Afrikaans is not a problem in South Africa. The way that nothing is political, but anything can be made political, Afrikaans is being used as a political instrument.
The language is increasingly demonised as a legacy of apartheid. In the short run, this is historically misplaced: in the long run, it is seriously lacking in an intellectual or even commonsensical basis, acknowledging that “common sense” is invariably established under conditions of hegemony.
In general, and in contemporary South African politics, the pushing and shoving can be situated in the fragmented society’s searches for meaning, senses of belonging, identity and at the extremes, the search for purity and exceptionalism.
We cannot dismiss the likelihood that opposition to Afrikaans is part of “revenge” politics, or that defence of Afrikaans is part of preserving the cultural identity of a group of South Africans. A mouthful, to be sure. We can turn to the long-run perspective because it captures the aforementioned tendencies.
Axiomatically stated, languages come and go over time. Languages straddle geographic, territorial, political boundaries and historical periods. Looking backward, there are probably hundreds of dead or extinct languages. Looking ahead, of the estimated 6,000 languages that are currently spoken in the world, there are around 500 languages that are spoken by fewer than 100 people.
In terms of this long-run perspective, it is conceivable that at least one of South Africa’s 11 official languages will become extinct in the next 100 years or so.
One example that comes to mind is the death of (some) Tasmanian languages, but there is any number of language “deaths” or “extinctions”. The best-known example is Latin, which some of the literature suggests died in about 500 or 600 CE, but which continues to shape and influence “modern” English and, I imagine, Spanish.
Other languages have simply moved from popular to more exclusive use. For example, Sanskrit is rarely spoken in public, but it is used in Buddhism and Jainism.
Afrikaans and its discontents
Important is whether languages are intentionally killed off, in a manner of speaking, or whether they decay and die out “naturally”. Looking at the Stellenbosch problem, it is clear that Afrikaans is pulled between these two positions.
At the one end there is the intellectually weak argument that Afrikaans is a direct legacy of apartheid, which is simply wrong because the language may well pre-date Afrikaner nationalism by at least 200 years. Part of this is that Afrikaans is racist. It is exceptionally difficult to see how a language can be inherently racist, cruel, murderous or oppressive.
It is easier to make the claim that a language has been used by racists or despots in the same way that, say, German was used by the Nazis; that Russian was used by Stalin and his fellow travellers; that Pol Pot spoke Cambodian, and Mao Zedong spoke a Chinese language. (There are currently 302 languages in China, which makes it difficult to identify “authentic Chinese”).
What is clear, at least in my mind, is that African nationalism (I would like to call it ersatz proto-nationalism; ersatz because it’s difficult to separate the crude politics of revenge from any kind of nationalism) as embodied by politicians like Panyaza Lesufi, and which can be associated with the more radical formations in South Africa, seems to be on a mission to erase Afrikaans — at least in educational institutions.
This attempted erasure is met by what I would like to call a cultural nationalism, where “culture” is now being used to describe Afrikaners as a separate and distinct race, which is then extended to refer to Afrikaners (notably the “white” Afrikaners) as a “nation”. For a sense of this nationalism, see here and here.
Toxic brew of populism, ethno-nationalism and searches for purity
Both of these extremes, the ersatz proto-nationalists, and the African nationalists and revenge politics of formations like the Economic Freedom Fighters, are pushing the country further towards intractability.
An early mistake both sides make, and I should point out that this is not a clear binary, is to use language as a definitive marker of a nation. Having already made the point that there are 302 languages in China (one of the academic essays I especially enjoyed recommending to students was “Fuck Chineseness: On the ambiguities of ethnicity as culture as identity” — there really is a paper like that. Google it Floyd™), it should be clear that there is no guarantee of stability, peace, prosperity, cohesion and trust in countries where everyone speaks the same language.
Switzerland has four national languages (French, German, Italian and Romansh), and the Swiss are generally pacific. Somalia was a fairly homogenous society before it descended into war and chaos in the early 1990s. South and North Korea are two separate countries that speak the same language…
If we conspire to find something polite to say about the opposition to Afrikaans, it would be that 30 years into democracy, the country is struggling to define its identity. But that would assume that language uniformity is a prerequisite for national identity.
Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations
Two things are clearer. The first is that the politics of revenge is starting to break from the harnesses of constitutionality. It is difficult to see a peaceful or non-violent outcome of this politics of revenge.
The second is that there is a swelling of ethno-nationalism of a particular kind; it starts with identifying people, states of affairs (or languages) that are “non-African” and have to, therefore, be eliminated — erased.
This search for purity is dangerous. Once it is the basis for the rights that any person enjoys and whether they live or die (see any of the genocides of the past centuries), bloody battles and corporeal violence aimed at those who are deemed as “impure” become very real.
History is replete with examples of pogroms and genocide against “others”.
As for Afrikaans. It is unfortunate that the language is tied to a culturally distinct people who imagine themselves as an exceptional nation.
As for Stellenbosch University, and South African universities in general: imagine Nelson Mandela University decides it wanted to teach in isiXhosa; Stellenbosch University and Northwest in Afrikaans; Wits and UCT in English; Zululand in Zulu… It all sounds pretty harmless, until it leads to ethno-linguistic fractionalisation, and the end of any nation-building or social cohesion programme.
Ill defined as “the nation” may be. DM
