Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality: A Study of White People’s Approaches in a Multicultural South African church ((Re-)konstruktionen - Internationale und Globale Studien) 3658414618, 9783658414610

Citation preview

(Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien

Marcus Grohmann

Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality A Study of White People’s Approaches in a Multicultural South African church

(Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien Reihe herausgegeben von Wolfgang Gieler, Angewandte Sozialwissenschaften, FH Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany Meik Nowak, Gustav – Stresemann – Institut e.V., Bonn, Germany

In der Schriftenreihe werden sowohl theoretische als auch anwendungsorientierte politische, soziale, kulturelle, geschichtliche und wirtschaftliche Themen in, mit und aus Ländern des Globalen Nordens und Südens veröffentlicht. Im Fokus der Analysen liegen der internationale Vergleich und die globalen Interdependenzen. Die Reihe ist offen sowohl für Monographien und Sammelbände als auch für herausragende Qualifikationsarbeiten (Dissertationen, Habilitationen) aus den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften. Sie dient als Forum zur Publikation ausgewählter Studien unter anderen zu Formen der kulturellen Globalisierung, der Migrationsbewegungen, dem Umgang mit „Anderen“, der Geopolitik und des globalen Klima- und Umweltwandels. Die Praxis der Beziehungen zwischen dem Globalen Norden und Globalen Süden, die sich in der Bipolarität zwischen westlicher „entwickelten Geberstaaten“ und „(wirtschaftlich) unterentwickelten Nehmerstaaten“ als Rezipienten abspielt, ist das Ergebnis kulturellen (und wissenschaftstheoretischen) Vormachtdenkens des Westens. Im Rahmen der Schriftenreihe soll die Eigenständigkeit und Gleichberechtigung der Staatenwelt des Globalen Südens wahrgenommen werden. Daher ist beabsichtigt durch einen interdisziplinär und transkulturell orientierten Ansatz zu einer erweiterten Kenntnis und damit auch einer veränderten Wahrnehmung des Globalen Nordens und Globalen Südens anzuregen. Mit einer (Re-) konstruktion und Relativierung universell verstandener westlicher Wissenschaft lassen sich Konfliktfelder bestimmen, welche die Kollision der unterschiedlichen „Selbstauffassungen“ aufzeigen. Somit kann ein Diskurs in Gang gesetzt werden, der zum einen etwa die „westliche“ Verengung der Begriffe benennt, und zum anderen nicht-westliche Erkenntnisse als gleichrangig anerkennt, um einem ernstgemeinten Verständigungsprozess auf „Augenhöhe“ zu erreichen. Dass ein Umdenken über eine (Re-)konstruktion der Beziehungen von Globalen Norden und Globalen Süden notwendig ist, liegt auf der Hand. Wer den Versuch eines Umdenkens jedoch unternimmt, pendelt zwischen Machbarkeit und Zurückschrecken vor der Hybris. Dabei ist das eingeklammerte (Re-) zugleich ein Signal der Vorsicht und ein Herausstellen: Sich über die Konstruktion der Beziehung zu verständigen, kann nur im Rahmen einer möglichen Suche nach unterschiedlichen Sichtweisen eröffnet werden. Nicht zuletzt ist es ein Anliegen, das Bewusstsein unserer transkulturellen und umweltpolitischen Verantwortung gegenüber dem Planet Erde und dessen Bewohner*innen, gleichwohl, ob diese nun aus dem Globalen Norden oder Globalen Süden der aktuellen Weltkonstellation kommen, zu stärken. Denn Globale Interdependenzen machen nicht vor Grenzen Halt – weder vor geografischen noch vor gedanklichen. Bedeutsam ist es daher, Wissenschaftler*innen aus dem Globalen Norden und dem Globalen Süden eine Austausch- und Diskussionsmöglichkeit zu bieten. Zudem wird selten berücksichtigt, dass auch Wissens- und Forschungspraktiken selbst in einem Kontext von politischer Gewalt-, Macht- und Herrschaftsverhältnissen sowie Rassismus stehen. Wissenschaft und Forschung sind keineswegs neutral. Eine „Entkolonialisierung der Wissenschaft“ sollte demnach nicht nur als Tausch einer Gruppe von Wissenschaftler*innen für eine andere in Literaturlisten aufgefasst werden. Die (Re-)konstruktion unseres Wissens ist eine notwendige Voraussetzung, um sich aus der intellektuellen Einengung des westlichen Ethnozentrismus zu befreien. Denn „Fortschritt in eine Richtung kommt nicht ohne Aufhebung der Möglichkeit zum Fortschritt in eine andere Richtung zustande“, wie es Paul Feyerabend formulierte.

Marcus Grohmann

Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality A Study of White People’s Approaches in a Multicultural South African church

Marcus Grohmann Stellenbosch University Beyers Naudé Centre for Public Theology Stellenbosch, South Africa Zugl.: Dissertation, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, 2022. Originaltitel: ’Reconciliation in the context of coloniality? How white people imagine and practice reconciliation in a culturally diverse church in South Africa’.

ISSN 2731-0531 ISSN 2731-054X (electronic) (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien ISBN 978-3-658-41461-0 ISBN 978-3-658-41462-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® . Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of International Bible Society. This Springer VS imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Foreword

Mercy Amba Oduyoye, who is often referred to as the ‘mother’ of contemporary African theology, said that “theology remains a story that is told, a song that is sung and a prayer that is uttered in response to experience and expectation.”1 This is an evocative image of the work of theology. What makes it so beautiful is that it highlights the importance of experience in the theological enterprise – the telling of stories, the singing of songs, the uttering of prayers, and the sharing of experiences and expectations. Of course, this approach is not entirely surprising since Oduyoye is an African theologian. The telling of stories, orality, is central to how African Christians make sense of their lives and the world. In addition to this, as a Methodist, Oduyoye was deeply influenced by what has become known as the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”.2 In Wesleyan theologies, experience is listed as a central source in theological reflection (along with the traditional sources of the primacy of Scripture, the study of the tradition of the Christian faith, and reason). In both of these instances, language is of vital importance. The ability to ‘story’ one’s life and experience in the language of your ‘thoughts’ and ‘dreams’ is vital to the formation of beliefs, values, and the meaningful embodiment of liturgical and missional practices. This poses a major challenge for the Church! Sadly, across many parts of the African continent, and particularly in South Africa (like elsewhere in the world), “11 o’clock on Sunday morning is one of the most segregated hours, if not the

1

Mercy Oduyoye, Introducing African Women’s Theology (A&C Black, 2001), 22. Ted A. Campbell, “The ‘Wesleyan Quadrilateral’: The Story of a Modern Methodist Myth,” Methodist History 29, no. 2 (1991): 87–95. 2

v

vi

Foreword

most segregated hour” in society.3 To some extent, this has to do with the tacit inclusions and exclusions that are created and upheld by the uncritical preference that is given to certain dominant languages, cultures, and worldviews. As Marcus Grohmann argues, colonialism played a significant role in establishing a “languaculture” in which the languages and cultures of colonisers came to uncritically dominate not only the so-called ‘secular’ political sphere, but also the life of the Church in South Africa. English as a language, and the cultural, political, and moral worldview that is associated with the idioms, symbols, semantics, and grammar of the language created a ‘space’, indeed boundaries, within which the Church, its ministries, and members, operated. Sadly, this means, that even for Churches that progressively seek to work for transformation and reconciliation today, their efforts can be hampered by being tacitly, and often uncritically, caught in colonial paradigms. This book presents a rigorous, and novel, engagement with the Christian imperative for reconciliation, that is shaped by a decolonial commitment. To my knowledge this is the first study of its kind in South Africa. It is both methodologically innovative and presents invaluable findings related to the importance of ‘languaculture-learning’ and ‘association from a distance’ as alternative ways of seeking ‘decolonisation from above’. My hope is that this work will enliven a kind of theological imagination for new approaches to reconciliation in South African Churches. In this book Marcus Grohmann helps us to become conscious of the historical and inherent ways in which colonialism continues to mis-shape our best efforts at Christian reconciliation. He invites us to see the familiar through ‘strange eyes’, and to listen to our well-known stories with ‘fresh ears’, so that we might recognise the gift and the promise of theological reasoning as a form of ‘languaculture-learning’, perhaps even storytelling, song singing, and prayer uttering in response to African experience and the expectations of Christ’s reconciling love. I am so grateful for this work, and also for Marcus and his commitment to reconciliation and justice. His work is rigorous and his witness is inspiring. I hope that as you read these

3 Martin Luther King Jr, “The Most Segregated Hour in America,” Interview on Meet the Press 4 (1960): 17.

Foreword

vii

pages you will also be inspired to continue to work for reconciliation and justice in your context. March 2023

Dion A. Forster Chair, Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology Director, Beyers Naudé Centre for Public Theology Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch, South Africa

Acknowledgments

Despite the surprising thrill I experienced during most parts of this research project, penning acknowledgements for the people who helped me realise it is particularly exciting and an honour. I would like to ask for forgiveness from those who should have found their names listed here but have for some reason escaped my memory. There is so much to be grateful for: the invaluable academic guidance I received through Prof. Martin Leiner and Prof. Dion Forster—your helpful critique and encouragement spurred me on to reach the finishing line. Thank you to Drs. Francesco Ferrari, Davide Tacchini and Luis Peña Reyes as well as the rest of the people at the Jena Center for Reconciliation Studies for journeying with me as colleagues. To Prof. Lothar Käser, Dr. Robyn Tyler and Dr. Timothée Joset I owe much gratitude for the insights they shared at various turning points in my research project. Prof. Len Hansen and Dr. Deborah Hancox kindly and patiently helped me navigate the intricacies of research methodology. Dr. Jim Harries and Benjamin Kanyimbe Ker were not only huge encouragements through their interest in my research and their proofreading. I am also indebted to them because of their deep and robust engagement with me on the issues I wrestled with. Barry Adkins and Dr. Jonathan Schoots helped tremendously in discussing the findings of my isiXhosa concept study, the ‘translations’ of which were crosschecked by Ndyebo Mapekula—ndiyabulela! Manila Zama Budu assisted me in better understanding the spirituality of St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission—enkosi kakhulu, sisi! I am also grateful for the assistance of Jonghyuk Chang and my brothers Paul and Georg Grohmann in accessing hard-to-get-to literature. And a great Thank You to Prof. Christo Thesnaar for paving the way that allowed me to finish this project as a research fellow at the Beyers Naudé Centre for Public Theology.

ix

x

Acknowledgments

Importantly, I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all my research participants, both at The Message church and at St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission. Thank you for allowing me into your space, for opening up to talk about delicate issues and making yourselves vulnerable to a brother in Christ but at the same time to a foreign researcher who enjoyed asking probing questions. Thank you particularly to the leadership of both churches who showed a great amount of advance trust as they invited me to carry out research in their congregations. A special thanks to Paul Schoenfeld, the former, and Sandile Mthethwa, the present rector of The Message church, as well as Mfundisi Sakumzi Kosile from St John’s. A number of people helped me along the way, showing interest and pointing me to key people or institutions: Craig Stewart, Siegfried Ngubane, Sivuyile Lurai and Mark Hugo. Ngiyabonga, enkosi, thank you! Throughout this research project, a vital role was played by people who invited me into their languacultural Xhosa space, most notably Nobathandwa Phindani, Siphokazi and Ntobeko Mjijwa. Ndiyabulela, ndingubabalweyo kuba ndifundiswe ngenu! Working on a dissertation that spans more than five years of intensive work involves engaging on the research theme with a great number of people. Some were more, some less affected by the issues I investigated but their enquiries and their interest both in my well-being and in the topics I dealt with prompted me to learn to speak about what I was struggling to get my head around. In no particular order, Brett Anderson, John Scheepers, Gernot Spies, Markus Heide, Erdmuthe Gubelt, Nicole and Hans-Markus Haizmann, Christian Enders, Dr. Alexander Fink, Phil Decker, Ekkehard Pithan, Dr. Joachim Eichhorn, Motseki Sesibo, Barry Haschick, Paul Geddes, Tshilidzi and Fritz van der Lecq, Dr. Jim Gieser, Dr. Adrian Coates, Dr. Jordan Pickering, Marthinus Steyn, Teboho Makhabane, Minah Koela, Colette and Grant Owens, Marion and Philipp Donald, Maria Richter, David Gerber, Neli and Burkhard Wagner, Tabbi and Johannes Heinke, Anna-Lena and Markus Matthias, Tobias Edtbauer, Thomas Kunze, Mondi Bénoit, Parfait Nyatchebe, Rob Walker, Vincent Mothapa, Annelie Möller, Alexander Gentsch, Christophe Mbonyingabo, many students at the UCT Student Y, Jacqui Nzuwa, Talitha and Dr. Jonathan Müller, Faith and Abraham Murugo—the interest you have shown was stimulus, confirmation and encouragement! This project with a long-term stay ‘in the field’, enabling more of a valuable insider-perspective, would not have been possible without the humbling generosity of a great number of family and friends and the administrative support provided by the wonderful team working at the Vereinigte Deutsche Missionshilfe in Germany. The trust you have shown in such a critical participant-observer of everything church and mission I do not take for granted. Furthermore, I am deeply

Acknowledgments

xi

grateful to my Namibian parents—Gussie and Justus Muller—vir julle ondersteuning and vertroue in die Duitse skoonseun, ek waardeer dit verskriklik! And vielen, vielen Dank also to my German parents—Birgitta and Bernd Grohmann. Eure Liebe zu Menschen, eure selbstverständliche Art euren Glauben praktisch werden zu lassen und eure Offenheit für Gottes Führung sowohl örtlich als auch thematisch/theologisch haben dazu beigetragen, dass ich in großer Freiheit meinen Weg bis hierhin gehen konnte. But words do fail when it comes to expressing the thankfulness I feel for you, my dear liefling, Dr. Annethea Grohmann and our daughters Ilse and Emma. Not only did you challenge me academically but made sure that I would always leave the ivory tower at 5 pm at the latest to read children’s books, cut out paper dolls, search for shongololos or climb in the Mowgli tree! In the midst of cultural adaptation after moving to a foreign country as well as while carrying responsibility for a growing family, there were times when I could not see myself finishing this project. The fact that I was able to submit this dissertation fills me with Demut and Dankbarkeit towards the One who “gives everyone life and breath and everything else” (The Bible, Acts 17:25), the profoundness of which the English ‘equivalent’ terms humility and gratefulness feel inadequate to express.

Abstract

In post-apartheid South Africa, the creation of ‘racially’ integrated spaces is regarded as crucial to fostering reconciliation (cf. Institute for Justice and Reconciliation [IJR], 2019: 67). This conviction is shared by many churches, particularly in urban settings. Moreover, given the highly unequal nature of the South African society, reconciliation in this context can often not be dissociated from ‘transformation’ towards more equality, inclusivity and justice, mainly in socioeconomic terms. However, persisting inequalities instilled by the dominance of Western based languages and epistemologies—even in contexts where English is spoken fluently—are seldom given attention. These, it is argued, can be regarded as part of the wider notion of coloniality and constitute a dimension that—despite its centrality for the overcoming of inherited hierarchies—is often missing in the reconciliation discourse in South Africa. The concept of ‘languaculture’ (Agar, [1994] 2002) proved central in this respect to point out the contextual nature of language. In churches trying to become multicultural communities, the ignorance of this often results in white people continuously finding themselves in advantageous positions not just socio-economically: a predominantly Eurocentric habitus, English based on secular ontologies and theologies contextual to the West constitute the uninterrogated norms for multiracial togetherness. This study focused on South African church communities that appeared to be moving towards reconciliation. It set out to better understand how in these processes, structures of inequality were challenged or perpetuated by those in privileged positions. A reformed Anglican, progressively ‘multicultural’ church in Cape Town was chosen for a qualitative study that examined how white congregants conceptualised and practiced reconciliation. I firstly investigated to what extent white people were aware of their privilege and dominance—not just

xiii

xiv

Abstract

socio-economically but languaculturally as well. Secondly, I sought to establish how white people imagined reconciliation considering their understanding of inter-cultural power relationships. And thirdly, in light of their ideas about reconciliation, I studied what reconciliation in this context looked like practically for white people. It was established that a certain measure of awareness of ‘white dominance’ did exist. At the same time, attempts were recorded to counter it and allow for more cultural diversity at church, motivated by a reconciliation concept that emphasised equality and racial integration. The scope for change, though, was inadvertently limited by the setting up of boundaries, particularly in the realm of language and theology. These meant that the dominant mode of working towards reconciliation emphasised the leveraging of privilege on the one and inclusion into the dominant culture on the other hand. Seeking equality by giving up power and building relationships on the terms of the ‘under-privileged’ was rarely given consideration. The study was undertaken with constructivist grounded theory methodology that employed ethnographic methods and the learning of Xhosa languaculture. The latter was used for a subsidiary study of several isiXhosa-English term pairs. It illustrates the cultural embeddedness of language and thus supports the high importance given to this aspect in the main part of the research project. On a theoretical level, this study underlines the necessity of paying close attention to power imbalances in cross-cultural reconciliation processes, particularly in the linguistic-epistemological realm. If left unattended, they risk perpetuating states of coloniality.

Zusammenfassung

Für die Förderung von Versöhnung im Post-Apartheid-Südafrika wird das Schaffen von multiethnischen Räumen als essentiell angesehen (cf. Institute for Justice and Reconciliation [IJR], 2019: 67). Diese Überzeugung wird auch von vielen Kirchen geteilt, insbesondere in den Städten. Dazu kommt, dass—aufgrund der von hoher sozialer Ungleichheit geprägten südafrikanischen Gesellschaft—Versöhnung hier meist nicht von „Transformation“ getrennt werden kann. Diese wird zumeist als ein Wandel hin zu mehr Gleichheit, Inklusion und Gerechtigkeit verstanden, besonders in sozio-ökonomischer Hinsicht. Allerdings wird Ungleichheiten, die auf der Dominanz von westlich geprägten Sprachen und Erkenntnistheorien beruhen, nur selten Aufmerksamkeit zuteil. Diese Differenzen existieren mitunter selbst in Kontexten, wo Englisch fließend gesprochen wird und können als Teil des umfassenderen Begriffs der Kolonialität betrachtet werden. In Versöhnungsdiskursen in Südafrika findet sich diese Dimension kaum wieder, trotz ihrer zentralen Bedeutung für die Überwindung ererbter Hierarchien. In dieser Arbeit ermöglichte „languaculture“ (Agar, [1994] 2002; dt. etwa „Sprachkultur“) als Schlüsselkonzept den kontextuellen Charakter von Sprache zu verdeutlichen. Wo letzteres in Kirchen ignoriert wird, die eine multikulturelle Gemeinschaftsform anstreben, befinden sich weiße Menschen häufig—nicht nur in sozio-ökonomischer Hinsicht—in vorteilhaften Positionen: Ein mehrheitlich eurozentrischer Habitus, ein Englisch, welches auf säkularen Ontologien basiert sowie westlich geprägten Theologien stellen die unhinterfragten Normen dar, auf denen multiethnische Gemeinschaft dann beruht. Die vorliegende Untersuchung befasste sich mit südafrikanischen Kirchengemeinden, in denen scheinbar erfolgreiche Versöhnungsprozesse verliefen. Das Ziel war es herauszufinden, wie in solchen Prozessen Menschen in privilegierten

xv

xvi

Zusammenfassung

Positionen Strukturen von Ungleichheit hinterfragten, ihnen etwas entgegensetzten oder sie weiter aufrechterhielten. Für die qualitative Studie wurde eine zunehmend „multikulturelle“, reformierte anglikanische Gemeinde in Kapstadt ausgewählt. Es wurde erforscht, welchen Versöhnungsentwurf weiße Gemeindemitglieder verfolgten und wie die tatsächliche Versöhnungspraxis aussah. Zunächst wurde untersucht, inwieweit weiße Menschen sich ihrer Privilegien und ihrer Dominanz bewusst waren—nicht nur in sozio-ökonomischer, sondern auch in sprachkultureller Hinsicht. Daraufhin wurde vor dem Hintergrund ihres Verständnisses der interkulturellen Machtverhältnisse versucht festzustellen, welche Vorstellung von Versöhnung weiße Menschen hatten. Unter Berücksichtigung dieses Versöhnungskonzepts wurde schließlich die Versöhnungspraxis weißer Menschen untersucht. Es wurde festgestellt, dass es einerseits ein gewisses Bewusstsein „weißer Dominanz“ gab. Andererseits—basierend auf einem Versöhnungsverständnis, welches Gleichheit und multiethnische Gemeinschaft betonte – gab es auch Versuche, dieser Einseitigkeit entgegenzuwirken und mehr kulturelle Diversität in der Kirche zu ermöglichen. Der Spielraum für Veränderungen wurde jedoch durch das Ziehen von Grenzen ungewollt beschränkt, besonders in den Bereichen von Sprache und Theologie. Diese Grenzen führten dazu, dass man sich im Einsatz für Versöhnung vorrangig bestehender Privilegien bediente und Integration in die dominierende Kultur vorantrieb. Kaum in Betracht gezogen wurde dagegen eine Art nach mehr Gleichheit zu streben, welche die Aufgabe von Macht und das Bauen von Beziehungen zu den Bedingungen der „Unter-Privilegierten“ zum Zentrum hat. Das Forschungsprojekt basierte auf einem konstruktivistischen GroundedTheory-Ansatz, ethnografischen Methoden und dem Lernen von XhosaSprachkultur. Letztere wurde für eine ergänzende Vergleichsstudie mehrerer Begriffspaare aus den Sprachen isiXhosa und Englisch verwendet. Diese sekundäre Studie verdeutlicht die kulturelle Einbettung von Sprache und unterstreicht dadurch die hohe Bedeutung, die diesem Aspekt im Hauptteil des Projektes zuteilwurde. Auf theoretischer Ebene hebt diese Untersuchung die Notwendigkeit hervor, in interkulturellen Versöhnungsprozessen ungleichen Machtverhältnissen die notwendige Aufmerksamkeit zu widmen, insbesondere im sprachlichepistemologischen Bereich. Eine Missachtung dessen riskiert, dass Zustände von Kolonialität aufrechterhalten werden.

A Note on Formatting

The presentation of my data analysis in Chapter 6 involves a great number of analytical concepts. In order for them to be readily identifiable as such, two different fonts were used: categories, subcategories and dimensions were put in small caps while properties will appear in bold print. To enable easier reading, I did not use different fonts when cross-referencing analytical categories in footnotes but indicated that a given group of words refers to such a category by putting them in inverted commas, like in ‘Leveraging in practice’. Unconventionally, emphasis is not shown by italicising words but by underlining (except in the cases of original emphases through italics in quotations from literature which were retained). The reason for that is that the many interview quotations appear in italics as well as non-English words used in the main body of text. This was the case most prominently in the isiXhosa concept study in Chapter 8.

xvii

A Note on Terminology used to Speak about Social Identities

Of central concern in my research project was how language(s) relate(s) to social identities and ways of life. In this dissertation, three partly overlapping concepts will be frequently used in this respect—‘languaculture’, ‘cultural conceptualisations’ and ‘cultural-linguistic’. The term ‘languaculture’ was coined by the linguistic anthropologist Michael Agar to highlight the fact that language goes far beyond grammar and vocabulary and has a “necessary tie” (Agar, [1994] 2002: 60, emphasis in original) with the real-life contexts in which people lead their lives, which he subsumed under ‘culture’. I frequently use this term as a noun and as an adjective (‘languacultural’). A related concept, central to the field of Cultural Linguistics, is that of ‘cultural conceptualisations’. It refers to concepts shared—to differing degrees—by a speech community. When using the adjective ‘cultural-linguistic’, I refer to such cultural conceptualisations. A more detailed introduction to these concepts is provided in section 2.2.1. Different from—although at times overlapping with—cultural-linguistic aspects of social identities are political ones. In this respect, speaking of social identities in the South African context often involves making reference to the notion of ‘race’. I do this knowing that race is a socially constructed category which, despite the lack of biological foundations, has had tangible impacts on the lives of people in the course of South African history. The use of apartheidera racial categories is not to be understood as an endorsement of the respective ideology or as wanting to reify the race-based categorisation of people but as an attempt to come to terms with the long-term consequences of a racialised society. A more detailed justification of my terminology related to the notion of race can be found in section 2.2.2.

xix

xx

A Note on Terminology used to Speak about Social Identities

Furthermore, I frequently draw on the terminology of class in this dissertation. This is not to signal an ideological orientation but rather a reflection of South African debates both in academic and in public discourse. These tend to often speak of socio-economic realities in terms of class-language, be it in the Marxian sense of class with a class-consciousness in the struggle or in the Gramscian sense of the subaltern classes who tend to be more fragmented and little self-aware (cf. Rieger, 2013: 192).

Contents

Part I 1

2

Introducing the Problem

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Reconciliation as Strategy to Overcome Apartheid Divisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 One-Sided Integration in Churches Seeking Reconciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 The Domination through Language and Worldview . . . 1.1.4 Enhancing Reconciliation through Decolonial Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.5 The Central Role of White People for Reconciliation Processes in Contexts of Coloniality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Research Aims and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 An Overview of Research Design and Methodology . . . . . . . . 1.4 Delimitations and Research Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Outline of Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Reconciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Key aspects of Reconciliation Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Du Toit’s Reconciliation-as-Interdependence . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Social Restoration vs an Agonistic Approach to Reconciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 3 3 5 7 8

10 11 12 14 16 16 19 21 21 22 24 26

xxi

xxii

Contents

2.2

2.3

2.4 2.5

Part II 3

4

2.1.4 Transformation as an Essential Element of Reconciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Speaking of Social Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 The Concepts of Languaculture and Cultural Conceptualisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 My use of Terms Relating to ‘Race’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . De/Coloniality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Introducing the Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Critique of Decolonial Thought and of its Outworking in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 The Coloniality of Knowledge and the Risks of Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Some Implications for Languacultural Relations in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How De/coloniality Enhances Reconciliation Theory . . . . . . . . Association from a Distance—Inspiration for a Decolonial Alternative for Reconciliation? . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 29 30 32 33 33 34 36 38 41 42

How the Research was Conducted

Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Ethnography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Grounded Theory Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 A Critical Realist Research Paradigm with a Constructivist Approach to Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 The Validity of a Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Using Constructivist Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Languaculture-learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 47 48 48 49

The Process of Enquiry at The Message church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Choosing the Research Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Gaining Access and Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Defining my Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Data Collection and Challenges Encountered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Constant Comparisons, Memo-Writing and Categorising . . . . . 4.7 Use of Software for Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) . . . . . . .

55 56 56 57 59 62 64 65

50 52 53 53

Contents

xxiii

4.8 4.9

65

Theoretical Sampling and Saturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sorting and Integrating to Construct the Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 Engaging the Literature after the Grounded Theory Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part III 5

6

66 68

Empiricial Findings at The Message church

Introduction to my Primary Research Site: The Message church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 The Message Church Within the Denomination REACH SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The Congregation and the Structure of the Church . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 The Theological Orientation of The Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 White People’s Perspective on the Story and the Experiences of the Church with Regard to Racial Reconciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Early Days of the Church and Reconciliation Initiatives Over the Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Discontentedness and People Leaving the Church . . . . 5.4.3 White Church Members’ Reflections on the Journey of Reconciliation at The Message . . . . Grounded Theory Study of The Message church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Conceptualising Reconciliation as Seeking Equality and Racial Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Reconciling Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Reconciling Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality and Racial Integration’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Coming to Terms with Inequalities and Privilege . . . . . 6.3.1.1 Acknowledging Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1.2 Evading Being Regarded as Privileged . . . . . . 6.3.1.3 Justifying Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Disapproving of White Dominance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2.1 Resisting Seeing White Cultural Dominance at Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73 73 74 75

76 76 80 82 85 85 86 86 87 91 95 96 97 99 101 103 104

xxiv

Contents

6.4

6.5

Part IV 7

6.3.2.2 Thinking About the Message in Terms of a White Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2.3 Partial Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Formative Influence on Reconciliation Practice: Hope for Transformation From Within . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 Knowing of Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 Defining the Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.3 Defining the Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.3.1 The Boundaries of Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.3.2 The Boundaries of Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.4 Summing up ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 Seeking to Understand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1.1 Trying to Understand Through Talk . . . . . . . . 6.5.1.2 Needing Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 ‘Giving to’ Taking Priority Over ‘Giving Up’ . . . . . . . . 6.5.2.1 Leveraging Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2.2 Becoming Vulnerable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2.3 Integrating ‘Leveraging Privilege’ and ‘Becoming Vulnerable’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.3 Finding Unity on White Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.4 Concluding Remarks on Reconciliation Practice at the Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108 112 112 113 114 116 117 123 125 126 127 129 131 132 132 139 141 144 156

Subsidiary Study: Process and Findings

The Process of Enquiry for the isiXhosa Concept Study . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Choosing the Research Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Gaining Access and Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Participant Observation at St John’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Challenges That Turned out to be of Benefit to my Study . . . . 7.6 The IsiXhosa Concept Study: Research Methodology, Data Gathering and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 On ‘Verification’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159 159 160 160 162 163 165 166

Contents

xxv

8

169 169

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Ukuthandaza—‘to Pray’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1 The Reasoning Behind This Case Study and How I Went About it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.2 Analysing Ukuthandaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.3 Discussing the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Ukushumayela—‘to Preach’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 The Reasoning Behind This Case Study and How I Went About it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Analysing Ukushumayela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.3 Discussing the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Umtshato—‘Marriage’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 The Reasoning Behind This Case Study and How I Went About it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Analysing Umtshato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.3 Discussing the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Partial Conclusion: a Chance for Cross-cultural Relations to Deepen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part V 9

169 170 172 174 174 175 177 178 178 179 182 183

Implications

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 How did White People Imagine and Practice ‘Reconciliation’ in a Context of ‘Coloniality’?—Discussing the Findings Against the Backdrop of the Original Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 To What Extent Were White People Aware of Their Cultural Dominance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 How did White People Imagine Reconciliation Considering Their Understanding of Inter-cultural Power Relationships? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.3 In Light of Their Ideas about Reconciliation, what did Reconciliation Look Like Practically for White People? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.4 How Were Structures of Inequality Affected by the Reconciliation Process? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.5 Partial Conclusion: Decolonisation From Above? . . . . . 9.2 Discussing the Findings in Relation to my Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

191

191 192

193

195 196 199 202

xxvi

Contents

9.2.1 How the Theoretical Framework Illuminates my Analytical Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.2 How the Theoretical Framework Extends my Analytical Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3 How my Findings Extend and Challenge the Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

209

10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Significance and Implications of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Limitations of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

215 215 217 218 220

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

223

203 208

Acronyms and Abbreviations

#FMF ACSA AIC ARSP ASF BSAE CESA CGT CPSA DRC GC GDR GWC IJR QDA REACH SA St John’s TRC UCT URCSA WSAE

#FeesMustFall university protest movement Anglican Church of Southern Africa African Instituted Church Action Reconciliation Service for Peace Aktion Sühnezeichen Friedensdienste Black South African English Church of England in South Africa Constructivist grounded theory Church of the Province of Southern Africa Dutch Reformed Church Gospel Community German Democratic Republic George Whitefield College Institute for Justice and Reconciliation Qualitative Data Analysis Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church in South Africa St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission Truth and Reconciliation Commission University of Cape Town Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa White South African English

xxvii

List of Figures

Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10

Figure 6.11 Figure 6.12 Figure 6.13

Timeline of process of enquiry at The Message church . . . Screenshot of Quirkos software with codes in the text source and displayed in graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evolution of theory diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview over major analytical categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reconciling individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reconciling groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The motivators for ‘Reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coming to terms with inequalities and privilege . . . . . . . . . Disapproving of white dominance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hope for transformation from within . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The boundaries of language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practicing reconciliation with ‘Hope for transformation from within’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seeking to understand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Giving to’ taking priority over ‘Giving up’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finding unity on white terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 65 67 86 87 88 91 95 96 104 113 117 127 128 133 144

xxix

Part I Introducing the Problem

1

Introduction

1.1

Background

1.1.1

Reconciliation as Strategy to Overcome Apartheid Divisions

In the early 1990 s, South Africa experienced a tremendous political shift. The apartheid regime was not able to sustain its reign and had to hand over power. After decades if not centuries of conflict, domination and resistance, ‘reconciliation’ emerged as a key strategy to manage the political transition (Wüstenberg, 2014) and became part of the politics of the new regime. Internationally, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was highly appraised, despite the many shortcomings scholars and practitioners from South Africa and beyond pointed out (Boraine, 2000; Mamdani, 2000; van Zyl Slabbert, 2000; Villa-Vicencio, 2000). The vision of reconciliation promised a ‘non-racial’ society (Alexander, 2001) and “justice as increasing fairness and inclusion” (du Toit, 2017: 180) in the political, social and economic realm. But the often experienced absence thereof, coupled with the perceived corruption in the political leadership, compromises and jeopardizes the quest for reconciled relationships across the boundaries of race and class (cf. du Toit, 2017: 180; IJR, 2019: 14, 36). Hence van der Westhuizen’s assertion that “reconciliation should be approached in conjunction with transformation” (van der Westhuizen, 2017: 169), for “in order for reconciliation to take root in South Africa, it is necessary to acknowledge and deal with the legacy of direct, structural and symbolic violence and oppression suffered under apartheid, and to support initiatives for redressing this legacy.” (IJR, 2019: 47; see also Erasmus, 2005; Marcuse, 1995; and Thesnaar, 2017) © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_1

3

4

1

Introduction

To this end, affirmative action, e.g. through the B-BBEE act has been employed to tackle the socio-economic inequalities many of those who are regarded as ‘previously disadvantaged’ are suffering from.1 Furthermore, there have been efforts to reform the educational system (Jansen, 2009) and religious institutions and faith communities were also drawn into or saw themselves as responsible for contributing to reconciliation in society (Meiring, 2005; van der Merwe, 2003). Racial integration—which the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation takes as a key indicator for reconciliation (IJR, 2014: 10)—has increasingly been taking place (Lefko-Everett et al., 2017: 3) and a majority of South Africans express the desire “to interact more often with people from other race groups” (IJR, 2019: 71). It is pointed out, though, that racial integration is often limited to public spaces (ibid.) and that only “[a] minority of the Black population have moved into arenas previously dominated by Whites (higher positions in organizations, social spaces, universities, etc.), whereas the corresponding movement of Whites into areas dominated by Black people (e.g. townships) remains virtually nonexistent” (Durrheim and Dixon, 2010: 285). This is not surprising since the principal approaches to bringing about change often revolve around giving people access— to education, to jobs, to ‘development’, to sports squads or church communities. Racial integration is normally taken to mean “[t]he intermixing of people who were previously segregated” (Lexico, 2021a), without implying assimilation into one particular societal group. In practice, however, socio-economic transformation and working towards reconciliation often seem to be understood as integrating previously disadvantaged people into systems and spaces that used to be reserved for white people—an issue that is receiving more and more attention (cf. Pattman and Carolissen, 2018b: 5). This leads to a one-sidedness when what used to be the standard reserved for white people is now regarded as universal while other standards are being ignored and actual integration obstructed. Bound up with this problem are initiatives of ‘upliftment’ through formal or informal education. English is regarded as key for climbing the social ladder (Christie and McKinney, 2017; McKinney, 2007) while indigenous African languages are practically not considered fit, suitable or necessary as languages of instruction (Wolff, 2018). Eurocentric epistemologies prevail (Mbembe, 2015b; Santos, 2016) although a deep investment in learning about and understanding the worldview of other cultures would hold the potential to enhance socio-economic transformation (cf. ter 1

De Gruchy (2000: 46) speaks of a process of ongoing “Africanization” both in churches and the wider society, which he describes “as a striving toward Black majority control in all spheres.” He points out that the exact meaning of the term is controversial, because Indians and Coloureds sometimes feel that with the focus on black Africans they are being disadvantaged.

1.1 Background

5

Haar and Ellis, 2006) and arguably contribute to reconciliation (cf. Krog et al., 2013). While such orientations in processes of transformation can be explained by the socio-economic structures of South African society, it is not without significance for the kind of transformation and ultimately reconciliation that they enable. It will become evident in this dissertation that furthering reconciliation in South Africa through racial inclusivity often involves an inherent dilemma: upliftment risks working against cultural diversity if people are explicitly or tacitly expected to culturally assimilate into Western ways of life, including but not restricted to a Eurocentric epistemology. The transformation that undergirds reconciliation thus matters not just quantitatively but also qualitatively.

1.1.2

One-Sided Integration in Churches Seeking Reconciliation

The urge to racially transform in order to promote reconciliation is also felt by churches2 —even to the extent that people are sometimes bussed in from poorer parts of the city (Bowers du Toit and Nkomo, 2014: 8). Indeed, racially diversifying churches are often seen as proof of churches’ capacities to enhance cross-racial reconciliation in South Africa (de Gruchy, 2006; Ganiel, 2007). But what tends to be labelled ‘multicultural’ in many cases should rather be called ‘multiracial’ as such churches usually continue to be dominated by a middle-class lifestyle which is mostly the norm for white people, teach Western theology in English and have white people remaining in central roles. Of course, diversifying in this way can enable encounters between people of different backgrounds in terms of class and race. It must not be overlooked, though, that such transformation has the potential to reinforce social and cultural hierarchies as formerly disenfranchised people are now able to mix with those who have—socially and economically—been privileged for a long time. As Swartz et al. (2014: 347) warn3 , such an understanding of multiculturality might be inadequate for a genuine transformation as it does not sufficiently take into account the existing inequalities between dominant and subordinate cultures in terms of power and privilege. As Ansell (2006: 333) puts it: “color-blindness […] serves in the postsegregation context to stall transformation of the racial order in the direction of 2

Although my research focus was on a church from an evangelical denomination, much of what is described here applies to urban mainline churches as well. 3 Drawing on Soudien (2004).

6

1

Introduction

greater equality” (see also Venter, 1995: 335). Referring to a typology of multiracial congregations drawn up by DeYoung et al. (2003), Ganiel (2008: 278) indicates that many multiracial churches in South Africa may favour the assimilationist model which is “less receptive to reconciliation”.4 What assimilation in churches in Cape Town means, can easily be recognised in most of the churches which used to be primarily white and profess a desire to ‘racially integrate’, although some congregations do not necessarily have a white majority anymore. Some common features of these churches are: mostly, the leadership is numerically dominated by white people; indigenous African languages are at best treated as a “folkloric” (cf. Makoni, 2017a) element in the sung worship; African Instituted Churches are often regarded with suspicion in evangelical and mainline churches; the accepted theology and the respective training are based on Western philosophical and theological traditions and are often-times controlled by a rather white academia. Flikschuh’s analysis, referring mainly to the Western academia in the field of political philosophy, seems to hold true also for the Christian religious contexts in South Africa: “There is an incongruence between the stated concern for the plight of the ‘global poor’ and the apparent lack of interest in distant others’ [i.e. in her case African scholars’] own assessment of their political contexts and philosophical predicaments“ (Flikschuh, 2014: 14). Thus, we are faced with a situation where the desire to become ‘culturally diverse’ as both a strategy for and a goal of reconciliation is contradicted by practice. Even though many of those churches are trying to do ministry holistically and regard addressing issues of poverty or inadequate education as an integral part of living out their faith (see e.g. Bowers du Toit and Nkomo, 2014), this does not appear to alter the cultural dominance of Western language and thought. Far from being merely symbolic, the limitation to Western epistemology presents a serious impediment to effective cross-cultural communication and thus to the often-intended social change.5 Willie James Jennings may showcase an ambitious vision when he relates how striving for “cultural intimacy between peoples” (Jennings, 2010: 265) could 4

As Ganiel relates, DeYoung et al. (2003: 165) “identified three types [of multiracial congregations], considering factors such as organizational culture, the race of the leaders and the degree of social interaction across races”. They called them ‘Assimilated multiracial congregation’, ‘Pluralist multiracial congregation’ and ‘Integrated multiracial congregation’. In the latter case, “no one culture or race is noticeably dominant”, whereas in the case of assimilated congregations, one particular culture would clearly dominate (Ganiel, 2008: 266). 5 Cf. for instance ter Haar and Ellis (2006) who point out the necessity to go beyond secular assumptions implicit in Western development policies in order to communicate effectively in contexts like Africa where reality is traditionally perceived holistically.

1.1 Background

7

possibly contribute to coming to terms with the painful history of colonialism, mission and racialisation. In congregations, where the overcoming of the apartheid segregation in the name of reconciliation is theologically framed, Jennings’ expression might be regarded an adequate description of the desire of those churches. And yet, any movement in this direction would involve the crossing of boundaries in terms of language, cultural practices, theology and place. This crossing of boundaries, however, hardly occurs in South Africa, and if it does, then mostly in a one-directional manner, leaving the old racial hierarchies largely unchallenged. The presence of a diversity of skin colours in churches spiced with a strong unity discourse seems to conceal the lack of cultural diversity on many other levels. We therefore have to acknowledge a certain ambivalence: On the one hand, there appears to be an awareness in churches of the neglected relationship between the (re-)building of relationships and justice issues as Bowers du Toit points out: “One thing that the TRC [faith community] re-enactment [in 2014] brought to light was that we have not taken the notions of inequality and white privilege seriously enough and have struggled to link the notions of restorative justice and reconciliation” (Bowers du Toit, 2016: 7). On the other hand, deep reflection on the dominance and assumed universality of Western knowledge systems in churches appears to be lacking. Outside of academia (see e.g. Bowers du Toit, 2016; Thesnaar, 2012, 2017; van Wyngaard, 2013, 2014, 2015) and a few NGOs6 , there has been little engagement so far with the implication of churches themselves in what decolonial theorists call the ‘colonial matrices of power’ in the realm of epistemology.

1.1.3

The Domination through Language and Worldview

Venter (1997: 12f.) describes how language ideologies, institutional culture, power structures and class aspirations lead to English being the dominating language in multiracial South African churches. White congregants—who are 25 years after Venter’s writings still mostly unacquainted with black languages—are thereby having “the biggest impact on language preference in [such] settings” (Venter, 1997: 12). This leaves them in powerful positions—for two reasons: One, they are setting the terms under which any kind of ‘reconciliation’ might be realised. That is, they continue to exercise power over those with whom they 6

Examples are The Warehouse (www.warehouse.org.za) or the Isiphambano Centre for Biblical Justice (www.isiphambano.com).

8

1

Introduction

hope to attain reconciled relationships. Two, particularly in churches which are dominated by white people, it is not just ‘Anglonormativity’ (Christie and McKinney, 2017: 166) which will remain the standard in terms of spoken language, but with it also underlying assumptions which are rooted in Western epistemic traditions. As will be explained in more detail in section 2.3 (‘De/coloniality’), this has greatly contributed to Western, secular ontologies being given preference over African, non-secular ones. Having English as the sole medium of communication in settings that are dominated by Western epistemologies consequently prevents deep engagement with ontologies rooted in African culture which can hardly be accessed through culturally Western languages alone (Harries, 2012). At the same time, perspectives of worldviews rooted in Western culture and language are taken for granted and regarded as universal by those whose cultural background sets the terms of the multiracial community (cf. Flett, 2016: 278). In churches, this is bound to include theological reflection, i.e. the educational aspects of church, and practice, e.g. leadership, prayer, worship, marriage, etc. African theology, i.e. indigenous knowledge based on non-secular assumptions, will hardly be encouraged or even tolerated.7 For contexts where reconciliation is actively sought through racial integration, this presents a problem: with Western languacultural norms prevailing, the growing representation from different racial and cultural groups is not being matched by an increase in practiced cultural diversity.

1.1.4

Enhancing Reconciliation through Decolonial Perspectives

With the focus being on racial integration and on the challenge of overcoming socio-economic inequalities, the dilemma for reconciliation practice in South Africa that was outlined above has received scant attention in churches and little in research. Hesselmans (2016), for instance, in her study on difficulties in moving towards integration between DRC and URCSA congregations, touches on the issue of ‘controlling’ diversity to safeguard the cultural identities of congregations. It does not, however, examine how diversity might be limited inadvertently despite desiring more cultural diversity. Ganiel, in her study of another racially

7

Tshehla (2002) draws attention to the dominance of Western languacultural perspectives in formal theological education in South Africa which works against an effective inculturation of Christianity in African communities.

1.1 Background

9

integrating church in Cape Town, did mention the risks of unequally shared burdens in an integrating church. Her focus, though, was more on the potential that a religiously driven multiracial community might have for the wider South African society in search for effective reconciliation (Ganiel, 2007, 2008). Venter (1995, 1997) made a rare contribution in considering the complex relationship between equal opportunities and cultural diversity related to language use in multiracial but oftentimes monolingual churches.8 The dominance through Western knowledge systems and partly through language featured more prominently in the #Fallist movements (ca. 2015–2018) where students across South Africa protested among others for the decolonisation of the university (cf. Makalela, 2018; Mayaba, 2018; Mkhize, 2018). Of course, the orientation towards English and ‘white ways of life’ often mirror people’s aspirations (cf. Bloch, 2000; Hadebe, 2013). Nevertheless, theories of de/coloniality interpret these phenomena as an ongoing hegemony of the West. Despite the formal decolonisation of former colonies, societies of the Global South are here regarded as still having to function according to epistemologies and norms that are ‘Euro-North American-centric’ and are thus being disadvantaged and disempowered (cf. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013, 2015). Education institutions as well as churches are portrayed as sites where ‘coloniality’ is being reproduced (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013: 11). Perhaps the most striking expression of such coloniality can be found in settler colonies like the USA, Canada, Argentina, New Zealand or Australia where indigenous groups were reduced to minorities with the consequence of very limited political influence (cf. Maddison, 2013; Moses, 2011; Veracini, 2014). As far as domination through Eurocentric knowledge-systems in settler colonies is concerned, South Africa represents a special case since those regarded as ‘white’, who used to be in power for a long time, have remained a minority. This uniqueness notwithstanding, the term ‘coloniality’ gives language to the myriad ways in which the minority of beneficiaries of apartheid and colonialism continues to enjoy many advantages over the substantial majority in contemporary South African society.9 Interpreting the status quo as a state of coloniality is consequential for our understanding and

8

Another exception to the frequently ignored issue of languacultural dominance, albeit with respect to transformation in higher education, would be Pattman and Carolissen (2018a). 9 This is not to hide that policies like B-BBEE, for all the criticism levelled against them, contribute to a rectification of South African inequalities, although this can at times be experienced and interpreted as “reverse discrimination” and intentionally disadvantaging white people (Archibong and Adejumo, 2013: 24; cf. also ‘Critique of coloniality’, 11/09/2019, Research Notes).

10

1

Introduction

practice of reconciliation. Despite having lost its glamour, Desmond Tutu’s rainbow metaphor with its vision of ‘unity in diversity’ remains the foundation of the hope for a reconciled South African nation. The perspective of de/coloniality in this regard is effective in two ways: on the one hand it draws attention to what Kwenda calls “the danger of hegemony” which he regards as inherent in the strategies of “harmonisation and homogenisation” (Kwenda, 2003: 69). This is of relevance for reconciling communities. On the other hand, it confronts the belief held by certain beneficiaries of apartheid “that privilege is their due” (Steyn, 2001a: 99), even in a changing and more inclusive South Africa. De/coloniality thus opens up the possibility of engaging deeper with what reconciliation ought to mean in South Africa by carefully examining the terms under which transformation is sought to bring about a reconciled society. What is more, reconciliation practitioners need to be aware of the risk of perpetuating coloniality as they go about building multicultural communities which are supposed to reduce and transform inherited social hierarchies.

1.1.5

The Central Role of White People for Reconciliation Processes in Contexts of Coloniality

Scholars writing on coloniality and decolonisation usually take on the perspective of ‘the marginalised’, ‘the wretched’, ‘the colonised’, no matter whether they take a highly supportive, activist stance of the project of de/coloniality (e.g. NdlovuGatsheni, 2015) or a more sober, analytical and rather critical one (e.g. Mbembe, 2015a, 2015b). In my study, on the contrary, I am mainly concerned with those who often find themselves in privileged positions as a white minority in South Africa. In contexts where people from a diversity of backgrounds strive for reconciliation, the question is whether and how those often on the upper side work towards equality, and thus potentially engage in what might be coined ‘decolonisation from above’, echoing Ndlovu-Gatsheni’s call for “[d]eimperialisation […] a task to be performed by the former colonisers” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2014: 39). Du Toit (2018: 229) agrees that “[w]hite South Africans have a special responsibility” with regards to spearheading “material redress”, although this does not explicitly consider what is expressed by the term coloniality, which encompasses white people’s dominance on a larger scale. In multiracial congregations which are seeking reconciliation but are so dominated by white people and their languaculture(s)10 , the question is how the latter 10

As opposed to languacultures that are rooted in African traditions.

1.2 Research Aims and Questions

11

make sense of their own privileges and their dominance and how they imagine reconciliation and engage in it. That is, whether there is an awareness on their side of the prevalent ‘coloniality’—not just socio-economically but regarding cultural aspects like language, theology and practices as well—and what attempts, if any, are being made to deal with it, perhaps to ‘decolonise from above’. To engage in ‘decolonisation from above’ could be a genuine contribution to reconciliation, especially if it doesn’t substitute charity for (cultural) justice11 (cf. Ricœur, 1995: 11). However, building multicultural communities for reconciliation’s sake also involves the risk of perpetuating structures of coloniality. Researching the awareness of existing coloniality and possible responses to it is thus particularly pertinent in a church context where the powerful group is already committed to some form of transformation with the overarching goal of reconciliation. It allows us to examine to what extent matters of coloniality are considered by people who are part of the privileged group and are actively striving towards social change.

1.2

Research Aims and Questions

This research project followed two years of exploratory research into the literature base around perspectives on racial reconciliation in South Africa as well as into the attempted practice of such in a variety of church contexts in Cape Town.12 The objective was to contribute to a better understanding of reconciliation in contexts of coloniality. More specifically, in respect to Christianity in South Africa and the vision of a multicultural society, I sought insights into ways in which ‘reconciling’, progressively ‘multicultural’ (church) communities challenge or perpetuate structures of inequality. My research project was thus concerned with the question of how coloniality is dealt with.The central research question was: In a multiracial church context in Cape Town, marked by white dominance in respect of language, cultural practices, theology and place, how do white people imagine and practice ‘reconciliation’? In relation to the described church context, the following were the more specific questions emanating from this overarching one: 1) To what extent are white people aware of their cultural dominance? 11

Cf. explanation of the term ‘cultural justice’ in section 2.1.4. This involved writing a research proposal in 2016 while still in Germany, coming to terms with what I observed and experienced in South Africa from early 2017 and rewriting the proposal that took into account current debates around transformation and decolonisation in the wake of the #FeesMustFall student protests in South Africa.

12

12

1

Introduction

2) How do white people imagine reconciliation considering their understanding of inter-cultural power relationships? 3) In light of their ideas about reconciliation, what does reconciliation look like practically for white people? I want to point out that despite the fact that in this dissertation I undertake to rethink approaches to reconciliation with a decolonial perspective, in my interviews I rarely used terms related to ‘coloniality’ explicitly. My aim was not to academically discuss them with my research participants but rather establish to what extent they themselves were aware of expressions of coloniality—as described in more detail in section 2.3—and how these were dealt with as people pursued reconciliation. Consequently, and in line with a grounded theory research paradigm (see the following section), decolonial terminology features little in the presentation of my findings in Chapter 6. I do indicate at times how certain findings are linked to theoretical concepts but these will only be used extensively in the Theoretical Framework in Chapter 2 and in the discussion part in Chapter 9.

1.3

An Overview of Research Design and Methodology

The investigation that formed the basis for this dissertation consisted of two parts.13 The purpose of the first one was to learn about white people’s understanding and practice of racial reconciliation in a culturally diversifying but largely white-dominated church. To this end, I selected a church called ‘The Message’ in the suburb of Mowbray, Cape Town, as my primary research site. This church belongs to the denomination of the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church in South Africa (REACH SA). With participant observation and semi-structured interviews, I used ethnographic methods to generate data. This process was informed by the application of constructivist grounded theory (CGT) methodology for data collection and analysis. It needs to be pointed out that grounded theory methodology “transcends the scope of a traditional methodology […] which has important implications for the actual structure of the written output” (Dunne and Üstünda˘g, 2020: 30). Contrary 13

The original concept of this study, based on the research proposal, was published as ‘Grohmann, M (2020) A Foolish Proposal? Vulnerability as an Alternative Attempt to Contribute to Decolonisation and Reconciliation in Post-Colonial South Africa. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies 37(2):140–59’. Since then, the conceptualisation and the project as a whole developed further so that everything in this dissertation was written anew.

1.3 An Overview of Research Design and Methodology

13

to conventional dissertations, I will neither “merely list, summarize, and synthesize major works” (Charmaz, 2006: 166) nor present my findings in form of a deep analysis based on the theoretical concepts I chose. Instead, and in addition to the brief introduction to the research topic in section 1.1, Chapter 2 of this dissertation consists of a focused engagement with literature that emerged as relevant for understanding the data I collected. As Charmaz suggested, the objective for this review is to “[a]ssess and critique the literature from [the] vantage point” of the “now developed grounded theory” (ibid.). The findings in Chapter 6, while including occasional references to theoretical concepts I used, will be presented almost in isolation lest the engagement with existing theories “dilute the impact of the grounded theory itself and [potentially] confuse the reader” (Dunne and Üstünda˘g, 2020: 34). Only after this data analysis will we explicitly return to the theoretical framework and discuss the findings in light of the original research questions (section 9.1) and in relation to existing literature, applying the theoretical framework (section 9.2). The second part of my project consisted of a study of three cultural-linguistic concepts used by speakers of isiXhosa14 that partly emerged from my engagement with an African Instituted Church (AIC) community in the township15 of Langa where isiXhosa is the most widely spoken first language. The intention of this auxiliary study was to test—and, if verified—illustrate what I assumed at the outset, namely the existence and nature of coloniality in multiracial settings in South Africa, particularly in a languacultural sense. In addition, it helped to analyse responses to potential white dominance at The Message in terms of culture and thought. The foundation for this second part of my study was consistent 14

The primary language spoken by Xhosa people is called ‘isiXhosa’ in that language while the people are called ‘amaXhosa’ (plural). Although it contravenes English language conventions of using foreign language terms within an English lexical and grammatical framework, I will make use of the term isiXhosa in this dissertation when I want to highlight that I specifically refer to the language. If I refer to culture or to language as part of culture or to people, I will be using the term ‘Xhosa’. 15 While choosing to use the term ‘township’ in this dissertation for convention’s sake, I want to point out that I neither use it pejoratively nor intent to paint townships with a broad brush. There often is analytical value in distinguishing between ‘suburbs’ (usually referring to historically white, wealthier, cleaner and safer neighbourhoods) and ‘townships’ or ‘locations’ (areas originally built for people of colour and which were and sometimes still are marked by poverty, lower standards of infrastructure and vegetation as well as higher levels of violence). However, there needs to be differentiation for all residential areas as the standards do indeed vary a lot between (and even within) suburbs/townships. Otherwise, it may lead to stigmatisation which can, e.g. have an impact on whether white people travel into ‘townships’ at all (see Amos’ quote in section 6.5.2.2).

14

1

Introduction

learning of Xhosa ‘languaculture’, and regular (every 4–6 weeks) attendance of Sunday services at a congregation of the denomination St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission over a space of nine months. There, I generated data through participant observation and occasional intentional conversations in isiXhosa with the pastor about my observations. My exposure to two very different church contexts in Mowbray and in Langa allowed me to identify three terms in isiXhosa and what is commonly used as their equivalents in church settings that are dominated by Western-based English. I investigated the underlying concepts of these isiXhosa/English term pairs to come up with a comparison of the meanings they carried. In this way, I was able to establish how a tacit insistence on the concepts assumed by white people when conversing in English had the potential to override understandings associated with the isiXhosa ‘equivalents’ of the terms which isiXhosa speakers may have been drawing on.

1.4

Delimitations and Research Scope

To allow for an in-depth analysis, this study had a single congregation as the primary research site. While being in some ways representative of other suburban churches in Cape Town that were striving for a multicultural community, The Message stood out with its—at times conflictual—history of purposefully engaging matters related to racial reconciliation. Of course, as Venter (1995: 325) put it, “congregational analysis is like taking snap-shots, they remain static impressions of a specific time which do not reflect current changes.” That means that my study and the subsequent data analysis and presentation of the findings only capture the information I was able to glean during the time of my field research between April and December 2019. This is similar in terms of the observations proper to my secondary research site, the congregation of St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission in the almost exclusively black township of Langa. The difference here is, though, that I used the data for a cultural-linguistic analysis of certain isiXhosa terms rather than for a full ethnographic description of the congregation. The validity of this concept study naturally extends beyond the period of field research at a specific research site. For reasons explained in 1.1.5 and 1.2, my research project focused particularly on the understanding and practice of reconciliation by white congregants. Apart from participant observation and informal conversations, the data I gathered therefore stemmed from interviews that I conducted with white (adult) regulars at The Message church. The one exception was the black associate pastor at

1.4 Delimitations and Research Scope

15

the time who I also interviewed to get a broader understanding of the perspectives on the matter at a church leadership level. Another reason for limiting my interview data to white people was the challenges connected with effective communication across languacultural boundaries. These I saw as partly accounting for power imbalances that resulted from colonialism16 which I, as a white, European researcher needed to deal with. I thus needed to be aware of and find ways of reducing power hierarchies that risked distorting my data. For me, this meant—to the greatest possible extent—avoiding formal interview situations with home language speakers of black African languages17 for which my own languacultural capacities would have been insufficient. It also implied using isiXhosa as much as possible when engaging with speakers of isiXhosa or isiZulu.18 This I was able to do in a limited but purposeful way in the data gathering for the isiXhosa concept study which took place about a year after the main field research. The language learning that I considered an integral part of my research project from the start, was at this stage more advanced. Of course, the severe time constraints of a PhD project were a limiting factor for the extent to which my using of isiXhosa for research purposes was possible. Nevertheless, learning a new languaculture over the course of several years progressively allowed for more meaningful interaction with isiXhosa home language speakers and thus increased the epistemological depth of my investigations. I worked almost entirely with a qualitative approach with the exception of estimating the demographics at my primary research site through silent head counts. Working with grounded theory which focused on finding and explaining patterns, representativeness was not the main objective of my study. Nevertheless, knowing the demographics of the entire church as well as the make-up of the church’s cell groups enabled me particularly in the beginning to assure that no sub-group among my target sample was accidentally side-lined.

16

See sections 1.1.3, ‘The domination through language and worldview’ and 2.3.3, ‘The coloniality of knowledge and the risks of translation’. 17 Adida et al. show that survey results need to be treated with caution in South Africa because “being interviewed by a member of a different racial community leads to large, systematic changes in the way people answer survey questions across a range of issues—always in the direction of the more politically correct or socially desirable answer” (Adida et al., 2015: 16). Ryen (2011: 439) proposes a number of analytic alternatives that allow Western researchers “to capture local non-Western contexts”. I found his argument and conclusions resonating with the research approach I took in this project. 18 The languages isiXhosa and isiZulu are to a large extent mutually intelligible.

16

1.5

1

Introduction

Contribution

This study contributes to existing reconciliation theories by highlighting their shortcomings and proposing ways to offset them, particularly by taking on decolonial perspectives. Vital here was the issue of languacultural dominance in spaces where the segregation of the past was to be resolved through racial integration. Focusing on reconciliation processes in multiracial churches in Cape Town, the interplay of language, epistemology and theology became one of the central aspects under consideration in this dissertation. Another crucial contribution was the empirical nature of this study, adding to many works focusing on aspirations and ideals. Qualitative research allowed for an in-depth analysis of reconciliation processes taking place in a progressively multicultural church. Having identified the objectives white people sought to achieve with racial reconciliation, ethnographic methodology helped to paint a nuanced picture of actual reconciliation practice and its implications, considering the context of cultural dominance which reconciliation also sought to address and within which it had to play out.

1.6

Outline of Chapters

This first chapter introduces the research topic. It explains its relevance for contexts where a dominant group seeks reconciliation while not necessarily paying attention to the terms under which such processes take place. A particular focus will be on dominance that results from the use of English in multicultural contexts. In Chapter 2, I present the theoretical framework for this dissertation which rests on three major pillars. The first one introduces contemporary reconciliation theory with respect to intergroup conflicts. In particular, I will engage with du Toit’s ‘reconciliation-as-interdependence’. Based on a critical evaluation of it, we will recapitulate the strengths and weaknesses of social restorationist and agonist approaches to reconciliation. We will identify a dilemma that these two paradigms leave us with, namely the tension between a reconciled community being overly prescriptive, avoiding the “risk of politics” (Schaap 2005: 19), and daring to risk politics but consequently postponing the achievement of reconciliation ad infinitum. A transformation of power asymmetries is suggested as a possible way out. In South Africa, however, it would have to reach deeper than is conventionally the case, taking into consideration the politics of language. The second pillar of the framework provides us with the concepts to do that.

1.6 Outline of Chapters

17

The notions of ‘languaculture’ and ‘cultural conceptualisations’ are introduced to help us understand how ‘language’ and ‘culture’ relate and how to speak of differences between those sharing various social identities without essentialising people. This includes explanations on my usage of terminology related to ‘race’. The third pillar is the concept of de/coloniality with a focus on the coloniality of knowledge. The latter leads us to an even deeper appreciation of the shortcomings of the three reconciliation paradigms under consideration. It also sheds light on possible remedies in order to achieve more equality and justice in the process of reconciliation. An example of one such alternative (or complementary) approach is found in Wrogemann’s concept of ‘mission as oikoumenical doxology’. The focus of Chapter 3 lies on research methodology. It comprises three major aspects, namely ethnography, grounded theory and languaculture-learning. I will justify the choice for each and briefly outline how they were used in the context of this research project. Subsequently, in Chapter 4, I will give a detailed account of the application of my methodology in the process of enquiry at The Message church. We will see how this main research site was chosen, how access was gained and what ethical considerations were part of this process. We will look at the definition of data and the process of data collection as well as at challenges encountered. It will become clear how grounded theory was used in practice as data was coded and analysed in various stages and finally written up to produce a comprehensive report. Chapter 5 will introduce my primary research site. The Message church will be located both within the denomination of REACH SA and in the wider context of South African society. We will look at some characteristics of the congregation and familiarise ourselves with the history of the church with the topic of racial reconciliation, as remembered and interpreted by my white research participants. The heart of this dissertation is Chapter 6 where I will present the findings of my grounded theory study. In four major steps we will learn how white people at The Message conceptualised and practiced racial reconciliation. Firstly, research participants’ understanding of reconciliation will be portrayed: what it is supposed to mean both on an interpersonal and on an intergroup level, what problems it is supposed to address and what it would involve. It will emerge that the two major emphases of reconciliation were the seeking of equality on various levels and of racial integration. Secondly, we will take a look at the motivators for this particular conceptualisation of reconciliation. Despite heterogeneous opinions on the existence of, and on how to deal with privileges of white people, inequalities are acknowledged and the view affirmed that there should preferably be no dominance by white people at The Message church. Thirdly, a particular

18

1

Introduction

stance will be considered that has a strong influence on the kind of reconciliation practice at The Message—‘Hope for transformation from within’. It sets boundaries in terms of language use and in terms of acceptable theology and thus stipulates the conditions under which processes of reconciliation at this church are conceivable. And lastly, we will focus on the actual practice of reconciliation as it is governed and distinctly shaped by ‘Hope for transformation from within’. We will consider divergent ways of seeking cross-cultural understanding, of working for equality and of trying to be a united community with members from a diversity of backgrounds. Before a discussion of these findings is appropriate, another layer of data and analysis needs to be put in place. It is the concept study that investigated semantic differences of three term pairs in isiXhosa and English. Chapter 7 describes the process of enquiry for this concept study, including the time spent and the methods used at my secondary research site at St John’s church in Langa. I will explain how I gathered the data, how I analysed it and what the verification of my findings ought to look like in the context of this research project with its specific methodology and theoretical assumptions. The results of the isiXhosa concept study will be presented in Chapter 8. In each of the three cases analysed, I will explain the reason why a certain term pair was chosen and why it was relevant to my project. As each of the term pairs will show some conspicuous differences on a semantic level, we will briefly consider possible implications for life in a multicultural congregation like The Message. At the end, some time will be devoted to reflections on what this concept study might mean for the bigger challenge of working for reconciliation in contexts of coloniality, especially those marked by languacultural inequalities. The discussion of the findings in Chapter 9 is divided into two parts. In line with grounded theory philosophy, the findings in Chapter 6 were displayed without being closely tied to the original research questions. Section 9.1 is where an explicit link between the two will be (re-)established and all the questions considered in detail, based on the undertaken grounded theory study. At the end, an attempt is made at answering the question “How is coloniality dealt with as white people in a progressively ‘multicultural’ church seek racial reconciliation?” Section 9.2 takes the discussion of the findings, including those of the isiXhosa concept study, to a more theoretical level as the results will be weighed with reference to the theoretical framework established in Chapter 2. It will be shown how the analytical concepts of the grounded theory study are reinforced but also extended by the theoretical framework. Furthermore, it will be considered how my findings themselves extend and challenge concepts that are found

1.7 About the Author

19

in the theoretical framework and thus contribute to theory-building in the fields of reconciliation studies and decolonial practices. Finally, by way of conclusion, Chapter 10 summarises the significance and implications of this study, highlights limitations and identifies areas in need of further research. The significance of this research project will be shown to lie, firstly in an empirical, qualitative study of the meaning and practice of reconciliation by white people in one specific congregation. Apart from certain specificities, the general approach of emphasising equality and racial integration as an expression of theological convictions are likely to resonate with other congregations of similar orientations. Secondly, the dimension of possible dominance through a shared language and culturally based epistemologies is identified as an often overlooked but crucial aspect of attempts made to overcome the segregation of the past. Thus, the terms under which people embark on reconciliation processes were highlighted as an important aspect of reconciliation research and practice. The limitations of this study are found in the necessary delineation of this research project. Further research is suggested to test the generalisability of the findings in other church settings, to explore their applicability in different social contexts, to better understand how approaches to church-based reconciliation can differ across different languacultural contexts and to make use of language concept studies to advance knowledge about challenges in cross-languacultural communication in various fields. Finally, in the electronic supplementary material, appendices are provided that comprise information regarding my research participants, interview questions and the analytical categories I used to analyse my data.

1.7

About the Author

To some extent, people will always be products of their past and researchers are no exception to that. This is more than a truism when working, as I did, with a constructivist research paradigm which explicitly acknowledges the situatedness and the perspectives the researcher comes with. The first seven years of my life I spent in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), before Germany was reunited in 1990, following the peaceful revolution. I grew up in a family who as Christians saw themselves in—sometimes costly— opposition to the authoritarian regime of the GDR with its communist orientation. Wonder and amazement at the possibility of reconciliation between former enemies was awakened in me as I worked for a year as part of a Polish-German team

20

1

Introduction

of volunteers in the UK with Action Reconciliation Service for Peace (ARSP)19 . During this gap year, the conference ‘Generations of Genocide’, organised by the Wiener Library in London made me realise the extent to which the ‘never again’ after the Second World War had remained wishful thinking, with the genocides in Rwanda and Sarajevo still fresh in the memory of the participants. This gathering proved pivotal for the years to come. I enrolled for two subsequent programmes in Social Anthropology and Development Sociology with a focus on Sub-Saharan Africa at the University of Bayreuth, Germany. There, as well as during a 9-month stint at the University of Bordeaux, France, I was able to pursue studies and research of ethnic conflicts and reconciliation attempts in Rwanda and the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. At the same time, I began to be involved in a Christian university ministry first as a student and, after the conclusion of my master’s programme, as a full-time staff member for five years. This is significant here for two reasons: Firstly, it helped me to better appreciate the complex—and potentially fruitful—relationship between faith and science and the importance of interdisciplinarity. Secondly the identity of a researcher as a fellow Christian helped me in establishing relationships of trust with research participants particularly in the context of churches. Marrying into a Namibian Afrikaner family put me on a journey of looking at the challenges of Christian responsibility and reconciliation from a different perspective. Contrary to my own upbringing, I was now confronted with the reality of Christians having been on top of the hierarchy in an authoritarian system. This, coupled with a growing engagement with the decolonial-leaning ideas of the Alliance for Vulnerable Mission, led me to an impassioned desire to better understand how white Christians in a South African context try to come to terms with the past and work for reconciliation—while many aspects of the system that allowed them to play a dominant role in the past firmly remain in place. My hope is that engagement with the result of this research project will contribute to such deepened understanding and at the same time generate ideas of how to escape entrenched patterns of dominance and coloniality.

19

The name of the German mother organisation is Aktion Sühnezeichen Friedensdienste (ASF).

2

Theoretical Framework

As outlined in section 1.3, this chapter does not seek to offer a very broad review of the existing literature. The aim is rather, in a focused way, to present theoretical concepts that became relevant in the course of data collection and concomitant analysis. This will enable us to follow the grounded theory “ethos of privileging the data rather than pre-existing theories” (Dunne and Üstünda˘g, 2020: 32) which will be elaborated on in detail in section 3.2.

2.1

Reconciliation

At the centre of this dissertation is an empirical study on the understanding and practice of reconciliation by white people in a specific South African church context. The aim is neither to promote a certain model of reconciliation nor to measure the studied phenomena against a supposed norm. Rather, the concept for reconciliation that I could identify at my research site as that which white people aspired to was juxtaposed with and examined in light of the reconciliation practice that I encountered. In preparing the theoretical ground for this study, we do however, examine the socio-political context and the conditions under which reconciliation efforts are undertaken. As we seek to understand how the findings from the empirical data relate to theories of reconciliation and how the results might contribute to existing knowledge, we will put a focus on how and to what extent the research participants engaged said context and conditions.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_2

21

22

2.1.1

2 Theoretical Framework

Key aspects of Reconciliation Theory

During the latter part of the 20th century, reconciliation gained prominence as a concept to establish lasting peace between or within societies that had been marked by violent conflict, war or genocide. While it is nowadays often used in reference to post-conflict situations and peace-building activities, it has its origins in religious contexts (cf. Bar-On, 2007: 67 in Fischer 2011:416; Chapman, 2009: 147; Lederach, 2001: 194). In peace-building, it “aims to break a cycle of violence and promote peaceful coexistence” (Vandeginste, 2003: 147). Thesnaar (2012: 216) emphasises that “[r]econciliation is essentially about restoring relationships” on the level of individuals, communities or societies. It is thus conceptually different from resolving “the issues in conflict” (Bloomfield, 2003: 11; italics in original). The prerequisites for and the nature of reconciliation cannot be easily captured without taking account of the specific context, e.g. regarding the conflict history, the nature of a conflict settlement, the scale of violence involved, the cultural and religious background of the respective groups, etc. Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that reconciliation refers both to a goal and a (usually longterm) process—the means of moving closer towards that goal (Bloomfield, 2003: 12; Lederach, 2001: 197; Volf, 2001: 44). Speaking from a psychological perspective, Bar-Tal understands reconciliation mainly as a change of beliefs about one’s own group, former enemies and the way of relating between the two (2000: 356). Whereas for political scientists and transitional justice practitioners reconciliation may formally follow the settlement of a conflict, Bar-Tal (2000: 356), Flämig and Leiner (2012: 16f.) and Volf (2001) point out that the process of reconciling between adversaries can start quite independently of a formal conflict resolution. Various authors (e.g. Kriesberg, 2001; Staub and Pearlman, 2001; VillaVicencio, 2004) have written extensively on the many dimensions reconciliation processes may entail. According to Bloomfield (2003: 12), reconciliation can thus be understood as “an over-arching process which includes the search for truth, justice, forgiveness, healing and so on.” Lederach (2001: 200) sees the establishment of a shared truth as concerned with the past, the quest for justice as addressing the present and mercy (forgiveness) and peace (commitment to nonviolence) as oriented towards the future of the relationship. With so many angles, perspectives and actual approaches to working for reconciliation abounding, Fanie du Toit (2018) undertook to systematise what had thus far emerged from twenty years of peace and reconciliation studies. Before we take a closer look at his organising principles and the conclusions he draws, we first need to consider some more aspects that will be of relevance to this study: the sometimes-contested

2.1 Reconciliation

23

relationship of reconciliation and justice and how it is impacted by languaculture as well as the subsequent challenges of measuring reconciliation. Volf (2001: 45–47), focusing on the perspective of an offended party, holds that forgiveness points out injustice and at the same time invites the offender to face his own responsibility—while maintaining that justice is a “subordinate element”. Swartz (2016: 147), in the absence of legal liability, sees restitution (or “making good”) as a moral obligation of the offender, as opposed to “doing good” (my emphases). To what extent restitution is understood to be part of the reconciliation process may also depend on the dominant terminology. Whereas ‘reconciliation’ is derived from the Latin re- (‘back’) and conciliare (‘bring together’, Pearsall 1998), the German Versöhnung is derived from sühnen (Pfeifer, n. d.). The meaning of sühnen is captured quite closely by the English term ‘atonement’—making “amends or reparation” (English Oxford Living Dictionaries, n.d.). The Afrikaans term versoening also refers to this relationship between ‘reconciliation’ and ‘atonement’, although this is usually perceived in a religious context only (König, 2006: 455; van Wyk, 2003: 539). In South Africa, the term ubuntu has often been used to describe the goal of reconciliation and at the same time to justify it as a strategy to overcome the conflicts of the past. Villa-Vicencio (1996 in Wüstenberg 2014: 143 f.) highlights how in ubuntu, justice and reconciliation are intrinsically linked. Countering criticism of the TRC that it enforced a Western Christian understanding of forgiveness, reconciliation or human rights on the victims of apartheid, Krog argues that ubuntu constituted the ground in which notions of forgiveness and reconciliation were embedded and which were then applied as an African interpretation (Krog, 2013: 209). Since she regards the term ubuntu as fraught with misunderstandings and controversies, she chooses to use the descriptive term of ‘interconnectedness-towards-wholeness’ as an alternative, meaning “both a mental and a physical awareness that one can only ‘become’ who one is, or could be, […] through and with others, which include ancestors and the universe” (ibid.: 195f.). What we have here is words in a particular language describing lived realities that are embedded in cultural contexts. This means that the terms ‘forgiveness’ or ‘reconciliation’ are neither univocal nor universal. Rather, they depend on the respective conceptual understanding and actual practice which are arguably informed by languaculture, political traditions, histories of cultural and political groups, etc. This is exemplified by Forster’s study on unalike conceptualisations of ‘forgiveness’ between representatives of different racial groups in South Africa (Forster, 2018). In a similar vein, the surveys of the South African Reconciliation Barometer, while trying to quantify the dynamics of reconciliation, acknowledge the difficulties surrounding the measuring of reconciliation:

24

2 Theoretical Framework “South Africans’ understanding of what reconciliation is has implications regarding whether they have experienced reconciliation, whether they think it is needed, and whether they think South Africa has made progress with the reconciliation process.” (IJR, 2019: 24)

Interviewing people in their preferred languages (as they did) and asking them to indicate what they associate with reconciliation to some extent acknowledges the diversity of concepts we are dealing with in researching reconciliation. On the other hand, carrying out such a study across languacultures means that epistemological limitations will remain since even the variety of options from which people could select the connotations they associated with ‘reconciliation’ does not address the fundamental problem of conceptual differences between languacultures, as will be indicated by the isiXhosa concept study in Chapter 8. I am aware of such limitations even in my own study, although analysing interview data coming from a particular languacultural group in the respective language attenuated them to some degree. This shows that while perception of (whatever people associate with) reconciliation can be quantified to some extent, measuring reconciliation or forgiveness themselves can only ever be done indirectly according to predefined indicators which may rest again on perceptions of people. Such indicators will vary according to someone’s concept of reconciliation.

2.1.2

Du Toit’s Reconciliation-as-Interdependence

Du Toit (2018), endeavouring to reappraise what had thus far been produced in the field of reconciliation studies, distinguishes between three prominent approaches that were developed by a variety of scholars over the years. The social restoration model, drawing mainly on Christian notions, focusses on mutuality and forgiveness as individuals and groups seek some form of ‘healing’ in their relationships. Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, Daniel Philpott, Desmond Tutu and Miroslav Volf are among those cited as representing this approach. The liberal peace paradigm emphasises the setting up of just and democratic institutions which are regarded as indispensable for reconciled (i.e. not in conflict anymore) societies, with Pablo de Greiff and Colleen Murphy as prominent scholars promoting it. And lastly, what has been termed the ‘agonistic approach’, which acknowledges political differences and tries to harness them in order to move towards reconciliation without ever completely achieving it. Hannah Arendt, Sarah Maddison or Andrew Schaap are regarded as some main proponents of this type.

2.1 Reconciliation

25

Du Toit, acknowledging the strengths and pointing out the weaknesses of the various models, then concludes that all of what is required for and desired in lasting reconciliation after societal conflicts is rooted in the interdependence of the groups or people in conflict. He takes this interdependence as a given—albeit initially one resting on skewed power-relationships. The acknowledgment thereof, he suggests, could then be a catalyst that could set a transformation in motion which would gradually lead to greater levels of justice, inclusivity and fairness (du Toit, 2018: 200–202; 210), thus enabling reconciliation and fulfilling “justice [as] reconciliation’s primary promise” (ibid.: 202). He calls it a transition “from a fact into norm” (ibid.: 211). Thus, du Toit suggests a new “Why”, assuming that the answer of ‘interdependence’ would be followed by many “Hows” already part of earlier reconciliation approaches. Despite the promising consolidation of peace scholars’ prior works and his authentic concern for South Africa’s future, du Toit’s optimistic new paradigm for reconciliation raises new questions. It is uncertain whether the portraying of reconciliation-as-interdependence will in fact prove to be more convincing than the “moral injunctions” (ibid.: 196) he sees at play in other approaches. Du Toit rightfully cautions against the unrealistic raising of “practices into principles” (ibid.: 213), e.g. in the social restoration and liberal models of reconciliation, because of their implicit assumptions of not universally shared ontologies. However, in his embracing and using of ubuntu as a basis from which to argue for the acknowledgment of interdependence (echoing Krog’s interconnectednesstowards-wholeness), he himself openly assumes that in this case, a certain (African-rooted) ontology would hold the potential to be acceptable to people across the board (ibid.: 196). One reason why doubt may be warranted is that some groups, particularly those rooted in the tradition of liberalism, are likely to presuppose an individualistic understanding of self and community (cf. ibid.: 150) and may therefore be less receptive to taking on ubuntu-thinking. Moreover, framing inclusivity as “broadly democratic” (ibid.: 211) and writing about “citizens” having to take responsibility for change (ibid.: 226), to name just a few examples, ignores that such terms are not a-historic, a-cultural and a-contextual. Used within the framework of their liberal Western heritage, they carry expectations that may not always be shared by people coming from different traditions (cf. Sharifian, 2017: 168f.). Again, a key to noticing and learning about such differences can be found in the terminology (and their respective connotations) used to translate the terms in question into local languages, a dimension that is completely absent in du Toit’s book. He therefore presupposes a translatability and acceptability of ontologies and values that may be at odds with what people from various sides often take for granted. Reconciliation-as-interdependence does

26

2 Theoretical Framework

certainly appear to hold the potential to strike a balance between the dominant reconciliation models known so far. It remains to be seen, though, to what degree the attempts of transferring deep-seated cultural presuppositions between various groups can be successful, especially if they rest on rational arguments which are normatively driven. What could fill the gap between intention and reality is something du Toit alludes to in his summary of the agonistic model of reconciliation. Drawing on Schaap (2005), he speaks of achieving “inter-subjective insights into how the world works” (du Toit, 2018: 175). Notwithstanding that such insights can be progressively gained and deepened as reconciliation advances, I suggest that seeking them from reconciliation’s inception—and thereby shedding light on the multiplicity of perspectives on reality (cf. Schaap, 2005: 2)—can offset some of the idealistic assumptions inherent in the interdependence-focused approach to reconciliation. The concept of de/coloniality can help in making the learning about such differences a priority. We will consider it in section 2.3.

2.1.3

Social Restoration vs an Agonistic Approach to Reconciliation

We will now consider two of the models in a little more detail—the social restoration approach and the agonistic approach, as they appear in an exemplary discussion of the former by a proponent of the latter, Andrew Schaap. As will become evident (particularly in Chapter 6 and section 9.2), these two types are of high relevance to my empirical study—in their (partial) embodiment and practice, in the ignorance of some of the weaknesses Schaap cautions against as well as in the potential of extending the scope of political reconciliation by means of the resources available to the community I studied. Schaap seeks a concept of political reconciliation that does not rely on compassion or a common identity but rather on becoming political with all our differences. To achieve this, reconciliation must not be founded on an ahistorical ideal of harmony or consensus that would overcome antagonism. Rather, it can be realised in a “striving for a sense of commonness”, thereby “framing a potentially agonistic clash of world views within the context of a community that is ‘not yet’” (Schaap, 2005: 4, my emphasis). Among others, Schaap discusses Charles Taylor’s ‘ethic of recognition’ that du Toit located within a social restoration framework of reconciliation. Schaap writes, that instead of

2.1 Reconciliation

27

“enabl[ing] enemies to co-exist by depoliticising conflict over ultimate ends [as in an ethic of toleration], an ethic of recognition hopes to realise community between enemies by transforming their antagonism into a reciprocal dialogue oriented towards a shared understanding.” (Schaap 2005: 38)

Particular about it is not only the acknowledgment of the other in their otherness and engaging with it in an open and accepting manner. It is also the expectation that “an interpretative dialogue would eventually result in a ‘fusion of horizons’” (ibid.: 42). While Schaap lauds the relational dimension of a reconciliation model based on an ethic of recognition, he criticises it for its inevitable essentialism that “tends to reify the distinction between self and other that political reconciliation ought to call into question” (ibid.: 75). Likewise, Schaap endorses recognition’s risking of politics, enabling “the possibility of establishing society between former enemies” (ibid.: 51). On the other hand, recognition is regarded as not risking enough politics, as it would presume “community rather than acknowledging this as the contingent outcome of interaction” (ibid.), thereby depoliticising “the terms within which reconciliation is to be enacted by representing them as necessary and incontestable” (ibid.: 4). To Schaap, the possibility of moving towards reconciliation is conditioned by the risk of politics, by which he means the absolute openness of genuine dialogue that has the potential of sustainably overcoming enmity or, on the other hand, of accepting the irreconcilability of a conflict. Without the latter, the prospect of reconciliation would be undermined (ibid.: 46). Political reconciliation would therefore have to avoid what Schaap calls “the anti-political moment of recognition” (ibid.: 75) by refraining from overdetermining ‘original’ identities, “the terms within which it is enacted” (ibid.: 79) and the outcome of the process. A moment of closure, a settlement on having achieved reconciliation, is thus to be avoided since the constant and absolute openness of the process for difference and plurality is regarded as the prerequisite for any chance for reconciliation. This largely corresponds with the ‘Hölderlin Perspective’ on reconciliation, developed at the Jena Centre for Reconciliation Studies (JCRS). Based on the conviction “that the fundamental reconciliation, between God and humankind, already has occurred” and “God [being] present in this ‘evil age’, overcoming it by mercy”, reconciliation and its inception are located in the middle of dispute (Flämig and Leiner, 2012: 16). Schaap’s emphasis on vulnerability to ‘failure’ in order to enable non-oppressive interaction is important here, as it takes into account the possibility of long-lasting, skewed power relationships. Being willing to start anew, “to call the world [former enemies] share into question” (Schaap, 2005: 76), to some extent enables dealing even

28

2 Theoretical Framework

with those inequalities the erstwhile antagonists may have become accustomed or even oblivious to. The dilemma that du Toit wants to move beyond via the vision of reconciliation-as-interdependence, thus consists of the following: Social restorationists, on the one hand, are working on the premise of a newly established moral community, based on forgiveness, recognition and tolerance for diversity, which might be able to embody the vision of a reconciled society. Lacking here is a radical openness to robust, continuous dialogue over past and present divisions. This openness is made unlikely by the fact that it would carry the potential of undermining the newly found community since, by definition, it would keep open the possibility of putting the foundations of the community into question. Adherents of the agonistic understanding of reconciliation on the other hand, would enable such radical ‘risking of politics’, avoiding “an oppressive or even violent imposition” (du Toit, 2018: 141). This commitment to radical openness and non-coerciveness, however, results in the (re-)establishing of community and the concrete ‘achieving’ of reconciliation having to forever remain tentative and provisional.

2.1.4

Transformation as an Essential Element of Reconciliation

Inextricably linked to processes of reconciliation are those of transformation as they address pervasive power asymmetries. Rudwick (2018: 488f.) points out that in South Africa, transformation “mean[s] vastly different things to people [and has] become exceptionally ideologically loaded and politically contested”. Ratele (2018) for instance points out that equating transformation with diversification (in respect of race, gender, ability etc.) without addressing institutional traditions, would end up in one-sided integration or assimilation.1 Another danger can be found in the pursuit of a form of transformation that ends up in an unwarranted essentialism (Rudwick, 2018: 489f.). Nevertheless, there seems to be agreement over transformation generally referring to the reshaping of unequal and unjust societal structures and practices towards more equitable and just arrangements (cf. Pattman and Carolissen, 2018a: 1). In this sense, transformation is necessarily part of the two models of reconciliation portrayed above. Addressing power inequalities is a challenge though, if they are a seemingly inescapable feature of the relationship being restored. The continued dominance 1

His particular focus is the transformation of the Higher Education Sector in South Africa.

2.2 Speaking of Social Identities

29

of former colonial languages is a case in point for the challenge of transforming power asymmetries in the post-colonial context. This issue has continually been put to the fore by the likes of Mazrui (1993), Mignolo (1995), Prah (2009), Probyn (2005) or wa Thiong’o (1986). These languages are part of the reason why power asymmetries even exist, e.g. in multiracial, reconciling communities in South Africa. They therefore touch on the extent of possible transformation and reconciliation. As will be further explained below, a continued use of English in multicultural settings may lead to situations where “people are forced […] to submit to the burdensome condition of suspending—or more permanently surrendering—what they naturally take for granted, and then begin to depend on what someone else takes for granted”—a state Kwenda (2003: 70) calls ‘cultural injustice’. For him, ‘cultural justice’ means sharing the cultural burden of intercultural encounters and being able to feel at ease and not constantly as a stranger. Thus, language as an aspect of cultural justice needs to be considered a crucial factor in the quest for reconciliation in a post-colonial society such as South Africa. It is for reasons such as this that Erasmus and Garuba argue that “[t]he politics of language in contemporary South Africa challenges the idea that dialogue is the foundation for repairing its brutal history […]. The evidence suggests the opposite: repair is the foundation for intersubjective dialogue.” (Erasmus and Garuba, 2017: 350)

The politics of language is thus located within the broader debate on “operationalising reconciliation together with transformation” in South Africa (van der Westhuizen, 2017: 171). We will return to this challenge in section 9.2.3 when we consider how my findings fit and extend this theoretical framework.

2.2

Speaking of Social Identities

My dissertation involves speaking of different kinds of social identities. We can identify two broad categories that can at times overlap. On the one hand, I try to describe differences between people or groups that have cultural-linguistic foundations. On the other hand, we also deal with political identities. Section 2.2.1 introduces the concepts used to refer to the former while section 2.2.2 treats the latter.

30

2.2.1

2 Theoretical Framework

The Concepts of Languaculture and Cultural Conceptualisations

How can one legitimately speak of cultural communities without essentialising people? Is it futile or even dangerous to speak of cultural and linguistic distinctiveness in an age when we are aware of the many dimensions of social identity (Lo and Chun, 2020: 30), when attempts to define linguistic differences in relation to ethnicity are warned against due to the risk of reifying racial stereotypes (Rosa and Flores, 2020), and when ‘hybridity’ (Bhabha, 1997) is what marks many people’s experiences in today’s globalised world? While our world is obviously highly diverse in terms of people’s customs, their ontologies and the linguistic resources they have with which to give verbal expression to their ways of life, there are indeed problems in classifying, neatly defining and applying labels to particular ‘cultures’ and seemingly distinct languages. One is that despite the fact that certain methodologies and conceptualisations may differ between groups of people (Wiredu, 1996: 85), partly even due to the languages they use (Kramsch, 1998: 13; Wiredu, 2004: 49), how we evaluate differences and what exactly constitutes a variation is socially constructed (Agar, [1994] 2002: 135; Lo and Chun, 2020; Rosa and Flores, 2020). Another problem is the scope of encountered differences. In our analyses, how do we delineate variations in language, how appropriate is it to understand languages as representative of ‘a’ certain culture, and does it make sense to map them onto ethnic (or other, already labelled) social identities (Agar, [1994] 2002: 126; Lo and Chun, 2020: 29; Sharifian, 2017: 26)? For the purposes of this study, the concept of ‘languaculture’ and the related perspective of the field of Cultural Linguistics were found useful for making sense of this complex reality of intergroup diversity. Languaculture goes beyond sociolinguists’ analysis of languages as systems of grammar and vocabulary linked with social identities (Agar, [1994] 2002: 234ff.). Speech acts, discourse systems and even embeddedness in the context where the language is used, suggests the linguistic anthropologist Michael Agar, allow us to find interpretive frames that not only help us understand cross-‘cultural’ communication but also to learn how this different ‘culture’, by being performed through language, coheres. He introduces the term languaculture to denote “the necessary tie between language and culture” (ibid.: 60, italics in original), with the latter referring to how people experience the world and lead their lives in different contexts and how these differences are produced in cross-cultural interaction (ibid.: 135ff.). By speaking of different languacultures that people are part of, he affirms the existence of boundaries: languaculture is taken to be a ‘social fact’ that limits to some extent what

2.2 Speaking of Social Identities

31

can be thought and said but also signals what to expect in social interaction (ibid.: 234). However, the recognition of languacultures being linked to social identities for Agar comes with the strong reminder that there are always counterexamples, exceptions and ‘deviations’ from the respective norms as people inhabit these languacultures in diverse ways (ibid.: 240). Agar sees some justification for the juxtaposition of languacultures that are tied to nations or states by name. Nevertheless, he emphasises that even if it may at times be appropriate to speak of differences, e.g. between US-American and Japanese languacultures, variations are to be expected that are caused by individual biographies or by social identities that can be found within languacultures or reach across languacultural boundaries (ibid.: 221). Farzad Sharifian, who pioneered the field of Cultural Linguistics, complements these perspectives. Key here is the concept of ‘cultural conceptualisations’ (Sharifian, 2017, Chapter 2) and how it relates to language. Cultural conceptualisations, referring to cognitive processes that are analysed on a group level, encompass schemas, categories and metaphors that are understood to be distributed unevenly or heterogeneously among members of a given speech community or cultural group (Sharifian, 2003: 197f., 2017: 135). Essentialising groups or individuals is avoided by regarding cultural conceptualisations as those shared on a group level to varying extents, by seeing “language and cultural cognition as dynamic systems that interact with each other in complex ways” (ibid.: 244) and by allowing for individuals to carry conceptualisations of various cultures to differing degrees: “It is the overall degree of how much a person draws on various cultural schemas that makes an individual more or less representative of their cultural group” (Sharifian, 2003: 192). Language by Sharifian is understood “[as a carrier and repository for] cultural conceptualisations that characterise the cultural cognition of a particular speech community” (Sharifian, 2017: 206). With regards to interaction in a dominant language like English that involves speakers of different languacultural backgrounds, both Agar and Sharifian point out a major challenge: since “[m]any communities of speakers, all around the world, have adopted English and adapted it […] to encode and express their own cultural conceptualisations and worldview” (Sharifian, 2017: 178), Agar calls it a “myth that everyone speaks the same language” (Agar, [1994] 2002: 205). English would then to some extent conceal cultural conceptualisations that are rooted in other languacultures. The myth of the same language, explains Agar, comes about through a too narrow focus on the structure of a language (i.e. grammar and vocabulary), competency in which can create the expectation that interpretive frames are shared as well. Similarly, cultural conceptualisations can become distorted if the language of communication is unable to capture them

32

2 Theoretical Framework

adequately (Sharifian, 2017: 168). That “the same language may actually code a very different culture” is something that is also pointed out by Kuiper and Tan Gek Lin (1989: 304). To understand or at times even to notice differences between languacultures often requires taking on the perspectives of those that are part of a different languacultural background, usually through learning their ‘language’ (Brown, 2004a: 6; cf. also Agar, [1994] 2002: 250; Kuiper and Tan Gek Lin, 1989: 304). For the above reasons, I find it both justified and analytically useful to use terms in this thesis like cross-cultural interaction, languacultural differences or languacultural groups as long as one bears in mind the fuzzy boundaries of cultural or speech communities and the variations that may exist.

2.2.2

My use of Terms Relating to ‘Race’

Contrary to long-held colonial understandings of ‘race’ that saw it as an essential, biologically rooted aspect of a person’s or a group’s identity (Ogunnaike, 2016: 786), I take race to be a socially constructed category (Distiller and Steyn, 2004: 5). Despite this former belief having been ill-founded, the notion of race has profoundly shaped South African society. To critically engage with the consequences of a racialised society does at times necessitate the use of race terminology without subscribing to its ideology. It needs to be done carefully to avoid reifying racial categories or stereotypes (Stevens et al., 2006: xix). A refusal to acknowledge the reality of race in terms of its historical impact risks undermining the struggle against the consequences of colonialism by ridding the beneficiaries of a racialised system of accountability and rendering the grievances of the victims of racialism illegitimate.2 I acknowledge the critique of the continued use of apartheid’s racial classification (e.g. Alexander, 2007; Erasmus, 2010).3 I do, however, make use of these racial categories where it is of benefit to our analysis of contemporary realities which are a product of South Africa’s racialised past (cf. 2

How a critique of ‘race’ by means of obliterating the concept, years ago, led to outrage at my main research site is described in section 5.4.1. 3 Swartz (2018: xii) states that “[i]n South Africa’s apartheid classification, specifically the Population Registration Act of 1950, four categories were used to describe different ‘Population Groups’, which changed somewhat over time: variations of ‘Black’, ‘African’, ‘Native’ and ‘Bantu’ to denote Black African South Africans; ‘Coloured’ to denote those of Khoi, San, Griqua, Malay and people of mixed ethnic descent; ‘Indian’ and ‘Asian’ for people from South Asia; and ‘White’ for those of European descent or able to pass for European descent through a number of arbitrary tests.”

2.3 De/Coloniality

33

IJR, 2014: 12). There are times when I want to be more inclusive of categories of people that were discriminated against during apartheid on the basis of their alleged race and therefore use the term ‘people of colour’ as opposed to ‘white’. To some extent, I see myself here in the tradition of the Black Consciousness Movement4 although using ‘people of colour’ as opposed to ‘black’ serves our purposes better here as the latter would have led to confusion with apartheid-era terminology that needed to be drawn on for their historical significance.

2.3

De/Coloniality

2.3.1

Introducing the Concept

At the end of section 2.1.4 we saw that the politics of language has a role to play in the South African transformation process that is geared towards greater social cohesion. The kind of transformation required here is of course determined by South Africa’s history. In this respect, it is of importance to underline that reconciliation in this context would be short-sighted if it only addressed the period of apartheid and ignored the history of settler colonialism that has had longlasting consequences impacting South African society even today (cf. Cavanagh, 2016; Moses, 2011; Ross, 2016). Drawing on Latin American scholars such as Escobar, Grosfuguel, Maldonado-Torres, Mignolo or Quijano, researchers from Southern Africa like Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013, 2015), Makoni (2005) or Christie and McKinney (2017) make use of the concept of ‘de/coloniality’ as a frame of reference to better understand and to engage deeper with the state of the South African society against the backdrop of its history. De/coloniality is presented both as a critical social theory and a ‘project’ centred in the Global South that comprises diverse perspectives on coloniality which, in turn, is understood as “the fundamental problem in the modern age” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013: 13, 15).5 According to Maldonado-Torres, coloniality and decoloniality should be understood as conceptually separate from the historical processes of colonisation and decolonisation. Colonialism is regarded to have created a “logic, metaphysics, ontology, and matrix of power [that is] intrinsically tied to what is called ‘Western

4

This tradition of wholesale identifying as ‘black’ everyone who was not assigned the ‘privilege’ of being regarded as ‘white’ was followed, e.g. by Fisher (2007: 4) and Swartz (2018: xii) in their works. 5 Ndlovu-Gatsheni here refers to Maldonado-Torres without citing a source.

34

2 Theoretical Framework

civilization’ and ‘Western modernity […]’” and that outlasts formal independence (Maldonado-Torres, 2016: 10). This persisting imbalance between nations, societies and groups that were affected by Western colonialism is labelled ‘coloniality’. Decoloniality would then refer to efforts to rehumanise, to deal with oppressive hierarchies and structures and to help aspects of non-Western knowledges and ontologies to emerge that have been ignored, negated or rendered non-existent (cf. Santos, 2016: 172ff.). Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013: 11f) identifies three core concepts of coloniality—coloniality of power, coloniality of knowledge and coloniality of being.6 For the purposes of this dissertation, our focus shall be on the second one which deals with hierarchies in epistemologies. Before we look at this in more detail, we will briefly consider the debate around the pertinence and legitimacy of the concept of de/coloniality.

2.3.2

Critique of Decolonial Thought and of its Outworking in South Africa

According to Arias (2013: 215) and Cheah (2006: 9), decolonial theory emerged as a Latin-America-based alternative to postcolonial thinkers who were—politically and epistemologically—not deemed radical enough. However, because it posits a fundamental and all-encompassing power imbalance between the—not clearly defined—“West” and the equally blurry “non-West”, decolonial thought is criticised by some for the same essentialism it purports to struggle against (Vickers, 2020).7 Without denying power relations in favour of Western nations, Cheah insists that these result from processes “that cannot be reduced to a single logic of coloniality, although the latter can emerge as their effect.” He critiques what he perceives as a reductionism at play which focuses too much on “a racist rhetoric of exclusion” (Cheah 2006: 11). Moreiras (2012: 231) warns against a

6

Coloniality of power refers to global, Euro-North American-centric power structures, coloniality of knowledge to the terms of knowledge production and definition of what is to be considered relevant, and coloniality of being to engrained hierarchies between the (descendants of) colonisers and their subjects. 7 The main thrust of Vickers’ article is that imperialist tendencies in recent centuries with all their long-lasting consequences have not only been part of the history of the West but need to be considered as well, e.g. with respect to the USSR, China or Japan or, I would add, regarding the spread and entrenchment of Islam, e.g. in Northern Africa. Furthermore, he suggests that the fixation on a coloniality that is intrinsically and exclusively Western may allow governments outside the West to use anti-Western rhetoric to oppress their own people.

2.3 De/Coloniality

35

school of thought “premised on the denunciation of coloniality” which led to “imperial reason [having been] criticized from imperial positions, albeit alternative” (ibid.: 230). His concern is shared by Vickers (2020: 170) who sees “[t]he ‘hierarchies’ associated by Mignolo with ‘coloniality’ [as being] inverted, with those classified as victims implicitly assigned moral superiority over the perpetrators”. Responding to such criticism, Veronelli (2015: 109), a proponent of decolonial thought, insists, that de/coloniality “is not about dictating a counter-hegemonic global design”. Vickers, like Cheah, argues for more nuance in the debate, e.g. with respect to the idea of “epistemic violence” (Vickers, 2020: 176). Similar to Vickers, Moreiras (2012: 234) cautions against the naïveté of the notion that “an alternative form of control not just promised but performatively or programmatically uttered by the decolonial option should be better than the first”. And, again in line with Vickers, he advocates for more openness to scholarly criticism which he refers to as “democratic reason” (ibid.: 235). It is thus important to resist an uncritical adoption of de/coloniality while ensuring that those claims of decolonial thought that do hold validity are not mistakenly dismissed. In South Africa, the domination of Euro-North American-centric epistemologies and knowledges was recently brought to the fore by the #FMF movement from 2015 onwards, focusing mainly on the education sector. On the one hand, it received widespread support by students and academics across the country. It achieved both an awareness of Eurocentrism in the South African academia as well as concessions by the government regarding free tertiary education (Mwaniki et al., 2018: iii). On the other hand, it also invited widespread criticism, often with a focus on certain destructive aspects of this politics of decolonisation8 and ‘fallism’ (see e. g. Majozi, 2018; Jonathan Jansen’s views in Makoni, 2017b; Mbembe, 2015a, 2015b among others). This important scrutiny of movements of decolonisation does not, however, warrant the wholesale rejection of the notion of de/coloniality with respect to certain aspects of life in South Africa. Mbembe, despite his critique of certain approaches to decolonisation, does acknowledge the existence and dominance of white privilege. He recognises the need for black (South) Africans to free themselves from imposed standards (Mbembe, 2015b: 12ff.). Drawing on Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Mbembe presents his understanding of decolonisation as redefining Africa as the centre, including “the need to teach African languages” (ibid.: 17). This resonates with the views of other protagonists of de/coloniality. Mbembe critiques and complements their radical thoughts 8

Decolonisation was used as a key term in the movement to denote an ambition that grew out of the idea of de/coloniality. In its use in contemporary debates, it should not be confused with formal processes of former colonies of achieving political independence, as pointed out above.

36

2 Theoretical Framework

in a twofold manner: firstly, he counters assumptions of perpetual victimhood and inescapable powerlessness by ascribing this perspective to the acceptance of the deceits of racism. Secondly, he emphasises the need to envision a shared future as opposed to one that eradicates whiteness together with white people (Mbembe, 2015a), thus keeping open the possibility of combining decolonial thought with a politics of reconciliation. Realising a sustainable shared future would require finding ways to undo prevailing structures of inequalities and injustice. The next section will enable us to gain a deeper understanding of their character.

2.3.3

The Coloniality of Knowledge and the Risks of Translation

In Epistemologies of the South, Santos (2016) analyses the coloniality of knowledge9 and explores ways of countering it in a constructive way. He understands the universalism implicit in Western science as deeply problematic since it discredited or even destroyed other ways of knowing and robbed the West of the experience of different epistemologies (Santos, 2016: 170, 238). This view is premised on the “principle of the incompleteness of all knowledges” (ibid.: 189). The privileging of European languages, Eurocentric definitions of what counts as valid knowledge and consequently the exclusion from epistemic authority of speakers of non-dominant languages is, what in the words of Stroud and Kerfoot (2021: 20) leads to ‘epistemic injustice’. One aspect of it they see in modernity’s very definition of language as an abstract system, a view shared by Veronelli (2015: 119): this modern understanding, fails to take into account both the process-oriented nature of ‘language’ (hence the term ‘languaging’) and the “ontological inseparability between ways of languaging and ways of living and knowing” (ibid.: 122), which is always performed “by someone in a particular time and space” (ibid.: 121). In colonialism, writes Veronelli (2015: 117), the static, modern idea of language was coupled with the notion of civilisation which led to indigenous languages (or languacultures, respectively) being assigned an inferior status, in line with how they were seen according to their ‘race’. This ‘coloniality of language’, one expression of which was the privileging of European languages, consequently meant overriding, concealing or, in Santos’ words, producing as absent or nonexistent indigenous ways of knowing (Santos, 2016: 172; 174; see also Gqola, 9

One of the three core concepts of coloniality identified by Ndlovu-Gatsheni (see section 2.3.1).

2.3 De/Coloniality

37

2013). Instrumental in this was the practice of translation which demonstrated that language is not “a neutral medium for the transmission and reception of pre-existing knowledge [but rather] the key ingredient in the very constitution of knowledge” (Jaworski and Coupland, 2014: 3). The reason given is that knowing is “based on acts of classification” which are performed by the means of language (ibid.). Exploiting one-sided power relations, translation was used to make indigenous knowledge fit the frames of colonial languages, contributing to “claims to the universality of European knowledge” (Stroud and Kerfoot, 2021: 23).10 Contrary to a mode of translation that seeks to express similarity, Viveiros de Castro, building on perspectival anthropology, suggests perspectivist translation that takes equivocation seriously. Different ways of seeing and being in the world would have to result in translation that “presume[s] that an equivocation always exists; [to translate] is to communicate by differences, instead of silencing the Other by presuming a univocality – the essential similarity – between what the Other and We are saying.” (Viveiros de Castro, 2004: 10)

Translation thus “becomes an operation of differentiation – a production of difference – that connects the two discourses to the precise extent to which they are not saying the same thing, in so far as they point to discordant exteriorities beyond the equivocal homonyms between them.” (ibid.: 20, emphasis in original)

Equivocal translation, in Stroud and Kerfoot’s eyes, would work to counter “ontological dominance” (Stroud and Kerfoot, 2021: 28) but would necessarily result in the experience of vulnerability (ibid.: 37), particularly on the part of the previously dominant. This is a crucial observation and highly pertinent for this research project. Vulnerability not only highlights the state of disequilibrium that engaging in decoloniality can entail. It also points out that decoloniality does not need to remain a project of self-liberation of the ‘subalterns’ but that those privileged by 10

An example of this may be common translations of ubuntu as ‘humanity’, ‘humaneness’, etc. which seek to express its content within the categories of (Western) English instead of wrestling with or even recognising incommensurability. An attempt to counter such an unfortunate tradition of translation is Antjie Krog’s musings about ubuntu and her subsequent rendering of it in English as ‘interconnectedness-towards-wholeness’ (see section 2.1.1). Cognisant of the limiting European categories she has to draw on in English, Krog nevertheless makes a serious effort of revealing difference that can only inadequately be expressed in non-African languages (see Krog, 2008).

38

2 Theoretical Framework

coloniality also have a role to play if relationships are to become more equal. How letting go of—ontological or other—dominance is linked practically with vulnerability, as e.g. through processes of reconciliation, will be addressed in sections 6.5.2.2 and 8.4.

2.3.4

Some Implications for Languacultural Relations in South Africa

The perspectives of coloniality of knowledge and ontological dominance and how they are linked to understandings and the practice of language is particularly relevant for South Africa with its history of colonialism and oppression that informs today’s, culturally highly diverse society. In respect of cultures, Santos rightly points out that they “are monolithic only when seen from the outside or from afar. When looked at from the inside or at close range, they are easily seen to comprise various and often conflicting versions of the same culture” (Santos, 2016: 228). Nevertheless, as suggested by Etounga-Manguelle (2000: 67), there may be a case for also speaking about African culture in the singular form while acknowledging the obvious diversity of Africa. Referring to a common ‘animist past’, he says that “there is a foundation of shared values, attitudes, and institutions that binds together the nations south of the Sahara, and in many respects those to the north as well”, a view shared by Kamwangamalu (2008: 114) in his (sociolinguistic) analysis of the concept of ubuntu. This is in line with decolonial theorists’ views on differences between the ‘West’ and the Global South, although the latter, even more than the already broad category of the ‘West’ needs to be understood as comprising a huge diversity. Despite the complexities within and between these ‘cultural spheres’ that we touched on in the previous section, I regard this differentiation as warranted, not just for political but also for ontological reasons. My intention is not to posit an essentialist or a static notion of culture, nor do I suggest ‘cultural’ groups, however defined, to be homogenous units. On the other hand, neither has history been a uniform experience for societies across the globe which allowed for the development of a plurality of ontologies. Ogunnaike, in his treatise of the emergence of the modern concept of race, promotes the idea, that during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, Western Europe underwent a gradual “secularization of knowledge”, resulting in dualist perceptions of reality, which meant a “schism between reason and religion, philosophy and faith, science and mysticism that characterizes modern and post-modern thought” (Ogunnaike, 2016: 785). Despite limited materialist ideas gaining prominence in other civilisations at various times, a distinct kind of secularism developed in the

2.3 De/Coloniality

39

West, not so much as a successor of but rather entangled with Christianity, particularly with Protestantism (cf. Asad, 2003; Holland, 2019; Mangalwadi, 2011). Contrary to the secular and dualist ontologies in the West, the dominant worldviews of sub-Saharan Africa are often referred to as ‘holistic’ (ter Haar and Ellis, 2006: 354) or ‘monistic’ (Harries, 2013b: 247f.; Ogot, 1999: 10; Rakotsoane, 2010: 3). This means that here, “cause and effect is not confined to the material realm” (Harries, 2013b: 247) and whereas in the West one would clearly distinguish between the spiritual and the material, in traditional African philosophy they are mostly perceived as one (cf. also Brown, 2004b: 159).11 It is such differences to the Western, secular norm—and the ensuing outworking of non-secular ontologies in beliefs, values and practices—that are rendered inferior or absent through the coloniality of knowledge, enabled and amplified in South Africa by cross-cultural interaction based on an English with secular, normative assumptions.12 As Viveiros de Castro emphasised, the difference of the (‘cultural’) other should be assumed lest the relationship risk turning into an oppressive one. In a similar vein, Spivak points out the necessity of seriously engaging with a ‘cultural other’ in order to access particular cultural perspectives: in order to understand concepts used by other cultures, the learning of their languages and becoming intimate with their way of viewing the world is required13 —even if the translations of the respective concepts apparently make sense to us (Spivak, 1993: 191ff.). Michel Serres’ ‘Le tiers-instruit’ (Serres, 1992) does suggest a certain equilibrium between different parties and an openness to being transformed by a boundary-crossing relationship. But despite different languacultures interacting in South Africa today, the often-skewed power-relationships may obstruct the emergence of new identities which are informed by a deep understanding of the other. The problem for the multicultural contact zone is that often, the lingua franca will

11

I am aware that, being confined by language categories, my attempt to point out differences in cultural conceptualisations are bound to remain insufficient. Nevertheless, a central aim of equivocal translation, as explained above, is to not lose sight of existing differences and to remain alert to our inaptness of capturing them in a satisfactory manner. 12 See Hurst (2016) for examples of mutual exclusion of English and cultural aspects emerging from an African, monistic worldview. See Harries (2001), how in South West Africa, the secular presupposition by Swiss missionaries of the transformative power of literacy was met with local adaptations that often reinforced existing, monistic ontologies rather than challenging them. 13 See also Harries, 2013a: 106–124; Kandur, 2017; Kramsch, 1998; Lucy, 1997; Sharifian, 2003; Wiredu, 1996 among others.

40

2 Theoretical Framework

be a colonial language.14 This is not only problematic because of differences in mastering the language equally: the problem, explains Santos (2016: 232f.), “is that this language is responsible for the very unpronounceability of some of the central aspirations of the knowledges and practices that were oppressed in the colonial contact zone. If not explicitly questioned, the linguistic supremacy may carry with it conceptual and normative prevalence, thereby boycotting the work of translation.” The challenge of freeing relationships from—usually Western English15 — languacultural dominance extends into the realm of churches in South Africa, especially those with multiracial congregations or ones that are part of mainline denominations. Categories that inform theological training and practice are assumed universally Christian, thus concealing “the geo-political location of theology, secular philosophy and scientific reason” (Mignolo, 2007: 463). At the same time, indigenous ways of knowing are largely ignored, ‘produced as absent’ in Santos’ words or regarded as inferior (Tshehla, 2002, 2003). Flett, in his comprehensive treatment of the contested concept of apostolicity16 in World Christianity, stresses similar points. He explains how an understanding of apostolicity in terms of the cultural continuity of the church17 amounts to colonisation and diffusion rather than translation into and appropriation by local cultural contexts (Flett, 2016: 181; 273). This leads to a state where “[d]iversity […] is cherished [only] to the extent that it reinforces and does not intrude on the specific Western cultural heritage of the universal church” (ibid.: 182). Consequently, there is a risk of missing “the limited nature of the cultural overlap between the churches of the West and wider world Christianity” and perceiving potential for togetherness only where the cultural overlap is deemed satisfactory (ibid.: 163)—which brings the question of power to determine that to the fore 14

In South Africa this would be English or Afrikaans with its history of having been “politically engineered [to be the] language of the apartheid regime [and] sanitized […] of any remnants of its complex colonial contact heritage” (Stroud and Kerfoot, 2021: 31). 15 I could have focused on what is known in linguistics as ‘White South African English’ (WSAE). However, the semantics that will be the focus in this dissertation are most likely not particular to the English used by white South Africans but are arguably a standard shared among the Western, anglophone world, sharing orientations explained in this section (2.3.4). Hence, my usage of the term ‘Western’ English. 16 The justification for being understood as legitimate and authentic form of church, which Flett understands first and foremost as “the church […] being sent into and for the world” (Flett, 2016:336) and not primarily as its creedal, cultural or institutional continuity. 17 In other words, by regarding itself as outside of culture, the church can at times understand itself as being a culture in its own right.

2.4 How De/Coloniality Enhances Reconciliation Theory

41

once again. This has an impact on how churches as denominations and congregations envision unity in the face of existing diversity: According to Flett, turning a blind eye to differences within Christianity results in “a particular and dominant culture [functioning] as the norm for unity. Likewise, any challenge to this culture through its relativization by the development of a polycentric Christianity amounts to the destruction of a normative connection, and thus the destruction of the given form of unity.” (Flett, 2016: 161)

Therefore, if differences between groups and individuals in- and outside of churches are eclipsed due to a shallow grasp of languaculture18 , the risk is that the imbalance in cross-cultural relationships is reinforced despite efforts to work for justice, reconciliation and unity. The grounded theory study in Chapter 6 will showcase an example of a concrete congregation in the South African context that depicts how difficult it can be to even become aware of the possibility of epistemological differences in a multicultural setting. And yet, such an awareness is arguably the prerequisite for eventual equivocal translation.

2.4

How De/Coloniality Enhances Reconciliation Theory

We saw earlier how social restoration approaches to reconciliation are strong in embodying ‘reconciled’ communities. However, due to their lack of openness to ‘politics’ in Schaap’s sense, they risk missing structures of coloniality and thus inadvertently perpetuate dominance and inequalities. The agonist type of reconciliation on the other hand was portrayed as featuring an inherent openness to politics and therefore as having the potential to robustly engage with issues of coloniality. Its weakness, though, was that the tangible achievement of a state of reconciliation was made impossible by the definition of reconciliation as “seek[ing] to realise a community that is always ‘not yet’” (Schaap, 2005: 7). And while du Toit’s reconciliation-as-interdependence tried to attenuate the weaknesses of previous reconciliation paradigms through harnessing ubuntuphilosophy, it was suggested that this approach, too, falls short by not taking into account the effect of differences in ontologies and values that are rooted in different cultural traditions. The perspective of de/coloniality enables an expansion of all three models of reconciliation. Firstly, a decolonial lens highlights aspects of dominance and inequalities that can remain hidden from view in the social 18

Which can imply the related cultural and ecclesiological traditions.

42

2 Theoretical Framework

restorationist and reconciliation-as-interdependence paradigms which work on the basis of a presumed community. Secondly, it can expose the extent to which inequalities and dominance of a certain group (e.g. on a languacultural level) can be constitutive of the relationships under (re-)construction, even if with an agonist approach people are willing to risk politics as they seek a common future. Hence, a decolonial perspective challenges one to examine the terms under which reconciliation is envisaged as well as the actual outcome. Furthermore, it proposes to consider cultural conceptualisations, both coded in and sometimes concealed by language, as a means to work towards greater equality and ultimately justice in the reconciliation process. The grounded theory study of the conceptualisation and practice of reconciliation by white people in a multiracial congregation in Cape Town in Chapter 6 will shed light on the ways this challenge is dealt with in a concrete church context. In section 9.2.3 in the discussion part of the dissertation we will see how both social restoration and agonist approaches to reconciliation are extended by my findings.

2.5

Association from a Distance—Inspiration for a Decolonial Alternative for Reconciliation?

The above critique of established reconciliation approaches is of course not to claim that they could never be successful. Rather, my intention is to point out that they all—including reconciliation-as-interdependence, with its ambition to offer a uniting perspective—have their limitations and fail to deal effectively with power imbalances inherent in the relationships between erstwhile antagonists. So far, we have identified areas where a decolonial approach to relationship-building in the aftermath of conflict is warranted, with a particular emphasis on domination through languaculturally rooted ontological assumptions. To complete my theoretical framework, I will now present a concept that holds the potential of realising decolonial aims and of complementing the repertoire of existing reconciliation paradigms. Since this research project focused on reconciliation processes in culturally diverse Christian communities, it is appropriate for this concept to be rooted in the discipline of intercultural theology. In contrast to other historical rationales for Christian mission, the theologian Henning Wrogemann proposes the concept of ‘oikoumenical doxology’ as its basis, focusing on the universal glorification of God (cf. Wrogemann, 2018: 379ff.): it “aims at allowing people to share in and benefit from God’s work of reconciliation, redemption, and liberation. The intent is for praise to arise out of

2.5 Association from a Distance—Inspiration for a Decolonial Alternative …

43

the mouth of people who have been helped in their lives” (ibid.: 406). This “doxological impulse” is to “[permeate] the household of the entire creation (oikos). […] This is about oikoumenical diversity, in which the praise of God takes on various physical forms” (ibid.: 381, italics in original). This diversity in Wrogemann’s eyes even includes people’s relationship with the environment but also emphasises the glorification of God in vastly different cultural and denominational contexts (ibid.: 383ff.). Wrogemann recognises that this all-encompassing view of God’s work in the world can pose an extraordinary challenge to finding commonality, a Christian essence, between the different denominational traditions that are moreover intertwined with languacultures (Wrogemann, 2011: 8, 2016: 380, 2018: 402f.). This is where he raises two issues that are of relevance to our challenges of assimilation, domination and coloniality. The first is his emphasis on the cultural contingency of responses to contextual challenges, “like the HIV/AIDS pandemic, gender disparities, conflict and reconciliation or ecology and creation spirituality” (Wrogemann, 2016: 389). While certain contexts are shared by people across various identity groups, “cultural reaction patterns” differ (ibid.: 387, 389). This has an impact on the kind of theology that is ‘produced’ in the context of Christian communities (cf. ibid.: 390). The second issue builds on the first when Wrogemann draws attention to situations where ecumenical interaction is hardly conceivable due to doctrinal disagreements or the apparent foreignness of the other (ibid.: 374). The dominant models of ecumenical interaction of both Protestant churches—focusing on “fellowship with one another”—and the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches—emphasising institutional unity— may at times be unable to cope with differences across cultures that are perceived as too vast, as may be a model that emphasises pragmatic cooperation (ibid.: 375). Wrogemann writes that “[a]gainst this backdrop, models of ecumenical unity (in which it is unavoidable that the power of institutions will be brought to bear) should be called into question, as should models of ecumenical fellowship; even models of ecumenical cooperation have their limitations. Instead, I recommend the – far humbler – model of ecumenical association in the sense of maintaining contact. Association from a distance could serve as a model that combines the issue of ecumenical ‘unity’ with the value of enduring plurality” (ibid.: 381).

44

2 Theoretical Framework

It would not “judge forms of worship according to their ‘correctness’” but rather acknowledge “their therapeutic potential while being able to critique potential one-sidedness” (Wrogemann, 2011: 8).19 This highlighted aspect of mission as oikoumenical doxology—‘association from a distance’—appears to offer a way out of the dilemma the different approaches to reconciliation have left us with. This is particularly true since the intention behind association from a distance is an “ecumenical appreciation of plurality” (Wrogemann, 2016: 2018). The reason why this model should be considered a viable alternative for reconciliation is that it points to a concrete possibility of how structures of coloniality might be escaped. Of course, mission as oikumenical doxology does imply the assumption of some level of a shared (Christian) identity. However, contrary to the social restoration approach, it evades structures of coloniality by not presupposing the existence of actual community. ‘Maintaining contact’ speaks of relationship without ‘the dominant’ assuming leadership roles or defining for others what is deemed acceptable, e.g. with respect to doctrine. The term ‘mission’—rooted in the Latin word mittere— to send (Lexico, 2022)—can even be understood as ‘going to’ people rather than receiving them, i.e. as becoming guests rather than hosts. Such a position would also provide ample space for ‘politics’ as there would be no pressure to conform to the dominant. And contrary to an agonistic perspective on reconciliation, mission as oikoumenical doxology is able to acknowledge a kind of togetherness or a shared identity without having to hold off its realisation for fear of losing openness to politics. Although this perspective is reminiscent of du Toit’s reconciliation-as-interdependence, it is more modest in its approach: rather than working on the premise of a universally shared ubuntu-philosophy, oikumenical doxology can embrace ontological differences and their expressions for the very reason that it is rooted in the comprehension of the diversity of God’s creation. Consequently, Wrogemann’s concept might be a model for reconciliation in settler colonial societies that could complement existing ones, particularly in as far as Christian communities in different socio-cultural strata are concerned. We will return to this issue in the discussion of the research findings in section 9.2 and will also see how the concept of ‘association from a distance’ can be extended by some of my findings.

19

My translation. Original reads: “In der Perspektive von Mission als oikumenischer Doxologie gilt es meines Erachtens, eine kritische Wertschätzung in Distanz zu praktizieren, die die Anbetungsformen nicht im Blick auf ihre ‘Richtigkeit‘ beurteilt, sondern deren therapeutische Potentiale zu würdigen versteht ebenso, wie deren Vereinseitigung zu kritisieren weiß.”

Part II How the Research was Conducted

3

Research Methodology

This chapter will justify and explain in detail my use of ethnography, grounded theory, and languaculture learning. The application of this methodology, particularly with respect to the process of enquiry at The Message church, is described in Chapter 4. Details on the process of enquiry for the isiXhosa concept study will be given in Chapter 7 before presenting its results in Chapter 8.

3.1

Ethnography

Gaining a deep understanding of white people’s imagination and practice of reconciliation required a direct experience of the context in which social interaction, processes and events took place. Becoming part of “the life world of others” (Timmermans and Tavory, 2011: 498) in two church contexts and examining social reality in action (Knoblauch, 2014: 523) made for better empirical data than merely “asking respondents to retrospectively reflect on past events or questioning them about their general attitudes” (Timmermans and Tavory, 2011: 498; see also Charmaz and Mitchell, 2011: 163). This required a medium- to long-term research approach of a mainly qualitative nature. Ethnographic methods with participant observation, informal conversations and semi-structured interviews seemed well suited to this task. At my primary research site, I needed to pay particular attention to finding an appropriate balance between distance and proximity to my research ‘field’, which Agar (1980: 50ff.) describes at length as “detached involvement”. Drawing on Amann and Hirschauer (1997), Knoblauch explains the model of alienity in ethnography as constantly and consciously keeping one’s distance to the research field (Knoblauch, 2014: 524). While an inner detachment was often necessary in order to analytically reflect on what was going on around me, to observe © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_3

47

48

3

Research Methodology

while participating for me did not mean pretence but a genuine, albeit reflective partaking in church activities. Furthermore, I also could not help it—and would have considered it detrimental to my research had it been otherwise—to regard my presence as a researcher as an integral part of the life world of the community I studied (cf. Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995). One important and unavoidable reason for this is that due to my ethnic background I naturally inserted into the South African populace that was and is still usually regarded as racially white. The key difference between myself and my research participants that I was continuously cognisant of was found in the fact that I did not share their life-long experiences of living in a racialised South Africa, particularly as it pertains to the time and aftermath of apartheid. The second reason for having to some extent been part of my research field was that I (together with my wife and our two small children) had started to attend The Message church regularly a little more than a year before I started my field research. In a bid to preserve the necessary academic distance, so far, we have not formally become members of the church and have refrained from taking on major responsibilities.1 In sections 4.3 and 4.4, I will explain in detail how exactly I used ethnographic methods to collect data. The data gathered was analysed with methods from the grounded theory toolkit. Combining ethnography with grounded theory, according to Charmaz, “gives priority to the studied phenomenon or process—rather than to a description of a setting” (Charmaz, 2006: 22, italics in original). It thus allows for “achieving a level of conceptual abstraction that provides sociological significance beyond the substantive area of study” (Timmermans and Tavory 2011: 505).

3.2

Grounded Theory

3.2.1

Introduction

A wide array of research paradigms, different applications of methods for data analysis and various extensions of the original approach notwithstanding (Belgrave and Seide, 2019: 167), grounded theory fundamentally refers to “an empirical approach to the study of social life through qualitative research and analysis” (Clarke, 2005: xxxi). Despite the great repertoire of tools that were 1

An exception was a sermon I preached a few months before submitting this dissertation. The topic of the sermon was ‘How to deal with the divisions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic?”, which essentially spoke to the challenge of reconciliation as well, albeit against a backdrop different to the one considered here.

3.2 Grounded Theory

49

developed over the course of several decades, grounded theory itself is neither a method nor a methodology but a style of research (Strübing, 2014: 457). It emphasises openness to what researchers encounter in their data rather than prematurely narrowing their attention in on a predetermined area, research question or phenomenon (Charmaz, 2006: 47; Charmaz and Mitchell, 2011: 160). I found grounded theory strategies—especially in Kathy Charmaz’ constructivist version (Charmaz 2006)—to be helpful, yet flexible guidelines to move my “research and [myself as the] researcher toward theory development”, particularly as I chose to work with ethnographic methods (Charmaz and Mitchell, 2011: 160). I will first offer a brief summary of grounded theory’s historical background and its foundational characteristics before explaining why I chose to work with a constructivist approach.

3.2.2

Grounded Theory Foundations

When grounded theory was first proposed in Glaser’s and Strauss’ seminal work The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967), it presented a challenge to the hitherto dominating approach to research in the social sciences. The latter emphasised objectivity, the confirmation or falsification of prior hypotheses and theories, replicability and verifiability of quantitative knowledge and rested on positivist assumptions of the neutrality of data and researchers as uninvolved observers (Charmaz, 2006: 4f.). Glaser and Strauss made a case for inductive theory development directly from data that took into account the interactionist and interpretive nature of meaning as well as the connectedness of structure and processes/agency. While this contribution was mainly attributed to Strauss who had his background in the Chicago School, Glaser, having been trained at Columbia University, emphasised coding and comparison between data to generate concepts and develop theory from empirical research (Charmaz, 2006: 7; Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 9f.). Some central components of this early version of grounded theory were summarised by Charmaz (2006: 5f.): simultaneous data collection and analysis, “[c]onstructing analytic codes and categories from data, not from preconceived logically deduced hypotheses”, constant comparison between data, codes and categories, “[m]emo-writing to elaborate categories, specify their properties, define relationships between categories, and identify gaps”, “[s]ampling aimed toward theory construction, not for population representativeness” as well as reviewing the literature only after one’s own development of a theory grounded in data. Analysis thus starts right at the beginning of data collection and “is driven not necessarily (or not only) by attempts to be ‘representative’ of some social

50

3

Research Methodology

body or population or its heterogeneities but especially and explicitly by theoretical concerns that have emerged in the provisional analysis to date” (Clarke, 2005: xxxi; italics in original). Grounded theory therefore seeks to identify and conceptualise patterns rather than merely describing social settings as they relate to certain individuals or groups (Charmaz, 2006: 136). This ‘groundedness’ in data, argue Strauss and Corbin, “is more likely to resemble the ‘reality’ than is theory derived by putting together a series of concepts based on experience or solely through speculation […]. Grounded theories, because they are drawn from data, are likely to offer insight, enhance understanding, and provide a meaningful guide to action” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 12). Strauss’ and Glaser’s goal, according to Clarke, was “to be faithful to the understandings, interpretations, intentions, and perspectives of the people studied on their own terms as expressed through their actions as well as their words.” However, continues Clarke, faithfulness to data alone would be insufficient. What is required is to acknowledge and represent both data and one’s own interpretation of it as “as perspectival” (Clarke, 2005: 3; italics in original). This speaks to the pragmatist conviction that it is not just structure but essentially agency that creates what we understand as reality and that we therefore need to speak of realities in the plural form (Strübing, 2014: 459f.). This has implications for what we take the product of our study, the final grounded theory, to be. Charmaz contrasts her own approach which came to be known as constructivist grounded theory (CGT) with how the early grounded theory versions by Glaser and Strauss were described: then, one spoke of “discovering theory as emerging from data separate from the scientific observer.” She, however, assumes “that neither data nor theories are discovered. Rather, we […] construct our grounded theories through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives, and research practices” (Charmaz, 2006: 10; italics in original). Our theory therefore cannot constitute an exact representation “of the studied world” but rather “an interpretative portrayal” of it (ibid.; italics in original).

3.2.3

A Critical Realist Research Paradigm with a Constructivist Approach to Grounded Theory

“… human grasp of reality never can be that of God’s, but hopefully research moves us increasingly toward a greater understanding of how the world works.”2

2

Strauss and Corbin (1998: 4), referring to teachings of the pragmatists Dewey (1922) and Mead (1934).

3.2 Grounded Theory

51

I tend to position myself within a critical realist philosophical framework. This “presupposes an objective reality which exists independently of our thoughts and whose discovery is one purpose of knowledge acquisition” but contends that “all description of that reality is mediated through the filters of language, meaningmaking and social context” (Oliver, 2012: 374). Hiebert compares knowledge in critical realism to the correspondence of maps and models with the real world. The information on a map represents reality in a limited way but it needs to have some measure of accuracy in order to be regarded as acceptable or useful (Hiebert, 1999: 77). This does not mean that our understanding of the world is completely arbitrary. Bhaskar, e.g. distances himself from “judgmental relativism, which maintains that all beliefs are equally valid in the sense that there are no rational grounds for preferring one to another.” However, he holds on to “epistemic relativity”, acknowledging that knowledge can never be divorced from a social or historical context (Bhaskar, 2009: 72). If knowledge in critical realism is understood as a map or model referring to the real world and therefore always partial, “some theories can be shown to be more true than others through comparison, experimentation, and analysis” (Hiebert, 1999: 90). Hiebert uses the term “[a]pproximate knowledge” (ibid.: 92), which may be incomplete but not arbitrary because it is tied to reality. What does this imply for knowledge production through research? Strübing explains that the inaccessibility of objective knowledge in a pragmatist perspective is resolved by holding that ‘truth’ is taken to be what enables actors to grow in competency in respect of their environment. He sees grounded theory therefore to be oriented towards practical explanations (Strübing, 2014: 460) by a theoretical rendering of a “substantive area that is the focus of the research project”, bringing about “an empirically based ‘substantive theory’” (Clarke, 2005: xxxi). I would counter such a view that is based on instrumentalism and essentially understands truth to be independent of and in fact unrelated to morality. While it can and perhaps should be a goal of grounded theory to offer analyses that empower people, with a critical realist stance I need to acknowledge that knowledge “is ideas that interact with feelings and values in complex ways to produce decisions and actions” (Hiebert, 1999: 74). The grounded theory I constructed subjectively therefore can and must be scrutinised for it to be of value. Having a critical realist orientation that affirms that knowledge “is objective reality subjectively known” (Hiebert, 1999: 74) and conveyed via symbols and models, I found Charmaz’ constructivist approach to grounded theory particularly helpful and will lean heavily on her writings as I explain how I applied grounded theory to my study. In working with CGT, I acknowledge that my research was situated—my interaction with data and my theorising did not take place in a

52

3

Research Methodology

social or spatial vacuum (Charmaz, 2006: 129). This means that although in my study of “how—and sometimes why—participants construct meanings and actions in specific situations” I “do so from as close to the inside of the experience as [I] can get”, I have to contend that I “cannot replicate the experiences of [my] research participants” (ibid.: 130; italics in original). Consequently, my theorising cannot be divorced from my own perspectives and is an interpretation of the observations I have made which, like the analysis of my (subjectively) generated data, “is contextually situated in time, place, culture, and situation” (ibid.: 131). Constructivist Grounded Theorists thus acknowledge that their contributions are not objective or “verified knowledge” but are rather trying to offer “plausible accounts” (ibid.: 132).

3.2.4

The Validity of a Grounded Theory Study

Of course, it would be difficult—some say inappropriate—to apply standards to qualitative studies involving social phenomena in the same way they are used to judge quantitative studies (cf. Flick, 2014: 411; Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 266). They can hardly be replicated and, certain standards resting on positivist assumptions may be inadequate to judge studies that are—as mine—based on a critical realist paradigm. Nevertheless, questions of validity, reliability and methodological rigour also have to play an important role in judging the merits of a research project. Strauss and Corbin suggest adapting some of these scientific canons to the realities and conditions under which the study was carried out. In terms of rethinking generalisability, for instance, they argue that “a substantive theory (one developed from the study of one small area of investigation and from one specific population)” should not be expected to have “the explanatory power of a larger, more general theory […] because it does not build in the variation or include the broad propositions of a more general theory.” However, a substantive theory should be acknowledged for being able “to speak specifically for the populations from which it was derived and to apply back to them” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 267). One possible way to ensure that one’s analysis and results are accepted as valid is to be transparent about one’s research process (Flick, 2014: 420f.; Strübing, 2014: 471). I pursue such transparency not only by providing raw data to back up my arguments and conclusions but also by detailing how I went about in the various analytical steps and phases which will be part of Chapter 4, ‘The processes of enquiry’.

3.3 Languaculture-learning

3.2.5

53

Using Constructivist Grounded Theory

“[A]ll qualitative data, from interviews to fieldwork, need to be coded and analyzed in order to derive meaningful findings from them” (Berg and Lune, 2017: 181). To this end, I made use of most of the CGT toolkit suggested by Charmaz (2006). It involved various forms of data coding, memo-writing, categorising, explicating the categories, theoretical sampling, saturation, sorting and integration. Through these processes, I was able to generate my theory, grounded in data. In line with grounded theory philosophy, an engagement with literature to confirm, extend or correct pre-existing knowledge took place only once the analysis of the material was completed (cf. Charmaz, 2006: 165ff.; Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 51f.) In the next chapter, I will explain in detail and in an integrated manner the nature and the actual usage of the grounded theory methods I employed.

3.3

Languaculture-learning

One of the aims of the project of de/coloniality is enabling those “who have been historically marginalized or ignored” to contribute their perspectives (Veronelli, 2015: 109). For me, considering the concern of de/coloniality meant to pay attention to possible power imbalances in my research field, including—but not limited to—relationships that involved me as a researcher. The power relationships that are a consequence of colonialism are partly based on the languages used in crosscultural communication.3 For this reason, the learning of Xhosa languaculture and progressively learning to hear isiXhosa speakers on their own terms rather than having to rely on the mediation of a colonial language constituted one way to allow for greater equality between me as a white, European researcher and black South African research participants. I found this to be true despite the obvious limitations of learning another language as part of and for the purpose of using it in a PhD project. Being conscious of my lack of proficiency, I still managed to attain a level where I could use my knowledge to gain important insights that would have remained concealed without consistent languaculture-learning. From the beginning of my exploratory research in early 2017, I made the study of Xhosa languaculture an integral part of my research project. I used an approach that was based on the understanding “that language learning is primarily sociocultural in nature”, that it means “both acquisition and participation” as well as “that language and culture cannot be separated” (Brumleve and Brumleve, 3

See ‘The coloniality of knowledge and the risks of translation’ in section 2.3.3.

54

3

Research Methodology

2019: 157). With varying intensity of study (4–10 hours a week with my ‘nurturer’/tutor plus daily repetition of audio recordings), engagement with isiXhosa speakers in everyday life as well as occasional visits to townships, I was able to build a base from which to engage in conversations that helped me to gain a deeper understanding of cultural conceptualisations used by isiXhosa speakers. I noticed myself how such concepts are at times transferred from isiXhosa to English which can complicate cross-cultural communication both in academic and non-academic contexts. Besides the desire to take a decolonial approach with respect to communication, this has been another key motivator for my learning.

4

The Process of Enquiry at The Message church

In the below, I will detail my approach of using constructivist grounded theory. This frequently includes mentioning time frames and periods of employing certain grounded theory tools. Figure 4.1 offers an overview of these and shows the sequence of the processes involved.

Figure 4.1 Timeline of process of enquiry at The Message church

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_4.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_4

55

56

4.1

4 The Process of Enquiry at The Message church

Choosing the Research Site

Having written my initial proposal and having to rethink some of its assumptions as I moved into the context I wanted to study, I ended up spending two years with exploratory research. I thereby got to know a variety of congregations in different denominations that had the vision of becoming more multicultural. On a surface level, there appeared to be several similarities between the individual churches: a predominantly white leadership, English as the dominant language in a theoretically multilingual context, people being generally open towards multiracial relationship building as well as putting a strong focus on unity across boundaries of race, culture and sometimes class. The Message church shared these characteristics (with lesser focus perhaps on the latter) but was particularly interesting for my research purposes because it had long tried to actively work for racial reconciliation, not without paying a price for it.1 Issues of unity and reconciliation were addressed regularly in a variety of ways, often—but not exclusively—at the initiative of the mainly white team of elders. I knew that if I were to study this church, the chances were that I could collect rich data as reconciliation had been and was being pursued actively which involved serious thinking, debating and reasoning around Scripture and the realities of South African society. A further reason of a practical nature for approaching The Message with my request to carry out research there was that we as a family had started attending the church some 15 months before.

4.2

Gaining Access and Ethical Considerations

To gain access, I first approached the rector (or senior pastor) of The Message with my request to carry our research at the church and later had several meetings with the eldership of the church. To me as a researcher, they all fulfilled the role of ‘gatekeepers’ who could enable or deny me access to the setting I desired to conduct research in (Berg and Lune, 2017: 112). Their main concerns were the protection of research participants’ identities, ethical questions around ethnographic methods that—it was feared—might turn into unethical undercover research as well as my getting ethical clearance from the university. Another point of discussion was the risks connected to doing research on a sensitive topic in a congregation that had recently had to realise its own fragility with respect to 1

Details of this history can be read in Chapter 5, ‘Introduction to my primary research site: The Message church’.

4.3 Defining my Data Sources

57

the state of reconciliation among their members (see Chapter 5 for more details). It was feared that my research could prove to be ‘divisive’. A robust discussion about these risks and fears as well as my intended ways to reduce them and put safeguards in place led to a unanimous decision by the council of elders to support my research project. In the end, the focus of the discussion was not so much on the dangers it might involve but on what was regarded as chances to advance the reconciliation journey the church had undertaken years ago, despite and because of the fact that it might uncover some shortcomings. Although the council of elders spoke out in favour of my field research at The Message, I still needed consent from the congregation as well as from each ‘Gospel Community’ (GC). GC was the name given to the smaller cell groups the congregation was divided in to encourage meaningful fellowship outside of Sunday services. I therefore presented my project during a church service and people made use of the possibility to ask questions in the plenary. Further questions or critique could be sent directly to the rector within a given timeframe. When it turned out that there were no substantial objections and when I had received ethical clearance from the university, I was given permission to carry out my field research. Both the start and the end of the field work were announced to the church. Likewise, in the case of each GC I visited, I had to briefly introduce myself and my project and people had the chance to raise questions or object to me collecting data in their group. Shaffir wrote about the importance of relationship and “interactional skills” in gaining access: “Persons cooperate less because of their evaluation of our work’s scientific merits than their judgment of us as human beings” (Shaffir, 1998: 60 f.). Given the risks involved for the church and the little knowledge people at The Message had about myself and my work, I could appreciate the trust shown to me in advance when I was given permission to conduct my research. I gave my utmost to ensure that the identities of my research participants were protected, not just by using pseudonyms but by also excluding elements from their quotations that could have led to their identification. Such protection from identification was also sought in cases where research participants spoke of other church members. In a few important cases I got express permission to use quotations in a way that could reveal the identity of the interviewee or the person referred to.

4.3

Defining my Data Sources

My primary data sources at The Message consisted of participant observation, informal conversations and semi-structured interviews. As already indicated, I

58

4 The Process of Enquiry at The Message church

placed great emphasis on not solely relying on the views shared in artificial interview settings but on becoming part of the context (at least in the present) from which these views arose. This allowed me to “experience and represent the social life and social processes that occur in that setting” (Emerson et al., 2001: 352) from my perspective. Participant observation and informal conversations helped me to interpret interview data but at the same time, the insights I gained from interviews helped me to focus—or widen—my attention in the observation part of my research. Of course, observation can never be total, requires choices and is limited by inevitable blind spots (Berg and Lune, 2017: 116). While taking part in church programmes just like any other church member, I tried to pay particular attention to the spaces of gatherings, to the character and content of programmes and the human interaction that took place before, during and after as well as to the nature and level of racial and cultural diversity. In my experience, being a participant in the research field I observed was mainly advantageous. Although I always had to ask for the consent of people in group settings that I wanted to observe, being able to blend in as a fellow believer enabled me to naturally participate passively and actively in the programmes. Being involved while keeping an analytic distance in order to attentively observe and reflect on my observations was facilitated by writing both a field diary and research notes. For the former, which merely contained observations (including recollections of informal conversations), I would jot down notes during a gathering when I felt unobserved (e.g. while sitting in the back row during a church service) or within one or two hours after it ended and then write them out in text form the following morning. Research notes consisted of reflections on the field notes I had made and were kept separately. Semi-structured interviews made up the other major part of the data I gathered at The Message church. These interviews followed a set of questions that I would slightly adapt to the person I was meeting with, depending, e.g. on their role at the church or an activity I knew they were involved in. Leading semi-structured interviews as opposed to using a standardised questionnaire allowed for flexibility and more natural conversations. What also made a contribution in this respect was occasionally speaking about my own experiences if I felt it was the appropriate thing to do, similarly to Shaffir’s sharing of his own biographical information during interviews (Shaffir, 1998: 61f.). Spending several months in my ‘research field’ while starting to analyse my data, the questions I asked evolved in line with the process of theoretical sampling and the saturation of categories and other concepts, which are part of the process used in grounded theory methodology. This development between earlier and later interviews is reflected in the two

4.4 Data Collection and Challenges Encountered

59

sample sets of interview questions included in Appendix B in the electronically supplied material. Initially, I had planned to also do content analysis of official church publications, namely the weekly email newsletter. However, one month into data gathering, I realised that this would be beyond my capacity, and I decided to not use such publications as a data source.

4.4

Data Collection and Challenges Encountered

My field research at The Message lasted from the end of April until early December 2019. During this time, I would not only participate in and observe Sunday services but also spend some time with each of the five Gospel Communities (GCs) that would meet separately on one evening every week and consisted of roughly 8–20 members. I would use the time I spent with them not just for participant observation but also to build relationships with people. Despite the benefit of being able to genuinely participate in the church’s activities, there were also moments where I struggled to find a good balance between being personally involved and preserving the necessary distance. These two entries from my research notes or field diary, respectively, illustrate this challenge: I also felt I could only go so far in sharing my thoughts [in the Bible Study] for fear of influencing my field to an extent where I cannot study ‘what is’ any longer. Of course, my presence always has an influence, but I see it as a constant challenge to participate but without introducing too much of a new thought. (GC 5, 15/05/2019, Research Notes) We then prayed for one another, I closed. I decided to do it in English because this seemed to be the norm, although I would have rather prayed in German [the language in which I naturally relate to God]. But I didn’t want to draw attention to me and be seen as wanting to make a point [by introducing linguistic diversity] while I was there doing participant observation. (GC 4, 18/09/2019, Field Diary)

Based on my involvement with the GCs, I approached people with interview requests. Selecting several research participants from each GC allowed me to get a robust sample of the totality of white people at The Message. In order to get a wide array of perspectives on my research topic, I intended to interview the majority of white adults who frequented The Message church. Of the 46 regulars that I counted, I was able to interview 27. I made sure that a diversity of gender and age groups were represented in my sample. Because of the importance given to the authority of the leadership at the church, I individually met with all seven

60

4 The Process of Enquiry at The Message church

who made up the all-male council of elders. Another group that I interviewed several people of was the music or worship team. Sunday school teachers might have been yet another identifiable group but since I had decided not to focus on Sunday school classes at all, I did not specifically target them. As is common in working with grounded theory, interviews can spark new questions as the concurrent analytical process advances. In some such cases, I would meet the person again for a follow-up conversation. In only one case a person expressed the desire not to be interviewed at all after having been asked. The reason appeared to be an uneasiness with my research topic and a disagreement with the suspected bias in the interpretation of my data. In another case, a person proactively asked me to not be approached for an interview, stating personal reasons. In addition to getting white people’s perspectives and despite this clear focus in line with my research question, I deemed it important to also interview the one black staff member who served as associate pastor during the time of my research. The questions I asked him differed to some extent from the ones presented to my white research participants. My intention here was on the one hand to get an additional view on the issues at stake from his perspective as a leader of colour who had been part of the church for a number of years. On the other hand, the conversation was helpful to gain a deeper understanding of the things I was observing in respect of cultural diversity and possible white dominance, and how he as a black leader thought of addressing them. In total, I interviewed 28 people, 15 men and 13 women. 7 (25%) of them were aged between 18 and 30 years, 15 (54%) between 30 and 50 years, 2 (7%) between 50 and 65 years and 4 (14%) aged above 65 years. The distribution roughly corresponds to the age structure of the church. Appendix A in the electronically supplied material shows a list of my interviewees including some basic information. One major challenge I encountered during my field research was realising that I had not been clear enough on the criteria for selecting potential research participants. In one case, after much reflection, a decision had to be made to not use the data of one of the interviews I had conducted. Homi Bhabha’s concept of ‘hybridity’ points to the fuzzy boundaries of cultures and of the negotiation that takes place as people construct their identities (Bhabha, 1997, 1998). The reason to interview the person had been to gain a better understanding of the hybridity I saw the person inhabiting, and what this meant for processes of racial reconciliation at the church. But I needed to concede that there was a mismatch between the notion of coloured identity in relation to Homi Bhabha’s hybridity concept and what I perceived to be the person’s predominant identification by

4.4 Data Collection and Challenges Encountered

61

others. This raised the tricky but important question of how to decide who and who not to study in my research on white people’s roles in the reconciliation process at The Message. On the one hand, even for South Africa’s affirmative action policy Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BEEE) there is not one fixed set of rules to determine a person’s race (Coetsee, 2019). On the other hand, there is a strong drive for non-racialism in some parts of politics, academia and the media (see e.g. Alexander, 2007; Erasmus, 2004; Lesufi, 2018; Thakhathi, 2018). But while there was no formal base on which to ground the ‘racial’ identification of my research participants, South African society continues to be powerfully impacted by the concept and imaginations of race (Erasmus, 2004: 91f.; IJR, 2014: 12). The very influence of race on communities of people and on social interaction is the reason why I decided to focus specifically on the role of white people in a multiracial context geared towards reconciliation. Who, then, was to be considered white? For the purposes of my research, should race be determined by everyone’s personal identification? In another research setting, this could have made sense, but here it would not have been good enough since some, who would have been regarded as white by the larger community, might have claimed to not be concerned. I realised over time that the power of race in a multiracial, reconciliation-seeking community depends not so much on people’s self-identification in respect of race but on how they are conventionally perceived by others. This equals the “race as common sense” attitude that Erasmus criticises as one of three criteria used to determine race under apartheid—the other two being “‘appearance’ and ‘social habits’” (Erasmus, 2010: 246 f.). However, not only do I regard my use of this ‘race as common sense’ attitude as legitimate (as I use it to describe my observations) but also as analytically helpful. One reason is that it recognises the continuing impact of race on life in South Africa today as people from a variety of backgrounds interact. It also allowed me to study how people who know they are regarded as belonging to the ‘racial’ group that was privileged by the apartheid system try to find answers to the question of what it means to build a post-apartheid (church-) community that includes people who in the past would have been segregated by law and in practice. It proved to be beneficial for the further research process to have clarified my criteria in this way. Consequently, one interview that had already been conducted had to be removed from the database. This was undertaken based on the theoretical criteria that informed our understanding of race and other social identities in this study as explained above and in section 2.2. Furthermore, these clarified criteria allowed me to include people who may formerly not have been classified as white but are now perceived as such and, being conscious of this perception, assume responsibility for taking steps to promote cross-‘racial’ reconciliation.

62

4.5

4 The Process of Enquiry at The Message church

Coding

In order to acquire data that could be analysed, the material I collected through participant observation, informal conversations and semi-structured interviews needed to be processed. Audio-records were transcribed using transcription services and all the information I then had available in text-form had to be coded so that I could address my research questions (Berg and Lune, 2017: 182). Drawing on both interpretative and social anthropological approaches, coding for me presented the first step in organising and reducing data to find patterns across different kinds of sources and materials (ibid.: 182f.). What exactly does ‘coding’ mean? According to (Charmaz, 2006: 43), “[q]ualitative coding [is] the process of defining what the data are about, [… it] means naming segments of data with a label that simultaneously categorizes, summarizes, and accounts for each piece of data.” These segments of data are called incidents. I coded in two phases—initial coding and focused coding. The purpose of initial coding, by others also referred to as ‘open coding’, “is to open inquiry widely” (Berg and Lune, 2017: 192). This is achieved by paying close attention to the data, coding minutely and avoiding the use of preconceived categories and labels. Rather, we (as grounded theorist researchers) construct or “create our codes by defining what we see in the data” (Charmaz, 2006: 46; italics in original). Since this is an interactive process in which the researcher interacts with the data and—mediated by the words found in the data—with the research participants, “language plays a crucial role in how and what we code” (Charmaz, 2006: 46). On a theoretical level, this relates to a central theme of my grounded theory study, the centrality of language for cross-cultural communication and meaning making.2 Charmaz calls attention to the fact that our codes depend on the language available to us as we perceive and make sense of reality. Some language we share with others, other we do not. We have to examine and scrutinise the language used by our research participants and be reflective of the language we use ourselves because it “reflects views and values” (ibid.: 47). Initial coding involved codes chosen by me as a researcher or at times in vivo codes, meaning “codes of participants’ special terms” (ibid.: 55). An example of this would be “it’s certainly a white church”—an in vivo code that arose from a quote and turned out to become an analytical category. The detailed coding of text in the initial phase provides the basis for more systematic, focused coding later on

2

See also section 6.4.3.1, ‘The boundaries of language’, section 6.5.3, ‘Maintaining a white norm’ and Chapter 8, ‘The findings of the isiXhosa concept study’.

4.5 Coding

63

and later “ensures extensive theoretical coverage that will be thoroughly grounded” (Berg and Lune, 2017: 192). In some grounded theory traditions, researchers are encouraged to initially code word-by-word or at least line-by-line. Due to the nature of my data (which were partly records of observations) and my attempt to grasp concepts people were communicating, I found it more practical to code line-by-line or compare incident with incident, which could mean segments of data that comprised several lines (cf. Charmaz, 2006: 53). This first coding phase in my case lasted roughly from May-August 2019, during which time I conducted and started to analyse nine interviews. For a good grasp of how grounded theory works, it is crucial to understand that with initial coding, data analysis begins right at the beginning of field research. In fact, data collection, data analysis and generation of theory are three processes that are intertwined and take place parallelly throughout the research process (cf. Strübing, 2014: 461f.). The next two subchapters will explain this in more detail. The inductive analysis of initial coding in grounded theory is continued during the second phase, the focused coding. Here, “one compares initial codes in order to select those that have the most analytic power or determine a new code that captures a number of initial codes” (Belgrave and Seide, 2019: 176). It thus directs the analysis towards analytic categorisation and raises codes to higher analytical levels. Focused coding may also involve returning to previously coded materials to follow analytic threads that have emerged in the open coding phase and can now be pursued with renewed vigour (Belgrave and Seide, 2019: 58f.). This phase in the coding process lasted roughly from September-October 2019 and comprised eight interviews. There are two other types of coding, namely axial and theoretical coding that are at times employed in more advanced stages of analysis. The former, suggested by Strauss and Corbin, is used to link categories to subcategories at an advanced stage of analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 123). The latter, which goes back to Glaser, helps to “specify possible relationships between categories” developed during the focused coding stage (Charmaz, 2006: 63). Charmaz saw both types as potentially helpful but not crucial elements of the data analysis in grounded theory. Since I saw categories and subcategories emerging from the thorough use of initial and focused coding and the method of constant comparison allowed me to establish their properties, I decided to advance in my analysis without making use of axial and theoretical coding procedures. A list of all the codes I used can be found in Appendix D in the electronically supplied material. It also includes tentative analytical concepts of higher levels.

64

4.6

4 The Process of Enquiry at The Message church

Constant Comparisons, Memo-Writing and Categorising

Coding—just as generating analytical categories—rests on making constant comparisons—between data and data, between data and codes, between codes and codes, between incidents and incidents and later between codes and categories and between different categories. The intention behind constant comparisons is “to establish analytic distinctions” (Charmaz 2006: 54) by “see[ing] if the data support and continue to support emerging categories” (Holton, 2011: 277). This process contributes at the same time to the building and delineating of these categories (ibid.). Strübing (2014: 463) points out that the objects that are being compared are not similar or different per se. Rather, the comparisons depend on the pre-existing interpretative resources of the researcher, his experience, knowledge and his judgement with respect to the relevance of the studied phenomena. This underlines and affirms my constructivist understanding of grounded theory. Making comparisons is also one of the core features of the grounded theory method of writing memos. I followed Charmaz (2006, Chapter 4: Memo-writing) who encourages researchers to adopt a habit of memo-writing from the very beginning of their analysis. These memos are tentative analytical reflections on the ongoing data analysis. They contained questions, discoveries, ideas about possible relationships between concepts and formed the basis of the final grounded theory. By writing memos, one moves one’s analysis forward and starts developing categories out of focused codes. Bringing (coded) raw data into the memos helped me “to define patterns in the empirical world” (ibid.: 82) and contributed to keeping the analysis grounded in data. These patterns are captured by analytical concepts that are called categories (or subcategories), dimensions and properties. Categories explain the patterns by explicating their functions and underlying ideas, by revealing relationships between data, codes and other categories and by detailing their various properties, i.e. characteristics (cf. Charmaz, 2006: 91; Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 117). Dimensions in my study “represent the location of a property” or a process taking place within a category “along a continuum or range” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 117). Through the process of condensing data, codes, categories, dimensions and properties “crystallize participants’ experience” (Charmaz, 2006: 54) and allow for comparison on a conceptual level, enabling further abstraction and theory-building. While constant comparison and memo-writing were part of my analytical process from the start, categorising only began in the later stages of initial coding.

4.8 Theoretical Sampling and Saturation

65

From then on, it continued right until the end, when it morphed into theoretical sampling and saturation (see 4.8) and later into sorting and constructing the grounded theory (4.9).

4.7

Use of Software for Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA)

For coding, categorising and partly for memo-writing I made use of the opensource QDA-software Quirkos (see Figure 4.2). It allowed me to colour-code my text sources and have the codes graphically displayed instantly. With its clustering function, the software also proved helpful in building categories and condense data as the analysis progressed.

Figure 4.2 graphics

4.8

Screenshot of Quirkos software with codes in the text source and displayed in

Theoretical Sampling and Saturation

Along with constant comparisons, Strübing (2014: 463) regards the method of theoretical sampling as central to the analytical work of grounded theory. Theoretical sampling in grounded theory differs from other sampling methods that are “about representing a population or increasing the statistical generalizability” of one’s research results (Charmaz, 2006: 101). By purposefully directing the

66

4 The Process of Enquiry at The Message church

collection of further data in a way “that will maximize opportunities to discover variations among concepts” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 201), the researcher develops, refines or fills out the properties of hitherto tentative categories. Categories thus become more precise and robust (Charmaz, 2006: Chapter 5). In practice, this meant consciously approaching certain research participants, introducing new interview questions or studying events that promised to offer deeper insights and enhance the clarity of provisional analytical concepts. The fundamentally inductive approach of CGT is thus complemented by deductive elements (cf. Berg and Lune, 2017: 189; Charmaz, 2006: 103). Theoretical sampling can also clarify relationships between categories. The goal is to “end up with a theory that perfectly matches [one’s] data” (Charmaz, 2006: 101). Coding continued with a focus on further developing and ‘filling out’ major categories which meant that incidents relating to categories, codes or areas that I had come to see as unimportant or irrelevant were not coded any longer. In theory, data collection in grounded theory practice continues until points of ‘saturation’ have been reached, i.e. when possibilities of finding new properties or discovering new theoretical insights in respect of one’s central analytical concepts have been exhausted (Charmaz, 2006: 113). Strauss and Corbin contend that just where such points are found is not always that clear, and that the end of data collection may in practice sometimes be determined by the time or financial resources available to the researcher (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 136). In my study, the phase of theoretical sampling and saturation began roughly in early November 2019. It included the last 14 interviews (the last one having been done in early December 2019) and lasted until the coding of these had been completed, which was only in April 2020. I ended up with 751 codes covering 4732 incidents (the actual number of individual incidents was smaller, though, since several codes were at times applied to the same incident). Ideally, data analysis would have kept up with the pace of final data gathering. However, since carefully attending to the large amounts of data I had gathered required a lot of time, I had to complete the process of saturation sometime after the last interviews had been conducted.

4.9

Sorting and Integrating to Construct the Grounded Theory

While the sorting, diagramming and integration of materials is standard practice for qualitative researchers (cf. Berg and Lune, 2017: 184), Charmaz describes it as having special significance for grounded theorists. It goes beyond organising

4.9 Sorting and Integrating to Construct the Grounded Theory

67

one’s content. Rather, “grounded theorists use these strategies in service of the theoretical development of their analysis” (Charmaz, 2006: 115; italics in original). Since by the end of my coding process, a lot of tentative analysis was recorded in memos, the sorting of memos effectively meant making comparisons and establishing theoretical links between the analytical categories which the memos explicated. Diagramming helped to establish connections between analytical categories, to deeper understand identified patterns, it assisted in integrating all of that into a single theory structure (Charmaz, 2006: 115ff.). Figure 4.3 depicts the conceptual development that took place in the process of constructing the grounded theory.

Figure 4.3 Evolution of theory diagram

Constructing grounded theory means that in the end, “an imaginative interpretation” is offered of the studied phenomena, which is “[conceptualised] in abstract terms” and “[a]rticulate[s] theoretical claims pertaining to scope, depth, power, and relevance” (ibid.: 127). This phase of sorting memos, filling out categories and integrating concepts into a final version of the grounded theory lasted from May 2020 until January 2021. When it comes to generating the grounded theory in the course of the analysis as a result of the study, it is important to remember that I worked from a critical realist paradigm with a constructivist or interpretivist research approach. This means that I did not try to reproduce one, objective reality in my writing but

68

4 The Process of Enquiry at The Message church

rather worked on the premise that “objective reality is subjectively known and appropriated in human lives” (Hiebert, 1999: 74) and therefore asked: “What do people assume is real? How do they construct and act on their view of reality?” (Charmaz, 2006: 127; italics in original) My abstract rendering of what I observed and recorded is a necessary interpretation of reality as I perceived it while trying to be faithful to what I understood my research participants to be saying about the realities they perceived. The theory I came up with consequently tries to portray and understand how and why my research participants “construct meanings and actions in specific situations” (Charmaz, 2006: 130) and what implications this has for the contexts people find themselves in. While I cannot but offer a subjective perspective of the issues at stake, I tried to construct an argument that will be found compelling in light of the data I used.

4.10

Engaging the Literature after the Grounded Theory Analysis

Charmaz explains that the insistence in the grounded theory tradition on refraining from engaging the literature until one’s data analysis has been completed, has always been disputed but also misunderstood (Charmaz, 2006: 165). It is of course common that a literature review is used to arrive at research questions (Neuman, 2011: 133), as was the case in my project as well. In addition, researchers are no blank slates and come with a history of reading, of learning and simply of being in the world, all of which contributes to their particular perspective. CGT in particular not only acknowledges this but tries to harness it as well. However, what grounded theory emphasises is that based on the interaction with the data, the researcher should be free to pursue theory development rather than being constrained by extant theories. Since grounded theory analysis is a process that encourages following ‘where the data leads’, “[i]t is impossible to know prior to the investigation what the salient problems will be or what theoretical concepts will emerge” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 49). Hence, there can be a focused literature review after the completion of analysis that goes beyond “summariz[ing], and synthesiz[ing] major works” (Charmaz, 2006: 166). Literature is then to be assessed and critiqued from the vantage point of the developed grounded theory (ibid.). In the case of this dissertation, the focused literature review was presented in Chapter 2, ‘Theoretical Framework’. The findings of my

4.10 Engaging the Literature after the Grounded Theory Analysis

69

grounded theory study are first presented in Chapter 6 without explicitly linking them back to the concepts introduced in the theoretical framework. I merely indicated such connections in footnotes. These connections will be picked up again in the discussion of the research results in section 9.2 where the findings will be considered in light of the existing literature.

Part III Empiricial Findings at The Message church

5

Introduction to my Primary Research Site: The Message church

5.1

The Message Church Within the Denomination REACH SA

The Message church forms part of the denomination Church of England in South Africa (CESA)1 which operates under the name REACH SA or The Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa (REACH SA, 2014: 1). Anthony Balcomb described the denomination as “a locus of conservative theological and political convictions” (2004: 11). With respect to its role—and reflection thereupon—during the apartheid era, I did encounter criticism of its own history during my field research.2 What I heard at one GC meeting mirrored and acknowledged what Anthony Balcomb wrote about the “overwhelmingly white” character of the church (2004: 15): It was recognised that the considerable growth of the small denomination during apartheid times (and even after, as Balcomb claims) had not only been due to its ‘solid biblical teaching’ (which, Balcomb would argue, included a moral conservatism), as had often been assumed by the denomination. Apparently, a major reason for the church’s growth had been its becoming “a haven for conservative Whites fleeing the ‘liberal’ positions of Desmond Tutu and others” (Balcomb, 2004: 11) in Anglican, Congregationalist or Presbyterian churches who had taken a firm anti-apartheid stance (GC 1, 21/11/2019, Field Diary). Even at a church like The Message that was founded in the post-apartheid 1

Not to be confused with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa (ACSA), formerly the Church of the Province of Southern Africa (CPSA). 2 One white member e.g. while expressing esteem for Frank Retief as a person, described the apology of the then CESA Bishop in his submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as “very shallow” (GC 1, 21/11/2019, Field Diary), cf. also Balcomb (2004: 13f.). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_5

73

74

5

Introduction to my Primary Research Site: The Message church

era, conservative positions are retained in many ways. However, the history of The Message of trying to build a multicultural community and not shying away from engaging in issues of race and inequalities may be significant not so much despite but because of the history of and the positions formerly taken by its denomination. The efforts in this regard and the struggles they entailed for the whole of the church community will be portrayed in the following section.

5.2

The Congregation and the Structure of the Church

At the time of my field research, the core programmes of The Message church consisted of weekly Sunday morning services and mid-week evening meetings in five ‘Gospel Communities’ (GCs) in the homes of people. The church would meet in a school hall on Sundays, close to some university residences. The first part of the services was reserved for the singing of hymns and more modern songs, often including languages other than English and led or accompanied by a group of musicians. The sermons of around 40 minutes were usually the core part of the service and reflect the emphasis on ‘Bible teaching’ within REACH SA. Prayer, Scripture readings, news and testimonies were also regular features of the Sunday service. Services were mostly followed by the opportunity to socialise around tea, coffee, and snacks while occasionally the church held a bring-andshare breakfast before or integrated into the service. Most GCs were racially mixed but varied a lot in terms of how they were run. Some would split up in mini-groups most nights and only gather with everyone once a month for a ‘family meal’, some would alternate between men and women meeting with the respective others taking care of the children that night, some would always meet in the same place while others took turns in hosting the GC gathering. What they all had in common was a focus on communal Bible study and on developing close relationships with one another, reflected in one of The Message core identities of ‘We are family’.3 According to my observations, attendance at Sunday services averaged slightly more than 50 adults, 70 % of whom tended to be white and around 30 % people of colour while most of the latter would formerly have been classified as black. With 57 %, women made up a slight majority against 43 % of men. The Message was diverse in terms of the representation of age groups but can be called a rather young congregation: Only around 20 % of adults were older than 50 years old, 3

For more on these core identities, see the following Section 5.3, ‘The theological orientation of The Message’.

5.3 The Theological Orientation of The Message

75

roughly 40 % were aged between 30 and 50 years while another 40 % were made up of the group of young adults aged between 18 and 30 years. With many young married couples, The Message was also home to a considerable number of children. Students, young professionals (mostly academics) and families can be said to have made up the bulk of the congregation. During the time of my field research, The Message paid two ministry staff. The rector or senior pastor, a white English male, had served there almost since the founding days of the church. The associate pastor had been on staff for around seven years and was a black Zulu man. Apart from these two, another five white men served on the council of elders. Deliberations around making institutional changes in this regard with the aim of becoming culturally more diverse were underway during my field research. Reflections on these will feature repeatedly in the following chapter.

5.3

The Theological Orientation of The Message

Being part of the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa, the theological roots of The Message in both the Anglican tradition and in neoCalvinist evangelicalism are obvious. Elements like communal confession with words from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer or the practice of infant (as well as believer’s) baptism featured prominently. Contemporary theologians that were frequently referred to were John Piper and Timothy Keller from the US and to a lesser extent Tim Chester from the UK. As conservative reformed evangelicals, they all place a strong emphasis on teaching from the Bible and on discipleship. They differ on the kind and level of engagement with present-day society and culture. Chester and Keller tend to propose missional, incarnational forms of Christian witness that lead to a transformational understanding of Christianity (cf. Earls, 2012; Kravtsev, 2014). Piper, on the other hand, “is rather more introspective, pietistic, and heavily influenced by the Puritan emphasis on cultivating godly affection” (Kravtsev, 2014: 16). Both streams of evangelicalism, to varying degrees, found expression at The Message in what was defined as the church’s ‘Five Core Identities’. At each service of The Message, banners were displayed in prominent positions that highlight these identities that the church chose to focus on. They stood for what was understood as central aspects of the Christian life that are at once God-given and in need of being lived out by the church, having been empowered to do so through Christ. The banners read: ‘We are worshipers’, ‘We are family’, ‘We are missionaries’, ‘We are servants’, ‘We

76

5

Introduction to my Primary Research Site: The Message church

are disciples’. The presentation of the research results in Chapter 6 will shed some light on how this orientation translated into concrete church practice.

5.4

White People’s Perspective on the Story and the Experiences of the Church with Regard to Racial Reconciliation

Before engaging more deeply with how white people conceived of, justified and practiced reconciliation at The Message in Chapter 6, we will look at their self-perception as a church with a particular focus on its history with racial reconciliation. I need to emphasise that the following consists almost exclusively of data that I gathered from my white research participants. This is not a historical study that takes into account many different perspectives as this was not the purpose of my research project. I did, however, glean information here and there about things the church community had gone through that had taken place prior to my field research in 2019. Based on this, I will now portray white church members’ reflections of their experiences which will allow us to better situate the ensuing, main analysis of reconciliation theory and practice at The Message church.

5.4.1

Early Days of the Church and Reconciliation Initiatives Over the Years

The Message was established as a student church in 2003 and has always held its Sunday services on or close to the campus of the University of Cape Town (UCT). The Message church was a culturally mixed congregation when they were joined by several older, white couples in 2006. They had responded to a request to the nearby, primarily white church of St Stephen’s of the same denomination4 to move to The Message in order “to become more of a family orientated church, but still ministering to students, primarily, but not exclusively” (Jeremy, 20/09/2019). Over the years, The Message has had several people of colour serving as ministry staff while the rector, until the time of my research, had always been a white man.

4

The newly planted church The Message only joined CESA officially in 2008.

5.4 White People’s Perspective on the Story and the Experiences …

77

In an attempt to constructively deal with the divided, racialised past of the country, the church hosted a talk by the organisation “Answers in Genesis”5 in 2008, which sparked a heated debate: “… this guy […] started talking about evolution and why as Christians we can’t hold to it, because even within evolutionary theory was this idea that black people are closer to apes and white people are more evolved. Well, I swear it was like he dropped a bomb, […] it started these like literally almost like fights in the room and I was now so embarrassed because I brought this friend to come and listen, and he said to me afterwards, you know, are you kidding me that was awesome, and I said what! He says, well, I haven’t been to a church where people talk about black and white, you know, but that is actually where we realised there was a lot of hurt, which a discussion, which was supposed to be positive and show like this is why we have to throw out evolution, one of the reasons, turned into this massive thing where people realised there is a lot of unspoken hurt here.” (Erika, 24/05/2019)

As a consequence, a white woman then initiated a first community engagement with race and reconciliation which proved to be insightful for many but a challenge to the church as well. People met in three mixed-race groups to study the book ‘More Than Equals: Racial Healing for the Sake of the Gospel’ (Perkins and Rice, 2000) which culminated in a reconciliation event. This again resulted in conflict and the whole exercise in disillusionment as several people—black and white—left the church. Here a reflection on the experience by Lillian: “I remember, incredibly hurtful time, when we were going through the first series. Of trying to build reconciliation, and people in tears because what we had and what people thought was a really strong, loving community across races, when people actually spoke about what was really going on in their hearts it was incredibly hurtful to other people. To realise that actually they had a mask on all the time. And it was quite devastating.” (Lillian, 26/11/2019)

Over the years then, as the church community grew, there were several crosscultural marriages and there was social interaction across colour-lines, like attending weddings in different cultural settings or doing ‘mission outreaches’ together and serving people in poorer sister churches. This was mostly reflected

5

According to their website, “Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth” (Answers in Genesis, n.d.).

78

5

Introduction to my Primary Research Site: The Message church

upon positively, but I also encountered self-critical evaluations regarding the handling of culturally connotated conflicts over differing views in terms of ‘doing church’ in general and certain issues in particular. One of the latter was about an appropriate Christian conduct in respect of getting married.6 Apart from hearing several white people mentioning the case, I also happened to be part of a discussion among black people at the church that made reference to it. I will cite from the notes in my field diary to show how the experience impacted the church even several years later: The meeting at the Social Bean, a café outside a supermarket in Rondebosch, takes place often after the church service. For me and us as a family (we went there with the two kids) it was the first visit. When we arrived, […] three black girls were already sitting there, chatting. […] They invited us to the conversation (they were having it in English), saying, that ‘here’ (apparently meaning ‘at these Social Bean meetings’) things are talked about very openly and straight, the conversation that was going on at the moment was on ‘contraceptives’. The informal leader explained, that one of the other girls may be getting married soon, and perhaps we could fill in from some of our experiences. We started to do so but soon the topic changed to marriage and what constitutes/starts a marriage. There seemed to be a debate whether the payment of lobola7 was sufficient for that or whether esp. a church ceremony or what was called a ‘white wedding’ was necessary. One of the girls explained that it had happened before at the church that a black couple had consummated the marriage after the payment of lobola before the church ceremony and had been forced to publicly apologise. So, the girl who ‘maybe is getting married next month’ was told to be cautious or discuss it with the church leadership. (Café Social Bean, 04/08/2019, Field Diary)

A major episode in The Message’s history with reconciliation was the ‘Unity Groups’ that were held over the course of six weeks in 2017. The backdrop to this series was the #FeesMustFall student protests that had engulfed UCT as well as most other South African public universities. The #FeesMustFall movement demanded not only free tertiary education for all but also advocated for an effective transformation and decolonisation of the university on various levels.8 This 6

Cf. ‘Displaying diversity’ in 6.5.3 for more details on how this issue was dealt with in the course of my field research and 8.3 for a consideration of possible cultural-linguistic underpinnings of this conflict. 7 Lobola refers to the initiation of a marriage which involves negotiations between the two extended families of the couple concerned. It comprises the agreement for the marriage to come into effect as well as the handing over (sometimes referred to as ‘payment’) of a sum of cash and/or goods by the family of the groom to the family of the bride. This process can stretch out over months as several meetings typically take place. At the last gathering, the ‘payment’ is made and the couple henceforth regarded as married. 8 Cf. Booysen (2016) or Habib (2019) as well as Section 2.3.2.

5.4 White People’s Perspective on the Story and the Experiences …

79

time was experienced as unsettling for some of the white people I interviewed, which was reinforced by the close proximity of The Message to UCT both in terms of its location and its considerable number of student worshippers. Particularly challenging for white people appeared to have been the identity politics at play and realising that the apartheid past with its divisions along racial lines continues to haunt the present generation. A need was discerned for an opportunity to listen to people’s stories in order to learn, grow in empathy and relate more deeply with ‘the other’ who was part of the same church community. Several people recalled the set-up of these Unity Groups: The meetings took place “at the church. We were about eight tables …” (Amos, 12/11/2019) There was “a little devotional at the beginning, lining out why we were here.” (Jim, 19/02/2019) “Every night one person shared their story and their racial challenges that they had, their upbringing challenges, and just shared their story, to give context and then thereafter the audience broke up into groups around a table and were given a list of questions, and each person around the table was encouraged to share their answers to those questions and to even ask questions of their own.” (Harry, 31/10/2019) “Basically, it was about mourning with those who mourn.” (Jim, 19/02/2019) “… and then the generosity things that flowed from that where even more conversations were held and you raised money for social justice-type things, and our big focus at the time was FeesMustFall, and so we collected money and we identified people in need who needed their study fees paid.” (Amos, 12/11/2019)

The way my research participants remembered the Unity Groups revealed some ambiguity as to their impact on the church. On the one hand, there was generally a lot of praise for the opportunity to get to know people much better through this programme: “… a lot came out. A lot that I also wasn’t aware of that I didn’t really know that people were carrying, that hurt and difficulty inside them, so I think that was a valuable aspect of it.” (Charlotte, 20/09/2019)

On the other hand, several people spoke about the difficulties connected to being invited to speak openly about one’s experiences and feelings. This seemed to have been an issue for people of different racial backgrounds although with particular reticence among some white people to engage in this way:

80

5

Introduction to my Primary Research Site: The Message church

“For the first four weeks, people were very reserved and very cautious and very careful and didn’t want to ruffle anybody’s feathers and I was frustrated as hell, because I knew deep down inside, people were burning. […] the Whites around the table didn’t know how to engage, they were too scared. They didn’t want to have a real conversation because it was too uncomfortable.” (Harry, 31/10/2019)

Despite the challenges involved, the Unity Groups did end up sparking some open conversations that those I spoke to almost unanimously remembered very positively.9 Apart from the experience in the actual sessions, the stimuli of the Unity Groups were said to have carried over into wider church life and led to ongoing conversations, cross-cultural relationship building and an alertness to the ongoing socio-economic inequalities in the city.

5.4.2

Discontentedness and People Leaving the Church

Repeatedly, reconciliation initiatives at The Message have led to people leaving the church, for different reasons. One source of dissatisfaction appeared to have been an unhappiness among some white people with the church getting involved in ‘politics’. Some who left are regarded as having side-stepped a task that was a natural responsibility to take on for a church like The Message: “… some people just accused [the rector of our church] of stirring where you don’t need to stir, you know. And both, certainly those two couples have left. White young couples. Because they felt that it is just not an issue. You know and that breaks my heart because now they are just joining a big nice white church somewhere where they will feel comfortable.” (Erika, 24/05/2019)

But just as the way ‘reconciliation’ was engaged by the church prompted adverse reactions among some white people, there was also a considerable number of people of colour who were reported to have felt discontented and then left. Some of them were experienced as ‘vocal’, ‘angry’ or ‘militant’ and some of my research participants expressed doubt as to whether their critique was driven by Christian motivations or by a desire to reconcile. But besides frustration and empathy, I could also make out an attempt to try to understand the reasons why some people of colour seemingly felt they would not be able to “stick it out and work it out and be together” (Jim, 14/06/2019) with white people at The Message: 9

It may well be that one reason why I did not meet very critical comments regarding the Unity Groups is that people who hold such opinions are no longer part of the church (see below for experiences of people leaving the church).

5.4 White People’s Perspective on the Story and the Experiences …

81

“… we’ve had much more gung-ho ones, the EFF voters, you know. I don’t want to paint them badly but the ones that really have a strong agenda for reconciliation and I find that those ones don’t stick around. Because I think that’s what happened in the past there was a big group of those kind of people and they felt maybe there is movement, maybe there is progress and I think kind of they were looking for something that they didn’t get. Now maybe they were looking for the wrong thing, I get that.” (Jonathan, 27/05/2019)

Remarkably, for all the conflict that was caused by taking reconciliation conversations head-on in the church, I did not only encounter pity over those who left but also an acceptance that The Message’s commitment to engage with these issues necessarily comes at a cost: “… the Unity Groups were very good, they were very uncomfortable for a lot of people, and in fact, The Message lost some people in the process, but it was priceless in so many other ways.” (Amos, 12/11/2019)

Several times, engaging with inequalities, the history of apartheid as well as race and reconciliation, was described as emotionally taxing and exhausting, because it had to be done again and again with each new generation that joined the church. A wide spectrum of attitudes towards reconciliation had Erika describe dealing with it “like a minefield” (Erika, 24/05/2019). The challenges the church faced in the process were, however, not restricted to the own congregation. Lillian pointed out that The Message with its ‘risky’ reconciliation initiatives also faced pressure from REACH SA: “… then within the greater denomination to then be castigated for trying, and if you don’t make, if you make a mess of it then you have other churches saying, ‘Yes, you see, they shouldn’t have tried something like that, South Africa is not ready for it yet.’” (Lillian, 26/11/2019)

I did encounter voices among white church members that showed an uneasiness or even an unwillingness to continue debating issues they felt had been addressed enough, e.g.: “… there was a definite group meeting on using the word reconciliation and that was very much earlier on in the life of The Message. Us being a bit older… I didn’t attend. I felt I have been there and have done that.” (Margaret, 21/05/2019)

And yet, the overwhelming sentiment based on a theological conviction seemed to resemble this elder’s who said that even though …

82

5

Introduction to my Primary Research Site: The Message church

“… sometimes you are bashing your head against the wall, make no mistake, […] it is, it is a worthy thing to desire, reconciliation, because that is what Christ did, he died for.” (Jeremy, 20/09/2019)

5.4.3

White Church Members’ Reflections on the Journey of Reconciliation at The Message

When people reflected on The Message history with reconciliation over the last 10–15 years, I encountered a multitude of views, from optimistic and self-assured to self-critical and disillusioned. Many could make out a development—there was said to be more diversity in the services than before, for example reflected in the languages of the songs. Evelyn held that white people had grown in terms of listening to other perspectives, albeit imperfectly, but she also mentioned that she sees … “… those moments of colonisation where we’re saying we actually haven’t assigned value or dignity or made the effort to understand somebody else’s perspective, because we’ve been used to thinking in a certain way.” (Evelyn, 26/09/2019)

This confession of lack of progress was mirrored in a few other statements as well and the ‘achievements’ in terms of reconciliation at The Message were labelled as mere “attempt” or “something that is actually not very significant” (Interview Jonathan, 27/05/2019). The state of the church in 2019 in respect of reconciliation was by some described as relatively calm or … “… a little bit less fraught and, and more easily close, there is less sort of friction and, and mistrust than perhaps there was before.” (Lillian, 26/11/2019)

There was also awareness, though, that this may be experienced differently by people of colour. Cheryl acknowledged that … “… The Message still attracts largely white people. I mean just chatting to some of the people who’ve left, and they were primarily all, the black versus coloured, there’s an element where you get tired of pushing, pushing, pushing …” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019)

My research participants largely seemed to share the understanding of reconciliation as an ongoing, permanent task. Many showed themselves very committed

5.4 White People’s Perspective on the Story and the Experiences …

83

and also spoke about the church leadership as being very committed to reconciliation and transformation. These utterances, however, were oftentimes interspersed with a sober realism: “[Reconciliation is] something that we will not get a hundred percent right this side of eternity, but […] perhaps we will go a little bit further down the road …” (Jeremy, 20/09/2019)

A few people commented on how they regarded the journey of The Message compared to what they saw happening in other churches. Sometimes, these were described as congregations that were more comfortable due to their alleged reticence in engaging issues of racial reconciliation more directly. Several white members regarded The Message as relatively progressive in this respect, although this elder added: “I think we’re making progress but we’re a long way from where we’d like to be.” (John, 05/11/2019)

Cheryl also saw The Message as something of an exception, not because all matters had been resolved but because of its openness to discussing them at all: “I think the fact that the church is open to running Unity Groups and are wanting to talk through these things, is huge, because some churches aren’t even there yet, and they’re wanting to put these conversations on the table. The fact that the church is willing to have someone like you come and actually do a research study. Some churches would be very resistant to that.” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019)

Of course, my research on The Message church has highlighted one particular area of concern in the history and life of the congregation. There are bound to be others and some of them might show some entanglement with racial reconciliation as well, others might not. For the purpose of this study, however, suffice it to take note of the fact that the legacy of interracial conflict in- and outside of the church and attempts to overcome divisions along racial lines have played an important role for The Message over the years. The white people I interviewed have given their views on what their church has gone through and how they evaluate these experiences today. This gives us an idea of the range of perspectives of white people with respect to The Message’s history with racial reconciliation while also introducing us to what some of the contentious issues have been over the years.

84

5

Introduction to my Primary Research Site: The Message church

At this point, a word of caution seems appropriate: while we may find the above perspectives intriguing, it is important to remind ourselves that they are by definition ‘one-sided’ as this study—for reasons explained in the introduction in Chapter 1—focused on white people’s perspectives on and roles in processes related to reconciliation at The Message. Having now had a first encounter with the church in this way, we can in the following chapter embark on considering in much richer detail the conceptualisation of reconciliation by white people at The Message, its motivators and its actual practice and how all of this relates to perceptions of white dominance in the context of this church.

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

6.1

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine, how white people imagine and practice racial reconciliation in a church context, that is culturally diverse but arguably often marked by white dominance on various levels. Conceptually, this can be interpreted as an aspect and expression of coloniality (see section 2.3). In this chapter, the findings will be presented that emerged from collecting and analysing data with a constructivist grounded theory approach. Analytical concepts like categories, subcategories and dimensions were put in small caps while properties will appear in bold print1 . The presentation is divided into four parts and will treat the seven major analytical categories that emerged in the course of the analysis which are depicted below: section 6.2 will present a conceptualisation of reconciliation as it is imagined by white people at The Message church (the purple rectangle at the centre of the diagram in Figure 6.1). Section 6.3 will look at the two key motivators for this understanding of reconciliation (orange rectangles at the left of the diagram). Section 6.4 describes a formative influence (broad white arrow) on the ensuing practice of reconciliation which in turn will be presented in section 6.5 (three blue rectangles at the right). While I use graphics similar to the one below to illustrate how different concepts relate to one another throughout this chapter,

1

An introduction to these analytical categories was given in section 4.6.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_6.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_6

85

86

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

Appendix E in the electronically supplied material offers an overview over the hierarchies of all analytical concepts that are part of this study.

Figure 6.1 Overview over major analytical categories

6.2

Conceptualising Reconciliation as Seeking Equality and Racial Integration

6.2.1

Overview

Reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration sums up how reconciliation was understood by white people at The Message. Seeking equality speaks to a desire to overcome interracial divisions on a level of dignity or status (white is no longer to be seen as superior) as well as in terms of socio-economic disparities. Seeking racial integration2 wants to see structures and practices of segregation dismantled that were inherited by apartheid.3 Figure 6.2 illustrates the understanding that there is a need for these two objectives to be pursued on an interpersonal as well as on an intergroup level—or on a micro- and on a macro-level, respectively. The interpersonal is addressed in the dimension Reconciling individuals, the intergroup in the dimension Reconciling groups. 2

‘Racial integration’ here needs to be understood in light of the typology of multi-ethnic churches presented in section 1.1.2 (see footnote 4 in Chapter 1). There, an ‘[i]ntegrated multiracial congregation’ was understood as “no one culture or race [being] noticeably dominant” (Ganiel, 2008: 266). 3 Together with the formative influence on reconciliation practice at the church, labelled ‘Hope for transformation from within’ (section 6.4), ‘Reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration’ will be taken up again in the discussion section 9.2.2 where they will be brought into conversation with Wrogemann’s concept ‘association from a distance’.

6.2 Conceptualising Reconciliation as Seeking Equality and Racial Integration

87

Figure 6.2 Reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration

While it may feel unnatural to create a clear divide between individuals and groups since groups can be regarded as being made up of individuals, I see analytical value in looking at them separately. Reconciling individuals does not ignore people’s ‘membership’ in a certain group, but it emphasises building relationships with individual members of this group. Reconciling groups, on the other hand, tries to address structural issues that arise from the history of South Africa and aims at decreasing tensions between groups. It thus has a macrolevel political dimension. Moreover, it needs to be understood that the division into an interpersonal and an intergroup level actually arose from engaging with my data where I did in fact encounter the foci on groups and on individuals, e.g.: “Sometimes it just feels like at the group level the reconciliation needs to take place. People individually get on and are reconciled. But in as far as they represent these opposing factions that’s where there’s no reconciliation.” (Pamela, 22/08/2019, emphasis in original)

We will now look at the two dimensions in detail.

6.2.2

Reconciling Individuals

The category Reconciling individuals features the following properties: building of genuine relationships, desiring to know and be known and the centrality of repentance and forgiveness. These properties are intended to contribute

88

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

to equality in terms of dignity or status (while they would not necessarily contribute to equality in socio-economic terms). They do so by two strategies, as illustrated in Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.3 Reconciling individuals

The first strategy is upholding equal worth—the coming together as equals, getting to know one another as equals, regarding repenting and forgiving as central because equality is to be the new foundation for interracial relationships. This notion of equality is rooted in the theological understanding that people’s being Christian is to supersede existing differences: “In a church context I would say [reconciliation is] recognised in that these are my brothers and sisters in Christ and that we are equal image bearers, sinful image bearers saved by grace. In fact, the Bible calls us to be humble and to serve and put the others’ needs ahead of our own, and so reconciliation in the church and in the South African context, again means recognising the other person’s worth despite the upbringing and the context that you’ve …, the cultural context that you’ve grown up in, speaking as white male, that those are wrong, and holding up God’s word against your experience and your thinking before and seeing, you know, how does that actually match up.” (Amos, 12/11/2019)

Furthermore, in the case of all three properties, a desire is displayed that racial integration would be enhanced because they are meant to be undoing an apartheid mind-set that is perceived to have been part of interracial relationships in the past. This is the second strategy. Relationships between individuals that escaped the power dynamics of the apartheid state were hard to come by in the past. Consequently, knowing each other deeply and especially knowing about black people’s circumstances was made difficult and discouraged. Hence the need for repentance and forgiveness which the TRC tried to facilitate. Undoing an apartheid mind-set is thus a conscious attempt to reverse what apartheid

6.2 Conceptualising Reconciliation as Seeking Equality and Racial Integration

89

tried to do by coming together as equals or racial integration. This intention is captured well in Jason’s understanding of reconciliation: “If you just look at the things that divided people and the lines that were drawn in people’s lives …, you can look at the laws that were passed by the Nationalist Government. The Group Areas Act. The Mixed Marriages Act. The Immorality Act. The Separate Amenities Act. All those. If you looked at them and then, wouldn’t reconciliation be the opposite of those things? Intentionally doing the opposite of those things. So, in the Group Areas Act, the opposite of that would be living together. The opposite of the Mixed Marriages Act is marrying one another. Separate Amenities Act would be using the same places.” (Jason, 16/05/2019)

What Reconciling individuals essentially means is expressed by the first property, the building of genuine relationships between individuals—especially with regard to reconciliation as it pertains to a church community. In this way, it responds to past segregation and conflict and actively seeks to overcome them through racial integration. It is less concerned with persisting socio-economic inequalities than with simply ‘doing life’ together. But it is not just a coming together in the same space, it is an intentional building of relationships with the ‘other’ and seeking friendships that are built on trust in a spirit of equality. “I’m also convinced, that [the church providing the hope for what reconciliation through Christ looks like] primarily is a relational thing. So, for example, you read Ephesians and then Paul doesn’t go on to talk about the nature of the Sunday service and whether you speak Greek and Hebrew on Sunday mornings, he talks about relationships. He talks about keeping unity and working through that. I am utterly convinced that the church needs to be that.” (Jim, 14/06/2019)

The quote shows that the motivation for togetherness across racial divides here follows a distinctly ecclesiological vision. This is something I encountered again and again both in the interviews and in being a participant observer in social gatherings. It contrasts an understanding and negative interpretation of the—segregated—past with what one sees as a scripturally mandated vision of building a community of people from diverse backgrounds who share life and worship in unity. How this ecclesiological vision—based on their reading of the Bible— shapes the concept of reconciliation that white people at The Message largely follow is further described in the last section of 6.2.3, striving for unity in diversity as prophetic action. Underlying the building of genuine relationships and thus facilitating reconciling individuals is the property desiring to know and be known. It grows out of the realisation that with South Africa’s history of segregation, people know

90

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

about the culturally other mainly through stereotypes and that the circumstances and trajectories of people’s lives vary greatly. Desiring to know and be known acknowledges white people’s ignorance about black people’s lives and the need to change it if relationships are indeed to grow deep. It also gives expression to a feeling that white people likewise are little understood by others. Change of this state is envisaged through relational learning which would involve humble listening, particularly on the part of white people. Growing in understanding of the other would then lead to empathy which could enable deeper and more knowledgeable relationships: “… to reconcile means you have to try and understand that person. So, I think if people would just listen to each other’s stories, you can grow empathy. If we keep just talking black and white, I don’t think we are ever going to reconcile. So, for me what’s been most powerful is the stories that I have heard at The Message. And I hope that when the white person shares their story, that there is also empathy somehow on the other side, because I think if you are seeing people as superior and, I think, […] so much of it is wrapped around our identities you know and that …, it is stuff that you never chose. So, I think the only way to bridge that gap is to A, accept that that person never chose to be white or black, and then, then really try and have empathy to step in their shoes and hear their story and feel their pain, you know …” (Erika, 24/05/2019)

Reconciling individuals also entails the centrality of repentance and forgiveness. As people go through processes of getting to know each other better, hearing each other’s stories and learning about the other as well as about oneself, repentance is seen as a natural consequence in view of other people’s hardship. “It all again comes back to me to the intentional relationships, and as the person in power so to speak, as the white benefactor of Apartheid and this legacy, there’s a greater emphasis on humility, on listening, and I would even say with that comes a fair amount of repenting, you know. I think recognising only takes you so far. Repenting, from a heart-felt repentance, will bring about that change.” (Amos, 12/11/2019)

While repentance at the hands of white people is regarded as a prerequisite for the (re-)establishment of good, cross-cultural relationships, it is also acknowledged that this alone would be insufficient if trust is to be established and a new beginning made—this also necessitates extending forgiveness: “… with repentance comes forgiveness. So, in a certain sense I’m going to say if we want to have reconciliation, both of those need to happen. There has to be a sincere repentance, but there also has to be forgiveness. And forgiveness that implies that I don’t keep holding this against you.” (Elisabeth, 10/11/2019)

6.2 Conceptualising Reconciliation as Seeking Equality and Racial Integration

6.2.3

91

Reconciling groups

The dimension Reconciling groups shows how Seeking equality and racial integration is pursued on an intergroup level and means seeking to overcome interracial divisions between groups. Racially based divisions— whether in terms of dignity or status or in terms of socio-economic inequalities—are understood to have been caused by white people and to have been to the detriment of people of colour: “… there is no questioning that the prosperity of Whites today has come at the expense of Blacks, so there needs to be restitution in whatever form one can do if we are to achieve some sort of reconciliation …” (Jeremy, 20/09/2019)

This “Why?” in Reconciling groups informs the “How?” The attempted overcoming of these divisions at The Message church involves three properties (see Figure 6.4): The first one, with a generalising orientation, is about making restitution. The second one, with an external focus, stands for the need of being exposed to socio-economic inequalities. The third one, with an internal focus, refers to striving for unity in diversity as prophetic action.

Figure 6.4 Reconciling groups

The first two in particular—to a lesser extent the third property—want to contribute to equality on a socio-economic level. Seeking equality in respect of dignity or status is mainly expressed by striving for unity in diversity as prophetic action and to a lesser extent by making restitution as well as the need

92

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

of being exposed to socio-economic inequalities. Seeking racial integration is primarily realised through the need of being exposed to socio-economic inequalities and through striving for unity in diversity as prophetic action. Making restitution understands socio-economic inequalities between racial groups as an unjust consequence of apartheid. It tries to be aware of these imbalances, to reduce them materially through redistribution and regards such as acts of justice or restitution and as an integral part of reconciliation: “…it must start with that word equality and there is no such thing as one being more equal than the other if you were to say that old well-worn cliché. If one is of God’s kingdom, you know that, that is certainly not true in God’s eyes, so we believe that, but how do we bring it to bear. How do we bring our words and our beliefs to bear, so there are many ways you know. What could you do to show genuine love for all the people, you know and restitution is one of those things, so, yes, through restitution and being prepared to help, financially […] or materially […], somebody who has not had the opportunity, for political reasons, has not had the same opportunity as you might have had […] in the situation that has been caused by white people.” (Jeremy, 20/09/2019)

Regarding white people in need of being exposed to socio-economic inequalities, with a focus external to the congregation, sees a need for increased learning about each other across racial and socio-economic divides with the goal of developing empathy, particularly from the side of white people. The facilitation of such personal encounters through the church is regarded as having potential for a heightened awareness of the realities of South Africa: “I was on the first mission trip he went to, to [the township of; note from the author] Botshebelo where he, I could see that he was just like, oh my word, you know, this is another whole world. He would just have these conversations and walk with people and go and visit people’s houses.” (Erika, 24/05/2019)

This need of being exposed to socio-economic inequalities comes with the realisation that gatherings of The Message church are very limited in achieving this: For reconciliation to happen, inequalities ought not to be ignored but stepped into; one would need to meet the other in their circumstances and build relationships. On the one hand, it is suggested that such divides in terms of race, space and socio-economics ought to be crossed as a church: “… even when we were planning a Unity Group, there was an option of having it during the day as opposed to the evening, so that people from Langa Life church could come. Because actually then you’re not only crossing a racial, cultural divide, you’re

6.2 Conceptualising Reconciliation as Seeking Equality and Racial Integration

93

also crossing the economic divide which is important to race and culture […] change and understanding can happen outside of a Sunday meeting at church as well, but we’ve got to create those spaces …” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019)

On the other hand, the role of individuals in the crossing of these divides is highlighted if reconciliation is to happen on an intergroup level. This could help white people to grow in awareness and understanding of other contexts, help them let go of their white supremacy and contribute to the building of relationships which bridge existing divides. Such suggestions can be perceived as quite radical which explains the great caution in Jason’s words as he proposes that white people should consider living at least in proximity of areas historically marked out for people of colour and which are known for socio-economic hardship and violence: “… it would mean that people simply like maybe choose to …, when they start a new home somewhere, maybe the younger couples, maybe they can be encouraged to think about moving at least maybe a little bit closer to the Cape Flats, maybe just a little bit, you know. At least if that’s a start. I know that is a big thing, you know. There are lots of considerations for families. But that would be cool to see. And then start to form like networks. Because when you have people in your church that live in different parts of the city just makes it easier for everyone else to have a relationship with that part of the city.” (Jason, 16/05/2019)

The need of being exposed to socio-economic inequalities thus looks beyond one’s own church walls and wants to engage with the complexity of life in the wider society. The internal focus of Reconciling groups refers to the striving for unity in diversity as prophetic action within The Message church. Prophetic action here means conspicuously living out the values of God’s kingdom as seen in the Bible in a world that often stands in stark contrast to this. The double purpose of it is pointing to God as the one who is able to realise such other-worldly community while at the same time embodying the change despite all the challenges it comes with. It is thus more than a mere symbol; it has an evangelistic and a political dimension as we will see in a moment. Similar to the external focus, striving for unity in diversity as prophetic action emphasises relational aspects of reconciliation on a group level. But whereas the former concentrated on white people’s exposure to and dealing with differences on a socio-economic level, the latter goes beyond that and is also concerned with the building of a close-knit community in the context of cultural differences and inequalities. Cultural differences between groups are taken as a given while

94

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

it is also recognised that generally, people of colour are under-represented both in terms of numbers and in terms of making their mark on the character of the church. This implies a dominance of white people which is regarded as something to be overcome if reconciliation is to happen. Greater diversity is imagined on a numerical level, especially in leadership, which would give people of colour a greater say in the affairs of the church. But the need for greater cultural diversity is also suggested e.g. in songs or prayer or “even in bringing people to teach and preach the Bible differently from time to time” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019). It is regarded as key that cultural difference can actually be experienced as a natural part of being in community with each other: “I think true racial reconciliation is living as equals where neither person has to be extending more effort to be within that context. I think that with diverse cultures you will always be making effort, but I think that needs to be from all people, all directions equally and I don’t think that’s how it is right now.” (Christine, 18/11/2019)

Growing in the acknowledgement and practice of cultural diversity while also growing in unity, in togetherness and cohesion is the declared objective. The latter is understood as “an absence of sharp divisions” (Luke, 04/10/2019) or “people of different races coming together and living in peace and harmony. Not just tolerating each other, but actually living in community and doing stuff together” (Leo, 11/11/2019). Equality is regarded as something that ought to be achieved in fact, not on paper, as people learn to build cross-cultural relationships naturally in a culturally diverse environment. There is thus a desire to see race losing its importance without cultural identities being given up: “You can be a united church but still be diverse. So there’s no need to erase. If you can have unity and diversity at the same time, you don’t need to erase cultural identity. You don’t have to have Afrikaans people who suddenly are not Afrikaans anymore, as in a sort of new hybrid culture. If we wanted to erase diversity, people who are English would need to stop being English. You’d need to be some sort of hybrid between Afrikaans, English, Xhosa, whatever. I don’t think that that’s the answer. The answer isn’t to erase diversity …” (Hugh, 27/09/2019)

But striving for unity in diversity as prophetic action is more than trying to make a multicultural church work. It is driven by the conviction that a church in a multiracial societal context ought to prophetically reflect a unity across races by building a truly multicultural community that is believed can only be achieved within the church. It is thus to demonstrate the vision of having been made one in Christ which The Message firmly holds on to as a theological reality that Christians are to strive towards. The desire is that such a demonstration of unity

6.3 The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality …

95

in diversity might be a glimmer of hope to the multiracial yet often divided South African society: “… expressing our unity in South Africa’s context […] can be a pretty powerful tool for the gospel, because it can say something that society isn’t maybe saying.” (Evelyn, 26/09/2019)

What society might be saying instead is reflected in John’s description of how he experienced South Africa: “… the reality is most cities are still segregated. Cape Town is very segregated. So, most people live their lives not experiencing in day-to-day life the kind of diversity that the country has overall. So, if you live in the suburbs, you can still interact only with people who are like you. And when you do interact with people who are different from you, it’s not as peers. It’s as an employer or you’re a cashier in a supermarket or something like that.” (John, 05/11/2019)

Striving for unity in diversity as prophetic action is therefore both a theological and a political statement: it implicitly affirms South Africa as a nation of diverse peoples. By proclaiming this vision for racial reconciliation, white people at The Message assume responsibility for finding ways of allowing a spiritual reality to transform the actual social realities of people in their city and country.

6.3

The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality and Racial Integration’

The concept of Reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration is prompted by two key motivators—the analytical categories of Coming to terms with inequalities and privilege and Disapproving of white dominance, as visualised in Figure 6.5:

Figure 6.5 The motivators for ‘Reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration’

96

6.3.1

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

Coming to Terms with Inequalities and Privilege

Coming to terms with inequalities and privilege refers to perspectives of white people at The Message on existing inequalities in South Africa that often are of socio-economic kind or have socio-economic consequences. It not only means acknowledging the existence of inequalities but also realising one’s own situatedness within an unequal society. The gerund form of Coming to terms … underlines the processual character of learning to deal with inequalities and privilege. Coming to terms with inequalities and privilege at The Message does not come with a unified view. It rather reveals different presuppositions regarding the influence of structure and agency which are explicated in the three dimensions Acknowledging privilege, Evading being regarded as privileged and Justifying privilege (see Figure 6.6). It transpires that structure is regarded as paramount in the first and in the third dimension, whereas agency is elevated above structure in Evading being regarded as privileged.

Figure 6.6 Coming to terms with inequalities and privilege

While the question of privilege is debated in the context of existing inequalities, the subtext is possible impacts of inequalities on relationships both on a macro- and on a micro-level which may impact reconciliation. A debate on privilege is thus also concerned with power relationships and dominance as a possible consequence of persisting inequalities. Coming to terms with inequalities and privilege is therefore—across all three dimensions—an expression for the desire of experiencing community as well as the concern that inequalities may impede togetherness.

6.3 The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality …

97

Before attending to the three afore-mentioned dimensions in detail, it is worth considering the nature of ‘privilege’: Privilege is something that was given to me, that I did not earn. To what I earn, I have a right. The right to regard what I have earned as mine implies equality in terms of ability to earn. Privilege is different; privilege implies inequality. One might object and suggest that I also have a right to inherit and my inheritance can be independent of my ability to earn. What is important to us here, though, is the realisation that there is often inequality of opportunities which naturally leads to some (who for various reasons find themselves with better opportunities) enjoying privileges over others.4 If I insisted on the right to (my) privilege, I would imply that I see it as my right to live on the upper side of inequalities. Even just admitting privilege means admitting to— in some respects—a state of inequality and being better off than other people. If such privilege is experienced within a community setting, it prompts a response. As will be shown, this requirement informs the three dimensions of Coming to terms with inequalities and privilege.

6.3.1.1 Acknowledging Privilege “I guess, I am those things. Quite simply put, I am privileged to be white. I have had opportunities people don’t have … .” (Francis, 25/11/2019)

Acknowledging privilege means recognising and admitting that one finds oneself on the upper side of existing inequalities in certain respects. It is a message that is communicated to self and the other. The former means an awareness that is related to introspection, to the understanding of the self as privileged, as ‘better off’ than many others—and that mainly along racial lines. In the latter case, this self-understanding is revealed to others, both to people who one also perceives as being privileged and to those one understands as not sharing one’s privileges. Acknowledging privilege often comes with an awareness that this recognition of and admission to privilege is not shared among all white South Africans. People of colour on the contrary are regarded of being quite aware of privileges white people often continue having as a consequence of the past: “… often times in South Africa, especially, a lot of people are oblivious to different cultures and the different experiences that different people have every day and are not

4

Affirmative Action tries to address inequality of opportunities by legally privileging some who had not enjoyed certain privileges previously, which in the short term can impact on the opportunities of the previously privileged.

98

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

aware of their own privilege. But black South Africans are very aware of that.” (Mia, 21/11/2019)

First and foremost, white people at The Message understand privilege as being socio-economic in kind, with inequalities in the distribution of opportunities resulting in a highly unequal distribution of wealth. It is understood that such privilege has come about as a result of systems of the past that systematically privileged the ones and excluded the others. Other privileges referred to include power in certain institutions or interracial hierarchies, stable family structures but also (access to) cultural institutions like languages, education, political and economic systems that mainly build on European foundations. Privilege is not only understood as physical access to these but the ability and skill to thrive in them: “… the world functions in a Western way, the greater world, the economy is structured around Western values and the Western way of functioning and, so it goes beyond wealth. Wealth is part of it, but so I’ve been privileged and then I’ve been exposed to a whole series of things. […] I understand the things that make this world go.” (Jim, 14/06/2019)

Acknowledging privilege, however, does not mean crude black-white thinking and seeing inequalities solely along racial lines. It rather means recognising that the majority of white people still today enjoy advantages over a majority of people of colour. Acknowledging privilege also does not necessarily mean the view that one should be held accountable for the past or the consequences thereof: “… although in some aspects I was privileged, I was not a voter of my circumstances. I had no control of my circumstances, and thus although in some respects I was, I benefited from the past, it wasn’t through my own actions and my own votes. I was not of voting age. I only became eligible to vote after the first elections, and when South Africa became free, so I don’t necessarily see myself as being called upon or shall we say, guilty of misappropriation of other race’s assets and thus an economic recompensation for their losses. I don’t see myself as part of the pool that needs to be …, to have resources taken away from them.” (Harry, 31/10/2019)

Acknowledging privilege can involve an admission to experiencing discomforts associated with having to face the reality of inequalities and one’s own implication in them. Experiencing discomforts comes to terms with the apparent intractability of structural inequalities and the challenge it poses to communities. If inequalities between people are openly admitted, one recognises that relationships can hardly be as equal as is often desired. Out of experiencing discomforts

6.3 The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality …

99

speaks a longing for being on a par with each other, for wanting to do away with feelings of guilt, for being at peace as an individual and within the community: “… it’s easier not to emphasise your differences […] it’s uncomfortable to mention that I’m different from you. It’s uncomfortable to say that I’m white and that I’ve had, maybe in an economic way, an easier life, in some ways, yes, it’s uncomfortable to acknowledge that my culture is generally accepted and yours might not be in this space and it’s difficult to find a way to talk to people about that kind of thing” (Lisa, 10/05/2019)

6.3.1.2 Evading Being Regarded as Privileged Evading being regarded as privileged is a strategy to avoid having to deal with guilt which allows one to experience a semblance of ‘community in equality’ with others. Evading being regarded as privileged serves to avert feelings of guilt, rejects possible demands made on one by others and preserves one from being faced with the threat of having to confront potential selfishness. Evading being regarded as privileged ignores or denies inequalities between oneself and others. This in turn allows one to experience relationships as equal. It allows one to find a comfortable place in a community, to be at peace with oneself and others. Evading is not the same as avoiding. Avoiding being labelled such-and-such necessitates manipulation of the other or pretence. This may be morally contentious. Manipulation could involve making the other believe what is evidently untrue, e.g. by hiding one’s wealth. Through pretence, on the contrary, one might try to elude possible criticism by pretending before others that one’s privilege does not exist. In both instances one would basically accept one’s implication in inequalities but consciously try to avoid it having an effect on relationships. Evading, however, means subconsciously deflecting any interrogation of the reasons for inequality, motivated by the belief in the existence of equality. Evading being regarded as privileged comes with an ingrained paradox: it essentially promotes a politics of merit—while clinging to the hope of equality. It is an expression of a desire for equality not yet realised. This desire is performed through the pretence of a-contextual and a-historic agency while inadvertently attributing responsibility for inequalities to those less well-off. Evading being regarded as privileged at times comes with a form of pride of one’s achievements and does not want to consider conducive conditions both for situations on the upper- and on the underside of inequality:

100

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

“… it’s so bound up with the economic realities, also, you know, you’ve got Whites who had hundreds of years of privilege, like legislated systematic privilege, but of course, you know, many Whites wouldn’t see themselves as having inherited that because for them they also inherited some tough things, and for them they also worked hard and they are oblivious to, we often are oblivious to all the blessings we have actually and what we’ve been given …” (Henry, 17/05/2019)

Evading being regarded as privileged has two related properties—reframing and insisting on particularity. Reframing means the alteration of language. Instead of using the term ‘privilege’, people may use terms that are supposedly more neutral and imply the possibility of universal access. See the example of ‘hard work’: “People who are successful, they’ve worked hard to be in that position. Like my dad, when he was studying, he worked at restaurants, he worked nightshifts to pay to get himself through university. He didn’t ask for freebies or demand free education. He worked to get himself through.” (Suzanne, 22/08/2019)

Reframing shifts the attention from the context and the conditions (be it political, cultural, socio-economic or religious) that enabled the development of inequality to the works of people. Agency is elevated above structure. Agency is seen as a-contextual, without historic conditions that enabled (or disabled) it. Often it is the agency of the individual that is focused on but it can also be the agency that is seen in a community like ‘the Afrikaners’. The second property of evading being regarded as privileged is insisting on particularity—of situations and persons. Generalisations, according to Harry (who is in his forties), are particularly ill-advised today since it is now 25 years after the advent of democracy: “… in my generation and maybe generations after mine, I find skin colour generalisations to be false and erroneous and misleading. I think that there are pros and cons to being white today, and in the past, there were predominantly just pros. So, for social justice, for older generations, certainly there are valid points to be made and certainly social justice when dealing with audiences of those older generations, maybe more valid, and generalisations may be more valid …” (Harry, 31/10/2019)

By insisting on particularity, generalisations are rendered illegitimate. This implies that agency would always trump structure. However, the rhetoric of privilege does not exclude agency. It suggests, rather, that structures have contributed

6.3 The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality …

101

to inequalities and have even had an influence on agency. It thus invites a critical examination of this claim while disallowing generalisations serves to evade scrutiny of structural drivers of inequalities. In the case of the debate around ‘white privilege’ in South Africa, there seem to be differing cultural orientations at play and at odds. An individualistic orientation would see responsibility first and foremost with the individual—thus the focus on agency. In the case of a communalistic orientation, sometimes referred to as ‘ubuntu philosophy’ in Southern Africa or as ‘interconnectedness’ (Krog, 2013), the individual is not only seen as having responsibility towards others but is part of a network that may require the individual to live up to its responsibility. Reframing and insisting on particularity may therefore be motivated by the unspoken fear that ‘privileged’ people might be held personally accountable for existing inequalities.

6.3.1.3 Justifying Privilege Admitting privilege requires making sense of or justifying one’s privilege if one doesn’t want to appear selfish. This is especially the case if one is in personal relationship with people not sharing the same privilege, i.e. if the inequalities exist within a given community. Being labelled as privileged therefore comes with a duty that people at times experience as feelings of guilt. They feel they either have to justify inequalities or are under pressure to reduce them. In justifying privilege, people are explaining their privilege, making sense of their privilege and making peace with their privilege. As will be shown, justifying privilege is a deeply theological exercise. Explaining their privilege here is not about analysing the root causes of inequalities. It is rather about pointing to the fact that people—often without much choice—have become part of rigid socio-political structures that shape this world. Privilege is thus explained by an inevitable lack of agency on the part of the privileged and by the paramount role of structure: “I didn’t choose to be born white or black. I, by virtue of my birth, I was born white, and therefore was privileged, just because I was white.” (Isabelle, 23/10/2019)

While not insinuating that God approves of inequalities, it is certainly acknowledged that what people have was given to them by God. By attributing the ultimate responsibility for their privilege to God, as privileged people they do not have a share in the circumstances and conditions of how their privileges have come about. They are not responsible and cannot be held accountable for the

102

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

creation of their privilege. In and of itself their privilege is not problematic and questions around the legitimacy of privilege are avoided: “If you are born into a well-to-do family then that’s wonderful, but we shouldn’t be made to feel guilty.” (Suzanne, 22/08/2019)

While explaining their privilege to some extent answers the question ‘Why am I privileged?’, making sense of their privilege tries to find an answer to ‘What is my privilege for?’ Two widely shared positions are ‘What we have, belongs to God first’ (e.g. GC 5, 07/08/2019, Research Notes) and ‘While we may enjoy what was given to us, we ought to be trustworthy stewards of the possessions God has entrusted to us’: “Things were given to me and the question for me is now what to do with my privilege. It is about responsibility.” (Jim, 19/02/2019)

People thus see themselves as responsible not for how they got what they got but for what they do with it. Using privileges responsibly includes being aware of inequalities and considering them in one’s decisions, being content with and not unhealthily loving what one has as well as being generous towards those less well-off: “I think that biblically, from a biblical perspective, it’s good for the wealthy to be generous to the poor and from a biblical perspective, there is an imperative to share one’s wealth, but not from a guilt perspective. So, I don’t feel that guilt, but I do feel a need to share, not based on my skin colour, but because of my wealth, with others.” (Harry, 31/10/2019)

Living up to a such-understood responsibility is deemed to be the condition under which privilege becomes acceptable. People are thus making peace with their privilege as they acknowledge it as such, recognise others’ needs and attempt to mitigate inequalities by sharing their resources generously. Making peace with their privilege also means that power structures that come with inequalities are hardly problematised but tacitly accepted. While modesty is encouraged, an actual giving up of privilege (and with it, power) is hardly ever given thought to, as exemplarily illustrated in my field notes after an evening in a Bible study group where the biblical warning against ‘the love of money’ was discussed: Interesting for me was the fact that especially the white people in the room spoke from a position of financial security without critical introspection regarding their own

6.3 The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality …

103

positionality and the fact that they apparently took for granted the living standard that they are able to enjoy. It was emphasised again that ‘we are stewards of all that God has given us’—but although the need for ‘cross-centred justice’5 was mentioned that night, no connection was made here, no thought was given to the—admittedly complicated—question of how to deal with wealth which is built on injustices of the past. (GC 5, 22/05/2019, Field Diary)

By avoiding scrutiny both of how one’s privileges came about and of their implications on relationships today, and by accepting the duty to share (but not to give up) one’s privilege, the privileged are likely to stay in control as existing power structures are being maintained and not undermined. We will see in section 6.5.2 how justifying privilege will have a bearing on the reconciliation practice at The Message in the analytical category of ‘Giving to’ taking priority over ‘Giving up’.

6.3.2

Disapproving of White Dominance

While Coming to terms with inequalities and privilege was concerned mainly with socio-economic inequalities, Disapproving of white dominance is first and foremost about dealing with cultural inequalities. It highlights a tension a church like The Message finds itself in as it tries to become a church where people of different cultures, races and socio-economic backgrounds can feel at home. It is a tension between an awareness of one’s potential own racial and cultural dominance and a desire to see such dominance disappearing as one becomes ‘more fully’ the church one wants to be.6 This is reflected in the two dimensions Resisting seeing white cultural dominance at church and Thinking about The Message in terms of a white church (Figure 6.7). Despite 5

‘Cross-centred justice’ is a term that most people at The Message would be familiar with although people might interpret it slightly differently. According to the Isiphambano Centre for Biblical Justice in Cape Town, justice—both individual and systemic—is what God demands and works towards in his restoration of the world but it is unattainable without a renewal of everyone’s sinful heart. Jesus’ death on the cross achieves justification of the sinners who are now enabled—and required—to lead lives that reflect God’s concern for justice in this world while inviting others to share in this holistic salvation. Cross-centred justice therefore attempts (in very broad strokes) to overcome the old division between evangelism-minded ‘conservatives’ and social-justice-minded ‘liberals’ by recuperating a holistic understanding of salvation (cf. Scheepers, 2019). 6 As a possible foundation for a decolonial perspective, this will be taken up again in the discussion section 9.2.1, ‘How the theoretical framework illuminates my analytical concepts’.

104

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

the contradictory attitudes they stand for, both categories have in common that they end up disapproving of white dominance. Disapproving of white dominance is not the same as rejecting white dominance. Whereas the latter is fully aware of the extent of white dominance and consciously tries to dismantle or distance itself from it, the former repudiates the notion of white dominance. This could mean not grasping all that white dominance might entail or defining aspects of white dominance as other than ‘white’.

Figure 6.7 Disapproving of white dominance

6.3.2.1 Resisting Seeing White Cultural Dominance at Church Resisting seeing white cultural dominance at church is about finding a way to deal with existing cultural inequalities in a culturally diverse community. It is marked by responding reluctantly to the suggestion that there could be such dominance and by spiritualising hierarchies and relationships. In the latter case, a theological perspective is adopted where equality across cultures and races has already been realised. Resisting seeingwhite cultural dominance at church avoids scrutinising structures of cultural inequality in the church setting by defining them as necessary (in the case of language), God-given (in the case of leadership) or non-existent (in the case of relationships between individuals). Individuals’ situations, attitudes, abilities and responsibilities are elevated while race is all but denied which impacts people’s abilities to recognise existing power differentials. Responding reluctantly to the suggestion of white dominance vaguely concedes a strong or privileged position of white people in South African society. It is wary, though, whether framing this as dominance in a cross-cultural church

6.3 The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality …

105

setting would be adequate. This could for instance be observed in a Gospel Community meeting where I explained my research topic: Jake mused whether my research question came from modern thinking which regards power as negative per se. […] Charlotte agreed and said that domination is a valueladen term which basically means there is oppression, implying that she doesn’t agree with this analysis in respect of our church. People searched for alternative terms and came up with ‘unequal representation’. (GC 4, 31/08/2019, Field Diary)

This speaks to a conviction that there should not be power differentials in a church setting, where people see each other as ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’7 . The mere hint that such kind of inequality might exist is met with scepticism and pushback because the existence of structures of dominance would be contrary to people’s belief about what church ought to be. People’s alternative of rather speaking of ‘unequal representation’ unduly narrows the topic down to racial demographics and deflects from questions of power and influence through other structures at play. However, when inequalities are acknowledged but regarded as essential for the running of the church, ‘dominance’ is rejected as an appropriate descriptor of the situation: “… using English as the main language, I wouldn’t see that as cultural dominance so much as it’s a necessary tool for doing what the church is trying to do …” (Charlotte, 20/09/2019)

Even though the potential for cases of dominance at The Message is acknowledged, it is mainly seen in individual’s (mis)conduct and not in structures. Viewing dominance more in terms of conscious abuse of power and privilege rather than as structural inequalities leads to a fear that if the latter were uncovered, it might be demanded that they be reversed in order to bring ‘justice’. A change of structures would always impact the individual. The fear that such change might be brought about by force has people be reluctant to talk about structural power inequalities at all and makes them speak rather about individuals’ situations and their responsibilities.

7

Seeing each other as ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ as I encountered it at The Message first and foremost means the lack of hierarchies based on race or cultural groups. All congregants seem to be trying to relate to one another as equals. This can be seen, e.g. in interaction (see ‘Displaying unity and racial integration’ in section 6.5.3) or in practiced solidarity with those in need (see ‘Leveraging in practice’, in section 6.5.2.1).

106

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

Resisting seeingwhite cultural dominance at church also takes place by sidestepping the question through spiritualising hierarchies and relationships. This is influenced by two underlying convictions—about the church and about ‘race’. Regarding the church, people were convinced that ultimately it is God who instates leaders. He requires them to live up to his expectations and holds them accountable: “Where in the Bible does it say that leaders have to be black? […] The criteria (sic) in the church is godliness.” (Jim, 14/11/2019)

In respect of ‘race’, differences are understood to be superficial (e.g. the colour of skin) or negligible and therefore manageable in terms of cultural backgrounds. [Regarding the question whether one should seek more racial diversity in the eldership, he] said that if you can have a white eldership who are conscious of cultural differences, that would be enough. (GC 4, 31/08/2019, Field Diary)

Insisting on racial transformation for the sake of greater acceptance of what is said and done is understood as pursuing identity politics in a way which is regarded as unchristian: “… maybe when Sandile preaches, it’s easier for black people to hear what he’s saying because it’s a black person who’s saying this, and therefore, they would think, wow, a black person thinks that, maybe I must listen up more than when a white person is saying that. I fundamentally disagree with that approach, or that thought, because the Bible is the truth.” (Luke, 04/10/2019)

Truth here is seen as an absolute that finds itself outside of a cultural or racial context.8 Hence, paying attention to race with regard to possible power differentials at church should really be avoided because it is seen as contrary to the gospel. If it is done anyway, this is explained by unwarranted ‘worldly pressures’: “The eldership at The Message is deeply concerned about reconciliation and what needs to happen for that to take place that it is comfortable …, church is a welcoming and comfortable place for everyone and, you know, some of the challenges are huge. For instance, there is a question do we have to have purely black leadership before that can happen. Do we have to disband The Message and let it be reborn under 8

We will see this theme re-emerging in the treatment of “The boundaries of theology” in section 6.4.3.2 while a differing albeit less prominent stance will be presented in 6.4.3.1, “Regarding language and culture as central”.

6.3 The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality …

107

purely black leadership for that to happen, so that it can be primarily a black church where white people join. Now all of those things do not fit in with Christ’s model of reconciliation. It should not be that we should have to confront those kinds of issues in a perfect world in the kingdom of Christ, but given our context we must and we do.” (Jeremy, 20/09/2019)

Those two convictions about power at church being God-given and about racial differences having become insignificant among the people of God, lead to a spiritualising of hierarchies and relationships. This means the tendency of wanting to see them more through the lens of a transformation that people expect from gospel-shaped communities rather than in terms of what these relationships and hierarchies might represent in ‘worldly’ terms: “I feel like there isn’t any race in church. Everyone is just brothers and sisters in Christ and that’s how it should be …” (Suzanne, 22/08/2019)

If hierarchies and relationships are already as they should be because they are God-given, a critique or questioning of structures can be most difficult. If there isn’t any race in church, white dominance cannot exist. If there is no white dominance, there is also little need to discuss possible inequalities based on race and culture, i.e. ‘dominance’. Viewing a multicultural community through the lenses of a transformation already realised by Christ, possible inequalities are rendered invisible. The same is true in the case of hierarchies. Luke, for instance, talked about the necessity of moving away from one group dominating the other and finding a new group identity where all sides had to give up and gain equally. Asked, whether it would matter who would control such a process, he replied: “Well, in the church, that’s an easier thing in a sense that Jesus would control this process. In a [public institution; note from the author], it’s a completely different thing because there …, who controls the process? It would be a human being and that might be a powerful person …” (Luke, 04/10/2019)

Notwithstanding the prophetic potential such attitudes might have, they hinge on the question whether they can be deeply shared by people across the board. If people, irrespective of their racial and cultural backgrounds, are convinced that race and culture are relegated to insignificance in their community, they may be a powerful witness to the world beyond its boundaries. This is certainly what many white people at The Message are hoping for. If, however, spiritualising relationships and hierarchies cannot be endorsed by everyone, and especially

108

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

if disagreements run along racial lines, the risk is that this attitude may lead to disappointment, conflict or withdrawal.

6.3.2.2 Thinking About the Message in Terms of a White Church Thinking about The Message in terms of a white church consists of defining what is understood as ‘white’, learning about cultural differences, being aware of racial diversity in the church but ultimately regarding ‘white’ culture as dominating. In defining what is understood as ‘white’, several terms are used almost synonymously to describe the character of The Message church: white, Western, urban, middle-class. Western is regarded as being rooted in Europe or North America, often in a context of a white, middle-class church culture. This is then contrasted with what is regarded as ‘African’ or ‘black’. Black and (traditional) African serves as one pole and white and Western as another pole on a spectrum: “There is a way that the services are run that is more Western […] than traditional African churches, so I think that’s …, just the church runs like a fairly typical, conservative Protestant church, rather than a typical African style church.” (Lillian, 26/11/2019) “Some of the applications or some of the, let’s call it the systematic theologies are slanted one way or another, so there are certain questions that let’s say white Western culture will ask that are not asked by black culture, and vice versa, …” (Jim, 14/06/2019)

Defining cultures along a spectrum is not intended to establish a hierarchy although it can at times lead to ignoring group cultures that are shaped by aspects other than ethnicity or resist a simple black-white dichotomy: “… we are a long way […] from really getting to know the issues that different groups …, and it’s not just black-white; older, younger, Afrikaans, those groups are sometimes quite overlooked and I know coloured people often say it’s always about white and black, what about us, we have got cultural issues, struggles that are particular to our culture, that are seldom addressed, because people just don’t think about them.” (Lillian, 26/11/2019)

Using two opposing poles in defining what is understood as ‘white’ rather serves to describe what is generally regarded as the dominant ‘habitus’ that shapes the church culture at The Message.9 It is what is experienced as the norm for white, 9

I used ‘habitus’ here in inverted commas to indicate that while it is a useful analytical concept, it was not employed by the research participants themselves. Bourdieu’s term ‘habitus’

6.3 The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality …

109

middle-class South Africans, thereby revealing the intersection of race and class as it is experienced in a particular church context. People see this norm as different from what they regard as norm for black and typically lower-than middle-class South Africans in respect of a variety of areas: in the numerical predominance of white, middle-class people in the congregation and in the leadership of the church, the use of their spaces for mid-week meetings, (Western) English as the main means of communication, “a certain style of leadership and admin” (Jonathan, 27/05/2019), church activities like the annual carol service or camps or even elements of the service like … “… the music, the whole, it’s very structured. Like if you just think if you’re going to the townships when we go to a church there, just, music flows. You don’t need instruments, it’s not choreographed, it just happens. People just sing and everyone sings. It’s a very Western way with the band.” (Pamela, 22/08/2019)

Furthermore, a ‘white, middle-class norm’ is experienced in how people at times interact with each other across ‘the colour line’ and it is acknowledged as well with regard to theological traditions and applications of sermons. Here, one focus is on the liturgy with an English, reformed tradition which some describe as ‘colonial’. The other focus is ‘applications’ of the Bible teachings where references are routinely made to contexts which are more befitting of white, middle-class realities than of black African contexts from a different class background. The actual reading and interpretation of Scripture hardly received attention with respect to the possibility of it being shaped by languacultural perspectives. Cheryl’s take on this issue is perhaps the most comprehensive one when it comes to seeing the entire practice of theology being shaped by language and culture: “I guess just our worship, what our mid-week meetings look like, what marriage looks like, things that we celebrate, things that we don’t. I think that’s very much dominated by language and culture. What our application of the Word looks like, is very much, so from a theological point of view, yes, I think yes, how we apply the Bible is affected by culture and language and I see that at The Message. I think there is a real disconnect between what some people are struggling with at The Message church and what’s preached at the front, what’s discussed in mid-week groups and I think people get refers to that which systematically links a person’s or group’s orientations to form a characteristic style. It is neither permanent nor unchangeable and yet long-lasting and usually changes only within certain limits. It is not innate (Bourdieu, [2005] 2016). Rather, “the habitus, as the Latin indicates, is something non natural, a set of acquired characteristics which are the product of social conditions and which, for that reason, may be totally or partially common to people who have been the product of similar social conditions (ibid.: 45; emphasis in original).

110

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

confused by that as well, ‘So does that mean I have to conform to this? Can I not, particularly in the area of marriage, particularly in cultural celebrations, particularly in responsibilities …’ […] I think a lot of people at The Message feel frustration because of the interpretation of the Bible and not necessarily being appropriate to what I’m really struggling with.” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019)

Defining what is understood as ‘white’, however, oftentimes turns out to be rather imprecise and is linked to emotions people perceive in certain spaces. In experiencing The Message as ‘white’, people thus label it e.g. “a Western mindset rather than an African mind-set” (Elisabeth, 10/11/2019), “a white feel” (Leo, 11/11/2019), “the ways of doing things” (Henry, 17/05/2019), “a white context” (Pamela, 22/08/2019), “all the unspoken stuff that’s hard to put your finger on” (Erika, 24/05/2019) or “a white lingua franca, it’s a white style. It’s the thought leaders and the sort of the whole context” (Jonathan, 27/05/2019). Defining what is understood as ‘white’ is therefore influenced by views of one’s own racial group and its culture(s) and by perspectives on those who are regarded as outside of that group. What exactly contributed to shaping these perspectives was not part of this study. We do get some indication though in what people shared about their learning about cultural differences. Learning about cultural differences is concerned with the way people recognise and make sense of ways of life they experience as being part of their own culture and what is foreign to them. Learning about cultural differences refers to the acknowledgment that there are ways of living that are different from what is the norm they experience as white people: “I was privileged enough to go to a […] national youth camp and […] it was black people in their natural habitat. What I mean by that it was black people without the ... ‘Oh we must be like the white people want us to be.’ I was the minority, there were like two of us there. And I ..., that gave me an idea of what a sort of a more, you know, a black person with their friends in their culture was like and it was really enlightening.” (Jonathan, 27/05/2019)

Learning about cultural differences often comes with the admission that such awareness of cultural difference is not ubiquitous at The Message and that one cannot claim an authoritative understanding of what is experienced as different. It is therefore different from learning to handle cultural differences which implies a growing understanding of issues on a deeper level. The latter is an ambition by many at The Message while it is acknowledged that it is hard to realise it:

6.3 The Motivators for ‘Reconciliation as Seeking Equality …

111

“The Message has made strides towards being more multicultural and understanding each other’s cultures, but I think, I mean, we fall short in so many ways and have a long way to go and part of that, I mean, I would not be able to disciple a black person who was about to get married. I don’t know what lobola practices …, how it works, or what should and shouldn’t happen, what is biblical, what is not. I would need someone to teach me that …” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019)

Being aware of racial diversity in the church is in no contradiction to Thinking about The Message in terms of a white church. It means being fully conscious of the fact that a significant portion (around 30%) of churchgoers have a racial and cultural background that white people regard as different from their own, white one. People are being aware of racial diversity in the church precisely because they do not see it featuring much in the life of the church beyond participation in church activities. It thus means not equating racial diversity and cultural diversity. Racial diversity is seen in the numbers of people from different cultural backgrounds, although a white majority is admitted: “I don’t think that we’re a multicultural church. Yes, we have diversity but that doesn’t make us … We have a particular way of doing things that’s quite Western.” (Pamela, 22/08/2019) “… I’m just thinking in terms of the perspectives that we think through in our talks and in our sermons and in our songs, do they touch all the experiences of people in our community?” (Evelyn, 26/09/2019)

Being aware of racial diversity in the church stands out because it is associated with the realisation that this diversity isn’t adequately represented in the way the church functions. This leads to the last aspect of Thinking about The Message in terms of a white church namely regarding ‘white’ culture as dominating: “It’s certainly a white church …” (Pamela, 22/08/2019) “I recognise they’re coming into a white space. It is a white space.” (Jim, 14/06/2019)

Regarding ‘white’ culture as dominating means perceiving inequalities both in terms of prevalence of white culture at The Message and in terms of the influence white people have and the power they implicitly exercise. In spite of racial diversity, it is white culture that largely remains the norm, that others are mainly exposed to or have to conform to. Sometimes ‘white’ is specified to ‘white English’ but by and large, the dominant culture is seen as one that is associated more generally with white people than people of colour.

112

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

“I think that the inequalities come in the assumptions that exclude others because it assumes the dominant culture or the main culture is the culture of everyone or rather than acknowledging that it looks different for other people in the spaces that they’re in and in the families that they’re in …” (Lisa, 10/05/2019)

6.3.2.3 Partial Conclusion Due to the above unspoken (and perhaps unintended) assumptions and conventions, a church like The Message which shows considerable racial diversity and has a long history of working towards transformation and reconciliation is often still thought of as a white church by its white members. Together with the dimension Resisting seeing white cultural dominance at church covered in 6.3.2.1, Thinking about The Message in terms of a white church shows an overall Disapproving of white dominance by white people at The Message.10 This category as well as Coming to terms with inequalities and privilege in 6.3.1 form the motivators which lead to the conceptualisation of Reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration. This understanding of what reconciliation at The Message ought to be offers a response to the inequalities identified in the motivators. The motivators demonstrate how inequalities are interwoven with relationships in a given community. If reconciliation is to improve relationships between people, it needs to take into account and deal with inequalities as they present themselves to the people concerned.

6.4

A Formative Influence on Reconciliation Practice: Hope for Transformation From Within

Hope for transformation from within is an analytical category that emerged from grappling with the data. It refers to a prominent stance at The Message that governs and distinctly shapes the practice of reconciliation at the church. Before looking at this practice in detail in section 6.5, we need to first consider in what way it is informed by Hope for transformation from within (Figure 6.8). Hope for transformation from within is based on a commitment to racial reconciliation and transformation. It acknowledges a responsibility for white Christians in South Africa to bridge cultural as well as socio-economic 10

How this informs the practice of reconciliation will be explained in section 6.4.2 in the description of the property “Defining the change”.

6.4 A Formative Influence on Reconciliation Practice

113

Figure 6.8 Hope for transformation from within

gaps to overcome the divisions of the past while being conscient of possible limitations. What is significant about hope for transformation from within is that it tries to change power relationships by altering existing—white dominated—structures rather than seeing white people becoming a minority in a black-instituted structure as a viable alternative. It therefore defines both the kind of change that people would like to see happening and the boundaries within which such change is conceivable or desirable and beyond which it is not.11 Hope for transformation from within finds expression in the subcategories knowing of challenges, defining the change as well as defining the boundaries. The latter includes two dimensions—the boundaries of language and the boundaries of theology. Hope for transformation from within will be depicted as a broad arrow in the graphics to indicate that it informs the transition from the conceptualisation to the practice of reconciliation.

6.4.1

Knowing of Challenges

The first subcategory of Hope for transformation from within is knowing of challenges to the transformation of the church which are found in the structural characteristics of The Message. These comprise the following: people of colour at The Message are mostly students or recent graduates and are therefore regarded as not immediately able to take on leadership positions in 11

Together with the analytical category ‘Reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration’ (section 6.2), ‘Hope for transformation from within’ will be taken up again in the discussion section 9.2.2 where they will be brought into conversation with Wrogemann’s concept ‘association from a distance’.

114

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

the church; the eldership is almost exclusively white but would have to endorse changes suggested by newcomers of colour; transformation of a church requires a willingness by white people to embrace changes that may cause them discomfort (e.g. through the use of other languages) and prompt them to decide whether or to what extent they actually commit to the vision of a reconciling and transforming church: “I would imagine there would be a lot of resistance perhaps from all the white people. I think there would be some resistance, perhaps even younger white people, because it’s uncomfortable and largely white people haven’t had to do the changing, so I think there would be huge discomfort and because, you know, ‘I could just go back to St Stevens church’, you know, I think there’s that option, so I think you would lose people, and that’s risky for a church even just from a financial point of view. I hate to say it, but it’s true, so it’s risky and you’re going to upset people, but I think generally change is hard, even if it’s good. People often resist change because it’s difficult and uncomfortable, so unless your …, a majority of your congregation buy into it, I think you’re going to lose, potentially lose people, which is hard.” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019)

Knowing of challenges means being aware of factors which are likely to make change hard, slow or even unlikely. In some cases, like “white resistance” (Amos, 12/11/2019), these hindrances are not regarded as insurmountable but as something that requires intentional dealing with. In other cases, knowing of challenges almost equals being resigned to one’s fate and tacitly accepting that for all the intentions to work for transformation, The Message will retain a strong white influence. In this context, it is openly acknowledged that many current leaders at The Message, being white, lack the competence to embody the cultural transformation sought by many: “… there’s things that Jim couldn’t do, I can’t do, Francis can’t do. We’re just not, don’t have the background, don’t have the language, don’t have the culture to do those things properly.” (Pamela, 22/08/2019)

6.4.2

Defining the Change

hope for transformation from within also means defining the change: “Regarding eldership, we need black people, but where from? Siyabonga would be an obvious one. But how do we undo white dominance?” (Jim, 19/02/2019)

6.4 A Formative Influence on Reconciliation Practice

115

Undoing or reducing white dominance—this is what defining the change is all about. It acknowledges the numerical and languacultural dominance of white people at The Message and in many spaces that are multiracial. In terms of the possibilities of the church of working for racial reconciliation, reducing white dominance is understood rather narrowly, centring around the immediate congregation of The Message. The key to the diversification that is sought in terms of membership or ways of ‘doing church’ like worship through music or discipling people is seen in racially diversifying the leadership. It is assumed that this would catalyse change in other areas of the church as well. Defining the change does not imply dismantling structures that can be seen as white-dominated or leaving them behind. It means including in these structures those who are seen as excluded, rather than having individuals of The Message join existing structures of people of colour. Such joining of ‘black spaces’ (as in the case of a church member who went to live in a black township and joined a church there), for all the value seen in it for the individual and for the reconciliation project as a whole, can even be frowned upon when it comes to judging its potential for furthering racial reconciliation at The Message: “… is that really helping a white church transition by just going […] to the other side, you know, to like leaving when you’re one of the guys who could talk about this stuff and who could maybe change other people’s minds …” (Erika, 24/05/2019)

Having—or clinging to—hope for transformation from within longs for people of colour to not just come and be part of a white dominated church but to help it achieve its vision of a multicultural community. It means placing hope in people of colour to submit to or take over the system in place and to work for change from the inside: “I was quite happy to go, ‘You guys do it. You guys do it the way you want to do it, […] do it, just do it. Because I don’t know how to do it your way and I’m okay with that in that I don’t feel I have to do it my way. I don’t think my way is particularly valuable. I’m very happy for you to do it your way. But I don’t know how to do it your way’, and just to get that leadership to step in, that’s what I found often was missing. ‘Come in and just run it.’ […] ‘Instead of going off and doing your own thing why don’t you come and join us and transform within, from within?’ Why don’t those strong African leaders come and help drive the transformation?” (Pamela, 22/08/2019)

Lastly, defining the change means seeking relevant change. While acknowledging an over-representation of white people in leadership or of English in the service, one does not try to bring about transformation for the sake of numerical

116

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

equality. Elders repeatedly confirmed that they would be willing to step aside for new black leaders, but it was always pointed out that the character, abilities and maturity of the candidates ought to match the requirements of the church community. In the same vein, a white or Western dominance through the almost exclusive use of English was conceded and that this could be regarded as an injustice towards those of a different language background. But whether a linguistic diversification is the inevitable solution, especially if it was decided upon by a still rather white leadership, was put into question: “… if you suddenly have the service in different languages, is it going to suddenly change things. But I suppose, then again, we should be willing to; okay, well if that means I have to stand there and read the subtitles in English, I should be willing to do that, yah. […] it’s difficult being the white privileged person to, it’s like, because that’s the thing right, like you don’t want to come up with solutions to problems that aren’t affecting you directly. You don’t want to have that white saviour complex where you go, okay, well, you know I presume that if we do this, this and that, we’ll be fine. You know, I’m hesitant to say like yah, if we mix up our songs and do 50% in vernacular languages and we do all the readings and we have a translation and then we’re going to be fine. I don’t know, I can’t—I don’t want to be that person that just assumes and you do those things then you go, ‘But why are we still not integrating?’” (Jacob, 04/12/2019)

Defining the change can therefore be conceived as the conviction that a collaborative approach to altering established—and hitherto—white dominated structures would be best suited to bring about change. This collaborative approach relies on the acceptance of responsibility for matters of the church by both white members and those of colour.

6.4.3

Defining the Boundaries

Defining the boundaries shows that while there is a commitment to transformation at The Message, this does not mean “diversity above all” (John, 05/11/2019). Defining the boundaries takes stock of one’s identity as a church congregation and delineates the areas within which there is scope for change.12 A particular focus emerged on the questions of language and of theological orthodoxy which finds expression in the two dimensions the boundaries of language and the boundaries of theology. 12

This will be taken up again in the discussion in section 9.2.1, ‘How the theoretical framework illuminates my analytical concepts’.

6.4 A Formative Influence on Reconciliation Practice

117

6.4.3.1 The Boundaries of Language The definition of the boundaries of language needs to be understood as happening in a context where a multitude of languages are present. It is not just a pragmatic exercise that tries to find a workable way to deal with language diversity. The choice of a main language—in this case, English—is being negotiated against otherwise existing convictions regarding the interrelatedness of language and culture and their impact on theological sense-making. As will be shown, the subdimension of justifying the predominance of English will prevail despite regarding language and culture as central to how people approach theology. In Figure 6.9 as in subsequent figures, a dashed line indicates a (sub)dimension that receives considerably less emphasis compared with other (sub)dimensions under one shared category/dimension.

Figure 6.9 The boundaries of language

Regarding language and culture as central Regarding language and culture as central refers to the view that the two are central for people’s approaches to theology.13 It includes the properties understanding language as being intrinsically linked to culture, affirming the impact of language and culture on theology, and acknowledging limitations of white people.

13

As a possible foundation for a decolonial perspective, this will be taken up in the discussion section 9.2.1, ‘How the theoretical framework illuminates my analytical concepts’.

118

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

Understanding language as being intrinsically linked to culture means grasping what language is about: the articulation of people’s perceptions of reality and the negotiation of meaning on a basis emanating from their languacultural framework. This includes an awareness of the fact that there are concepts in cultures which do not have equivalents in other cultures which makes translation difficult: “… let’s take for example the concept of ubuntu. We all talk of ubuntu. We, in the South African context, know what it means, but I don’t think there is an English word for it […]. This concept, I can’t express in an English word.” (Grant, 10/11/2019)

Furthermore, understanding language as being intrinsically linked to culture expresses the conviction that language does not stand on its own. Speaking in a certain language is regarded as enabling one to connect with people’s backgrounds and allowing the speakers of that language to feel at ease and at home. Language is therefore about ways of relating which has Christine conclude: “I think language is a display of, or part of culture, I don’t think the two can be separated.” (Christine, 18/11/2019)

Regarding language and culture as central is secondly about affirming the impact of language and culture on theology which speaks to culture and its expression through language affecting how people approach theology. It acknowledges that people from different cultural backgrounds may be asking different questions that require theological answers and that “our church practices are very much influenced by our language, by the culture that goes along with the language” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019). Moreover, affirming the impact of language and culture also reveals an inkling that if words have to be found for categories or concepts that are non-existent in a given languaculture, this would shape people’s appropriation of biblical ‘truth’: “… because theology is truth and ideas, which come to you via words, words which are in a particular language, they do shape […] but I think when you get missionaries coming to a country and trying to put words that they know in Greek or in English into a category which isn’t necessarily there, that shapes what they’re trying to communicate. It has a profound effect I think on theology.” (Jim, 14/06/2019)

Affirming the impact of language and culture can be seen in people’s pondering on the relationship between language, culture and theology. There is often little certainty as to what exactly the impact of language and culture might be, but there would repeatedly be a strong feeling that people’s understanding of “[the gospel]

6.4 A Formative Influence on Reconciliation Practice

119

is wrapped up in the culture and therefore obviously in the language” (Isabelle, 23/10/2019). A consequence of this that was considered at times is that doctrine is likely to be understood differently across cultures, even if it can be translated: “I mean yeah, even your understanding of the trinity I’m sure differs slightly depending on your understanding of community, like and those are quite …, community’s quite like a rich unique concept in some settings and in individualistic city lifestyles that can be harder to understand. So maybe even your understanding, I don’t know, I’m just thinking aloud, like of the trinity and yeah and the community within the trinity would differ depending on the words you have in your language to express that and the experience of community you have in your context, yeah.” (Evelyn, 26/09/2019)

Lastly, Regarding language and culture as central involves acknowledging limitations of white people. This property considers their languacultural situatedness and concedes that with their lack of knowledge of black languacultures they can hardly speak relevantly into black African cultures, particularly in a theological context. The necessity to understand both cultures and languages (and at times the use of the latter) are affirmed for creating a setting that is not dominated by a thinking rooted in white perspectives: “… it’s more than just having Scriptures in your own language, someone needs to be able to teach in that language. Someone has to understand the culture that is tied up with that language, otherwise there’s just a lot that is lost. [Our pastor] uses illustrations all the time […] and they make sense in the cultural context that he’s giving them. You can’t just translate that into Afrikaans or maybe Xhosa, Zulu or whatever. It’s not going to work. It will help to have; like a good translation Scripture in your own language, but the teaching comes along with it. You need people who understand your culture.” (Hugh, 27/09/2019)

In summary, Regarding language and culture as central conveys the conviction that ultimately language, culture and theology are interwoven. To be making theological sense in a way that takes account of and does justice to different languacultural backgrounds of people, these languacultures need to be drawn on in theological teaching and practice. Justifying the predominance of English Justifying the predominance of English speaks to the challenge of communication in a multilingual setting. It insists on the need for a singular language while at the same time rejecting the idea that the choice of language ultimately matters. Both serve to uphold the predominance of English.

120

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

Justifying the predominance of English acknowledges the central role of English in the affairs of the church. It does so precisely because it is aware that The Message is a community of people from a variety of linguistic backgrounds where some, like Hugh, even make out “linguistic inequality” (Hugh, 27/09//2019). Charlotte pragmatically remarked, “there has to be a main language” in such a setting (Charlotte, 20/09/2019). The aim is to make those who are not first-language English speakersfeel included. Using English as the main medium of communication at church plays a key role here: “I believe that church services […] have to be inclusive. Then, inclusive is that we then decide to use the language that is understood by most people, and English happens to be that language.” (Luke, 04/10/2019)

People feel that a balance needs to be struck between having this main language and honouring linguistic diversity among the congregation. The intention of the latter is summarised by John as being “[i]n a way more symbolic to say that […] we acknowledge not everybody is English-speaking first language. And we want to try to go out of our way to an extent to acknowledge that” (John, 05/11/2019). Allowing such exceptions to be precisely that, exceptions, again acknowledges the central role of English. However, justifying the predominance of English also praises its unifying character. When the topic is brought up, people at The Message are generally aware of the linguistically diverse community they find themselves in. Although there is a desire to honour this diversity, there is also the fear that the use of multiple languages could be experienced as excluding: “… as much as the attempt with multilingualism would be to incorporate and make feel welcome, is I think the effect that it’s going to have, it’s going to segregate, because if some of the Xhosa speaking people in church start speaking Xhosa to each other, I’m going to go and join a group that speaks a language that I can understand. So, you end up alienating yourself rather than getting something to glue together … .” (Elisabeth, 10/11/2019)

This ‘gluing together’, it is suggested, is more likely to occur if English is used almost exclusively. Moreover, justifying the predominance of English also affirms that this predominance does not have negative effects. Essentially, everyone at The Message is regarded as able to speak and understand English. Language here is understood as a neutral vessel in which meaning is transferred between people. Languages are regarded as almost parallel systems, where what is possible to be expressed in one language, can generally be expressed in another language:

6.4 A Formative Influence on Reconciliation Practice

121

“Language becomes difficult when the language doesn’t exist. So, in different languages, you have certain words that exist and certain words that just don’t exist, and that’s sometimes where theology becomes difficult to explain, because the word that you need to explain, it just isn’t there.” (Elisabeth, 10/11/2019)

In this sense, understanding across languages and cultures only requires the right words, the correct translation. No consideration is given to the differences in meaning of the ‘correctly’ translated words or the possibility of people hearing words and understanding them on their own languacultural terms. I here refer to situations where people may connect the words they hear to what is thought to be the equivalent in their home languacultures but are in fact a deviation from what the speaker intended to say.14 And obviously white people would be oblivious to this possibility or reality because they are usually unaware of differing concepts, not being able to speak African languages and only hearing African people speak to them using the words they are acquainted with. The almost inevitable conclusion is that people are communicating the same concepts. John acknowledges this dilemma: MARCUS: JOHN:

“So I wonder how big the gap might be between Western and African languages?” “I wouldn’t be able to say, I don’t speak any, but I’m sure there are.”

But then he concludes, “I don’t think those are insurmountable. I think probably the bigger factor would be to …, the question of church experience before coming to our church” (John, 05/11, 2019). The pertinence of John’s latter point notwithstanding, the issue of conceptual misunderstanding is not given much attention because of white people being shut out of African knowledge systems which are reposited in African languages—and which are not parallel to European worldviews that are marked by a scientific, dualistic, secularised understanding of the world. What probably helps to maintain the idea that the choice of language may have a symbolic but hardly any other value at The Message is the simple translations provided on the screen for isiXhosa/isiZulu-songs sung during services, e.g.: uthando lwakho luyaphila (your love is alive) umbuso wakho uyaphila (your kingdom is alive) (The Message Sunday service, 01/09/2019, Field Diary)

14

Cf. Chapter 8, ‘Findings of the isiXhosa concept study’, which illustrates this point.

122

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

It appears that translation is understood as conveying a meaning that is identical with its source, e.g. in the words of the song being sung. Conversely, there does not seem to be mindfulness to the possibility that what is being taught in English in terms of theology may be understood differently to the speaker’s intention—not due to a lack of knowledge of English words but due to underlying cultural concepts that differ from those presupposed by speakers of European origin. While justifying the predominance of English acknowledges the central role of English, praises its unifying character and affirms that this predominance does not have negative effects, it also downplays the role of language in general and the dominating role of English in particular. Again, coming from an attitude that English is a language that is shared by all at The Message and even “the universal language” (Suzanne, 22/08/2019), it can even be expressed that “language maybe is a surface thing” (Jacob, 04/12/2019). It is seen as more important that ‘good’ relationships are built between people of differing cultural backgrounds. Likewise, the Bible and Christ are regarded as being able to trump language since they are understood to be outside of or above culture, as seen in the following two quotes: “I don’t think language should matter ultimately, because if language and culture matters in the interpretation of the Bible, then I’m reading my culture into the Bible rather than reading the truth out of it, and letting my culture be shaped by what I see in the Bible.” (Luke, 04/10/2019) “I think because of people’s natural bias and laziness, they tend to find their own language more palatable and just for convenience putting it in their language would help, but I don’t think it’s essential. I think if you want a true relationship with Christ, language is not going to get in your way.” (Harry 31/10/2019)

It transpires that the assumption is that God can and will be known in the same way no matter what language is employed, provided a person ‘speaks’ it. Language thus remains a means to an end. It essentially is an interchangeable tool for communication between God and human beings as well as from person to person. Since English appears to be the language most widely shared at The Message, Margaret (who has an Afrikaans background) can conclude that “to me it is neither here nor there. I just need to be able to worship the Lord in a language I understand” (Margaret, 21/05/2019). Partial conclusion Despite the widespread notion of Regarding language and culture as central to how people approach theology, at least in practice it does not seem to be a

6.4 A Formative Influence on Reconciliation Practice

123

contradiction for many to be justifying the predominance of English. It transpires from the data that the overwhelming majority of white people at The Message have no functional competency in a black language. Exposure to black communities and churches in black languages is therefore also hard to come by. These may be reasons why language diversity can in theory be seen as key while practicing and largely contenting oneself with English as the sufficient or even desirable means for communication at a multilingual church. To further probe the conditions which led to either one of these attitudes was beyond the scope of this research.

6.4.3.2 The Boundaries of Theology Hope for transformation from within also defines theological boundaries within which change is conceivable or desirable and beyond which it is not. While the desire is clearly to further work on transforming the church for the sake of reconciliation, a commonly held view at The Message is also that … “… we want diversity in some things, but not in others. So, in terms of core theological convictions, we would not be seeking to be more diverse in that we have certain key theological convictions that we want to maintain, so, the role of Scripture, for example.” (John, 05/11/2019)

Cultural diversity is regarded as subordinate to theological orthodoxy. In this view, cultural diversity and theological orthodoxy can—at least at times—constitute mutually exclusive categories. This finds expression in the sceptical musing about the question whether the white rector should be replaced by a black person for the sake of transformation. In the church, it is argued, race and culture are ultimately not supposed to matter, for “[t]he criteria in the church is godliness” (Jim, 14/11/2019). This attitude and how it is rooted in a particular cultural context is enabled by the property wanting to remain true to the Bible. Wanting to remain true to the Bible asserts the authority of Scripture for the local as for the global church. Scripture in this view takes a position outside of or above cultures. However, wanting to remain true to the Bible can go beyond that. Not just Scripture, but one’s understanding of it (i.e. theology) is at times regarded as ultimate. It is presupposed that regardless of their languacultural background, people will be able to understand Scripture in the same way.15 15

This indicates a positivist epistemology that struggles to “tolerate […] theological differences or accept theologies as different interpretations of Scripture” (Hiebert, 1999: 103). This theme will be further reflected upon in section 9.1.4, ‘How were structures of inequality affected by the reconciliation process?’.

124

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

Wanting to remain true to the Bible is more than ‘wanting to be true to the Bible’. It assumes that one’s own congregation is largely true to the Bible already. It expresses a need to safeguard biblical truth when carefully testing the waters whether there might be potential for more cultural diversity in theology. Wanting to remain true to the Bible is therefore also indicative of a process of transformation. This process consists of discussions where biblical truth could potentially be challenged but which also holds the potential for newly found common ground: “… we have the Bible as our authority and that helps because it means there are patterns and frameworks there, that one needs to conform to. Because if one’s not conforming to the Bible, then one shouldn’t, really, be doing any of these things. Whereas, so for a church, the Bible is not a debatable issue. Okay, we might debate, interpreting different things and come to some …, a compromise, or some agreed position on what it means.” (Luke, 04/10/2019)

Wanting to remain true to the Bible implies criteria by which biblical truth and one’s position to it can be measured. Frequently used words at The Message to describe the adherence of a person or a church to biblical truth are the terms ‘sound’ and ‘solid’, e.g.: “… there is not much theologically sound advice given to people to know how to process that” (Lillian, 26/11/2019) “Has the preaching outside of their cultural practices been scripturally sound?” (Harry, 31/10/2019) CESA people always thought it was due to its ‘solid biblical teaching’. (GC 1, 21/11/2019, Field Diary) “It’s good to have the Bible in let’s say Xhosa if you’re a Xhosa person, English if you’re English, as long as the translation is good and the teaching is solid” (Hugh, 27/09/2019) “… we have pretty solid teaching on that” (Grant, 10/11/2019)

A certain understanding of ‘sound’ or ‘solid’ is thus put forward as theological criterion for assessing the acceptability or orthodoxy of a certain group, church, person or teaching. Precisely what that understanding is, in what way it is dependent on a certain theological tradition and in what way it might be entangled with culture (and therefore, most likely, ‘race’), is hardly ever specified. An exchange with Lillian on her reasons for choosing The Message as a church resulted in a disarmingly honest confession:

6.4 A Formative Influence on Reconciliation Practice

LILLIAN:

MARCUS: LILLIAN: MARCUS:

LILLIAN:

125

“… it’s mainly a coloured church, we have been to a couple of services, like Christmas services and things like that, it didn’t cross our minds to go to it. I think possibly just thinking, you know, REACH SA has got a theology that we feel is sound.” “What, in what way is it …, what makes it sound?” “Prejudice. [laughing] No.” “I have been waiting for a chance to ask this question because so many people use this very expression, ‘But they teach sound theology’ or ‘solid Bible teaching’ or whatever, how would you define that?” “Preference. [laughing] […] if I had been trained in a different theology, I might, for example, be very convinced about some of the things that other churches, more liberal churches are comfortable with, like women pastors, like the whole gay rights kind of thing. If I had a different background I might be quite convinced of that.” (Lillian, 26/11/2019)

If ‘sound’ and ‘solid’ Bible teaching are put forward as criteria by white conservative South African Christians and if the understanding of these terms is indeed in some way related to their socialisation, then wanting to remain true to the Bible is likely to entail an understanding of biblical truth which cannot be detached from cultural-theological perspectives which are the norm for white, especially English-speaking South African Christians and are rooted in Eurocentric ontologies. Theology being paramount at The Message and regarded as separate from culture-specific worldviews, the extent to which white people’s expectations (e.g. of ‘godliness’) have been shaped by the long history of Christianity in their culture remains invisible. Change is thus likely to remain limited to the boundaries set by what is seen as theologically orthodox—by the predominantly white and English-speaking leadership of the church.

6.4.4

Summing up ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

Hope for transformation from within depicts the way white people at The Message imagine change to be brought about which would bolster racial reconciliation—by altering white-dominated structures in collaboration with people of colour, being aware that such transformation might present a challenge to some white members, and implicitly defining the limits of possible change in order to preserve the identity of the church. This way, while being aimed at reducing white dominance, is ultimately at odds with actually giving up white dominance.

126

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

It thus shies away from a more radical refashioning of cross-cultural relationships and hierarchies. What such might look like and what it would necessitate is remarked on by Christine: “… do I think that that is needed, white people making effort to integrate into contexts where it’s predominantly Xhosa or whatever; yes definitely, but I think that there are more …, I don’t know if I want to say more, but I think that the commitment is, you’re basically, you know, so you’ve got to give your life to that, yes. In a sense you’ve got to become a missionary in a different kind of way, but you’ve got to language learn, you’ve got to culture learn, and I think that, yes, definitely people who are in The Message context have to do that and it’s not nice, it’s not great.” (Christine, 18/11/2019)

For all its desire to bring about change in a white-dominated setting, Hope for transformation from within thus stands for a limitation of this project. How exactly it affects the practice of reconciliation at The Message will be described in the now following subsection.

6.5

Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

In section 6.2, we learned about the concept of reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration which appears to be widely shared by white people at The Message. In this chapter, we will now look at the actual reconciliation practice ensuing from this understanding of reconciliation. It will become evident that it is governed and distinctly shaped by the above-explained stance of Hope for transformation from within. To ‘govern’ here means that its underlying assumptions about the possibilities and limitations of change define the scope of reconciliatory practice, while to ‘shape’ speaks to its concrete realisation in various areas. This dual function of governing and shaping finds graphic expression in the white arrow set against the rectangular backdrop that is shared with the three fields on the right marking out the reconciliation practice (Figure 6.10). With respect to reconciliation practice, I was able to identify three dominant patterns that I tried to grasp in the following analytical categories: Seeking to understand which focuses on better cross-cultural understanding and learning, ‘Giving to’ taking priority over ‘Giving up’, focusing on dealing with inequalities, as well as Finding unity on white terms. This latter category is about building community in a multiracial and multicultural context.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

127

Figure 6.10 Practicing reconciliation with ‘Hope for transformation from within’

6.5.1

Seeking to Understand

By seeking to understand, white people at The Message implicitly acknowledge differences between people’s backgrounds, be they socio-economic or cultural. Often these differences are considered to be running along racial lines. Furthermore, seeking to understand admits to a limited knowing or understanding of such differences and commits to continued learning about ‘the other’. For such learning to occur, authentic relationships based on trust are regarded as key while acknowledging that they are far from self-evident: “I think there are some friendships or relationships across cultural gaps, but my perception is that most people gravitate towards people they understand.” (John, 05/11/2019)

Seeking to understand involves the properties of seeking to hear about pain as well as being intentional. It also has two different, somewhat contradictory dimensions—or approaches—to growing in understanding: Trying to understand through talk and Needing exposure, the former being more prominent than the latter, as indicated by the dashed line in Figure 6.11. Seeking to hear about pain is a common response at The Message to the urge to learn more about one another. Both ‘hearing’ and ‘pain’ are central in this regard. Having been in community with people of colour for some time, white people at The Message are aware that their experiences of South Africa in the past and in the present usually differ from those of people of colour, the latter often having gone through pain and struggles rarely known by white people. This insight translates into a desire and a willingness to know more about this as

128

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

Figure 6.11 Seeking to understand

part of the building of genuine relationships (cf. Reconciling individuals in 6.2.2). Conversations and listening to people’s stories are regarded as the means to achieve that, as for instance expressed by Cheryl: “I think it happens mainly through talk” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019). Hearing people’s stories allows them to learn about the other and—reflecting about the others’ experiences—about themselves. Seeking to hear about pain therefore results in appreciation of others’ hardships and in growing empathy: “I learnt a lot about what people had been through in apartheid, through [this group]. I mean, I remember, so one thing that chopped me was, I remember someone telling this story of how …, they were in the township, because, you know, forced to live in a township and these police trucks would come in, there would be absolute fear and intimidation, and this was their only interaction with white people, and I remember thinking, gosh, if that was my only interaction with white people I would also hate white people, I would fear white people.” (Henry, 31/10/2019)

Being intentional about cross-cultural relationships speaks of the pursuit of unlikely friendships. Unlikely because they are sought with people whose racial, cultural, linguistic or socio-economic background is different to one’s own and where the goal is to establish a relationship based on honesty and trust. It may take more effort to find commonalities or to learn about differences in ways of life, but it may also require courage as people will have to come to terms with their own privilege when hearing of the hardships of others. By being intentional about cross-cultural relationships, white people see themselves as partaking in the lives of the others, growing in empathy and learning from and about one another because of and despite the diversity in people’s backgrounds: “… more important than where the conversation is being held, or even with whom the conversation is held, is that […] the conversation is held in a place that you trust

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

129

each other. That to me …, and I …, like there are a few ladies that a couple of years ago started having breakfast with, and intentional about, you’re not white, you do not necessarily have a family, you’re in a different sphere of your life, but I want to meet with you because I want to get to know you. And I was almost amazed at how brutally honest some of these conversations were and that we didn’t need to agree with each other to be able to say how we feel about something. It really was about, that this is how I feel about it and being able to learn from each other. It’s like actually you say that, but realise that this is how I feel about that and this is why. So, it wasn’t an aggressive, I’m attacking you conversation, it really was a; I trust you, I know you love me, and therefore I can say what I feel.” (Elisabeth, 10/11/2019)

6.5.1.1 Trying to Understand Through Talk The dimension of Trying to understand through talk highlights the prominence given to discussions and conversations on issues such as race, culture or apartheid and how it was experienced by people of different backgrounds.16 Its properties comprise sharing OUR lives and assuming understanding. Trying to understand through talk almost by default ends up being realised in settings that are the norm for white people—e.g. in their homes, in their languages (usually English) or in areas, locations and activities that they know and feel secure in. Trying to understand through talk requires social interaction. For white people at The Message, it usually means that learning takes place while sharing OUR lives. Stories are told and ideas exchanged in a way that enables white people to grasp some different realities while at the same time being able to remain at a distance. For people of colour, being invited to share white people’s lives, their learning differs because it takes place in a ‘white context’. For white people though, engagement with ‘the other’ often remains at a theoretical level and knowledge is acquired in a de-contextualised manner. However, shortcomings of learning about ‘the other’ by sharing OUR lives are often ignored, possibly because sharing life across races at all is not the norm in today’s South Africa and thus seen as a major step forward: “I have loved people of different cultures living with us, because you learn so much, you know, from food to those late-night conversations, to talking about things that hurt.” (Erika, 24/05/2019)

Trying to understand through talk also means assuming understanding on the basis of what is taken to be shared experiences and a shared language. 16

This will be considered once more in the discussion section 9.2.1, ‘How the theoretical framework illuminates my analytical concepts’.

130

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

What people perceive as reality is understood to be objective and discussing it in English a neutral way of making sense of it. While intentionally seeking conversations and relationships that allow them to learn about ‘differences’, white people at The Message do so with a frame of reference emerging from a white contextual world—socio-economically, culturally, linguistically and consequently in the way all of this pertains to a Eurocentric, i.e. secularised ontology. There is an ignorance of the limitations of English (or any language’s) words to carry meaning that arises from experiences in a different cultural context. ‘Differences’ white people encounter are thus made sense of through their particular languacultural lens or else not picked up on at all: “My experience is white, western middle class. I don’t know what it is like to go to the mountain. I don’t know what it is like to pay lobola. I do know what it’s like to have to support parents.” (Jim, 14/06/2019)

Connotations and implications of certain words (e.g. ‘to support’ or ‘parents’) in another language are lost in translation which means that an understanding of ‘the others” contexts risks being superficial or even distorted. Likewise, the appropriate translation of Western philosophical concepts often used in church gatherings like ‘supernatural’, ‘secular’ or ‘religious’ into an African worldview system is taken for granted while functional equivalents for such concepts may be non-existent in cultures outside of the West or the translations used may carry meanings quite different to those assumed in Western English. Differences in culture and ontologies thus become invisible through a language that is understood on the basis of languacultural norms taken for granted by white people. This is exemplified in the isiXhosa concept study in Chapter 8 where I show how translation between languages can be misleading and obscure the potential for deeper cross-cultural understanding that lies in the knowledge of and communicating in languages other than the dominant one. In summary, Trying to understand through talk, being aware of differences in socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, attempts to grow in cross-cultural understanding. The manner of doing so, however, has its limitations that people are often not aware of and that prevent white people at The Message to gain a deeper understanding of the very experiences they want to learn about.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

131

6.5.1.2 Needing Exposure Needing exposure recognises that in light of South Africa’s segregated past, white people’s understanding of people of colour requires sharing in their contexts—spatially, culturally and linguistically. It therefore identifies a lack of Capetonian white Christians’ exposure to communities dominated by people of colour. Needing exposure consists of the insight that sharing THEIR lives leads to deeper understanding of the other and of the conviction that understanding is facilitated by learning and using the other’s language. Especially the former aspect reflects the need of being exposed to socio-economic inequalities that was treated in Reconciling groups in 6.2.3. Sharing THEIR lives needs to be understood dialectically with hoping to grow in understanding of the other through sharing OUR lives in the previous section. Sharing THEIR lives underlines that knowledge is not just cognitive but also embodied, experiential, whereas sharing OUR lives assumes that a satisfactory amount of knowledge can be gained in a de-contextualised way. Sharing THEIR lives also owns up to the fact that cultural, socio-economic and church contexts differ and that something can indeed be gained by making the effort to leave that which is known behind and “immersing yourself in their context” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019): “I think you need to be in the space of the other [in order to learn effectively about them], I remember that has been almost like a revelation when one of my friends […] said, she realised that typically white people say, ‘I am not racist, welcome to my world.’ Rather than ‘I am going to find out about your world’, it’s just this assumption that our world is the right world, and I will never forget her saying that and realising it, that’s the thing. Are we prepared to put aside this dominant culture that is being affirmed as the right way because it’s, it’s wealthier, it’s recognised etcetera, everybody aspires to it, and go and learn about another culture, but I don’t think you can do it effectively in your space.” (Lillian, 26/11/2019)

Seeking to understand means growing in knowledge about and empathy for each other. The view that learning and using the other’s language facilitates understanding points to differences in cultural contexts which would require using a language that is tied to these contexts. We are here faced with the realisation that such learning finds its limits where a lingua franca like English is not able to convey experiences or worldviews that are deeply rooted in another culture. This ties in with Regarding language and culture as central in section 6.4.3.1. Growing as a multicultural community would therefore involve taking steps towards understanding other people’s backgrounds and identities through their languages as well:

132

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

“I think it’s critical, I think that in order to build sincere relationships, language plays a huge role in that. Language shapes how you do life and how you understand life and how you perceive things and how you experience your faith. Yes, so I think it’s really important, particularly in our context where it’s a diverse context …” (Christine, 18/11/2019)

Both sharing THEIR lives and learning and using the other’s language involve leaving one’s comfort zone and entering new and in all likelihood uncomfortable territory. Leaving one’s context behind, be it spatially, culturally or linguistically, means giving up what one has mastered and accepting to become dependent on what is the norm for others. Therefore, Needing exposure is primarily about the insight that white people ought to give up power if they want to achieve greater understanding of people of colour. The fact that this attitude is only a marginal expression of how understanding is sought attests to the prominence given to ‘reducing’ but not ‘giving up’ white dominance in Hope for transformation from within.17

6.5.2

‘Giving to’ Taking Priority Over ‘Giving Up’

‘Giving to’ taking priority over ‘Giving up’ speaks to ways in which white people at The Message live as part of a highly unequal society. Inequalities extent into their very church where unity in diversity is sought as prophetic action18 . ‘Giving to’ taking priority over ‘Giving up’ has two dimensions—the dominating Leveraging privilege and the lesser Becoming vulnerable. They have two subcategories each (see Figure 6.12). In the following, these dimensions and subcategories are explained in detail before showing how the two dimensions integrate into the category of ‘Giving to’ taking priority over ‘Giving up’.

6.5.2.1 Leveraging Privilege Leveraging privilege is the key strategy employed by white people at The Message to foster unity in the context of socio-economic inequalities that often run along racial lines. ‘Leveraging’ means ‘giving to’ (others) and is different from ‘giving up’ (one’s privilege) as explained below in Becoming vulnerable. By leveraging, privilege is used to benefit those who do not have the same 17

This will be taken up again in the discussion in section 9.2, ‘Discussing the findings in relation to my theoretical framework’. 18 See ‘Reconciling groups’ in 6.2.3.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

133

Figure 6.12 ‘Giving to’ taking priority over ‘Giving up’

privilege. Privilege is thus—at least tacitly—acknowledged, accepted as a given and employed for the good not just of self but of others as well. Leveraging Privilege includes the subcategories making the case for leveraging and leveraging in practice which is realised in turn by the three properties living an ethic of generosity, sharing to include as well as giving out of affluence. Making the case for leveraging Making the case for leveraging explains the motivation for Leveraging Privilege. The central condition for making the case for leveraging is the acknowledgment of the privileged positions many white people find themselves in in the context of considerable socio-economic inequalities in the church. Accepting that as a given as encountered in Justifying privilege in section 6.3.1.3, the question is then asked what responsibilities arise from this fact, both in light of colonial and apartheid history and of present inequalities. While some would explicitly speak of the need for restitution (which we have seen is part of the reconciliation concept in Reconciling groups in 6.2.3), the focus is generally on dealing with one’s position of relative affluence in the face of widespread socio-economic disadvantage. It is in this context that people relate to biblical imperatives that encourage a concern for “the vulnerable”: “[Expectations of white people of confession, repentance, compensation] are appropriate. But I’ll probably struggle with certain aspects of it to be honest. Like if someone said to me, I must give them my home, I’d probably struggle with that. But I’ve been

134

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

very struck …, there is a repeated message about Jesus was very clear on the value of the poor. Or just our treatment of the … , he regards our treatment of the poor. He sees it, it is of significance to Him. It’s not something, it’s something that he is intentional about in our lives. How are we treating the poor. How are we treating the vulnerable. How are we treating the weak.” (Pamela, 22/08/2019)

This care for “the vulnerable” is envisioned not only in the context of The Message church but is regarded as a moral obligation to support those in South African society who are less well-off. Furthermore, The Message’s self-understanding as ‘family’19 , as a close-knit community of a diverse group of Christians, plays a great role here. Leveraging Privilege is seen as a major way of actualising this identity as ‘family’ and thus contributing to reconciliation by sharing financially: “… our familyness is not only expressed in meeting together, but actually do we have the finance. We need to get our finances together and support each other economically where we can. […] our finances is a way that we need to express our unity and to address inequality. We can’t just say we don’t actually have a role, because we have resources and how have we used that to help those who don’t have the same resources? So I think that’s a big, a big area.” (Evelyn, 26/09/2019)

Lastly, it is not only financial privileges that are to be leveraged but those in terms of knowledge, skills and influence as well. The goal is to empower people holistically, support them in developing their potentials and in this way work towards closing the socio-economic gap in South African society. Leveraging in practice Leveraging in practice demonstrates how the motivations for leveraging are realised by white members of The Message. This subcategory is realised by three properties that partly overlap: living an ethic of generosity, sharing to include and giving out of affluence. The first one speaks to the posture of Leveraging Privilege, the second one to the aim of it and the last one to the nature of Leveraging Privilege within The Message church. Living an ethic of generosity is driven by the attitude of ‘I have something. Who can I bless with it?’ This refers to giving time to assist people, using one’s professional knowledge to teach certain skills or train people, sharing helpful contacts or one’s material possessions like homes or vehicles with others often at no cost or to actually using money to address certain needs:

19

Section 5.3 depicts how this self-understanding is one aspect of the five ‘core identities’ of the church.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

135

“I have seen some incredible levels of generosity, very rarely, I think very rarely, have there been white recipients of that generosity. I have seen people pay student loans, students fees R30 000.00, paid. [On m]ore than one occasion I heard those stories. People being supported on a monthly basis, yes, money just given to people because they’re in a situation.” (Jim, 14/06/2019)

Living an ethic of generosity also includes the employment of one’s mental, time and financial capacities to work towards changing structural inequalities. A case in point is the setting up and running of a school in a low-income area that is supported by The Message and by individuals within the congregation and the wider denomination. These aspects speak to generosity in the sense that the level of giving and the extent to which funds or capacities are invested not in one’s own life but in the lives and well-being of others are significant and unusual. Besides, such generosity involves a willingness to endure conflict and disappointment while continuing to extent kindness and practicing forgiveness: “I can think of at least two examples off the top of my head where it has really cost people to love someone, and they have forgiven them. […] So an older couple, financially supporting a person of colour in our congregation who then like trashes their car because, and they didn’t ask permission to even drive the car and they don’t have a driver’s [licence; note from the author] and now that person forgives them, you know, or yes, you know, examples of really where people have kind of put their money where their mouth is and got people through courses or their studies or let them live with them or, you know, and then stuff happens. And there is real forgiveness … .” (Erika, 24/05/2019)

Finally, living an ethic of generosity also entails a lifestyle of modesty, relative to the middle-class segment of South African society that most white people at The Message would belong to. This is visible among others by the kind of cars driven by white church members which tend to be smallish, functional, unimpressive and at times rather dated. In the words of one church member: “If you are a person of means, make sure that you use those means, which have been given to you by God, in any case to have stewardship over, that you use it to his glory. Don’t store up your treasures here on earth. When you buy a motorcar, don’t spend a million Rand. Spend four hundred and fifty thousand Rand and give the rest away maybe. Things like that, because there needs to be restitution, because there is no questioning that the prosperity of Whites today has come at the expense of Blacks, so there needs to be restitution in whatever form one can do if we are to achieve some sort of reconciliation …” (Jeremy, 20/09/2019)

136

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

As can be seen in Jeremy’s statement, living an ethic of generosity is underpinned by a theology at The Message that makes sense of wealth and inequalities by emphasising ‘being content with having enough’ and ‘looking out for those in need’. In my field diary I once summarised the quintessence of a sermon on the topic: We should cultivate a posture of generosity for the sake of those who are less well off. The question, ‘How much do I need to give?’, misses the point. The question to ask is, ‘How much do I need to get by?’ (The Message Sunday service, 04/08/2019, Field Diary)

The analytic property sharing to include, too, is about generously sharing one’s capacities and belongings but with the particular emphasis of meeting needs within the church. First of all, it is about providing the resources regarded as necessary for church life. One example would be the need for meeting spaces for gatherings in smaller groups (e.g. the Gospel Communities) during the week. It is overwhelmingly the (modest but well-equipped) houses or flats of white people that are used for this purpose. Another example would be to enable people of diverse socio-economic backgrounds to participate in common activities, like a conference, socialising at a café or having a Christmas celebration on the level of Gospel communities. Assistance here is provided e.g. in terms of paying for others’ expenses or giving people lifts. Knowledge is also an aspect of sharing to include in church activities as for instance in the case of the series of lessons on ‘Christianity in Africa’. Among others, it is deemed to reduce the reticence of some black people to be part of a Christian church due to their exposure to the discourse of Christianity being a relic of colonialism.20 Secondly, sharing to include is about addressing needs within the church community that are unrelated to the programme of The Message. Individuals may experience a financial crisis or need housing for a while or someone to assist them with learning a certain skill or simply information and knowledge that would allow them to continue living in Cape Town and therefore to remain at The Message. Being aware of such needs and trying to address them speaks to a cognisance of inequality in South Africa that goes far beyond differences in family income, education or areas of origin, and to a willingness to remedy them: “I’m hesitant to just give money, but there needs to be a sharing of knowledge, you need to give people access to economic opportunities and an intentional move towards including black people in the society that we’re in. Knowledge about scholarships, 20

In this respect, see also the section ‘Maintaining a white norm’ in 6.5.3, ‘Finding unity on white terms’.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

137

knowledge about new jobs, knowledge about how to participate in this economy, you need to share that …” (Hugh, 27/09/2019)

This aspect of sharing to include often involves direct financial assistance for church members in need. This usually happens informally on the level of Gospel Communities or through The Message’s ‘Fellowship Fund’ which allows people to receive financial assistance without knowing the identity of the givers, who are mostly white: “… beneficiaries of that—let’s call it the benevolent fund—have been predominantly black people in our church. So, and I think that’s right. Of course, it needn’t always be, but that’s the society we live in. […] I think reconciliation without money, will not be successful, because money has divided our society, and continues to divide our society. […] So, I think reconciliation includes economic redress.” (Luke, 04/10/2019)

It becomes clear that Leveraging Privilege (i.e. the sharing of knowledge, skills, time or money) is seen as an essential part of what it means to work for racial reconciliation in the context of The Message. It is used as a strategy to address and make up for socio-economic inequalities in the broadest sense. The third property of Leveraging in practice, giving out of affluence, is a leitmotif in Leveraging Privilege. It means giving from one’s surplus so that others may be helped in their need or helped to attain a better living standard for themselves. Leveraging Privilege uses privilege, but it hardly ever puts privilege in question. What one has oneself is what one wants others to be able to enjoy as well. The middle-class setting most white people at The Message find themselves in thus remains the norm, those living below this standard are to be assisted and thereby included. Hence the strong tendency towards upliftment-strategies, even at the cost of personal sacrifice. Sharing generously allows white people at The Message to build church on a socio-economic level where they can feel at ease despite the inequalities around them or in their midst. Having pegged one’s living standard, one can share freely while retaining a comfortable way of life. That this does not automatically do away with inequalities and can therefore have a bearing on relationships is hinted at in Luke’s statement: “I think the kind of people that go to The Message may have this kind of thinking, is that they say, okay, my income allows me to sell this house and buy a more expensive house, a fancier house in another area. But I’m not going to do that, I’m going to stay in this house. I’m going to peg my lifestyle and I’m going to give away the extra. So, it still looks like I live in a big house, but I could’ve had a bigger house. So, it …, ja; I think it needs a certain framework of thinking, and that framework of thinking might not be obvious by appearances only.” (Luke, 04/10/2019)

138

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

Giving out of affluence is related to a theological orientation that prioritises ‘giving to’ over ‘giving up’. This can be seen in interpretations of biblical passages that can be understood as being critical towards ‘worldly wealth’. See e.g. an excerpt from my research notes on conversations during a Bible study in a Gospel Community: What struck me is that the question whether wealth has been acquired by illegitimate means like exploitation or unjust laws (like during apartheid times—and today?) was not touched upon. It wasn’t denied that many of us were relatively wealthy compared to many other people in South Africa. It wasn’t stated directly but I felt that people were generally aware of their privileges. These, however, seemed to be taken for granted and nothing to be critically scrutinised—as would have been a possibility if some of the Bible readings had focused on a socio-historic analysis […]. The general conclusion people seemed to agree on was that ‘the more you have, the more responsibility you have to use it for the benefit of others.’ But this touched neither on the question of power (the power imbalance seems to be taken for granted, the only lesson was that Christians shouldn’t live as comfortably as non-Christian counterparts) nor on the question of whether it should be desirable for a person to be poor. [I came up with the passage of the beatitudes from Lk 6,20ff.: “Blessed are you who are poor” and “you who hunger now” but “woe to you who are rich” and “who are well-fed now …” saying that I am grappling with the question how wealth is regarded generally by Jesus, as I had the impression that people seemed to agree on wealth as such not being problematic] but to no avail. The conclusion seemed to be: ‘We are in the state that God put us in and there we are called to be faithful and good stewards.’ Even the parable of the ten talents was mentioned with the […] interpretation [leaning towards capitalism] that it is God or Jesus himself who teaches us to multiply what we were given—instead of a [possible] reading of the story that calls for the undermining of exploitative monetary structures of the world. (GC 5, 07/08/2019, Research Notes)

As a non-theologian researcher, I am not in a position to judge the choice of a certain interpretation of a biblical passage. It is part of this exercise, though, to raise awareness to how a certain reading of a text might impact church practice. It may not be an explicit intention of people to retain their privileges based on a certain understanding of Scripture. But the function of such theologising seems to be clear: it aids in making peace with one’s privileges and regarding them to some extent as inevitable and justified (as already encountered in Justifying privilege in 6.3.1.3), as long as one does ‘not forget the poor’, i.e. that one shares from one’s self-defined surplus. Leveraging Privilege is thus evidence of a strong commitment among many white people at The Message to share generously, a commitment that very often translates into action. It assists those less privileged to be part of a middle-class church environment because the ‘better-off’ use their privileges hoping “that there may be some equality …” (Henry, 17/05/2019).

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

139

6.5.2.2 Becoming Vulnerable Becoming Vulnerable is an alternative way in which inequalities are addressed at The Message, including not only socio-economic but also racial and cultural divides. It means giving up privileges rather than leveraging them, removing barriers for community instead of helping others cross them, receiving and learning on the terms of the ‘under-privileged’ rather than giving, teaching or receiving on one’s own terms. Unity is sought while allowing for diversity by actively forgoing power on the part of white people. A contribution to reconciliation is thus made by acknowledging, accepting and practising equality that requires an adaptation to standards of others instead of requiring others to adapt to one’s own standards.21 Becoming Vulnerable is made up of the subcategories seeing potential in vulnerability as well as Self- Depowering. Seeing potential in vulnerability Seeing potential in vulnerability recognises the value of Becoming Vulnerable for the process of working towards reconciliation. Cultural and socioeconomic diversity is being embraced rather than overcome in the quest for unity. An important condition for seeing potential in vulnerability is the perception of inequalities as barriers for deep relationships. If an inequality is a barrier, it will still exist even if people are helped to overcome it. “I think things do pose a barrier and possessions and where you live does pose a certain barrier and so yeah, I think reconciliation to …, can actually take place in a deeper, richer more speedy way if we remove some of those barriers, which can include fancy clothing, fancy gadgets, yeah, living in a different area.” (Evelyn, 26/09/2019)

Removing barriers by “moving towards people” (Evelyn, 26/09/2019) and meeting people—literally and figuratively—where they are affirms their dignity and allows them to share and contribute what they have, rather than having to rely on what others have. The reconciliatory potential of such actions rests on voluntary and not enforced vulnerability. Seeing potential in vulnerability recognises the worth of other people’s resources in socio-economically unequal settings, as exemplified by Jason with regard to mid-week church gatherings: “Also, you mentioned, ‘How would it feel for people to host in their humble homes?’ I think that would be cool. I’ve often thought why don’t we have our Bible study in like that guy’s home and it would be so much easier for him instead of travelling and 21

The dimension ‘Becoming vulnerable’ will find further consideration in section 9.2, ‘Discussing the findings in relation to my theoretical framework’.

140

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

everything. Why not have it there? Why not experience his home? Why is it important that it has to be in the most comfortable home that we can find, the most central location? Why not use the hosting as opting for someone else to enjoy hosting even though they are a bit humbler? So, yes, there is maybe some imbalance in the choice of homes.” (Jason, 16/05/2019)

Using the homes of the less well-off, especially if inequalities run along racial lines, turns power structures upside-down: the roles of guests and hosts are reversed, ‘mere’ participants become leaders and vice versa. Seeing potential in vulnerability means an awareness that upliftment is not the only and possibly not even the best strategy to achieve equality but that downscaling, giving up dominance and privilege in terms of safety and comfort can be a strong contributor to reconciliation. Be it the learning and using of other languages, living in a less affluent area, meeting in places that are accessible and affordable for everyone, or having gatherings in simpler spaces—it all emphasises renouncing the power and privilege one has and expressing an esteem for others through one’s actions for the sake of equality and reconciliation. Pamela, speaking with respect to a church member who prior to the research project moved into a black township, summarises it neatly: “… it certainly speaks to that whole thing of you’re coming into my area now. I don’t have to go out of my way to come and meet where you meet and do it the way you do it. It’s now you coming into my space, not said in a bad way. But you’re coming to me. You’re coming out of your comfort zone.” (Pamela, 22/08/2019)

Self-depowering Self- depowering happens when Becoming Vulnerable is put into practice. It means a giving up of my dominance and freeing others to relating to me on their own terms. ‘Relating’ is a key term here because Self- depowering takes place for the sake of relationship. It is aware of privileges, the power imbalances they create and the barriers they pose for deep encounters—and it takes steps to remove them. Like this, people can meet, work and have fellowship with each other in ways that allow for more diversity. These are the benefits of self- depowering but it comes at a cost as well and one that people are often aware of: the cost of potentially compromising on comfort and safety, of renouncing control, of giving up understanding of what is going on: “… one thing that [the] school [in Mitchell’s Plain; note from the author] has taught me, […] is that you can go into those areas. You need to be wise about it and exercise caution, but it’s not this big bad scary place for white people. It’s not the bogeyman

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

141

that gets built up in white people’s minds that you know everyone’s out to get them. You hide behind […] my electric fence in my …, southern suburbs, you know. It’s do-able, but again, it’s uncomfortable and it’s going to cost you and are you willing to bear that cost for that relationship.” (Amos, 12/11/2019)

Self- depowering means becoming vulnerable—vulnerable to circumstances that are beyond one’s control but vulnerable to other people as well. Self- depowering therefore opens up the possibility of receiving from those who are empowered as a result of one’s self- depowering. Self- depowering comes with a willingness to receive and learn. It is driven by a conviction that those who come from different cultural, linguistic or socio-economic backgrounds have something to give that is of value: “I know some individuals in the church who are learning Xhosa for example and being intentional about that, being intentional about meeting with a black person, just from the point of view of ‘I want to learn.’” (Cheryl, 25/10/2019)

Receiving whatever others have to give affirms the dignity of the givers. It also creates a space for the expression of difference, a potential usually missed when the dominant relate to others through their dominance. Some ways how such selfdepowering is at times practiced at The Message church include the occasional midweek meeting taking place in homes of people of colour; white people staying in people’s shack homes on trips to a partner church in a township; or the accepting or intentional seeking by white people to be in the minority. Self- depowering, therefore, highlights the importance of practicing equality in terms of allowing everyone to contribute. It does so by removing barriers that might keep people from doing so. A prerequisite for this is a willingness for dominant people’s usual standards to be relativised or abandoned for the sake of diversity and relationship with those who find themselves in less privileged positions and circumstances than one’s own.

6.5.2.3 Integrating ‘Leveraging Privilege’ and ‘Becoming Vulnerable’ Despite seeing potential in vulnerability and active self- depowering in some areas at some times, the addressing of inequalities across socio-economic, racial or languacultural divides at The Message often ends up in ‘Giving to’ taking priority over ‘Giving up’:

142

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

“… it tends to be the white people reaching out because …, and I think it’s a good thing because they recognise that they need to be doing this, being generous and hospitable, and they happen to be the people looking often …, are in a position to do that because they’ve got a house, you know, they’ve got the facilities and they do it. The flipside of that coin is that white people are scared to go into the townships and into the poorer areas, I mean, that’s just the reality …” (Amos, 12/11/2019)

To work for reconciliation in a context marked by inequalities at The Message inadvertently ends up emphasising giving and sharing one’s privilege.22 This has its own merits and the extent of which may be called exceptional. But it needs to be acknowledged that this approach hardly puts into question the structures that keep white people in positions of dominance or power, due to the formative influence of Hope for transformation from within. ‘Giving up’ (privilege) as an alternative and ‘receiving’ from those not in dominant positions is rarely practiced. Generosity is being encouraged, even for it to be ‘sacrificial’, while accepting the current socio-economic status quo. The same is true in the realm of cultural inclusivity: the English language and reformed theological orthodoxy mediated through Western languages form the boundaries within which change may be acceptable. To go out of one’s way to draw level with someone or a group by giving up one’s dominant position is unusual. It is striking that Grant’s response below was actually exemplary for how people would usually respond when asked the same question: MARCUS:

GRANT:

“Are you aware of any other examples of similar actions at our church where people gave up some of their … let’s […] call it dominance in order to meet others on their terms?” “I can’t think of.” (Grant, 10/11/2019)

Of course, there may be different reasons why people cannot think of cases of practiced vulnerability. The examples may still exist and in self- depowering I hinted at a few that I did in fact encounter. It does appear from the data, though, that seeing potential in vulnerability is something that is not immediately obvious to white people at The Message when they reflect on ways of overcoming the divisions of the past. Elisabeth’s words may well be true when she says that … “I don’t think it’s intentional that you don’t want to meet somebody else on their terms, I think it is an unawareness of actually, I’m not meeting them on their terms or that 22

This will be taken up again in the discussion section 9.2.2, ‘How the theoretical framework extends my analytical concepts’.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

143

they don’t feel that they may tell me that their terms are different. […] ‘Flip, I could talk to you, let’s go to a coffee shop’ and think it’s your terms, and actually it’s still not your terms. I don’t think we’re aware of the extent to which black people feel oppressed because ‘I don’t feel that I may voice my opinion’ …” (Elisabeth, 10/11/2019)

She speaks of inequalities in status being so ingrained in South African society that even the attempt to overcome them is complicated by the fact that there is so little knowledge and understanding of each other across cultures, races and classes. Being in a church context where most people of colour are getting or have got tertiary education at one of the best universities of the country may contribute to a lack of awareness for the potential of vulnerability. Hence it is rarely prioritised. Perhaps the closest to vulnerability one regularly gets at The Message is a willingness to be “sitting at the feet of black African brothers and sisters and learning and asking questions and being shaped by that” (Amos, 12/11/2019). To some extent, there is indeed giving up of one’s powerful position, of one’s dominance by white people in talks like in the Unity Groups. And yet, although it involves discomfort, the space and the language in which such encounters take place remain those that white people are used to which allows them to retain a measure of control. Inequalities are perceived through talking but rarely stepped into. Even though the potential for reconciliation that lies in vulnerability is sometimes recognised, ‘Giving to’ taking priority over ‘Giving up’ means that little is done about it in practice: Other responsibilities take priority over serious language learning. Theological convictions and comfort one is accustomed to in white spaces trump vulnerable engagement with theology and church practice rooted in African cultures. And pegging one’s lifestyle not only prevents one from moving further up but may also prevent one from moving further down which would allow for more meaningful engagement with people beyond one’s own socio-economic class and often beyond one’s cultural group as well, as Evelyn points out: “I always find it interesting where we talk …, when we talk about …, when different groups of people talk about buying property, and they …, and I’ve …, like seen houses in Athlone and different areas that are like 3 to 5 bedroom and they’re like way more affordable. They would be way more in our bracket of what we could afford and yet nobody talks about moving into these areas. So, and usually the conversations are, you know, I’ve been looking in this area or like in the areas you know you’d want to live in and I’m like okay, what are you actually saying by that or what are you meaning? So yeah, I think your economic status does pose a barrier to who you can mix with and how comfortable people feel …” (Evelyn, 26/09/2019)

144

6.5.3

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

Finding Unity on White Terms

Finding unity on white terms is driven by a desire to live united across racial divides and across cultural differences and even to move away from the concept of race. Cultural diversity is regarded as something to be celebrated as people from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds come together to form one local expression of church. Unity is being displayed by racial integration and an emphasis on building cross-racial and cross-cultural relationships. Space for diversity, however, is found only rudimentarily as that which is the norm for white people and in the Western tradition dominates church spaces and relationships to a large extent and is often underpinned by the predominant use of English.23 It is defined by the following properties: seeking unity and racial integration, displaying unity and racial integration, seeking diversity, displaying diversity (with limitations) and maintaining a white norm (see Figure 6.13). Since Finding unity on white terms has a greater number of properties and some of them are more comprehensive than those in other categories, I divided this subchapter by non-numbered headings for better orientation.

Figure 6.13 Finding unity on white terms

Seeking unity and racial integration Seeking unity and racial integration underlines the importance given at The Message to being one ‘family’ despite or because of the variety of cultural or racial

23

This will be taken up again in the discussion in section 9.2.1, ‘How the theoretical framework illuminates my analytical concepts’.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

145

backgrounds.24 There is a desire to have the awareness and significance of race lessened. Seeking unity and racial integration means not making differences in the treatment of people, in the status afforded to them and in the way people are spoken with. At times, this leads to an almost wilful ignorance of race, as this statement exemplifies: “… in some respects, you’ve almost got to think twice to say well, they’re a black person. I mean I don’t think about Thandi as being a black person or Ntando or, […] they’re friends, Siyabonga is in my [Bible study] group, they’re just, they are there.” (Jim, 14/06/2019)

White members of The Message in a number of instances and with a mixture of gladness, amazement and pride pointed to their experience of a racially integrating church. They regarded it as unusual compared to their other experiences of South Africa and even at The Message some years ago: “I think if you look, you would notice that there is a lot more ease, particularly between older white people and younger black people, which if you go to almost any other context you’re not going to see it. If I think of most of my family, they have never had a black person stay in their home. They have never greeted a whole group of people and hugged them as friends.” (Lillian, 26/11/2019)

The way racial integration is spoken about is an expression of seeking unity and racial integration as following a deep conviction that The Message—especially since it is situated close to a multiracial university campus—ought to display a racially diverse but unified community. It is clearly desired that the integrated nature of this church reaches beyond Sunday service gatherings into the private lives of their members. But for all its tendency to downplay the impact of race which is at times experienced as divisive, seeking unity and racial integration does not mean denying the existence of cultural differences. On the contrary, one is very aware that people of different ‘races’ mostly have cultural backgrounds different to a Western or white English one which is generally regarded as dominant at The Message. Displaying unity and racial integration In Finding unity on white terms, the seeking of unity and racial integration comes with displaying unity and racial integration in most areas of church life. Displaying unity and racial integration is not an intentional showing off of one’s unusual togetherness. Rather it seems to be a genuine representation of the church 24

See 5.3, ‘The theological orientation of The Message’.

146

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

community’s relationships. It can be seen in the songs sung by everyone in different languages, in collaborating with eagerness, ease and fun in the duties surrounding a Sunday service and in the way people treat each other as equally valuable members of the same community. Cross-racial interaction appears ‘normalised’. With The Message being at least numerically a white-dominated church, it is noticeable that people of colour play important roles and take responsibilities and ownership for certain tasks—be it in the leading of church services, Bible study groups or in the various duties that are part of church gatherings. Remarkable about that is that it is not seen as remarkable but rather as not worth mentioning in everyday church life. Displaying unity and racial integration also occurs in a showing of interest, sympathy, compassion and affection between people from different racial backgrounds. Many members of The Message are in each other’s homes and in each other’s lives which is not the norm in South Africa. See here for example my experience of a mid-week Bible study group: People across the board seemed quite open and genuinely caring for one another. There was also a lot of laughter. Throughout the evening I was part of a very relaxed atmosphere, it basically was a group of friends coming together which was very open and welcoming to visitors like me […]. Race or culture didn’t seem to play a role. People were on par language-wise but also regarding the topics, everyone made contributions to the discussions which were in line with what was being said by the others and was appreciated. How people cared for one another, I could also see by the group’s communication on Whatsapp, where one white who couldn’t be there warmly commended other group members to be prayed for, including a black couple […]. There was an openness, genuine concern, being invested in each other’s lives. (GC 4, 18/09/2019, Field Diary)

Seeking diversity Through seeking diversity, existing cultural differences are to be acknowledged and affirmed as something positive and enriching. The kind of diversity most often alluded to by far is language. Motivations for seeking greater language diversity oscillate between pragmatic acknowledgment of cultural difference, aimed at showcasing inclusivity and acceptance, and seeing benefits in actual multilingual practice, not just in song but also in prayer, Bible reading and preaching, among others. While the former emphasises the symbolic value of language variety, which is regarded as indicative of cultural difference, the latter sees the potential for enrichment by exposure to different cultural expression as well as—in rare cases—the need and the chance for people to express themselves with ease and to be taught in a culturally relevant and understandable way.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

147

Although the perspective of Christine below is unusual in its insightfulness, I regard it as helpful to consider it here. This is because on the one hand hers being an exception sheds light on the more frequently encountered understanding of language diversity at The Message as having more of a representational value. On the other hand, it also hints at some people at the church seeing the need for practiced language diversity and trying to find ways to realise it even though it may come with challenges for those without the capacity to speak or understand a certain language. For Christine it was clear that diversity has got a deep dimension and language is not a superficial or arbitrary thing, merely of pragmatic or symbolic value, but in and of itself an essential expression of culture. In her eyes, if there is no linguistic diversity, people lose opportunities to culturally express themselves. Whites’ insistence on English25 could stand in the way of such expression. Hence her conclusion that there is a need for language-learning for white people in order to relate more fully, more deeply to people of differing cultural and racial backgrounds. She refers to an encounter during a social gathering of The Message: “There were three Zulu speakers having a conversation I think, yes, and I wanted to I guess join the conversation, but I decided not to because I knew that if I joined the conversation, they would have to switch to English and I didn’t want that because they were having a good time. And so I do think that there’s a big need to language learn within South Africa, because even if I could just understand a bit better, there would be freedom for them to continue their conversation and I could be a part of it in some way. I really wrestle with just …, I guess relational insufficiency to fully relate particularly in group spaces with a group of Xhosa speakers or because language shapes more than just …, it’s not just words you’re saying, it is culture, it’s ways of relating, yes. There’s a big need and I’m aware that I have conversations with friends where they’re needing to I guess make more accommodations within that conversation than I am.” (Christine, 18/11/2019)

Displaying diversity The seeking of diversity translates into displaying diversity to some extent, the limits of which are expressed by maintaining a white norm (see below). Displaying diversity means exhibiting aspects of a variety of cultures in church life, as can for instance be found in the regular singing of songs in various languages, in the (rare) use of languages other than English in prayer and Bible reading or in the frequent use of people’s African, not English names (albeit not in the African way of addressing and indeed seeing each other as ‘relatives’ by using kinship terms: bhuti, sisi, mama, tata, etc., using examples from isiXhosa). Displaying diversity 25

As covered in 6.4.3.1, ‘Justifying the predominance of English’.

148

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

also means an openness to learning not just about but also from other cultures and have such learning refashion one’s own theological practice. An example for that was the change in attitude by the church leadership and subsequently by the congregation towards embracing the practice of lobola as a valid way for people to get married. Several years ago, the same had not been unanimously the case and led to conflict in the congregation.26 During the time of my research, a black couple were due to get married. They engaged with the elders of The Message, explaining how they saw the practice of lobola as a legitimate Christian way to start their marriage with no need for getting married in a church setting or for a reception outside of the lobola process, sometimes referred to as a ‘white wedding’27 . Before lobola was concluded, the pastor made an announcement at church that affirmed culturally different ways of getting married while being in line with biblical teaching. Lobola was said to constitute a type of wedding, hence, the congregation was invited to endorse this view and regard them as married upon their return to the church. Diversity was thus demonstrated not just by virtue of accepting lobola as legitimate by the church leadership but even more so by the embracing of this view by church members, for instance Amos: “Having the talks like Paul did a couple of weeks ago on lobola and understanding that better, you know, it serves two purposes. It serves to orientate black people towards a gospel view of a cultural practice, and it helps white people understand that there are different cultural practices that are acceptable within the gospel framework.” (Amos, 12/11/2019)

Displaying diversity can also refer to black people not being pressured to conform to white people’s expectations. This was a rare occurrence in church life due to seeking unity and integration and the outworking of having Hope for transformation from within. It did happen, though, that at times black people conversed with each other in their own languages, as observed and reflected on by Christine (see previous section). Another example of such a rare event of (initial) non-domination by Whites was a social gathering after church at a café that we joined as a family. Here’s an extract of my field notes that day: The meeting there struck me by its openness, its talk ‘off the record’. At this one meeting, we were the first white people to enter the conversation that had started before us. So, white thought and behaviour didn’t dominate in the same way, which felt like a real 26

See section 8.3 for a consideration of possible cultural-linguistic underpinnings of this conflict. 27 For more on the understanding of a ‘white wedding’, see section 8.3.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

149

change. It also felt like a change that initially none of those in or close to the church leadership were present. Perhaps this provided an opportunity to talk more freely. (Social Bean Café, 04/08/2019, Research Notes)

Displaying diversity thus signifies realised opportunities of cultural expression that are different from white or Western culture which dominates The Message. It does neither mean that this diversity is systematically sought, nor does it imply that it is demonstrated extensively. Despite the expressed desire for much greater diversity at The Message it is important for understanding finding unity on white terms precisely because of its limitations. Maintaining a white norm Maintaining a white norm is to be understood in light of the desire for diversity and of the multi-ethnic nature of The Message church. It is not so much about the plainly obvious white numerical dominance in many areas of the church which is a concern even for the church leadership or a dominating presence of white people in church gatherings. Rather, maintaining a white norm could be coined a ‘cultureblindness’ which ignores differences in cultural orientations, ontologies, values and practices as they pertain to theology and church life and takes for granted that which is culturally Western or the norm for white Christians. It means that cultural practices and understandings of theology that are regarded as ‘other’ or deviating from the known norm are measured against what is understood to be theologically ‘sound’: “… if someone comes along from a different culture and says, ‘I believe this is how we are to understand God’, but it goes against what we believe and we believe we are true and we unashamedly say that, do we minister to that person in the way that Christ would or do we say, ‘Okay let’s go along with yours even though we know it is not really theologically sound, but in the interest of cultural diversity …’, you know, so there, you know there is only one path …” (Jeremy, 20/09/2019)

Maintaining a white norm is neither a deliberate action nor a goal of people at The Message. It is an unintentional and probably undesired outcome of a variety of factors. There is a significant confidence in one’s own ability to correctly understand and interpret the Bible while at the same time being little aware of how and to what extent culture and worldview influence theology—one’s own and that of others. White people at The Message often regard their theological convictions as universal—and universally accessible—truth. That such ‘truth’ arose out of the long history of the West with Christianity and that most parts of Africa only began to engage with Christianity in recent centuries is thereby being ignored. If the adherence to theological ‘soundness’ is upheld, there seems to be an obliviousness to the

150

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

fact that this norm is in fact rooted in a Western (mostly Anglo-American), evangelical, neo-Calvinist tradition which has historically been predominantly white, as described in The boundaries of theology in 6.4.3.2. I suggest that this tendency is strongly influenced by the dominance of the English language in all kinds of meetings and gatherings, for example in teaching and preaching, in the liturgy or in conversations. Although songs in other languages are sung, they are displayed with simplistic translations into English while songs in English are not translated, assuming people would understand. As way of illustration, regarding a sermon preached on a biblical view on money and possessions, I noted: There was […] no hint of the possibility of people experiencing wealth very differently, e.g. between monistic and dualistic cultures. (The Message Sunday service, 04/08/2019, Research Notes)

For example, being acquainted with African language equivalents of ‘wealth’, their use in everyday speak and the subsequent connotations might draw attention to the complex connections people in black communities sometimes make between the acquisition of wealth and witchcraft. Not using or drawing on African languages in a culturally diverse context renders an awareness for differences in cultural orientations and ontologies highly unlikely. It may also prevent the addressing of culture-specific issues in a relevant manner. Maintaining a white norm thus speaks to a dearth of cultural awareness that is often linked to a uniform understanding of meaning across languages and possibly to a conversational monolingualism (or at most bilingualism with English and Afrikaans) among most white people at The Message. Despite the cultural diversity of the people leading and contributing to the services or in meetings of the Gospel Communities, people hardly ever used languages other than English, nor did I ever observe that people were encouraged to do so. This leads to missed opportunities for cross-cultural learning and possibly to serious challenges for cross-cultural understanding and sense-making.28 At the very least it expects speakers of black languages to understand and make use of terms that are conceptualised according to a Western, secularised worldview. And it is here where finding unity on white terms really shows: It is taken as a given that people at The Message with the diversity of their cultural backgrounds generally have a command of (Western) English good enough to play a meaningful role at the church. Whether this assumption is always justified is an open question. To be clear, finding unity on white terms does not imply that black people at The

28

See the isiXhosa concept study in Chapter 8 for illustrations of this matter.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

151

Message do not or could not fulfil an objective standard29 in their use of English. Rather, finding unity on white terms means that the standard practiced in achieving unity around a common theological vision is in fact neither objective nor universal but culturally rooted, embedded in a Western use of English.30 Probably any sermon could be used as an example for a languacultural bias, be it in theological lingo (e.g. the “secular”, the “spiritual”, the “super-natural”, “faith”, etc.) or in seemingly secular speak (e.g. “truth”, “learner”, “philosopher”, etc.). Evidence of such Western/English dominance through concepts employed can be found in an entry from my field diary. It contains notes on a meeting in a Gospel Community that was attended by people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. As usual, no-one had resorted to terms or languages other than English during the conversation: … the ‘Bible study’ […] took a shared meaning of the things under discussion for granted and not a thought was given to enquiring about ‘servanthood’ crossculturally and cross-linguistically. I found that particularly interesting since I had studied the main text (Mk 10,42–45) in a multi-lingual setting before and enormous differences in meaning—both language- and culture-related—had become apparent. (GC 5, 22/05/2019, Field Diary)

One aspect of this languacultural bias is the conviction that ‘truth’ must and can be spoken into the lives of people from African backgrounds (in English of course), one’s own position outside of African cultures notwithstanding: “… what is very necessary is that if you come across somebody in your congregation and you happen to be the shepherd of those sheep and you see there is somebody with a broken leg or a disbelief or a misbelief or whatever is limping like example, the ancestors need to be at peace. You need to be very loud and very clear and you need to speak in capital letters and you need to repeat that ever so often.” (Margaret, 21/05/2019)

Openly expressing such critique of aspects of African cultures is not to say that white people at The Message would be uncritical with respect to cultural influences among Western-oriented Christians that are regarded as negative (as e.g. in the case 29

This standard I take to be not one of accent or pronunciation but of understanding of the concepts that are part of the English dominating the theological teaching at The Message (see Chapter 8 for illustrations of inter-language differences on a conceptual level). 30 The analytical category ‘Maintaining a white norm’ finds support through the findings of the isiXhosa concept study in Chapter 8 and will be taken up again in the discussion in section 9.2.1, ‘How the theoretical framework illuminates my analytical concepts’.

152

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

of materialism). A commonly held attitude, however, is that the Bible can be drawn on to judge and correct issues in cultures other than one’s own. What matters is the knowledge and correct application of Scripture. That both African ontologies and the Bible’s stance on aspects of African culture are viewed through a white, Western languacultural lens, and a comprehension of the issues at stake therefore risks being partial at most, is hardly given consideration. The dominance of English and the repeatedly shown obliviousness to differences in cultural conceptualisations embedded in languages may be a cause for the common dominance of white people in conversations and gatherings that I observed. This also appears to be true for the music teams where the white leaders desired more cultural diversity but struggled to establish black ownership in a Western-dominated system of church worship and musical practice. Connected to Western English dominating the church both in terms of language spoken and of concepts presupposed are the kind of sources people draw (or do not draw) on in theological work at The Message: “… the types of books and literature that is encouraged to read or theologians or writers that are quoted tend to also be Western white authors, English, American and so forth. […] In sermons for example there are references made to other respected pastors and leaders in Anglo-American churches like Tim Keller and guys like that. They are referenced quite a lot because they are respected. […] it obviously means that maybe things are not being shared, or different points of view are not being heard. Just simply because there is always sort of one kind of cultural lens, the whole time. So, what could not be heard for example at The Message …, there is people from …, would like have an African worldview and they might have want to …, they might have theological viewpoints that …, of their own respected theologians that are closer to their traditions and cultures than they would like to see expressed somehow. Yes, and that I don’t think would be respected actually at The Message because there seems to be sort of a standard of what discourse is allowed. Yes, and things that are too foreign I don’t think are given much airplay or are kind of dismissed quite easily to be honest. […] I have heard of something called liberation theology and there was a pastor that was quite a player in the liberation struggle, Allan Boesak, I think he wrote about that and I think it would be nice for me to hear that explored a bit and understood and unpacked. Even if it is not a viable way to think, just to hear out what the points are and stuff like that. I don’t think time would be made for that. I think it would not get a hearing, he would not even get into the sort of playlist so to speak. (Jason, 16/05/2019)

Almost exclusively drawing on sources from Anglo-America not only shapes the theological corridor that is regarded as orthodox but also becomes a self-perpetuating practice which raises the barrier to comprehending and appreciating theological thought from other cultural perspectives. It also leads to a lack of contextualisation of theology for a culturally diverse and particularly for a black African context.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

153

Cultural diversity is thus being obscured, even if unintentionally, which contributes to maintaining a white norm. Exerting a certain influence in this respect is the local theological training institution George Whitefield College (GWC) which supplies most of the ministry staff for the REACH SA denomination. All ministry staff and some lay members of The Message were trained there. While their quality of teaching was lauded by my research participants, there is also an awareness of GWC’s rootedness in a Western theological tradition with only few contributions from an African context. Exposure that members of The Message have had to black congregations in South Africa have almost exclusively been limited to churches within the REACH SA family of churches which affects their knowledge or ignorance of African theologies. GWC and the REACH SA denomination therefore also shaped people’s understandings of what ‘correct’ theology ought to consist of. That the norm at The Message is indeed ‘white’ became evident for instance in a video-clip that was used during a Sunday service as an illustration for a theological lesson. But it was not only the clip itself that spoke of ‘colour-’ or ‘culture-blindness’ but also that the nature of the imagery and the subsequent lesson did—according to my observation and probing—not prompt a critical reflection on the white-Ethnocentric message.31 Here a paragraph from my field diary in which I grapple with the symbols contained in the clip, the way they were used or ignored and the implications thereof: [A] video comparing a wedding and marriage to God’s work in Jesus Christ […] was shown at The Message service yesterday. My impression was that it spoke powerfully to people as it explained how a wedding and marriage have deeper meanings: They reflect what Jesus came to do to give people new life and save them. What I found striking, though, is not only that the main characters were all white. They also portrayed the wedding from a clearly traditional Western perspective. Elements like the white dress of the bride, the wedding being held in a big church, and many more showed what is in South Africa often called ‘a white wedding’. In itself that may not be problematic, but it was used by the […] service leader to portray a generic, supposedly a-cultural idea of wedding and marriage. If there was reflection on whether some of the images and comparisons worked more in a Western context and perhaps not or differently in black South African contexts, there was no mention of it. It seemed to be implied that the wedding/marriage portrayed was ‘biblical’ and ‘a-cultural’, which would then also 31

The theological lesson the video clip was embedded in was taught by a black service leader and can as such not be considered part of the reconciliation practice of white people. Nevertheless, I would argue that it still exemplifies the oftentimes ‘culture-blind’ approach to theology that I found to be so prominent at The Message church. It thus speaks to the ‘maintaining of a white norm’ for the church at large, which is further supported by the uncritical reception of the lesson taught based on what was shown in the video clip.

154

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

be true for the comparisons made. It would have been interesting and eye-opening to the church how an African-based comparison between wedding/marriage and God’s work in Jesus would have looked like. Then, it would [probably] have been pointed out, that it is a provincial perspective, like an ‘African theological view’. The perspective portrayed, however, was clearly not seen as provincial but as given, standard, the norm. (The Message Sunday service, 20/05/2019, Research Notes)32

It needs to be understood that maintaining a white norm takes place despite the often-articulated desire to be culturally inclusive and an awareness that cultural expressions may differ even if they take place in English. However, the assumption remains that what is culturally different could be integrated into a dominant white, English setting for the sake of reconciliation without detracting from the gain that everyone should get from church. This can be seen in the following example which deals with the perception of culturally different styles of thought and speech in the context of preaching: “[what is important to me] is clarity, clarity, clarity. If you …, they say that a lot of African preachers are circular, as opposed to linear. I have no concern with that, provided it is clear.” (Jim, 14/11/2019)

It is important to note that the openness towards cultural diversity is qualified (“provided it is clear”)—and the qualification of clarity itself is presented as being objective, outside of culture. That this notion is questionable and that what is culturally different tends to be assessed on the basis of Eurocentric norms, is illustrated by the following quote: “When we were at a different church, whenever a white pastor would preach, I’d be able to follow the sermon, and as soon as a black pastor preached, I’m like, what are you talking about? And it really was just a difference in approach. Typical western thought—introduction, body, conclusion. There’s structure. It’s like Paul’s letters, it builds an argument. African—more storytelling, and things coming in from all angles and very difficult for me to follow because I like the structure.” (Elisabeth, 10/11/2019)

The complex relationship between (a Western originating) language and diversity in terms of cultural practices (e.g. discourse and theology) is also reflected in the experience of the only black elder during my field research. He was one of the two ministry staff the church employed during that time:

32

Section 8.3 treats conceptual differences between ways of getting married in Western and African tradition from a cultural-linguistic perspective.

6.5 Practising Reconciliation with ‘Hope for Transformation From Within’

155

“For most of us who are not white, to survive we need to know English. To be able to communicate and get around, we would have to know English. And therefore, the practices. And therefore, the what is thought to be acceptable or not. But, we still, as who we are, and if we have come to know God, it is always going to be a great thing to know God from the place of identity—of who we are. But, that gets lost, because we find ourselves in spaces that say; this is how God is… This is how God’s word is understood …” (Luthando, 21/11/2019) “… for most of the people in our Church context, unfortunately, being in a Western world, being educated in such ways, has meant that even their understanding of coming to God is largely that. […] generally, even the black South African or other African language speakers have come to accept and experience and express their relationship with God through European means or Western means.” (Luthando, 21/11/2019)

Despite the fact that these statements probably echo experiences of many people of colour in white dominated churches, I want to suggest that maintaining a white norm is often an undesired outcome of a particular cultural set-up that manifests itself when it hits the boundaries of the white space33 it does not want to be but in many ways remains. Such is the case as well with a series of lessons that was taught in Sunday services over a long period of time. The presentations on ‘Christianity in Africa’ were given on roughly a monthly basis during the time of my field research. They were intended to demonstrate and affirm Christianity as firmly grounded in and not per se as foreign to Africa, associated with the West or with colonialism34 , as it is sometimes portrayed in public or private discourse. On the one hand, the instructions received along with the fact that the presenter was apparently held in high esteem seem to help “young black people” to “know what to say to my friends” (Lillian, 26/11/2019). On the other hand, this attempted demonstration of the Africanness of Christianity took place in a context of a church and denomination that is clearly marked by a tradition of white, Anglo-American theology and culture and the series itself was taught by a white person. Thus, the Christianity that is supposedly “not just a white man’s religion” (Lillian, 26/11/2019) comes in a white man’s packaging (and often, literally, a white man’s, too …). While insisting that Christianity in its history has not only been embraced by Africans but shaped by them as well, the Christianity that is experienced in the space where this is taught, has little to do with what the reality is for the many Christians who have made a home in African churches which have appropriated and ‘indigenised’ Christianity and made it relevant to their 33

Culture here intersects with socio-economic situations as most white people at The Message could be classified as middle-class which would not be the case to the same extent for people of colour at the church. 34 A similar approach was taken by Thomas C Oden in his book “How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind: Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity” (Oden, 2009).

156

6

Grounded Theory Study of The Message church

own cultural contexts. Hence, we are faced with a paradoxical situation: this attempt of contributing to diversity at The Message (i.e. to perceiving Christianity among others as African) is at the same time a testimony to the lack thereof. Maintaining a white norm, besides the dominance of English and lack of cultural awareness thus also means working for change in structures that are proving to be extremely resilient.

6.5.4

Concluding Remarks on Reconciliation Practice at the Message

The last section (6.5) has made it clear how The boundaries of language (6.4.3.1) and The boundaries of theology (6.4.3.2) set out in Hope for transformation from within distinctly shape the practice of finding unity and allowing for cultural diversity in a culturally diverse context. It is evident that certain strides have been made to allow for the development of a community made up of people from a variety of cultural and racial backgrounds and that through integration the numerical dominance of white people in many spheres of the church is being reduced. This, however, does not automatically coincide with the display of greater cultural diversity. The limitations specified in Defining the boundaries (6.4.3) effectively restrict transformation that not only seeks more racial integration but also more equality as seen in section 6.2.

Part IV Subsidiary Study: Process and Findings

7

The Process of Enquiry for the isiXhosa Concept Study

7.1

Introduction

In the main part of my research project, I studied to what extent white people in a racially diverse, evangelical church in Cape Town are aware of their cultural dominance and if and how this impacts their understanding and practice of racial reconciliation. One focus of the study was on the dominance of English at church. In my research proposal I wrote: “I have already argued extensively that ‘coloniality’ in multiracial settings in South Africa exists, particularly in a culturallinguistic sense. This is one of the hypotheses I will be working with. Spending time in both Xhosa- and English dominated contexts will allow me to illustrate this kind of coloniality with several smaller case studies.” The isiXhosa concept study in Chapter 8 will showcase some examples of how the sole reliance on English at The Message church risks overlooking conceptual differences in cross-cultural communication which has a bearing on the continued ‘white dominance’ even with respect to certain church practices. Although my focus was on languacultural differences between Xhosa and English, the study speaks to a general challenge for building and entertaining relationships in multilingual South Africa. It had been my intention from the beginning of the research project to scrutinise the use of and the meanings associated with some terms in isiXhosa and Western English. However, the conceptualisation of this concept study could only be developed through the research process itself. Apart from language-learning, this involved regularly attending an isiXhosa-speaking church alongside my field research at The Message. The reason for this is that in order to Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_7. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_7

159

160

7 The Process of Enquiry for the isiXhosa Concept Study

better appreciate the influence of (Western) English languaculture on the multicultural context at The Message, I needed to also expose myself to a context where the same was absent. It was only in the course of my field research in both congregations—where, as explained earlier, data collection and analysis went hand in hand—that I was able to gain clarity on what exactly to study and how to go about it. I will now first give account of the research process leading up to the concept study (7.2 to 7.5) before detailing the research methodology and process for the isiXhosa concept study as such (in 7.6 and 7.7).

7.2

Choosing the Research Site

Initially, I had planned for a Zionist church to become my secondary research site, but I ended up at a congregation of the St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission denomination (henceforth: St John’s). The focus on Zion churches originated from my understanding that congregations of this biggest subgroup of South African churches overtly integrate traditional African worldviews and Christianity, leading to “a hybridity of traditions” (Müller, 2015: 186). For the purposes of my study—developing a greater understanding of how language, culture and theology are linked—this seemed to be an ideal choice. I decided to look for a suitable congregation in the township of Langa because of its proximity to my home and its relative safety compared to other townships. Since my knowledge of the area was very limited, I used the ‘snowballing’ technique to locate a church community for my study, which meant that I as a “researcher rel[y] on respondents for introductions to others” (Shaffir, 1998: 51). Through a colleague I was pointed to a former lecturer at a local theological college who introduced me to a Xhosa pastor of an evangelical church in Langa. This pastor then facilitated a meeting with the pastor of one St John’s congregation in his neighbourhood. I learned that while displaying certain differences to Zionist churches, St John’s theology and church practice also “incorporates practices from various streams of African religion and Protestant Christianity” (Thomas, 1999: xv). Since this had been my main concern and the church was open to welcoming me as a researcher, I decided to stay with this congregation.

7.3

Gaining Access and Ethical Considerations

To conduct research at St John’s, just like at The Message, I needed to get the permission of a gatekeeper (who turned out to be the pastor of the congregation)

7.3 Gaining Access and Ethical Considerations

161

who had some measure of control over the setting (cf. Shaffir, 1998: 53) before also subjecting myself to the scrutiny of the congregation during a church service. From the beginning of my interaction with St John’s and in line with my research objective, I had made it an aim to only communicate with members of the church in my—admittedly still broken—isiXhosa. This included my initial introduction and the presentation of my research interest to the pastor and later to the congregation as well. The reasoning behind this approach was that despite the obvious limitations in my interaction, I wanted to make an effort to understand culture ‘from the inside’, on people’s own languacultural terms. Secondly, my hope was that approaching people I had an interest in through the use of their home language would honour those whose socio-economic progress is often contingent on their ability to adapt to the hegemony of English. Not insisting on English clearly helped relating to the pastor whose English was basic at most. And while I am sure that my entire presence as an educated white foreigner in a rather poor, black South African context was often puzzling for many of the congregants, my aim in making an effort to relate to people on their own languacultural terms was to build at least a limited amount of trust without imposing myself on them too much. This desire also came into play in the process of seeking formal permission for my field research. In accordance with the requirements of the university I should have had my request for institutional permission signed by St John’s before starting my field research there (and I duly followed this procedure at The Message). But given the low educational level of the pastor, the lack of familiarity with academic research and related institutional and legal requirements as well as an apparent scepticism against signing documents the implications of which one may struggle to understand, I felt I would have increased the church’s burden with me had I insisted on getting paperwork signed before starting to build relationships of trust with the church leadership and congregation. I thus accepted the oral invitation to attend church as a researcher and got the permission approved during the first church service I attended when the pastor introduced me, and I had to tell the congregation about my project. It was only after that I felt I could risk asking for the written confirmation of the permission on paper—which I was granted albeit with a certain scepticism. Faced with requirements for ethical safeguards that raised suspicions despite their intention of benefitting the research participants, we all entered into a process of tentative relationship building with a curious mixture of motivations, fears and hopes that would only slowly and only partly be laid bare. To protect the identities of people I collected data about, I only used pseudonyms in writing about them.

162

7.4

7 The Process of Enquiry for the isiXhosa Concept Study

Participant Observation at St John’s

From March until November 2019, I attended eight Sunday services at one of the six St John’s congregations in Langa. I primarily tried to gather data through participant observation which I would record in much the same way as at The Message church (see Section 4.4.). I was aware that my insights were bound to be limited even beyond my limitations in terms of languacultural knowledge: Both from literature and from conversations with a variety of people outside the church, I knew of the rich array of rituals the denomination of St John’s employs to cater for their congregants’ needs of finding holistic healing and surviving in the challenging circumstances of their lives (Thomas, 1997: 40, 1999: xv). Only some of them were part of Sunday services, e.g. the drinking of ‘Holy Water’. Such awareness kept me attentive to what I did manage to observe while staying conscious of the fact that there were many aspects of St John’s church life that went far beyond the Sunday gatherings I was able to join. The services I attended always had a large majority of women and rarely had more than 20 adults present. The church met in a small plywood building with corrugated iron for a roof with most people sitting on simple wooden benches separated according to gender and age group. Depending on the Sunday in the month, either three or seven candles were lit on the table in front. The women were dressed in white and wore different headdresses, according to their status. All members wore a blue and white sash. The pastor played a central role in that he led most of the service. A large part of the Sunday gatherings was taken up by singing hymns from the Methodist hymn book as well as songs proper to the St John’s denomination. The songs were often accompanied by the ringing of the pastor’s bell and always interspersed with simultaneous, communal prayer with everyone on their knees. Scripture readings were followed by ukushumayela—an activity of ‘preaching’ or ‘giving testimonies’ where the congregants took turns and the pastor would be the last in line to speak. Often, people would put a small amount of money or sometimes a packet of candles on the table in front while making their speech. At certain times during the service, the door would be shut or opened. Towards the end of the service, water that had been prayed over by the pastor would be drunk from small glasses by all congregants after which the pastor with his staff and some older, female church members with their hands raised would bless each individual as they walked under a canopy. Thomas writes that “[i]n the St. John’s community, the symbolization process transformed water into a healing element that could disengage members from physical maladies or oppressive societal issues” (Thomas, 1999: 89).

7.5 Challenges That Turned out to be of Benefit to my Study

163

For reasons related to minimising the distance between myself and my research field, I did not intend to take photographs or make audio-/video recordings during church gatherings. However, during my very first visit, the pastor encouraged me in front of the congregation to make such recordings and show them to ‘my people’ when I went home. I complied with this request just this one time. I did not formally interview people at St John’s church but had several informal meetings with the pastor which I used to ask him for clarification around some of the observations I had made. There were aspects of the church that were proper to St John’s country-wide and others that were not restricted to the denomination but formed part of African traditions. I discussed them, using isiXhosa, with my language tutor and a Xhosa friend who once attended a St John’s service with me. This helped me to distinguish between them and gain a deeper understanding of some of the processes, symbols and practices, which eventually contributed to selecting the concepts I used for the isiXhosa concept study.

7.5

Challenges That Turned out to be of Benefit to my Study

Despite my academic need and personal motivation to study Xhosa languaculture, actually spending time in a culturally foreign setting on a regular basis proved to be very stressful to me. This is illustrated by an extract from a memo I wrote towards the end of my field research in Langa: I chose to regularly spend time in Langa for my research purposes, relying solely on a black language and without offering any financial incentives to the church or individuals. The latter was important for me so as to assure that people would not be accepting of me because of material gain. I wanted relationships to be genuine, and if it should involve that it takes time to build trust, so be it. The idea of restricting myself to using the Xhosa language was that only that would allow me to get a glimpse into Xhosa culture through their eyes. These two convictions, together with my limitations in the grasp of the language, left me in a place of utter vulnerability. I had nothing to offer to people except my sincerity and my willingness to integrate to the best of my (in)ability. This made me dependent on their kindness and their patience with me. But it also meant that I put myself at risk of being sneered upon, of being excluded, of being met with impatience, incomprehension, potentially even hostility. And there was nothing that I could do in my ‘defense’ except trying to be faithful and sincere. Remaining faithful transpired to be a huge challenge. Despite the many benefits of visiting St John’s in Langa for my research and my personal growth in terms of language

164

7 The Process of Enquiry for the isiXhosa Concept Study

and culture learning, each and every point of contact so far has been marked by crosscultural stress: “my impression is that all my interaction with St John’s so far is always a striving for establishing trust between them and me. The congregants are watching me. They are cautiously friendly, hospitable at their church but so far not inviting to their homes.” (10/07/2019, Research Notes) I make mistakes, like: “I put on my ibandi (a blue and white sash that all church members wear during the service) and although I had beforehand confirmed on pictures that it ought to be laid over the right shoulder, I was too nervous and put it over the left shoulder. Sipho corrected me to my embarrassment” (St John’s Sunday service, 20/10/2019, Field Diary). I thought this is something I have to tolerate, it’s a necessary part of the experience of entering a foreign cultural context, making mistakes and being corrected. Becoming vulnerable to the point where I feel shame. […] I struggle to follow what is being sung or shared during the many rounds of ukushumayela (people take turns ‘preaching’ and sharing testimonies). […] Fortunately, having at least some knowledge of the language, I can participate in the service by singing along when I’m given a hymn book and by ukushumayela myself, like in this case: “The first reading was Ps 1, the second Lk 10,25–37, the Good Samaritan. When it was read, I thought, perhaps I have to stick to this text instead of bringing in a new one that I had practiced before. After all I had studied the parable myself only a short while ago. […] The other men pointed at me and said something like, wena ndoda [“It’s your turn, man”]. I spoke briefly about the Good Samaritan […] I was struggling with words and grammar, forgot to greet people which I did when I remembered. Let’s say, I stumbled along. But I was also helped a bit by the odd “Amen” from the pastor.” (St John’s Sunday service, 26/05/2019, Field Diary) Especially situations where I feel compelled to stick to ukushumayela on the readings of the day are very stressful for me because of my limitations with the language. Not being able to rehearse or prepare is, I guess, what causes leaps in language learning but can be incredibly stressful when not feeling in a safe space or experiencing an atmosphere of trust where people cheer you on. (22/10/2019, Memo: Realising the enormousness of the challenge for white people to engage with African culture on its own terms)

Contrary to taking private language classes in a familiar home-setting, engaging in contextualised languaculture-learning and research as described above was uncomfortable and physically and emotionally exhausting. It gave me an idea of the natural inhibitions and challenges many South Africans might feel who are—or often dare not to be—engaging cross-culturally on other people’s terms, in- and outside of church contexts. These experiences and insights increased my sensitivity to these difficulties and were thus of enormous value for the analysis of the data collected at The Message church.

7.6 The IsiXhosa Concept Study: Research Methodology, Data Gathering …

7.6

165

The IsiXhosa Concept Study: Research Methodology, Data Gathering and Analysis

Since this qualitative concept study constituted a supplement to my main field work, it was limited in scope from the outset. And yet, despite the small number of research participants, it provides thought-provoking insights that allow us to get a more profound understanding of the challenges for reconciliation as it strives for interracial equality. Sharifian (2003: 199) suggests that cultural conceptualisations can be identified using ethnographic work that involves both an etic and an emic perspective. The etic, in my case, consisted in participant observation in two churches rooted in different languacultural contexts. An emic perspective became possible through speaking to four people with isiXhosa as home language in semi-structured interviews and by using isiXhosa both for these interviews and for the initial data analysis.1 Since the topics of this concept study in two cases emerged from my engagement with a congregation of St John’s and the third case study was not related to their church practice specifically, I decided to find interviewees who were not part of St John’s. Of the four people I interviewed, two were female (Babalwa and Nonceba) and two were male (Ntando and Siyabonga), with their ages ranging from the mid-twenties to the mid-fifties. Two of the research participants attended The Message church although they had a background in black, Pentecostal-type churches. Another one worships at a Methodist church in the township of Khayelitsha and the fourth one occasionally attended a Zionist church in the township of Gugulethu. For the purposes of this study, I wanted to speak with people from different church denominations so as to be sure that the perspectives I gained did not just reflect the practice of one particular brand of church. The two who attended The Message (Babalwa and Siyabonga) lived in culturally diverse middle-class neighbourhoods in the Southern suburbs of Cape Town, while Ntando and Nonceba lived in township settings. To protect the identities of my research participants, I used pseudonyms instead of their real names. Having had the interviews transcribed by a professional transcription service, I used coding and categorising to analyse my data and to find tentative answers to the basic question(s) underlying each case study. In the analysis in the following chapter, I provide translations of the isiXhosa terms and phrases used in the interviews. I chose a communicative approach which takes into account the

1

A list of questions asked can be found in Appendix C in the electronically supplied material—both in the original isiXhosa and in a simple translation into English.

166

7 The Process of Enquiry for the isiXhosa Concept Study

source and the target contexts, thus relying on the use of “adaptation and versioning”, rather than trying to always convey the literal, word-for-word meaning of the original (Heugh et al., 2017, footnote 4). This implies that word order in the translation is not always followed strictly. My objective was to allow my readers to more readily grasp the meaning of what was said although I am aware that there are limitations to that in any translation method. My assumption is that equivalence in meaning will often not be achievable and ‘translations’ will of necessity have to be understood as approximations. For the same reason, I continued to use isiXhosa words in the analysis as much as possible despite the translation of direct quotes. My aim in doing so was to indicate that the respective concepts are embedded in Xhosa languaculture and are not always and accurately transferable to English. In the case of the verbs under investigation (ukuthandaza and ukushumayela), however, I did not add the required subject concords or formatives to indicate the tense. Sticking to the infinitive forms of the verbs may feel unnatural for some but will allow for easier reading for those who are not acquainted with isiXhosa. The longer quotes I put in separate paragraphs while retaining the shorter ones within the main text body for better readability.

7.7

On ‘Verification’

The purpose of this concept study was to gain a deeper understanding of certain Xhosa terms that are conventionally taken to be equivalents of ‘parallel’ terms in English. To gain such, I, as a learner of Xhosa languaculture, had to find ways to understand the usage of isiXhosa from the inside of the language and then to articulate my findings in English, the language this dissertation is presented in. These findings, it was recommended from various sides, ought to be ‘validated’ by a Xhosa academic. Having given these suggestions much thought, I had to conclude that in the context of my study, this approach of validation would be methodologically flawed. I realised, I needed to have it validated not by members of Xhosa languaculture proficient in English but by English speakers rooted in Western ontological traditions who are well acquainted with isiXhosa. Hence, I had two of the latter evaluate this concept study. Given that nowadays this decision seems to be counter-intuitive for many, I want to carefully explain my reasoning: I do acknowledge that there may be times when member validation can be a helpful tool “for establishing the credibility of one’s findings and […] to alleviate researchers’ anxieties about their capacity to comprehend the social worlds of others” (Bryman, 2004: 633). In the case of this research project, though, the severe

7.7 On ‘Verification’

167

limitations of this variant of triangulation (as spelled out in Bloor and Wood, 2006; Bryman, 2004; Neuman, 2011: 457; or Sandelowski, 2008) discouraged me from making use of it. First of all, since the findings of this study follow from a constructivist research approach, they are not to be seen as a presentation of universal knowledge that Xhosa people would necessarily (have to) subscribe to.2 In fact, such attempt at univocality is strongly warned against by Viveiros de Castro (2004: 12) as it risks eliminating cross-languacultural differences rather than enabling their acknowledgment. This study also did not intend to find the most accurate translations of English terms in isiXhosa, for which clearly an isiXhosa mother tongue speaker with a good contextual understanding of English would have been helpful. Rather this study sought to answer the question, “How can the three isiXhosa terms under investigation be better understood in (Western-based) English?” The results can thus be understood as—from a Western English languacultural perspective—pointing out semantic possibilities in the way ‘equivalents’ of the respective Xhosa terms are used by isiXhosa-speakers when they speak English. To this end, isiXhosa raw data needed to be interpreted from a (Western) English languacultural perspective, which meant following the directionality traditionally dominant in translation studies (as described in Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam, 2009; Ferreira and Schwieter, 2017; Mraˇcek, 2018; Sayaheen and Darwish, 2020).3 To aid my interpretation, I did have discussions in isiXhosa with my Xhosa tutor about terms or phrases that I struggled to understand. This amounts to a partial verification of my understanding of the terms and concepts in question within the context of the source languaculture. I also had my ‘translations’ checked on a grammatical and on a purely lexical level by an isiXhosa home language speaker with a tertiary degree who was well versed in English. But 2

A major reason for that is the fact that languacultures often employ different ways of categorising, as will be shown in the concept study (see also section 2.2.1). The fact that I as a native speaker of a European language make sense of terms of another language in a certain way in English does not imply that the native speakers of that language would necessarily share the conclusions I reached on the basis of the categories my own languaculture had to offer (cf. Sandelowski, 2008: 502): since they are not coming from where I am coming from languaculturally, they may well have to translate differently. 3 I am aware that in light of increasing global communication and the perceived lack of nonnative speakers of ‘marginal’ languages to be used as translators, there is a growing body of research that seeks acknowledgment for the wide-spread inverse translation processes taking place and tries to improve their quality (portrayed e.g. in Ferreira and Schwieter, 2017; Mraˇcek, 2018; Sayaheen and Darwish, 2020). Nevertheless, using direct rather than inverse translation appeared to me the wiser option for it was able to make use of contextual knowledge of the target languaculture that is naturally located with a mother-tongue speaker of the latter.

168

7 The Process of Enquiry for the isiXhosa Concept Study

to have the actual analysis evaluated through member validation after it had been written up in English would have spoken to a positivist research paradigm (cf. Bloor and Wood, 2006). That this would have been epistemologically inappropriate, I attempt to demonstrate with this isiXhosa concept study which, along with the grounded theory study in Chapter 6, is based on a constructivist approach. If at all, member validation would have extended my study to further research participants: the analysis was written up in English but a member check that would have taken my assumptions of the validity and legitimacy of non-English languacultural categories seriously, would have required evaluation of my interpretations in isiXhosa. Apart from the risk of confusion and distortion caused by interpreting my English analysis through a Xhosa languacultural lens to an unknown extent, discussing my findings in isiXhosa would merely have enlarged my data set, requiring re-interpretation (cf. Bloor, 1983; Sandelowski, 2008). Inevitably, the question of validation would have arisen once again. All of the above led me to the conclusion that my findings had to be evaluated not from a Xhosa but from an English languacultural perspective as the most appropriate directionality of translation. Although translation, despite its subjectiveness, mustn’t be understood to be without boundaries but rather as meeting “lines of resistance” (Eco, 2003: 181), Eco insists that there is no objective standard and to accurately translate in one direction does not mean that a re-translation would result in the original text. To him, an acceptable “way out of this dilemma is to assume […] that translation is a matter to be resolved entirely within the destination (or target) language, according to the context” (ibid.: 177). This issue also speaks to the need for increased efforts by white South Africans to routinely communicate on black languacultures’ terms, so enabling insights to be received and more helpfully articulated in their own Afrikaans and English languacultural contexts. This pattern is already a reality in reverse, i.e. for the many people with black African home languages who are being exposed to and educated in English based on largely Western curricula. It is a widely known challenge for such learners, e.g. in science or theology (see e.g. Postma and Postma, 2011; Tshehla, 2003; Wiredu, 1996: 81–104), to understand the received concepts in the terms of their home languacultures. Naturally, it would be these African first language speakers who would be in a position to make the best judgments on the validity of such implicit or explicit translation. In the same way, the findings of this isiXhosa concept study needed to be evaluated by members of the target audience, which happens to be English speakers rooted in Western ontological traditions.

8

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study

8.1

Ukuthandaza—‘to Pray’

8.1.1

The Reasoning Behind This Case Study and How I Went About it

At The Message, high value was expressed by many of my research participants for everyone at church being able to understand and follow what is being said: “I just feel if you’re going to have a part of [the service] in another language then it should either be easy for people to follow what’s happening because maybe you’re reading the same passages and somebody is reading it in Zulu and you can follow the passage in English in your Bible, or if there is going to be preaching or a prayer that somebody else interprets.” (Lillian, 26/11/2019)

In the course of my field research at The Message, I never experienced the use of interpreters. Of course, interpretation might complicate matters to some extent, and it may feel awkward to work in this way while “[p]eople are expected almost to know English” (Evelyn, 26/11/2019). What I did notice, though, was an observation by a number of my interviewees that those at church who don’t have English as home language, when praying in church gatherings, “feel pressured to conform to” an environment where “there’s English dominance” (Christine, 18/11/2019). It is important to note that prayer at The Message came in three distinct shapes: the first one was the prayer a leader of a meeting would speak as part of the liturgy. The second type of prayer was mainly restricted to Sunday services where members of the congregation, usually while standing, were invited to participate in, to pray aloud one after the other. It could be general prayers of praise or intercession or with respect to certain concrete needs or situations. The © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_8

169

170

8

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study

third type, observed in small group gatherings, involved all the members of the group. They usually shared ‘prayer requests’ before taking turns to pray for one another. At St John’s, ukuthandaza was usually practiced communally, i.e. the whole congregation would be praying simultaneously. At the beginning and the end of Sunday services, the leader of the service would pray aloud in front of the congregation. During the service, after every song, everyone turned around to their seats, knelt with their heads bowed and hands on their seats and said a short prayer aloud and at the same time until the leader ended the prayer time with his ‘Amen’. With this case study, I wanted to find out how the term ukuthandaza that is generally regarded as the isiXhosa equivalent of ‘to pray’ is understood by isiXhosa first-language speakers and whether there is a meaning in the word which is shared by speakers of isiXhosa even across denominations. I also sought to understand whether the way ‘prayer’ is practiced at The Message could simply be seen as an equivalent of ukuthandaza or whether their practice actually meant a deviation from this concept. The questions I asked centred around the meaning of ukuthandaza, how Christians practice ukuthandaza, whether it is important to hear what other people are saying during communal times of ukuthandaza, whether it is important to let other people finish before one would ukuthandaza oneself and whether ukuthandaza can mean speaking simultaneously.

8.1.2

Analysing Ukuthandaza

Ukuthandaza is personal. It is something that emerges from intliziyo (the ‘heart’) and addresses whoever one believes in. In the case of my informants, ukuthandaza was addressed to Thixo or Nkulunkulu (words that are usually translated as ‘God’): “Ndim noThixo ndithetha noThixo ndimxelela lento isentliziyweni yam kuphelele apho” (‘I and God, I speak with God, I tell him what is in my heart and that’s it’—Siyabonga).

Ukuthandaza means bringing personal issues, requests, “le nto entliziyweni” (‘what is in the heart’—Babalwa) to Thixo. Speaking with one’s mouth is not necessary; one can also pray in silence.

8.1 Ukuthandaza—‘to Pray’

171

Ukuthandaza can take place wherever—in large and small church gatherings as well as on the road, in a minibus taxi, etc. because it is about expressing one’s intliziyo. There are different types of ukuthandaza. Particularly in smaller group meetings it can happen that people take turns in ukuthandaza, especially when they ukuthandaza for each other’s situations. There is, however, also the praxis (not restricted to a certain group size) where everyone ukuthandaza aloud simultaneously. The fact that all of my research participants had experience with such a style of ukuthandaza indicates that it may be a common practice in black congregations. In the first case, when one person ukuthandaza before another person speaks, it is natural that one hears what others are saying and some of my research participants described it as important. One reason given was that if someone is being prayed for, the person should be listening to that. Nonceba, on her part emphasised the need to listen carefully to the imithandazo (‘prayers’) of others in order to foster the unity of the community of believers: “Kubalulekile nibe lizwi linye, nithethe into enye nonke, kubalulekile. […] Ibalulekile kuba ningamakholwa kufuneka nisebenzisane, esinye isandla nesinye isandla nincedancedane nonke ningamakholwa, ningabantu baka Krestu” (‘It is important that you have one voice, that all of you are one in what you are saying, it is important. […] It is important because as believers you need to work together, for one hand to help the other continuously as all believers for you are the people of Christ.’—Nonceba).

In the case of the apparently common practice of simultaneous ukuthandaza, everyone agreed that it was not just impossible but also not necessary to hear what other people are saying. This comes with the understanding that ukuthandaza here is about one’s personal communication with Thixo: “… xa uthandazela ezakho iingxaki, ezakho iimfuno nezakho izinto ozicelayo kuThixo awunyanzelekanga ukuba sikuve. Ungazithandazela wedwa singakuva” (‘… when you are praying for your own problems, your own needs and whatever you ask of God, it is not important that we hear what you are saying. You can pray for yourself and by yourself without us listening to you.”—Babalwa).

Simultaneous ukuthandaza means the performance of one’s personal communication with God as a communal practice. Although it is considered utterly unimportant for others to understand what I am saying, this form of ukuthandaza appears to be an integral component of collective worship.

172

8.1.3

8

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study

Discussing the Findings

I gained insights into ukuthandaza both from my exposure to an African Instituted Church run entirely in isiXhosa and from hearing the reflections on ukuthandaza of four isiXhosa home language speakers with experience in a wide range of denominations. I also observed and participated in the practice of prayer at The Message church. In both church contexts, I could make out that people were able to see a personal and a communal dimension in ukuthandaza/prayer. A marked difference became apparent in the actual practice of communal ukuthandaza/prayer. Whereas at The Message significance was seen in praying consecutively, with people ‘building’ on each other’s prayers—using English—to form a prayer of the congregation, ukuthandaza in the Xhosa contexts I was able to access (by participant observation and interviews) often seemed to be taking place by people speaking to Thixo simultaneously. They thus had the opportunity to pour out their hearts (Psalm 62: 8) without having to be mindful of other people overhearing what they were saying. At The Message, I never observed a form of prayer that in a similar way allowed people to pour themselves out in community while being completely free1 and completely secure at the same time. It may be asked whether and to what extent this difference in prayer practice could be rooted in different cultural orientations which were already mentioned in the last paragraph of Section 6.3.1.2, ‘Evading being regarded as privileged’. An individualistic orientation associated with Western culture might emphasise that each individual prayer be heard as people pray in community whereas a communalistic orientation prominent in African communities (cf. Kamwangamalu, 2008: 115) might be what underlies the simultaneous prayer I encountered in a Xhosa church. However, while these differing orientations may indeed play a role, the way they impact on church practice may be far more complex. Ukuthandaza/prayer here needs to be seen as one aspect of a larger system of ‘religious’ practice. A juxtaposition of Western individualism that struggles or fails to be community-oriented and ubuntu ethics or African communalism that seeks togetherness e.g. in a church congregation, is too simple a dichotomy and may well be premised on a Western understanding of (religious) community. Kroesbergen suggests that simultaneous or ‘mass prayer’ “is one of the most important elements of worship for contemporary African Christians across the spectrum”2 (Kroesbergen, 2019: 14 in PDF). And while it is done in community, 1

I take this to include feeling free to pray in whatever language people desire to pray in. Despite his focus on Pentecostal and Neo-Pentecostal churches, he specifically includes mainline churches and even gives an example of the Reformed Church in Zambia that

2

8.1 Ukuthandaza—‘to Pray’

173

he nonetheless regards it as an expression of everyone pragmatically seeking help in their very personal troubles. It is thus to be understood as a feature that leans on African traditional ‘religion’ which differs from ‘religion’ as it was introduced by Western (mostly) Protestant missionaries. For them, religious practice revolved around the congregation, a “community as a group […] taken to be the Body of Christ and the pastor merely facilitat[ing] communal worship” (ibid.). In traditional African societies, conversely, people could seek help from ‘specialists’ or diviner-healers without the constitution of a ‘moral community’ (Thornton, 2017: 59 cited in Kroesbergen, 2019: 15 in PDF). And yet, Kroesbergen argues that it would be wrong to see this African expression of Christianity as not communalistic. It is communalistic in the sense that ‘community’ is commonly regarded as the point of departure for everything else. In Kroesbergen’s point of view, community is here taken as a given and that everyone is part of. It cannot be joined and does not need to be sought for its own sake as what matters to people in this tradition, “is most often not so much what to believe or to which community they would belong, but simply where to take their problems” (Kroesbergen, 2019: 15 in PDF). Trying to figure out possible differences between ukuthandaza and ‘prayer’ thus forces us to consider different cultural expressions of Christianity on a greater scale. If such different cultural orientations influence the practice of church in general and of prayer in particular, it seems clear that what the norm is for prayer at a church like The Message builds on a traditionally evangelical form of corporate worship (cf. Parker, 1991). Prayer here gives prominence to individuals but also expects them to build up the community (instead of praying for one’s personal needs together with the taken-for-granted community) and because of this expectation requires them to use the English language.3 It may be worth investigating whether such prayer practice negatively impacts on non-English first-language speakers’ ability to express themselves fully in their relationship with ‘God’ and whether they experience it as an alienation from their cultural backgrounds, as was suggested might be the case by Luthando in Section 6.5.3, ‘Maintaining a white norm’. Bridging cultural-religious divides that embrace the different traditions as described in this section might pose quite a challenge. Using languages other than English in consecutive prayers might be one way of making room for more recently adopted mass prayer as one of their official liturgies (Kroesbergen, 2019: 14 in PDF). 3 The expectation that people would use English in multilingual settings was labelled ‘Anglonormativity’ by Christie and McKinney (2017: 166).

174

8

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study

cultural diversity. This would require a level of trust if what is being said is not always intelligible for everyone. Learning from African churches in allowing for opportunities to practice ukuthandaza/prayer simultaneously might be another option—and that not just ‘in the quietness of your hearts’, by which individualised prayerful reflection was often encouraged at The Message. This would equally create opportunities for people to use languages other than the dominant one in public prayer but also accentuate each one’s personal relationship with ‘God’ while in community.

8.2

Ukushumayela—‘to Preach’

8.2.1

The Reasoning Behind This Case Study and How I Went About it

While at The Message (or in their denomination REACH SA), women were not allowed to preach4 , at St John’s usually the entire congregation participated in ukushumayela (which is normally translated into English as ‘to preach’). There, however, ukushumayela was not restricted to teaching the Bible but comprised personal accounts of how people experienced God in their daily lives and petitions to God (including ‘offering’ some money / ukukhanyisa), all of which could be related to the Bible readings of the day.5 This sense of ukushumayela in a similar way is known in English-speaking churches as ‘giving a testimony’ (of experiences with God in one’s life). I wanted to find out whether ukushumayela is generally understood as not being restricted to Bible exposition, in which case the REACH SA policy of 4

In the denomination’s handbook, “REACH SA […] recognises that women’s gifts and abilities may sometimes far exceed that of men and therefore values the role of women very highly” (REACH SA, 2014: 19). At the same time, a scriptural understanding is put forward that “in terms of 1 Timothy 2:12 it is not permissible for a woman to preach in a Church service” (REACH SA, 2014: 17). 5 From the perspective of Western English, the term ukushumayela appears to cover an even wider range of meanings which were, however, beyond the scope of this study. For example, in several instances in the 1996 isiXhosa Bible, ukushumayela is used to refer to what is translated as ‘to prophesy’ in mainstream English translations of the Bible (ESV, KJV, NIV). This includes passages like 1 Samuel 19:20–24 or Joel 2:28, with the latter specifically making reference to young men and women being involved in this practice as people experience God’s spirit being ‘poured out’ on everyone in Joel’s vision. These examples serve as illustrations for how languacultures categorise differently. This is arguably one factor in the development of diverging theologies that are all rooted in Scripture.

8.2 Ukushumayela—‘to Preach’

175

excluding women from preaching might be based on a Western English understanding of the term ‘preaching’. In order to do so, however, I also needed to enquire about my research participants’ (or their churches’) stances on the role of men and women in their services. I began by asking who was allowed to ukushumayela—women or men or both. This was followed by some questions regarding the meaning of ukushumayela. After that, I would ask specifically about ukunikela ubungqina bokholo (‘giving a testimony of one’s belief’) / ukungqina (‘to testify’), which in a similar way is known in English-speaking churches as ‘giving a testimony of experiences with God in one’s life’. I tried to discern whether there was an overlap for people between ukungqina and ukushumayela. And finally, I gave a twist to my original question by asking whether men and women were allowed to ukungqina.

8.2.2

Analysing Ukushumayela

What I learned about the nature of ukushumayela and ukungqina could in each case be divided into the essence of the practice and its intention. There was great unanimity that ukushumayela basically means “[k]ukuthetha ngelizwi likaThixo” (‘to speak about the word of God’—Babalwa). Apart from preparation (whether well in advance or on the day) and ‘being led by the Holy Spirit’ (“ukutywa ngumoya”—Nonceba), this may involve ‘telling what is written in the Bible and explaining it to the listeners so that they can apply it in their lives’: “… uvula ibhayibhile ifundwe then ke ngoku umshumayeli acacise lento ibhalwe pha ebhayibhileni athi lento ithetha ukuthi nokuthi nokuthi. Uhm azame ngendlela zonke ukuyenza ibe yinto e... eqhelekileyo kuthi into e... Yinto esinoyiva nento esinokwazi ukuyithatha siyenze ebomini bethu.” (‘… he opens the Bible, it is read, then the preacher explains what is written there in the Bible, he speaks about what it means. He tries hard to help people relate to it … It is something that we need to feel and to know how to take it and put it into practice in our lives.’—Siyabonga).

The intention is to ‘spread the Good News’ (“kukuhambisa iindaba ezilungileyo”—Nonceba), to ‘help people who are set in their evil ways turn around and focus on the church’ (“uzama ukuguqula abantu […] ukumtshintsha […] a-focus-e ecaweni”—Ntando) as well as to ‘heal the hearts of people that are burdened with sorrows, to heal them inside and give them hope’ (“uphilisa iintliziyo mhlawumbi omnye uphume ekhaya ekhathezekile […] ngala ntshumayelo […] iyakuphilisa ngaphakathi ikunika ithemba”—Nonceba).

176

8

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study

The conceptual understanding of ukungqina across my four research participants was very similar to the one of ukushumayela—to the extent that in Nonceba’s and Ntando’s eyes it amounted to the same thing: “… yinto eyi-1, yinto enye uyangqina ngalo, uyashumayela, yinto enye leyo efanayo” (‘… it’s one and the same thing—whether you testify or preach, it’s one thing, it’s the same’—Nonceba).

Similar to ukushumayela, the essence of ukungqina is seen in speaking on the basis of God’s word: “Xa ungqina uthetha ngelizwi eli ulifundileyo ebhayibhileni ukuba lithetha ukuthini na” (‘When you give a testimony, you speak of the word you have read in the Bible and explain what it is about”—Nonceba).

The two interviewees who were part of The Message church took a slightly more differentiated stance. Whereas they acknowledged that ukungqina may be ukushumayela, they qualified it. Babalwa spoke of there being different ways of ukushumayela (“iindlela zokushumayela zahlukile”). Siyabonga, on his side, emphasised that although ukungqina can be part of preaching, in a narrow sense it refers to speaking about ‘what God has done in your life’ (“izinto ezenziwe nguThixo ebomini bakho”). The key distinction would be ‘whether they open the Bible or not’ (“ukuba bavule ibhayibhile na”—Siyabonga). In case ‘the Bible is opened’, ukungqina could be referred to as preaching, otherwise it could not. The intention of ukungqina is seen in strengthening or encouraging people and “[ukuphilisa] ngaphakathi, abaneentliziyo ezaphukileyo” (‘revive and heal from within those who are broken-hearted’—Nonceba)—by being reminded what God’s word is saying (“uyandikhumbuza ukuba lithini ilizwi likaThixo”—Babalwa). Whose task is it now to ukushumayela or ukungqina at church gatherings, or who is permitted to do so? In the case of ukushumayela, the two women strongly conveyed the view that this was an activity reserved for men. Nonceba added that this referred to gatherings where men were present—in their weekly womens’ services at her Methodist church, women also did ukushumayela. The two men, Ntando and Siyabonga, referring to their two churches of origin (Zionist and Pentecostal) affirmed that ukushumayela was not restricted by one’s gender. In Siyabonga’s case, ukushumayela would be done by the ‘pastor’ or ‘teacher’ (umfundisi) who could be male or female. In Ntando’s context, the whole congregation, in hierarchical order, took part in ukushumayela:

8.2 Ukushumayela—‘to Preach’

177

“… umfundisi uqale abeke ilizwi neh, then umfundisi ashumayele, anikele komnye utata, aphinde ke ngoku utata, ihamba ngokwe bishophu, archbishop, ngokwezisteps, ngokokuhlala kwabo … […] Then athi ndiyinikela ebandleni so anyone can go ayoshumayela” (‘… the pastor begins by reading the word, then he preaches, then he passes it on to another elder, then again this elder, it goes from Bishop, Archbishop, in steps in the order they are sitting … […] Then he gives the right to the congregation so that now anyone can go preach’—Ntando).

When it came to ukungqina, it was only Nonceba from the Methodist church who—again—said that this practice was reserved for men in services attended by everyone; women were allowed to ukungqina when they were on their own. The others all held the view that it was everyone’s right to ukungqina: “… wonke umntu uvumelekile ukunika ubungqina ecaweni ngoba na…, noba ndim ndingumntu ongumama uThixo uyandenzela izinto ndizibone, so ndinalo ilungelo lokunika ubungqina ecaweni” (‘… every person is allowed to give a testimony, because I as a woman have seen things that God did to me, so I have the right to testify to that at church’—Babalwa).

8.2.3

Discussing the Findings

From the limited insights into church experiences by four isiXhosa first-language speakers, restrictions on women preaching at church seem to be based not so much on the scope of the understanding of what ukushumayela or ukungqina mean but more on the policy and tradition of the respective denomination or church: Siyabonga and Babalwa (both with an African Pentecostal background but now part of a REACH SA church) shared the understanding that there is a slight difference between ukushumayela and ukungqina but they had a different stance as to whether both men and women were allowed to ukushumayela at church. For Ntando and Nonceba, ukushumayela and ukungqina were concepts that were very closely related. However, whereas Ntando with reference to a Zionist church was of the opinion that both could be done by men and women at church, Nonceba, who is part of a Methodist church in a township, held the view that neither was open to women outside women’s own services. What seems to be clear, though, is that with respect to church contexts, the proximity of the two Xhosa concepts of ukushumayela and ukungqina is greater than the proximity of the terms ‘to preach’ and ‘to give a testimony’ in Western English. Ukungqina in a church context seems to constitute at least a subcategory of ukushumayela, so that ukungqina can often be referred to as ukushumayela. In

178

8

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study

English, there would usually be a clear distinction between giving a testimony and preaching; the one would rarely be called the other although obviously preachers in their sermons may draw on experiences they have had with God or with God’s word in their lives. Since ukushumayela and ukungqina appear to be so closely related conceptually, separating them according to gender does not seem to make as much sense in a Xhosa-dominated context. Among my four research participants, it was only Babalwa who regarded it as justified that their practice should be divorced based on people’s gender, referencing a Pauline teaching as does the REACH SA handbook. The others either held that both were permitted for everyone (Ntando and Siyabonga) or that both should be reserved exclusively for men (Nonceba). Perhaps the clear distinction between the concepts of giving a testimony and preaching only makes sense in white-dominated English-medium churches such as in the REACH SA denomination where it is regarded as coherent practice to permit women to take part in the former while restricting the latter to men. If the English language here allows for a conceptual separation between testifying and preaching, one possible interpretation is that it excludes women from preaching. It could, however, also be seen as contributing to more women involvement in services than might otherwise be the case if, namely, churches decided that women should not even be giving testimonies at church as this would almost amount to preaching.

8.3

Umtshato—‘Marriage’

8.3.1

The Reasoning Behind This Case Study and How I Went About it

As has been mentioned several times already, there was a dispute at The Message some time ago as to what constitutes or starts off a marriage. The issue was whether a couple could be considered married after having gone through ilobola6 but without or before a ‘white wedding’, which is typically understood as a reception but usually and in this case particularly in connection to a church ceremony. This had caused a serious conflict in the church (Jim, 19/02/2019).7 6

Since this chapter seeks to highlight Xhosa concepts by using isiXhosa words in English sentences, ilobola (like other isiXhosa words in this chapter) will appear with its proper prefix, unlike in other chapters where it is used without prefix—in the manner an African loan word is often used in South African English. 7 See Section 5.4.1 for reflections on this incident by black people in the church.

8.3 Umtshato—‘Marriage’

179

During my field research, the matter was resolved in the context of a new black couple getting married. They insisted that it was in line with their Christian belief that marriage starts after ilobola, as Christ would also be working through this traditional custom. This argument was adopted by the church leadership which led to their marriage through ilobola being recognised by the church (The Message Sunday service, 20/10/2019, Field Diary).8 My aim with this case study was to find out whether speaking of umtshato (‘marriage’) for isiXhosa speakers implied ways of starting a ‘marriage relationship’ differently to what is common for white English speakers when using the term ‘marriage’. If my suspicion was confirmed, it could point to the conflict being—at least partly—rooted in a cultural-linguistic misunderstanding. I approached this task by having a conversation with my research participants which was based on the following questions: ‘What is umtshato?’, ‘How is umtshato started?’, ‘What is i-wedding?9 , ‘What is ilobola?, ‘What is the difference between ilobola and i-wedding?’ as well as ‘Is umtshato started by ilobola or by i-wedding?’

8.3.2

Analysing Umtshato

It is necessary at the beginning to spell out my basic understanding of how a marriage is commonly initiated in the languacultural context of Western English. I assume agreement that a marriage starts with a wedding, which, according to a dictionary definition, means “[a] marriage ceremony, especially considered as including the associated celebrations” (Lexico, 2021b). Celebrations are thus seen as part of a wedding but the essential aspect of it is the (public) ceremony, involving vows, by which people are married to one another. What now does umtshato mean to isiXhosa speakers and how is it brought about? All of my four research participants knew umtshato to be the relationship of people who were tshatile (‘married’) and are now ‘building a family together’ (“ukwakha umzi bobabini”—Babalwa). It was pointed out, though, that umtshato also referred to the act of becoming tshatile or a celebration of having become tshatile. In this sense, umtshato can refer to “umngqophiso” (‘a vow’) or “isithembiso” (‘a promise’—Siyabonga) or else “umbhiyozo” (‘a celebration’— Babalwa). This means that the term umtshato seems to subsume what in Western 8

See ‘Displaying diversity’ in Section 6.5.3 for some more detail on this process. An explanation and justification for the use of this term will be given in the next section and footnote 10.

9

180

8

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study

English is expressed by the two terms ‘marriage’ and ‘wedding’. I emphasise Western English because we will see that the term i-wedding that is at times also used by isiXhosa speakers is often not congruent with a Western English understanding of the word ‘wedding’.10 Firstly, in a Western English setting, a wedding is indispensable for a marriage to be initiated because it is here that the vows are made (in public)11 which constitute the marriage. On the contrary, i-wedding in the conversations I had with my research participants in isiXhosa was overwhelmingly regarded as optional to starting umtshato (the ‘marriage’). Siyabonga, with reference to his home church, was the only one whose understanding of i-wedding came close to how a ‘marriage ceremony’ is understood in Western English. All the others suggested that i-wedding is understood as a feast to celebrate the union of the couple, but a feast that can be part of starting off a ‘marriage’ but often is not, depending among others on the availability of money (“thina i-wedding asifane siyenze kuxhomekeka ukuba umhle kangakanani emalini”—Ntando). Secondly, i-wedding takes place when people have already been married (“I-wedding ngumbhiyozo […] uyabhiyoza naxa senitshatile”—Babalwa). For Nonceba and Ntando, who were living in poor, black communities, i-wedding was also regarded as a particularly big, expensive celebration that employs symbols (like the bride’s white dress, the groom’s suit, bridesmaids etc.) which associate it with certain ‘white’ or Western marriage customs (“ngumtshato omkhulu omhlophe”—Nonceba). By some, i-wedding and umtshato were here used interchangeably so that Ntando concluded “zange ndawubona umtshato wabantu abaMnyama” (‘I have never seen a wedding of black people’). If umtshato in the sense of i-wedding is optional for many, the question is, what constitutes the beginning of umtshato in the sense of marriage? How do people in a Xhosa context ‘get married’? There are of course aspects to this process that are part of the broader context of ‘getting married’, like getting to know one another, making a decision, ukuyala (‘advice given to the bride from older, 10

My aim was to gain a better understanding of what my isiXhosa-speaking research participants understood by the English term ‘wedding’. To do so, I asked them in isiXhosa to explain to me i-wedding while adding ‘i’ at the beginning of the word, thereby inserting the term into the flow of isiXhosa grammar. Although the term we used in the conversation is now spelled differently to ‘wedding’, my assumption is that the different grammatical form will not have been causative for the shift in meaning I encountered. By contrasting ‘wedding’ and i-wedding in this chapter I want to draw attention to the different conceptualisations at play when people of differing languacultural backgrounds use what is regarded as one and the same term. 11 ‘In public’ meaning in front of a community and/or in front of the magistrate.

8.3 Umtshato—‘Marriage’

181

married women’), rituals by which the ‘bride’ is welcomed in her new family, etc.12 , and there appears to be a lot of variety as to what role these aspects play today in each couple’s or family’s situation. There were, however, two elements that received more attention in my interviews: ukusayina and ilobola. The former refers to the signing of the marriage certificate, either at the Department of Home Affairs or at church. The latter means the process by which the families of the couple are involved in discussing and agreeing to the union and in stipulating the terms under which the umtshato (‘marriage’) can be realised. Either would be done ‘in public’. Siyabonga explains what happens after the agreement to the umtshato: “Ilobola yona sithi sisipho esisuka kusapho lomyeni lusiya kusapho lonkosikazi. Apho besithi enkosi ngokukhulisa lo mntana uyintombazana. Ngoku sizomthatha abe lilunga losapho lwethu” (‘Ilobola, let’s say it’s a gift from the family of the husband for the family of the wife. In this way we express our gratitude for raising this girl. Now, we will take her with us so that she can be a member of our family.’).

Traditionally, once ilobola has been given by the one and accepted by the other family, umtshato (in the sense of marriage) begins. Siyabonga and Babalwa, who as members of The Message and by virtue of living in the Southern Suburbs of Cape Town have more exposure to upwardly-mobile middle-class settings and to white, Western culture including church and theology, classified this traditional understanding of ‘getting married’: Siyabonga pointed out that nowadays the consent of the families is not as important as it used to be and you can ‘get married’ without or before ‘paying’ ilobola while Babalwa emphasised that in her opinion, the signing of a marriage certificate (i.e. a formal ceremony) was crucial for Christians and iloloba may simply provide the cash needed to organise i-wedding. All four, however, held that in Xhosa communities, people were generally considered tshatile once ilobola has been successfully concluded: “Zihamba zombini, kuqala ilobola kuqala phambi koba kubekho umtshato, and then ke ngoku kubekho umtshato xa umyeni elobole kubekho umtshato isivumelwano phakathi kwabazali bobabini bakulo mama nabakulo tata, kubengumtshato nezihlobo zikwazi ukuba namhlanje utshatile” (‘They go together, at first there needs to be ilobola, before there can be i-wedding/a celebration, it is an agreement between the two parents of the woman and of the man, then there is i-wedding/a celebration with friends who know that today you got married.’—Nonceba, my emphasis).

12

There may well be other aspects to ‘getting married’ in a Xhosa context that were not mentioned to me or that I missed due to limitations in contextual knowledge.

182

8

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study

While acknowledging that both belong together, Nonceba made it clear that iwedding (by her referred to as umtshato) as a celebration followed the start of the ‘marriage’ through the successful conclusion of ilobola. The latter was thus seen as crucial. In Ntando’s eyes, even officialising the union at Home Affairs was optional: “You can go to home affairs but singamaXhosa ke thina siya peya ilobola kokwabo umthathe, uhlale naye umthande unkosikazi wakho” (‘You can go to Home Affairs but we Xhosa people, we will pay ilobola at their place, you then take her with you, you live with her, you love her, she is your wife.’).

8.3.3

Discussing the Findings

Gaining a deeper understanding of umtshato and of what is seen to start off a ‘marriage relationship’ by isiXhosa first-language speakers has proven to be an intricate matter. The complexity partly plays out in the heterogeneity and continually transforming character of culture. In my case study, this had aspects of a rural-urban dichotomy as well as of differences between the practices of certain social classes and milieus, without wanting to imply that any of those would firmly determine the practice of a certain custom. Another aspect that surfaced in my analysis was an imputed difference between ‘Christian’ and ‘traditional’ (i.e. non-Christian) cultural practices and it could be asked to what extent what is regarded as ‘Christian’ may be undergirded by cultural values that have their roots in the West and not in Africa. All these aspects warrant and require conversations that need to take place elsewhere. The main question to answer here, though, was whether the conflict at The Message church could have been resolved more easily if it had been known among the white-dominated church leadership what (starting) umtshato can imply, rather than assuming a conceptual equivalence between umtshato and marriage. It is of course general knowledge among white South Africans that institutions like ilobola exist and play a big role in how a great number of black people ‘get married’. For a long time, though, at The Message this appears to have been viewed as a cultural add-on to ‘a proper wedding’—a view that has now partly been corrected through the process described in the section ‘Displaying diversity’ in 6.5.3. And yet, the new view which acknowledges that a couple can be considered married by the church simply when ilobola has been paid, may in fact have been enabled by a cultural-linguistic crutch, albeit arguably a necessary one. The acceptance of ilobola as a valid way to get married, even in a

8.4 Partial Conclusion: a Chance for Cross-cultural Relations to Deepen

183

Christian context, rests on the understanding of ilobola as a wedding, as depicted in my notes of the pastor’s speech in my field diary: There are different ways people get married: for some, it’s through a church ceremony, for others it’s at the magistrate and for others it is through the families getting together and lobola being paid. But we see that in all cultures there are marriages, and all cultures have weddings. […] Next week, Ayabonga and Khethiwe are getting married. The lobola process will come to an end and when they touch down [with a domestic flight; note from the author] in Cape Town next Sunday night, they will be Mr and Mrs Ndungane and we can welcome them the week after.’ (The Message Sunday service, 20/10/2019, Field Diary, my emphasis)

As indicated in 8.3.1, the couple had insisted on not having a celebration (which would have been called umtshato or i-wedding) after the completion of ilobola as they regarded themselves as married without it. This is consistent with my findings in this case study. I-wedding often seems to be regarded as optional and conceptually different from ‘wedding’ in a Western English sense of the term. Ilobola and i-wedding thus constitute different categories although they are of course related. Pointedly formulated, since a languacultural perspective of Western English requires a wedding for a marriage to be realised and a Xhosa context—my findings suggest—does not, there is a certain incommensurability of cultural customs. In order for a custom that is culturally foreign to a traditionally white, Western church context to be accepted then, it needed to be translated into terms and categories that make sense to this context.13 In this case, it meant defining a practice as wedding that, from an emic perspective of this culture, is not. Although it was not explicitly mentioned, acknowledging that ilobola and wedding in the Western sense both had a public dimension may well have been what enabled the church to take this step.

8.4

Partial Conclusion: a Chance for Cross-cultural Relations to Deepen

In the course of my interviews, I had to come to terms with the limitations of my capability of adequately using and understanding isiXhosa. In the last case study, specifically, my aim had been to get a Xhosa-perspective on how a marriage is 13

This is what happened in the same manner, just in the reverse, with the term i-wedding that was apparently culturally appropriated by Xhosa languaculture, reflecting in its meaning more the traditional meaning of umtshato (in terms of a celebration) rather than the Western English concept of ‘wedding’ that initiates a marriage.

184

8

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study

started, focusing on the term I knew is used to speak of a ‘marriage’-relationship: umtshato. I had to realise that umtshato is also used for the act or process of starting this relationship, which meant that my questions at times confused my research participants and we had to negotiate the meaning of my questions. It might therefore have been more appropriate to enquire about possible differences between ‘getting married’ and ukutshata rather than between ‘marriage’/‘getting married’ and umtshato. Despite this ‘semantical detour’, discussing issues related to ‘marriage’ as well as ‘prayer’ and ‘preaching’ in isiXhosa has been enlightening and helpful for gaining a deeper understanding of traditions, expectations and assumptions of some isiXhosa speakers. Of course, Sharifian is right in reminding us that “[a]ttempts made to linguistically explicate conceptualisations may at best approximate our conceptual experiences but may never capture them in totality“ (Sharifian, 2003: 198; emphasis in original). Nevertheless, in our findings we can see a clear indication that the studied concepts in the one language are partly incongruent with the associated terms and concepts in the other. Since the cultural conceptualisations of white English speakers are taken as the norm in the culturally diverse church context, this case study indicates and illustrates the appropriateness of speaking of coloniality in a languacultural sense. Of course, having had interviews with only four research participants for this subsidiary element of my PhD project, I cannot claim to be able to produce far-reaching and definitive results. I also have to take into account that power differentials may have distorted some of my data (Adida et al., 2015: 16). And yet, the information I was able to glean provides for ample opportunity for further reflection and pursuing certain questions that can help increase cross-cultural and cross-linguistic understanding. What are some possible, general implications of my findings as they relate to the wider context of this PhD research on reconciliation in the context of coloniality? The central one ought to be that cross-cultural communication is indeed a hazardous exercise. This is probably aggravated by the fact that people seemingly share a common language—with many cultural conceptualisations hidden behind terms that unknowingly refer to different conceptual realities or even ontologies. Francis’ (of my interview cohort from The Message church) stance illustrates a ubiquitous conviction among white people at The Message: “I think the [black; note from the author] students who come to the church are fairly good in English. They study in English; they write their exams in English. So, I don’t think it is too much of a problem to have to contextualise [a message].” (Francis, 25/11/2019)

8.4 Partial Conclusion: a Chance for Cross-cultural Relations to Deepen

185

The case studies provide but a few examples of how meaning in everyday words can differ according to the languacultural background of the people. Linguistics literature on the variety of White South African English (WSAE) usually focuses on its particularities—e.g. in terms of modality, morphology, phonetics, phonology, pragmatics or syntax.14 Nevertheless, Bowerman (2015: 203) holds that “WSAE is generally closer to [an] international Standard English than BSAE” (Black South African English) in terms of lexis, grammatic and phonetics. In addition, I suggest that due to the history of settlement and segregation, white South Africans conversing in English will even in their semantic standard be more closely aligned with standards found in the UK or the USA than with other local varieties15 —especially Black or Indian South African English.16 Englishspeakers of other languacultural backgrounds may be adopting this international standard or not (either may happen consciously or sub-consciously) and the challenge for cross-cultural communication is that either will be hard to tell without constant negotiation of meaning. The latter might well require to be listening suspiciously all the time, for if i-wedding in a Xhosa context is optional when starting a marriage, what assumptions are being carried by Xhosa people speaking about marriage and wedding in English? Not knowing what standard is being used and with most white people being oblivious to possible differences in meaning, cross-cultural communication can stand on very wobbly feet.17 But even if people were aware of the fact that using the same words can be misleading and may require constant clarification in cross-cultural interaction, it might be unnerving to be consistent in that—as my constant usage of terms in italics in this chapter has hopefully illustrated—as well as likely end up in confusion if people find

14

See e.g. Bekker and Eley (2009), Bowerman (2008), Huddlestone and Fairhurst (2013) or Wasserman and van Rooy (2014). 15 This does not exclude exceptions like the one Wasserman and van Rooy (2014) point out. They describe how the influence of Afrikaans appears to lead to a semantic shift in modality as it is used in WSAE where ‘must’ is increasingly being used as synonym for ‘should’. 16 I do acknowledge that the boundaries of languages and their speech communities are constantly evolving and that a case may be made for a recategorisation of South African varieties of English. Da Silva, e.g. proposes that “one is no longer able to determine a variety on the basis of ethnicity alone […] educational background being one of the social factors that should be emphasised” (Da Silva, 2008: 2). 17 It may be warranted to remind ourselves that we work on the assumption that there is a heterogeneous distribution of cultural conceptualisations within speech communities (cf. Section 2.2) which means we should not assume there would be no ambiguity e.g. among WSAE speakers. Per definition, though, variation between speech communities would be greater than within.

186

8

Findings of the isiXhosa Concept Study

that some contexts indeed display a certain measure of incommensurability, as evidenced in the last case study. Despite the fact that this chapter has sought—and to some extend succeeded— to point out potential shortcomings of cross-cultural communication between home-language speakers of Western English and isiXhosa, the purpose of including it in this dissertation lies not in criticism for its own sake. While Chapter 6 tried to describe and understand why e.g. the structures of language use at The Message are strongly biased towards English, this isiXhosa concept study points to a potential in cross-cultural relationship building and therefore, reconciliation, that mostly goes unnoticed. With South Africa’s long history of dehumanising people of colour, the acknowledgment of the value of African cultures e.g. by regularly singing songs in African languages is a powerful statement of appreciation. It does fall short, however, of using these languages in everyday affairs—both in private and in church life—which could contribute to improving and deepening cross-cultural relationships. Mutual understanding could thus be enhanced, and an important side-effect would be that it would positively impact on the expressed desire of reducing white dominance. Relating to black people in their languages would force white people to take on the position of learners and let go of control and power, which arguably would have a positive impact on reconciliation. This is especially the case if one emphasis in reconciliation work, as outlined in Section 6.2, is put on ‘Seeking equality’. In looking for solutions, I do not want to appear unreasonable, and I do acknowledge the need to find practical ways of communicating in multi-lingual environments which for the sake of being pragmatic usually ends up in opting for English. One ought to be conscious, though, not just of the ostensible benefits of such an arrangement but of its severe limitations as well. And although many will understandably shy away from one way out that I am proposing here, it may warrant more serious consideration than it is usually given. Communicating in people’s home languages in cross-cultural settings will easily rid conversations of misunderstandings that are based on conceptual differences between differing languacultural contexts which sometimes come to the fore when these contexts clash in the use of an apparently common language. Learning and using languages other than the dominant English (or perhaps in some contexts, Afrikaans), would therefore go far beyond a symbolic recognition of another group’s dignity and

8.4 Partial Conclusion: a Chance for Cross-cultural Relations to Deepen

187

demonstrating the will to be inclusive. It holds the potential to ‘hear’ and ‘perceive’18 each other on a much deeper level—which is rarely doubted—but, for some perhaps unexpectedly, with immediate and tangible benefits for everyday community life.19 The potential in learning to understand people of differing languacultural backgrounds from within the frameworks that they inhabit and express themselves from was also highlighted by Krog et al. (2013). With respect to a (initially) confounding testimony before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, they suggest that paying close attention to people’s own linguistic and ontological resources can contribute to overcoming interracial divisions in South Africa. This includes developing an awareness for the conceptual world underlying each languaculture and the fact that translating words does not automatically lead to conceptual equivalence, as Krog et al. (2010: 22) point out. Perhaps this dissertation chapter can be a first step towards realising how different the ‘worlds’ are that we construct. Using the concept of languaculture will not automatically transform injustices. But it holds the potential of “let[ting] the viewer see [languacultural differences] as something other than a deficiency” (Agar, [1994] 2002: 251) and helping us to develop a sensitivity for what might be needed to increase our ability of participating in each other’s ‘world’.

18

This bring up another term that would warrant closer attention: the word ukuva which is often translated as ‘to hear’ but has a much broader meaning in isiXhosa. It refers to perception with more senses than just by hearing, especially as it pertains to matters of emotions and of the meaning of someone’s communication act. 19 This will be given some more consideration in the discussion Section 9.2.

Part V Implications

9

Discussion

9.1

How did White People Imagine and Practice ‘Reconciliation’ in a Context of ‘Coloniality’?—Discussing the Findings Against the Backdrop of the Original Research Questions

As described in Section 1.2, this project sought to understand how coloniality is dealt with as a specific, progressively ‘multicultural’ church community works for racial reconciliation in an urban, South African context. Of particular concern was the role of white people in this process since the church context, similar to many other multiracial churches in South Africa, was regarded as marked by white dominance in respect of language, cultural practices, theology and place. I wanted to find out how people who often find themselves in privileged positions in such contexts and processes work towards equality, and thus engage in what might be coined ‘decolonisation from above’. I firstly investigated to what extent white people were aware of their privilege and dominance—not just socio-economically but languaculturally as well. Secondly, I sought to establish how white people imagined reconciliation considering their understanding of inter-cultural power relationships. And thirdly, in light of their ideas about reconciliation, I enquired what reconciliation looked like practically for white people in this context. The answers to these questions were meant to provide insights into ways in which this church challenged or potentially perpetuated structures of inequality. Working with grounded theory meant that I built theory from the direct engagement with my data and the detailed outcome of that was described in Chapter 6. Now it is time to take a step back and to consider the findings in light of my initial research questions.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_9

191

192

9.1.1

9

Discussion

To What Extent Were White People Aware of Their Cultural Dominance?

‘Culture’ is a blurry and malleable concept. I therefore needed to be specific in my investigations. In order not to be blinded by the prominent focus on socio-economic inequalities when considering the perspective of ‘coloniality’, I expanded my research to include areas of language, social spaces and theology. However, as race and class often intersect, and whiteness in South Africa is often associated with a middle-class habitus, I regarded it as justified to also include socio-economic aspects in my analysis of (langua)cultural dominance. I found a strong awareness of socio-economic inequalities that saw white people at The Message mostly on the upper side.1 Structural reasons were the ones usually given as explanations for these imbalances, which had to do both with the laws of the past and with the advantages white people were seen to be having in contexts that are dominated by Western-based education, administration, economics and governance. Whether to be on the upper side of inequalities was to be framed as ‘being privileged’ was sometimes contested. In cases where privilege was acknowledged, people clearly saw themselves as responsible not for having privilege but for using it for the good of others. Living up to that allowed people to make peace with existing inequalities that saw them in advantageous positions. When it came to inequalities within the church, there was a strong stance that white dominance is to be rejected.2 There was disagreement over whether such ‘white dominance’, which was then defined more in cultural and not so much in socio-economic terms, existed at The Message. Sometimes the opinion was stated that it clearly represented a ‘white church’ in that the dominant church culture was experienced as adhering to norms associated with white (often English) people.3 At other times, such a view was opposed.4 In the latter case, even if aspects of church life showed some inequalities that might give advantage to white people, it was not regarded as ‘dominance’ that needed rectification. Coincidence5 ,

1

Cf. 6.3.1, ‘Coming to terms with inequalities and privilege’. Cf. 6.3.2, ‘Disapproving of white dominance’. 3 Cf. 6.3.2.2, ‘Thinking about The Message in terms of a white church’. 4 Cf. 6.3.2.1, ‘Resisting seeing white cultural dominance at church’. 5 The majority of people at The Message ‘happened’ to be white, i.e. inequalities could be explained by unequal representation. 2

9.1 How did White People Imagine and Practice …

193

necessity6 or spiritual ideals7 were put forward to avoid having to use the concept of power differentials when analysing church structures. On the one hand, language and culture were deemed crucial in how people receive and do theology.8 On the other hand, the almost exclusive use of English at The Message was hardly ever questioned.9 With respect to theology, the main concern was with orthodoxy which was mostly regarded as being universally comprehensible irrespective of the languacultural backgrounds of people.10 Hence, ‘white’—or rather, Western—dominance in the realm of theology was at most seen in applications, not in reading or understanding biblical texts, which typically took place in English and based on Western theological resources. The contested views about the regarding of The Message as a white-dominated church had in common the conviction that a suburban church in Cape Town, and specifically The Message, ought to be multicultural, not just multiracial, and that the dominance of one single cultural group was undesirable.11

9.1.2

How did White People Imagine Reconciliation Considering Their Understanding of Inter-cultural Power Relationships?

White people at The Message saw reconciliation at their church as having personal as well as structural aspects.12 It was acknowledged, that apartheid and its lasting consequences was founded upon the attribution of different values to what was defined as different groups of people and on giving preference to some and disadvantaging others. Hence, ‘equality’ is one of two key characteristics of what racial reconciliation is to promote. Be it socio-economically, be it socially—reconciliation was envisioned as a levelling of hierarchies as one builds togetherness, thereby removing cause for conflict. This included giving high priority to the building of deep personal relationships as well as a sharing of resources with 6

E.g. people that could provide spaces that were deemed suitable for midweek meetings mostly happened to be white. 7 E.g. ‘We are all equal before God’. 8 Cf. ‘Regarding language and culture as central’ in 6.4.3.1. 9 Cf. 6.4.3.1, ‘The boundaries of language’. 10 Cf. the last subsection in 6.4.3.1, that shows how ‘Justifying the predominance of English’ effectively ‘downplays the role of language’. 11 Cf. the last Section in 6.2.3, ‘Striving for unity in diversity as prophetic action’. 12 The summary this paragraph provides is spelled out in detail in Section 6.2, ‘Conceptualising reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration’.

194

9

Discussion

people in need in- and outside of the immediate church community. All of that was undergirded by a theological vision of having been made one in Christ, which also—and particularly—found expression in the other main characteristic of reconciliation at The Message, which was ‘racial integration’. Being a racially diverse congregation was to demonstrate a race- and culture-transcending (but not -eradicating) kingdom of God. Despite the challenges such diversity came with, it was regarded as having immediate benefit to those part of the community and as having prophetic potential for the world outside the church. There was thus widespread agreement that The Message is to be a church marked by unity in its racial and cultural diversity as people not just worship together but are a community of equals, embodying the biblical value of being ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’. And yet, while the rejection of any notion of white dominance was shared among white people at The Message, there was a discord over what may constitute such dominance, as explained in the previous section, and how to make sense of it. In Section 6.4, I presented the analytical category of Hope for transformation from within—a stance that distinctly governed and shaped white people’s reconciliation practice. Despite the theological conviction that the church should work towards more cultural diversity, Hope for transformation from within effectively limited possible changes in this respect. This can partly be explained by the view that certain aspects of being church at The Message are not to be understood as producing inequalities or injustices. Thus, the character of the church was understood at times as an expression of ‘unequal representation’, not ‘dominance’ of the majority group. The almost exclusive use of English was regarded as ‘useful’ and the theological doctrines within the church simply as ‘correct’. Both were not seen as problematic in and of themselves. While there was a general acknowledgement of the impact that languaculture has on how people approach theology, it did not result in concrete steps that would take this reality into account in church practice. A need for more ‘cultural justice’— as Kwenda (2003) would put it—as an aspect of reconciliation was therefore identified in making representation of ‘racial’ groups more equal through racial integration, starting from the eldership of the church, but the potential for transformation through such equalising of numbers was restricted by the definition of boundaries for possible change with respect to language and theology.

9.1 How did White People Imagine and Practice …

9.1.3

195

In Light of Their Ideas about Reconciliation, what did Reconciliation Look Like Practically for White People?

I was able to identify three core areas of reconciliation practice by white people at The Message: investing in cross-cultural relationships on a personal level, handling socio-economic inequalities and building a multicultural church community where the impact of race in the past can be acknowledged but where it does not determine church in the present.13 Each of these areas came with dominant and lesser strategies. Whereas the former—partly unwittingly—emphasised working towards equality on white people’s own terms, the latter expressed a conviction that often, different terms exist and that it can be beneficial for the reconciliation process if white people engage others on their respective terms as they build relationships across racial and cultural divides. At times, such a conviction translated into practice. The reason why ‘investing in cross-cultural relationships on a personal level’ played a key role in the reconciliation process at The Message is white people’s understanding that perceived differences between people—which are often seen as running along racial lines—need to be acknowledged and understood.14 A particular focus here was on experiences and consequences of the apartheid era. Empathy with the formerly oppressed and a coming to terms with one’s own, often privileged situations, was the desired goal. What dominated this aspect of reconciliation practice was the assumption that conversations, exclusively in English and in a de-contextualised manner, would be sufficient to bring about increased understanding. A lesser strategy showed the conviction that for cross-racial and cross-cultural learning to be effective, it needed to take place by sharing people’s lives (especially in situations of socio-economic disadvantage) and should really make use of the other’s language. ‘Handling socio-economic inequalities’ was strongly driven by the belief that privilege, in whatever form, comes with the responsibility of using it to the benefit of the disadvantaged.15 In this way, equality was to be enhanced and racial integration enabled. A lesser approach to dealing with socio-economic inequalities was the realisation that ‘leveraging privilege’ is only one way to meet people on equal terms and that ‘giving up’ privilege might constitute a viable alternative. Such ‘vulnerability’ would be expressed by consciously letting go of 13

This was described in detail in Section 6.5, ‘Practising reconciliation with “Hope for transformation from within”’. 14 Cf. 6.5.1, ‘Seeking to understand’. 15 Cf. 6.5.2, “Giving to’ taking priority over ‘giving up’.

196

9

Discussion

control, by receiving instead of giving and by learning (e.g. language) instead of passing on one’s own knowledge and skills. The two strategies of ‘giving to’ (others) and ‘giving up’ (privilege) represent two contrasting approaches to seeking reconciliation and building relationships with priority given to the former. The third major aspect of white people’s reconciliation practice at The Message was ‘building a multicultural church’.16 The sought-after equality aspect of reconciliation here translated into working on the project of a community that was united across racial divides and cultural differences. Racial integration was a key aspect of this in that it embodied the church’s theological vision of becoming a race- and culture-transcending community of believers. In the quest for unity, overcoming differences was given priority over embracing them. Despite the stated objective of allowing for much more cultural diversity, it was realised only in a limited way, partly due to boundaries set by a Western-based theology and languaculture that were oriented towards a ‘white’, Western standard. ‘Building a multicultural church’ therefore showcased considerable racial integration but ended up maintaining a white norm in many respects.

9.1.4

How Were Structures of Inequality Affected by the Reconciliation Process?

As stated at the outset, a central goal of this research project was to find out how people who often find themselves in privileged positions in a multiracial South African church environment work for reconciliation in a context of inequalities often running along racial lines. The related question was whether this could be considered a form of engaging in ‘decolonisation from above’. As the perspective of coloniality focuses more on structures rather than situations, the question to ask here is what an effect a practice of reconciliation such as observed at The Message church has on structures of coloniality, i.e. white or Western dominance. Such structures that have repeatedly been discussed here refer firstly to the socio-economic realm, which includes different income levels (not just of individuals but also of the wider families), skills, information and other resources. Secondly, such structures consist of what we can call languacultural aspects—the way language shapes and is shaped by expectations, interactions and experiences in people’s lives in a diversity of cultural backgrounds, including dominant ontologies. A third structure would be theology which, together with languaculture, overlaps in large parts with the domain of epistemology. When the matter 16

Cf. 6.5.3, ‘Finding unity on white terms’.

9.1 How did White People Imagine and Practice …

197

at stake is ‘white dominance’ in a multiracial church, it is likely that it is these three areas where white people find themselves in normative positions.17 To what extent, then, did I find such structural inequalities challenged, accepted or even perpetuated in and through a process of racial reconciliation? Socio-economic imbalances received much attention in the portrayed reconciliation paradigm. One way in which structures of inequality were sidestepped or undermined was the sporadic cases of white people intentionally using the resources of the ‘disadvantaged’.18 Here, those who were often dominant became receivers and learners instead of staying in powerful positions as hosts or those with material goods or knowledge to share. It required a willingness for the usual standards to be relativised or abandoned for the sake of diversity and relationship. Whether these instances can be said to have effectively challenged structural inequalities partly depends on the consistency of such ‘vulnerable’ practice. However, the dominant approach of white people in addressing socio-economic disparities was certainly the sharing of material and immaterial resources.19 While an awareness of historical injustices was discernible and undoubtedly one motive for ‘leveraging privilege’, it was also biblical values like the required care for the needy or the idea of believers forming a new kind of family that often inspired white people to share their material and immaterial resources without making explicit reference to the country’s past. This translated into lifestyles of relative modesty which enabled people to be (more) generous with their belongings. Often, this would mean ‘sharing to include’, which did address needs within the community but also resulted in an orientation towards the privileged, who— by virtue of being generous and inviting—were able to enjoy fellowship without needing to question their privileged positions. Since unity could almost exclusively be imagined within one’s own, white-dominated church, and despite the desire to sustainably uplift people in disadvantaged positions, privilege, by white people, was mostly accepted as a given. On the one hand, one could identify a clear intention to reduce structural inequalities by using one’s own resources for the good of others. On the other hand, one’s privilege also functioned as a norm that served as an orientation for others. Moreover, it was a norm that often defined the terms under which community and fellowship were possible. If this 17

It is irrelevant for our analysis whether and to what extent people of colour are in support of these Western-dominated terms for multicultural togetherness. Important for our consideration of reconciliation in the context of coloniality is the fact that such conditions exist since they determine both the possibility and the kind of reconciliation that is conceivable (see also the following Section 9.1.5, that will conclude this first part of the discussion). 18 Cf. 6.5.2.2, ‘Becoming Vulnerable’. 19 Cf. 6.5.2.1, ‘Leveraging Privilege’.

198

9

Discussion

norm was not neutral but an aspect of coloniality, then helping others to live according to this norm did not challenge but perpetuated existing structures of inequality. Structural inequalities relating to languacultural aspects were sometimes acknowledged in theory but mostly ended up being accepted for lack of better alternatives.20 Efforts were made to offset such imbalances, e.g. by regularly singing songs in black languages, by the occasional prayer from the front in a black language or by sometimes intentionally addressing black people in their African names rather than their European names. There were some pockets that were free from white ‘intrusion’ or dominance with the odd conversation happening in a black language or a discussion being had that was initiated by black people, enabling talk that was not guided by Eurocentrism. But people coming together joyfully across racial and cultural boundaries could not escape the reality that this was usually happening on the basis of white English and Eurocentric norms. The isiXhosa concept study in Chapter 8 hints at the reality of cultural contexts shaping the understanding and use of language. However, I found little awareness of cultural differences that underlie communication in a seemingly shared language. Knowledge as something contextual and embodied was acknowledged occasionally21 but overall, the potential of meeting others on their languacultural terms was rarely recognised and even less so realised. This unawareness was probably enhanced through white people being largely unacquainted with black languages and the perception that English would offer pragmatic solutions to bridging divides of cultures and languages. In addition, a positivist approach to Scripture22 may have contributed to giving little importance to languacultural diversity. If one has to conclude that inequalities in the languacultural realm were not being challenged in any serious manner but rather upheld, the reasons for that can likely be found in emphasising ‘unity’ and togetherness in as many spheres as possible—sometimes at the expense of diversity—as the reconciliation project was led by Hope for transformation from within. In respect of structural inequalities in the area of theology, it transpired that an awareness often existed that theology and church practice within the REACH SA denomination tend to be ‘slanted’ towards Western traditions.23 This was met by a desire to be a culturally inclusive church without uncritically accepting views or

20

Cf. 6.5.3, ‘Finding unity on white terms’. Cf. 6.5.1.2, ‘Needing exposure’. 22 See also next paragraph. 23 Cf. 6.3.2.2, ‘Thinking about The Message in terms of a white church’. 21

9.1 How did White People Imagine and Practice …

199

practices that would have been seen as unbiblical.24 Accepting lobola as a valid way of getting married, as was shown in previous chapters, exemplifies how the perceived need for cultural diversity, arising from the church’s vision for reconciliation, can indeed lead to concrete implementation. It was also shown that the onus in this regard tends to be on people of colour both to point out differences and to render them comprehensible for those unfamiliar with black languages and African cultural traditions.25 This means that in the end, despite the general openness to having one’s Western-based understanding and practice of theology broadened, the new understandings still needed to fit into a Western framework, both with respect to language (English) and the underlying dualistic thought categories that mark the discourse on theology and religion in the West.26 I did not find this being reflected upon within the church. What I did find, though, was the conviction that the Bible is to shape or transform (any) culture, not vice versa.27 How this is to happen with respect to African traditions which are inextricably intertwined with African languages, while effectively limiting theological reasoning to English, remains an open question. The fact that language was not regarded as a serious impediment here indicates a positivist epistemology with regards to the role of Scripture that makes little difference between what is found in the Bible as God-inspired truth and one’s reception of it as languaculturally-shaped theology. Cultural diversity can thus stay subordinate to theological orthodoxy, which, if this orthodoxy is defined in English and needs to conform to Western (in this case reformed) traditions, amounts to an inadvertent perpetuation of the aforementioned structural inequalities.

9.1.5

Partial Conclusion: Decolonisation From Above?

Coloniality is an analytical term I worked with but rarely discussed in detail with my research participants. My concern was not whether people would describe certain structures as being part of coloniality28 but rather tested to what extent white people at my research site would recognise, problematise and engage various 24

Cf. 6.4.3.2, ‘The boundaries of theology’ and the subsection ‘Displaying diversity’ in 6.5.3, ‘Finding unity on white terms’. 25 Cf. 8.3, ‘Umtshato—“Marriage”’. 26 Cf. 2.3.4, ‘Some implications for languacultural relations in South Africa’. 27 Cf. ‘Justifying the predominance of English’ in 6.4.3.1. 28 I could, after all, not expect them to be well-versed in the academic debate around de/coloniality.

200

9

Discussion

power imbalances that can be regarded as representing structures of coloniality. Such possible attempts of challenging coloniality could be termed ‘decolonisation from above’, signifying an active participation of those privileged by coloniality in the process of ‘decolonisation’. Now, towards the end of this dissertation, it is time to ask whether I could indeed make out any signs of ‘decolonisation from above’ in and through a reconciliation paradigm that tries to overcome the divisions and the dehumanising hierarchies of the past by striving for equality and racial integration. In the previous section, it became evident that despite the large-scale recognition among white people of socio-economic inequalities running along racial lines, the existence and the nature of ‘white dominance’ at my research site was contested. Of course, there was frequent acknowledgment that The Message church had “a white feel” to it (Leo, 11/11/2019) which was related to “all the unspoken stuff that’s hard to put your finger on” (Erika, 24/05/2019). However, when it came to the two core areas of inequalities other than the socioeconomic realm, namely languaculture and theology, only rarely and only in a limited way would these be recognised as problems that needed addressing in order to fulfil the church’s vision of reconciliation with its emphasis not just on racial integration but on equality as well. I showed how the stance of Hope for transformation from within that I made out among white congregants was key in this regard. It remains unclear and would warrant further investigation whether there was a causal influence in any one direction: Not seriously considering the predominance of English and a theology rooted in the West as aspects of white dominance (and thus, as coloniality) might have encouraged people to have Hope for transformation from within. Or conversely, having Hope for transformation from within may unconsciously have led to an attitude where languaculture and theology as possible aspects of white dominance were not to be scrutinised too critically lest the vision of making “a white church transition” (Erika, 24/05/2019) collapse. It also remains open to what extent (if at all) a perceived insecurity of the white, Christian middle-class (cf. Steyn, 2001b) regarding their position and role in post-apartheid South African society contributed to the described attitudes, the setting of boundaries and specific hopes. The history of the REACH SA denomination, as alluded to in Section 5.1, makes this assumption not seem implausible. The late UCT professor Chirevo Kwenda cautioned against mere “harmonisation and homogenisation” as people work cross-culturally towards reconciliation in post-apartheid South Africa, since

9.1 How did White People Imagine and Practice …

201

“these strategies still pose the danger of hegemony. What is needed is respectful, functional co-existence. […] Functional, in the sense that the co-existence is predicated on a degree of interaction that invokes the cultural worlds of the players, in essence, what they, in their distinctive ways, take for granted.” (Kwenda, 2003: 69)

A reconciliation framework that prioritises unity and togetherness over deep cultural diversity may indeed succeed in providing the ground for peaceful and amicable relationships that transcend racial and cultural boundaries. It may, however, do so at the price of—knowingly or unknowingly—stipulating conditions for such togetherness that in some respects privilege one group over others. In this study, this referred not just to socio-economic situations but also standards with respect to languaculture and theology that are the norm for white South Africans but do not reflect the breadth of the cultural diversity of the congregants. This arguably amounts to a perpetuation of coloniality to some degree. And while it may indeed showcase some success in realising one’s vision and be experienced as unproblematic for some, it may prove to be unacceptable for others, as experienced by The Message church in the course of their history.29 One may want to ask whether more cultural diversity would be conceivable. As this touches on preferences and convictions of congregants, I do not regard it as my role to recommend concrete alternative solutions. Quite generally, though, I can see some scope for more cultural diversity regarding the use of language which would already impact the theological realm as well. If, however, the theological tradition of a church is to some extent tied up with ontologies that are dominant in certain languacultural spheres, then the question needs to be asked whether there is perhaps also a degree of incommensurability, i.e. whether there might be limits to theological diversity in a more Western-oriented church as there would probably be in an African Instituted Church. In this case, furthering reconciliation that includes working towards equality30 may have to be rethought as something that might need to happen outside of white-dominated contexts as well, with white people accepting to build relationship and find unity and togetherness not on their own terms but on the ones of South African people of colour. Hints, that this might be a worthwhile avenue to pursue, were found among the less prominent strategies to put reconciliation in practice at The Message church. 29

This is not to say that such processes never ought to risk disagreements. As shown in section 5.4.2, people from various groups left The Message for different reasons as the church made efforts with varying outcomes to engage reconciliation matters. 30 This, according to the concept of reconciliation I found to be prominent at The Message, included both striving for equality in terms of dignity and status as well as equality in socioeconomic terms.

202

9

Discussion

If at churches similar to The Message—with a desire to work for justice and reconciliation as an outworking of one’s biblically-based beliefs—concerns were raised regarding the non-negotiability of their theological convictions, maybe one key aspect to consider would be an element in Kwenda’s quotation above—“a degree of interaction that invokes the cultural worlds of the players, in essence, what they, in their distinctive ways, take for granted” (Kwenda, 2003: 69). Perhaps, the quest for equality, unity and togetherness needs to start with the realisation of the reality and the depth of the different languacultural worlds, without knowing of course where exactly to locate their permeable boundaries. Using languages other than English or ‘white Afrikaans’31 and experiencing its use in everyday life may go a long way here. And then consciously engaging ‘the other’ on the basis of what they, languaculturally, take for granted. Equality here would not amount to arbitrariness. Instead, it would involve an acknowledgement that the terms of different languacultural worlds are not the same as well as a willingness to seek and practise equality on someone else’s terms. This would entail the giving up of control in a variety of areas, like theology, not to mention comfort. And yet, reflecting on the underlying divisions that reconciliation in South Africa seeks to overcome, the imbalance in control or power appears to be one of the most central issues that needs to be dealt with. Approaching reconciliation through active self-depowering may therefore constitute a promising alternative for white people in South African church contexts.

9.2

Discussing the Findings in Relation to my Theoretical Framework

At first, the theoretical framework presented in Chapter 2 critically engaged dominant, contemporary approaches to reconciliation, namely social restorationist and agonist ones, as well as du Toit’s attempt to offer a unifying perspective with his model of reconciliation-as-interdependence. The need for deep-reaching transformation was identified to address the shortcomings of these paradigms, which in South Africa would need to include a focus on the politics of language. Secondly, languaculture and cultural conceptualisations were introduced as concepts that are useful to this end. And finally, the perspective of de/coloniality and in 31

As opposed to Kaaps, the language variety spoken by the coloured population on the Cape Flats. More recently, Kaaps is being consciously regarded as in the process of decolonisation and for this reason referred to by some as Afrikaaps (cf. Stroud and Kerfoot, 2021: 31 ff.). The term Afrikaaps inherently affirms a status of the language equal to the recognised Afrikaans.

9.2 Discussing the Findings in Relation to my Theoretical Framework

203

particular the coloniality of knowledge were proposed to gain a more profound understanding of the challenges associated with reconciliation in multicultural and multilingual contexts that seeks to increase equality and justice. At the same time, including this perspective in reconciliation work appeared to have the potential to offset the weaknesses of the discussed approaches. Mission as oikoumenical doxology with its option of ‘association from a distance’ was presented as one example of how a decolonial perspective might translate into the practice of reconciliation. This subchapter concludes the analysis of my study. Its structure was inspired by advice given by Kathy Charmaz to researchers who were following grounded theory methodology. They were encouraged to first write up the grounded theory study without integrating it with the existing literature. But once the time had come to engage the literature base from the vantage point of the grounded theory findings, they were to use the literature and existing theories to further compare and refine their own theoretical renderings (cf. 4.10). In this way, they would be able to “show where and how [other scholars’] ideas illuminate [their] theoretical categories and how [their] theory extends, transcends, or challenges dominant ideas in [their] field” (Charmaz, 2006: 165). In so doing, my aim is not to dissect the entire range of analytical concepts and show each and every relationship with the theoretical framework I worked with. Rather, I will focus on some of the key categories and discuss them in relation to the concepts in the theoretical framework. This will allow us to gain a more profound understanding of my own analytical concepts as well as contribute to existing theoretical work on the subject matter. We will first look at how the theoretical framework illuminates my analytical concepts. After that, we will see how my analytical concepts are extended by the theoretical framework. And in the last section, I will show how my findings also extend and challenge the theoretical framework.

9.2.1

How the Theoretical Framework Illuminates my Analytical Concepts

Reading the findings of this study in light of the theoretical framework, it becomes evident that white people at The Message in their approach to racial reconciliation had a strong bent towards a social restoration paradigm while being

204

9

Discussion

motivated to contribute to ‘transformation’, i.e. to an increase in equality in various regards.32 This became particularly evident when interviewees spoke of their theological self-understanding as a church.33 Amos, for instance, used words that made it clear that the multiracial church as a community served as unquestionable basis for their reconciliation process, which clearly marks it as a social restoration approach34 : “In a church context I would say [reconciliation is] recognised in that these are my brothers and sisters in Christ and that we are equal image bearers, sinful image bearers saved by grace.” (Amos, 12/11/2019)

A social restorationist approach, as we have seen in Section 2.1.3, is open to the risking of ‘politics’—although not enough in Schaap’s view (Schaap, 2005: 4). Such risking of politics could be seen in The Message’s Unity Groups35 or in the negotiation process that led to lobola being regarded as an acceptable way for church members to get married.36 In similar ways, however, both of them also illustrated Schaap’s critique of such an ‘ethic of recognition’ as they “[presumed] that the struggle for recognition will end in a fusion of horizons” (ibid.: 75). The acceptance of lobola, for instance, was contingent on its intelligibility within a Western languacultural and theological framework.37 It is in respect of such structures that Schaap (ibid.: 4) writes that the “presupposition of community depoliticises the terms within which reconciliation is to be enacted by representing them as necessary and incontestable.”38 This also resonates with Flett’s critique of an understanding of apostolicity that unconsciously promotes a form of Christianity as the universal norm that is in fact an extension of the church in the West.39 We saw how ‘Defining the boundaries’ in Section 6.4.3 essentially 32

Cf. 6.2, ‘Conceptualising reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration’ and 6.5, ‘Practising reconciliation with “Hope for transformation from within”’. 33 Cf. ‘Spiritualising of hierarchies and relationships’ in 6.3.2.1, ‘Resisting seeing white cultural dominance at church’ and ‘Conceptualising reconciliation as seeking equality and racial integration’ in 6.2. 34 Cf. 2.1.3, ‘Social restoration vs an agonistic approach to reconciliation’. 35 Cf. 5.4.1, ‘Early days of the church and reconciliation initiatives over the years’. 36 Cf. ‘Displaying diversity‘ in 6.5.3, ‘Finding unity on white terms’. 37 Cf. 8.3., ‘Umtshato—“marriage”’ and 9.1.4, ‘How were structures of inequality affected by the reconciliation process?’. 38 How these terms were defined was described in 6.4.3, ‘Defining the boundaries’, which was part of the broader analytical category of ‘Hope for transformation from within’ (6.4). 39 Cf. 2.3.4, ‘Some implications for languacultural relations in South Africa’.

9.2 Discussing the Findings in Relation to my Theoretical Framework

205

demarcated the limits for change, thereby setting the terms within which reconciliation and transformation were conceivable. As we have seen, some change was indeed possible—within the defined boundaries. The analytical category ‘Finding unity on white terms’ (6.5.3), however, shows the limitations of this approach as it illustrates Flett’s statement: “Influenced by this expectation of a dominant cultural form, we fail to understand the limited nature of the cultural overlap between the churches of the West and wider world Christianity and recognize relationships based only where a sufficient cultural overlap is perceived” (Flett, 2016: 163).

In its attempts to allow for cultural diversity and create certain spaces for ‘politics’40 , The Message did not fall into the trap of overdetermining ‘authentic’ identities, which Schaap (ibid.: 75) spoke of as the second aspect of “the antipolitical moment” of social restorationist reconciliation paradigms. Rather, by positing the supremacy of—a narrowly defined—theological orthodoxy over cultural diversity41 , it did at times disregard the possibility of difference42 , thereby making it harder to “understand the other in terms of her own values and practices rather than judging her from within our ethnocentric standards” (ibid.). An agonist approach, as we have seen in Section 2.1.3, would require an absolute openness to the outcomes of reconciliation processes. ‘Politics’ would need to be risked even more than in the examples mentioned above that attempted to live a considerable openness through genuine dialogue. Elements of an agonist approach could be made out, though, in some of the lesser strategies of the practice of reconciliation at The Message. One of them was ‘Needing exposure’ in 6.5.1.2.43 Here, certainties that are commonly taken for granted, be it one’s language (mostly English), the familiarity with one’s environment or the security connected with it, are to be given up for the sake of deeper, more contextual cross-cultural understanding. This overlaps with ‘Becoming Vulnerable’ in 6.5.2.244 in that it promised more profound “inter-subjective insights into how the world works” (du Toit, 2018: 175). As these strategies were not dominant at 40

Cf. for instance ‘Displaying diversity’ in 6.5.3, ‘Finding unity on white terms’. Cf. 6.4.3.2, ‘The boundaries of theology’. 42 Cf. 6.5.1.1, ‘Trying to understand through talk’ or ‘Maintaining a white norm’ in 6.5.3, ‘Finding unity on white terms’. 43 ‘Needing exposure’ was a dimension of the analytical category ‘Seeking to understand’ in 6.5.1. 44 ‘Becoming vulnerable’ was a dimension of the analytical category ‘“Giving to” taking priority over “giving up”’ in 6.5.2. 41

206

9

Discussion

The Message, and partly consisted of convictions rather than actions, the potential for complete openness to the outcome of reconciliation processes that marks agonist approaches, was quite limited. The concepts of languaculture and cultural conceptualisations, supported by the findings of the isiXhosa concept study in Chapter 8, further rationalise ‘Maintaining a white norm’, which was a property of the analytical category ‘Finding unity on white terms’ in Section 6.5.3. It is true that a case could be made for speaking of a South African English Reformed languaculture that is shared and practiced within the REACH SA denomination, including The Message church. However, the above-mentioned concepts suggest that while such a languaculture would be intertwined with other ones, it would not necessarily supersede or replace them. ‘Maintaining a white norm’ therefore illustrates a common obliviousness to the possibility of “the same language […] actually cod[ing] a very different culture” (Kuiper and Tan Gek Lin, 1989: 304). It was the perspective of de/coloniality and in particular of the coloniality of knowledge that allowed us to detect structural inequalities that otherwise often remain hidden from view. In respect of the grounded theory study, this perspective helped us to make out areas where there was potential for countering coloniality and where it was not challenged effectively.45 The Unity Groups (5.4.1) and the related attitude of ‘Trying to understand through talk’ (6.5.1.1), while attempting to be agonistic, were premised on a ‘fusion of horizons’, which again was defined by boundaries of language and theology as described in the analytical category ‘Hope for transformation from within’ in Section 6.4. Therefore, taking into account the coloniality of knowledge lets us see how inequalities on a languacultural level were constitutive of relationships and even of the attempted process of transformation. The lack of awareness of possible epistemological differences contributed to the absence of equivocal translation (cf. Viveiros de Castro, 2004: 10) and a perpetuation of “ontological dominance” (Stroud and Kerfoot, 2021: 28) of those rooted in Western, secular traditions. Besides being helpful in making out hidden structures of inequality, the perspective of de/coloniality also facilitated the uncovering of potential for the realisation of more equality. Three broad areas can be made out here: the first one is exemplified by the analytical category ‘Disapproving of white dominance’ (6.3.2), an attitude widely shared in principle in the racially diverse church context I studied. The second area is an understanding often verbalised when white people at The Message were ‘Regarding language and culture as central’ to the

45

Cf. 9.1.4. and 9.1.5 in the first part of the Discussion chapter.

9.2 Discussing the Findings in Relation to my Theoretical Framework

207

formulation of theology.46 The potential consists of actualising this conviction in encouraging and practicing more language diversity in the practice of theology, rather than ‘Justifying the predominance of English’.47 The third area comprises the less dominant ways in which white people at The Message tried to practice reconciliation—‘Needing exposure’ (6.5.1.2) and ‘Becoming vulnerable’ (6.5.2.2). These indicated a measure of awareness of white/Western ‘ontological dominance’ which implied an alertness, e.g. to languacultural difference. Lastly, we had identified ‘association from a distance’ as one possible form reconciliation practice could take if it was inspired by decolonial awareness. This concept was part of a wider understanding of Christian mission as ‘oikoumenical doxology’ (cf. Wrogemann, 2018). If ‘Needing exposure’ and ‘Becoming vulnerable’ have the potential of furthering a decolonial approach to reconciliation, association from a distance might be one way this could be realised. The two analytical categories are both oriented to the dominant (i.e. in our case mostly white people) having to leave behind what they are accustomed to, be it language, ways of knowing or physical surroundings in order to level or reverse hierarchies between themselves and the less powerful. Resonating with the potential of vulnerability for equivocal translation stipulated by Stroud and Kerfoot (2021: 37)48 , association from a distance implies just that: it emphasises a regular form of contact based on an “ecumenical appreciation of plurality” (Wrogemann, 2016: 380) while acknowledging enormous cultural and theological differences and therefore refraining from entering into more formal, institutional fellowship or cooperation. The nature of this construct would make it unlikely for bigger groups or whole churches to actively entertain such contacts. It would, however, open opportunities for individuals who are part of the dominant group—perhaps ‘commissioned’ by their churches—to pursue relationships in this way which would escape or undermine otherwise inescapable power differentials.

46

Cf. ‘Regarding language and culture as central’, a subdimension of 6.4.3.1, ‘The boundaries of language’. 47 Cf. ‘Justifying the predominance of English’, the other subdimension of 6.4.3.1, ‘The boundaries of language’. 48 Cf. 2.3.3, ‘The coloniality of knowledge and the risk of translation’.

208

9.2.2

9

Discussion

How the Theoretical Framework Extends my Analytical Concepts

We return now to the two central analytical categories of the grounded theory—the conceptualisation of reconciliation by white people at The Message as ‘Seeking equality and racial integration’ (6.2) and the formative influence on reconciliation practice at the church, labelled ‘Hope for transformation from within’ (6.4). In their combination, they led to a specific way white people at The Message sought to contribute to and achieve racial reconciliation in their church context. This was described in detail in Section 6.5. We will see now how Wrogemann’s concept of association from a distance is able to extend the two analytical categories above through offering broader ways of perceiving what reconciliation and transformation might entail. This has the potential of altering the practice of reconciliation as well. We have already seen how equality was sought—simply put—in two different ways, explicated in the category ‘“Giving to” taking priority over “giving up”’ (6.5.2). ‘Hope for transformation from within’ stressed the understanding that racial equality was to be pursued inside one’s own community. This, due to the history of the church and the denomination as well as the demographic make-up of The Message led to ‘Maintaining a white norm’.49 Association from a distance also emphasises equality, albeit in a different way. Cognisant of the danger of the terms of fellowship of a dominant group at times being forced onto another, less influential one, it speaks of entertaining contact without people in ‘inferior’ positions integrating into one’s own community. This is of course diametrically opposed to ‘Hope for transformation from within’—both in its intention and in its approach. In association from a distance—because of the awareness of difference and because of the tendency of imposing one’s own standards on others—a stronger party would refrain from defining the terms of relationship and togetherness while not giving up on the goal of fellowship. Equality would thus be found through ‘giving up’ power rather than ‘leveraging’ it.50 And although this kind of togetherness would not be centred on the community of the stronger party (‘within’), it could still involve racial integration. It would be a form of integration that would see a smaller number of those belonging to the dominant group building relationship with another community (for instance, a church) on

49

This was a property of the analytical category ‘Finding unity on white terms’ in Section 6.5.3. 50 Cf. ‘”Giving to” taking priority over “giving up”’ in Section 6.5.2.

9.2 Discussing the Findings in Relation to my Theoretical Framework

209

their terms. Association from a distance would thus transform the way racial reconciliation is sought by extending the scope of the reconciliation approach well beyond one’s own community, removing the strong emphasis on seeking change ‘from within’. As we saw in Section 2.1.3 regarding an agonist paradigm, Schaap seeks a concept of political reconciliation that does not rely on compassion or a common identity but rather on becoming political with all our differences. Association from a distance appears to offer that and would thus constitute one expression of a decolonial way of seeking transformation and reconciliation. Also, it would escape the dilemma identified for agonist approaches, namely that the radical risking of politics would inevitably preclude the actual achievement of a state that could be called ‘reconciled’, since reconciliation here is understood as contingent on an absolute and constant openness to difference and plurality. In association from a distance, this problem appears to be resolvable. It does not work on the basis of a currently shared identity and has no need to predetermine community. At the same time, it enables the entertaining of some form of togetherness by building relationships that acknowledge and embrace difference in a profound way, appreciating plurality. This means that reconciliation would be located more in a process, in ‘walking together’, rather than an outcome. This is exemplified by the Hölderlin Perspective which holds that reconciliation can be found in the middle of dispute.51

9.2.3

How my Findings Extend and Challenge the Theoretical Framework

It is not only the theoretical framework of this dissertation that enlightens and extends the analytical categories of my grounded theory study. The findings themselves are also able to extend and challenge some of the concepts of the theoretical framework. An agonist approach to seeking reconciliation, as exemplified in this dissertation by Schaap’s ‘Political Reconciliation’ in Section 2.1.3, builds on the notion of the ‘political’ as the possibility of difference.52 While this can naturally be 51

Cf. 2.1.3, ‘Social restoration vs an agonistic approach to reconciliation‘; Flämig and Leiner (2012: 16). 52 Schaap points to the political in Hannah Arendt’s work, emphasising a contestation and “a plurality of potentially incommensurable perspectives” and draws on “Carl Schmitt’s […} conception of the political as defined by the ever-present possibility of the friend-enemy relation” (Schaap, 2005: 4).

210

9

Discussion

applied to social identities or open disputes on various subject matters, I argue, particularly on the basis of the findings of the isiXhosa concept study, that the realm of the political should in certain contexts be extended by the concept of languaculture. As we have seen in Section 2.2.1, languacultures are linked to social identities but transcend them as well. Difference may thus exist that is not always consciously lived on an identity level or brought into politics. Nevertheless, these differences can matter, e.g. if systems are built in a way that they privilege certain languacultures and their members over others.53 Awareness of possible difference on a languacultural level can thus ensure that the potential for politics is not lost but harnessed for the sake of increasing equality, justice and reconciliation. Connected to that, the outcomes of the isiXhosa concept study in Chapter 8, coupled with the readings on the coloniality of knowledge, suggest that the contested concept of transformation ought to include a languacultural dimension as well. It is worth being reminded here of Agar’s intentional combination of the concepts of ‘language’ and ‘culture’ forming this awkward term. Transformation is already oftentimes motivated by achieving greater inclusivity on the level of social identities with language as the identity marker (usually alongside ‘colour’). Making people from various backgrounds feel they belong was one of the reasons why white church members tried to acknowledge linguistic diversity at The Message.54 However, such-envisioned transformation can be short-sighted even while encouraging the increased usage of African languages, e.g. in the education system. This is the case when calls for change come with an understanding that limits the usefulness and necessity of linguistic diversity to providing equal access to a knowledge base that is understood as universal and generally independent of and not rooted in language and culture.55 While usually being geared to giving black learners who are not yet considered proficient in English more exposure to instruction in their African home languages, this kind of transformation usually aims at achieving conceptual equivalence.56 While this may at times be warranted, we have also seen in this dissertation that translation was often used to simulate similarity between Western and indigenous knowledge systems, ignoring ontological differences that are embedded in cultural conceptualisations. 53

It was mentioned in 2.2.1 that people inhabit languacultures in diverse ways, and that languacultures are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 54 Cf. ‘Justifying the predominance of English’ in 6.4.3.1. 55 Examples for such a limited understanding of the usefulness of indigenous languages would be Bloch (2012) and Orman (2008: 156). 56 E.g. in the building up of registers in maths and science, as described in Schäfer (2010).

9.2 Discussing the Findings in Relation to my Theoretical Framework

211

Ontological differences imply the possibility of ontological dominance57 or simply of misunderstandings that can go unnoticed. Transformation that takes these possibilities seriously would therefore have to embrace linguistic diversity out of an ontological, not only a moral necessity, be it in education, in church or in everyday cross-cultural communication. We also need to consider again the concept of association from a distance. Although we have already seen how it illuminates and extends some of the concepts in the grounded theory study, it is itself being extended by certain analytical categories. In Wrogemann’s work, association from a distance is presented as an option for unlikely Christian togetherness that escapes the usual power dynamics between churches marked by stark—cultural, and often by implication, theological—differences. At the same time, it shows a way of journeying together without those that would be considered in inferior positions losing their independence. ‘Needing exposure’ and ‘Becoming vulnerable’ extend association from a distance in that they allow the perception of ‘the other’ not just in institutional, ecclesial terms but also regarding individual aspects of languaculture, socio-economic circumstances, theology, etc. Granted, in many settings one will find them to be intertwined. However, association from a distance may also take place by committing to building a certain relationship within one’s own, Eurocentric community in the language of a person whose home language is not English or by regularly being in spaces of people who are socio-economically less privileged (and travelling there by public transport). Association from a distance is therefore extended into the interpersonal realm. Since it is, essentially, about self-depowering and about a decolonial way of building relationships, it has the potential to make a contribution to church life even ‘from within’ as it “combines the issue of ecumenical ‘unity’ with the value of enduring plurality” (Wrogemann, 2016: 381). Finally, with the same two analytical categories as in the previous paragraph, we return once more to the social restoration paradigm of reconciliation— an orientation, as we have seen, that was very prominent at The Message church. It was marked by ‘Hope for transformation from within’ which sought racial reconciliation and transformation by altering power-relationships in hitherto white-dominated structures rather than white people leaving such structures behind, radically foregoing dominance.58 This orientation was supported and

57

Cf. 2.3.3, ‘The coloniality of knowledge and the risk of translation’. Cf. 6.4, ‘A formative influence on reconciliation practice: Hope for transformation from within’.

58

212

9

Discussion

expressed by the focus on unity and the declared desire to live out the identity of family bestowed onto the church by God.59 This resonates with Schaap’s critique of social restoration approaches to reconciliation which he perceived as not allowing for enough politics by predetermining terms under which reconciliation is regarded as conceivable.60 On the one hand, a social restoration approach was clearly predominant in the ways white people at The Message worked for reconciliation at The Message. On the other hand, the two analytical categories ‘Needing exposure’ and ‘Becoming vulnerable’ represented a resistance against limited conceptualisations of unity that were mostly sought on languacultural, socio-economic and theological terms that took for granted that which is culturally Western or the norm for most white Christians in South Africa. ‘Needing exposure’ challenged the social restoration approach by conveying the conviction that the dominance of these norms made for an obstacle to actual, deeper unity and better understanding of the other and that power needed to be given up to overcome this hindrance.61 In a similar way, the challenge ‘Becoming vulnerable’ presented to the dominant social restoration approach consisted in the insight that if socio-economic, racial and cultural divides are to be overcome for the sake of reconciliation, ‘upliftment’ strategies are not always the most effective ones. Rather, drawing level with people by giving up privilege and control was seen as an important means to achieving a measure of equality.62 These two analytical categories therefore struggled against the narrow way this social restoration paradigm of reconciliation was often conceived and sought to extend it at the same time. Insofar as ‘Needing exposure’ and ‘Becoming vulnerable’ strove for cross-cultural togetherness outside white-dominated structures, these categories worked against a premature realisation of the ‘fusion of horizons’ which Schaap criticised as a weakness of the social restoration paradigm. The fact that these categories arose from field research in a reformed, evangelical context like The Message church is significant for the way a social restoration paradigm for reconciliation can be extended: with the foundational theological conviction that the kingdom of God has already begun but has not been fully realised yet,63 this fusion of horizons can remain a credible and inspiring vision 59

Cf. 5.3, ‘The theological orientation of The Message’ and ‘Seeking unity and racial integration’ in 6.5.3, ‘Finding unity on white terms’. 60 Cf. 2.1.3, ‘Social restoration vs an agonistic approach to reconciliation’. 61 Cf. 6.5.1.2, ‘Needing exposure’. 62 Cf. 6.5.2.2, ‘Becoming vulnerable’. 63 References and allusions to ‘the kingdom’ were common both at gatherings of The Message church and in the interviews I conducted; see e.g. Jeremy in 6.2.3, ‘Reconciling groups’.

9.2 Discussing the Findings in Relation to my Theoretical Framework

213

without the need of having to fulfil it instantly or only on the terms of the dominant group (‘from within’). According to David Bosch, such an understanding of the kingdom of God would be “both future-directed and oriented to the here and now. It […] holds in creative and redemptive tension the already and the not yet” (Bosch, [1991] 2011: 520). This would illustrate that “Christian hope is both possession and yearning, repose and activity, arrival and being on the way” (ibid.). ‘Needing exposure’ and ‘Becoming vulnerable’ can therefore extend the social restoration paradigm by working with the presupposition of a community that has not been realised yet but that is expected to become tangible one day. Faith could enable believers to take concrete steps towards the fulfilment of this vision without overdetermining the terms and the outcomes of this process, notably through association from a distance. This would be different from the way people following agonist approaches to reconciliation permanently need to refrain from realising the community they are seeking in order to preserve an openness to politics. The extended social restoration paradigm makes it possible to move towards the realisation of community while assuring that colonial dominance in cross-cultural dominance does not hold sway.

Conclusion

10.1

10

Significance and Implications of This Study

This study is significant in two major ways. One, with its qualitative reseach approach, it presents an in-depth analysis of white people’s perspectives on and actual practice of racial reconciliation in a church context where their very positionality is part and parcel of what needs to be negotiated in reconciliation in post-apartheid South Africa. Although the church may have moved on since field research was conducted in 2019, a number of relevant lessons remain that will also be applicable to congregations with similar orientations. Two, an issue is highlighted that rarely receives attention when studying reconciliation and transformation: the aspect of potential dominance through a common language and culturally based epistemologies as efforts are made to overcome the segregation of the past. This makes for an important contribution to existing theories in the field of reconciliation studies. Regarding the first point, it is to be noted that the ethnographic research methods coupled with grounded theory methodology enabled a comprehensive and deep analysis. The study of a single congregation offered abundant insights into the ways white people in this church conceptualised, rationalised and worked towards racial reconciliation. The role of The Message church itself needs to be mentioned here. Not only did the history of the church—including its denomination—and how it was reflected upon in light of contemporary challenges for racial reconciliation in South Africa make for a rich pool of relevant data for a social scientist. And not only did the boldness of the majority white church leadership as it invited the researcher to critically examine its reconciliation practice speak to the sincere desire to see transformation happen. It was these aspects together with the church’s commitment to studying, learning from and being corrected © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7_10

215

216

10

Conclusion

by Scripture that enabled a better understanding of people’s convictions and thus provided fertile ground for a critical examination of reconciliation practice among a dedicated community of people. The results should therefore be noted by other churches and organisations who equally attempt to “help facilitate reconciliation, social-cohesion and unity processes” (IJR, 2019: 9), based on Christian convictions. Although this case study cannot guarantee generalisability, many a church trying to become multicultural may find that the analysis resonates with their own experiences. Where this is the case, the challenges identified as well as the ideas on possible ways of how to deal with them deserve careful consideration. Here is the second way in which this study is particularly significant: it relates to the terms of togetherness as people seeking reconciliation try to build racially integrated communities and promote equality to overcome the segregation and hierarchies of the past. These terms—and even the existence of such terms—are often not sufficiently noticed. It was clear that at my research site, I found people who wholeheartedly pursued the vision of racial reconciliation in the South African context. And nevertheless, because they were mostly driven by ‘Hope for transformation from within’1 , certain boundaries were defined within which change was conceivable. Based on the preliminary research, the two analytical categories ‘The boundaries of language’ (6.4.3.1)—contending oneself with English as a common language—and ‘The boundaries of theology’ (6.4.3.2)— defining a particular kind of Western-based (neo-Calvinist) orthodoxy as the norm for a church that was otherwise supposed to be marked by cultural diversity—will likely be applicable to many other congregations working to overcome segregation. Efforts were made in this dissertation to demonstrate the interplay of language, epistemology (ways of knowing) and theology to explain why speaking of ‘dominance’ of a particular group in ‘multicultural’ settings—i.e. of ‘coloniality’—is justified.2 Instrumental here was the combination of an ethnographic case study at my main research site coupled with the isiXhosa concept study based on languaculture-learning and exposure to an African Instituted Church. Becoming more aware of and taking the relationship between language, epistemology and theology more into consideration when reflecting on the character of crosscultural work and collaboration would be a step towards more equality and justice and away from coloniality. 1

Cf. 6.4, ‘A formative influence on reconciliation practice: Hope for transformation from within’. 2 Cf. 2.2.1, ‘The concepts of languaculture and cultural conceptualisations’, 2.3.3, ‘The coloniality of knowledge and the risks of translation’, 2.3.4, ‘Some implications for languacultural relations in South Africa’ and Chapter 8, ‘Findings of the isiXhosa concept study’.

10.2 Limitations of This Study

217

The above is an empirically based illustration of an area in reconciliation theory that has rarely been attended to.3 Social restoration approaches to reconciliation (like at my primary research site), as was shown, are prone to miss structures of dominance due to their politics-averse emphasis on already living out the reconciliation communities they seek to become. Agonist reconciliation paradigms, on the contrary, fail to realise reconciled communities for fear of not allowing enough politics. Finally, reconciliation-as-interdependence, the concept promoted by du Toit as a way out of this dilemma, ignores differences in languacultural orientations of the various groups concerned in South Africa. The basis for unity in his concept is thus questionable. It was suggested—and the grounded theory study gave some indications in this respect—that a decolonial perspective could address these inherent weaknesses. The consideration of power structures even in the terms under which reconciliation is to take place—as we have seen, in a church context this can include languaculture and theology—was proposed as a necessary step to offset the outlined limitations. Particularly as far as Christian communities are concerned, the concept of ‘association from a distance’ represents one concrete model for reconciliation in settler colonial societies that has the potential to complement established ones.

10.2

Limitations of This Study

For an ethnographic in-depth study, I needed to limit my data gathering to a single congregation. Not only does this leave the question open, to what extent my findings are generalisable. The results also need to be regarded as a ‘snapshot’ of a church during a particular season: members and staff of a congregation come and go and the Covid-19 pandemic which hit South Africa four months after I had concluded my data gathering caused changes to churches across the globe that could not have been anticipated. Using a constructivist approach within a critical realist research paradigm means that I worked on the assumption that knowledge “is objective reality subjectively known” (Hiebert, 1999: 74). The goal could thus not be to produce objective or “verified knowledge” but rather to try and offer “plausible accounts” (Charmaz, 2006: 132). These were rooted in a critical realist perspective and brought into conversation with the theoretical framework I worked with.

3

See 2.1, ‘Reconciliation’ and 2.4, ‘How de/coloniality enhances reconciliation theory’.

218

10

Conclusion

An intentional limitation in line with my research questions was to largely restrict my interviews to white congregants at The Message church.4 In an attempt to take into account decolonial perspectives, I tried to use isiXhosa as much as possible when in conversation with Xhosa or Zulu people. Although languaculture-learning was part of my research project throughout, the time I was able to invest in it was limited. I deemed it sufficient to conduct the small isiXhosa concept study. However, due to my language capacities still being developed and the small number of four research participants for this study, the results can only have limited explanatory power. They can, however, serve as a valuable indication that it is indeed critical for the concept of languaculture to receive more attention. In summary, the findings of this study are valid within the confines of the delimitations of my research project.

10.3

Recommendations for Further Research

This research project has shed light on a very specific aspect of reconciliation processes in the South African (church) context. To address the limitations of this study and to further knowledge—e.g. of the complex interplay of language, epistemology and theology or the nature of ‘white dominance’/coloniality in other parts of society—I propose further research in the following areas: Firstly, the generalisability of this grounded theory study would be worth testing. For this purpose, the analytical core categories could be used to carry out qualitative research in other South African churches that equally seek to contribute to reconciliation by building multicultural communities but find white congregants to be in dominant positions. Furthermore, it is encouraged to investigate causal influences surrounding the central category of this study, ‘Hope for transformation from within’. Was this prominent stance rooted in an inability to identify the predominance of English and a theology rooted in the West with white dominance (and thus, with coloniality)? Or did this stance lead to a state where languaculture and theology as possible aspects of white dominance could no longer be seriously considered without undermining the vision for reconciliation and transformation? Related to

4

See 1.4, ‘Delimitations and research scope’ for the rationale behind this decision.

10.3 Recommendations for Further Research

219

these questions is the intersection of race and class in South Africa5 , particularly in a Christian context, that we could merely touch on in the course of this research. For future studies, I would thus recommend taking into account the self-perception of white middle-class Christians in South Africa as they navigate the call for reconciliation and transformation, their identities and the security of their futures in a highly unequal—and it seems at times, unstable—society. This study focused on reconciliation processes in a church congregation marked by ‘white dominance’ in a number of areas. While the relevance of the findings is partly restricted to the realm of churches, it does have implications for other settings as well. It would therefore make sense to continue qualitative research on the existence and the dealing with such dominance, particularly in the languacultural sense, e.g. in education institutions, the health care system or other organisations where cross-cultural collaboration is taking place, sometimes with the declared objective of contributing to reconciliation, deep transformation and social cohesion (cf. Ratele, 2018). With my intentional focus on white people’s conceptualisation and practice of reconciliation in a multiracial church environment, one may be inclined to encourage research that is more inclusive, and which could provide insights by comparing findings between certain groups. This would undoubtedly be promising, although one would have to make provision for the challenge of comparing data that are rooted in different languacultural contexts, as indicated at the end of Section 2.1.1. This harbours enormous methodological challenges. What might have even more potential, though, to increase understanding of languacultural and theological perspectives on reconciliation in South Africa would be a qualitative study to explore to what extent the seeking of racial reconciliation is acknowledged as a priority and a responsibility by churches from different denominational and cultural backgrounds (cf. du Plessis, 2017). Can the reasons for the fact that only “[a] minority of the Black population have moved into arenas previously dominated by Whites […], whereas the corresponding movement of Whites into areas dominated by Black people (e.g. townships) remains virtually nonexistent” (Durrheim and Dixon, 2010: 285) be reduced to socio-economic factors or blatant racism? If not, why is it, that white South African Christians appear to find it difficult to conceive of regularly worshipping in black-dominated congregations? Studying black congregations as well might provide some answers to the question, to what extent the seeking of racial reconciliation (and the manner of doing

5

See 6.3.2.2, ‘Thinking about The Message in terms of a white church and 9.1.5, ‘Partial conclusion: Decolonisation from above?’.

220

10

Conclusion

so we have seen practiced at The Message church) can be regarded as a theological universal or should rather be understood as rooted in certain languacultures and theological traditions. Lastly, qualitative language concept studies similar to mine in Chapter 8, but of greater breadth and depth, could make for significant contributions. The goal here would be to increase understanding of the challenges of cross-cultural work and relationship building, and even of collaboration and confrontation in the political arena with players coming from a variety of languacultural backgrounds.

10.4

Concluding Remarks

In this study on white people’s understanding and practice of reconciliation at a multiracial church in Cape Town, we have seen how the desired transformation was hemmed in—most prominently—by languacultural norms and theological traditions. This does not mean that meaningful change was inexistent but points to limitations in the practice of reconciliation due to what the researcher had identified as white congregants’ concept of reconciliation. While certainly problematic for an understanding of reconciliation that has ‘equality’ as one of its central objectives, the question needs to be asked whether the fact of languacultural dominance is to be seen as a singular challenge—and responsibility—for a white dominated church. Would transformation directed at (langua)cultural inclusivity not find similar limitations if it had e.g. traditional African communities as starting point? The answers to such questions notwithstanding, the need to consider power imbalances remains. This is particularly true if they are inescapable for some with white people usually defining the terms of cross-cultural engagement. In efforts directed at contributing to reconciliation and transformation, the consequences of accepting the above limitations need to be weighed in order to ensure that the limiting factors do not run counter to the objectives one set out to achieve. This study has indicated how and at what price these limitations might be extended or traversed. Moreover, it made suggestions what a possible contribution to reconciliation efforts by Christian communities might look like that manages to go beyond these limits. Essentially, as Kwenda demanded, racial reconciliation in South Africa needs to find ways to draw on “the cultural worlds

10.4 Concluding Remarks

221

of the players” (Kwenda, 2003: 69) and not assume equivalence despite the fact that the sharing in language, work life, religious and social settings often suggests otherwise. Or, in Flett’s words, “we must acknowledge that no single theological tradition already possesses an ‘international’ culture […]. It is not possible to be the community of ‘both Jew and Gentile’ apart from the ongoing cross-cultural encounter that this vision demands” (Flett, 2016: 185).

Bibliography

Abrahamsson N and Hyltenstam K (2009) Age of Onset and Nativelikeness in a Second Language: Listener Perception Versus Linguistic Scrutiny. Language Learning 59(2): 249–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00507.x. Adida CL, Ferree, Karen E., Posner, Daniel N., et al. (2015) Who’s asking? Interviewer coethnicity effects in African survey data. Afro Barometer Working Paper No. 158. Agar M (1980) The Professional Stranger. An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. New York, London: Academic Press. Agar M [1994] (2002) Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: William Morrow. Alexander N (2001) Prospects for a Nonracial Future in South Africa. In: Hamilton CV, Huntley L, Alexander N, et al. (eds) Beyond Racism. Race and Inequality in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States. Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 471–489. Alexander N (2007) Affirmative Action and the Perpetuation of Racial Identities in PostApartheid South Africa. Transformation 63: 92–108. Amann K and Hirschauer S (1997) Die Befremdung der eigenen Kultur. In: Amann K and Hirschauer S (eds) Die Befremdung Der Eigenen Kultur. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 7–52. Ansell AE (2006) Casting a Blind Eye: The Ironic Consequences of Color-Blindness in South Africa and the United States. Critical Sociology 32(2–3): 333–356. Answers in Genesis (n.d.) Answers in Genesis. Available at: https://answersingenesis.org (accessed 6 May 2021). Archibong U and Adejumo O (2013) Affirmative Action in South Africa: Are We Creating New Casualties? Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture 3(S1): 14–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jpoc.21073. Arias S (2013) Coloniality and its preoccupations. Latin American Research Review 48(3). The Latin American Studies Association: 214–220. Asad T (2003) Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (Cultural Memory in the Present). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Balcomb A (2004) From Apartheid to the New Dispensation: Evangelicals and the Democratization of South Africa. Journal of Religion in Africa 34(1/2): 5–38. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Grohmann, Seeking Reconciliation in a Context of Coloniality, (Re-)konstruktionen – Internationale und Globale Studien, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41462-7

223

224

Bibliography

Bar-On D (2007) Reconciliation Revisited for More Conceptual and Empirical Clarity. In: Darkness at Noon. War Crimes, Genocide and Memories. Sarajevo: Centre for Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Studies, pp. 62–84. Bar-Tal D (2000) From Intractable Conflict Through Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation: Psychological Analysis. Political Psychology 21(2): 351–365. Bekker I and Eley G (2009) An acoustic analysis of White South African English (WSAfE) monophthongs. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 25(1): 107– 114. Belgrave LL and Seide K (2019) Coding for Grounded Theory. In: Bryant A and Charmaz K (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 167–185. Berg BL and Lune H (2017) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Ninth Edition. Boston: Pearson. Bhabha HK (1997) Halfway house. Artforum International 35(9): 11+. Bhabha HK (1998) The white stuff. Artforum International 36(9): 21+. Bhaskar R (2009) Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London, New York: Routledge. Bloch CS (2000) Multilingual Education or English as a Medium of ‘Destruction’: Language and Literacy Policy and Practice in South African Early Childhood Classrooms. Cape Town: PRAESA, University of Cape Town. Bloch CS (2012) Why is mother tongue based education so significant? African Leader 41. Bloomfield D (2003) Reconciliation: An Introduction. In: Bloomfield D, Barnes T, and Huyse L (eds) Reconciliation After Violent Conflict. A Handbook. Stockholm: International IDEA, pp. 10–18. Bloor M (1983) Notes on member validation. In: Emerson RM (ed.) Contemporary Field Research. Boston: Little Brown, pp. 156–171. Bloor M and Wood F (2006) Triangulation. In: Keywords in Qualitative Methods. London: SAGE, pp. 170–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209403. Booysen S (ed.) (2016) Fees Must Fall: Student Revolt, Decolonisation and Governance in South Africa. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. Boraine A (2000) The Language of Potential. In: James W and Van de Vijver L (eds) After the TRC: Reflections on Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa. Cape Town: David Philip Publishers, pp. 74–81. Bosch D [1991] (2011) Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books. Bourdieu P [2005] (2016) Habitus. In: Hillier J and Rooksby E (eds) Habitus: A Sense of Place. 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 43–49. Bowerman S (2008) White South African English: morphology and syntax. In: Mesthrie R, Kortmann B, Schneider EW, et al. (eds) 4 Africa, South and Southeast Asia. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 472–487. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/978311020 8429.2.472. Bowerman S (2015) Standard South African English. In: Hickey R (ed.) Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. First paperback edition. Studies in English language. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198–212. Bowers du Toit N (2016) The elephant in the room: The need to re-discover the intersection between poverty, powerlessness and power in ‘Theology and Development’ praxis. HTS

Bibliography

225

Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 74(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i4. 3459. Bowers du Toit NF and Nkomo G (2014) The ongoing challenge of restorative justice in South Africa: How and why wealthy suburban congregations are responding to poverty and inequality. HTS Theological Studies 70: 1–8. Brown LM (2004a) Introduction: Seeing through the Conceptual Languages of Others. In: African Philosophy: New and Traditional Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–20. Brown LM (2004b) Understanding and Ontology in Traditional African Thought. In: African Philosophy: New and Traditional Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 158– 178. Brumleve A and Brumleve L (2019) Second Language Acquisition: Experiential introduction to the six-phase program utilizing the growing participator approach. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Language, Literature, Education, and Culture (ICOLLITE 2018), Bandung, Indonesia, 2019. Atlantis Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/icollite18.2019.34. Bryman A (2004) Member Validation and Check. In: Lewis-Beck M, Bryman A, and Futing Liao T (eds) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 633–634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589. Cavanagh E (2016) Settler Colonialism in South Africa: Land, labour and transformation, 1880-2015. In: Cavanagh E and Veracini L (eds) The Routledge Handbook of the History of Settler Colonialism. Abingdon, New York: Routledge, pp. 291–309. Chapman AR (2009) Approaches to Studying Reconciliation. In: van der Merwe H, Baxter V, and Chapman AR (eds) Assessing the Impact of Transitional Justice. Challenges for Empirical Research. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, pp. 143–172. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE. Charmaz K and Mitchell RG (2011) Grounded Theory in Ethnography. In: Atkinson P, Coffey A, Delamont S, et al. (eds) Handbook of Ethnography. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 160–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608337. Cheah P (2006) The Limits of Thinking in Decolonial Strategies. In:Townsend Newsletter November/December 2006. Berkeley: Townsend Center for the Humanities, pp. 9–11. Christie P and McKinney C (2017) Decoloniality and ‘Model C’ Schools: Ethos, Language and the Protests of 2016. Education as Change 21(3): 160–180. Clarke AE (2005) Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE. Coetsee D (2019) Who qualifies as ‘Black’ in terms of the B-BBEE Act—No set criteria to determine racial classification? In: SERR Synergy. Available at: https://serr.co.za/who-qua lifies-as-black-in-terms-of-the-b-bbee-act-no-set-criteria-to-determine-racial (accessed 2 June 2021). Da Silva AB (2008) South African English: a sociolinguistic investigation of an emerging variety. Doctoral dissertation. Wits, Johannesburg. de Gruchy J (2000) The Chastening of the English-Speaking Churches in South Africa. In: van Vugt WE and Cloete GD (eds) Race and Reconciliation in South Africa. A Multicultural Dialogue in Comparative Perspective. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Lexington Books, pp. 37–51.

226

Bibliography

de Gruchy J (2006) Re-Forming Congregations in a Time of Global Change: Toward a Kenotic Ecclesiology. Princeton Seminary Bulletin 27(1): 51–66. Dewey J (1922) Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Holt. DeYoung CP, Emerson MO, Yancy G, et al. (2003) United by Faith: The Multiracial Congregation as an Answer to the Problem of Race. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Distiller N and Steyn M (2004) Introduction: Under Construction. In: Distiller N and Steyn M (eds) Under Construction: ‘Race’ and Identity in South Africa Today. Sandton: Heinemann, pp. 1–11. du Plessis RP (2017) Towards a Reconciling Church in South Africa. Doctor of Ministry. Duke University, Durham, NC. du Toit F (2017) A broken promise? Evaluating South Africa’s reconciliation process twenty years on. International Political Science Review 38(2): 169–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1177/0192512115594412. du Toit F (2018) When Political Transitions Work: Reconciliation as Interdependence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunne C and Üstünda˘g BG (2020) Successfully Managing the Literature Review and Writeup Process When Using Grounded Theory Methodology—A Dialogue in Exploration [42 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 21(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-21.1.3338. Durrheim K and Dixon J (2010) Racial Contact and Change in South Africa. Journal of Social Issues 66(2): 273–288. Earls R (2012) Book Review: Total Church: A Radical Reshaping Around Gospel and Community by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis. Great Commission Research Journal 3(2): 286–289. Eco U (2003) Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Emerson RM, Fretz RI and Shaw LL (2001) Participant Observation and Fieldnotes. In: Atkinson P, Coffey A, Delamont S, et al. (eds) Handbook of Ethnography. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 352–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608337. English Oxford Living Dictionaries (n.d.) atone. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries. com/definition/atone (accessed 13 January 2018). Erasmus JC (2005) Religion and social transformation: A case study from South Africa. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies 22(3): 139–148. Erasmus Z (2004) Undoing the Yoke of ‘Race’. In: Chidester D, Tayob A, and Weisse W (eds) Religion, Politics, And Identity in a Changing South Africa. Münster, New York: Waxmann, pp. 89–96. Erasmus Z (2010) Confronting the categories: Equitable admissions without apartheid race classification. South African Journal of Higher Education 24(2): 244–257. Erasmus Z and Garuba H (2017) The South African error: Restorative justice sans social recompense. In: Lefko-Everett K, Govender R, and Foster D (eds) Rethinking Reconciliation. Evidence from South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press, pp. 337–352. Etounga-Manguelle D (2000) Does Africa Need a Cultural Adjustment Program? In: Harrison LE and Huntington SP (eds) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York: Basic Books, pp. 65–78. Ferreira A and Schwieter JW (2017) Directionality in Translation. In: Schwieter JW and Ferreira A (eds) The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 90–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch5.

Bibliography

227

Fisher R (2007) Race. Auckland Park: Janana. Flämig S and Leiner M (2012) Reconciliation in the Middle of Dispute: Introduction to the Series. In: Leiner M and Flämig S (eds) Latin America between Conflict and Reconciliation. Göttingen & Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 7–19. Flett JG (2016) Apostolicity: The Ecumenical Question in World Christian Perspective. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Flick U (2014) Gütekriterien qualitativer Sozialforschung. In: Baur N and Blasius J (eds) Handbuch Methoden Der Empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 411–424. Flikschuh K (2014) The Idea of Philosophical Fieldwork: Global Justice, Moral Ignorance, and Intellectual Attitudes. The Journal of Political Philosophy 22(1): 1–26. Forster DA (2018) Translation and a politics of forgiveness in South Africa? What black Christians believe, and white Christians do not seem to understand. Stellenbosch Theological Journal 4(2): 77–93. Ganiel G (2007) Religion and transformation in South Africa?: Institutional and Discursive Change in a Charismatic Congregation. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa 63: 1–22. Ganiel G (2008) Is the Multiracial Congregation an Answer to the Problem of Race? Comparative Perspectives from South Africa and the USA. Journal of Religion in Africa 38(3): 263–283. Glaser BG and Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine. Gqola PD (2013) Love, language and anguish. In: A Renegade Called Simphiwe. Johannesburg: MFBooks. Habib A (2019) Rebels and Rage: Reflection on #feesmustfall. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball Publishers. Hadebe S (2013) The notion of a ‘rainbow nation’ and its consequences for indigenous black languages in South Africa. In: Jaywalking political discussions. Available at: https://shadebe.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/the-notion-of-a-rainbow-nation-andits-consequences-for-indigenous-black-languages-in-south-africa/ (accessed 21 August 2018). Hammersley M and Atkinson P (1995) Ethnography. Principles in Practice. 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge. Harries J (2012) The Great Delusion: Post-Colonial Language Policy for Mission and Development in Africa Reviewed. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies 29(1): 44–61. Harries J (2013a) Communication in Mission and Development. Relating to the Church in Africa. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock. Harries J (2013b) The Glaring Gap, Anthropology, Religion, and Christianity in African Development. Exchange 42: 232–251. Harries P (2001) Missionaries, Marxists and Magic: Power and the Politics of Literacy in South-East Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies 27(3): 405–427. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/13632430120074518. Hesselmans M (2016) Apart we pray? The struggle of South Africa’s Reformed churches to unite a divided nation. PhD Thesis. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Boston University.

228

Bibliography

Heugh K, Li X and Song Y (2017) Multilingualism and Translanguaging in the Teaching of and Through English: Rethinking Linguistic Boundaries in an Australian University. In: Fenton-Smith B, Humphreys P, and Walkinshaw I (eds) English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific. Multilingual Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 259–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51976-0_14. Hiebert PG (1999) Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts. Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World. Harriesburg, PA: Trinity Press International. Holland T (2019) Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. New York: Basic Books. Holton JA (2011) The Coding Process and Its Challenges. In: Bryant, Antony and Charmaz K (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: SAGE, pp. 265–289. Huddlestone KM and Fairhurst M (2013) The pragmatic markers anyway, okay, and shame: A South African English corpus study. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 42: 93– 110. Hurst E (2016) Navigating language: strategies, transitions, and the ‘colonial wound’ in South African education. Language and Education 30(3): 219–234. Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (2014) SA Reconciliation Barometer Survey: 2014 Report. Cape Town: Institute for Justice and Reconciliation. Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (2019) SA Reconciliation Barometer Survey: 2019 Report. Cape Town: Institute for Justice and Reconciliation. Jansen J (2009) Knowledge in the Blood. Confronting Race and the Apartheid Past. Stanford and Cape Town: Stanford University Press and UCT Press. Jaworski A and Coupland N (2014) Introduction: Perspectives on Discourse Analysis. In: Jaworski A and Coupland N (eds). Abingdon, New York: Routledge, pp. 1–35. Jennings WJ (2010) The Christian Imagination. Theology and the Origins of Race. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kamwangamalu NM (2008) Ubuntu in South Africa: A Sociolinguistic Perspective to a PanAfrican Concept. In: Asante MK, Miike Y, and Yin J (eds) The Global Intercultural Communication Reader. New York, London: Routledge, pp. 113–122. Kandur JL (2017) Words of Joy. Daily Sabah, 11 August. Available at: https://www.dailys abah.com/feature/2017/08/12/words-of-joy (accessed 15 March 2018). Knoblauch H (2014) Ethnographie. In: Baur N and Blasius J (eds) Handbuch Methoden Der Empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 521–528. König A (2006) Die Groot Geloofswoordeboek. Vereeniging: Christelike Uitgewersmaatskappy. Kramsch C (1998) Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kravtsev A (2014) Culture and the Gospel in Tim Keller and John Piper’s Preaching: A comparative Study. Course Paper. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Il. Kriesberg L (2001) Changing forms of coexistence. In: Abu-Nimer M (ed.) Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence. Lanham, Md.: Lexington, pp. 47–64. Kroesbergen H (2019) Religion without Belief and Community in Africa. Religions 10(4): 292. Krog A (2008) ‘This thing called reconciliation...’ forgiveness as part of an interconnectedness-towards-wholeness. South African Journal of Philosophy 27(4): 353–366.

Bibliography

229

Krog A (2013) Conditional Tense. Memory and Vocabulary after the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. London: Seagull. Krog A, Morris RC and Tonkin H (2010) Translation as reconciliation: A conversation about politics, translation, and multilingualism in South Africa. In: Tonkin, Humphrey and Frank ME (eds) The Translator as Mediator of Cultures. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 17–36. Krog A, Mpolweni-Zantsi N and Ratele K (2013) Ways of Knowing Mrs Konile: TRC and the Problem of Translation. In: Conditional Tense. Memory and Vocabulary after the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. London: Seagull, pp. 39–88. Kuiper K and Tan Gek Lin D (1989) Cultural congruence and conflict in the acquisition of formulae in a second language. In: García O and Otheguy R (eds) English across Cultures. Cultures across English: A Reader in Cross-Cultural Communication. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 281–304. Kwenda CV (2003) Cultural justice: the pathway to reconciliation and social cohesion. In: Chidester D, Dexter P, and James W (eds) What Holds Us Together: Social Cohesion in South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press, pp. 67–80. Lederach JP (2001) Five Qualities of Practice in Support of Reconciliation Processes. In: Helmick RGSJ and Petersen RL (eds) Forgiveness and Reconciliation. Philadelphia & London: Templeton Foundation Press, pp. 193–204. Lefko-Everett K, Govender R and Foster D (2017) Measuring social change in South Africa. In: Lefko-Everett K, Govender R, and Foster D (eds) Rethinking Reconciliation. Evidence from South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press, pp. 3–22. Lesufi P (2018) Language used as a barrier. News24, 21 January. Available at: https://www. news24.com/Columnists/GuestColumn/language-used-as-a-barrier-20180119 (accessed 26 February 2018). Lexico (2021a) integration. Available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/integration (accessed 10 December 2021). Lexico (2021b) wedding. Available at: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/wedding (accessed 26 April 2021). Lexico (2022) mission. Available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/mission (accessed 21 February 2022). Lo A and Chun E (2020) Language, Race, and Reflexivity: A View from Linguistic Anthropology. In: Alim HS, Reyes A, and Kroskrity PV (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Race. Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780190845995.013.2. Lucy JA (1997) Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26(1): 291–312. Maddison S (2013) Indigenous identity, ‘authenticity’ and the structural violence of settler colonialism. Identities 20(3): 288–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2013. 806267. Majozi P (2018) Ideology of victimhood is destroying our universities. News24, 27 June. Available at: https://www.news24.com/Columnists/GuestColumn/ideology-of-vic timhood-is-destroying-our-universities-20180627 (accessed 10 July 2018). Makalela L (2018) “Our academics are intellectually colonised”: Multi-languaging and Fees Must Fall. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 36(1): 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1452877.

230

Bibliography

Makoni M (2017a) ‘An opportunity for the university to change direction’. University World News Africa Edition, 26 August. Makoni M (2017b) The limitations of the decolonisation ‘moment’. University World News Africa Edition, 15 December. Available at: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article. php?story=20171215123042991 (accessed 23 August 2018). Makoni S (2005) Disinventing and (Re)Constituting Languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal 2(3): 137–156. Maldonado-Torres N (2016) Outline of Ten Theses on Coloniality and Decoloniality. In: Fondation Frantz Fanon. Available at: http://frantzfanonfoundation-fondationfrantz fanon.com/IMG/pdf/maldonado-torres_outline_of_ten_theses-10.23.16_.pdf (accessed 15 March 2018). Mamdani M (2000) A Diminished Truth. In: James W and Van de Vijver L (eds) After the TRC: Reflections on Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa. Cape Town: David Philip Publishers, pp. 58–61. Mangalwadi V (2011) The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Marcuse P (1995) Transitions in South Africa: to what? Monthly Review 47(6): 38+. Mayaba NN (2018) A reflection on language politics at Nelson Mandela University. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 36(1): 49–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 2989/16073614.2018.1452881. Mazrui A (1993) Language and the quest for liberation in Africa: the legacy of Frantz Fanon. Third World Quarterly 14(2): 351–363. Mbembe A (2015a) Achille Mbembe on The State of South African Political Life. Available at: http://africasacountry.com/2015/09/achille-mbembe-on-the-state-of-south-african-pol itics/ (accessed 25 July 2018). Mbembe A (2015b) Decolonizing Knowledge and the Question of the Archive. Available at: https://wiser.wits.ac.za/system/files/Achille%20Mbembe%20-%20Decolonizing%20K nowledge%20and%20the%20Question%20of%20the%20Archive.pdf (accessed 17 July 2018). McKinney C (2007) ‘If I speak English, does it make me less black anyway?’ ‘Race’ and English in South African desegregated schools. English Academy Review 24(2): 6–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10131750701452253. Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meiring PGJ (2005) Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: the role of the faith communities. Verbum et Ecclesia 26(1): 146–173. Mignolo WD (1995) The Darker Side of the Renaissance. Literacy, Territoriality, and Colonization. The University of Michigan Press. Mignolo WD (2007) Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality. Cultural Studies 21(2–3): 449–514. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1080/09502380601162647. Mkhize D (2018) The language question at a historically Afrikaans university: Access and social justice issues. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 36(1): 13–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1452878. Moreiras A (2012) The Fatality of (My) Subalternism: A Response to John Beverley. CR: The New Centennial Review 12(2): 217–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ncr.2012.0057.

Bibliography

231

Moses AD (2011) Official apologies, reconciliation, and settler colonialism: Australian indigenous alterity and political agency. Citizenship Studies 15(2): 145–159. Mraˇcek D (2018) Inverse translation: the more challenging direction. Linguistica Pragensia 2: 202–221. Müller R (2015) The Zion Christian Church and Global Christianity: negotiating a tightrope between localisation and globalisation. Religion 45(2): 174–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1080/0048721X.2014.992111. Mwaniki M, van Reenen D and Makalela L (2018) Advanced language politics in South African higher education post #RhodesMustFall. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 36(1): iii–v. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.145 2876. Ndlovu-Gatsheni SJ (2013) Why Decoloniality in the 21st Century? The Thinker 48(February): 10–15. Ndlovu-Gatsheni SJ (2014) Eurocentrism, Coloniality and the Myths of Decolonisation of Africa.The Thinker 59(1): 34–39. Ndlovu-Gatsheni SJ (2015) Decoloniality as the Future of Africa. History Compass 13(10): 485–496. Neuman WL (2011) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Pearson. Oden TC (2009) How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind: Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity. Westmont: InterVarsity Press. Ogot BA (1999) Reintroducing Man Into the African World. Kisumu: Anyanga Press. Ogunnaike O (2016) From Heathen to Sub-Human: A Genealogy of the Influence of the Decline of Religion on the Rise of Modern Racism. Open Theology 2(1): 785–803. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2016-0059. Oliver C (2012) Critical Realist Grounded Theory: A New Approach for Social Work Research. British Journal of Social Work 42(2): 371–387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ bjsw/bcr064. Orman J (2008) Language Policy and National-Building in Post-Apartheid South Africa. New York, Heidelberg: Springer. Parker D (1991) Evangelical Spirituality Reviewed. The Evangelical Quarterly 63(2): 123– 148. Pattman R and Carolissen R (eds) (2018a) Transforming Transformation in Research and Teaching in South African Universities. Cape Town: Sun Press. Pattman R and Carolissen R (2018b) Transforming Transformation in Research and Teaching in South African Universities: An Introduction. In: Pattman R and Carolissen R (eds) Transforming Transformation in Research and Teaching in South African Universities. Cape Town: Sun Press, pp. 1–30. Pearsall J (ed.) (1998) The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Perkins S and Rice C (2000) More Than Equals: Racial Healing for the Sake of the Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. Pfeifer W (n. d.) Versöhnung. In: Etymologisches Wörterbuch Des Deutschen. Online: Das Wortauskunftssystem zur deutschen Sprache in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Available at: https://www.dwds.de/wb/Versöhnung (accessed 13 January 2018).

232

Bibliography

Postma M and Postma D (2011) Who is laughing last in the South African classroom? A critical reflection on language in education. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 29(1): 43–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2011.583156. Prah KK (2009) The Burden of English in Africa: From Colonialism to Neo-Colonialism. Keynote Address presented to the Department of English: 5th International Conference on the theme: Mapping Africa in the English-Speaking World. University of Botswana. 2nd—4th June, 2009. Probyn M (2005) Language and the Struggle to Learn: The Intersection of Classroom Realitites, Language Policy, and Neocolonial and Globalisation Discourses in South African Schools. In: Lin AMY and Martin PW (eds) Decolonisation, Globalisation: Languagein-Education Policy and Practice. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters, pp. 153–172. Rakotsoane F (2010) Transcendence in African traditional religions. In: Homo transcendentalis? Transcendence in science and religion : interdisciplinary perspectives. 16th conference of the South African Science and Religion Forum (SASRF) of the Research Institute for Theology and Religion held at the University of South Afri, 2010. Ratele K (2018) Is University Transformation about Assimilation into Slightly Tweaked Traditions? In: Pattman R and Carolissen R (eds) Transforming Transformation in Research and Teaching in South African Universities. Cape Town: Sun Press, pp. 51–72. REACH SA (2014) Handbook of Procedures. Available at: http://reachsa.org.za/wp-content/ uploads/2017/02/02.-Handbook-2014.docx (accessed 29 April 2022). Ricœur P (1995) Reflections on a new ethos for Europe. Philosophy & Social Criticism 21(5/6): 3–13. Rieger J (2013) Instigating Class Struggle? The Study of Class in Religion and Theology and Some Implications for Gender, Race, and Ethnicity. In: Rieger J (ed.) Religion, Theology, and Class: Fresh Engagements after Long Silence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 190–211. Rosa J and Flores N (2020) Reimagining Race and Language: From Raciolinguistic Ideologies to a Raciolinguistic Perspective. In: Alim HS, Reyes A, and Kroskrity PV (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Race. Oxford University Press, pp. 89–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190845995.013.3. Ross R (2016) Settler Colonialism in South Africa, 1652-1899. In: Cavanagh E and Veracini L (eds) The Routledge Handbook of the History of Settler Colonialism. Abingdon, New York: Routledge, pp. 187–200. Rudwick S (2018) Rhodes Had to Fall, but King George Still Stands: Two South African universities compared. In: Pattman R and Carolissen R (eds) Transforming Transformation in Research and Teaching in South African Universities. Cape Town: Sun Press, pp. 485–502. Ryen A (2011) Exploring or exporting? Qualitative methods in times of globalisation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 14(6): 439–453. Sandelowski M (2008) Member Check. In: Given L (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 501–502. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 4135/9781412963909. Santos B de S (2016) Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. London New York: Routledge. Sayaheen B and Darwish I (2020) Revisiting Directionality in Translation Studies. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures 12(1): 123–137.

Bibliography

233

Schaap A (2005) Political Reconciliation. London, New York: Routledge. Schäfer M (2010) Mathematics Registers in Indigenous Languages: Experiences from South Africa. In: Sparrow L, Kissane B, and Hurst C (eds) Shaping the Future of Mathematics Education: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Fremantle: MERGA, pp. 509–514. Scheepers J (2019) What is Cross Centred Justice? In: Isiphambano Centre for Biblical Justice. Available at: https://www.isiphambano.com/talks/what-is-cross-centred-jus tice (accessed 30 April 2021). Serres M (1992) Le tiers-instruit. Paris: Gallimard. Shaffir W (1998) Doing Ethnographic Research in Jewish Orthodox Communities. In: Grills S (ed.) Doing Ethnographic Research. Fieldwork Settings. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE, pp. 48–64. Sharifian F (2003) On Cultural Conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3(3): 187–207. Sharifian F (2017) Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam/PA: John Benjamins. Soudien C (2004) Constituting the class. In: Changing Class. Cape Town: HSRC, pp. 89– 114. Spivak GC (1993) Outside in the Teaching Machine. New York: Routledge. Staub E and Pearlman LA (2001) Healing, Reconciliation, and Forgiving after Genocide and Other Collective Violence. In: Helmick RGSJ and Petersen RL (eds) Forgiveness and Reconciliation. Philadelphia & London: Templeton Foundation Press, pp. 205–227. Stevens G, Franchi V and Swart T (eds) (2006) A RACE against Time. Psychology and Challenges to Deracialisation in South Africa. Pretoria: UNISA Press. Steyn M (2001a) Whiteness in the Rainbow: Experiencing the Loss of Privilege in the New South Africa. In: Hamilton C V., Huntley L, Alexander N, et al. (eds) Beyond Racism. Race and Inequality in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States. Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 85–103. Steyn M (2001b) ‘Whiteness Just Isn’t What It Used To Be’. White Identity in a Changing South Africa. New York: State University of New York Press Albany. Strauss A and Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE. Stroud, Christopher, and Caroline Kerfoot. ‘Decolonizing Higher Education: Multilingualism, Linguistic Citizenship and Epistemic Justice’. In Language and Decoloniality in Higher Education: Reclaiming Voices from the South, 19–46. London: Bloomsbury, 2021. Strübing J (2014) Grounded Theory and Theoretical Sampling. In: Baur N and Blasius J (eds) Handbuch Methoden Der Empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 457–472. Swartz S (2016) Another Country. Everyday Social Restitution. Cape Town: BestRed. Swartz S, Arogundade E and Davis D (2014) Unpacking (white) privilege in a South African university classroom: A neglected element in multicultural educational contexts. Journal of Moral Education 43(3): 345–361. Swartz S, Mahali A, Moletsane R, et al. (2018) Studying While Black: Race, Education and Emancipation in South African Universities. Cape Town: HSRC Press. ter Haar G and Ellis S (2006) The Role of Religion in Development: Towards a New Relationship between the European Union and Africa. The European Journal of Development Research 18(3): 351–367.

234

Bibliography

Thakhathi A (2018) On non-racialism and freedom of speech - lessons from Germany. Available at: https://www.news24.com/Columnists/GuestColumn/on-non-racialism-andfreedom-of-speech-lessons-from-germany-20180918 (accessed 18 September 2018). Thesnaar C (2012) A Pastoral Hermeneutical Approach to Reconciliation and Healing: A South African Perspective. In: Leiner M and Flämig S (eds) Latin America between Conflict and Reconciliation. Göttingen & Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 215– 230. Thesnaar CH (2017) Decolonisation and renewed racism: A challenge and opportunity for reconciliation? HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 73(3). Thomas LE (1997) South African Independent Churches, Syncretism, and Black Theology. The Journal of Religious Thought 53/54(2/1): 39–50. Thomas LE (1999) Under the Canopy: Ritual Process and Spiritual Resilience in South Africa. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Thornton RJ (2017) Healing the Exposed Being: A South African Ngoma Tradition. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. Timmermans S and Tavory I (2011) Advancing Ethnographic Research through Grounded Theory Practice. In: Bryant A and Charmaz K (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: SAGE, pp. 493–512. Tshehla SM (2002) ‘Can Anything Good come out of Africa?’ Reflections of a South African Mosotho Reader of the Bible. Journal of African Christian Thought 5(1): 15–24. Tshehla SM (2003) Translation and the Vernacular Bible in the Debate between My ‘Traditional’ and Academic Worldviews. In: Draper JA (ed.) Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Southern Africa. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, pp. 171–187. Tshela SM (2002) ‘Can Anything Good come out of Africa?’ Reflections of a South African Mosotho Reader of the Bible. Journal of African Christian Thought 5(1): 15–24. van der Merwe H (2003) The Role of the Church in Promoting Reconciliation in Post-TRC South Africa. In: Religion and Reconciliation in South Africa. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, pp. 269–281. van der Westhuizen C (2017) Rejuvenating reconciliation with transformation. In: LefkoEverett K, Govender R, and Foster D (eds) Rethinking Reconciliation. Evidence from South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press, pp. 168–192. van Wyk GJ (ed.) (2003) Etimologiewoordeboek van Afrikaans. Stellenbosch: WAT. van Wyngaard C (2013) The church as alternative community and the struggle for liberation in the work of David Bosch. NGTT—Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 54(3 & 4): 87–97. van Wyngaard C (2014) The Language of “Diversity” in Reconstructing Whiteness in the Dutch Reformed Church. In: Smith RD, Ackah W, and Reddie AG (eds) Churches, Blackness, and Contested Multiculturalism: Europe, Africa, and North America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 157–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137386380_12. van Wyngaard C (2015) Whiteness and Public Theology: An Exploration of Listening. Missionalia 43(3): 478–492. van Zyl Slabbert F (2000) Truth without Reconciliation, Reconciliation without Truth. In: James W and Van de Vijver L (eds) After the TRC: Reflections on Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa. Cape Town: David Philip Publishers, pp. 62–72. Vandeginste S (2003) Reparation. In: Bloomfield D, Barnes T, and Huyse L (eds) Reconciliation after Violent Conflict: A Handbook. Stockholm: International IDEA, pp. 147–162.

Bibliography

235

Venter D (1995) Mending the Multi-Coloured Coat of a Rainbow Nation: Cultural accommodation in ethnically-mixed urban congregations. Missionalia 23(3): 312–338. Venter D (1997) Silencing Babel? Language preference in voluntary associations—evidence from multi-cultural congregations. In: Multicultural Citizenship in the ‘New’ South Africa. Cape Town. Veracini L (2014) Understanding Colonialism and Settler Colonialism as Distinct Formations. Interventions 16(5): 615–633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2013. 858983. Veronelli GA (2015) The Coloniality of Language: Race, Expressivity, Power, and the Darker Side of Modernity. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s & Gender Studies 13: 108–138. Vickers E (2020) Critiquing coloniality, ‘epistemic violence’ and western hegemony in comparative education—the dangers of ahistoricism and positionality. Comparative Education 56(2): 165–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2019.1665268. Villa-Vicencio C (1996) Wunder der Apartheid. Rheinischer Merkur, 20 May. Villa-Vicencio C (2000) On the Limitations of Academic History: The Quest for Truth Demands Both More and Less. In: James W and Van de Viijver L (eds) After the TRC: Reflections on Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa. Cape Town: David Philip Publishers, pp. 21–31. Villa-Vicencio C (2004) Reconciliation. In: Pieces of the Puzzle: Keywords on Reconciliation and Transitional Justice. Cape Town: Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, pp. 3–9. Viveiros de Castro E (2004) Perspectival Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Equivocation. Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America 2(1): 3–22. Volf M (2001) Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Justice: A Christian Contribution to a More Peaceful Social Environment. In: Forgiveness and Reconciliation. Religion, Public Policy, and Conflict Transformation. Philadelphia & London: Templeton Foundation Press. wa Thiong’o N (1986) Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. London, Nairobi: James Currey, Heinemann Kenya. Wasserman R and van Rooy B (2014) The Development of Modals of Obligation and Necessity in White South African English through Contact with Afrikaans. Journal of English Linguistics 42(1): 31–50. Wiredu K (1996) Cultural Universals and Particulars: An African Perspective. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Wiredu K (2004) Truth and an African Language. In: Brown LM (ed.) African Philosophy: New and Traditional Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 35–50. Wolff E (2018) Africa failing to address linguistic imperialism. University World News, 23 February. 494th ed. Available at: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php? story=20180222092733807 (accessed 27 February 2018). Wrogemann H (2011) Auf dass sie alle eins seien—Missionstheologische Impulse aus Deutschland. In: 9. Deutsch-Koreanische Kirchenkonsultation, 28th-30th March 2011, Wittenberg, 2011. (manuscript). Wrogemann H (2016) Intercultural Hermeneutics (tran. KE Böhmer). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Wrogemann H (2018) Theologies of Mission (tran. KE Böhmer). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

236

Bibliography

Wüstenberg RK (2014) Reconciliation as a Political Option? Different Ways of Dealing with the Past—The Case of South Africa. In: Leiner M, Palme M, and Stöckner P (eds) Societies in Transition. Sub-Saharan Africa between Conflict and Reconciliation. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 135–151.