions seem far more confident to nail their colours, as it were, to the mast of their convictions. Generally this happens on social media, because that’s where most of what passes for communication takes place these days. But social media, as many have pointed out, is not a very good debating platform because no one listens.

The great scholars of logic, from Aristotle onwards, tell us that the true art of argument is a charitable enterprise in which one person rationally assesses the other person’s point of view. If person two’s argument is found to have merit, person one might even adjust their own thinking on the subject.

In contrast, a recent school of scientific thought posits that human beings developed reason not in order to think more rationally and grow in understanding, but purely to be able to persuade others that we are right and therefore get what we want.

You don’t have to spend more than three minutes on Twitter to concur with this theory, although telling the other person that they are a hamster’s bottom is not generally the best way to win them over to your point of view.

Argument is still a good thing, however. Being charitable and respectful to each other is a worthy goal, but it’s delusional to think we are united. Instead of smiling and waving and pretending everything’s fine, it is important for people to engage in debate about what scares them and what they might not like about their neighbour. Disagreeing about Winnie is, perhaps, a step in a healthy direction.

IWS:RWITREITTEOTOTETLELULUSS@@SSUUNNDDAYTIIMES.CO..ZA OORRSSMMSSUUSSATA3T339379171WWW.SWU.SNUDNAYDTAIMYTEISM.CEOS..ZCAO.ZA