The blocks of nation-building
We must work towards celebrating Heritage Day as a nation, rather than as a collection of rigidly defined and balkanised ethnic groups
THE post-1994 SA has seen a spawning of special calendar days, some observed as public holidays, others celebrated for their historical significance without necessarily being public holidays. These special days should be moments of both celebration and reflection.
It would seem, however, that celebration has hitherto won the day and reflection is nothing more than an aberration. To many, it seems natural that on special calendar days we must gear ourselves up for the euphoria and excitement.
Heritage Day, on September 24, is one such day. It seems a fait accompli that in September we must celebrate our unity in diversity and be appreciative of the kaleidoscope of cultures which the population represents. Lest we make ourselves out to be “party poopers”, we must join the chorus to celebrate our heritage.
While a lot of focus is on celebrating our heritage, both tangible and intangible, we would do well to go beyond the fleeting activities and take a moment to reflect on what Heritage Day means to us all.
The fact that different cultures can now access and share the many spaces that were segregated before 1994 is something worth celebrating. That all South Africans can directly or indirectly benefit from the wealth of heritage our country has to offer, both natural and cultural, is something to be thankful for.
It is, however, critical that we pause and consider the extent of socio-economic and even political inclusiveness and substance in the kind of multiculturalism that our country and its cities boast about.
It is my considered view that multiculturalism as a social feature is pretentious when considered against the more substantive and genuine notion of an intercultural society.
I believe social cohesion and the ideal of a nation are attainable in an intercultural society, not a mere multicultural society. We must identify and nurture the building blocks of a socially cohesive and intercultural society. One of these building blocks is language.
Without mutually comprehensible languages it is impossible to achieve an intercultural society. We need to bring more pragmatists and fewer cultural activists and zealots into discussions on language policy and practice. Dialogue on language rights must be freed from the clutches of primordial and instrumental tendencies of cultural activists.
We need stoic pragmatists to rescue this dialogue in order to make meaningful progress towards a language policy which empowers, unites and promotes an intercultural society.
Language is a tool which is acquired for its contextual usefulness, not a primordial cultural trait that must be preserved out of ethnic loyalty. The language dialogue must be strictly dispassionate and practical, and must be underpinned by the socio-economic and cultural usefulness of various languages spoken in SA.
Another critical building block is identity. Issues of identity have a tendency to gravitate towards the subject of race and ethnicity. This conflation of identity with race and ethnicity is a characteristic of not only pedestrian views and actions, but it is evident even among the most enlightened, progressive members of society.
It is difficult to fathom how a sense of nationhood can be cultivated in a society where ethnicity remains central as a marker of group affiliation and identity. The notions of ethnicity and tribe are defined and justified on the basis of history in order to give legitimacy to a group. It is the idea of successive generations of group membership that is used to legitimate the group’s continued existence.
A good example of this hankering after the past for identity formation and legitimating is the assertion by Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi in 1988 that “we have the tremendous advantage of being a product of history itself”. Buthelezi was referring to what has come to be known as a Zulu nation and was by implication saying that other groups do not enjoy this advantage, therefore their identities and traditions are somewhat not authentic because they exist “outside of history”.
Buthelezi’s view is reminiscent of Hegel’s who, in a bid to cement the myth of white supremacy, argued that “Africans have no history”. Just like Buthelezi, Hegel was affirming and asserting legitimacy of one group while illegitimating the other. Ethnic groups therefore survive on the back of such myths and at the expense of both nation-building and an inclusive sense of progress.
The Afrikaners, the Boeremag and the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging in particular, are another example of the past being used to sustain and maintain group identity at the expense of more substantive and progressive goals of nationbuilding and social cohesion.
Rigid
The past is used to draw rigid boundaries of ethnic identity which, wittingly or unwittingly, become a template to exclude and include. What results from these parochial identities is that other individuals and groups are excluded or exclude themselves.
It would be useful to take advantage of Heritage Day as a rallying point to reflect and ponder on some critical questions which, if not honestly addressed, can potentially make our country a perpetual slave of the past instead of the master of the present and author of the future.
Do we appreciate and celebrate this day as a nation or as a collection of rigidly defined and balkanised ethnic groups? Is this a nostalgic indulgence which conforms to a fleeting illusion of a multicultural society or a serious attempt at nation building and a pursuit of an intercultural society?
Heritage Day and many other important calendar days that we celebrate every year are golden opportunities to get SA talking. It is through constant, meaningful and reflective dialogue that we will begin to make headway towards nation building and social cohesion. In my view, ethnic and racial enclaves are a demon that must be exorcised.
Mchunu is a freelance writer.