Michael Neocosmos on the Thought of Politics

Understanding and Overcoming Xenophobia: A One Day Colloquium - Presentation by Michael Neocosmos

Colloquium: Popular Struggles Then & Now

The Mandé Charter of 1222

The Mandé Charter of 1222

1.The hunters declare:

Every human life is a life.

It is true that a life comes into existence before another life

But no life is more ‘ancient’, more respectable than any other

In the same way no one life is superior to any other

2. The hunters declare:

As each life is a life,

Any wrong done unto a life requires reparation.

Consequently,

No one should gratuitously attack his neighbour

No one should wrong his neighbour

No one should torment his fellow man

Prof Mbembe to deliver a public lecture on Non-racialism

http://www.ru.ac.za/latestnews/profmbembetodeliverapubliclectureonnon-racialism.html

The Unit for the Humanities at Rhodes University (UHURU) will host one of South Africa’s most potent contributors to the analysis of modern politics, Prof Achille Mbembe. He will be delivering a public lecture on Wednesday (6 August 2014) entitled: "Non-racialism and the New Native Question in South Africa"

“Prof Mbembe is one of the few intellectuals in South Africa who is deeply familiar with modern social theory and philosophy, particularly with what is termed ‘continental philosophy’.  He was educated in France and publishes regularly in that country,” said the Director of UHURU, Prof Michael Neocosmos.

“Moreover he is precisely concerned with Africa, not as the place of ‘the other’, but as our own place with all its problems and all its extraordinary history and people.  Who better to begin the new term under the auspices of UHURU?,” he added.

Thinking Political Emancipation and the Social Sciences in Africa: Some Critical Reflections

Thinking Political Emancipation and the Social Sciences in Africa: Some Critical Reflections by TigersEye99

Michael Neocosmos: Thinking Political Emancipation and the Social Sciences in Africa: some critical reflections

Department of Politics & International Studies Seminar Series

Speaker: Professor Michael Neocosmos

Topic: Thinking Political Emancipation and the Social Sciences in Africa:

some critical reflections

Date:  Friday, 16 May 2014

Time: 1-2

Venue: New Seminar Room, Department of Politics & International Studies Seminar Series

The paper is online at:

http://www.ru.ac.za/politicalinternationalstudies/seminarsevents/archive/

From May 2008 to 2011: Xenophobic Violence and National Subjectivity in South Africa

by Judith Hayem, Journal of Southern African Studies, 2013

This article examines the recurrence of xenophobic attacks in 2011 in the light of the events of May 2008. Using archives and secondary data, examining slogans and discourses heard at the time and reflecting on the author’s own involvement as an activist alongside foreign residents displaced by the 2008 attacks, it is argued that the xenophobic attacks demonstrated a shift in the national subjectivity or conception of citizenship, from an inclusive notion implying participation in the future South African society to a dialectical representation of nationals against foreigners. It is further argued that, in its mismanagement of the 2008 crisis, the South African government contributed to the emergence of such attitudes and did nothing to stop the violence; hence its repetition. The notion of human rights that has emerged in South Africa is one of the keys to an understanding of the representations at stake: whereas human rights used to be a universal and founding notion in post-apartheid South Africa, they are now seen as a national privilege regarding access to basic needs. The article shows that the humanitarian management of the May 2008 crisis by the South African Government contributed considerably to obscuring the notion of ‘human rights’. In order to oppose such a dangerous policy, there is an urgent need to revive the political debate in South Africa.

Remembering Phyllis Naidoo

Michael Neocosmos

by Michael Neocosmos, The Daily Maverick

Phyllis Naidoo divided the world into “comrades” and “assholes”. She was dismissive of the corrupt leadership of the ANC, and though it saddened her that many around her betrayed the principles of the struggle, she remained fundamentally committed to the idea of human equality. She was a mother to all.

Phyllie, as I used to call her, was my “mum”. Like several others, most of them highly placed cadres in the ANC today, I was adopted as her son, something I am extremely proud of. One of the advantages of choosing a mother or a son is precisely that choice is central, you do not inherit the social burdens of family and commitment must be renewed.

Review: From ‘Foreign Natives’ to ‘Native Foreigners’

by Catherine Cunningham 

In From ‘Foreign Natives’ to ‘Native Foreigners’, Michael Neocosmos traces the events which led up to the May 2008 xenophobic attacks in South Africa. In doing this, Neocosmos uncovers the manifold ways in which ‘citizenship’ has been defined, in South Africa, over time. For Neocosmos, despite the inclusive definition of citizenship which was made manifest throughout the liberation struggle, a more exclusive understanding has now become dominant. Such a conception of citizenship is not spontaneous, however, but is reinforced by discourses originating from multiple actors such as: government officials, the media, civil society and society at large. These discourses overlap and reinforce each other, culminating in what Neocosmos calls ‘a politics of fear’. It is this fear, rather than economic deprivation and an influx of foreigners, which helps to explain the events of 2008. In order to counter this widespread fear, Neocosmos suggests that we need to reaffirm an inclusive understanding of citizenship in order to transcend fundamentally oppressive categorisations.

Contemporary Social Theory 2010

Contemporary Social Theory

Sociology III

Department of Sociology

Rhodes University

Fourth Term 2012

This year there is a special Contemporary Social Theory course to mark the visit to the Department of Sociology of Professor John Holloway during the fourth term.

The course focuses on specific theorists, as follows:

Week 1: Partha Chatterjee (by K Helliker)

Weeks 2 & 3: John Holloway

Week 4: Alain Badiou (by Michael Neocosmos, UNISA)

Week 5: Samir Amin (by T Alexander)

Week 6: Jacques Ranciere (by R Pithouse, Politics Department).

Are Those-Who-Do-Not-Count Capable of Reason? Thinking Political Subjectivity in the (Neo-)Colonial World and the Limits of History

By Michael Neocosmos, 2012

This article is concerned to show that the historical science of the (neo-)colonial world is unable to allow
for an analysis of the political subjectivities of ‘those-who-do-not-count’ or ‘subalterns’ as rational beings.
Rather, it can only think such subjectivities as the products of people who are merely bearers of their social
location, not thinking subjects. As a result, such history can only be a history of place, not a history of the
transcending of place; it therefore amounts to colonial or state history. Historical objectivity invariably
produces state history. The thought of the possibility of emancipatory politics, which always exceeds place,
is thus precluded. This is an unavoidable epistemic problem in history and the social sciences in their current
form. Following the work of Lazarus, I argue for an alternative historical methodology in Africa in terms of
an internal analysis of the idioms of politics as discontinuous subjective sequences.

On the Pogroms in South Africa

On the Pogroms in South Africa by TigersEye99

Ethnicity, State and Democracy in Southern Africa: a historical perspective on rural-based nationalities

by Michael Neocosmos, 1994 (revised in 1998)

This paper constitutes an attempt to make some sense out of the vexed question of ethnicity in the context of a democratizing Southern Africa and in Southern Africa alone, although several of my observations may also be valid, with little or no modification, for other parts of the continent. Its objectives are limited to making some general observations on the historical development of ethnic groups, most of which I prefer to call nationalities for reasons which I shall make clear below. Evidently, a discussion of the history of ethnicity presupposes that ethnic groups do have a history, something which I take to be axiomatic.

Reflections on Human Rights Discourse and Emancipation in Africa in the Twenty-first Century

by Michael Neocosmos, Solidarity Peace Trust, Zimbabwe (undated)

At the very time when it most often mouths the word, the West has never been further from being able to live a true humanism – a humanism made to the measure of the world (Aimé Césaire).

Whoever is engaged in popular struggles for democratic emancipation in Africa today is confronted with an immediate problem concerning human rights.  While on the one hand a discourse of rights is seemingly necessary for thinking democratisation, given that the state regularly flouts these, on the other human rights seem to refer to a discourse mainly propounded by neo-liberal interests whether local or foreign.  Several repressive regimes in Africa and elsewhere (Zimbabwe, Sudan, maybe Cote D’Ivoire, Iran) oppose a discourse of nationalism to one on human rights.  As an activist, one finds oneself in a seemingly irresolvable discursive contradiction between human (predominantly individual) rights and national (or group or identity) rights.  At times this contradiction is central to government itself.  For exampling in Thabo Mbeki’s South African government, a central contradiction appeared in the form of a commitment to neo-liberal conceptions of rights on the one hand along with a sensitivity to national and racial oppression in Africa on the other. This was reflected in government reactions to a number of different issues including Zimbabwe. In fact this contradiction is arguably constitutive of the subjectivity of the new South African bourgeoisie itself.  On the one hand their private accumulation is premised on an adherence to neo-liberal precepts including human rights, on the other a sensitivity to racism and to a lesser extent to Western hegemony in African affairs is also evident.  The manner in which the vagaries of this contradiction were navigated explains much regarding Mbeki’s presidency (Neocosmos, 2002).

What does democracy name in South African politics?

by Michael Neocosmos, Church Land Programme

A living politics is the movement out of the places where oppression has assigned those who do not count (S’bu Zikode, Talk at CLP Fanomenal Event)

Democracy: what does it name?

I wish to begin by discussing the term democracy as deployed in public discourse in SA. My discussion is founded on and inspired by the ways AbM have questioned the term democracy as applied to the SA state. This questioning has not been picked up and debated by commentators, academic or otherwise. It has not been taken seriously, but I think it should be taken very seriously. Remarks by AbM have included at various times: ‘democracy is for the rich not the poor’, ‘we do not count’ (i.e. we are excluded from democracy) and ‘elections are only for politicians’ as well as the idea of ‘unfreedom’ (there is no freedom for the poor) and that of ‘dignity for all’. These are very important innovations in political thinking in a context where ‘democracy’ has become a fetish which is never questioned, and therefore they must be taken seriously. ‘Seriously’ here for me means thinking about them both theoretically and politically. Lets start by examining the term democracy.

From people's politics to state politics: aspects of national liberation in South Africa 1984-1994

by Michael Neocosmos, 1994 (Published in Politea in 1996)

The 1980s in South Africa witnessed an explosion of popular-democratic struggles championed by a host of autonomous civil society organisations whose activities became central in the campaign against the apartheid system and the quest for the creation of a democratic state. By the 1990s, however, especially in the lead up to and after the election of the ANC into office, South African politics appears increasingly to be subjected to the same broad logic of statism that was experienced in other parts of Africa at the dawn of independence from colonial rule. At the heart of this statism is the defeat of the popular movements which, in South Africa, as in the rest of Africa, were so vital in the struggle for political change, being the oppositional forces with the popular democratic tradition and agenda that offered the best chance for the emergence of a democratic state. Increasingly depoliticised, the role of the popular movements has been emptied of the vitality that can ensure that `the people' are able to generate and make autonomous democratic prescriptions on the state. The politicisation of civil society and the democratisation of the state are projects in the South African transition which will have to be revived if the authoritarianism that inheres in statism is to be defeated. This is the challenge before the democratic forces of opposition and change in contemporary South Africa.

Transition, human rights and violence: rethinking a liberal political relationship in the African neo-colony

by Michael Neocosmos, Interface, 2011

Rather than seeing the prevalence of systemic political violence in Africa as resulting from a purportedly difficult “transition to democracy”, this article insists that accounts of such violence must be sought within the modes of rule of the democratic state itself. In particular, the manifestation of a contradiction between democracy and nationalism in a neo-colonial context, takes many different forms which cannot be resolved consensually given
existing modes of rule and the enrichment of the oligarchy at the expense of the nation. Xenophobic violence in South Africa is used to illustrate the argument. It is shown that a distinction between domains of politics (including modes of rule) must be drawn. In particular, this means distinguishing between a domain of “civil society” and one of “uncivil society”. It is within the latter that most people relate and respond to state power. Within that domain, the state does not rule people as citizens with legally enforceable rights, but simply as a population with various entitlements. In this domain, violent political practices by the state tend to be the norm rather than the exception, so that violence acquires a certain amount of legitimacy for resolving contradictions among people. The overcoming of systemic violence (itself a political choice) can only begin to be conceived via a different thought of politics as subjective practice.

Some comments for the discussion on thinking politically the recent Abahlali experience.

Michael Neocosmos was not able to attend the recent meeting hosted by Church Land Programme to discuss the character of South African democracy in the wake of the attacks on AbM. But this document was circulated to the meeting. Abahlali.org

The comments below follow from an attempt to develop new concepts for thinking the Abahlali experience of being subjected to violence in Kennedy Road and subsequent experiences of the criminal justice system. I would like to discuss these issues at length sometime but as I cannot attend the CLP meeting I would like to make a few points. These are developed at greater length in a more academic format in my paper on ‘Transition, Human Rights and Violence’ which some of you have. I am going to attempt to make these points below in a more succinct form. Further debate and explication of them is necessary.

A Review of Michael Neocosmos's 'From ‘Foreign Natives’ to ‘Native Foreigners’'

by Tristan Gevers 

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