In “Surge in racist attacks” (March 8), I was presented as being “appalled” by recent incidents of racial violence, “but more cautious in condemning them”. I am appalled by the incidents of hate crime and racially motivated violence that continue to mark post-apartheid South Africa. I also condemn these incidents unequivocally and am distressed that Dumisane Lubisi has actively implied otherwise.
In addition, he has not contextualised my comments on the possible role of “trigger” factors such as alcohol and social institutions in transmitting racist attitudes within my broader analysis of ongoing racial violence in the country.
Racially motivated violence is complex and symptomatic of both past patterns of prejudice, as well as changing racial dynamics wrought through South Africa’s process of transition. While it commonly manifests in black and white terms, in a repetition of apartheid-style patterns of violence, this phenomenon also operates through a new discourse, taking on actions and targets that are not solely reducible to old-order manifestations of violence.
It is not enough to offer a simplistic understanding of certain incidents without looking at both the continuities and changes in the social context of violence and prejudice in which they occur. However, Lubisi has misinterpreted my call for a holistic and careful analysis of hatred, as deflecting from the prejudice that underpins and informs incidents of the type described in the article. As a researcher working to understand patterns of violence, with the aim of developing preventative measures and promoting a culture of human rights, I feel that reporting of this nature is, at best unhelpful and, at worst, devisive and destructive. To imply that racially motivated incidents of violence must be “cautiously condemned” does not challenge racist thinking. It also reflects an irresponsibility, contrary to the aims of good journalism.
As I suggested to Dumisane Lubisi when first approached to comment: “I think that the media is an excellent platform for raising awareness about these issues and, when reported carefully and not in a way that sensationalises or separates these incidents as “extreme” (without the context of a country premised and divided by race), offers an opportunity to challenge people’s thinking and hopefully, contribute to preventative measures being implemented”. I am very disappointed that he has not taken advantage of that platform. Bronwyn Harris, researcher, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation