Title: From ‘Foreign Natives’ to ‘NativeForeigners’: Explaining Xenophobia in Post-apartheid South Africa:Citizenship and Nationalism, Identity and Politics
Author: Michael Neocosmos
Publisher: Council for the
Development of Social Sciences Research in Africa
Year of Publication: 2010
Pages: 172 (including Notes,
Bibliography and List of Interviews)
ISBN: 978-2-86978-307-2
In
2008, South Africa was plagued by attacks on individuals solely
because they were – or were seen to be – foreign, and as a result
roughly 60 people were killed and many thousands were forced to flee
their homes. Although these attacks took many of those residing in
South Africa by complete surprise, there has been a mass of
literature on this rising xenophobia problem since the 1990s.
Michael Neocosmos in his From ‘Foreign
Natives’ to ‘Native Foreigners’: Explaining Xenophobia in
Post-apartheid South Africa: Citizenship and Nationalism, Identity
and Politics attempts to build an explanation
of xenophobia in South Africa. He argues rather successfully that
many of the previous explanations of xenophobia, although important,
do not get to the crux of the problem. He also argues that many of
the arguments laid out beforehand were focused on elements such as
relative deprivation, which he argues may explain the violence, but
does not explain why the violence has been directed almost
exclusively at black Africans (Neocosmos, 2010: 105). He also
attempts to point out that xenophobia is not solely a problem of the
poor, but is prevalent in all areas of the South African society,
regardless of race and other differentiating factors. As his
argument progresses, he successfully puts forward the view that
central to the problem of xenophobia is the type of liberalism and
more importantly, the exclusive citizenship that has been created as
opposed to the earlier hope of an inclusive citizenship. What has
been developed in South Africa as a result is a type of
quasi-colonial relationship with the rest of Africa which has
contributed to the thinking of foreigners being seeing as the
“other”, a view that has been helped along by the media,
politicians and academics alike (Neocosmos, 2010: 107). In this
argument, he looks at the human rights discourse and the western idea
of liberalism, based on the French Revolution, to the problem of the
exclusive citizenship. His ultimate solution to the dilemma created
by this, is a move away from the country top-down politics that is
currently plaguing South Africa, we must return to the type of
citizenship envisaged during the 1980s. Neocosmos puts forward a
rather solid argument that the exclusive citizenship in South Africa
has left a space for foreigners to fall into the category of the
“other” and thus clearly achieves his objective of identifying an
explanation of xenophobia in South Africa as well as presenting a
solution to the problem.
In
exploring his argument on the development of an exclusive form of
citizenship, Neocosmos initially considers the importance of
citizenship under the colonial but more specifically, the apartheid
regime. In addition to this, he regards the importance of the
migrant labour in South Africa during this same period (although it
by no means ended with the downfall of apartheid). The role that
citizenship played under the apartheid regime took both the form of
indirect and direct rule over the black Africans. This was
accomplished by enforcing tribal authority in the rural areas and by
denying black Africans the civil liberties that were guaranteed to
the citizens in South Africa (Neocosmos, 2010: 22-23). These rural
areas, or Bantustans, were not given enough to maintain themselves
independently, and in many cases – as was experience by many of the
migrants that came to work from other African countries such as
Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland and the like (Neocosmos, 2010: 35-38) –
individuals needed to pay tribute to the authority. The apartheid
state thus created a system which was economically beneficial to
white capital because these subjects that were being exploited by the
state were just that, subjects, and not citizens, and had ties to the
rural areas and so became a ‘reserve army of labour’ (Neocosmos,
2010: 39). Neocosmos (2010: 59) does however suggest that migrant
labour in fact did fuel development in the rural areas. The
foreignness however, achieved an unperceived consequence for the
apartheid state, as the apartheid regime had created a kind of united
foreignness amongst both black South Africans, as well as black
foreigners. This homogenous group identity created by the apartheid
state was rather helpful in creating a relatively unified resistance
to the apartheid regime. There was also distrust of the Bantustan
“governments” and of the apartheid state itself, and with that,
the notion of citizenship imposed by this state (Neocosmos, 2010:
42). The notion of citizenship that came to the forefront of the
struggles in South Africa during the 1980s is of vital importance
here, as it was inclusive rather than exclusive. Most important,
was the idea of “people’s power”, which was a specific kind of
active citizenship which meant (and required) active participation in
politics in everyday life – therefore entering civil society –
and more importantly, the notion of a type of citizenship that was
inclusive that was to have a non-racial element but not be completely
based on non-racialism (Neocosmos, 2010: 46). What was required was
citizenship based on a bottom-up (rank and file) approach, as opposed
to the apartheid’s top-down approach. What is important to note,
is that although there were ties between the rural and the urban
areas, the resistance in the 1980s was urban-based, and a strong
connection between the two was not formed. Therefore, the main idea
of citizenship was not just national unity against state division,
but was also meant to be inclusive and not based on indigenity
(Neocosmos, 2010: 58).
Although
the idea of citizenship however, was to have leadership accountable
and engaged with the people whom they led, there was a breaking from
this as some of the leadership began to appear beyond the criticism
that the people were meant to subject them to. It is argued by
Neocosmos (2010: 56) that in the 1990s, there was a shift to rank and
file notion of citizenship to a more defined role by the leadership,
becoming more a top-down citizenship. In addition, migrant labour
began to be seen in a negative light, and was seen as little more
than a tool of apartheid (Neocosmos, 2010: 56). Once the apartheid
regime was dismantled, Neocosmos (2010, 62) argues that the
state-nation formation was directly opposed to the division created
by apartheid, and for the right of self-determination for minorities.
This however, led to the defining of a citizen through the eyes of
the state, and as a result, created a situation where there could be
arbitrariness towards those determined as ‘foreign’ (Neocosmos,
2010: 62). With the shift in attitude from an inclusive to an
exclusive citizenship, there also came the depoliticizing of civil
society, and the loss of rank and file democratic control (Neocosmos,
2010: 62). With the scrapping of undemocratic migrant labour,
foreigners were no longer given any protection. This being argued
however, there were some attempts to incorporate the migrants, but
usually not beneficial to them, such as family housing – which
would require the migrant to bring their family to South Africa,
renounce their previous citizenship and lose their property in their
home country. The exclusion of migrants and those deemed ‘foreign’
by the state and the move to indigenous citizenship is important, as
is the de-politicization of civil society and the move away from
bottom-up politics to top-down politics. However, it extends to
more than this. Along with the exclusive citizenship, the state has
adopted the Western idea that Africa is backwards, and has used this
to shape racial stereotypes of foreigners. An example of this is
the idea that there is an extensive crime rate problem in South
Africa and that this is caused by foreigners (Neocosmos, 2010: 85).
The ‘otherness’ of the foreigners has created viable scapegoat at
which violence and anger can be directed, especially seeing as they
are not well protected by the state. Ultimately, Neocosmos (2010:
99) argues that at the root of this problem is the Western notion of
liberalism that has been adopted, which eliminates active citizenship
as politics stems from the state. He argues that in South Africa
especially, the state has become deified, and is seen as the provider
of everything, from peace to houses, as so on (Neocosmos, 2010: 99).
What he calls for is a reinvention of the idea of citizenship that
was called for in the 1980s. An inclusive form of citizenship that
is not like the current Western liberalism. This form of
citizenship must be inclusive rather than exclusive, and requires
active citizenship, and only in this way can xenophobia in South
Africa be combated.
The
argument presented by Neocosmos is a rather strong argument and is a
refreshing break from those who continuously rush off to apply
relative deprivation arguments to this phenomenon. The relative
deprivation argument (being the growth in the gap between expected
economic values and actual economic values – although it is not
exclusively economic, and is often used to explain many different
forms of violence (See Gurr, 1970 for an explanation of relative
deprivation; also see [insert reference here] for relative
deprivation used to explain vigilantism)). In addition, the
argument put forward by Neocosmos moves away from other theories
which are also often used to explain the xenophobic attacks, ranging
from the psychology theory of Frustration-Aggression (as explain by
Hagopian, 1975: 168-171) through to criminal elements (SAPA(b), 2008)
or a mysterious ‘third force’ (Morna, 2008). These arguments
often do present relatively good reasons (or present a possible
factor) for why there is a sudden upsurge in violence and what causes
the upsurge of violence, and can be used to explain why there are
violent undercurrents in an unequal society. They do not however,
present a valid reason as to why this hatred is directed at the black
African foreigners as opposed to other foreigners, such as white
immigrants. . Finally, these theories all suggest that violence
like this just happens, and absolves the state from much of the
blame. What separates Neocosmos’ argument from these theories, is
that in Neocosmos’ argument, one is no longer grappling with the
questions raised above. There is no need to question why the
violence was directed at foreigners, or more specifically, black
African foreigners. The development of the new nation state in
South Africa after apartheid, especially under Western ideas, has led
to this exclusive idea of citizenship that portrays other Africans as
the ‘other’. This has been intensified by South Africa’s
economic dominance and being the portal through which Western
liberalism can penetrate the continent of Africa (Neocosmos, 2010:
107). In this way, the argument presented by Neocosmos goes a long
way in explaining why the violence is being directed not only towards
foreigners, but is being directed towards black African foreigners,
which is often (as mentioned above) neglected by the other theories.
Neocosmos’
argument does however, face several small problems. When the
attacks swept through South Africa in 2008, his argument is
successful in explaining why the attacks were directed towards black
African foreigners. His argument however, does not appear to
explain why there was a sudden upsurge of violence in South Africa
during this period. It is easy to see his argument is valid when
considering why the attacks are directed towards the excluded
citizens, however, he presents examples of xenophobic violence on a
much smaller scale and in localized areas. In the epilogue of his
book, he does successfully suggest and show that the events of 2008
did not just explode as was thought by many, but that there was a
steady increase in the acts of xenophobic violence throughout the
preceding months (see Neocosmos, 2010: 119). But why is it that in
2008 we saw this tremendous increase in xenophobic attacks? And if
his argument with the collection of other theories such as relative
deprivation have combined into an explosive cocktail which exploded
during the 2008 pogroms, then why have these pogroms not continued
seeing as the material wealth of many still remains low? Perhaps it
was the combination of the global economic recession, but then surely
the attacks would have continued throughout this period and only
ended in 2009 or 2010?
Regardless
of any problems with the ideas put forward by Neocosmos, this book is extremely valuable and should be considered
very carefully when addressing the problem of xenophobia. When
considering that the European states are beginning to suffer from
rising frustration and anger towards immigrants, with 2009 seeing a
victory for many extreme right-winged political groups across Europe
(Mail Foreign Service, 2009), this book could provide valuable
insight into the reasons for this xenophobia. In addition, he not
only provides the reader with an analysis of the problem, but
presents plausible solutions to the problem. His argument is an
important contribution to the debate around xenophobia, and his
notion that the state is more involved than it tries to portray in
creating and maintaining the problem is sound. This easy to read
book is an important contribution to the creation of a more humanity
driven South Africa as well as the development of a more inclusive
democracy.
Reference
List
Gordin,
Jeremy. 2008. ’Ethnic cleansing, SA style’. IOLnews,
[Online] (Last updated 09:51 AM on 25 May 2008). Available at:
<http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/ethnic-cleansing-sa-style-1.401830>
[Accessed on 28 August 2011]
Gurr,
Ted Robert. 1970. Why Men Rebel.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hagopian,
Mark N. 1975. The Phenomenon of Revolution.
New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Morna,
Colleen L. 2008. ’Money, narrow nationalism can’t buy a rainbow’.
IOLnews, [Online]
(Last updated 02:48 AM on 08 June 2008). Available at:
<http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/ethnic-cleansing-sa-style-1.403651>
[Accessed on 28 August 2011]
Neocosmos,
Michael. 2010. From ‘Foreign Natives’ to
‘Native Foreigners’: Explaining Xenophobia in Post-apartheid
South Africa. Dakar: Council for the
Development of Social Sciences Research in Africa.
SAPA.
2008. ’Inequality behind xenophobia’. IOLnews,
[Online] (Last updated 07:35 PM on 28 May 2008). Available at:
<http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/inequality-behind-xenophobia-1.402360>
[Accessed on 28 August 2011]
SAPA.
2008. ’Xenophobia: Nqakula blames criminals’. IOLnews,
[Online] (Last updated 05:20 PM on 04 June 2008). Available at:
<http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/xenophobia-nqakula-blames-criminals-1.403218>
[Accessed on 28 August 2011]
Mail
Foreign Service. 2009. ‘The
neo-Nazi surge: Right-wing parties sweep to power in the European
Parliament as voter turnout plummets to record low’. DailyMail,
[Online] (Last updated 03:08 PM on 11 June 2009). Available at:
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191533/Right-wing-parties-sweep-power-European-Parliament-voter-turnout-plummets-record-low.html>
[Accessed on 28 August 2011]
