SOAS: Language of race needs engagement

I have deliberately chosen not to use the full n-word in this piece as I would like the detractors of the former vice-chancellor and principal of the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), Professor Adam Habib, to contemplate a little more deeply their position and think more about the consequences of their actions.

It would be futile for me to exacerbate an already volatile discussion at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London on the use of the full n-word.

It is universally understood that the full n-word used on another human being is unacceptable. This horrible word has been used to disparage, insult, dehumanise and subjugate black African people for centuries.

It has its origins in the slave trade to Western shores, and so the connotations are deep and painful. We, as a human nation, still need to heal from those many generations of severe crimes against humanity. Perhaps we never will?

A generosity of spirit

I believe that we must make every effort to move toward greater reconciliation, even though it is possible that we might never get there completely.

To borrow a physics concept, we should move toward ‘asymptotic freedom’, meaning that we should put in every effort to attain a more utopian and just society, free of racial prejudice, even if we might never get there in human time.

This calls for open discussion, an intellectual engagement, respect for other views, and a generosity of spirit about race and racism if we genuinely want to address the inequities of the past.

So what does all of this have to do with the controversy that has broken out at SOAS surrounding the use of the full n-word? It is common cause that Habib did not use this word on another person.

He did not deliberately disparage anyone or go out of his way to insult someone. He did not use this word in anger. So, the issue has everything to do with how the full n-word was interpreted by those listening in.

As I understand it, members of the audience objected to hearing the n-word said out in full. Evidently, they would have been fine with the intellectual engagement that was under way if only the term ‘n-word’ had been used.

Intellectual dishonesty

I cannot understand this position at all. I doubt that we can pretend that the full n-word does not exist. There will be many instances in life today when it will make sense to use the full n-word. For instance, if you wrote a fictional piece set during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, it would be unnatural not to use the full n-word.

I suggest that, in an intellectual discourse pertaining to that era, it would be understandable if this word were used, dissected, interpreted and analysed in that context.

To avoid using this term explicitly in an essentially intellectual discourse or to pretend that it does not exist is to be intellectually dishonest.

I can imagine young Sarah coming home from school and asking her Mum: “The teacher said that we should not use the n-word. What is the n-word, Mummy?”

The educated response by her mother would be to explain honestly and completely why the full n-word is not acceptable use in society.

To not use the full n-word in her explanation, Sarah’s mother would be denying her little one a genuine education on modern-day race and race relations, to no one’s benefit.

Questionable position

I thought that one of the SOAS students suggested that only black African people have the right to use the full n-word.

If this is, indeed, the position, then I find this to be questionable. Who gets to decide on who has the monopoly to use the full n-word these days?

I see that there are references to studies and intellectuals who have drawn these conclusions. I say that this is ironical as I see it as taking a racist stance. It is probably cultural, too.

I can see how some societies will not flinch at the use of the full n-word if it is used in an intellectual context, but others who wish to be cocooned in a politically more correct world will want to make an issue about it. I think that context does matter here.

Resentment at being called a racist

I can see how Habib’s detractors are keen to heighten the awareness around racism and the pain and suffering that comes from using the full n-word on people, and I get that, and I applaud every effort that we can take to make people more aware of the need to address endemic racism in society.

However, I suggest that the students at SOAS are going about it the wrong way.

They are certainly exploiting, very effectively I think, the resentment that many have today at being called a racist, and so you will see that not many will want to stand up and stick their necks out to defend Habib lest they, themselves, be labelled racist.

It is very convenient to sacrifice the new director of the SOAS at the altar of political correctness if we can be seen to be taking a stand against racism.

I see this as pitiful and lacking in moral judgment, for the appropriation of the language of race needs a much more nuanced and ongoing political and intellectual engagement than we have come to experience through this episode.

What does this say about race and racism elsewhere in the world? Let me explore a few thoughts from my South African perspective.

Race in South Africa

Indians were brought by the British to the then Natal province of South Africa under an indentured labour system which was, 150 years ago, a form of modern-day slavery.

They were referred to as ‘coolies’ and official documents and newspaper articles of that time referred to Indian immigrants as such.

As a young child growing up in rural Natal in the 1970s, I was called that, by people of different hues, it turns out.

Today, it is universally considered to be an ugly word, and is not used widely and it would be objectionable if this were used as an attack on someone else. But, the other day, I heard a comedian use this term, and that drew a laugh, and I did not feel offended.

It would be quite weird if someone declared that this term does not exist any more. Context matters.

Similarly, it would be odd for anyone to refer to Mark Mathabane’s 1986 autobiography as K-word Boy, and the same for the sequel to his best-seller.

At Wits University we have the more than 30-year-old Rock Art Research Institute which has conducted some pioneering work in interpreting and re-interpreting the art of the San people.

The academics there are making a valiant attempt to change the terminology and nomenclature that were used in the past. The term ‘Bushman’ is considered derogatory and is not acceptably used on the San people who are indigenous to Southern Africa.

Changing the mindset of South Africans toward the San people is requiring an ongoing education and a more protracted discourse that will eventually gain much greater traction for generations to come than simply banning the term ‘Bushman’. The latter action would be politically convenient, but hardly genuinely life changing.

Oppose denialism

Each day I drive to work, I pass by the BJ Vorster off-ramp, and I am reminded, even for a fleeting moment, about the pain and suffering that this apartheid-era prime minister meted out towards people of colour.

It is great that the name of this road has not been changed to another to hide this awful history because it keeps me thinking each day about how far we have come in post-apartheid South Africa.

If we want to genuinely address racism in society today – and it is prevalent – we would do well not to deny or to ignore the history of racism.

The words that were used to entrench that racism were a powerful weapon that cannot be wished away and should not be forgotten. To do so would be to close our eyes to new understandings of where we are today and how we got here.

Professor Nithaya Chetty is dean of the faculty of science at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, and vice president of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. He writes in his personal capacity. This is a commentary.