Undoubtedly, there is a direct link between democracy, freedom of speech, and the diversity of the media. Currently, according to the World Press Freedom Index, South Africa got in the second “satisfactory” category (Daniels). Indeed, the country’s constitution proclaims freedom of the press and other media; however, in reality, the situation is different. This essay will look at the evolution of the media in South Africa and the place of art in the post-apartheid period.
Moreover, it will expand on the topics of national and individual identity. The particular focus is given to the case of misunderstanding caused by conceptual photographs by an African American artist. Another case is devoted to the censorship of Inxeba films. The two key sources are analytical articles that deal with censorship and freedom of expression in South Africa. The primary article of Lynsey Chutel talks about the freedom of expression in art. The article of Liana Maasdorp explores the politics of censorship and its historical evolution in the context of social justice.
An Overview and the Historical Background
Since 1978, when president Botha came into power, the freedom of expression and media has started to deteriorate. He expanded the State of Emergency restrictions that blocked the flow of independent reporting of events. Despite these restrictions, some journalists continued to publish materials about controversial issues, which led to another wave of governmental control measures. In 1988 the government required journalists to get official permission from the Home Affairs Ministry (“Restrictions on the Media”). Interestingly enough, this process was controlled by a single person – minister Stoffel Botha. These efforts were met with resistance from the business community. As a result, this registration procedure was not enacted further, but it did not stop the government from other actions.
It should be noted that radio and television are licensed by the government. There is also a cartel of four major newspaper groups that mostly rely on revenues from advertising. Therefore, the main audience is white people who can afford to buy advertised goods or services. This underlying segregation leads to unequal access to information. Two mainstream papers, World and Sunday Post, were banned in the late 1970s because they wanted to break the media framework that favored white people (“Restrictions on the Media”). Nowadays, online media is growing as a primary source of information. Newspapers and television are losing their position as the younger generation chooses online platforms rather than conventional ones.
Freedom of Expression in Art and the Case of Inxeba
The conceptual artist Hank Willis Thomas recreated some of the photographs by other artists in a series called History Doesn’t Laugh. His idea was to put images of the past in another context to present the history of South Africa (“Hank Willis Thomas. History doesn’t laugh”). He sourced original pieces of photographs, graphics, and audio recordings from archived publications. However, an anti-apartheid photographer from South Africa, Peter Magubane, expressed negative feedback because his work had been used without permission.
This incident ignited the debate about appropriation and the right of an artist to an unbiased representation. Even though legal consequences followed, Hank Thomas remained adamant “It’s a dangerous moment when we start to tell people what they can and can’t talk about, what they can and can’t focus on when they’re making art” (Chantel). Magubane lived during apartheid, and it could be challenging for him to look at history through someone else’s lenses. Nowadays, it is becoming evident that artists with various cultural backgrounds perceive collective memory and national identity differently. The freedom of expression in art is the cornerstone of a democratic society where opinions are not obstacles for unity.
Inxeba Censorship and the Public Opinion
Inxeba (The Wound) dwells on the love story between two men from the Xhosa ethnic group who meet during the annual initiation process. The essential question that the film raises is the possibility for a gay person to identify as a man. In African communities, cultural traditions tend to support specific attributes of masculinity. Hence, it is a lot harder for males to find an alternative way of living. In other words, the producers of the film wanted to attract attention to this issue by telling a real story of people struggling to obtain their masculinity. Film and Publication Board gave the film X18 classification, which means that it can be screened only as adult entertainment.
This decision has evoked disapproval and misunderstanding among the public because it reminds of apartheid policies. During apartheid, many films were banned as they portrayed interracial relationships and values different from Christian ones. Inxeba censorship, as noted by Maasdorp, proves that the Board “has claimed for itself a paternalistic role, attempting to dictate what South African audiences may and may not see.” This paternalistic role is supposed to protect people from forming their own opinions. The most significant point is that the censorship decision was not objective because the film did not meet minimum legal requirements. There will not be trust in the South African society unless the government looks at these stories objectively. Public opinion showcases how continuous censorship does not allow people to widen their inner boundaries. The fact that other men do not relate to the experience of the heroes should not fully determine their opinion.
Conclusion
Freedom of expression and press determines the level of public awareness and social justice. The case of Inxeba demonstrates how public authorities employ information as a manipulative weapon. This approach deprives people of their right to disclose stories of real life, even if the general mass of people is not ready to face them. This approach also deprives people of their right to form opinions in response to controversial situations like the one described in Inxeba. Hence, the segregation of the highly polarised South African society deepens. The cultural clash brought out by the provocative rating tag disrupts social stability and creates mistrust. It segregates those who are different, those who prefer to stay in the shade because of their queer nature.
Films and photographs are unique pieces of art that deliver topical messages to the public. Censorship and disapproval of artworks lead to the conclusion that there are attempts to form a new national identity. These attempts do not take the collective memory that unites all South Africans into account. Collective memory is an evolving attribute of the national identity that contributes to the country’s cultural capital. Single political acts of censoring art pieces will unavoidably lead to more conflicts. The power to sustain the national identity belongs to people of all skin colors and religious beliefs. Artists can be in charge of a social breakthrough to help people in South Africa to feel free and empowered.
- The list of specific vocabulary:
- The post-apartheid society;
- Masculinity;
- Freedom of expression;
- Censorship policies;
- The national identity;
- Social justice;
- Collective memory.
- The list of constructions:
- According to;
- The author claims;
- Despite the fact that;
- It should be noted that;
- The case of Inxeba demonstrates;
- Hence.
Works Cited
“Hank Willis Thomas. History doesn’t laugh. Goodman Gallery, 2020. Web.
“Restrictions on the Media“. South African History Online, 2020.
Chutel, Lynsey. “An African American Artist’s “Remixing” of Apartheid-Era Images Raises Appropriation Questions“. Quartz Africa, 2018.
Daniels, Glenda. “How South Africa Ranks in the Press Freedom Stakes“. The Conversation, 2019.
Maasdorp, Liani. “South Africa Returns to Apartheid-Era Censorship with the Banning of Inxeba”. The Conversation, 2018, Web.