Shane Moran - Alternation Journal

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