CHAPTER 7: AFRICAN MIGRANTS’ NETWORKS WITH SOUTH AFRICANS
7.6. Spaces of interaction
7.6.1. Place of work
i. Nature of interaction
The findings of the study show that all 28 migrants that were employed had numerous kinds of interaction with South Africans in their workplaces. Asked about the nature of interactions at work, the migrants responded in different ways. Various forms of interactions existed beyond a binary of friend or foe; hostile or convivial. Twenty (71%) of the employed respondents described their work environment as friendly. These include 11 females comprised of two working class and nine middle class respondents, and nine middle class males. However, this does imply that they did not also experience some form of hostility. For instance, Remi a middle class female stated that
Most of my colleagues are South Africans… I can say that my interactions are mostly friendly and very few unfriendly ones. There are some that I will not put as unfriendly but just people I don’t interact with… not for any reason but we are just colleagues… I have been called Amakwerekwere by one of the colleagues… there is this group that sits and gossips about me… In that same school there are others who are very nice… Two of them visit me at home and I also visit them (Interviewed 29/09/14).
John, a medical doctor from the middle class described his work environment as convivial;
he noted that learning the local language helped to foster positive relations at his workplace.
According to him,
134
My work colleagues and patients are accommodating… Yes the difference in culture, especially language was initially an obstacle because they found it difficult relating with me but after some time I learnt the language and this made them warm up more to me. I think learning the language made it easier to relate with them (Interviewed 24/07/14).
This contrasts with the experience of Osamudiamen a barber who mainly worked with South Africans in a salon:
It is very hostile. The South Africans I work with treat me as a nobody. They know I don’t understand Zulu but they always speak it to me. They even talk about me in Zulu… There was a time my customer told me they said I must go back to my country because I am competing with them. I don’t have any friends at work. They avoid me and I avoid them… But some of my customers are very wonderful. They tip me and ask me about myself… They are not friends oh. They just come cut their hair and go, I don’t even know them but they are good to me (Interviewed 12/07/14).
These accounts show a mix of friendliness and hostility towards migrants within work spaces across both classes, confirming Amin’s description of workplaces as sites for coming to terms with difference. Although differential exclusion does not exist as a policy in South Africa, some members of host communities have a discriminatory attitude towards migrants23, especially at the marginal levels of the economy. This can be said to represent differential inclusion – where people in middle class professions find it easier to integrate in their work environments than those in lower paid jobs. Another finding related to the impact of cultural and geographical differences which prompted hostility from some South Africans to migrants at the work place. Remi’s contact with South Africans was characterized by a mix of concord and conflict. She reported different kinds of interaction ranging from convivial, to hospitality to exclusion. Osamudiamen, who largely describes his colleagues as unfriendly also describes a hospitable relationship with customers who are not friends but event ties. He mainly experiences hostility from his state ties at work. He responded to the exclusion he experienced at the hands of his colleagues with self-exclusion. Osamudiamen’s
23 Sometimes migrants do not help the situation in the way they respond through, for example, self-exclusion.
135
contact with South Africans at his work place produced prejudice and exclusion. This supports Dixon and Durrheim’s (2003) argument that contact can foster prejudice. In this situation, the condition that produced conflict was South Africans’ perceptions that he was taking their jobs. Landau (2011) states that most South Africans view African migration as a threat to their jobs. John also initially experienced some exclusion at his workplace because of the language barrier which hindered the formation of relationships. However, rather than resorting to self-exclusion, he learnt the local language which was bridging social capital that enabled the development of relationships. This relates to assimilation which involves the adoption of the host’s culture. It is consistent with Castle’s (1998: 247) definition of assimilation as “a one-sided process of adaptation” where migrants adopt the culture of the host population. In John’s case, contact fostered conviviality as the intimacy of contact resulted in the dissolution of hostility. The condition that made this feasible was his assimilation of South African culture which propagated friendships ties at his workplace.
This was possible through bridging social capital that was formed through intimate contact.
Therefore, based on this finding, bridging social capital is one of the conditions under which contact reduces prejudice across diverse groups.
Although the various accounts show that all the migrants experienced some hostility at their workplace, the level of hostility differed across both class and gender. The migrants were further asked to identify whether the nature of relations between them and South Africans were mostly friendly or mostly hostile. Sixty-four per cent of the middle class migrants and 7% of the working class migrants described their environment as mostly friendly while 29%
of the working class group stated that it was mostly hostile. The mostly hostile group mainly consisted of males from the working class, which demonstrates the impact of gender and class on the nature of interaction among migrants in their host community. This is in line with Miguel and Tranmer’s (2009) finding that females are more likely to develop network ties than males and that class impacts on the formation of ties.
The seven unemployed migrants were asked about their experiences while looking for work.
Most of their responses show that, to a certain degree, South Africa’s policies on migration are characterized by differential exclusion of migrants within the working class. Jerry, an unemployed male, stated that,
136
I’m jobless because of the wicked laws that prevent migrants from getting jobs. They allow professors, doctors, teachers get permanent residence and work permit because they say it is scarce skill, but we that don’t have degrees, they say we steal their jobs so they won’t give us ID (Interviewed 09/10/14).
Suzan, an unemployed female migrant, adds that
The laws here are too strict. I am a qualified clerk, but they want a South African even though I am more qualified… It is because they have many South Africans with low qualifications but at the top they don’t. Foreigners who have these skills are given preferential treatment (Interviewed 13/12/14).
The findings based on the various accounts conform to Ong’s (2006) argument that highly skilled migrants exist in a global assemblage where they are able to access certain rights and concessions, while less skilled migrants are excluded from this regime. In this study, Peter and John exist in this global assemblage and are cosmopolitans while Jerry, Osamudiamen and Suzan can be seen as transnationals. This is consistent with Haupt’s (2010: 2) argument that migrants in privileged positions are considered cosmopolitan and those that are unprivileged are treated as unwanted migrants or transnationals. This is not, however, to suggest that transnationals experience no integration in their workplaces as they do not always experience only hostility. This study uncovered instances where transnationals experienced friendliness at work. Nonetheless, immigration laws do result in differential inclusion of skilled migrants and differential exclusion of unskilled migrants.
137
ii. Most important relationship at work
The 28 migrants that were employed were asked if their most important relationships at work were with other migrants or with South Africans. The figure below presents their responses.
Figure 7.7: Nationality of the most important work relationship
The findings show that the middle class group identified South Africans as their most important relationship in their work place; eight (22%) of the middle class migrants felt that these relationships were important because of the various kinds of work/business-related support they offered. Three (8%) respondents reported that the relationships were formal and not necessarily friendly beyond the office, but this did not imply that they were not important. For instance, Rebecca who is a teacher says her boss who she was acquainted with when she was unemployed, assisted her to get a job:
My boss is the most important relationship at my workplace… We are friendly at work but do not visit each other… She provided me with information and told me how to apply (for the job). I cannot say everything but she was very resourceful. Without her, I wouldn’t be employed (Interviewed 27/05/14).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
working class female
middle class female
working class male
middle class male
Other nationalities South African
138
Joke states that
My business partner is my most important relationship. She is very vast in knowledge when it comes to my investments. Without her my business will crumble. We are friends but not best of friends or close, close, close. We started out as business partners and are still growing into friends. But she is very efficient (Interviewed 04/07/14).
The findings show that these migrants gained various kinds of support from these relationships, including jobs, work/business-related information and financial assistance. All these forms of support enabled their integration into the host community. The findings of the study thus reiterate that actors within a network can accrue benefits from their various ties.
This is the case because of the presence of social capital, which like any other capital “is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible” (Coleman 1990: 302).
7.6.2. Faith-based organizations