Get more Mail & Guardian
Subscribe or Login

Silence is no answer to injustice

For years now, anti-rape activists have been working publicly to eliminate rape culture. They have not won the battle. The apparent mistake they continue to make is to break the silence.

For years now, LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer) activists have been speaking out about heteronormativity and violence against sexual minorities, including and especially the rape and murder of black lesbian women. The apparent mistake they continue to make is to break the silence.

People living with disability try enormously hard to get ableism taken as seriously as other forms of discrimination and bigotry. The apparent mistake they continue to make is to break the silence.

Many black people spend a lot of time drawing attention to and fighting the daily expressions of white supremacy and anti-black racism more precisely. The apparent mistake they continue to make is to break the silence.

The alleged instrumental value of silence is extolled, but the make-up of those who typically argue, angrily, that we should stop talking about discrimination is curious.

You don’t find survivors of rape flooding editors’ inboxes to call for silence. It is mostly men who are turned off by open and frank talk about rape culture.

It is mostly men who troll activists and feminists online in an attempt to silence them with harassment. When they cannot win the argument for silence, they demand silence with violence. The very objective of breaking the silence is to puncture male privilege and violent masculinity. It is little wonder that it is largely the beneficiaries of patriarchy — men — who have a problem with frank talk about rape culture.

Homophobes are no different. They cannot stand LGBTIQ people who refuse to lurk in the shadows. Many of these beneficiaries of entrenched heteronormative tropes hate sexual minorities who live openly, heaping scorn on us. Our visibility — our talking ourselves into social existence — is experienced by beneficiaries of heteronormativity as an encroachment on their imagined innate right exclusively to occupy public space.

Able-bodied people are as fond of silence as homophobes are. When we are not violently silencing people with disability, like killing patients who are mentally ill in state-sponsored institutions masquerading as health facilities, we alternatively role-model the demand that “they” be silent by ghosting them. We find ourselves asking the person pushing a wheelchair what the person sitting in the wheelchair wants to drink, as if being unable to walk also means you cannot speak for yourself. Many of us dare not even look at someone with a disability, because their bodies repulse us, just as a man once put his hand over his son’s eyes one morning at the Braamfontein market in Johannesburg when he saw my boyfriend and me holding hands.

You do not find people with disabilities requesting invisibility. We render them invisible because social reality privileges our bodies.

Racism is no different. Why is it mostly white people who think we must stop talking about race? It is obvious: mostly whites perpetrate racism and all white people benefit from the global history of white supremacy and anti-black racism. Even white allies in the fight against white supremacy benefit from anti-black racism. You cannot opt out of being a beneficiary, because it isn’t up to the ally how the racist treats them differently to how they view or treat the ally’s “black friend”.

Liberal whites caught up in virtue- signalling often struggle to see these elements of how racism functions. These liberals do not mind talk of violent racism but show their true colours when talk of privilege starts. White allies wish us to remain silent about white privilege. They only want a chat about the white men who put a black man in a coffin, or racist estate agents. They do not want frank talk about implicit bias.

It is little wonder some white people get angry when they stumble on any conversation about supremacist ideology, white privilege, colonialism, apartheid or unconscious bias.

Perpetrators of racism, and beneficiaries of racism, benefit from silence. Talk about racism threatens to result in the licence to be a racist or to be a beneficiary of racism being revoked by victims of racism one day successfully fighting back against expressions of white supremacy.

How on earth is silence an answer to injustice? Silence doesn’t eliminate structural injustices — it leaves existing structures intact.

It is not even enough to talk about injustices. You can talk for hours yet economic racism could persist. Justice, and substantive equality, demand a programme to change the material conditions of society that wrongly and arbitrarily benefit men, straight people, able-bodied people, whites and other hegemonic groups.

Silence precludes any prospects of dismantling unjust social structures. This is why we must resist the motives of those who try to silence conversations about discrimination. They are so crafty that they now even misappropriate the language of the left to prop up their hegemony.

It is astounding how many men and how many white people in South Africa talk as if they are victims. Such is the strategic posture adopted by them to retain their historic licences to benefit from oppression.

Our only choice, if we are serious about working towards a just society, is to counter the demand for silence with a very loud insistence to change the world. Changing the world starts by naming injustice. Silence isn’t a live option for any serious advocate of justice.

Subscribe for R500/year

Thanks for enjoying the Mail & Guardian, we’re proud of our 36 year history, throughout which we have delivered to readers the most important, unbiased stories in South Africa. Good journalism costs, though, and right from our very first edition we’ve relied on reader subscriptions to protect our independence.

Digital subscribers get access to all of our award-winning journalism, including premium features, as well as exclusive events, newsletters, webinars and the cryptic crossword. Click here to find out how to join them and get a 57% discount in your first year.

Eusebius McKaiser
Eusebius McKaiser
Eusebius McKaiser is a political and social analyst at the Wits Centre for Ethics. He is also a popular radio talk show host, a top international debate coach, a master of ceremonies and a public speaker of note. He loves nothing more than a good argument, having been both former National South African Debate Champion and the 2011 World Masters Debate Champion. His analytic articles and columns have been widely published in South African newspapers and the New York Times. McKaiser has studied law and philosophy. He taught philosophy in South Africa and England.

Related stories

WELCOME TO YOUR M&G

If you’re reading this, you clearly have great taste

If you haven’t already, you can subscribe to the Mail & Guardian for less than the cost of a cup of coffee a week, and get more great reads.

Already a subscriber? Sign in here

Advertising

Subscribers only

Fears of violence persist a year after the murder of...

The court battle to stop coal mining in rural KwaZulu-Natal has heightened the sense of danger among environmental activists

Data shows EFF has lower negative sentiment online among voters...

The EFF has a stronger online presence than the ANC and Democratic Alliance

More top stories

Mkhize throws the book at the Special Investigating Unit

It’s a long shot at political redemption for the former health minister and, more pressingly, a bid to avert criminal charges

Pockets of instability in Kenya are underpinned by unequal development

Stability in Kenya hinges on a just, equitable distribution of resources, and a commitment to progress human development for the marginalised

Eastern Cape premier Mabuyane lives large amid province’s poverty

Oscar Mabuyane and MEC Babalo Madikizela allegedly used a portion of state funds for struggle icon Winnie Madikizela-Mandela’s commemoration for their own benefit

Constitutional court confirms warrantless searches in cordoned off areas unconstitutional

The law was challenged in response to raids in inner Johannesburg seemingly targeting illegal immigrants and the highest court has pronounced itself 10 days before an election in which then mayor Herman Mashaba has campaigned on an anti-foreigner ticket
Advertising

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…
×