Klik hier om die volledige joernaal in PDF-formaat af te laai - LitNet

LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Augustus 2012
The authors argue that it must be recognised that such a debate around the meaning and effect
of The Spear occurs within a specific South African post-apartheid (and thus post-colonial)
context. As Achille Mbembe points out, the post-colonial critique of society derives, on one
hand, from the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle and on the other hand from aspects
of the Western philosophical tradition. It aims at exposing the inherent violence underlying a
specific conceptualisation of Reason. In the context of his post-colonial analysis Mbembe
warns all South Africans against the dangers that arise for the polis when individuals are no
longer capable of thinking for themselves and severely constricted space remains for
meaningful debate, resistance and (artistic) expression in a country when this has the
potential to be potentially hurtful to others. This danger emerges especially in situations
where the intellectual space is closed off in the name of perverse notions of racial solidarity
which in effect disregards respect for human dignity in the name of consolidating political
power for post-colonial elites.
Against this complex post-colonial background the question arises as to how to engage
meaningfully with a work of art like The Spear, especially given the atmosphere of very real
anger and fear created by the exhibition of the painting, an atmosphere within which absolute
loyalty is demanded from the group in order to advance the narrow, self-serving notion of
solidarity of those still being haunted by the effects of colonial exploitation and oppression.
In this context Mbembe refers to the re-emergence of “official culture”, warning that
“[o]fficial culture is the name for the process by which a ruling elite seeks to tame and
domesticate its population by establishing official distinctions between the accepted and the
unacceptable, the permitted and the forbidden, the normal and the abnormal. It is the process
by which it coerces its subjects into internalising and reproducing truths not of their own
making.”
The authors argue that the start of any meaningful debate about The Spear cannot ignore this
context. Nevertheless it must also be founded on a sober analysis of the constitutionally
protected value of human dignity, a value that runs like a golden thread throughout the (postcolonial)
South African Constitution. The authors analyse the meaning of this value against
the background of a more detailed discussion of the protection afforded in South African law
to the right to an individual person’s human dignity. They point out that in the South African
constitutional context the protection of the dignity of all individuals must be balanced against
the protection of the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to artistic
expression. The authors argue, through a detailed analysis of the South African law of
defamation, that the legal consequences of a work of art which provides political commentary
on one of the most powerful individuals in South Africa must (at least in the legal sense) be
assessed differently from those of a picture manufactured by schoolboys as part of a
schoolboy prank. Regardless of the ethical and aesthetic criticism that could be levelled
against the work of art, legally, the depiction of a country’s president in a bona fide work of
art with his genitals showing would not normally be regarded as unlawful in South African
law. Although South African courts have not provided a definitive answer to this legal
question, the authors contend that in a case like the one raised by The Spear the right to
artistic expression and the right to provide political commentary on the moral and political
character of a sitting president should weigh more heavily with a court than the important
right of the individual to have his or her dignity respected and protected. Striking the balance
in this manner is necessary to advance a culture of openness and the constitutional culture of
pluralism and respect for diversity.
177