Democratic discourse or nationalistic drivel: are South Africans truly empowered?Twenty-one years after my first inaugural address on a similar topic, I ask: Do South African citizens find themselves in a less paternalistic, less authoritarian post-apartheid society, and has the monologue of repressive nationalism been replaced by robust democratic discourse? Through an in-depth analysis of the forces and shifts that have shaped the emerging paradigm of strategic communication, I explain how the massive developments in digital communication, coupled with tenets that characterise post-modern communication practice, are changing the relationship between an organisation and its stakeholders irrevocably and irreversibly, thereby empowering the new communication 'super-consumer' beyond wildest expectations. This is not the first time I am delivering an inaugural address. Why I am punished twice, I do not know, but I presume it is because I had forsaken academia during the years in between, and the University of Johannesburg is no longer the Rand Afrikaans University, where I delivered my first address. So I went in search of that first address amongst some old and dusty files. I found to my amazement that on 22 November 1989, almost exactly 21 years ago, my professorial inaugural address was on the topic 'Liberal Communication: Myth or Possibility in South Africa?' ('Liberale Kommunikasie: Mite of Moontlikheid in Suid-Afrika?'). What interested me most in reading this old address is that I was quite concerned, at the time, about the way in which the ruling powers then, whom I referred to as 'Dadas' (bullying Daddies) constituted a tyranny of the minority - not tolerating alternative thoughts or solutions - who exerted unbridled power, violence and 'kragdadigheid' to ensure compliance. In the address, I referred to unacceptable transgressions of democratic and liberal communication, which included,inter alia, the following:
Lest my audience suspects that my first inaugural address was merely exploited as a platform for political rhetoric, I analysed it further and concluded that it was quite balanced. An equal amount of time was spent on the tyranny of the majority, and the threat that any tyranny of thought could pose to liberal communication. Finally, it elaborated on the right, the obligation, and the mandate of universities to initiate liberal discourse and investigate alternative viewpoints, by linking it to the prevalent communication theories of the time. Apart from the inaugural platform, which had some listeners twisting uncomfortably in their chairs, I recalled that the only outlet I could find, at the time, for those and other things I had to say, was certainly not in any academic publication, nor in the mainstream Afrikaans press. Vrye Weekblad published it, as did The Star, following which I received a letter, and a personal visit, from an influential Afrikaans editor in the NasPers stable who threatened to withdraw Naspers funding from the university if one of its professors (me), and an Afrikaans one to boot, continued to spout such inflammatory content. Given what I have said, then, you could argue that my last inaugural address, 21 years ago, says it all. We could conclude, as Karl Marx did, that 'history always repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce'. Do we find ourselves today in a less paternalistic, authoritarian society? Has the monologue of repressive nationalism been replaced by democratic discourse? Is any departure from the dominant paradigm of thinking, now truly tolerated? Before we can answer these questions, perhaps we should look at some of the things that have changed.
Therefore, allow me to linger a little at the new paradigm of strategic communication. The new paradigm of strategic communication The core driving forces of the new paradigm of strategic communication must be viewed against the background of four key epistemological tenets which characterise post-modern knowledge and communication practice, as identified by post-modern communication scholars such as Foucalt (1980), Lyotard, (1988), Dozier and Lauzen (2000), Hassard (2002) and Verwey (2010).
The meaning of these four tenets will become clearer as we examine the core driving forces of the new paradigm of strategic communication, which is characterised by the following shifts: From top down to bottom up A post-modern approach favours communication as an interaction, as opposed to the modernist notion of simply diffusing messages to a target audience. The latter approach is typified by the old Lasswellian concept of who says what in which channel to whom with what effect. This very linear theory is now contrasted with the strategic communication approach as an evolving and emerging process of discourse and negotiation with a variety of stakeholders. Connectivity, dialogue and participation of all stakeholders are the key to building relationships, and this is supported by one of the most influential theories of the cybernetic tradition, Weick's theory of organising (1979), in that communication makes the organisation and not the organisation, the communication. In short, organisations can no longer control what people think. This is a phenomenon called 'disintermediation' (Verwey, 2001), which is a direct consequence of the digital revolution, and of which the best example is provided by Howard Schultz, chairman of Starbucks Coffee (Business Day, 7 September 2010): In the 1960s, if you introduced a new product to America, 90% of the people believed in the corporate promise. Then 40 years later if you performed the same exercise less than 10% of the public believed it was true. Still surprised that, despite their market dominance, Starbucks haven't eliminated the slight smell of lavatory you get as you enter. On local soil, an interesting example of disintermediation recently found Absa, under threat of losing accounts worth billions of rands, quickly backing down on statements regarding rugby quotas following viral campaigns on Facebook and Twitter by civil rights movements. Woolworths was forced to put its poorly selling Christian magazines back on the shelf following similar campaigns by aggrieved parties. From control to self organisation Ample evidence has been provided in recent years that change and transformation in an organisation is more effective when creative solutions spontaneously evolve from the bottom up through active participation in dialogue (Ströh, 2007). Jack Welch's spectacular transformation of General Electric, Sam Palmisano's massive turn-around of the staid culture in the colossus IBM, and Brand Pretorius' turn-around in a highly diversified workforce at McCarthy's, are but a few examples of this. Truth is, power has become much less important than the influence that is exerted from the bottom up. In this respect, if you would permit me, I would like to pay homage to my late husband, Willem de Klerk, who never believed in power - in fact he despised it a little bit - but he did believe in influence. He was by no means the only one, but through his participation in behind-the-scenes dialogue with other role players across the political spectrum, he helped to steer and influence this country towards democratic solutions. This does not mean that leadership is no longer important. Visionary leadership, however, does not exclude ongoing engagement of stakeholders, even if such engagement encourages dissent. From consensus to dissensus The post modern chaos theories view organisations as living processes - much like organisms that live in an unpredictable environment, within which change and transformation are inevitable, and conflict plays a central part. Strategic communication is not, therefore, necessarily aimed at achieving consensus, but rather about ensuring multiple voices and even dissent. Postmodern philosophers and critical scholars argue that organisational conflict should be encouraged "to the extent that conflict serves as a pathway to the emancipation of subjugated groups and individuals" (Miller 2009:176). This is of particular relevance where deeper conflicts exist in culturally diverse organisations and systems as a result of class, economic, racial or gender differences. In a recent, and most incisive, article in Mail & Guardian (27 August 2010), Jonathan Jansen, vice-chancellor of the University of the Free State, laments the erosion of an intellectual culture on South African university campuses as a consequence of 'creeping managerialism', 'poor leadership' and 'fixation with numbers' that turned the scholarship of inquiry into a 'parade of measurable units'. To restore this culture he exhorts that what is required is not this 'busyness, but quality activities that breed curiosity, creativity and dissent'. In this respect he referred to the then recent public standoff at the University of Cape Town between Max Price, the principal, and Neville Alexander, a professor, on race-based admissions policies. From monologue to dialogue Simultaneous with the shift from top down to bottom up is also the shift from monologue to dialogue, where the traditional approach of one voice has shifted to the emergent approach of many diverse voices where experimentation, openness to many diverse viewpoints and freedom of speech encourage creative approaches to problem-solving, without the fear of reprisal (Ströh, 2007:134). Management often hides behind the argument that they do encourage 'participation' or, in fact, demand that from their stakeholders. This however, is referred to by Mkhize (2006:7) as 'pseudo dialogue', as the control is never really relinquished, and conflicts are suppressed or 'managed' in order to solve them, while groups unknowingly consent to unequal partnerships while management still retains more power. Being 'involved' makes groups feel they are participating, yet they have to pay the price of losing their voice and giving up resistance. This is perhaps best captured by the words of Deetz (1995:404): True participation is the process of dialogic communication where meaning is not created through influence but through participation. Emphasis is thus on the process of negotiations and discourses and not on the outcomes of the negotiations. [Own underlining.] Management itself is called to accountability, and the governors to governance. No longer will they be able to hide things from their stakeholders. Privacy has become a luxury, a fact which is underlined by Bosman (2010:5) when he points out that the younger generation, especially, is not obsessed with privacy, and expects the world to be much more transparent than the older generation is used to, "and that means that anything [an organisation] wants to hide away... will sooner or later be exposed in the public domain". Media convergence and digital connectivity are forcing our institutions to engage in dialogue. The point is, management is no longer in control, and word-of-mouth, like in the days of the Roman street vendors, is once again becoming the most important medium of communication, albeit in cyber space. The digital air waves have become res publicae, and the digital revolution might well spell out the end of content control. Now, it is the stakeholder who is empowered, not management. Are South Africans empowered? Against this background, I have tried to assess whether we, as South African citizens, the stakeholders in a constitutionally entrenched democracy, are truly empowered. Empowered in the sense that we exercise the democratic rights and means at our disposal, to engage in robust democratic discourse, and not to succumb to nationalistic political correctness for fear of reprisal. In doing so, I am not going to repeat all the issues that dominate the political agenda right now, as they are all discussed to death, but will rather use this platform and academic freedom, to profess - perhaps a little outrageously - with some support from the writings of others. In answering the question as to whether we are truly empowered, I will convert these issues into a priori assumptions, or value judgements, all of which I am going to cross with a resounding NO.
Conclusion The conclusion that I have reached is that South Africans are not truly empowered, and are still caught up in the vestiges of a postapartheid paradigm (without the hyphen) that is wholly out of touch with the post-modern, globally-interactive realities, and with the new paradigm of strategic communication. The point is: what are WE going to do about this disjunction? There are two ways in which we can respond:
The universities have a major role to play in this revolutionary process. I would go as far to say that the onus rests on universities to become the initiators of democratic discourse, dialogue, debate and dissensus. It remains the right, the obligation and, indeed, the mandate of universities to investigate alternative viewpoints, to let other voices speak. I said it in 1989, and I am saying it again. Universities should lead, not follow. Per definition, the University should be above any tyranny of thought, and beyond the 'enforced hegemony of political correctness' (Sonderling, 2008: 308) where 'calculation has replaced thinking' (Bayart 2007: 290). For that reason, it is a matter of concern that Jansen (2010) writes that all (but one) of South Africa's universities lack strong intellectual cultures on their campuses. Dit is ook 'n rede tot kommer dat Rhoda Khadalie (Die Burger, 1 September 2009) skryf dat talle Suid-Afrikaanse universiteite verbode terrein geword het, "die spergebiede van diegene wat vrye debatvoering smoor en akademici terroriseer wat dit waag om vrae te stel". We need not dwell on these statements. The more important appeals that are being made are those that call for a return to imaginative leadership, vigorous debate and intellectual exchange on compelling public problems, not as localised events in isolated parts of our campuses, but as a felt and constant experience, and for the building of such intellectual cultures from the bottom up through thoughtful, inspiring and intellectually outrageous teaching sessions. Indeed, the quality of the democratic discourse and citizen deliberation in the broader society will be determined to a large extent by the quality of the intellectual discourse on our university campuses. In conclusion, I may have used (or abused) this inaugural platform to call for real transformation of our society through robust democratic and strategic discourse. To create the system through our communication, and not to allow the system to perpetuate itself by dictating how we communicate. To practise 'differance' and 'resistance'. Not merely for the sake of difference, or resistance, but to become the co-creators of change from within. This, precisely because we are dedicated to this country, not disloyal deserters. If we South Africans don't do anything about it, we will deserve what we get. Yes, history has repeated itself, but the future has overtaken. Are we as South Africans going to catch up, or are we going to be left behind? As tragedy, or as farce? Adapted for online use from Prof Nina Overton-de Klerk's professorial inaugural address, 10 November 2010, University of Johannesburg. Hyperlinks within body copy added by Bizcommunity.com. 1According to Van der Westhuizen (2010) "post-" with the hyphen means "after" and implies something new which came in its place. "Post" without the hyphen means that although one system may have replaced another, there are more continuities than discontinuities. References ANC (2010). ANC 2010 Discussion Document: Media Transformation, Ownership and Diversity. Retrieved 30 October 2010 from www.anc.org.za/docs/discus/2010/mediad.pdf. For more:
About the authorDuring her academic career, Prof Nina Overton-de Klerk had worn many hats in the education and communication sectors and has distinguished herself as expert in the field of communications, spanning internal (organisational) and external (marketing) communications. After being professor and head of the Department of Communication at the former Rand Afrikaans University (RAU) for 10 years, she spent 13 years in the industry; first as executive director of tThe Association for Communication and Advertising), and the last three years as an independent communication consultant and researcher. Since May 2008, she has been reappointed as Professor of Communications at UJ. |