Abstract
The article focuses on the question why South Africa – after almost three decades of an inclusive political dispensation – apparently still has not succeeded in building an inclusive society. Although there are examples of solidarity and co-operation across former divides, these seem sporadic and not of an enduring nature. Various factors have contributed to the present impasse. One of the factors that is not adequately taken into account is how inherited concepts and mental frameworks still hamstring the “new South Africa”. What is underestimated is the point of departure of this kind of thinking, the contours it follows, and especially the direction of its orientation.
To illustrate the problem, insights from Mahood Mandani’s recent book Neither settler nor native are taken as point of departure. Mamdani (a strong champion of decolonialisation himself) maintains that the process of decolonialisation has failed in many respects not only because of the behaviour of the new political regimes, but also because they took over (and still prolong) modes of thinking, social categories and concepts of citizenship moulded by the colonial era.
The categorisation of citizenship and models of state formation lie at the heart of the problem. For Mamdani, the historicity, mobility, and therefore non-permanency of social groups are of paramount importance – hence the subtitle of his book, “The making and unmaking of permanent minorities”. A hallmark of the worldwide colonisation process was the categorisation of citizenship based on external markers like race, ethnicity, or culture, which gave rise to the mistaken idea that these categories denote “natural” or permanent entities. The illusion of permanency is compounded by the concept of a nation-state which assumes that the borders of the state coincide with that of the nation and which forms the basis of all forms of nationalism.
Mamdani illustrates the negative effect of inherited colonial concepts on decolonialisation with reference to several contemporary examples. In the United States – despite the (later) achievements of the civil rights movement – the original populations were regarded as “nationals” (not citizens). Their descendants still have only limited rights. According to Mamdani, Hitler learned much from the American experience – not only with regard to its concept of Lebensraum, but also a layered understanding of citizenship (Staatsbürger, Staatsangehörige, Ausländer). The decision at Nuremberg to try individuals and to criminalise their transgressions, rather than focus on the political dispensation as such, exposed the problems of the nation-state. It is ironic that these problems were simply transposed to the state of Israel, where Jew and Palestinian are still locked in a seemingly unsolvable political impasse and where the claim that Israel is both a Jewish and a democratic state remains problematic.
In Sudan, the British colonial policy to divide and rule and the division between an “Arabic” north and an “African” south remains in place to a large extent and continues to define postcolonial politics. Ethnicity has received even more emphasis, especially in the south where it provides the most important basis for political mobilisation. The present situation stills reflects the ethnic, class and religious fragmentation of Sudan’s colonial past.
For Mamdani South Africa is the one exception where – despite the legacy of apartheid and the mistakes made during the transition – the Gordian knot was cut once and for all with a decisive break with the past and replaced with a unitary state which belongs to all its citizens on an equal basis. He calls it the “South African moment” where identities were uncoupled from external markers and from permanent majority and minority status. Perpetrators and victims were thus reconfigured as something altogether new: survivors.
These examples show how colonial concepts, strategies and structures linger on and continue to bedevil the decolonialising project. But if Mamdani is right that South Africa represents the exception where “survivors” of the previous dispensation formally enjoy the same rights on an equal basis before the law, the question becomes all the more urgent why social cohesion and solidarity are so sorely lacking.
In this regard the German theologian Eberhard Jüngel offers helpful insights. Based on his interpretation of Aristotle, he explains that “reality” has gained precedence over “possibility”. The latter carries less gravity than reality: What is possible is (still) not being realised. It is therefore not of the same weight as reality; it does not “exist” in the same way. It remains on the level of potentiality and consequently does not enjoy the same “ontological” status. Not all that is possible becomes reality. If we say: “Reality is …” we actually mean: “The truth is …” and in this way reality often becomes associated with what is true.
As Jüngel points out, giving priority to reality over possibility has far-reaching consequences. It means that reality (as both present and past) becomes the point of reference of what is possible in the future. If possibility is little more than not-yet-realised reality, the direction of orientation is backwards. In the context of decolonialisation this explains why frameworks, categories and modes of thinking characteristic of the colonial era in many instances still shape post-colonial realities.
Jüngel therefore proposes a reversal of priorities. Giving priority to the possible not only unshackles the stranglehold of present and past realities but releases the full potential of what is possible for the future. He then proceeds to provide a theological justification for this shift. The question is whether his approach can also be applied in other (secular) contexts.
For such a wider application the contribution of imagination becomes important. Imagination suffers from the same negative associations as possibility. It is often understood as a flight from reality or as mere speculation. Like possibility, it can be dominated by existing reality. This happens when imagination takes its cue from what already exists and the image is understood as a (secondary) depiction of this reality. As Kearney points out, the image is not a thing in consciousness, but an act of consciousness. This refers back to Husserl’s seminal work on consciousness and intentionality and his understanding of imagination as an intentional, dynamic act rather than static representation. Imagination thus has the potential to create something truly new. Applied to political processes, the implication is that decolonialisation should be far more than the liberation of oppression – it requires “an act of thinking, of imagination” (Mamdani) to create a totally new dispensation.
Giving priority to the possible does not imply a new form of superiority. What is possible is not necessarily better. It is, rather, a strategic move to escape (temporarily) from the predominance of present realities and from the grip of the past in order to unlock new possibilities for the future.
The ultimate goal of the possible is therefore not the abandonment of reality, but the return to the harsh world in which we live. That is also the objective of Ricoeur’s insistence on the “redescription of reality”. But this requires time and perseverance. Accepting one another as fellow survivors will not make the divisions of race, class and privilege disappear overnight. But it does provide a different starting point from which to approach these conundrums and to reach even deeper to more fundamental questions, like: What if the same possibilities are not available to all?
But how is possibility turned into (a new) reality? Simply by thinking, acting and living together in terms of the vision and values of an inclusive society – a vision which according to Mamdani the country has already envisaged in the “South African moment”. Possibility becomes reality through action. It is already happening at grassroots level when fellow citizens reach across existing divides to create new bonds in respect for and the strengthening of the common humanity they all share. Each day brings new possibilities to build a new reality.
The concretisation of the possible is therefore never a completed task. It is an ongoing and dynamic process which utilises every opportunity to act in terms of an envisaged future possibility.
Keywords: decolonialisation; imagination; Jüngel; Mamdani; possibility; racial categories; reality; social cohesion; transformation
- The featured image by Manfred Antranias Zimmer with this article was obtained from Pixabay.