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.
taking up the inco~nplete democratic and social tasks in a sti-uggle for workers' power.<br />
.lust as the social context of the 1980s affected the clirnate of historiography, so does the<br />
'uncompletedrevolution' context ofthe 1990s.<br />
Coasting with the tide in the 1980s, social history has attracted powerful<br />
compliments. Terence Ranger (1991 :5), though critical of aspects of'its 'radicalness',<br />
has celebrated its achicvernents as 'dynamic and committed and honest'. Sllula Marks<br />
(1.386) has called the rewriting represented in the work of revisionist scholars a<br />
'revolution in our undel-standing of South African history'. Eric Foner (1995: 166). the<br />
celebl.::led liniied Slates historian, has described South Akican social history as Ilaving<br />
;?reduced 'seine of the world's finest historical scholarship' in this vein. tie argues that<br />
tile social historians have 'rewritten Soutlt African l~istoly to ctnphasise the experie~tce<br />
of black lal?onreis in I-ural areas and in urban tnines and industries' and that 'it gave<br />
il()i~~<br />
to those excluded i-'rom traditional accounts, often tl~rough oral histories that<br />
allowed ordinai-y pcopie torelate their lives and express theiraspirations'.<br />
Thc consonance of popular revolutionism and radical history-making in the<br />
acaderily in the 1980s introduced some heady ideas. It was believed that academic<br />
histay, as social histoty, could become popularised: translated into the conception of<br />
history held by 'the masses'. The atmosphere was captured by Colin Bundy<br />
(1 990: I39t) in the following terms:<br />
behets ~npopulalis~ttloil on the constluctlon ofh~sto~ rn the academ) '<br />
Consciously or not, the urge to 'popula~rsitt~on' of revlc~onist h ~sto~<br />
const~tuted an ~ntervent~on ru the polrt~cal arena In thls respect, In orrt vtew,<br />
spokespersons of Ii~story Workshop can be cr~ticlsed for a belief ~n the 'upl~ft~ng' role<br />
ofthe rntcllectual qua ~ntellectual'~ In a reflectwe prece at the end of the 1980s Boz~oli<br />
contrasted the 'Gramsclan' concept of thls ole from what she regarded as the<br />
'hlthusserran'<br />
Forging an alternative set of historical interpretations ~vould challenge<br />
hegemony on a lrigll level: but making these new interpretations popular<br />
would provide the already-conscientized masses with greater insiglrt and<br />
understanding of the structural conditions they confronted. The essentially<br />
Gvalnscian aim of raising the capacity of the mass of the people for self<br />
emancipation--so that the popularisation of history involved a process of<br />
empowerment of the people thernsclves-ran against the Althusserian idea<br />
that emancipation would come from above and from 'theory'. Gramscians<br />
stood somewhere between a belief in tlre subordination ofthc intellectual to<br />
the movement, and one in the subol-dination of tlie movement to theory<br />
(Bozzoli 1990:24lc see also Bozzoli 1983:8).<br />
hat Bozzoli llere calls 'Althusserian' is that mis-interpretation of Lenin's Wh~t is lo<br />
the ivory tower has already been breached by popular pressures: grappling<br />
irons promise f~lrther to scale its \valls. and its base of acadelllic autonomy is<br />
Don$ which is held by Communist Parties and inany Trotskyist groupjets: the idea<br />
being undermined .... South African radical historians inhabit a present that<br />
workers are capable only of 'trade-union consciousness' and that 'socialisln' must<br />
makes con1pl~ehension of the past seem particularly important. ~ ‘ l ~ ~ i ~<br />
rought to theln from outside by intel~ectuals'~. In fact Bozzoli's characterisation of<br />
society's histor). docs not present itself meekly for exatniuation. It jnt~-~dC~, the 'Gramscian' does not entirely escape this". Moreover, an 'intellectual' is<br />
ficrcc and feverisll, baring its deformities, and demanding ilnmediate<br />
attention.<br />
The attendance at Wits History Workshop 'open days', the support of the NECC for<br />
'people's history' projects, etc. all encouraged such a belief.<br />
The turn to negotiations ir-r the 1990s and the resultant de~nobilisation of a<br />
mass rnovelnent has transformed the conditions for the 'popularisation' ofhistory. With<br />
politics in the 1990s now more concerned with the 'pacting of elites' rather than<br />
eruptions of the masses, once again 'histoly' is made 'from above' rather than 'fi-om<br />
below'. The ANC has become transformed from the vehicle through which the inasses<br />
sought transformation of society in the 1980s into the staunch defender of neo-liberal<br />
capltalisrn in the 1990s. In parallel, there has been a huge erosion in popular interest in<br />
academic presentations of the past. As Paul Maylarn (1 995) observed at the 1995 SAHS<br />
conference at Rhodes, social history has largely been confined to the site of the<br />
professional historian and the university. Leslie Witz and Ciraj Rassool (1992) have<br />
described how, despite near 'missionary work' of popularisation, social histo~y has<br />
remained 'on the margins' of popular- and public domains. Shula Marks (1996) has<br />
cornlnented on tlie 'disappointed expectations' as a result of the limited recognition in<br />
school llisto~y curricula ancl textbook of 'the [real] iiistoriographical advances of the<br />
last thirty years'. As to tlie character of tlre 'popiilar iristory' being plesently made, ive<br />
return below. For the moment what we are concerned tvith is the effects of the 1980s<br />
In these paragraphs we have benefited St-om reading Rousseau (1994: 1995) and Greenstein<br />
996). 111 the original version of the paper we also offered some criticism of Rosseau and<br />
reenstein's standpoint wliieh wc have dropped from this version bccausr it is not central to tile<br />
rgunlent: we still ],old to the essence ofour critique ofthenr however. Subsequent to writing tlie<br />
raft of this paper we read Tshidiso Maloka's as yet unpuhlislled 'Writillg for T~ICIII: '.Radical"<br />
istoriography in South Africaand the "Radical" Other', whicli makes telling points.<br />
As with other critics of Wits IIistoly Workshop. we direct our attention to tlre ‘manifestoes‘<br />
of its chid spokesperson of tlie 1980s, Helinda Rozzoli. in her introductions to collected<br />
volumes. This of coursebegs the question as to how fB. the pieces in the collections live up to the<br />
prescriptions of the manifestoes: seeMinkley (1986).<br />
'"e Legassick (1991 :17f) where it is argued that the llisto~y of the twentietll century ~110~s<br />
ratlrer non-socialist 'intellectual' leaders of working-class orgartisations crushing 'socialist'<br />
struggles by tl~c working class. Bozzoli (1983:34) criticires the view that 'inadequacics in<br />
leadership, organisation or "line" arc to be bla~ncd for the usual failure of Lhe op\>res"ed classes to<br />
develop "proper" class consciousness'. I.egassick'svic\v differs in that (a) it is not it qucstio11 ofa<br />
'failure' of the oppressed classes to .develop "propei." class consciousncss'; nnci (b) as Trotsky<br />
pointed out, 'leadership is not at a11 a lnerc "rellection" ofa class', but is likely to Inse -above‘<br />
accountability to the class and thus to lag behind it inconsciousnzss.