title page from the subject of evil to the evil subject ...3 from the subject of evil to the evil...
Post on 07-Mar-2021
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
TITLEPAGEFromtheSubjectofEviltotheEvilSubject:‘CulturalDifference’inPostapartheidSouthAfricanCrimeFictionLeondeKockUniversityofJohannesburgStellenboschUniversity
2
ABSTRACTThisarticletakesupthequestionof“crimewriting”andrejoinsthedebatearoundwhethersuchliteraturestandsinforthe“politicalnovel”inpostapartheidSouthAfrica.Whatsocialfunctionmightcrimewritingbeserving?Researchbypoliticaleconomistsandculturalanthropologistssuggeststhatactsofwritingin“socialdetection”mode(ratherthan“crimewriting”)serveasanallegoryforoccultedsociopoliticalconditions.Culturaldifferenceisseen,onceagain,toplayapivotalroleinthelegitimationofpower,andwritersinthedetectionmodearecorrespondinglyseentobeprobingthepossibilityofaresurgenceof“bad”difference.Thisnotion,itisargued,isakeydifferentiatorinanotherwisemurkysceneinwhichtheborderlinebetweenlicitandillicit,andrightandwrong,hasbecomeobscure.WhilemanySouthAfricanwritersarebroughtintothediscussion,includingbutnotrestrictedtocrimeauthors,akeynovelbyleadingcrimewriterDeonMeyerisreadasacasestudytoillustratethemoregeneralpointsmadeinthearticle.KEYWORDS:SouthAfricanliterature;postapartheidwriting;transitionalliterature;post‐transitionalliterature;crimewriting;thrillers;postcolonial;culturaldifference;postcolony.
3
FromtheSubjectofEviltotheEvilSubject:‘CulturalDifference’inPostapartheidSouthAfricanCrimeFiction
Introduction
OneofthemoreenergeticdebatesaboutpostapartheidSouthAfricanliterature
revolvesaroundthequestionwhy“genrefiction,”andmoreparticularlycrime
fiction,soheavilydominatesthebookmarket.Thisdebatehasmostlybeen
conductedanecdotallyorsuperficially,inreviewsandcommentsonliterary
websites,despitescatteredarticlesandoneortwospecialissuesonthetopic.1
Particularlycontestedhasbeenmyownsuggestionthatcrimethrillersmayhave
cometostandinforwhatusedtoseenas“political”orengagedfiction,inresponse
towhichsomeacademicshavearguedthatthegenericorformulaicnatureof
detectivenovelspreventsthemfromsecuringsubstantialpurchaseonsociopolitical
issues.2Acommonstrandhasbeenthecontentionthatitisfar‐fetchedtothink
genrefictioncanbeseentoengageinpoliticalthemeswithasmuchimportas
1Forspecial‐issuetreatment,seeCurrentWriting25(2)2013,whichisdevotedtocrimefictioninSouthAfrica,witharticlesbySamNaidu;ElizabethleRoux;AnnekeRautenbach;PriscillaBoshoff;SabineBinder;ClaudiaDrawe;ElizabethFletcher;JessicaMurray;andMargieOrford.AnotherSouthAfricanjournal,scrutiny2,publishedaspecialissueonthesametopicin2014,withpiecesbyColetteGuldimann;SamNaidu;CaitlinMartinandSally‐AnnMurray;ElizabethleRouxandSamanthaBuitendach;AntoinettePretorius;andJonathanAmidandLeondeKock.OtherarticlesincludeTitlestadandPolatinsky,“TurningtoCrirme”;Anderson,“WatchingtheDetectives”;andWarnes,“WritingCrime.”Forabook‐lengthstudyonthelargerSouthernAfricanzone,seePrimorac,WhodunnitinSouthernAfrica.Foranideaofthekindofcontentonwebsitedebates,seehttp://slipnet.co.za/view/reviews/crime‐fiction‐the‐%E2%80%98new‐political‐novel%E2%80%99/2See,forexample,theSLiPnetcitationinFootnote1,directlyabove,inwhicharangeofacademicsweighinonthematterinthecommentssectionfollowingmyreviewessayofRogerSmith’scrimethrillerDustDevils.Ifirstraisedtheissueofcrimenovelsandsociopoliticalcontentin2010intheSouthAfricanSundayIndependentnewspaperinareviewofMikeNicol’snovel,KillerCountry(“HitsKeepComing,”http://www.leondekock.co.za/wp‐content/uploads/mike_nicol.pdf),followeditupin2011intheJohannesburg‐basedMail&GuardianweeklyinareviewofNicol’sBlackHeart(“HighNoonintheBadlands,”http://mg.co.za/article/2011‐05‐06‐high‐noon‐in‐the‐badlands/),andagainin2013intheCapeTimes,inareviewofNicol’sOfCopsandRobbers,intheCapeTimes(“HardboiledNoir,”http://www.leondekock.co.za/wp‐content/uploads/Cape‐Times‐Books‐page2‐30‐August‐20131‐copy.pdf).TheSundayIndependentusedmycommentsoncrimefictionaspossiblythe“newpoliticalnovel”asthebasisforaseriesofopinionsby,amongothers,ImraanCoovadia,MbongeniButhelezi,andKelwynSole(http://sundayindybooks.blogspot.com/search?q=novel+debate).
4
Gordimer,Serote,Langa,Mdaandothershavedoneinthepast.Themajorityofsuch
commentary,assuggestedabove,hastakenontheformofcontrastingstabsof
opinioninthecommentboxesofdigitalliterarymedia,andassuchdoesnot
penetratemuchbeyondprovisionalposition‐taking.
AnexceptiontothistrendisMichaelTitlestadandAshleePolatinsky’sessay,
“‘TurningtoCrime’:MikeNicol’sTheIbisTapestryandPayback,”inwhichthe
authorsarguethatNicol’sownturnfromseriousfiction(asexemplifiedbyhis1998
novelTheIbisTapestry)tothepopularformofcrimefiction(asinhis2008novel
Payback),representsanunfortunatewithdrawalfrommoreseriousliterarywriting
inwhichmattersarefittinglyinastateofunresolvedtension.Insteadofkeeping
faithwiththeopen‐formnovel,Nicolgiveswaytothetemptationofneatbut
ultimatelysuperficialgesturesofclosure.AlthoughTitlestadandPolatinskydonot
saysoexplicitly,thereisapalpablesenseintheirargumentofdisappointmentthat
anoutstandingSouthAfricanauthor,intheolder,moreseriousveinofSouthAfrican
writing,shouldsellouttotheenticementsofapopularmarketoffictioninwhich
relativelycheap“answers”areneatlylaidoutviagenericform.Thepre‐2000
literature’sintensegrapplingwiththechallengesofculturaldifferenceappearsto
havegivenwayto“thriller”computationsofthesocialtotalityinwhichdifference,
nowgleefullycoloredintothesupposedlyblankspacesofthepostapartheid
dispensation,addsuptoprematureclosure,asifthenewdemocracyislittlemore
thanamotleyganglandversionofthe“rainbownation.”ReadingTitlestadand
Polatinsky,onefindsitdifficultnottoagreethat,ifitisindeedtruethatcrimefiction
doeslittlemorethandishoutover‐eagervisionsofclosure,suchtotalisationwould
bepremature,tosaytheleast.Thesenseofdisinvestmentthatisimpliedin
TitlestadandPolatinsky’sargument,adivestitureofmultilayeredtextureand
imponderablecomplexityinfictionforthesakeofflimsysurfaceresolutionandeasy
entertainment,ishelpedalongbysomeofNicol’sownstatements.Theseutterances
(inmyopinion,asdisingenuousasAtholFugard’sprotestationsthathiswritingis
“notpolitical”)makethecasethathehasabandonedseriousfictiontowritewhathe
calls“commercial[genre]fiction”becausehesupposedlyenjoysitmore,anditsells
5
better.3So,inasense,TitlestadandPolatinsky’sarticlereads,totakemy
extrapolationfurther,asaparableforaliteraturethathaslosttheplot,and
consequentlyitssenseofdirection.This,indeed,isacommonthemeindiscussions
ofpostapartheidwriting(cf.MacKenzieandFrenkel).4Beingsolost,onemight
argue,thenewerliteraturenowgrabsontotheeasysolutionofgenrefiction,witha
merepatinaofpoliticalcontentinitspreoccupationwithsocialviolence,or“crime.”
InthesubtextofTitlestadandPolatinsky’sargument,proper,oneisinvitedtoread
thestoryofaonce‐greatliterature,withredoubtablenameslikeGordimer,Leroux,
Mphahlele,Brink,Matshoba,Coetzee,Hope,Ndebele,Vladisavic,Mda,Serote,
Breytenbach,Langa,VanNiekerk,VanHeerden,etal,nowdumbingdownquite
alarmingly.Thepost‐transitionalwritersareseenascoppingoutoftherealdeal,
whichiscomplexityandopenness,forthesakeofquick‐sell,flimflamentertainment.
Thesesupposedlycheaptricks,inaddition,feedoffastill‐volatilesocietyina
mannerthatsomemayregardasbeingonthebrinkofunethical.
TitlestadandPolatinsky’sargumentissound,andwellexecuted,although
possiblyfallibletothecritiqueexecutedbyCambridge‐basedSouthAfricanist
scholarChrisWarnes,5whodetectsa“popular”and“highbrow”binaryintheir
reasoning.Withoutgoingintothemeritsofanargumentthatcompelsonetochoose
between“high”and“low”forms,Iwouldliketosuggestthattheremaybeadifferent
wayoflookingatNicol’swork,andthatofothercrimewriters.Thisarticle,then,
asksadifferentquestionofcrimefiction,onewhichmightbeintroducedasfollows:
Whatifoneweretoreadthelarge(althoughbynomeansuniversal)shiftfrom,let’s
say,social‐realist“complexity”tocrime‐detective“genre,”assomethingelse
entirely?Thiswouldinvolvereadingsuchwritingasindicativeofabigger
movement,aseismicshiftinthesocialbodyitself.WhatiftheefflorescenceinSouth
African“crimewriting,”inallitsforms,6ratherthanmufflingvariegationorselling
3SeeSLiPnetreviewcitedaboveonNicol’sreportedstatementsabouthisowncrimewriting.4Mackenzie,Craig,andRonitFrenkel,“ConceptualizingPost‐TransitionalLiterature”.5Warnes,Chris,“WritingCrime,”983.6Forexample,policeprocedural,noir,fallibledetective,nonfiction“inside‐stories”abouttheresurgentsocialmonstercalled“crime,”socialbiographiesofknownpublicthugs,andstillmore.
6
outonintricate“entanglement,”7isinfactprizingopensomemuchlargergoingson
inamanifestlytransformedsocialcondition?Thisisacondition,moreover,thatis
nolongerjustnational,just“SouthAfrican,”buttransnationalinitsdimensions,and
globalinitsderivations.
Thereformulatedquestion,then,mightbeputasfollows:Whythis
obsession,inthenewmillennium,withlawand(dis)order,andmoreparticularly
withthespectacleof“crime,”aspresentedinmediatedformssuchasfictionand
nonfictionwriting?Articulatedinthisway,thequestionleadsusawayfromthe
ultimatelyfutilewarofopinionaboutwhetherornotcrimefictionissufficiently
“literary,”oradequatelycomplexasanobjectofformalliteraryarchitecture.
Instead,itconcentratesourattentiononthequestionwhatisthisfictionabout,and
whatisitdoingoutthere,regardlessofthefinerpointsofliterarymerit.This,
indeed,istheissuetowhichWarnesalsodirectsscholarsofSouthAfricanwriting,
suggestingthatwriterssuchasMeyerandOrford“keepfaithwithsomeofthecore
featuresof‘serious’SouthAfricanliterature:itscapacitytodocumentsocialreality,
toexposeinjustice,andtoconscientisereadersintodifferentmodesofthoughtand
action.”8TothisIwouldaddthatthe“core”questionforascholarofliteratureis
alsothefollowing:Whytherelativelysudden,andmajor,shiftincirculationand
receptionfromliberal‐humanistandlate‐modernformsoffictiontogenre‐based
novels?Towhatlargercomplexofsocio‐historicalconditionalitymightthisbe
attributableasamoregeneralsyndrome?Thisisbynomeansanuninteresting
question,andonethatWarnesperhapsdoesnotprobeextensivelyenough,resting
hiscaseontheargumentthat“thepostapartheidcrimethrillershouldbereadas
negotiating–intheambivalentsenseoftheword–thethreatanduncertaintythat
manyfeeltobepartofSouthAfricanlife,creatingfantasiesofcontrol,restoration
andmaintenance,andreflectingonthecircumstancesthatgaverisetothisunease.”9
Agreed,butwhatgreatercomplexofcircumstance,bothculturalandhistorical,
7SeeNuttall,Entanglement.8Warnes,“WritingCrime,”983.9Warnes,“WritingCrime,”991.
7
long‐andshort‐term,underliethe“threatanduncertainty”thatWarnesidentifies?
CulturalDifferenceinaPostapartheidFrame
Theargument,Ibelieve,needstocommencewithaviewofthechangingroleof
culturaldifferencebeforeandafterthepoliticaltransitionofthe1990s.Forseveral
decadesnowpostcolonialtheoryinitsvariousformshasencouragedanemphasis
onculturaldifferenceasamodifierofpoliticalsubjectivityandidentitarianposition‐
taking.Moregeneralstudiesofculturaldifferenceinitsmanydimensions,suchas
thosebyRobertYoung,EdwardSaid,GayatriSpivak,andHomiBhabha,10toname
onlythemostobvious,inadditiontoSouthAfrican‐specificexamples(Comaroff,
Attwell,Brown,Wylie,Hofmeyr,DeKock,amongothers),11havetendedtoplacethe
spotlightonthemanywaysinwhichculturaldifferencehasbeenmisrecognized,in
thecoloniesandtheOrient,withinreductiveepistemicframesofreference.The
centuries‐longdiscoursearoundthe“wildman,”12primitivism,exoticismandother
categoricalimpositions,includingthefixationsofsocial‐Darwinistthoughtand
biologicalracism,13foundatrenchantrebuttalinpostcolonialtheoryandrevisionist
culturalhistory,mostemphaticallyperhapsinOrientalism,andstretchingbeyond
literaryandculturalcriticismtoempirically‐foundedhistoricalworksofepistemic
redresssuchasDipeshChakrabarty’sProvincializingEurope.Justabouteveryoneof
J.M.Coetzee’sSouthAfricannovelsimplicitlydealswiththepoliticsofcultural
differenceinonewayoranother.DittoNadineGordimerandthelegionsoflower‐
rankedSouthAfricannovelistsworkinginthepre‐2000period.Ithinkitisfairto
saythatacommonstraininsuchworkhasbeenthesensethatculturaldifference
hasbeenmismanagedinbothcolonialandneocolonialcontexts,nottomention
10Young,ColonialDesire;WhiteMytholgies;Said,Orientalism;Spivak,InOtherWorlds;andBhabha,TheLocationofCulture.11Comaroff,JeanandJohn.OfRevelationandRevolution;Attwell,RewritingModernity;Brown,VoicingtheText;Wylie,SavageDelight,Hofmeyr,“WeSpendOurYears”;DeKock,CivilisingBarbarians.12SeeDietrich,OfSalvationandCivilisation.13Dubow,ScientificRacism.
8
neoliberalconditions,andthatvigilanceaboutmoreequitablerecognitionofall
formsofdifference–insexuality,race,ethnicity,language,cultureandtheepisteme
–remainsanimportantethicaltask.ItisalsofairtosuggestthatSouthAfrica’s
“negotiatedrevolution,”culminatinginatransitiontomajorityruleandbroad‐
baseddemocracyin1994,setinplace(atleastintheformalsuperstructureofthe
lawandtheConstitution)aremediationoftheevilsofearliernegationsof
difference.By1994,racialdiscriminationandthemismanagementofdifference(a
kindofdistortedor“bad”difference,suchasapartheid’s“separatebutequal”alibi
forwhiterule)cametobeseenbyallexceptthelunatic‐fringefarrightasa
universalevil,astheverysubjectofevil.Bythistime,apartheid,solidlybasedonthe
segregationistfoundationlaidbymorethanthreecenturiesofcolonialism,hadbeen
declaredacrimeagainsthumanity;now,aftertheadventoffulldemocracy,eventhe
insidersofapartheid,themollycoddledwhites,werepersuadedtoacceptthat
“rainbowism”–asymbolicfigurationof“good”orequitableculturaldifference
peculiartoSouthAfrica’slaterevolution–wasavirtuouspoliticalandsocialstateof
being.ForashortwhileduringPresidentNelsonMandela’sfiveyearsofhoneymoon
rule,“rainbowism”wasenthusiasticallyembraced,notleastbyArchbishop
DesmondTutuandMandelahimself,whowillberemembered,amongotherthings,
forhavingtea,inthewhite“homeland”ofOrania,withBetsyVerwoerd,widowof
apartheid’sarchitect,DrHendrikFrenschVerwoerd.
Thecultural‐differencerainbow,initshoneymoonphase,wasnottolast,as
everyonenowknows.Anynumberofaccounts,bothscholarlyandimaginative,will
showthat,startingaroundtheANC’ssecondtermofgovernmentin1999andthe
ascensiontothepresidencyofthedistant,lessconciliatoryThaboMbeki,a
pervasivecurrentofdisillusionmentsetin.Thisoccurredamidwidespread
perceptionsof1)theconsolidationofaneoliberalformof“classapartheid”inwhat
politicaleconomistPatrickBondcallsa“choicelessdemocracy”14and2)an
emergingpoliticaldiscoursewhichwasnewlyrace‐accentuatedtoadegreethat
dedicatednon‐racialistsbothinsideandoutsidetheANCfounduncomfortable.One
14Bond,Patrick,“MandelaYears.”
9
exampleofthenewfocusonrace–particularlythevalorizationof“pure”blackness
aboveotherethniccolorations–wasthecontroversyovertheMbeki‐supported
“NativeClub,”15whichwaspartofabiggerpatternthatFinlaydescribesastypifying
theMbekipresidencyof1999‐2008:“[A]polarityinpublicexchangesdealingwith
racethat,formany,feltquitedifferentfromthespiritoftheprecedingperiod,where
notionsofnon‐racialismandinclusivityweretheguidingideologyofstatedecision
andthezeitgeistofpublicdiscussion.”16Totheireofmanylongstandingnon‐
racialists,theominouslynamedNativeClub,closelyaffiliatedwithPresident
Mbeki’soffice,wasopentoblackintellectualsonly.Suchexclusionarydiscourseand
practicewaswidelyperceivedduringMbeki’sreigntosignaltheemergenceofan
unwelcome,uglyracialessentialism,re‐enshrinedfromaboveintheSouthAfrican
bodypublic.Thiswasseenasabrogatingthetraditionsofnon‐racialismforwhich
theANCfought,themselvesregardedasimmemorialvalues(non‐racialismwas
enshrinedasakeyprincipleintheANC’s1955FreedomCharter).Itwasfeltthat
here,onceagain,asingleraceamongmanywasbeingvalorizedasprimary,asa
moreprivilegedcategory;culturaldifferencewasyetagainindangerofbeing
mismanagedtothebenefitofonestrainoraccentaboveothers.Thespecterofa
resuscitatedvariantof“baddifference,”anexclusionarydelineationofpreferment,
andthehardeningofsuchanuglyscabonthebodyofthe“new”SouthAfrica,galled
manySouthAfricanlibertarians.Notleastamongsuchperceiveddefacementsofthe
rainbowidealoffreedomandequalityamiddiversityweretheneoliberaleconomic
policieswhich,combinedwithpubliclyprovedstatecorruption,werecreating
receptiveconditionsforwhatBondhasmorerecentlyhascalledthe“crony‐
capitalist,corruption‐riddled,brutally‐securitised,eco‐destructiveandanti‐
egalitarianregime[SouthAfrica]suffer[s]now.”17
Bond’sfar‐leftversionofeventsis,ofcourse,isonestrandinawidelytold
storyaboutwhatwent“wrong”inSouthAfrica’stransitiontodemocracy.However,
thefactthatpublicdiscoursefoundstrongtractioninthe2000sonthebasisofa
15SeeNdlovu‐Gatsheni,TrackingtheHistoricalRoots;Finlay,“StagingPerformance.”16Finlay,“StagingPerformance,”36.17Bond,“MandelaYears.”
10
widelyheldfeelingthatdemocracywas“failing,”andthatitwasonthebrink(see,
forexample,XolelaMangcu’sTotheBrink),canbeillustratedbyamajorUniversity
oftheWitwatersrandconferenceinJanuary2008called“Paradoxesofthe
PostcolonialPublicSphere:DemocracyattheCrossroads.”Atthisgathering,
politicalanalystsIvorChipkinandMangcu,amongothers,soundedwarningsabout
adisturbinglyrace‐inflectednarrativeof“nationalidentity”thatseemedtobe
increasinglynormative,andexclusionaryonaracialbasis,intheranksofthe
governingparty.Inhisbook,Mangcucritiqueswhathedescribesasthe“racial
nationalism”oftheMbekigovernment,callingforarenewedacceptanceof
“irreducibleplurality”andareturntothetraditionsofnon‐racialism.18More
broadlyspeaking,suchMbeki‐era“racialnativism”19hithomewithanespecially
sickthudforSouthAfricanculturalandpoliticalanalysts.LikeHomiBhabhaandhis
fellowpostcolonialthinkersinthevolumeNationandNarration,manyobservers
hadcometoregardrestrictiveidentikitsforessentializedversionsof“national
identity”ascountertoprogressmadeincriticaltheorysincethe1968revolution.
Theassumptioncouldnownolongerbeheldthatthe“new”SouthAfricawason
boardinthelarger,progressiveprojectofdeterritorializinghegemonicand/or
foundationalfixationsofsubjectivityandidentity,aglobalhobgoblin.Thisisnotto
mentionthebadtastesuchareturntoethnicfixationsleftinthemouthofthose
whohadreadFanonandsawintheuglyre‐birthofracialcontractionsofpowerand
privilegethespecterofcorruptrulingeliteswhowerewonttolosetheplotoftheir
ownrevolution.
Itisnotmypurposeheretotestandprobesuchpositionsortheirantecedent
historicalconditionsperse,buttonotetheresurgenceofpublic‐spherealarmabout
neworthodoxiesofnationalidentity,andnewformsof“bad”difference.Such
excrescenceswereperceivedtobeinstarkcontradictiontothepromiseofthe
negotiatedSouthAfricanrevolution,withitspopularlycelebrated“rainbowism,”
regardlessoffrequentmockeryamongtheintelligentsiaof“rainbow”delusions.At
18Mangcu,TotheBrink,119.19Mangcu,TotheBrink,37.
11
thetimeofwriting,anotherfiveyearsafterthedemiseofMbeki,intheeraofZuma
and“Nkandlagate,”20itiscommoncauseamongintellectuals,journalistsand
analystsofalmosteverypersuasioninSouthAfrica(apartfromgovernment
spokespeople)thatthedemocraticidealinSouthAfricahasbeencompromisedby
agentsofself‐enrichmentandpublic‐spherecorruption.Thisconditionhas
culminatedinwhatisperceivedasasystemofpatrimonialismwithJacobZumaat
itsnarrowapex.“Bad”differencewouldappearonceagaintoberulingtheroost,at
leasttosomeextent.
Toillustratethepoint,considerthewordsofrenownedscholarandnoted
JohannesburgresidentAchilleMbembeina2013commentaryintheSouthAfrican
Mail&Guardian,whichincludesthefollowingominousdescriptionofthestateof
thecountry:
SouthAfricahasenteredanewperiodofitshistory:apost‐Machiavellianmomentwhenprivateaccumulationnolongerhappensthroughoutrightdispossessionbutthroughthecaptureandappropriationofpublicresources,themodulationofbrutalityandtheinstrumentalisationofdisorder.21
ForMbembe,SouthAfricain2013isnotimmunefromwhathecallsa“mixtureof
clientelism,nepotismandprebendalism”commoninAfricanpostcolonies,andhe
warnsthatan“armedsociety”suchasSouthAfricais“hardlyademocracy;”itis,he
writes,“mostlyanassemblageofatomisedindividualsisolatedbeforepower,
separatedfromeachotherbyfear,prejudice,mistrustandsuspicion,andproneto
mobiliseunderthebannerofeitheramob,acliqueoramilitiaratherthananidea
and,evenlessso,adisciplinedorganization.”22
‘Bad’Difference–aNew‘AxisofEvil’?
Again,mypurposehereisnottodevelop,contradictorvalidateargumentsforand
20OnNkandlagate,seeforexampleDavidSmith,“JacobZumaAccusedofCorruption,”TheGuardian,http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/jacob‐zuma‐accused‐corruption‐south‐africa.21Mbembe,“OurLustforLostSegregation.”22Ibid.
12
againstsuchreadingsofthecountry’spoliticalmanagement,suggestiveastheyare
ofarevolutionthathaslostitsmoorings.Itis,rather,toaskaquestionthatfollows
fromsuchperceptionsandreadings.Thequestionrelatestothewritingofthe
transitionperiodandbeyond,inwhich,asIhavealreadynoted,theturntowards
“crime”storiesisaccompaniedbyanacceleratedsenseofalarmabout“crime”and
disorderinthepublicbodyitself.Thenewwaveoffiction,Iargueinthisarticle,
worksonthehunchthatafreshlyperverseformofofficiallylegitimated“bad”
culturaldifferencehasbecomeanalibiforcivilmismanagement,perhapsevenfor
whatMbembe,above,callsthe“instrumentalisationofdisorder”.“Bad”differenceis
comingtobeperceivedasanew“axisofevil”aroundwhichsocialdetection
persistentlyfindsitselforbiting.Iproposethattheworkofsocialdetection,as
genericallyspunintodetectivestoriesbyanewgenerationofwriters,hasbecomea
matterofexposingsuch“bad”differenceanditslegitimatingrationalizations,its
posturesandalibis,markingitoutas“off”(asin“good”meatthathas“goneoff”),
andidentifyingitastheshadow‐sideofvirtuousoracceptableversionsoflegitimate
culturaldifference.Suchsocially“conscientising”writing,inWarnes’swords,23
seekstoshowmorepreciselyhow“bad”differencegoesaboutitsdisingenuous
work.Ifthe“transition”itselfisdifficultto“see,”andhardtobelieve,sincesolittle
appearstohavechangedontheground,inhardeconomicterms,especiallyforthe
poor,24thensuchdetectionandexposureis–almostnaturally–theworkofthe
writer.Insuchanunderstandingofthewriter’srole,s/heseekstoshowwhat’s
actuallygoingon,oratleasttosuggestatheory,arevisedversionofthelostsocial
plot,inwhichacalculatedguessismade.Thetaskforthewriter(andthecritic),
then,istomakethetransition–orthefictionofthetransition–visibleandtractable
byplottingitscharacters,theirsphereofoperation,theirmotivesandmodus
operandi,andultimately,theirdeedsandthesocialmeaningthereof.Political
operativeswhowere“good”inthepast,underconditionsofdisenfranchisement,
nowoftenbecome“bad”bearersofpower.Atleast,thiswouldoftenappeartobe
23Warnes,“WritingCrime,”983.24SeeBond,EliteTransition;Allen,TransformationinSouthAfrica.
13
thereal,hiddenmeaningofthetransitionasconstruedbycrimewriters.25Poweris
seenasanineluctablyamotorofcorruption,andultimatelytheturningpointinany
scenarioof“good”and“bad”difference.Theimplicitquestionis:Doesthecountry,
inexplicablybesetwithrenewedviolenceandperversesocialmanifestationsof
disorder,stillknowitself–thatis,ifiteverdid?Theanswer,itseems,isdubious,to
saytheleast.26
Thedistinctionbetweenfaux‐differenceandtherealdealmightbeseenin
thefollowingterms:politicalandculturaldifferenceasvalidatedbytheConstitution
suggestsarelationofsymmetryinwhichthepartsarerelativelyequalwithinthe
whole,oratleastequalinrelationtothediktatoftheConstitution.“Bad”orcorrupt
difference,ontheotherhand,usesthelegitimizingpoliticsofculturaldifferenceas
analibiforasymmetricalgain,orgainattheexpenseofothersinthevaunted
constitutionaldemocracy.Thisisperceivedasunderminingtherelationofrelative
equalitythatvalidatesdifferenceintheidealized,constitutionalsenseinthefirst
place.“Bad”differenceinthissenseisaformofenunciatoryandmaterialhypocrisy,
theuseofthepoweraffordedbyconstitutionalequalitytoleverageunequal
prefermentwhilespeakingthehallowedethosofegalitarianism.Performativeor
enunciatoryratherthanintegralorconscientiousculturaldifferencebecomesa
meansofsociallegitimation,underwhoseimplicitbannertheperceivedshuffling
andsnufflingatthetroughisseentooccur.Materialistcriticswouldseethisasa
formofclassbetrayal,asBonddoesinhisdescriptionofthepostapartheidorderas
“classapartheid,”27asysteminwhichthosespeakingforthepoorcontinuetodoso
whilegainingassymetricalcapitalleveragebasedonan“empowerment‐for‐all”
ticket.ThisispreciselywhatthenewgenerationofBlackConsciousnessproponents
suchasAndileMngxitsisanadoinfactsay(atthetimeofwriting,Mngxitsisanahad
25See,forexample,Nicol’s“RevengeTrilogy”–Payback(2008),KillerCountry(2010),andBlackHeart(2011)–inwhichthistrendisparticularlymarked,alongwithRogerSmith’sMixedBlood(2009)andWakeupDead(2010).26CelebratedSouthAfricannonfictionauthorJonnySteinbergin2013commentedataseminarfollowinghisawardofaWindhamCampbellPrizeatYaleUniversitythatSouthAfricaisacountrywhere“writingisaquestionofcoordinationbetweendeafpeople”(personalseminarnotes).27Bond,“MandelaYears.”
14
joinedhisleaderJuliusMalemainParliamentonbehalfoftheEconomicFreedom
Fighters(EFF)politicalparty).Forthecrimewriters,theexistenceofcorruptedor
“bad”differenceisdetectedinarangeofpublicandprivatespaces,fromthe
governmentitself(morespecifically,itscorruptandhungryofficialsandtheir
cronies,asinNicol’sworks),amongthecriminals,whichoftenincludesthe
(degenerate,sold‐out)membersoftheSouthAfricanPoliceServices(asinSmith’s
MixedBlood);orincivilsocietyitself,inwhich“bad”alliancesbetweendistinct
subsetsoftheheterodoxcivilcosmopolisincahootswithstatefunctionariescreate
diseaseddistortionsof“civil”practice(asinMargieOrford’sGallowsHilland
AndrewBrown’sRefuge).Forwritersinthepostapartheidperiod,theolderand
perhapseasier‐to‐definemoraleconomyofanti‐apartheidorstruggleliteraturehas
disappearedforgood.Now,theyfeelcompelledtoworkoutanewwayofseeing
things.Inthisnewersocialandmoraleconomy,theboundariesofrightandwrong,
ofgoodandbad,haveshifteddecisively,andneedtobepinpointedafresh.Disorder
andcriminalviolencehavebecomeepidemicandmustbeaddressed.Ofcourse,this
isnevergoingbeaneasytask.Thepostapartheidfictionalterrain,Iwillargue,
dramatizesareconfiguredcontestoverlawandorderinwhichtheborderlinesof
legitimateandillegitimate,nowfarlessclearoridentifiable,areundererasure.
“Crime”issorifethatneitherthestatenoranyparticularcivilgrouping,itwould
appear,hasamonopolyovereitherviolenceorlegitimacy.Moralambiguity–the
lossofstablepoliticalandethicalcompasspoints–provestobeaubiquitousnew
terraininwhich“difference”playsoutinthesefictions,oftenrevealing,inaddition
tomisgovernmentandcriminalcitizenship,agoryinversionoftheruleoflaw.
PostcolonialLawand(Dis)order
Harvard‐basedSouthAfricanculturalanthropologistsJeanandJohnComaroffhome
inonpreciselysuchethicalmuddiness,suchprofoundmoralambiguityandseeming
lawlessness,withincontextsofvalidatedpoliticaldifference,intwoseparateessays
intheireditedvolume,LawandDisorderinthePostcolony(2006).RitaBarnard,too,
inheressay“Tsotsis:OnLaw,theOutlaw,andthePostcolonialState”(2008),in
15
whichshediscussestheComaroffsworkinthisregard,drawsattentiontothe
mannerinwhichthepostapartheidstatehasbroughtwithit“newpatternsof
inclusionandexclusion,newmeaningsofcitizenship,andnewdimensionsof
sovereigntyandpower.”28Oneaspectofthisnewerset‐up,accordingtoBarnard,is
that“minimalgovernment,underpressurefromafrightenedcitizenry(redefinedas
consumersandvictims),canreadilyturnintoitsauthoritarianopposite.”29Forthe
Comaroffs,theformercolonialstateevincesaparticularpreoccupationwiththelaw,
amountingattimestoafetishizationoflegality.Thepreoccupationwithlawand
legality,writetheComaroffs,runsdeeperthan“purelyaconcernwithcrime.”30This
isanimportantpointtomake,since“crime”inSouthAfricandiscourseisa
problematicsignifier,capturingveryincompletelythemoregeneralizedsceneof
socialinstability.Ithastodo,theComaroffsargue,“withtheveryconstitutionofthe
postcolonialpolity,”sincethe“modernistnation‐stateappearstobeundergoingan
epochalmoveawayfromtheidealofanimaginedcommunityfoundedonthefiction,
oftenviolentlysustained,ofculturalhomogeneity,towardanervous,xenophobically
taintedsenseofheterogeneityandheterodoxy.”31Theriseofneoliberalism,the
authorscontinue,“hasheightenedallthis,withitsimpactonpopulation
movements,onthemigrationofworkandworkers,onthedispersionofcultural
practices,onthereturnofthecolonialoppressedtohauntthecosmopolesthatonce
ruledthemandwrotetheirhistories.”Sucheffects“arefeltespeciallyinformer
colonies,whichwereerectedfromthefirstondifference.”32
Now,differencecomesbacktohaunttheformercolonies:“[P]ostcolonials
arecitizensforwhompolymorphous,labileidentitiescoexistinuneasyensembles
ofpoliticalsubjectivity;”suchcitizenstendnottoattachtheirsenseofdestinytothe
nation,butratherto“anethnic,cultural,language,religious,orsomeothergroup,”
despitethefactthatsubjectssuchasthesedonotnecessarilyrejecttheirnational
28Barnard,“Tsotsis,”561‐562.SeealsoJohnnySteinberg,“Crime”.29Ibid.,565.30Comaroff,LawandDisorder,32.31Ibid.,32.32Ibid.,33
16
identity.33Whatareoftenlabeledascommunalloyalties(videPagadintheWestern
Cape,forexample,ormigrantsfromotherpartsofAfricawhohavebeenthesubject
ofxenophobicattacksinJohannesburgandelsewhere),“arefrequentlyblamedfor
thekindsofviolence,nepotism,andcorruptionsaidtosaturatethesesocieties,asif
culturesofheterodoxybearwithinthemtheseedsofcriminality,difference,
disorder.”34
Itisworthcyclingbackalittletogiveamorecompleteaccountofhowthe
Comaroffsgettotheratherstartlingpointthatitiswithinculturesofheterodoxy
thatcriminalityanddisorderareseenascorrelatesofdifference.Howhasitcome
aboutthattheroleofculturaldifference,suchacriticalfactorinthehistoryofmany
postcolonies,couldhaveshiftedsodrastically,andsoalarmingly,fromavirtueto
somethingresemblingamatrixforcriminality?
Thefirststepistosketchthecontextinwhichsuchakeenpreoccupation
withthelaw,legalityanditsabrogationinthepostcolonymightbefound,sinceone
ofitsmostrecentexamplesissurelypostapartheidSouthAfrica.Drawingonawide
rangeofcasestudiesandethnographicscholarship,theComaroffsfindthat“lawand
disorder”areconstitutiveofasocialbaseinwhichlegalityandcriminalitydepend
onandfeedoffeachotherinanenhanced,oraccentuated,manner.TheComaroffs
notethat“vastlylucrativereturns…inhereinactivelysustainingzonesofambiguity
betweenthepresenceandabsenceofthelaw;”inthisway,valueisamassed“by
exploitingthenewaporiasofjurisdictionopenedupbyneoliberalconditions.”35
CentraltotheComaroffs’discussionabouttheconsequencesofneoliberal
politicalrationalityinthepostcolonyisnotonlywhatonemightcallon‐the‐ground
conditionsof“lawlessness”behindvalue‐amassinggrabs,butalsothewidespread
mediarepresentationofsuchconditionsas“bad.”Thesemediaversionsofwhat
mightbestyledasakindofgrab‐what‐you‐can‐while‐you‐canapproachtothe“free
33Ibid.34Ibid.35Comaroff,LawandDisorder,5.
17
market”taketheirleadfromanolder,moreequitableliberalrationality.Egalitarian
politicaltheoryinSouthAfrica,Iwouldadd,embeddedinanidealistic(andclassic
liberal‐democratic)Constitution,existsinastateoffundamentaldisjuncturewith
socioeconomicpractice,asobservedandreporteduponfreneticallyinthereal
worldofeverydaymedia.Theconjunctionof“neo”and“liberal”createsa
paradoxicalnexusinwhichitispossiblebothtobewilly‐nillypartofsuchanorder
andtoworkagainstitsgrain,whethercorruptly(asinpolicecommissionerswho
takebribesbutprofesstoupholdthelaw)orfromapositionofgenuineentrapment
asasubjectinsuchanorderofthings.Thecrimewriteroftentakesuptheposition,
onbehalfofanentrappedcitizenry,ofthegalledcivilsubjectobservingdirtydoings
inanewlycreated“democratic”orderthatseemstobelieinits(reported)behavior
everytenetofitsunderlying(liberal‐democratic)ethos.Further,inthemore
reflexivewriters’work,thereisanawarenessthatthecitizensoentrappedin
observingwidespreadneoliberalquashingofclassicliberalismisalsowilly‐nilly
partofthesamesystem.Thiskindoftensionbetweenanidealizednotionof(fair)
legalitythatisconsistentlyinvokedasaleitmotif,anditspersistentcancellingby
(unfair)practiceparadingasdifferentialempowerment,istypicalofthe
postcoloniallaw/disorderconditiondescribedbytheComaroffs.
Ironically,insuchconditionslawisfetishized,“evenas,inmostpostcolonies,
higherandhigherwallsarebuilttoprotectthepropertiedfromlawlessness,evenas
thelanguageoflegalityinsinuatesitselfdeeperanddeeperintotherealmofthe
illicit.”36Lawandlawlessness,asserttheComaroffs,“areconditionsofeachother’s
possibility.”37Andso,too,arethesetwoleitmotifsofthepostcolonyinextricably
boundinfictiveimaginaries:“Massmediation,”writetheComaroffs,quoting
RosalindMorris,“giveslawanddisordera‘communicativeforce’thatpermitsitto
‘traversethesocialfield’.”38TheseargumentsappeartosupportMargieOrford’s
36Ibid.,22.37Ibid.,21.38Ibid.
18
publicviews39thatcrimefictionallowsordinarycitizensimaginativelytotraverse
zonesoflawanditsscrubbingoutwhicharenotgenerallyseenexceptbypolicemen
andjournalists;the“crime”storyisthusa“communicativeforce”inwhichbolted‐in,
apprehensivecitizensoftheneoliberalpostcolonycan“getout”and“see”what
mightactuallybegoingoninthedarkofnight,andintheclearlightofday,too,in
thefrequentlybewildering,unreadablepostapartheidtopography.
Morriscommentsonthepervasivephenomenonofmediated“crime”in
SouthAfrica:“Transmittedalongamyriadvectors,intelevisualserials,newspaper
columns,radiobroadcasts,andmusiclyrics,crimeisthephantomthathauntsthe
newnation’simaginary.”40Crimeisbothaneventintherealworldandamediated
conditionfeedingotherfearsandinsecurities:“Macabretalesofheavilyarmed
robbersandsingle‐mindedcarjackers,ofremorselessmurderers,and–most
remarkedofall–pedophilicrapistsfeedanationalpressthatisinsatiablefornews
ofpersonalizedcatastrophewithwhichtosignifyorprophesypoliticalfailure.”41
Similarly,historianGaryKynoch42arguesforadeeppreoccupationamongwhitesin
SouthAfricainthepostapartheidperiodwithnarrativesoflawlessnessamid
mountingpoliticalsuspense.
‘Crime’asanAllegoryfortheSociopolitical
Understanding,interpreting,describingandrespondingto“crime”inthe“new”
SouthAfricathereforeappearstobeaneverydayallegoryforthesociopolitical
terraininabroadsense,speakingurgentlytoanxietiesaboutveryrealconditionsof
socialdisorder.43“[T]hecausesofcrime’stransformationare…usuallyconstruedin
39SeeOrford’scommentinDeKock,Leon.“RogerSmithandthe‘GenreSnob’Debate.”SLiPnet,http://slipnet.co.za/view/reviews/crime‐fiction‐the‐%E2%80%98new‐political‐novel%E2%80%99/
40Morris,“TheMuteandtheUnspeakable”,61.41Ibid.,61.42Kynoch,“FearandAlienation”.43Onformsof“allegory”inthissense,seealsoRitaBarnard’sinsightfuldiscussionofthefilmversionofFugard’sTsotsi.
19
politicalterms,”arguesMorris;“[c]rimemarkstheboundaryofthepolisasmuchas
anyotherwilderness,”sheadds.44Withinsuchasociopoliticalmilieu,regardlessof
finerpointsofform,genreorthewriter’sintention,writersineluctablygotothe
heartofthepoliticalwitheverynewnarrativeinwhichdetectionisimaginedasa
setofexplorationsacrossthesocialterrain,andthecauseofacrimeissought
withinachainofeventsinthekindofpolitydescribedabove.
Ofcourse,manyshadesofthepalettewillbeevidentaswritersseektodepict
anemergingorderthroughthelensofwhatacommunitydeemstobe“criminal,”in
linewithclassicalsociologistEmileDurkheim’scredothatsocietylearnstoknow
itselfbycomingtounderstandthenatureitsowncriminalshadow.ForDurkheim,
crime–andmoretothepoint,howpeoplerespondtoitsoccurrence–providesa
basisfortheemergenceofanormativeconsensus.“Crimebringstogetherupright
consciencesandconcentratesthem,”Durkheimwroteinthelate19thcentury,45and
thiscontinuestoholdtrue.TheproblemforSouthAfricanwritersonthecuspofthe
20thcentury,however,hasoftenbeentheveryequivocality–andcontestation–of
thelinebetweenlegalityandcriminality,bothinthecivilandinthepublic,or
governmental,sphere.Theconditionof“plotloss”forsuchwritersisacute:notonly
hasthesociopoliticaldispensationat“home”changedfundamentally,makingwhat
intheveryrecentpastwasillegalandwrongsuddenlylegalandright,andvice‐
versa;worldpolitics,too,haveundergoneadisorientingtransformation.Inthe
1990s,leadingintothenewmillenniumandbeyond,thesetwoformerlyfarmore
discretezones(“home”and“outside”world)begantoplayintoeachothersuchthat
newlevelsofuncertaintywouldbedeviltheprojectedreliefatachievinga
democraticconsensusintheSouthAfricanbodypoliticatlarge.Inthewakeof
globalizationanditsdramatic1990supsurge,theruleshadbeenrewrittenacross
thetransformedfaceoftheworld,especiallyfornationsthatforsolonghaddefined
themselvesinrelationtotheantagonismsoftheColdWar.
44Morris,“TheMuteandtheUnspeakable,”61.45Durkheim,TheDivisonofLabor,103.
20
LeadingcrimenovelistoftheSouthAfricantransitionDeonMeyertakes
preciselythedisambiguationofthiscomplexconditionashisimplicittask,his
subtext,inthe“crime”novelHeartoftheHunter.Meyer’sherointhistale,the
muscledmodernwarriorThobela(“Tiny”)Mpayipheli,allegoricallyembodiesthe
intricatecomplexityofthepostapartheiddispensationinseveralways.Notonlywas
MpayiphelischooledinColdWarconditionsasanMKsoldiertrainedinEastern
EuropeunderCommunistconditions;notonlywashe“forgotten”bythenow‐ruling
ANCuponhisreturnfromexile(asmanyhavebeen);hewasalso“shopped”asa
crackassassintotheeasternEuropeansinreturnformuch‐neededpoliticalcapital.
Then,tomakemattersworse,thisXhosa“hunter‐warrior”–associatedexplicitlyin
thetextwithalineofimmemorialpre‐colonialchampionsincludingPhalo,Maqoma
andNgqika–isabandonedbytheEasternEuropeansafterthefalloftheBerlinWall.
TheyhadbeenusinghimasanunusuallysharpColdWarassassin,onewhokillshis
finalvictimwithastabbingspear.Importantly,Meyer’smultilayered“plot”inthis
novelisbuiltpreciselyupontheruinsofearliersociohistoricalplots:1)TheANC’s
alliancewiththeUSSRandtheCommunistworld,whichimplodedontheeveof
liberationinSouthAfrica,justwhenitwasduetobearultimatefruit;2)The
promisedeconomic“newdeal”inSouthAfrica,inconsequenceuponsocialism’s
projectedmoralvictoryontheworldstage;thisisadealthatdramaticallyfailedto
comeabout;Mpayipheli,committedfoot‐soldieroftherevolution,comeshometo
nothing,neitherglorynormoney;3)Thesettingupofasocialistdemocracyinsidea
(pre‐globalization)nation‐statesecuredbytheliberationforces–yetanother
conspicuousfailureofintention.Allofthesebuildingblocksforwhatwaslong
projectedasa“good”andideologicallyvirtuousnewSouthAfricahadbeen
precipitouslysweptaway.Thenation‐state’sabilitytoactlikearelatively
independentWestphalianentity,asmuchinthisnovelasinrealpolitikinthe1990s
andearly2000s,wasnowbeingunderminedtoacriticalextentbythelate‐capitalist
worldorderanditsborder‐bustingmoneyandtechnologicalflows,spreadingits
tentaclesevenasfarasMoscowandtheformerly“Red”China.(NelsonMandelaand
ThaboMebki’saccessiontothecontroversial“market‐friendly”policyforeconomic
growthandemployment,“GEAR”,inthisperiod,isthereforealsonotsurprising.)As
21
Allenconcludesafterasearchingpolitical‐economicenquiry,46theSouthAfrican
postapartheidstatefounditselftrappedbetweenarockandaveryhardplaceas
globaleconomicpressuresincreasinglysettheagendaforanysinglestate–and
moreespeciallycountriesinthedevelopingor“emerging”world–seekingtosecure
economicgrowthandrisingemploymentforitscitizens.
InSearchofthe‘Virtuous’PostapartheidCitizen
Meanwhile,insidethe“fragile,infantdemocracy”47thatHeartoftheHuntermapsin
thecourseofitsplot,mattersarecorrespondinglycomplicated.Goneistheold
struggleorderofgoodrevolutionariespittedagainstbadwhitepoliticians,or
commendableCommunistsout‐thinkingexploitativeWesterncapitalists.Now,in
manyinstances,thegovernmentisatwarwithitselfascertainalliancepartners
pushtotheleftofanunstablecenterandothers,formerlyrock‐solidalliance
partners,totheright;atthesametime,separatelyconstitutedintelligenceagencies
(combiningtheknowledgeregimesoftheformerliberationarmieswiththoseofthe
formerSADefenceForceandSAPolice)findthemselvesbitterlycrossingswords
witheachother.Thecollateraldamagequotientthatresultsfromsuch
intergovernmentalfeudsincludes“good”peoplelikethestruggleheroMpayipheli
himselfandMiriam,hisnewfoundbeloved.Ofcourse,oneneedonlymentionthe
nameVusiPikoliandsimilarexamplestofindreal‐worldcasesofsuchcollateral
damage.The“good,”asin“goodpeople,”andhowtodefinethisinthe“newSouth
Africa,”ideologicallyspeaking,wasfastbecominganaporeticcategory.Anditisthis
blackhole,thisblindspotaboutwhatexactlyconstitutesa“goodcitizen,”ora
“reasonableman”inlegalparlance,towhichbothcrimewriters,nonfictionauthors
andpoliticalanalystshaverepeatedlyturned.48
ImaginativewriterssuchasMeyer,MargieOrford,KgebetliMoele,Nadine
Gordimer,ZakesMda,J.M.Coetzee,DamonGalgut,FredKhumalo,AndrewBrown,
46Allen,TransformationinSouthAfrica,181‐192.47Meyer,HeartoftheHunter,234.48SeeBloom,WaysofStaying;Altbeker,FruitofaPoisonedTree;Chipkin,DoSouthAfricansExist?
22
MarlenevanNiekerk,SiphisoMzobe,LisaFugard,ImraanCoovadia,SarahPenny,
DialeTlholwe,SonjaLoots,ThandoMgqolozana,HenriettaRose‐Innes,NiqMhlongo,
EtiennevanHeerden,RachelZadok,MandlaLanga,IngridWinterbach,EbenVenter,
MichielHeyns,AngelinaMakholwa,HeinrichTroost,andstillothers(toonumerous
tomention)atworkinthisperiodseemedespeciallykeentoprobetheproblemof
the“virtuous”individual–andthelimitsorpressuresbroughttobearindefining
suchvirtue–asalitmustestforthehealthofthesocialbodyatlarge.Wheredoes
onedrawthelinebetweenlegitimateculturaldifference–apolymorphousgood–
andlessennoblingstrainsofdifference?Inafragileensembleofcitizenstryingto
makeanewdemocraticconsensus,“baddifference”arguablyintroducesastrainof
polymorphousperversity,tomisuseFreud’sfamousterm.Coetzeeprobedthelimit‐
conditionsofdemocraticconsensusinthecharacterofDavidLurie,andGordimerin
herexaminationofthetrigger‐fingercharacterinTheHouseGun,DuncanLingard,to
mentionthetwomostobviousexamples.DamonGalgut,inTheGoodDoctor,givesus
twodoctorstryingtodothe“rightthing”inaruralhospital,againstthepolitical
odds,andasksustoweightthemup.49Theotherauthorsmentionedabovecanbe
showntobedoingasimilarexerciseviadifferentmeansineachcase.
Howtodefinea“good”personinthe“newSouthAfrica”isalsowhat’s
urgentlyatissueinMeyer’snovel.Bycreatingasingleprimaryfocusofpublic
attention–arivetingroadchase–Meyersucceedsinconcentratingtheattentionof
threeinterlockingsetsofreadingpublics(hisSouthAfricanreaders,hissizeable
internationalaudience,andtheimaginedgeneral‐publicconsumersofmedia
embeddedinnovel’splot)uponacriticalquestion:isTinyMpayipheliabadguyora
goodguy,aherooravillain?Ishevirtuousormeretriciouswithintheredefined
termsofmoralgoodunderthenewdispensation?Howfardoweallowfor
“difference”inthenewlytolerantconstitutionaldemocracy?A“goodcitizen”isa
category,asChipkin50demonstrates,thatisundererasureinMeyer’s“infant
democracy,”andthereforethesubjectoffeverishlydifferentialredefinition.Itisa
49SeeTitlestad,“AllegoriesofWhiteMasculinity.”50Chipkin,DoSouthAfricansExist?,100.
23
questiononwhichthefateofthecountryhangs,becauseifSouthAfricagetsthis
definitionwrong,orbadlyskewedtowardsrenewedinjusticeand“baddifference,”
thatis,discriminationwritlarge,thenthe“baby”dispensationmightjustemerge
fromthetransitionasabeastlyadult.Thestakes,therefore,areveryhigh.
Thepoliticalimportanceofthismoralfixingofa“goodcitizen”cannotbe
overestimated.Such“fixing”–inthesensesofbothstabilizingaswellascorrecting–
impliesacorrectiveanddiscursivere‐territorializingofthenewcountry,achieving
anext‐to‐impossibleconsensualunderpinning.
ItisthereforenosurprisethatMeyerorchestratessustainedattentionon
preciselythedifficultiesofmoralandethicalcompass‐setting.Heachievesahigh
degreeofnarrativeconcentrationforhisintersectingreadingpublicsbylaunching
hisprotagonistMpayiphelionamovie‐stylemotorcyclechasefromCapeTownto
northernBotswana.Byusingasuchplot‐heavythrillermodel,Meyersucceedsin
doingwhatmanyindubitablyestimable,older‐stylepoliticalwritersoftencannotdo
indiscursivelyheavymodes:revivifythedrama–thebig‐screensenseofplot,the
widerangeofcharacters–inthestoryofpostapartheidpoliticalchange.
AFrankensteinoraRobinHood?
Inconsequence,somemoredetailedplotrecapitulationatthisjuncture,itishoped,
willnotbeamiss.Mpayipheli,figuredperhapsalittleromanticallyasbeingintouch
with“thevoicesofhisancestors–PhaloandRharhabe,NqikaandMaqoma,the
greatXhosachiefs,hisbloodline,source,andrefuge”51–reluctantlyagreestohelpa
formerstrugglecomrade,JohnnyKleintjes,whoisbeingheldhostagebyunknown
partiesinLusakafollowinganintelligencesting.Mpayiphelimusttakeaharddrive
supposedlycontainingsensitiveinformationtoKleintjes’sobscuretransnational
kidnappersintheZambiancapitalsothathecansecurehiscompatriot’sfreedom.
Mpayipheliisreluctanttodothis–hehasboughtaplotoflandinhisancestral
Xhosaland(EasternCape),whencehewantstoreturnwithhisbelovedMiriamand
51Meyer,HeartoftheHunter,3.
24
herson.Hefeelscompelledtonurtureandre‐educatetheboyasamanofthe
people.LiketheAlPacinocharacterCarlitoBriganteinthemovieCarlito’sWay
(1993),Mpayiphelibadlywantstoclosedownthebadpartsofhishistory,tolive
pureandstraight,butthepasthaulshiminforone(seemingly)lastsettlingof
scores.He“owes”Kleintjesanunspecified“struggle”debt,andMpayipheliisnothing
ifnotamanofhisword,a“stand‐upguy”inAmericangang‐movieparlance.He
booksaflightfromCapeTowntoLusaka,thinkinghewillsortthebusinessout
quickly.Unknowntohim,though,various,warringSAintelligenceagenciesare
trailinghim–theyalsodon’tquiteknowwhat’sgoingon,andtheywantthe
intelligenceontheharddriveMpayipheliiscarryingsotheycanfindout.When
agentstrytoapprehendhimatCapeTownInternationalairport,heshowshis
extraordinaryphysicalprowessbystaginganunlikelyescape,exitingtheairport
andeventually“borrowing”aBMW1200GSmotorcyclefromhisplaceofwork,a
MotorraddealershipintheCapeTowncitybowl.
Mpayipheli,accustomedtoridinga200ccHondaBenly,findshimself
compelledtoadapttothebrutishpowerofthemassiveBMW,almostwipinghimself
outashemakeshiswayontotheN1,theroadthatleadsnorthtobothBotswana
andZimbabwe,andbeyondthat,hisintendeddestinationofLusaka.Heknowsthat
thecombinedforcesoftheSAPoliceServices,theSANationalDefenceForce,
variousarmsofthepostapartheidintelligenceservices,alongwithanelitereaction
unit,willsoonbehuntinghimdown.Theydothiswithhelicopters,satellite
surveillance,roadblocks,andanarsenalofarmsfittokillabattalionofsoldiers,let
aloneasolofugitiveonamotorbike.WhenCapeTimesreporterAllisonHealygets
windofthestory,thestageissetforamediaspectaclethat(forthepurposesofthis
novel)concentratestheattentionofsignificantportionsofthenewnationona
dramaticchase,andwhatitrepresents.
Inlinewiththeideathatreportersanddetectivestraversesocialshadow‐
zonesonbehalfofthecitizenry,andbringbackdispatchesonwhat’sactuallygoing
onoutthere,Healy’sreporting,alongwithothermediamissivesinthenovel,pitted
againststatementsbythestate,signalafiercepublic‐spherecontestationoverhow
besttounderstandandinterprettheevents“ontheground”regardingMpayipheli.
25
Thebigquestionishowto“read”him–isheaFrankensteinofthestruggle,asthe
governmentmediacommuniquéssuggest,oraRobinHood,asmanycivilsubjects
begintothinkduringthecourseofthestory?Beforelong,reporterHealyisnotonly
updatingher“story”onadailybasisintheCapeTimesassheforgesdeeperand
furtherinherworkofsocialdetection,sheisalsobeinginterviewedonnationalTV.
TheMpayipheliaffairbecomesamediafanfare,andatestcase,toboot:whoismore
truthful,andmore“good,”inthissaplingdemocracy–thegovernment’sagentsor
theindividualthattheseagentsarehuntingdown?Theresolutionofthisquestion
carriesanenormousburdenofmeaningforthehealthandlongevityofthe
democracy:ifMpayiphelidoesturnouttobeaRobinHood,thenwhyistheStateso
intentoncrushinghim,andotherslikehim?Canthenewgovernmentbetrusted?If
Mpayipheliisessentiallyanupstandingcitizen,thenwhatisbeinghiddenfromsight
andwhy?Whatisontheharddriveheiscarryingonhisperson?Andhow
importantaretheconsequencesofsuchhiding?
Thesequestionswereespeciallyimportantintheearlytransitionperiod
(roughlythefirsttenyears),whenSouthAfricastillloomedlargeintheglobal
imaginaryasasingularcaseofconstitutional,democraticsuccessamongdeveloping
nations,a“miracle,”indeed.AstheGermanscholarJornRüsenloudlyexpostulated
ataWitsUniversitycolloquiumin1998called“LivingDifference,”“[i]tisimperative
forusthatyou[thedemocratictransition]succeed!”52Hewasremindingskeptical
SouthAfricandelegateshowmuchwasatstake,notonlyforSouthAfrica,butalso
fortheverypossibilityofconstitutionaldemocracyinthepostcoloniesoftheworld.
AmongthecolloquiumdiscussantsatthateventwasNancyFraser,forwhom
Habermas’stheoryofpublic‐spheredeliberation,framedasitiswithin
Westphalian‐stateor“national”contexts,aswellasBenedictAnderson’snotionof
nationallyconstituted“imaginedcommunities,”nolongereasilyobtainedinthe
globalizing,post‐andtransnationalsphere.53SouthAfrica,onemightargue,wasin
thisperiodcaughtamidships,betweenthesternofnationalidentity(stillamajor
52SeeDeKock,“SouthAfricaintheGlobalImaginary”,289.53Fraser,“TransnationalizingthePublicSphere”,11‐13.
26
pointofreferenceforSouthAfricansofallpersuasions)andthebowof
globalization,thepointatwhichtheSAshipwasencounteringtheswellsofoceanic
globalinterconnection.
Ontheonehand,theveryexistenceofmediacontestationacrossvarious
publicoutlets,andbetweencivilandstatesubjects(asdepictedinHeartofthe
Hunter,andasdidindeedexistinreality),mighthavesuggestedtoMeyer’sreaders
thatanationallyboundeddemocraticpublicsphereis–orwasthen–onasound
footing;thenovelissetintheearly2000s,severalyearsbeforetheinfamous
ProtectionofStateInformationBill,or“SecrecyBill.”Suchhealthypublic‐sphere
contestationmightsuggestthatFraser’ssenseofasequesterednationalpublic
sphereisprematureinthecaseofSouthAfrica.Meyerisoneofthefewcrime
writerswho,atleastinhisearliernovels,ofwhichHeartoftheHunterisagood
example,evincesoptimismaboutthenewdemocracyanditsprospectsforrobust
health.(Heiscorrespondinglysevereontheoldwhiterenegadeswhocontinue
comeoutofthewoodworkincorruptnew‐eraknavery.)Atthesametime,however,
theundercurrentforcesinMeyer’sstory,theveryfactorsprecipitating“plotloss”
amongthestate’sfunctionaries–namelytheCIAandtransnationalMuslimagentsat
workinthenovel’s“sting”,alongsideanintelligencescaminsidetheSouthAfrican
securityestablishment–aremostlybeyondthenation‐state’scontroland
awareness.ThissuggeststhatFraser’stheoryofnation‐stateslosingtheluxuryofan
efficacious,boundedpublicspheremightbehalf‐rightafterall.InMeyer’snovel,as
inmanydemonstrablereal‐worldincidentsinpostapartheidSouthAfrica,thestate
isitselftooofteninthedarkaboutwhatexactlyisgoingonforcomfort;thisis
especiallysoinstrategicinstances,bothwithregardtoexternalundercurrentsand
internally,whereitsownoperativesareoftenprovablyatwarwitheachother,as
eachweek’sstoriesinthenewsmediatendtosuggest.Thestate,likeitscitizens,
seemstohavelosttheplot,andtosavefaceithastopresentaunifiedfront.Inthe
nameof“nationalsecurity,”inthisnovel,ithasnochoicebuttobackthemost
politicoptionintheshortterm:huntdownMpayiphelisothatitcaneliminatethe
riskthattheintelligenceheiscarryingwillcompromiseitssecurity,nottomention
itsincreasinglysensitivedignity.Inordertodothis,however,itmustfightawarof
27
publicopinion,andintheprocessbetrayMpayipheli,oneofitsformerMKsoldier‐
heroes,paintinghimasapsychopathic,out‐of‐controlrenegade.
ThequestionofwhatexactlyconstitutesavirtuousSouthAfrican–andby
implication,howtodistinguishlegitimatearticulationsofculturaldifferencefrom
“bad”difference–isthereforeamatterofthehighestimportance,bothinsidethis
novelandoutsideofit,involvingasearchingexplorationofcontendingvalues.
“Virtue”herewouldincludethesenseoutlinedabovebytheComaroffsofa
diagnosticpreoccupationinpostcolonieswiththeideaofwhatmakesagoodor
legitimatelegalsubject,apreoccupationwhich,theyadd,is“growingin
counterpointto,anddeeplyentailedin,theriseofthefeloniousstate,private
indirectgovernment,andendemicculturesofillegality.”54Itisacounterpointthat
has“cometofeatureprominentlyinpopulardiscoursesalmosteverywhere,”55
amongwhichonemustcount,Iwouldadd,crimefictionofthekindIamdiscussing
here.Asgovernance“dispersesitselfandmonopoliesovercoercionfragment,”the
Comaroffswrite,“crimeandpolicingprovidearichrepertoireofidiomsand
allegorieswithwhichtoaddress,imaginatively,thenatureofsovereignty,justice,
andsocialorder.”56Intheprocess,thekindofambiguityaboutrightandwrong,
legalityanditsshadow,notedearlierastypicaloflifeinvariouspostcoloniesand
developingnations,loomslarge.Asiftodemonstratethisverypoint,Meyer’s
characterJaninaMentz,headofaneliteintelligenceunitsetupaboveseveral
existing(andwarring)intelligencestructuresinthepostapartheidgovernment,tells
herprotégéTigerMazibukothat“theworldha[s]becomeanevilplace,residents
andcountriesnotknowingwho[is]friendorfoe,warsthat[can]nolongerbe
foughtwitharmiesbutatthefrontofsecretrooms,themini‐activitiesofabduction
andoccupation,suicideattacksandpipebombs.”57
‘Intelligence’inaReconstitutedPublicSphere
54Comaroff,LawandDisorder,20.55Ibid.56Ibid.57Meyer,HeartoftheHunter,104.
28
Takingthisthemeastepfurther,HeartoftheHunter’sfocusonwarsofintelligence
(bothstrategicstateinformation/espionage,and“sense‐making”inanageof
informationoverload)capturesacrisisofoldandnewmethodsofwarfare.Theold
methodsincludedMKfoot‐soldierssuchasMpayipheliconductingguerillawarfare,
butsuchsubjectsnowsuddenlyfindthemselvescaughtupinanInformationAge
meta‐war.Inthisnewerkindofmêléetheoldtricksofinformationand
disinformationareelevatedintoaknowledgeeconomyface‐off,ahyper‐datawarof
contendinginformationregimeswhichclaimshumanlivesasincidentalsacrifices.
BytheendofMeyer’snovel,onecomestounderstandthatlivescanplausiblybelost
inawarofattritionaroundownershipand/orcontrolofinformationinandofitself,
despitethefactthatthedataatthecenterofthedust‐upmightbequiteworthless,
orevenfalse,asitturnsouttobeinHeartoftheHunter.Butjustlookatwhat’sat
stake:thepowertodefinewhatis“right,”andwhatislegitimate(includingwhatis
legallyright)inthenameofthebodypolitic.Thereinliesthekeytothe
knowledge/powerequation,whethertheoutcomeisMachiavellianorMandelian.
Everything,inasense,dependson“intelligence,”thefightforwhichinseveral
sensesdrivesMeyer’snovelonrelentlesslytowardsitsmateriallybloody
conclusion.
IntheplotofHeartoftheHunter,governmentagentsissuecommuniqués
describingMpayipheliasaderangedmadman,basedontheevidenceofahigh‐
rankingformerMK“hero”whomakesthisstatementtoloosenthenooseofasexual
harassmentrap.Meanwhile,reporterAllisonHealyportraysaverydifferentversion
ofMpayiphelitoherreaders:hewasanoldMKheroofgreatdistinction,andhehas
repeatedlytriedtoavoidhurtingpeopleinthehunt‐and‐resistancestoryoccurring
inthenovel.Healy’sversionofMpayipheliisalsobasedonthetestimonyofaformer
comrade.Inaddition,thewordofmoreordinarypeople,suchasMpayipheli’s
common‐lawwifeMiriamandastreetwiseshoeshine‐manwhohasknownhimfor
manyyears,suggesttoAllisonandherreadersthatMapyipheliisindeedamanof
thepeopleratherthanthevillainthestatewishestomakehimappearintheeyesof
29
themasses.“WilltherealThobelaMpayiphelipleasestandup,”58Healyruminates,
echoingthebiggerquestionunderlyingthepoliticalsubtextofthenovel.Whilethe
makingsofpoliticalvirtuearestronglysuggestedinthecharacterofKoosKok,a
“Griquatroubadour”whohelpsMpayipheliescapethestate’shelicopters(Kokis
workingwithmusicianDavidKramer,describinghimselfasa“skeefbroer”),the
countryatlargeremainsindoubt.Boththemotorcyclechaseanditsreported
progressservetoemphasizethatthelinebetweenlawand(dis)ordercannotbe
decisivelydemarcated.Inaddition,itrevealsapoliticalcartographythatisboth
politicallyoccultedanddangerouslylabile.
Intheend,thenovelisticresolutionispolyvalentanddisorienting.
Mpayipheliloseshiscommon‐lawwifeasaresultofablunderbyastatesecurity
agent,butherecoverstheboy,planningtotakePakamileawaywithhimtohis
ancestralplotoflandinXhosaland.Thisishisconsolationafterverynearlydying
himselfatthehandsofhisformercomrades.However,thestateofpublicopinion
aboutwhetherMapyipheliisanobleoradebasedcitizenremainsambiguous.For
Meyer,atthispointinhiscareer,andformanywriterslikehim,the“new”South
Africarefusestoresolveitselfexceptinperversionsofliberality,fairnessandsafety,
especiallyinviolationsagainsttheintendedinheritorsoftherevolution.
Conclusion
Thisarticlehasdemonstratedhowculturaldifferenceactsasalocusfora
transformedandredefinedmoraleconomyinthepostapartheidpublicimaginary,in
themedia,inscholarship,andinthecommunicativelypowerfulformofpopular
crimefiction.Thisconvergencepointstoadisparatelyeffectedbutkeenperception
ofareconfiguredpostapartheid“axisofevil,”onewhichcoincidestosomeextent
withamoregeneralpostcolonialandglobalconditioninthewakeofneoliberal
hegemonyacrosstheworld.Whereasthedenigrationofculturaldifference(in
colonialandneocolonialcontexts)oncemobilizedconcertedactivismforitsre‐
58Meyer,HeartoftheHunter,192.
30
validationandtherestorationofputativelymoresymmetricalpowerrelations,a
widespreademergenceof“bad”difference,instantiatedinthephenomenonofthe
“FeloniousState,”hasseenaprofoundlackofclarityonmattersofrightandwrong,
legalityandillegality,virtuouscitizenryandpolitical(il)legitimacy.Rightorwrong
usesofviolence,too,havebecomelesseasytoidentify,asfictionallydramatizedthe
caseofThobelaMpayipheliinMeyer’sHeartoftheHunter(anditssequel,Devil’s
Peak).InDevil’sPeak,Mpayiphelifindshimselftoresortingtoroughjusticewithhis
assegaiforpedophilesafterherealizesthattheSouthAfricancriminaljustice
system–andthereforethestate–isincapableofprotectingevenchildrenfrom
socialdegenerationofthemostobscenekind.Andyetthisformofkangaroo‐style
socialjusticeisshowntobeanultimatelyunsatisfactorymeasure,especiallywhen
Mpayipheligetstwoofthevictimswrongandtherebybecomesamurdererhimself
ratherthananobleavengerofwrong.Sucharetheknife‐pointintricaciesofthenew
order.Ifneitherthestatenoranyparticularcivilgroupinghasamonopolyover
legitimateviolence,asnotedearlier,thenconditionsareindeedaverseandsurelyin
needofintensivedetection.TheturntocrimefictioninSouthAfrica,Imaintain,is
thereforefarlesstheescapist,formulaicblindspotthatitisoftenmadeouttobe,
butratheraformofsocialhermeneuticsinwhichdetectionwithinanethically
muddledtopographyidentifies,describesandexploresthephenomenonof“bad”
difference.Alternatively,suchdetectioninvestigatesthemanagementofdifference
inwaysthataredisingenuousanddeceitful,asapointatwhichthenewordereither
evillycoheres,orfallsapart.Intheprocess,thebasisof“virtuous”citizenshipwithin
thepostapartheidcontextisbeingextensivelyrewritten.
WorksCitedAllen,MichaelH.Globalization,Negotiation,andtheFutureofTransformationinSouthAfrica:RevolutionataBargain?NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2006.
31
Altbeker,Antony.ACountryatWarwithItself:SouthAfrica’sCrisisofCrime.Johannesburg:JonathanBall,2007.Altbeker,Antony.TheDirtyWorkofDemocracy:AYearontheStreetswiththeSAPS.JohannesburgandCapeTown:JonathanBall,2005.Altbeker,Antony.FruitofaPoisonedTree:ATrueStoryofMurderandtheMiscarriageofJustice.Johannesburg:JonathanBall,2010.Print.Attwell,David.J.M.Coetzee:SouthAfricaandthepoliticsofwriting.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress;CapeTown:D.Philip,1993. Attwell, David. RewritingModernity:StudiesinBlackSouthAfricanLiteraryHistory.Maritzburg:UniversityofNatalPress;Athens,OH:OhioUniversityPress,2006.Print.
Anderson,Muff.“WatchingtheDetectives.”SocialDynamics30,no.2(2004):141–53.Print.Barnard,Rita.“Tsotsis:OnLaw,theOutlaw,andthePostcolonialState.”ContemporaryLiterature49,no.4(491‐718).Bayart,Jean‐Francois,StephenEllisandBéatriceHibou(eds).TheCriminalizationoftheStateinAfrica.London:JamesCurry,1999.Bhabha,HomiK(ed).NationandNarration.NewYork:Routledge,1990.Bloom,Kevin.WaysofStaying.Johannesburg:PicadorAfrica,2009.Bond,Patrick.2013.TheMandelaYearsinPower:DidHeJumporWasHePushed?Counterpunch,6‐8December,2013.http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/06/the‐mandela‐years‐in‐power/Bond,Patrick.TheEliteTransition:FromApartheidtoNeoliberalisminSouthAfrica.London:PlutoPress,2000.
Brown,Andrew.Refuge.Johannesburg:ZebraPress.2010.
Brown,Duncan.VoicingtheText:SouthAfricanOralPoetryandPerformance.CapeTown:OxfordUniversityPress,1998.
Chakrabarty,Dipesh.ProvincializingEurope:PostcolonialThoughtandHistoricalDifference.Princeton,N.J.PrincetonUniversityPress,2000.
32
Chipkin,Ivor.DoSouthAfricansExist?Nationalism,Democracy,andtheIdentityof“ThePeople”.Johannesburg:WitwatersrandUniversityPress,2007.Comaroff,JeanandJohn.OfRevelationandRevolution:Christianity,Colonialism,andConsciousnessinSouthAfrica,Volume1.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1991.Comaroff,JeanandJohn(eds).LawandDisorderinthePostcolony.UniversityOfChicagoPress,2006.DeKock,Leon.CivilisingBarbarians.Johannesburg:WitwatersrandUniversityPressandLovedalePress.1996.DeKock,Leon.“SouthAfricaintheGlobalImaginary:AnIntroduction”.PoeticsToday22,no.2(2001):263‐298.
Dietrich,KeithHamilton.OfSalvationandCivilisation:TheImageofIndigenousSouthernAfricansInEuropeanTravelIllustrationfromtheSixteenthtotheNineteenthCentury.UnpublishedPhDthesis.Pretoria:UniversityofSouthAfrica,1993.Dubow,Saul.ScientificRacisminModernSouthAfrica.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995.Durkheim,Emile.TheDivisionofLaborinSociety.TranslatedbyGeorgeSimpson.NewYork:TheFreePress,1960[1893].Emmett,TonyandAlexButchart(eds)BehindtheMask:GettingtoGripswithCrimeandViolenceinSouthAfrica,Pretoria,HSRC,2000.Finlay,Alan.“Stagingperformance:Race,authenticityandtherighttospeak”.EcquidNovi:AfricanJournalismStudies32,no.3(2011):34‐44. Fraser,Nancy.“TransnationalizingthePublicSphere:OntheLegitimacyandEfficacyofPublicOpinioninaPost‐WestphalianWorld.”Theory,CultureandSociety24,no.4(2007):7‐30.(FirstdeliveredattheGraduateCenter,CityUniversityofNewYork,ataconferenceon“PublicSpace”,February2002.)Frenkel,RonitandCraigMacKenzie.‘Conceptualizing‘Post‐Transitional’SouthAfricanLiteratureinEnglish’.EnglishStudiesinAfrica53,no.1(2010):1–10.Hofmeyr,Isabel.‘WeSpendOurYearsAsaTaleThatisTold’:OralHistoricalNarrativeinaSouthAfricanChiefdom.Portsmouth,N.H.:Heinemann;Johannesburg:WitwatersrandUniversityPress;London:J.Currey,1994.
33
Kynoch,Gary."FearandAlienation:NarrativesofCrimeandRaceinPostapartheidSouthAfrica".CanadianJournalofAfricanStudies47,no.3(2013).Mangcu,Xolela.TotheBrink:TheStateofDemocracyinSouthAfrica.Maritzburg:UniversityofKwaZulu‐NatalPress,2008.Mbembe,Achille.“ConsumedbyourLustforLostSegregation.”Mail&Guardianonline,28March2013.http://mg.co.za/article/2013‐03‐28‐00‐consumed‐by‐our‐lust‐for‐lost‐segregation
Meyer,Deon.HeartoftheHunter.Transl.K.L.Seegers.NewYork:Little,Brown&Co,2003[2002].Meyer,Deon.Devil’sPeak.Transl.K.L.Seegers.NewYork:Little,Brown&Co,2007[2004].
Morris,RosalindC.“TheMuteandtheUnspeakable:PoliticalSubjectivity,ViolentCrime,and‘theSexualThing’inaSouthAfricanminingCommunity”,inLawandDisorderinthePostcolony,ed.JeanComaroffandJohnComaroff(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2006),57‐101.Ndlovu‐Gatsheni,SabeloJ.TrackingtheHistoricalRootsofPostapartheidCitizenshipProblems:TheNativeClub,RestlessNatives,PanickingSettlersandthePoliticsofNativisminSouthAfrica.Leiden:AfricanStudiesCentre,2007.Nuttall,Sarah.Entanglement.Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress.2009.Orford,Margie.GallowsHill.Johannesburg:JonathanBall.2011.Primorac,Ranka.WhodunnitinSouthernAfrica.London:AfricanResearchInstitute,2011.Said,Edward.Orientalism.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1978.Smith,Roger.MixedBlood.NewYork:HenryHolt&Company,2009.Smith,Roger.WakeUpDead.NewYork:HenryHolt&Company,2010.Smith,Roger.DustDevils.London:Serpent’sTail,2011.Spivak,G.C.InOtherWorlds:EssaysInCulturalPolitics.London:Routledge,1998.
34
Steinberg,Jonny.“Crime”,inNewSouthAfricanKeywords,ed.NickShepherdandStevenRobins.Johannesburg:Jacana;Athens:OhioUniversityPress.2008.Titlestad,Michael.“AllegoriesofWhiteMasculinityinDamonGalgut’sTheGoodDoctor”.SocialDynamics35,no.1(2009):111–122.Titlestad,MichaelandAshleyPolatinsky.‘TurningtoCrime:MikeNicol’sTheIbisTapestryandPayback”.TheJournalofCommonwealthLiterature45,no.2(2010):259–273.Warnes,Chris.2012.“WritingCrimeintheNewSouthAfrica:NegotiatingThreatintheNovelsofDeonMeyerandMargieOrford.”JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies38,no.4(2012):981‐991. Wylie,Dan.SavageDelight:WhiteMythsofShaka.Maritzburg:UniversityofKwa‐ZuluNatalPress,2000.Young,RobertJ.C.ColonialDesire:HybridityinTheory,CultureandRace.London:Routledge,1995.Young,RobertJ.C.WhiteMythologies:WritingHistoryandtheWest.London:Routledge,1990.Mangcu,Xolela.TotheBrink:TheStateofDemocracyinSouthAfrica.Maritzburg:UniversityofKwaZulu‐NatalPress,2008.
top related