Shane Moran - Alternation Journal
Shane Moran - Alternation Journal
Shane Moran - Alternation Journal
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
constructing an audience<br />
I hey Ivant angel to be buried<br />
in the carved tomb ofve~se<br />
(Evans in Fe~nberg 1980 20Q<br />
ically excluded by the apartheid dispensation. By diminishing the complex<br />
readers assumed by resistance writers (including the sympathetic audiences<br />
re developing overseas), and presenting themselves as the sole 01- most<br />
ant audience, the conservative liberals tried to increase their control over the<br />
on of the literature. Ndebele (1 991 :45) raises the implicit contradiction in such a<br />
It is possible that some resistance writers inay have written for a liberal wl~i<br />
for reasons that have to do with power and access: the effects of liberal<br />
which suggcsi-cd the natrlraIness ofsuch a readership; a belief that this was<br />
universal receptioll; the pressure upon emerging writers in a highly stratified societ<br />
accept a margii~ai identity in the cultural spaces ofa dominant group; a desperatio~i t<br />
published; or a belief that little else was possible, given the level of political repress<br />
Such factors as the levels of literacy in English among tlre African<br />
population would objectively point towards a particular audience: an<br />
English-speaking liberal one at that. But that audience. schooled under a<br />
Eurocentric Literary tradition, was in turn. schooled to reject this literature<br />
'meant' for them.<br />
However, most resistance writers' struggles for equality tended to info~~n tl<br />
relatioi~ships with all their audiences, ruling out the obsequious literature of cornpl<br />
the late- 1960s most activist-writers (like Matthews) responded by focusing their<br />
s notjust on the State but on conservative liberal attempts at containing resistance<br />
that camc parcelled with the liberal appellation. Ndebele's (1983:44t) objection to t<br />
e. Black Consciousness writers, in particular, challenged the self-serving<br />
title Ask Any Black Man challenges the hegemonic assumptions regarding the audien<br />
ers that legitimated a familiar authoritative interpretive community. Ndebele<br />
of protest literature. While such a title directs the anthology of (mainly) resista<br />
poems towards liberal whites (implicit in the power-laden issue of who does t<br />
5) comments sceptically that:<br />
asking), it reinforces the conservative liberals' position that 'protest literature'<br />
directed primarily towards themselves. Ndebele's (1 991:45) continuing disquiet<br />
Conventional wisdom proclaims that [protest] literature was premised on its<br />
supposed appeal to the conscience of the white oppressor.<br />
these constructions of audience is evident in his assessment, years later, that '[t]<br />
question ofthe audience for this "protest literature" is a problematic one'.<br />
Many resistance poets had complex notions of their intended audiences. T<br />
radical writer James Matthews treated his different audiences in quite distinct ways:<br />
Through the construct of protest literature liberal intellectuals installed<br />
selves as the intended audience of resistance writers with the suggestion that as a<br />
pathetic portion ofthe ruling bloc they would intercede on behalf of the oppressed.<br />
manoeuvre is captured in Anne McClintock's (1 987:229) description of them as<br />
Cry Ruge! is manifestly intended for two kinds of reader, by definition very tactful scluadrons of nioral teachers. advisors. and bewilderers [bvho] coax<br />
different from each other: lo Iiis white readers, Matthews shouts his disgust those who are ruled into admitting the legitimacy and 'universality' of the<br />
and warns of the approaching 'day of anger'. while he tries to open the eyes ruler's values".<br />
of his black readers to their subjection and to instill in them courage and<br />
pride (quotcd by Alvarez-Pereyre 1984:20). vet there was - great silence about their attendant responsibilities; all that was<br />
Owing to the structural violence of apartheid (which had consequences for educati<br />
s the presence of a fastidious audience. The strategy served to strengthen the<br />
of the conservative liberal hegemony, while freeing the supposed<br />
language policies, library facilities and the identity of the book-buying public'"), t<br />
essories from action and accountability. That Ndebele (1991 :45) has been alert to<br />
construction of emerging readers was largely an act of faith on the part of the writ<br />
ntradiction is evident in his persistent question:<br />
who anticipated and fostered their development. By inserting themselves as<br />
principal audience these liberals further marginalised or negated people who had be<br />
"'<br />
----.-<br />
111 South Afiica the differences he!wcen tile implied/inte~~cicd reader aird tile actual re<br />
arc typically polarisei!. 'Tlic pnbiisl~cr i2dl.iaaii i3onkcr (1998) believes tiini \\#liite Eng<br />
speaking liberals were tile niain buyers ol'ilic i~iltiiologics oi'iitc resistnnce poets Ile pi~blisiicd<br />
Llic 1970s. Do~ikcr lras reason to believe tllat a signilicai~t n11i11i1er ofhlack township yoiltl~ he'<br />
the poetry of the resistance poets, and he feels tltcse is a coiincction hctivceii the resistaiicc poe<br />
and the June 1976 r~pi.isiiig.<br />
But what of the audience for whom this literature was not 'objectively'<br />
meant? What about the effective audience?<br />
is the key issue. Although it is not addressed directly in the essay in which it is<br />
ey responded to political and economic crisis by railing against the 'sacrifice of the<br />
ic rules of the craft for political ends, formal ineptitude, loss of individual expression and<br />
lity' (McClintock 1987:247f).