Howzit my china!...(NOT)

A Facebook friend recently appealed to us to join a movement for boycotting Chinese stores, in protest against the fact that the Chinese have dogs stolen to eat them. This high-profile friend regularly saves dogs from being exported to Angola and other sites for nefarious purposes. She had trouble imagining why the need for fighting dogs and protectors included Jack Russells, and it was explained to her that those were for the Chinese to eat. If that is your thing, I can imagine that the stocky, muscled body of a Jack Russell could be attractive as a delicacy.

However, since eating dogs is not our South African thing, the suggestion was to boycott the shops, to which I pointed out that:
1. The Chinese shopkeepers won't even notice if the percentage of South Africans that cared about the matter boycotted their shops.
2. Even if they knew, they would not respond to such a boycott.
3. Engaging with the Chinese in a confrontational and accusing manner would not have the desired effect.

Anyone who has tried to communicate with a Chinese shopkeeper would be able to identify with the ensuing frustration: they refuse to learn English, to start with, and even if they do know SOME English, they can easily pretend not to, just shrugging and ringing up the sales. For communicating with customers they rely on badly paid shop assistants - in KZN they pay R160-R200 per week - whose English, in most cases, is quite bad also. So one wanders around, looking for the stuff you want, checking the price and paying without much chatting about the weather etc.

If only dealing with Chinese shopkeepers were that easy. If they were confined to their shops and didn't touch any other areas of South African life, the matter would end there. And that seems to be their preferred manner of interaction, as Chinese food stores and even shopping areas are cropping up and enforcing the separation between "them" and "us". But then there are the dogs, and other things that bother us. And the things that bother them. More about my ex Mandarin teacher later.

This blog hopes to contribute (tatataraaahhh) to an understanding of how Chinese people think, and to contribute to facilitating communication. For the sake of the dogs, which will remain the main focus for the purpose of illustration. And otherwise.

According to Fred Jandt (Intercultural Communication: An Introduction, Chapter 2: Communication as an element of culture), to whom I owe the academic articulation of some of this blog, one of the differences between Western communication and the Confucian model, is the importance of the listener relative to the speaker.

Speaking, in many communication theories, and practices, is seen as more active and therefore more important than listening. Listening plays a subordinate role in Western communication, but in cultures where the group's history is "told and retold verbally, the role of the listener who accurately remembers is critically important" (Jandt, p 31). Do the Chinese in South Africa seem instinctively drawn to dealing with black rather than white customers and associates? Is it only a market force, or shared corruption, or do they share more than the supply and demand of cheap products?

In Confucianism, the tradition that underlies thought patterns in China, Korea and Singapore, among others, communication would be defined as an infinite interpretive process where all parties are searching to develop and maintain a social relationship (Jandt, p 32). Whereas in the Western tradition (which is almost imperialistically gaining ground in South Africa) communication is "directed ...toward the extension of messages in space..." the Confucian model sees it as " the maintenance of society in time; not the act of imparting information but the representation of shared beliefs" (Carey 1989 p 18, quoted in Jandt).

SO! Any irate South African approaching Chinese shopkeepers about the matter of eating of dogs would have to think quite a few times about how to get the message across. The obvious thing to point out is that if YOU believe that eating dogs (especially someone's pet) is not nice and the Chinese believe that is IS nice, you are not sharing a belief there, and you would have to find other points of common interest to get your outrage across effectively. Let's look at the elements of Confucianist culture, as described by Jandt, one by one to explore ways of getting through to Chinese minds:

1. Particularism is of great importance in Confucianism. The same rules do not apply to everyone, and there are different communication rules governing interaction with people of different status and intimacy. Context also plays a huge role. There are no rules about someone whose status is not known. If the person you try to communicate with does not know your name, age, background and status relative to theirs, you will not able to reasonably predict their reaction. In fact, strangers may be ignored - which would seem rude to US - until they are properly introduced. Which may take time and some tea-drinking. Imagine, in that context, the effect of a kwaai tannie going up to the nearest shopkeeper and demanding that they stop stealing dogs (assuming basic understanding of English).

2. Intermediaries are of great importance and rituals must be followed in establishing relationships. The same tannie is not only unknown to the shopkeeper, but has barged in and demanded, in what seemed to her a friendly manner, that the shopkeeper and his associates stop stealing dogs and eating them. But "much of commercial life in China is lubricated by guanxi, a concept best translated as "connections" or "personal relationships" (Jandt, p33). Someone who has gone past the shopkeeper and rubbed his baby's head a few times would have much more of a chance to be heard. (That is universal, not only Confucianist.) And someone who comes with a friend or business associate has even more of a chance to be heard. (The shop assistants wouldn't count, as they are of a subordinate status). Even in Western communication someone who is known and trusted would find a more receptive ear, so finding a way to establish relationships with Chinese shopkeepers would go a long way towards better understanding, sharing of concerns and protecting the pets. In Free State rural areas the Chinese communities are offering free Mandarin classes - it would be nice to have feedback on whether anyone is offering them free English classes. I certainly intend doing that in the new year - reaching out and being friendly (instead of judgmental and suspicious) is the only way to influence many areas of concern.

3. Reciprocity. The above deals with that to a certain extent. In Confucianism, complementary obligations are the base of relationships, which is contrary to Western ideas of individuality but resonates with the African view of things.

4. Ingroup/outgroup distinction. This needs a whole chapter by itself (will follow one of these days), but suffice it to point out the obvious (again) here: if you are not one of "them", they can steal your dogs any time they want, and lie to you about it also (for EXAMPLE!!), as the rules governing ingroup relationships do not apply to you. So, become part of the ingroup - it means engaging in freer and deeper talk.

5.Overlap of personal and public relationships. More of the same: frequent contacts lead to common experiences. Business and pleasure are mixed, which contrasts with Western patterns of keeping public and private lives separate.

Jandt summarises: The collectivist values of Confucianism mandate a style of communication in which respecting the relationship through communication is more important than the information exchanged. Group harmony, avoidance of loss of face to others and oneself, and a modest presentation of oneself are means of respecting the relationship. One does not say what one actually thinks when it might hurt others in the group (p33).

I can hear the tannies remonstrating furiously: "Yes, but this is OUR country and OUR territory and OUR rules apply!" To which I would reply:
1. Do you want them to stop stealing and eating your dogs?
2. What does "OUR RULES" refer to: African thinking, or Western thinking?
3. Is it SO bad to establish relationships with people? The Chinese are here to stay. Is it not better to have good relationships with them rather than to perpetuate prejudice (someone said on Facebook: "I saw a funeral procession of theirs: they are devils!"), suspicion and resentment?

I don't mind making myself a case in point: eager to increase the language proficiency base, I contracted a Mandarin teacher for myself and my daughter. State schools in our neck of the woods have not woken up to the benefits of learning Mandarin yet, so we have to take matters in our own hands. The teacher, a chubby Taiwanese who is a very good teacher whom I would recommend to anyone, arrived bearing his own coffee flask. Alert to these signals, I immediately knew that it meant he would not want to drink any of our possibly contaminated offerings, probably prepared in an offensive manner. I let that one pass. I had also, previously, let it pass that he was VERY thin-skinned and aggressive to my enquiry as to whether he was a "real" Chinese, as we communicated by email and he introduced himself as ..."western name"...So we had a magical time, for about three months, learning and imitating his tonal instructions. After around two months, he invited us to his home to have tea with his wife. It was a Sunday afternoon, and my car had a horrible, unidentified wheel problem in the morning. I couldn't have it repaired and thus could not travel to his house, so I phoned to cancel. Big mistake, but nothing I could have done differently. That gesture of his, to come closer to us and draw us into the ingroup, so to speak, was very important, and in his eyes I had not done enough to honour his hospitality. Relations deteriorated after that. Nobody had done anything wrong in his or her own eyes, but I learnt later that he had the same violent reaction to other students not rocking up for an invitation. I tried to explain that he shouldn't take it personally, that it wasn't meant to insult him, but I had already lost credibility myself by not turning up. We all had the best of intentions, but missed each other.

Another time I was invited for lunch at the home of Korean English students. I was asked whether I could see myself living in Korea, and answered truthfully (I am a Christian and they were Presbyterian students at Stellenbosch's "kweekskool") that I didn't think so, because I couldn't imagine living in a country where people eat dogs. (That is obviously why I had to STUDY intercultural communication...) The rest of the lunch was eaten in hurt silence, after the pastor father-of-the-house explained to me that Koreans didn't eat their pet dogs, but had farms where certain species were bred for the high protein content that convalescents and others with compromised health needed, and that Koreans NEVER ate sheep or lambs, as they were considered gentle animals that wouldn't hurt anyone. I STILL feel bad about that one, twenty years later.

It is vitally important for those of us interested in bringing about change and reconciliation to fast-track an understanding of how other people think and see things. The Chinese are still seen as an invasion, an undesirable group that we secretly benefit from (or not), but looking at how we can improve communication with them, to the benefit of all involved (including the dogs), will lead to sensitivity to other groups' ideas and viewpoints as well.

At the heart of many of our real and perceived problems in South Africa is the Western tendency to draw lines, classify according to Aristotelian principles, to individualise and label. That thing doesn't work any more. Maybe it is time to remember that a little guanxi (UBUNTU?) goes a long way, and that to insist otherwise will hasten relationships going to the dogs.

Communicating the Constitution (NOT!!): a sort of reply to Dave Steward

Dave Steward goes a long way, in his piece "Zuma's rejection of the 'white man's way'", in giving a succinct but meaningful overview of the "misunderstandings that divide our society". It is useful as an introduction, for those of us who are highly literate and are used to thinking in abstract constructs, to how "the other side" thinks and what values decisions are based on in traditional African society. He then goes on to suggest that the South African Constitution embodies those values alongside the Western values that Jacob Zuma rejected in a recent speech to the House of Traditional Leaders.

The bottom line, literally, of Steward's opinion, is that we should not follow the African way, nor the "White man's way", but that we should stick to the "constitutional way".

The problem with that view, which can easily become a platitude repeated by many in the current perceived battleground between populism and constitutionalism, is that it does not address the experienced reality of the majority of South Africans. Or doesn't go deeply enough into that reality to be convincing to the unconverted, and could be seen as providing useful phrases for the articulation of slogans only.

If we are going to spread the gospel of constitutionalism the message will have to be formulated to speak, not to the literate converted, but to the hearts and minds of the rural poor and those for whom the constitution has no meaning at all. Not in its name, nor in its nature.

In a future post I hope to relate Maslow's hierarchy of needs to how current opposition communication strategy fails to address the real and perceived needs of the vast majority of South Africans, who are not on the same Maslow levels as those who can even THINK in terms of "communication strategy". Here I would like to point out a few things in Dave Steward's piece that are (obviously) obvious to me and others schooled in intergroup communication, but need to be processed  - meaningfully and with useful outcomes - by many others in order to effect a broad-based conversion to "constitutionalism".

1. There is, in the very West, a backlash against the Western values of individualism, competition and the accumulation of property. There is a growing consciousness, especially in the light of limited resources, climate change and impending environmental disaster, that those values hmave run their shelf-life and that a future of sharing and community is far preferable. If opposition communication can expound new consciousness values, and relate them to the existing African ones and ADMIT that we all need to learn from them, it would go a long way to establishing a foundation of trust upon which further discussion can take place.

2. Steward says "HOWEVER (emphasis mine), [the Constitution] also protects the rights (italics mine) of all citizens, regardless of race, culture or gender". The issue of rights and responsibilities under the Constitution has never reached, let alone changed the thinking of, the grassroots levels where majority opinion is formed and from which political power is currently drawn. Using the protection of rights as an argument for support of the Constitution thus loses meaning, as the very rights that are protected are sometimes foreign to African cultural tradition. And when it comes to choosing between the devil you know and the one you don't, it can easily be predicted that the rural poor will choose the comfort zone of tradition above "rights" that they still perceive to be foreign.

Based on the above, I would say that Steward's opinion that the Constitution is based on our shared experience loses steam from that point on, in that it asserts some things that the rural poor and any other South Africans simply don't recognise as valid or true, namely:
- corruption fatally erodes the state. If tradition African culture does not regard  as WRONG what Westerners see as corruption, and the notion of a state, let alone the erosion of it, has no meaning, the assertion becomes nonsensical to those it attempts to convince
- competition and the protection of private property are indispensable to economic growth: assumes that everyone wants and sees economic growth and well-being in the same way as Western society  has done for long, and which the vanguard of thinkers is now re-examining. African society had appropriate and successful systems in place before coming into contact with Western values, which suddenly opened up options that were not comprehended fully, and still aren't. This is not to advocate a return to the past, but at least a real understanding of the fact that Western-style growth and economics are simply not desirable to some, and to use them as proof that the Constitution is a product of shared experience is bound to be met with contempt in some key sectors.
- government and everyone else must be subject to the law contains many points of potential misunderstanding and -interpretation: consider different interpretations of "government", "subject", "law", and keep in mind that what we who read and understand Steward's writing associate a set of images and connotations with those words that is totally different from the connotations that the "populists" attach to them. The "law" is an abstract construct, based on Roman-Dutch principles that had very little to do with African ones, and just the WORD could call up ideas of punishment for things that people don't understand. Zuma's comparison between cold law and warm bodies becomes particularly apt here and will be used for a long time as a reason why the Constitution can be ignored in favour of whatever populists sell to the masses.

Furthermore, Steward asserts that the Constitution embodies the values of ubuntu, namely that
- South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity, which many rural poor would simply deny and declare untrue. It can be looked at in many ways, and the "populists" would claim that too high a percentage of South Africa "belongs" to too low a percentage of people who are doubtful South Africans anyway. Or they could point out that the distribution of wealth and well-being initially promised by the Constitution has not become a reality, and in that line of thinking makes the Constitution one big useless lie, a plot to bring people on board who were never going to benefit from it.

Pointing out that the Constitution establishes as foundational values human dignity, equality, the advancement of human rights and freedoms, non-racialism and non-sexism also becomes empty and meaningless in the light of the continuing lack of dignity and equality suffered by most, the continuing deep-rooted racism demonstrated, if not professed, by the majority of white South Africans, and the fact that traditional African society is sexist and likes being sexist.

Of course the Constitution does all those things, but the point is that they don't mean much to those who follow the populists, and using things that have no meaning as an argument for the adoption of constitutional values is at best counterproductive and at worst nonsensical.
My husband points out that in our empirical experience, many rural poor people confuse "constitution" with "government" - the two ideas fuse in their thinking, with a possible result of: "Zuma is the government and he is the constitution so he can change it if he wants".

It is that bad. Appealing to the Constitution, in the way that it is currently not understood and not appreciated, is almost futile, and certainly premature and therefore not viable. A massive communication exercise in relating the values of the Constitution to everyday life and struggle, and in terms that have meaning for people, is necessary before people can be urged to take refuge in it, or to prefer it to visible warm bodies that live the values that they are comfortable with.

We are going to have to go much deeper, and it is questionable how many of us, on all levels, would be willing to go as far as necessary to ensure the emotional adoption of the Constitution by all. But if the adoption is not going to be emotional, and if the Constitution is always going to be seen as "cold law", the battle has already been lost. Ways and means of not losing the battle will be explored in blogs to come.

TOWARDS SUCCESSFUL INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION: INTRODUCTION

Most people never think about the fact that different cultures communicate differently. We start out assuming that because the other person is human - even though his/her eyes look really strange - and therefore talks, eats, drives cars and sleeps, s/he must want the same things we want. When we do become aware of differences - when we find out the Chinese people eat dogs, for example - the most usual reaction to that difference is to evaluate it in the light of our own conditioning, and therefore to dismiss it, or find it unacceptable, uncivilised, even barbaric.

Culture is a refuge. It is a device for filtering sensory input and providing structure for our perceptions of reality. What starts out as a device to structure reality in order to make us functional in our environments soon BECOMES, to the degree of awareness that we have of meta-issues, the reality. And because we identify so closely with the reality that we construct, guided by the existing structure provided for us by parents and the community we grow up in, we experience difference as an intrusion, even an insult to ourselves. And when a hostile invasion into our territory is perceived, however irrationally (because reason is present or absent directly proportionately to our awareness or obtuseness), the shutters come down and lines get drawn in the sand.

The world, including South Africa, is still divided along those lines in the sand. They may become fainter ON THE SURFACE as globalisation sweeps across the terrain and reaches deeper and deeper into traditional refuges, but for now they are still there. And we ignore them at our social, economic and political peril.

Awareness, as pointed out earlier, is the key. So this series of posts - some heavier than others - will take a look at the underlying issues of communicating with those different from ourselves, and strategies for looking beyond our own conditioning to embrace the wisdom of others. In the process our own reality expands, and "culture", instead of being a trapping which defines us instead of us defining it for our own purposes, reverts to its proper position as a tool once again.

Against the backdrop of the above, I will look at practical situations we face every day, like dealing with Chinese people, or making the gardener get ALL those grassroots out. At the same time, I will share portions of the existing literature on the subject of intercultural communication, in the hope that as we ALL become more aware, we move towards a greater understanding and appreciation of each other. It would be nice to know that SOMEONE is reading this, and benefiting. Contribution of questions and practical examples will be appreciated - we can discuss them comparing them to other situations or relevant principles already identified in the existing body of knowledge.

Communicating Nkandla

It is the morning after. I spent the greater part of yesterday reading ALL the tweets with hashtag NKANDLA, so I feel in a position to make some informed comments. Informed from the point of view that I read all the tweets, and informed from the position of having a Master's in Intercultural Communication, which must mean SOMETHING. Also, I spent some of the best years of my life having incredible first-hand experience of rural Zulu mentality, sitting under trees pleading with warlords not to abduct children - I DO have something credible to add to the understanding of the situation.

There, I am already becoming defensive. But the problem about commenting on the DA's activities and their communication style, is that one leaves yourself wide open to sarcasm, open hostility, very narrow-minded misinterpretation, accusations of hysteria, arrogant dismissal, and a general knee-jerk defensiveness that must somehow rub off. Not an easy thing, trying to point out subtleties - from a friendly position, nogal - when the DA is on a self-appointed mission, and everyone else must necessarily be the enemy.

So, to clear any misunderstanding which might prevent the message of this blog coming across, let's agree on the following basic facts:
1. Nkandla is a monstrous misappropriation of public funds.
2. Jacob Zuma is sticking his middle finger not only onto the bridge of his spectacles, but firmly up and in all orifices of the poor he professes to represent and serve. If it wasn't so horrendous and terribly wrong , it would be funny, and the joke could be told in many different permutations.
3. Corruption must be pointed out and fought fist and nail.
4. The DA is taking its role of oversight, as required from it by the Constitution, very seriously.

SO seriously - and here we are going to start diverging in opinion - that it runs the risk of losing sight of all else, like winning the hearts and minds of the electorate. This is not original, I am not the first one to say it, and won't be the last to be dismissed as hysterical and irrelevant as I point out a few principles of communication that either have never been heard of in the DA or are being ignored deliberately.

To avoid the communication style that prevailed from DA sources yesterday, let's source the thoughts from the writings of internationally recognised exponents of the field of sociolinguistics as it applies to intercultural communication. Because what happened yesterday was an intercultural communication disaster. Although there are triumphant tweets flying around about a miner that has decided to vote DA in 2014, and the already converted sang in a sycophantic choir that drowned out the timid protestations of those who felt that they saw a bit further, the extent of the disaster will be felt for a long time afterwards, and I, as a supporter, would feel amiss for not pointing out how things can be done better in future.

South Africa is fertile ground for the study of intercultural communication. It is a pity that very few people have studied it, and  that the big movements that profess to bring improvement to the lives of the unwashed masses resolutely refuse to learn how to communicate so that the unwashed masses understand. Because whoever leads this country in an honest and upright way, serving the interests of everyone, will have to  go far down the road of understanding and accommodating diffuse as opposed to specific cultures, making sure that avowed and ascribed identities of those who your are communicating with match, and that cultural identity is affirmed in order for communication to be successful and useful. Apart from that, one would have to make sure that social reality is a negotiated accomplishment and that you keep context in mind when communicating, and the appropriate ways of signalling that which you want to get across.

How do these and other principles apply to what happened at Nkandla yesterday? As this is a blog and not a book, I would like to focus on the Six Stumbling Blocks to Intercultural Communication as elaborated by LaRay M Barna in a chapter in BASIC CONCEPTS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION: Selected Readings, (ed. Milton J Bennett).
Barna's six stumbling blocks are the following:
1. Assumption of similarities
2. Language differences
3. Nonverbal misinterpretations
4. Preconceptions and stereotypes
5. Tendency to evaluate
6. High Anxiety

Let's consider each of these more closely in the context of DA communication, and other elements around Nkandlagate, and its wider ramifications.

In the previous blog I referred to Zulus from rural areas who drink Black Label, trade and drive cars. These same people also wear clothes bought from the cheap Chinese shops that crowd out local enterprise all over rural Zululand (a study in government corruption on its own!). It is easy, because they are not wearing the skins and flowing capes of traditional Tugela Ferry attire, to assume that they want what we think everyone else wants: freedom, democracy, education, being a citizen of the world. But already in those words used, there are killer assumptions that can trip up any well-meaning attempt at communication: do the words freedom, democracy, education, citizen and world mean the same to rural Zulus as they mean to white, coloured, Indian and black urban dwellers? No (with the sound going up at the end) - not even assuming that they are understood in English (see the next paragraph). Does the term corruption have any meaning? Does accountability apply to leaders? And who should one account to? One can delve deeper into meanings and connotations here, but suffice it to warn that the whole edifice of reality constructed in city boardrooms, with European political systems supporting it, implodes to a messy heap of rusted nails and other hazardous objects when one tries to transplant it to the rural Zulu environment.

Apart from a few slogans and brave attempts, during selected speeches, at including African languages into the DA communications strategy, is there a concerted effort to communicate with people at the level of their hearts? If there is, it is not visible enough. The converted constituency already understands, sort of, where the DA is coming from, and what it envisages for a truly free and democratic South Africa. I would venture to say that 80% of the population doesn't have a clue, and those of the 80% who DO vote DA do it, as many pointed out in their tweets yesterday, in opposition to something rather than FOR something. (More acerbic comments about the defensiveness of DA communication later.) But for a political movement to be sustainable in the South African context, hearts need to be won over, and that is just never going to happen only in English.And it is not going to be a matter of just having selected media releases etc translated, but creeping into the souls of the languages.  Comic relief was provided yesterday in the tweets around "go around, there are no dogs in the house", which seems to mean something more like - buzz off, you are not welcome here. Of course, THAT was clear right from the start, but ignored in what would have been interpreted as a self-righteous crusade that makes no difference at all to the realities of the lives of the inhabitants of Nkandla. (Shoot the messenger, if you like, but at least read to the end).

"People from different cultures inhabit different sensory realities. They see, hear, feel, and smell only that which has some meaning or importance for them" (Barna, p180). Must I go into the implications of this principle here or can I leave it to the imagination of the reader as to how what happened at Nkandla yesterday was seen, heard, felt and smelt? Especially smelt, I should imagine, in that heat. One point: that human chain of seven people linking arms was not clever. I really don't want to point out here what message that could have sent to conservative rural Zulus. Apart from looking rather pathetic and scared. The message of solidarity among leaders of different backgrounds didn't get across satisfactorily, I don't think.

Of course, even referring to people as "rural Zulus" can fall into the trap of stereotyping. But stereotyping is regarded as a useful strategy early on in intercultural contact, as it helps the participants make sense of what is happening around them, and to limit complexity for the sake of getting important information across. It soon loses its usefulness, though. Preconceptions are, needless to say, a minefield of misunderstanding and the resentment that snowballs around it. One preconception that dominated tweets yesterday, was that the people of Nkandla should be grateful for Helen Zille coming to save them from being ripped off by Spiesvogel. And that if they weren't, they were stupid, not your average "Clever Black". Other glaringly inaccurate stereotyping, of which I had personal experience, was to group everyone who had constructive criticism to offer together as "opposed to oversight, in support of corruption". Yes, it really happened, and from distressingly high levels. People were labelled as "supposedly enlightened", and "hysterical", "wrong" - and those were the supportive people. The anti-tweet from the day, for an intercultural communication specialist, was the one about the rural leaders supposedly having to be grateful for the opportunity of engaging with the DA. Jeez, people, if that is how your youth leaders of the present and future think, you have a problem that you are never going to overcome. And you will, in the words of one distressed tweeter (what is the right word...), always be an opposition party, even if you ever get to run the country. Enough with the enemy mentality already. And enough with the narrow approach of insisting that people must repeat, robot-like, what you say, and slavishly believe in every decision, to be on your side.

Related to the above, is the obstacle of "tendency to evaluate". I envisage a South Africa where we all open our hearts to try and tune in to what people really think and why, without jumping to conclusions and interpreting everything from our own point of view. Does the DA? It should! Meaning needs to be NEGOTIATED for all of us to go forward together. People have reasons for feeling the way they do. Sit down and find out what and how rural Zulus think. Let go of an evaluation that I share to a certain extent, namely that the traditional government system can be a nest of injustice and corruption. Go and meet the chiefs and ask for permission to enter the area- it won't kill you, you will generate much respect and goodwill, and everyone will be happier afterwards. And you will definitely learn much-needed information. And stop being so sarcastic in your response to tweets. People may actually be sincere, and know something you don't.

All of the above can be related to the last obstacle, high anxiety. Nkandlagate is, admittedly, one big ball of anxiety of all types and relating to many matters. Barna has the following to say about anxiety in communication encounters (and let's be frank here, EVERYTHING is a communication encounter):
" Moderate tension and positive attitudes prepare one to meet challenges with energy. Too much anxiety or tension requires some form of relief, which too often comes in the form of defenses, such as the skewing of perceptions, withdrawal, or hostility. That is why it is such a serious stumbling block"(Barna, p183). I think everything has already been said on that count.

Everything in South Africa going forward together successfully is about communication. A lot of resentment, misunderstanding and preconception needs to be overcome. The DA could start off that all-important process on the level of people's hearts by redirecting its communication strategy to be friendlier, less self-righteous and far more inclusive and informed by theory that is necessary to make it successful. The courage displayed by Helen Zille and the others yesterday in a local situation fraught with danger - not least because of its wider significance - is noted by many, and admired - if ruefully - even by detractors. It would have had far more significance to the people it SHOULD matter to most,  had it been clothed in gestures and concepts that they understand and relate to.

-->

The Nkandla Invasion

This blog site is supposed to be about skills development, financial and other literacy issues, mother tongue in education, linguistics, communication matters. Having set up the page about 10 days ago, I have been mulling over several subjects on which scientific, reasonable input into the public realm is definitely necessary. But the time to sit down and ruminate wisely on these has not presented itself. Suddenly, tomorrow, the DA is going to visit the Prez (Spieskop)'s homestead in Nkandla, and I am compelled to share some urgent, quasi-political thoughts that have much to do with how other people perceive the things that we think are perfectly reasonable.

The following underlying matters inform my thoughts:
-I despise Jacob Zuma and think he is the worst possible person to be at the head of a country with so much potential as ours
- We have lived and worked in various areas of deep rural Zululand for more years than we care to remember. It wasn't that long, either.

A Zulu homestead, when operated along purely traditional lines, and without the corroding influences of consumerism and greed that contact with commercially orientated cultures always brings, is a wonderful place. It is a self-sustaining ecosystem that has its own rituals, rules and thinking patterns that fit in with those of other homesteads and larger tribal structures around it. People care about each other, live in (ever-decreasing) harmony with their natural surroundings, and have a deep respect for the ties that bind and the fabric that holds their society together. Of course, from a Western viewpoint it is also a place where patriarchal structures result in the absence of women's rights as we understand them, and where democracy is wholly absent and has not been a part of the thinking pattern for thousands of years.

From the Tugela Valley northwards, towards Msinga and Nkandla a whole world - for the most part only experienced by visiting whites through hurried glimpses and the most superficial of contact - exists and operates according to its own rhythms and logic. Entering there without observing the rules of introduction and conduct may well be interpreted as a rude invasion, and have the logical - for those who live there - consequences.

A necessary aside: of course there are whites living in those areas. They mostly tread the fine line of not upsetting the apple cart. They speak Zulu. They consult the local chiefs, if only as a token. At the same time, of course there are Zulu individuals who want to leave the tribal structures behind and become successful in a way they perceive white people to be. They trade, buy cars, drink Black Label, interact in a way that seems understandable to outsiders. They will even work for terrible wages to survive and pay for airtime(you can get a Zulu "garden boy" - and I use that advisedly and with intent -  or a domestic worker for half or less the price s/he would cost you in Cape Town) But there is an invisible barrier that outsiders would do very well ALWAYS to keep in mind and envisage when operating in the area. Long-established families, contributing much and selflessly to the area, have had members taken out ruthlessly for overstepping that barrier unwittingly.

It is a barrier of traditional deep suspicion of the successors of colonialists. Rural Zulus - and I regret that that sounds like I am talking about a zoo animal, which is not the intent at all - have their own line in the sand, to get back to the reasoning behind the DA's visit to Nkandla.

They have witnessed and tolerated many abuses by white farmers (not all of them!) over the past decades, and as recently as a few years ago when we lived there and saw those abuses for ourselves. There is respect and kindness and joviality in Zulu culture, and those things show in their dealings with outsiders. And then there is contempt, hatred and deep hostility guarded and nurtured over generations. To not fall foul of those emotions when entering those areas, the necessary rituals of introduction have to be observed. At the very least. And I doubt whether the DA will have observed those, more for lack of time than intentional disrespect.

If you have serious business to do in the area, you approach the chief first. Preferably the local induna also.You introduce yourself and pay the necessary respect(s). It takes a long time. You talk about the weather and families. You explain your business (this may not all happen in the same day).You ask for permission to do your business. You get it. Only then do you approach the homestead where your business is. You don't just walk in. You announce yourself from outside. You wait for permission to enter. And if you lurk around outside, you will definitely be seen as an intruder until you do those things. You get the permission. You take your shoes off or whatever is required by the head of the homestead. You enter and sit down when invited and talk about the weather and family and the state of the mango tree under which you sit. Then you introduce your business. Maybe the homestead does the business with you or not. It is not for you to decide.

We are talking those pictures on Facebook here: what you think you are doing, what your mother thinks you're doing, what your friends think you're doing, and what you are really doing. From the point of view of the recipient of your communication. It is all about being sensitive to perceptions, which a good communicator always is when s/he is serious about getting an important message across. Comms 101.

A very possible scenario for Sunday's DA visit to Nkandla is this: many of the local Zulus already thinks Helen Zille is a German tannie who appoints white men to her cabinet so she can sleep with them. We know this. Now the tannie comes with a whole lot of those white men and a few darkies that have "SOLD OUT" to the Brits and they INVADE without paying the necessary respects. She is a WOMAN, for Nkulunkulu's sake. She comes with her token Zulu, Lindiwe, an ikholwa WOMAN who should have been slapped HARD a few times for not respecting the authority of men, especially not of the big man. She has sold out and now has the gall to approach the big man's house. Everyone in the party crosses invisible lines on the ground, in the sky and in people's heads. Even if the locals haven't been prepped and psyched up over the apartheid-style insult - and believe me, they have, by now, and the drums are already beating...-they are astounded by this brazen disrespect. What could the spawn of the colonialists and their jelly-spined slaves possibly have in mind? At the very least: to be rude to the local people, possibly to come and spy so that they can take over the area and subject the locals to centuries of slavery and taxation all over again. And to take their land.

I'm exaggerating? If I am, it is to make a point, and it is based on several close, personal encounters where we were told in no uncertain terms that when Jacob Zuma became president, the Zulu would throw off their yokes of subjection, and they would start killing off the intruders in their area. There are land issues. There are the deaths of children of white farmers sleeping with the wives of their Zulu labourers. There is a reservoir of anger and preparation to overthrow bubbling right under the surface. It only needs an "invasion" of this kind to set off consequences that will last for years and years and affect innocent children and upset the delicate balance of tolerance and conviviality that has taken farmers in the area years and lots of sacrifice to establish and maintain.

Melodramatic? Well, it is only a scenario. Maybe nothing happens, and the lure of sitting under a tree, sheltered from the sun and interrupting the doze only to swipe away some flies is stronger than the urge to protect and defend. I hope so.

I love Zululand. We miss it. My daughter (14) often says, Ma, I think I will always feel more I'm from KZN than from here (even though she was born here). I want to see it flourish, and fulfill the potential of the people. Making them feel that they are being invaded is not going to have that consequence.