The era of Apartheid in South Africa was one in which many people suffered under the strict rule of its government. The Apartheid’s system of segregation ensured that no racial groups other than whites were able to enjoy optimal economic and political rights. While the system of segregation still was in full effect during the 1980’s, lecturers of the University of Cape Town started the Community Arts Program (CAP). The project offered accommodation, facilities and training to aspiring artists that had been marginalized and served as a sanctuary for those that wanted to express their resistance against the Apartheid regime through art.
Eventually, CAP became victim of several police raids in which banners, pamphlets, photographs, diaries and personal letters were removed as they, supposedly, posed threat to national security (Lochner p6).
The Publications Appeal Board (PAB) was responsible
for these police raids since it served as a censor and had to judge whether publications
were allowed or not. When Van Rooyen took his position as PAB chairman in 1980,
he claimed that the board consisted of neutral arbiters that made decisions
only in favor of society as a whole and for the protection of others.
Unlike his predecessor, Van Rooyen took a technocratic approach to censorship rather than that of a “Christian Nationalist ideologue or unbudging defender of the status quo” (Coetzee p185). For Van Rooyen, “sound objective reasons” were required and judgment should advance the average member of society (Coetzee p194).
In itself, this reasoning of Van Rooyen does sound a lot better than how it was put into practice. The definition of a ‘sound objective reason’ was up to the PAB and thus could be easily subject to manipulation by simply labeling publications as a threat to state security or general welfare.
Unlike his predecessor, Van Rooyen took a technocratic approach to censorship rather than that of a “Christian Nationalist ideologue or unbudging defender of the status quo” (Coetzee p185). For Van Rooyen, “sound objective reasons” were required and judgment should advance the average member of society (Coetzee p194).
In itself, this reasoning of Van Rooyen does sound a lot better than how it was put into practice. The definition of a ‘sound objective reason’ was up to the PAB and thus could be easily subject to manipulation by simply labeling publications as a threat to state security or general welfare.
The many raids
that the CAP had to endure serve as proof of the unfair operation of the PAB. Lastly,
it is clear that the Publication Appeal Board did not act on behalf of the
society as a whole, but particularly to maintain the Apartheid regime and protection
of the white population; an updated version of the ‘unbudging defender of the
status quo’.
Coetzee, J.M.. “The Work of the Censor: Censorship in South Africa.” Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship. Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996, 185-203.
Lochner, Eben. The Democratisation of Art: CAP as an Alternative Art Space in South Africa. Diss. Rhodes University, 2012.
This short prose descriptively delimits the extent to which the Publications Appeal Board, a South African censorship institution, were capable of suppressing counter-hegemonic ideas of the time, particularly those of the University of Cape Town's Community Arts Program.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing the technocratic succession of the PAB and Van Rooyen's ascension to South Africa's censorship throne, 'sound objective reason' is described as having a seemingly "better" sound to the principles of the preceding censorship regime. Elaboration of the appeal of Van Rooyen's rationality would have been beneficial to the ultimate direction of the analysis.
The concept of rationality remains central in this short critique. In the final paragraph of the post, it is stated that the Publication Appeal Board "did not act on behalf of the society as a whole". It may be useful to problematise this notion by questioning the nature of 'objective' reason. We see from Winch's discoveries that rationality is not objective and is a largely subjective thing. It could be argued that the choice of the censors to censor was a perfectly rational action.
Works Cited:
ReplyDeleteWinch, Peter. "Understanding a Primitive Society." American Philosophical Quarterly. 4th ed. Vol. 1. N.p.: U of Illinois, 1964. 307-24. Print.