Tell Our Story. Julie Reid
cross section of struggle stories from poor communities in both rural and urban post-1994 South Africa. In other words, each of these case studies encompasses (‘represents’) differing but crucial historical, geographical and socio-political characteristics of the post-1994 period within a larger tableau of ongoing socio-political contestation and class (read: economic) conflict.
Taken together, these stories can therefore provide a critical counter-narrative to that of the dominant media (and oftentimes to that of government as well). They can also assist with revealing the ways in which the developmental experiences of the specific community, and the struggles in which it has engaged, have been shaped by the (macro) post-1994 political economy of South Africa, inclusive of the dominant media terrain. And further, they can go some way to help explain and understand the exigencies of power and inequality that have characterised South Africa’s broader democratic journey.
STORIES FROM THREE COMMUNITIES
In the following three chapters, we present stories from the communities of Glebelands, Xolobeni/Amadiba and Thembelihle as they were related to us by the people who live there. From the very beginning, we had to acknowledge our own role in ‘remaking’ these stories as they would eventually appear here in this book, where we have essentially acted as intermediaries for making meaning. This role of acting as an intermediary is one that is shared by social science researchers and journalists alike when we behave as the conduits for carrying meaning and messages from the ground to published content. The nuance, however, comes in how this work of intermediation is performed. What choices does the intermediate make, and what principle of intermediation is followed?
On a purely practical level, we knew we had to find a way to ‘retell’ the many narratives related to us in a manner that would give prominence to these voice(s) themselves, while also working as a coherent and easy-to-follow reportage of an incredibly complex set of interrelated narratives. As much as it is important to allow lateral space for people to practise voice and to relate their own stories, it is equally crucial for such voice(s) to be ‘packaged’ in such a way as to be easily understandable to the reader. The role of the intermediary here is tricky and imbued with heavy responsibility: ‘tricky’ because narrative material must be translated in its form (though not its content) to function as an easily accessible text, while remaining cognisant of a responsibility to the people whose voices are informing that text, and to retell their stories with respect, dignity and truth.
For us, it would have made little sense to simply provide hundreds of pages of interview transcripts from 22 different interviews across three separate communities, quoted here verbatim. While this would have been the most accurate reflection of all things that were said, it would not have accomplished a satisfactory retelling of voice(s) in terms of readability. Instead, we decided to arrange the different aspects of the narratives given to us thematically, extract corresponding parts of the interviews and then organise and integrate excerpts into the larger body of text that seeks to ‘tell’ the respective stories and enable the inclusion of associated voice(s). To fulfil this task, the stories of each community are ‘told’ by breaking them down into eight distinct focal areas or topics.
The eight focal areas we selected for use are particular to this project. They were selected for their relevance to the specific social, political and environmental contexts of the three communities. Suffice to say that other researchers and/or journalists following a similar model of listening may develop alternative or additional focal areas or topics specific to the contexts of the communities or peoples with whose voice(s) they engage. But we believe that the fundamental principles of this approach would remain the same, that is, that every voice has a value, that each voice is distinct, that voice is an ongoing process and that voice is socially grounded, being situated within a particular historical context. Below, each of the focal areas that we selected to employ is set out with a brief explanation and motivation.
One: The personal side
Rarely do the dominant media offer much more than, at best, a cursory glance at the personal lives and experiences of activists and residents in poor communities. Including these is essential because it humanises the individual, the associated events or struggles as well as the community itself and creates a bridge between the reader and the community/ residents to better locate and understand the subject matter and those involved.
Two: History and context of the area
It is crucially important to cover the overall frame of conditions of life, socio-political conflict as well as the organisations and/or individuals involved (whether internal or external). Without this, one’s view and understanding will have no historical background, no contextual foundation and no means of assessing and/or determining facts, interpretations and explanations of the hows and whys of what has happened. If we recognise voice as a socially grounded process, then voice(s) can only be properly understood by placing it within the associated history and context.
Three: Community organisation
While this varies widely according to the community, it is vital to provide a clear sense of the reasons behind the formation of the organisation or collective, its relationships (internal and external), core purpose and overall trajectory, as well as the main experiences in struggle. Doing so also allows for the surfacing of any divisions within the community and how this plays out and is understood.
Four: Role of the state
This applies both proactively and reactively and allows for particular attention to be given to the state’s approach to and activity around community protest and voice, as well as official or legal spaces, combined with avenues and institutions for community participation and redress. Where applicable, this also provides an opportunity to include the role and activities of traditional authorities.
Five: Role of political parties
Political parties are most often at the heart of community politics and conflict, more particularly through local councillors, as well as through influence over key local state and governance structures and institutions. As such, their role and activity is central to shaping the character and content of community life and struggle.
Six: Role of law enforcement and the courts
Given the conflictual nature of community stories being ‘told’, it is important to surface the continuities and contradictions of related actions or reactions, complaints for redress, justice and accountability, as well as any measures taken to address these, both immediately and over time.
Seven: The dominant and other media
Rarely are the opinions and experiences that poor people have of the dominant media ever surfaced with any kind of depth and detail. Not only does this allow for a more grounded appraisal and critique but, it also provides space for surfacing the specifics of how the dominant media’s coverage and portrayal can and does impact on how the broader public see the community, its struggles and its residents.
Eight: What the future holds
These questions give air to the broader socio-political and more specific practically oriented views of those whose voice(s) are most ignored and marginalised. Besides that though, the responses here can provide a firm basis upon which to show how the dominant media largely sidelines the positive side of community stories as well as individual and collective endurance, sacrifices and emotions, which would allow for more human and universalist connections.
We developed the eight categories above, with regard to the specific and contextual struggles experienced by each of the three communities, but also according to the principles of voice(s) outlined in chapter 1. These include the principle that voice is not static but is rather an ongoing process: narratives can change and develop over time. Voice is socially grounded, and as such can only be properly understood by placing it within its associated historical and political context. Each voice is distinct because each narrator is different, and each narrative is related to an interweaving set of related stories. There is never only one voice speaking to any particular set of events or issue, but a multiplicity of voices: the task for us as researchers and journalists is to seek out this multiplicity instead of hearing only the ‘loudest’