United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, was reported last week as saying that the Cup had ‘great power” to present ‘a different story of the African continent, a story of peace, democracy and investment.”
But there’s also the opposite concern — that the event could intensify the story of Africa as a violent and repressive zone. A place to pity, not a destination to relish.
In contrast, living in this part of the world reveals that things are much more complex beneath these two caricatures.
Foreigners actually attending the Cup stand a chance of grasping this — at least as regards South Africa. What meaning they make of their trip will depend partly on what happens during their visit, and how they combine contradictory feelings.
Positive interactions with (and between) South Africans, and the thrill of the games in world-class stadia, will feed a glowing interpretation.
Commuting chaos, bad weather, conflict and crime will push perceptions towards a gloomy reading.
For South African residents over the period, it is likely that perceptions will lean towards more rosy perceptions. There will be a lot of feel-good simunye in both media coverage and actual experiences, not least around the public viewing areas and fan parks.
The South African Broadcasting Corporation says it aims to promote patriotism and unity, and to counter xenophobia and racism, during the Cup. Broadcasts along these lines may be somewhat artificial, but they will still resonate with the aspirations of many South Africans.
For people outside the country, the entire spectacle will be indirect — and mediated mainly by TV coverage. About 17 000 international journalists are expected here over the period.
How they spin the story depends on whether their experience here helps them see outside the all-too-easy lenses of Afro-optimism and Afri-pessimism.
Their viewers back home will have no direct experience in terms of which they can measure the coverage. However, many will have prior assumptions about South Africa and Africa.
One such assumption was recently voiced by Fifa president Sepp Blatter. He was quoted as contrasting the continent to ‘boring, boring, boring” Zurich. ‘In Africa, you have not only rhythm, but you also have music, dance and, importantly, the ability to dream,” he said.
This stereotype competes in its crudeness with an opposite one conjured up recently where a German security expert said his country’s team should wear bullet-proof vests during their visit.
These two opposing views are based on the ‘noble savage” myth of Africa.
Blatter’s remark plays to the ‘noble” — expressing an envy for a people presumed to be uninhibited and with pre-modern, naive and child-like qualities.
The security theme underscores the ‘savage” dimension. It points to the threat of warlike people in a place that is dark, unpredictable and dangerous.
Some aspects of South African and African life do feed into these mental constructs. But many more aspects do not.
It is this much fuller complexity that needs to emerge from the Cup and its coverage. If so, then a more nuanced narrative will help shed stereotyped assumptions of what ‘Africa” is.
That in turn could also open up new thinking. It could begin to capture what the continent — with all its diversity and contradictions — could become.
Instead of the same old simplistic stories, something fresh could begin to emerge. Historical images could move on.
RSS feed for this column: http://www.mg.co.za/rss/guy-berger