It is difficult to write on South Africa with any cohesion, because as I have talked and talked through some of the circumstances that have resulted in it occupying its current reality, I have realized that my own thoughts have become drowned out by the opinions and thoughts of others. This realization prompted me to question my own epistemological methods or how I interact with authority, and how I allow it to interfere and shape my understanding of controversial events and histories where consensus may never be reached on the facts of what happened never mind their implications. I have concluded that I am too quick to accept the words of authority and too quick to disregard the words and experiences of others who are not directly credited for the making of that history. In the context of South Africa this means, that I readily accepted the liberation struggle as told from the perspectives of the great freedom fighters of the ANC, while simultaneously disregarding the narratives of the citizenry of the townships, for example, who would characterize it in a disparate way. I have realized that my tendency to give more gravity to some opinions is not unique to this instance, but could be applied to several other instances including my understanding of the history of the United States.
I think to some extent, that by being willing to take authority at its word, I have given up some of my own agency. It has become clear to me that I must value my own intellect and my own estimation of events. By adopting the history an authority places on me I am in effect denying my own experiences or the evidence I have lived and seen with my own eyes.
This over-reliance on authority was very effectively pointed out to me by Professor Noor Nieftagodien, not in something he directly said to me, but, in his conviction that history is personal. He was one of my favorite speakers this week; he tends to be very careful and articulate in his expressions of opinion constantly referencing his positionality in order to contextualize and in some cases, constrain his words. Professor Noor and others within the discipline have been pursuing a new means of recording history. Rather than relying on individuals in positions of power, they have begun to approach the discipline from below. This basically refers to the documentation of the experiences of ordinary people who lived through and participated in different spaces within a particular history. This movement speaks to the fact that people are walking memorials of a lived and shared past. No one person experiences this past in the same way; however, this subjectivity does not devalue the collective contribution of these sources. By curating several points of view, this movement directly confronts the subjective nature of history.
On first hearing about history from below, I thought if we record history in this way, then how can we ever hope to use it. If you do not agree on the grounds of the argument, then how can you have a productive debate? History then has a dimension of variability that can run contrary to synthesis. Professor Noor responded to my critique by saying that he did not care how these opposing accounts of history might be used, and he is correct in that the accuracy with which history is portrayed, as compared to how others might interpret it, is of foremost importance.
I think to some extent, that by being willing to take authority at its word, I have given up some of my own agency. It has become clear to me that I must value my own intellect and my own estimation of events. By adopting the history an authority places on me I am in effect denying my own experiences or the evidence I have lived and seen with my own eyes. In South Africa this means carefully analyzing the testimonies I have heard with a mind turned towards positionality. History from below empowers people in this way, to take ownership of the narrative rather than submitting to another history that is false to them.