4.2 Discussion of the Relevance of the Data to my Research
4.2.3 Rationality and Civil Society
Rational debate, being one of the key principles associated with public sphere theory, has been subject to definitional debates in revisionist theory (Hohendahl, 1992; Fraser, 1997;
McKee, 2005 and others). The way rationality is defined has political implications for eligibility of citizenship as well as in the challenging of pervasive Western cultural norms.
This research has attempted to engage with this ephemeral concept, looking at the way
‗contextual‘ rationalities (Fraser, 1997) play out within this multicultural South African new media text. As rationality is culturally bound and intertwined with notions of citizenship, the South African and new media contexts present interesting conditions for investigating the concept.
In the analysis, I was particularly interested to observe the ramifications of South African discourse practice in light of the contextual nature of rationality, in which ―Rational
debate is possible without the presupposition of demonstrative universal norms‖
(Hohendahl, 1992, in Calhoun, 1995: 107).
In her heated discussion with Mosa, Sherene makes the following comment: ―(wh)y is everything that is an abomination unto GOD made acceptable?‖ In terms of types of rationality and public space, such an appeal to ‗God‘ does not conform to late
modernity‘s standards for formal, rational public debate, as this is highly subjective given the plethora of differing opinions held by vastly disparate religious groups. For this reason, among others, religious views are traditionally kept out of formal public debates and are reserved for the private realm. However, the postmodern nature of this informal online debate does not obey the same rules as Habermas‘ ideal public sphere, and if religious references are found to be convincing by other members, the validity of such an argument is sufficient to this forum.
Mosa cites Nelson Mandela, South Africa‘s first democratically elected president, as a case in point to disprove Sherene‘s claim that ―not one leader had the country‘s interest at heart as ―(T)hey all were out for personal gain‖. Mosa has such confidence in Mandela‘s irreproachability that he adds ―(and I am) sure everybody wud agree wit me‖.
As Nelson Mandela has become a world icon, representing ‗peaceful struggle‘ against oppression, in South Africa he is sacrosanct. Jacob Zuma‘s biographer Jeremy Gordin controversially proclaimed, ―The whole Saint Mandela thing has obscured the history of the ANC and the relationships between people. He's not a saint, he's a human being‖
(Gordin, no date, cited in Mail and Guardian, 2009). This use of Mandela‘s name as a
‗sacred cow‘ may have relevance to Mosa‘s use of it in the text. This could be linked to discursive displacement of deviant discourses, which Thiesmeyer (2003) sees as limiting illocutionary power. ―When this type of silencing is at its most effective, it obscures both the realization that silencing exists as well as any awareness of its social and political uses (Eto, 1982; Jansen, 1991; Conklin, 1997)‖ (Thiesmeyer, 2003: 3).
Thus, although Mosa may not have consciously circumscribed Sherene‘s speech, in the context of contemporary South Africa, Mosa‘s appeal to Nelson Mandela, has greater impact than Sherene‘s appeal to God. After this reference to Nelson Mandela and, by virtue of association, the ANC, anything Sherene responds that appears to detract from this icon is culturally tabooed, and therefore denied of a subject position that can make
―an appropriate response‖ (ibid: 3).
In another instance, Ongama wrote
―why is it tht all whte pple hate Zuma and thy worshp Zille? Why? I dnt like the character of the man bt he is a S.A and soon to be our president. Our fight against Zuma should nt be racial bt on merits. If u dnt agree mayb jst follow all those who went to the UK, AUSTRALIA or u cn fight Zuma nt basd on his skin bt hs
character by joinng a multiracial or black dominatd party.ie PAC has no whites‖
This comment underlines the perceived racist rationale of whites who choose to vote DA rather than ANC. Ongama‘s insinuation may be that whites who are opposed to Zuma only dislike the idea of him as president because he is black. However, Ongama, as an established member of the newsgroup, has had access to all the prior posts in which many reasons are raised as to why Zuma would apparently make an unfit president. Not a single one of these has stated race as a criterion for Zuma‘s shortcomings. This is further
evidence of the prominence of race issues in the national psyche, and this statement is informed by the myth of the ‗inherent racism of whites‘, which is strongly implicated in the ‗white flight‘ from South Africa.
Ongama could be interpreted as meaning that voting for a presidential candidate who is not black shows allegiance to the defunct apartheid regime. Ongama‘s perception of political parties appears to be somewhat skewed. He apparently does not enter into account that while the DA may have a white presidential candidate it is multiracial as a whole, whereas the PAC (Pan Africanist Congress of Azania) is black dominated because of its focus on black interests, thus alienating non-black voters (see also the IPSOS
Markinor (2009) table in Section 7.3.2 showing race against political party affiliation).
Also, for voters who are not in favour of the ruling party it makes sense to vote for the next largest official opposition party rather than for one of the multitude of minor parties – for example, PAC received only 0.27% of votes cast and only one seat in parliament (Independent Electoral Commission, 2009). In terms of rationality, it appears that Ongama does not see these facts.
The barrage of white ‗self-defence‘ that this comment provokes may make it appear that such a comment is, perhaps, unwelcome to a number of the active participants in this newsgroup. However, in terms of the process of pushing the boundaries of the community, Ongama‘s comment is constitutive of extending the axis from which
contributors can speak in the community. Since online communities provide "people with the means to make meaning ... [and also provides] them with the means to express the particular meanings which the community has for them‖ (Cohen, 1985: 16, quoted in Burnett, 2002: 159), Ongama‘s comment can be seen as extending these means for the newsgroup. Thus, evidence of opposing forms of rationality may be beneficial in that mutual interrogation could lead to the articulation of richer and more diverse meanings.
In online discussions, ―It is the spirit rather than the letter of a message which is seen to be significant, and earlier phrasing can be adapted to suit the new writer‖ (Crystal, 2001:
147). A case in point which illustrates the implications of this in the newsgroup text is the exchange between Tiffany and Sanele. Sanele at no point says (as Tiffany ascribes to him)
―Oh well i am black so i do crime…‖ and so it is strange that she chastises him thus: ―not EVERYONE who is black is a criminal, so lets not make those sort of blanket statements ok ;)‖.
This tendency to ‗adapt‘ and hence appropriate prior comments, involves a dimension of power. This, however, may not be a conscious process and may not be limited to online communication. According to Cohen:
―What passes as understanding is often based on interpretation, and the interpretation is generally accomplished by reconstructing other people's behavior as if it was our own: in
other words, by attempting to put ourselves in their shoes, our minds in their bodies.
Hence, when other people use words that we use, we interpret their intended meaning by assuming that it corresponds to ours. Sometimes it may; sometimes it may not....‖ (1985:
16, quoted in Burnett, 2002: 159).
Therefore, Tiffany‘s interpretation of Sanele‟s comments as meaning ―EVERYONE who is black is a criminal,‖ may indicate that she holds corresponding attitudes.
In discourse theory ―variability in terms of specific contexts‖ (Low and Potgeiter, 1994:
161) is documented in face-to-face interaction, where no permanent record of
conversation is available to ‗prove‘ such variability. In the case of online discussions, however, record of discussion is ―accessible to all members of the community‖ (Burnette, 2002: 157) and it would seem likely that other members would take Tiffany to task for her apparent inconsistency, but this breach of constancy is unchecked in the newsgroup. This variability is characteristic of permissible conventions of rationality in the newsgroup.