The Idea of Media

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Institutions

Against the Odds: Media and Cultural Studies in Southern Africa by Isabel Hofmeyr

November 21, 2020 by Arvind Rajagopal Leave a Comment

Against the Odds: Media and Cultural Studies in Southern Africa[1]

 

Isabel Hofmeyr, University of the Witwatersrand and NYU

 

The most interesting academic work in the Global South has always had to be home-made.  Scholars have had to rely on improvisation to negotiate the exigencies of the “third world” academy, distorted by colonial exclusion and postcolonial austerity.

 

Thinking about the histories and formations of Media Studies and related disciplines in the Global South requires reckoning with these circumstances.  This article sketches how these constraints have played out in southern African, tracing how various players have maneuvered around them, producing a landscape of rich scholarship and public intellectual discourse.

 

*

 

Under colonial segregation and then apartheid, black intellectuals had little access to “white” tertiary institutions or to white-dominated publishing domains.  One major response was to set up the black press as a key site of intellectual production. This work in turn generated theorizations of the media and the politics of representation.  As I have argued elsewhere, Gandhi’s South African newspaper, Indian Opinion and his printing press functioned as a medium of information and as a site for theorizing ideas of reading and writing which in turn provided models of satyagraha (Hofmeyr 2013). 

 

These activist-inspired theories of media have powerful lineages in southern Africa.  The influential Black Consciousness movement of the 1970s and 1980s pursued practices of psychological liberation and existential freedom rather than grand political schemes.  The artisanal media they used (roneo-ed pamphlets, hand-made posters, poetry performances) enacted their philosophies in miniature. More recently, the post-apartheid student movements, #RhodesmustFall and #Feesmustfall sparked extensive debate about legacies of white-dominated media and curriculum and how these might be decolonized. Matching form and content, these projects were pursued through a repertoire of genres – durational performance, public art interventions, actual and metaphorical burning.  Like much black intellectual activity in South Africa, these latter initiatives took shape in a black Atlantic matrix, drawing on, and feeding into Black Lives Matter.

 

These media practices took shape outside or on the peripheries of academic institutions.  Inside these universities, academic disciplines related to the study of media started to take shape. These emerged initially from a Cold War crucible, taking shape as Communication Science, with strong footholds in white Afrikaans-medium institutions. These legacies persist.  South Africa’s largest tertiary institution, the correspondence University of South Africa still offers a bachelor’s degree in “Communication Science”.  One might regard the persistence of such paradigms as a type of intellectual dumping. Models from Euro-America make their way to the peripheries where they assume after-lives that exceed their sell-by dates. Academic fields in the Global South can hence be strange amalgams shaped by the accumulating detritus of older schools of thoughts.

 

Within white English-medium institutions in the 1970s and 80s, neo-Marxist models in the form of cultural studies emerged amongst dissidents in English departments and as a broader “history-from-below” movement across the social sciences. The regional politics of southern Africa with Mozambican and Angolan independence in 1975, followed by Zimbabwe in 1980 created new networks and academic formations. The Centre for Communication, Media and Society at the University of Natal, Durban formed part of a Nordic-funded venture between the English Department at the University of Zimbabwe (UZ) and the Oslo University Media and Cultural Studies program. An important strand in this configuration was an emergent African cultural studies, apparent in the work of Kimani Gecau a Kenyan exile in Zimbabwe who had worked with Ngugi wa Thiongo’s radical Kamiriithu Theatre project (Tomaselli, Mboti, Rønnig 2013).

 

The mounting post-independence crisis in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe led to Nordic funding being withdrawn and academics from the UZ-Oslo project relocating to South Africa where several scholars became important players in establishing or strengthening Media Studies departments. These departments continue to produce innovative scholarship on African, decolonial and popular cultural approaches to Media Studies (for example Chiumbu and Iqani 2020).

 

*

 

These developments were not without their own fault lines which are worth keeping in mind in order to offset overly romanticized views.  A useful illustration of such romanticization emerged around the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of EP Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class (Hofmeyr 2015). The Making had been influential in left-wing scholarship in South Africa and Thompsonian-style social history inspired a “history from below’” movement. This development precipitated a major shift in the social science traditions of white English universities (as well as in emerging cultural and media studies paradigms) largely towards class-based analyses of racial capitalism in South Africa.  The 2013 anniversary sparked several accounts which celebrated the reach of The Making in South Africa and the radical anti-apartheid scholarship that it enabled. 

 

Yet, as Shireen Ally has demonstrated, the class-based analyses of the Thompsonian moment have to be contextualized in the emergence of Black Consciousness.  As she argues, “What Marxism’s class analysis offered this group of intellectuals was not just a powerful theoretical lens to explain apartheid, but a powerful political tool for white intellectuals to deal more comfortably with questions of race” (Ally 2005, 73). Faced with a separatist black-led organization, white radicals found themselves without a leadership or revolutionary role. One response to these changed circumstances was to embrace a class-based analysis and/or a nonracial African National Congress-United Democratic Front position.

 

Having been part of the “history from below” movement myself, I was asked to write something on The Making (Hofmeyr 2015).  Taking a book history approach and drawing on Ally’s work, I explored these configurations by comparing the marginalia in The Making with those in Biko’s I Write What I Like (IWWIL), using copies in South African libraries. In the case of The Making, marginalia reflected dutiful student engagement with the text: underlining, highlighting, asterisking. With one exception – a volume that had originally belonged to an academic – no words or phrases were written in the margins. It is as if The Making is so massive and monumental that it leaves no room for responses. All that South African reader can do is dutifully internalize it, rather like an imperial kit from the metropolis.

 

The copies of IWWIL by contrast provide evidence of a more engaged relationship with the text. In addition to the usual student markings, the edges of the pages teemed with annotations, questions, thoughts and exclamations. “What do we do when we found [sic] consciousness” mused one reader, referencing a major debate about the tactical difficulties facing any movement propounding psychological liberation. IWWIL turned readers into annotators, creating writers from readers, even if only on a miniature scale. The extent of the book’s influence is also apparent from the regularity with which it gets stolen from libraries and bookshops. The Johannesburg Public Library has had six copies taken out and never returned, producing the poignant entry “Biko, Steve. Long Overdue.”

 

*

 

Rather like the marginalia in IWWIL, academic work in the Global South has taken shape in constrained spaces.  Nonetheless scholars have produced rich and insightful work. From the redoubts of the Global North, this scholarship remains largely invisible. In keeping with the aims of this site, this article has drawn attention to the historical trajectories, regional patterns and political fault lines that have shaped Media Studies as a discipline in southern Africa and the innovative scholarship that has emerged, often against the odds. 

 

 

 

References Cited

 

Ally, Shireen. 2005. “Oppositional Intellectualism as Reflection, not Rejection, of Power: Wits Sociology, 1975–1989.” Transformations 59: 66–97.

 

Chiumbu, Sarah and Mehita Iqani.  2020. Media Studies: Critical African and Decolonial Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Hofmeyr, Isabel. 2013. Gandhi’s Printing Press: Experiments in Slow Reading.  Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

 

Hofmeyr, Isabel. 2015. “South African Remains: E. P. Thompson, Biko, and the Limits of The Making of the English Working Class.” Historical Reflections 41, no. 1: 99–110.

 

Tomaselli, Keyan, Nyasha Mboti, Helge Rønnig. 2013. “South-North Perspectives: The Development of Cultural and Media Studies in Southern Africa.” Media, Culture and Society 35, no. 1: 36–43.

 

[1] My thanks to Mehita Iqani for advice on the historiographies of Media Studies in South Africa. 

Filed Under: Institutions

The Decolonial Option by Melody Jue

August 17, 2020 by dmt419 Leave a Comment

  In his essay on “epistemic disobedience,” Walter Mignolo writes that, “The decolonial path has one thing in common: the colonial wound, the fact that regions and people around the world have been classified as underdeveloped economically and mentally.” 1 A key goal of decolonial work is not only political and economic liberation, but, “affirming the epistemic rights of the racially devalued.” 2 Affirming “epistemic rights” means contesting the way that knowledge practices and research agendas have been shaped by Europe and the US, despite good intentions. To take this statement seriously means that I, as a scholar raised and educated in the global North, should not be the only person outlining a pathway towards decolonizing media studies. Yet what I can contribute, as part of a cluster, are a set of concerns and possibilities that aim to reign in some of the hubris of media studies as I have experienced it.

My biggest concern with the call to decolonize is the possibility that it is done for the sake of media studies as a field—to update it, to give it a more diverse face—rather than to advance the concerns of those actively fighting political, economic and epistemic forms of colonial oppression. The worst thing that decolonizing media studies could do is prioritize the field and its survival over activities that contest racial devaluation. I also hesitate to call “decolonizing media studies” an intellectual agenda. In his work on decolonial praxis, Mignolo repeatedly refers to “the decolonial option,” highlighting the importance of participatory choice rather than compulsory conversion. For Mignolo, decolonization has to remain an option, or else it risks repeating the very epistemic violence that it is supposed to contest. Compelled by this framing, I also feel that the decolonial needs to remain an “option” in media studies, so as not to impose a goal from the outside.

It is an option that scholars in the global North should consider. In the US, this past year has given rise to an unprecedented number of commitments to diversifying editorial boards and the scope of published scholarship (such as the journal Media + Environment, which I am part of), largely in response to the resurgence of outrage around the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and Black Lives Matter movement. These are good first steps. However, diversifying who writes and is published in the field of media studies doesn’t solve the problem of the compulsory white male canon, or challenge foundational conceptual vocabulary like information, storage, transmission, and processing. These are an epistemic inheritance from the west, and so long as media studies imposes the conceptual terms of its own discussion in English, it will remain a colonial knowledge framework.

Decolonizing media studies should also involve rethinking the question of audience. Initially this is a publishing question: rather than writing and publishing in English, French or German, work in media studies would be addressed to audiences in a wider variety of languages. Yet the audience question also means that media scholars should think about how their scholarship addresses (or doesn’t) audiences who have been the subjects of colonization. Kim Tallbear’s Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science (Minnesota Press, 2013) models one way of doing this, analyzing the epistemic implications of DNA technologies for a Native American readership rather than treating them as the subject of her study. What would work in media studies look like if it were not for a technical elite, but aimed at empowering a global readership that shares, in common, the colonial wound?

Yet to effectively decolonize media studies would mean risking the possibility of dissolving media studies as a discipline, open to becoming differently articulated through non- Western world-views, languages, and priorities. What the West has demarcated as media studies (loosely based around the emergence of computational technologies and technically mediated communication) might find itself dispersed into an array of other political goals. For example, what if the study of computational and communication media was not isolated into a discipline, but was deemed to be a subset of work in environmental justice, where anyone studying media was expected to have read the writings of Ken Saro-Wiwa and Édouard Glissant? Disciplinary boundaries are much like literary genre: they instruct where to look for certain themes and types of work according to recognizable methods. But to take them too seriously means failing to see a variety of work that may be housed, at the moment, elsewhere.

Melody Jue Associate Professor, UC Santa Barbara August 12, 2020  

1 Walter Mignolo, “Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought, and Colonial Freedom,” Theory, Culture & Society 26:7-8 (2009), p. 3.

2 Ibid., p. 4.

Filed Under: Institutions

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Against the Odds: Media and Cultural Studies in Southern Africa by Isabel Hofmeyr
  • On Communication by Sanil V.
  • Audiences and Algorithms by Guillermo Orozco-Gómez
  • The Decolonial Option by Melody Jue
  • The Protocols of Eurocentrism by Robert Stam and Ella Shohat
  • Miscommunication by Arjun Appadurai
  • Media Studies After Mediation: Faisal Devji

Recent Comments

    Categories

    • Ideologies
    • Institutions
    • Objects
    • Undoing/Rethinking

    Archives

    • November 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org
    • Ideologies
    • Institutions
    • Objects
    • Undoing/Rethinking

    Copyright © 2025 · Agency Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in