Freedom from Black Governmentality under Privatized Apartheid

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Thozamile Zolisa Mtyalela, C. Allsobrook
{"title":"Freedom from Black Governmentality under Privatized Apartheid","authors":"Thozamile Zolisa Mtyalela, C. Allsobrook","doi":"10.1080/05568641.2022.2046493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Many anticipated that the formal demise of public apartheid would free black citizens of South Africa from systematic racial oppression; but apartheid was privatized and carries on, with the aid of ‘Black governmentality’. The brutality of the apartheid regime gave rise to a common misunderstanding of White settler coloniality as a public, sovereign, and repressive mode of power imposed on and against Black subjects and African culture. But power is not just repressive. It is complex and productive. Public apartheid was formally signed off, but its features are reproduced by citizens in private lives, often without our knowing it. Our account of Black governmentality explains such self-defeating subjective agency in the post-apartheid context with reference to Biko’s writing on Black shame, wherein Black South African subjects are secondary agents of apartheid. We demonstrate how and why apartheid is perpetuated in private by Black governmentality, as cultivated in subject-formation, drawing on Biko’s insights into the structure of this relationship. In so doing we correct a misunderstanding of freedom from apartheid, common in scholarly receptions of Biko’s writing, as a negation of the White face of public representation. With reference to Foucault’s theory of power, we offer an alternative account of Biko’s insights into subjective and national liberation, to explain how he sees colonial power as a facticity-inducing force for Black subjectivity. Where these misreadings miss this critical point of traction, our productive reading of the power of Black governmentality and freedom in Black consciousness better informs effective public resistance against private modes of apartheid.","PeriodicalId":46780,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2022.2046493","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Many anticipated that the formal demise of public apartheid would free black citizens of South Africa from systematic racial oppression; but apartheid was privatized and carries on, with the aid of ‘Black governmentality’. The brutality of the apartheid regime gave rise to a common misunderstanding of White settler coloniality as a public, sovereign, and repressive mode of power imposed on and against Black subjects and African culture. But power is not just repressive. It is complex and productive. Public apartheid was formally signed off, but its features are reproduced by citizens in private lives, often without our knowing it. Our account of Black governmentality explains such self-defeating subjective agency in the post-apartheid context with reference to Biko’s writing on Black shame, wherein Black South African subjects are secondary agents of apartheid. We demonstrate how and why apartheid is perpetuated in private by Black governmentality, as cultivated in subject-formation, drawing on Biko’s insights into the structure of this relationship. In so doing we correct a misunderstanding of freedom from apartheid, common in scholarly receptions of Biko’s writing, as a negation of the White face of public representation. With reference to Foucault’s theory of power, we offer an alternative account of Biko’s insights into subjective and national liberation, to explain how he sees colonial power as a facticity-inducing force for Black subjectivity. Where these misreadings miss this critical point of traction, our productive reading of the power of Black governmentality and freedom in Black consciousness better informs effective public resistance against private modes of apartheid.
私有化种族隔离下的黑人治理自由
摘要许多人预计,公共种族隔离的正式结束将使南非黑人公民摆脱系统性的种族压迫;但种族隔离在“黑人政府主义”的帮助下被私有化并继续下去。种族隔离政权的残暴导致人们普遍误解白人定居者的殖民主义是一种强加给黑人主体和非洲文化的公共、主权和镇压性权力模式。但权力不仅仅是压制性的。它既复杂又富有成效。公共种族隔离被正式签署,但公民在私生活中复制了它的特征,而我们往往并不知道。我们对黑人治理心态的描述解释了后种族隔离背景下这种自我挫败的主观能动性,参考了比科关于黑人羞耻的文章,其中南非黑人主体是种族隔离的次要推动者。我们利用比科对这种关系结构的见解,展示了黑人政府心态是如何以及为什么在私下里延续种族隔离的,这种心态是在主体形成中培养出来的。通过这样做,我们纠正了对摆脱种族隔离的自由的误解,这种误解在学术界对比科作品的接受中很常见,是对公众代表的白人面孔的否定。参考福柯的权力理论,我们对比科对主观解放和民族解放的见解进行了另一种解释,以解释他如何将殖民权力视为黑人主体性的派系诱导力量。在这些误读错过了这一关键点的地方,我们对黑人政府心态和自由在黑人意识中的力量的富有成效的解读,更好地为公众对私人种族隔离模式的有效抵抗提供了信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Philosophical Papers
Philosophical Papers PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Philosophical Papers is an international, generalist journal of philosophy edited in South Africa Original Articles: Articles appearing in regular issues are original, high-quality, and stand-alone, and are written for the general professional philosopher. Submissions are welcome in any area of philosophy and undergo a process of peer review based on initial editor screening and refereeing by (usually) two referees. Special Issues: Topic-based special issues are comprised of both invited and submitted papers selected by guest editors. Recent special issues have included ''Philosophy''s Therapeutic Potential'' (2014, editor Dylan Futter); ''Aging and the Elderly'' (2012, editors Tom Martin and Samantha Vice); ''The Problem of the Criterion'' (2011, editor Mark Nelson); ''Retributive Emotions'' (2010, editor Lucy Allais); ‘Rape and its Meaning/s’ (2009, editor Louise du Toit). Calls for papers for upcoming special issues can be found here. Ideas for future special issues are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信