There's been some chattering about the recent DASO posters (see here and here). Much predictable nonsense has been talked, and Die Burger, functioning in the often insular Afrikaans-speaking world, has a front-page article on what should hardly be news.
The affair does reveal some interesting things about our society, though. (To me: you might find these too obvious to comment on as well. Maybe I've caught on late.)
The posters reveal the inability of DASO to separate the ideological (race) issue at stake from the white-English-liberal-privileged socialization of its members. I've generally been critical of those who slam the DA's political doctrines because these doctrines are in themselves "white", "reactionary" etc. But perhaps I've been naive. I do not, of course, accept the ideological underpinnings of COSATU's response to these posters, but their response was more shrewd and insightful than many white intellectuals will realize.
It is significant that both Die Burger and COSATU refer to the intimate nature of some of the images. An intelligent, friendly girl of my acquaintance welcomed the posters and hoped that it would broaden DA support among non-white voters. In my opinion, she was naive about the extent to which many non-white voters are both ethnocentric and socially conservative. But more importantly, the posters imply a demand that black and Afrikaans voters should accept English liberal cultural sensibilities. The point is not that these groups feel that the posters indicate or encourage moral corruption, although the argument will be made. The point is that the core constituency of the DA is, in addition to its implied comment on race, also (without fully being conscious of it) rallying around a sensibility about what the nature of the public-private divide should be and what public iconography and behaviour should be like.
It would never have occurred to the creators of this poster to show an intimate couple of obviously different class backgrounds, or one where the non-white person was taller and closer to the camera, or a lesbian couple rather than the gay male one they chose. The people had to be soap-opera material: no lesions, no fat people, no tacky tattoos or mullets. It would never have occurred to them to change the angle or stances of the people, or the distance of the shot so that it showed essentially everything it does show, but without the sense that you the viewer are not a voyeuristic intruder. They would never have questioned that it is legitimate to spend their budgets on these glossy posters or to be so "in-your-face" and "relevant" (code for "advancing a cause white English people have been socialized into pretending to think important"). In short: the posters scream "well-off white English-speaking liberal". Anyone else will be marginalized (but ever so politely).
Certainly there are arguments to be made for the English way of running a society. Arguments could be made for every one of their decisions and this model of relating the public and private arenas to each other and to the media. But these arguments never are made. The fact that you're not allowed another perspective is underlined by the slogan: "In our world, you wouldn't look twice". Like it or not, this is the impression these posters will produce. And it is the responsibility of the DA's white English-speaking constituency to correct these ideas if they are wrong and expect people to vote DA. It is not the responsibility of the historically colonized black and Afrikaner populations to change their sensibilities without being shown a reason.
The usual thing will happen: Die Burger will make money off a pointless debate about the moral and tactical legitimacy of the posters, the ANC and COSATU will stoke the fires (and, contrary to DASO's intentions, are likely to make any gains there are to be made in such a small affair), and everyone will be gloriously vindicated in their own minds about their own ethnically contingent political ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment