Mantashe shifts focus from women’s vulnerability to linguistic legitimacy

The current argument occurring from uTata uGwede Mantashe’s remarks has actually produced essential conversations about language, responsibility and public management.

What I discover especially remarkable, nevertheless, is not the criticism itself however the way in which the argument has actually developed. A concern worrying claims of exploitation, power and vulnerability has slowly end up being a conversation about language, and more particularly, a conversation about whether a specific expression is appropriate in isiXhosa. Following criticism of his remarks, Mantashe mentioned that isiXhosa linguists concurred that there was absolutely nothing incorrect with what he had actually stated.

As a scholar of African languages, an isiXhosa speaker and a young black female, I am interested less in the authenticity of a word and more in what this minute exposes about how language itself is comprehended.

The reporter’s concern worried claims that females looking for job opportunity were being requested for sexual favours by guys inhabiting positions of authority. The problem before the general public was for that reason among power. It was a concern worrying the vulnerability of ladies who might discover themselves reliant upon those who manage access to financial chances. It was likewise a concern worrying the conduct of guys declared to have actually abused positions of authority.

The subsequent dispute ended up being centred on language.

Minimizing language to vocabulary

This advancement is fascinating since it exposes a specific understanding of language, particularly that language is mostly a collection of words whose authenticity can be developed through referral to vocabulary and grammar. When a word is revealed to exist within a language, the matter is presumed to be settled. African language scholarship has actually long cautioned versus lowering language to vocabulary alone.

Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o advises us that language is not simply a way of interaction however likewise “a provider of culture”. He even more argues that language as culture makes up “the cumulative memory bank of an individuals’s experience in history”. These observations are very important due to the fact that they oblige us to move beyond a dictionary understanding of language.

Language does not simply offer words with which to explain the world. Rather, it transfers systems of understanding through which neighborhoods comprehend themselves, arrange social life and control relationships.

It is from this viewpoint that I discover the present argument rather restricted.

The attention paid for to language emerges mainly from Mantashe’s own defence of the remarks, in which he mentioned that isiXhosa linguists concurred that there was absolutely nothing incorrect with what he had actually stated. A substantial quantity of public energy has actually been directed towards concerns of linguistic authenticity.

The concern that intrigues me is not whether a specific lexical product exists within isiXhosa. The problem is whether the conversation properly engages the cultural, historic and social understanding brought by the language itself.

Ukuhlonipha

Among the types of understanding brought by isiXhosa is ukuhlonipha

The practise of ukuhlonipha extends beyond good manners and rules. It is a system of social understanding that notifies relationships, social conduct and linguistic practice. It guides how senior citizens and more youthful individuals connect to one another. It notifies how tough discussions are approached. It forms how speakers engage with delicate matters. Significantly, it teaches that language can not be separated from context.

This is why isiXhosa, like numerous African languages, has actually traditionally established customs of circumlocution around intimate topics. Referrals such as usisi and igusha when describing the anatomy of females did not emerge mistakenly. They emerged from a linguistic culture that acknowledged the relationship in between language, self-respect and regard. The presence of such expressions highlights that African languages have actually never ever been worried simply with calling things. They have actually likewise been worried about the social repercussions of how things are called.

For this factor, I discover it hard to lower the conversation to whether isibumbu is a genuine isiXhosa word. Such a concern appears too narrow to record what is at stake. The concern before us is not a word in seclusion, however an utterance in context. More particularly, it is the expression”Ungandifaki kwizinto zesibumbu mnaas a reaction to a concern worrying females, exploitation and power.

It is here that my pain occurs: Iyalumeza intetho kaTata uMantashe.

Claims of exploitation

The reporter’s concern was not about female anatomy. It had to do with accusations of exploitation. It worried whether positions of authority were being utilized to draw out sexual favours from ladies looking for job opportunity. The reaction moved attention away from the conduct of guys and towards the anatomy of ladies. It is this motion, from power to anatomy, that I discover especially exposing.

One of the concerns that stays insufficiently checked out is why the conversation moved there at all. Why, when faced with claims worrying exploitation, did the reaction relocation towards calling female anatomy? Why did the focus move far from the conduct of the supposed criminal and towards the body of the lady? These, in my view, are concerns that are worthy of higher attention than the authenticity of any private word.

As an isiXhosa speaker, and scholar of African languages and a young black lady, I discovered it challenging to fix up with the concepts of ukuhlonipha that the language itself brings.

I discovered it especially fascinating that a conversation worrying gendered power relations was eventually reframed as a conversation worrying vocabulary.

For several years, African language scholars have actually argued for the intellectualisation, advancement and acknowledgment of African languages. We have actually argued that African languages can bring education, governance, scholarship and advanced systems of understanding. It would for that reason be regrettable if isiXhosa were conjured up just when it functions as a defence of a specific utterance while the much wider customs of understanding ingrained within the language itself are neglected.

Senzeni na isiXhosa?

Specifically when this is being performed in specific by those in positions of power, such as uTata uMantashe. I do not keep in mind seeing any parliamentary argument or official engagement of the federal government where Mantashe utilized isiXhosa as a main ways of interaction to interact crucial federal government choices and/or programs, centring isiXhosa as a genuine language of service and federal government. When challenged with having to account for his utterances, he conjures up isiXhosa to his defence– senzeni na isiXhosa?

The concern before the general public stays unanswered. The reporter’s concern worried claims that females looking for job opportunity were being requested for sexual favours by people who were declared to be ANC councillors.

The problem before the nation was for that reason not one of vocabulary, however whether such conduct follows the worths of the ANC and what the organisation’s position is concerning claims of sex-for-jobs including its public agents.

It is that concern, instead of arguments about linguistic authenticity, that should have actually stayed at the centre of the conversation.

Oh, Sinelishwa IsiXhosa!

Ndim, uBhelekazi. DM