1

TITLEPAGEFromtheSubjectofEviltotheEvilSubject:‘CulturalDifference’inPostapartheidSouthAfricanCrimeFictionLeondeKockUniversityofJohannesburgStellenboschUniversity

2

ABSTRACTThisarticletakesupthequestionof“crimewriting”andrejoinsthedebatearoundwhethersuchliteraturestandsinforthe“politicalnovel”inpostapartheidSouthAfrica.Whatsocialfunctionmightcrimewritingbeserving?Researchbypoliticaleconomistsandculturalanthropologistssuggeststhatactsofwritingin“socialdetection”mode(ratherthan“crimewriting”)serveasanallegoryforoccultedsociopoliticalconditions.Culturaldifferenceisseen,onceagain,toplayapivotalroleinthelegitimationofpower,andwritersinthedetectionmodearecorrespondinglyseentobeprobingthepossibilityofaresurgenceof“bad”difference.Thisnotion,itisargued,isakeydifferentiatorinanotherwisemurkysceneinwhichtheborderlinebetweenlicitandillicit,andrightandwrong,hasbecomeobscure.WhilemanySouthAfricanwritersarebroughtintothediscussion,includingbutnotrestrictedtocrimeauthors,akeynovelbyleadingcrimewriterDeonMeyerisreadasacasestudytoillustratethemoregeneralpointsmadeinthearticle.KEYWORDS:SouthAfricanliterature;postapartheidwriting;transitionalliterature;post‐transitionalliterature;crimewriting;thrillers;postcolonial;culturaldifference;postcolony.

3

FromtheSubjectofEviltotheEvilSubject:‘CulturalDifference’inPostapartheidSouthAfricanCrimeFiction

Introduction

OneofthemoreenergeticdebatesaboutpostapartheidSouthAfricanliterature

revolvesaroundthequestionwhy“genrefiction,”andmoreparticularlycrime

fiction,soheavilydominatesthebookmarket.Thisdebatehasmostlybeen

conductedanecdotallyorsuperficially,inreviewsandcommentsonliterary

websites,despitescatteredarticlesandoneortwospecialissuesonthetopic.1

Particularlycontestedhasbeenmyownsuggestionthatcrimethrillersmayhave

cometostandinforwhatusedtoseenas“political”orengagedfiction,inresponse

towhichsomeacademicshavearguedthatthegenericorformulaicnatureof

detectivenovelspreventsthemfromsecuringsubstantialpurchaseonsociopolitical

issues.2Acommonstrandhasbeenthecontentionthatitisfar‐fetchedtothink

genrefictioncanbeseentoengageinpoliticalthemeswithasmuchimportas

1Forspecial‐issuetreatment,seeCurrentWriting25(2)2013,whichisdevotedtocrimefictioninSouthAfrica,witharticlesbySamNaidu;ElizabethleRoux;AnnekeRautenbach;PriscillaBoshoff;SabineBinder;ClaudiaDrawe;ElizabethFletcher;JessicaMurray;andMargieOrford.AnotherSouthAfricanjournal,scrutiny2,publishedaspecialissueonthesametopicin2014,withpiecesbyColetteGuldimann;SamNaidu;CaitlinMartinandSally‐AnnMurray;ElizabethleRouxandSamanthaBuitendach;AntoinettePretorius;andJonathanAmidandLeondeKock.OtherarticlesincludeTitlestadandPolatinsky,“TurningtoCrirme”;Anderson,“WatchingtheDetectives”;andWarnes,“WritingCrime.”Forabook‐lengthstudyonthelargerSouthernAfricanzone,seePrimorac,WhodunnitinSouthernAfrica.Foranideaofthekindofcontentonwebsitedebates,seehttp://slipnet.co.za/view/reviews/crime‐fiction‐the‐%E2%80%98new‐political‐novel%E2%80%99/2See,forexample,theSLiPnetcitationinFootnote1,directlyabove,inwhicharangeofacademicsweighinonthematterinthecommentssectionfollowingmyreviewessayofRogerSmith’scrimethrillerDustDevils.Ifirstraisedtheissueofcrimenovelsandsociopoliticalcontentin2010intheSouthAfricanSundayIndependentnewspaperinareviewofMikeNicol’snovel,KillerCountry(“HitsKeepComing,”http://www.leondekock.co.za/wp‐content/uploads/mike_nicol.pdf),followeditupin2011intheJohannesburg‐basedMail&GuardianweeklyinareviewofNicol’sBlackHeart(“HighNoonintheBadlands,”http://mg.co.za/article/2011‐05‐06‐high‐noon‐in‐the‐badlands/),andagainin2013intheCapeTimes,inareviewofNicol’sOfCopsandRobbers,intheCapeTimes(“HardboiledNoir,”http://www.leondekock.co.za/wp‐content/uploads/Cape‐Times‐Books‐page2‐30‐August‐20131‐copy.pdf).TheSundayIndependentusedmycommentsoncrimefictionaspossiblythe“newpoliticalnovel”asthebasisforaseriesofopinionsby,amongothers,ImraanCoovadia,MbongeniButhelezi,andKelwynSole(http://sundayindybooks.blogspot.com/search?q=novel+debate).

4

Gordimer,Serote,Langa,Mdaandothershavedoneinthepast.Themajorityofsuch

commentary,assuggestedabove,hastakenontheformofcontrastingstabsof

opinioninthecommentboxesofdigitalliterarymedia,andassuchdoesnot

penetratemuchbeyondprovisionalposition‐taking.

AnexceptiontothistrendisMichaelTitlestadandAshleePolatinsky’sessay,

“‘TurningtoCrime’:MikeNicol’sTheIbisTapestryandPayback,”inwhichthe

authorsarguethatNicol’sownturnfromseriousfiction(asexemplifiedbyhis1998

novelTheIbisTapestry)tothepopularformofcrimefiction(asinhis2008novel

Payback),representsanunfortunatewithdrawalfrommoreseriousliterarywriting

inwhichmattersarefittinglyinastateofunresolvedtension.Insteadofkeeping

faithwiththeopen‐formnovel,Nicolgiveswaytothetemptationofneatbut

ultimatelysuperficialgesturesofclosure.AlthoughTitlestadandPolatinskydonot

saysoexplicitly,thereisapalpablesenseintheirargumentofdisappointmentthat

anoutstandingSouthAfricanauthor,intheolder,moreseriousveinofSouthAfrican

writing,shouldsellouttotheenticementsofapopularmarketoffictioninwhich

relativelycheap“answers”areneatlylaidoutviagenericform.Thepre‐2000

literature’sintensegrapplingwiththechallengesofculturaldifferenceappearsto

havegivenwayto“thriller”computationsofthesocialtotalityinwhichdifference,

nowgleefullycoloredintothesupposedlyblankspacesofthepostapartheid

dispensation,addsuptoprematureclosure,asifthenewdemocracyislittlemore

thanamotleyganglandversionofthe“rainbownation.”ReadingTitlestadand

Polatinsky,onefindsitdifficultnottoagreethat,ifitisindeedtruethatcrimefiction

doeslittlemorethandishoutover‐eagervisionsofclosure,suchtotalisationwould

bepremature,tosaytheleast.Thesenseofdisinvestmentthatisimpliedin

TitlestadandPolatinsky’sargument,adivestitureofmultilayeredtextureand

imponderablecomplexityinfictionforthesakeofflimsysurfaceresolutionandeasy

entertainment,ishelpedalongbysomeofNicol’sownstatements.Theseutterances

(inmyopinion,asdisingenuousasAtholFugard’sprotestationsthathiswritingis

“notpolitical”)makethecasethathehasabandonedseriousfictiontowritewhathe

calls“commercial[genre]fiction”becausehesupposedlyenjoysitmore,anditsells

5

better.3So,inasense,TitlestadandPolatinsky’sarticlereads,totakemy

extrapolationfurther,asaparableforaliteraturethathaslosttheplot,and

consequentlyitssenseofdirection.This,indeed,isacommonthemeindiscussions

ofpostapartheidwriting(cf.MacKenzieandFrenkel).4Beingsolost,onemight

argue,thenewerliteraturenowgrabsontotheeasysolutionofgenrefiction,witha

merepatinaofpoliticalcontentinitspreoccupationwithsocialviolence,or“crime.”

InthesubtextofTitlestadandPolatinsky’sargument,proper,oneisinvitedtoread

thestoryofaonce‐greatliterature,withredoubtablenameslikeGordimer,Leroux,

Mphahlele,Brink,Matshoba,Coetzee,Hope,Ndebele,Vladisavic,Mda,Serote,

Breytenbach,Langa,VanNiekerk,VanHeerden,etal,nowdumbingdownquite

alarmingly.Thepost‐transitionalwritersareseenascoppingoutoftherealdeal,

whichiscomplexityandopenness,forthesakeofquick‐sell,flimflamentertainment.

Thesesupposedlycheaptricks,inaddition,feedoffastill‐volatilesocietyina

mannerthatsomemayregardasbeingonthebrinkofunethical.

TitlestadandPolatinsky’sargumentissound,andwellexecuted,although

possiblyfallibletothecritiqueexecutedbyCambridge‐basedSouthAfricanist

scholarChrisWarnes,5whodetectsa“popular”and“highbrow”binaryintheir

reasoning.Withoutgoingintothemeritsofanargumentthatcompelsonetochoose

between“high”and“low”forms,Iwouldliketosuggestthattheremaybeadifferent

wayoflookingatNicol’swork,andthatofothercrimewriters.Thisarticle,then,

asksadifferentquestionofcrimefiction,onewhichmightbeintroducedasfollows:

Whatifoneweretoreadthelarge(althoughbynomeansuniversal)shiftfrom,let’s

say,social‐realist“complexity”tocrime‐detective“genre,”assomethingelse

entirely?Thiswouldinvolvereadingsuchwritingasindicativeofabigger

movement,aseismicshiftinthesocialbodyitself.WhatiftheefflorescenceinSouth

African“crimewriting,”inallitsforms,6ratherthanmufflingvariegationorselling

3SeeSLiPnetreviewcitedaboveonNicol’sreportedstatementsabouthisowncrimewriting.4Mackenzie,Craig,andRonitFrenkel,“ConceptualizingPost‐TransitionalLiterature”.5Warnes,Chris,“WritingCrime,”983.6Forexample,policeprocedural,noir,fallibledetective,nonfiction“inside‐stories”abouttheresurgentsocialmonstercalled“crime,”socialbiographiesofknownpublicthugs,andstillmore.

6

outonintricate“entanglement,”7isinfactprizingopensomemuchlargergoingson

inamanifestlytransformedsocialcondition?Thisisacondition,moreover,thatis

nolongerjustnational,just“SouthAfrican,”buttransnationalinitsdimensions,and

globalinitsderivations.

Thereformulatedquestion,then,mightbeputasfollows:Whythis

obsession,inthenewmillennium,withlawand(dis)order,andmoreparticularly

withthespectacleof“crime,”aspresentedinmediatedformssuchasfictionand

nonfictionwriting?Articulatedinthisway,thequestionleadsusawayfromthe

ultimatelyfutilewarofopinionaboutwhetherornotcrimefictionissufficiently

“literary,”oradequatelycomplexasanobjectofformalliteraryarchitecture.

Instead,itconcentratesourattentiononthequestionwhatisthisfictionabout,and

whatisitdoingoutthere,regardlessofthefinerpointsofliterarymerit.This,

indeed,istheissuetowhichWarnesalsodirectsscholarsofSouthAfricanwriting,

suggestingthatwriterssuchasMeyerandOrford“keepfaithwithsomeofthecore

featuresof‘serious’SouthAfricanliterature:itscapacitytodocumentsocialreality,

toexposeinjustice,andtoconscientisereadersintodifferentmodesofthoughtand

action.”8TothisIwouldaddthatthe“core”questionforascholarofliteratureis

alsothefollowing:Whytherelativelysudden,andmajor,shiftincirculationand

receptionfromliberal‐humanistandlate‐modernformsoffictiontogenre‐based

novels?Towhatlargercomplexofsocio‐historicalconditionalitymightthisbe

attributableasamoregeneralsyndrome?Thisisbynomeansanuninteresting

question,andonethatWarnesperhapsdoesnotprobeextensivelyenough,resting

hiscaseontheargumentthat“thepostapartheidcrimethrillershouldbereadas

negotiating–intheambivalentsenseoftheword–thethreatanduncertaintythat

manyfeeltobepartofSouthAfricanlife,creatingfantasiesofcontrol,restoration

andmaintenance,andreflectingonthecircumstancesthatgaverisetothisunease.”9

Agreed,butwhatgreatercomplexofcircumstance,bothculturalandhistorical,

7SeeNuttall,Entanglement.8Warnes,“WritingCrime,”983.9Warnes,“WritingCrime,”991.

7

long‐andshort‐term,underliethe“threatanduncertainty”thatWarnesidentifies?

CulturalDifferenceinaPostapartheidFrame

Theargument,Ibelieve,needstocommencewithaviewofthechangingroleof

culturaldifferencebeforeandafterthepoliticaltransitionofthe1990s.Forseveral

decadesnowpostcolonialtheoryinitsvariousformshasencouragedanemphasis

onculturaldifferenceasamodifierofpoliticalsubjectivityandidentitarianposition‐

taking.Moregeneralstudiesofculturaldifferenceinitsmanydimensions,suchas

thosebyRobertYoung,EdwardSaid,GayatriSpivak,andHomiBhabha,10toname

onlythemostobvious,inadditiontoSouthAfrican‐specificexamples(Comaroff,

Attwell,Brown,Wylie,Hofmeyr,DeKock,amongothers),11havetendedtoplacethe

spotlightonthemanywaysinwhichculturaldifferencehasbeenmisrecognized,in

thecoloniesandtheOrient,withinreductiveepistemicframesofreference.The

centuries‐longdiscoursearoundthe“wildman,”12primitivism,exoticismandother

categoricalimpositions,includingthefixationsofsocial‐Darwinistthoughtand

biologicalracism,13foundatrenchantrebuttalinpostcolonialtheoryandrevisionist

culturalhistory,mostemphaticallyperhapsinOrientalism,andstretchingbeyond

literaryandculturalcriticismtoempirically‐foundedhistoricalworksofepistemic

redresssuchasDipeshChakrabarty’sProvincializingEurope.Justabouteveryoneof

J.M.Coetzee’sSouthAfricannovelsimplicitlydealswiththepoliticsofcultural

differenceinonewayoranother.DittoNadineGordimerandthelegionsoflower‐

rankedSouthAfricannovelistsworkinginthepre‐2000period.Ithinkitisfairto

saythatacommonstraininsuchworkhasbeenthesensethatculturaldifference

hasbeenmismanagedinbothcolonialandneocolonialcontexts,nottomention

10Young,ColonialDesire;WhiteMytholgies;Said,Orientalism;Spivak,InOtherWorlds;andBhabha,TheLocationofCulture.11Comaroff,JeanandJohn.OfRevelationandRevolution;Attwell,RewritingModernity;Brown,VoicingtheText;Wylie,SavageDelight,Hofmeyr,“WeSpendOurYears”;DeKock,CivilisingBarbarians.12SeeDietrich,OfSalvationandCivilisation.13Dubow,ScientificRacism.

8

neoliberalconditions,andthatvigilanceaboutmoreequitablerecognitionofall

formsofdifference–insexuality,race,ethnicity,language,cultureandtheepisteme

–remainsanimportantethicaltask.ItisalsofairtosuggestthatSouthAfrica’s

“negotiatedrevolution,”culminatinginatransitiontomajorityruleandbroad‐

baseddemocracyin1994,setinplace(atleastintheformalsuperstructureofthe

lawandtheConstitution)aremediationoftheevilsofearliernegationsof

difference.By1994,racialdiscriminationandthemismanagementofdifference(a

kindofdistortedor“bad”difference,suchasapartheid’s“separatebutequal”alibi

forwhiterule)cametobeseenbyallexceptthelunatic‐fringefarrightasa

universalevil,astheverysubjectofevil.Bythistime,apartheid,solidlybasedonthe

segregationistfoundationlaidbymorethanthreecenturiesofcolonialism,hadbeen

declaredacrimeagainsthumanity;now,aftertheadventoffulldemocracy,eventhe

insidersofapartheid,themollycoddledwhites,werepersuadedtoacceptthat

“rainbowism”–asymbolicfigurationof“good”orequitableculturaldifference

peculiartoSouthAfrica’slaterevolution–wasavirtuouspoliticalandsocialstateof

being.ForashortwhileduringPresidentNelsonMandela’sfiveyearsofhoneymoon

rule,“rainbowism”wasenthusiasticallyembraced,notleastbyArchbishop

DesmondTutuandMandelahimself,whowillberemembered,amongotherthings,

forhavingtea,inthewhite“homeland”ofOrania,withBetsyVerwoerd,widowof

apartheid’sarchitect,DrHendrikFrenschVerwoerd.

Thecultural‐differencerainbow,initshoneymoonphase,wasnottolast,as

everyonenowknows.Anynumberofaccounts,bothscholarlyandimaginative,will

showthat,startingaroundtheANC’ssecondtermofgovernmentin1999andthe

ascensiontothepresidencyofthedistant,lessconciliatoryThaboMbeki,a

pervasivecurrentofdisillusionmentsetin.Thisoccurredamidwidespread

perceptionsof1)theconsolidationofaneoliberalformof“classapartheid”inwhat

politicaleconomistPatrickBondcallsa“choicelessdemocracy”14and2)an

emergingpoliticaldiscoursewhichwasnewlyrace‐accentuatedtoadegreethat

dedicatednon‐racialistsbothinsideandoutsidetheANCfounduncomfortable.One

14Bond,Patrick,“MandelaYears.”

9

exampleofthenewfocusonrace–particularlythevalorizationof“pure”blackness

aboveotherethniccolorations–wasthecontroversyovertheMbeki‐supported

“NativeClub,”15whichwaspartofabiggerpatternthatFinlaydescribesastypifying

theMbekipresidencyof1999‐2008:“[A]polarityinpublicexchangesdealingwith

racethat,formany,feltquitedifferentfromthespiritoftheprecedingperiod,where

notionsofnon‐racialismandinclusivityweretheguidingideologyofstatedecision

andthezeitgeistofpublicdiscussion.”16Totheireofmanylongstandingnon‐

racialists,theominouslynamedNativeClub,closelyaffiliatedwithPresident

Mbeki’soffice,wasopentoblackintellectualsonly.Suchexclusionarydiscourseand

practicewaswidelyperceivedduringMbeki’sreigntosignaltheemergenceofan

unwelcome,uglyracialessentialism,re‐enshrinedfromaboveintheSouthAfrican

bodypublic.Thiswasseenasabrogatingthetraditionsofnon‐racialismforwhich

theANCfought,themselvesregardedasimmemorialvalues(non‐racialismwas

enshrinedasakeyprincipleintheANC’s1955FreedomCharter).Itwasfeltthat

here,onceagain,asingleraceamongmanywasbeingvalorizedasprimary,asa

moreprivilegedcategory;culturaldifferencewasyetagainindangerofbeing

mismanagedtothebenefitofonestrainoraccentaboveothers.Thespecterofa

resuscitatedvariantof“baddifference,”anexclusionarydelineationofpreferment,

andthehardeningofsuchanuglyscabonthebodyofthe“new”SouthAfrica,galled

manySouthAfricanlibertarians.Notleastamongsuchperceiveddefacementsofthe

rainbowidealoffreedomandequalityamiddiversityweretheneoliberaleconomic

policieswhich,combinedwithpubliclyprovedstatecorruption,werecreating

receptiveconditionsforwhatBondhasmorerecentlyhascalledthe“crony‐

capitalist,corruption‐riddled,brutally‐securitised,eco‐destructiveandanti‐

egalitarianregime[SouthAfrica]suffer[s]now.”17

Bond’sfar‐leftversionofeventsis,ofcourse,isonestrandinawidelytold

storyaboutwhatwent“wrong”inSouthAfrica’stransitiontodemocracy.However,

thefactthatpublicdiscoursefoundstrongtractioninthe2000sonthebasisofa

15SeeNdlovu‐Gatsheni,TrackingtheHistoricalRoots;Finlay,“StagingPerformance.”16Finlay,“StagingPerformance,”36.17Bond,“MandelaYears.”

10

widelyheldfeelingthatdemocracywas“failing,”andthatitwasonthebrink(see,

forexample,XolelaMangcu’sTotheBrink),canbeillustratedbyamajorUniversity

oftheWitwatersrandconferenceinJanuary2008called“Paradoxesofthe

PostcolonialPublicSphere:DemocracyattheCrossroads.”Atthisgathering,

politicalanalystsIvorChipkinandMangcu,amongothers,soundedwarningsabout

adisturbinglyrace‐inflectednarrativeof“nationalidentity”thatseemedtobe

increasinglynormative,andexclusionaryonaracialbasis,intheranksofthe

governingparty.Inhisbook,Mangcucritiqueswhathedescribesasthe“racial

nationalism”oftheMbekigovernment,callingforarenewedacceptanceof

“irreducibleplurality”andareturntothetraditionsofnon‐racialism.18More

broadlyspeaking,suchMbeki‐era“racialnativism”19hithomewithanespecially

sickthudforSouthAfricanculturalandpoliticalanalysts.LikeHomiBhabhaandhis

fellowpostcolonialthinkersinthevolumeNationandNarration,manyobservers

hadcometoregardrestrictiveidentikitsforessentializedversionsof“national

identity”ascountertoprogressmadeincriticaltheorysincethe1968revolution.

Theassumptioncouldnownolongerbeheldthatthe“new”SouthAfricawason

boardinthelarger,progressiveprojectofdeterritorializinghegemonicand/or

foundationalfixationsofsubjectivityandidentity,aglobalhobgoblin.Thisisnotto

mentionthebadtastesuchareturntoethnicfixationsleftinthemouthofthose

whohadreadFanonandsawintheuglyre‐birthofracialcontractionsofpowerand

privilegethespecterofcorruptrulingeliteswhowerewonttolosetheplotoftheir

ownrevolution.

Itisnotmypurposeheretotestandprobesuchpositionsortheirantecedent

historicalconditionsperse,buttonotetheresurgenceofpublic‐spherealarmabout

neworthodoxiesofnationalidentity,andnewformsof“bad”difference.Such

excrescenceswereperceivedtobeinstarkcontradictiontothepromiseofthe

negotiatedSouthAfricanrevolution,withitspopularlycelebrated“rainbowism,”

regardlessoffrequentmockeryamongtheintelligentsiaof“rainbow”delusions.At

18Mangcu,TotheBrink,119.19Mangcu,TotheBrink,37.

11

thetimeofwriting,anotherfiveyearsafterthedemiseofMbeki,intheeraofZuma

and“Nkandlagate,”20itiscommoncauseamongintellectuals,journalistsand

analystsofalmosteverypersuasioninSouthAfrica(apartfromgovernment

spokespeople)thatthedemocraticidealinSouthAfricahasbeencompromisedby

agentsofself‐enrichmentandpublic‐spherecorruption.Thisconditionhas

culminatedinwhatisperceivedasasystemofpatrimonialismwithJacobZumaat

itsnarrowapex.“Bad”differencewouldappearonceagaintoberulingtheroost,at

leasttosomeextent.

Toillustratethepoint,considerthewordsofrenownedscholarandnoted

JohannesburgresidentAchilleMbembeina2013commentaryintheSouthAfrican

Mail&Guardian,whichincludesthefollowingominousdescriptionofthestateof

thecountry:

SouthAfricahasenteredanewperiodofitshistory:apost‐Machiavellianmomentwhenprivateaccumulationnolongerhappensthroughoutrightdispossessionbutthroughthecaptureandappropriationofpublicresources,themodulationofbrutalityandtheinstrumentalisationofdisorder.21

ForMbembe,SouthAfricain2013isnotimmunefromwhathecallsa“mixtureof

clientelism,nepotismandprebendalism”commoninAfricanpostcolonies,andhe

warnsthatan“armedsociety”suchasSouthAfricais“hardlyademocracy;”itis,he

writes,“mostlyanassemblageofatomisedindividualsisolatedbeforepower,

separatedfromeachotherbyfear,prejudice,mistrustandsuspicion,andproneto

mobiliseunderthebannerofeitheramob,acliqueoramilitiaratherthananidea

and,evenlessso,adisciplinedorganization.”22

‘Bad’Difference–aNew‘AxisofEvil’?

Again,mypurposehereisnottodevelop,contradictorvalidateargumentsforand

20OnNkandlagate,seeforexampleDavidSmith,“JacobZumaAccusedofCorruption,”TheGuardian,http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/jacob‐zuma‐accused‐corruption‐south‐africa.21Mbembe,“OurLustforLostSegregation.”22Ibid.

12

againstsuchreadingsofthecountry’spoliticalmanagement,suggestiveastheyare

ofarevolutionthathaslostitsmoorings.Itis,rather,toaskaquestionthatfollows

fromsuchperceptionsandreadings.Thequestionrelatestothewritingofthe

transitionperiodandbeyond,inwhich,asIhavealreadynoted,theturntowards

“crime”storiesisaccompaniedbyanacceleratedsenseofalarmabout“crime”and

disorderinthepublicbodyitself.Thenewwaveoffiction,Iargueinthisarticle,

worksonthehunchthatafreshlyperverseformofofficiallylegitimated“bad”

culturaldifferencehasbecomeanalibiforcivilmismanagement,perhapsevenfor

whatMbembe,above,callsthe“instrumentalisationofdisorder”.“Bad”differenceis

comingtobeperceivedasanew“axisofevil”aroundwhichsocialdetection

persistentlyfindsitselforbiting.Iproposethattheworkofsocialdetection,as

genericallyspunintodetectivestoriesbyanewgenerationofwriters,hasbecomea

matterofexposingsuch“bad”differenceanditslegitimatingrationalizations,its

posturesandalibis,markingitoutas“off”(asin“good”meatthathas“goneoff”),

andidentifyingitastheshadow‐sideofvirtuousoracceptableversionsoflegitimate

culturaldifference.Suchsocially“conscientising”writing,inWarnes’swords,23

seekstoshowmorepreciselyhow“bad”differencegoesaboutitsdisingenuous

work.Ifthe“transition”itselfisdifficultto“see,”andhardtobelieve,sincesolittle

appearstohavechangedontheground,inhardeconomicterms,especiallyforthe

poor,24thensuchdetectionandexposureis–almostnaturally–theworkofthe

writer.Insuchanunderstandingofthewriter’srole,s/heseekstoshowwhat’s

actuallygoingon,oratleasttosuggestatheory,arevisedversionofthelostsocial

plot,inwhichacalculatedguessismade.Thetaskforthewriter(andthecritic),

then,istomakethetransition–orthefictionofthetransition–visibleandtractable

byplottingitscharacters,theirsphereofoperation,theirmotivesandmodus

operandi,andultimately,theirdeedsandthesocialmeaningthereof.Political

operativeswhowere“good”inthepast,underconditionsofdisenfranchisement,

nowoftenbecome“bad”bearersofpower.Atleast,thiswouldoftenappeartobe

23Warnes,“WritingCrime,”983.24SeeBond,EliteTransition;Allen,TransformationinSouthAfrica.

13

thereal,hiddenmeaningofthetransitionasconstruedbycrimewriters.25Poweris

seenasanineluctablyamotorofcorruption,andultimatelytheturningpointinany

scenarioof“good”and“bad”difference.Theimplicitquestionis:Doesthecountry,

inexplicablybesetwithrenewedviolenceandperversesocialmanifestationsof

disorder,stillknowitself–thatis,ifiteverdid?Theanswer,itseems,isdubious,to

saytheleast.26

Thedistinctionbetweenfaux‐differenceandtherealdealmightbeseenin

thefollowingterms:politicalandculturaldifferenceasvalidatedbytheConstitution

suggestsarelationofsymmetryinwhichthepartsarerelativelyequalwithinthe

whole,oratleastequalinrelationtothediktatoftheConstitution.“Bad”orcorrupt

difference,ontheotherhand,usesthelegitimizingpoliticsofculturaldifferenceas

analibiforasymmetricalgain,orgainattheexpenseofothersinthevaunted

constitutionaldemocracy.Thisisperceivedasunderminingtherelationofrelative

equalitythatvalidatesdifferenceintheidealized,constitutionalsenseinthefirst

place.“Bad”differenceinthissenseisaformofenunciatoryandmaterialhypocrisy,

theuseofthepoweraffordedbyconstitutionalequalitytoleverageunequal

prefermentwhilespeakingthehallowedethosofegalitarianism.Performativeor

enunciatoryratherthanintegralorconscientiousculturaldifferencebecomesa

meansofsociallegitimation,underwhoseimplicitbannertheperceivedshuffling

andsnufflingatthetroughisseentooccur.Materialistcriticswouldseethisasa

formofclassbetrayal,asBonddoesinhisdescriptionofthepostapartheidorderas

“classapartheid,”27asysteminwhichthosespeakingforthepoorcontinuetodoso

whilegainingassymetricalcapitalleveragebasedonan“empowerment‐for‐all”

ticket.ThisispreciselywhatthenewgenerationofBlackConsciousnessproponents

suchasAndileMngxitsisanadoinfactsay(atthetimeofwriting,Mngxitsisanahad

25See,forexample,Nicol’s“RevengeTrilogy”–Payback(2008),KillerCountry(2010),andBlackHeart(2011)–inwhichthistrendisparticularlymarked,alongwithRogerSmith’sMixedBlood(2009)andWakeupDead(2010).26CelebratedSouthAfricannonfictionauthorJonnySteinbergin2013commentedataseminarfollowinghisawardofaWindhamCampbellPrizeatYaleUniversitythatSouthAfricaisacountrywhere“writingisaquestionofcoordinationbetweendeafpeople”(personalseminarnotes).27Bond,“MandelaYears.”

14

joinedhisleaderJuliusMalemainParliamentonbehalfoftheEconomicFreedom

Fighters(EFF)politicalparty).Forthecrimewriters,theexistenceofcorruptedor

“bad”differenceisdetectedinarangeofpublicandprivatespaces,fromthe

governmentitself(morespecifically,itscorruptandhungryofficialsandtheir

cronies,asinNicol’sworks),amongthecriminals,whichoftenincludesthe

(degenerate,sold‐out)membersoftheSouthAfricanPoliceServices(asinSmith’s

MixedBlood);orincivilsocietyitself,inwhich“bad”alliancesbetweendistinct

subsetsoftheheterodoxcivilcosmopolisincahootswithstatefunctionariescreate

diseaseddistortionsof“civil”practice(asinMargieOrford’sGallowsHilland

AndrewBrown’sRefuge).Forwritersinthepostapartheidperiod,theolderand

perhapseasier‐to‐definemoraleconomyofanti‐apartheidorstruggleliteraturehas

disappearedforgood.Now,theyfeelcompelledtoworkoutanewwayofseeing

things.Inthisnewersocialandmoraleconomy,theboundariesofrightandwrong,

ofgoodandbad,haveshifteddecisively,andneedtobepinpointedafresh.Disorder

andcriminalviolencehavebecomeepidemicandmustbeaddressed.Ofcourse,this

isnevergoingbeaneasytask.Thepostapartheidfictionalterrain,Iwillargue,

dramatizesareconfiguredcontestoverlawandorderinwhichtheborderlinesof

legitimateandillegitimate,nowfarlessclearoridentifiable,areundererasure.

“Crime”issorifethatneitherthestatenoranyparticularcivilgrouping,itwould

appear,hasamonopolyovereitherviolenceorlegitimacy.Moralambiguity–the

lossofstablepoliticalandethicalcompasspoints–provestobeaubiquitousnew

terraininwhich“difference”playsoutinthesefictions,oftenrevealing,inaddition

tomisgovernmentandcriminalcitizenship,agoryinversionoftheruleoflaw.

PostcolonialLawand(Dis)order

Harvard‐basedSouthAfricanculturalanthropologistsJeanandJohnComaroffhome

inonpreciselysuchethicalmuddiness,suchprofoundmoralambiguityandseeming

lawlessness,withincontextsofvalidatedpoliticaldifference,intwoseparateessays

intheireditedvolume,LawandDisorderinthePostcolony(2006).RitaBarnard,too,

inheressay“Tsotsis:OnLaw,theOutlaw,andthePostcolonialState”(2008),in

15

whichshediscussestheComaroffsworkinthisregard,drawsattentiontothe

mannerinwhichthepostapartheidstatehasbroughtwithit“newpatternsof

inclusionandexclusion,newmeaningsofcitizenship,andnewdimensionsof

sovereigntyandpower.”28Oneaspectofthisnewerset‐up,accordingtoBarnard,is

that“minimalgovernment,underpressurefromafrightenedcitizenry(redefinedas

consumersandvictims),canreadilyturnintoitsauthoritarianopposite.”29Forthe

Comaroffs,theformercolonialstateevincesaparticularpreoccupationwiththelaw,

amountingattimestoafetishizationoflegality.Thepreoccupationwithlawand

legality,writetheComaroffs,runsdeeperthan“purelyaconcernwithcrime.”30This

isanimportantpointtomake,since“crime”inSouthAfricandiscourseisa

problematicsignifier,capturingveryincompletelythemoregeneralizedsceneof

socialinstability.Ithastodo,theComaroffsargue,“withtheveryconstitutionofthe

postcolonialpolity,”sincethe“modernistnation‐stateappearstobeundergoingan

epochalmoveawayfromtheidealofanimaginedcommunityfoundedonthefiction,

oftenviolentlysustained,ofculturalhomogeneity,towardanervous,xenophobically

taintedsenseofheterogeneityandheterodoxy.”31Theriseofneoliberalism,the

authorscontinue,“hasheightenedallthis,withitsimpactonpopulation

movements,onthemigrationofworkandworkers,onthedispersionofcultural

practices,onthereturnofthecolonialoppressedtohauntthecosmopolesthatonce

ruledthemandwrotetheirhistories.”Sucheffects“arefeltespeciallyinformer

colonies,whichwereerectedfromthefirstondifference.”32

Now,differencecomesbacktohaunttheformercolonies:“[P]ostcolonials

arecitizensforwhompolymorphous,labileidentitiescoexistinuneasyensembles

ofpoliticalsubjectivity;”suchcitizenstendnottoattachtheirsenseofdestinytothe

nation,butratherto“anethnic,cultural,language,religious,orsomeothergroup,”

despitethefactthatsubjectssuchasthesedonotnecessarilyrejecttheirnational

28Barnard,“Tsotsis,”561‐562.SeealsoJohnnySteinberg,“Crime”.29Ibid.,565.30Comaroff,LawandDisorder,32.31Ibid.,32.32Ibid.,33

16

identity.33Whatareoftenlabeledascommunalloyalties(videPagadintheWestern

Cape,forexample,ormigrantsfromotherpartsofAfricawhohavebeenthesubject

ofxenophobicattacksinJohannesburgandelsewhere),“arefrequentlyblamedfor

thekindsofviolence,nepotism,andcorruptionsaidtosaturatethesesocieties,asif

culturesofheterodoxybearwithinthemtheseedsofcriminality,difference,

disorder.”34

Itisworthcyclingbackalittletogiveamorecompleteaccountofhowthe

Comaroffsgettotheratherstartlingpointthatitiswithinculturesofheterodoxy

thatcriminalityanddisorderareseenascorrelatesofdifference.Howhasitcome

aboutthattheroleofculturaldifference,suchacriticalfactorinthehistoryofmany

postcolonies,couldhaveshiftedsodrastically,andsoalarmingly,fromavirtueto

somethingresemblingamatrixforcriminality?

Thefirststepistosketchthecontextinwhichsuchakeenpreoccupation

withthelaw,legalityanditsabrogationinthepostcolonymightbefound,sinceone

ofitsmostrecentexamplesissurelypostapartheidSouthAfrica.Drawingonawide

rangeofcasestudiesandethnographicscholarship,theComaroffsfindthat“lawand

disorder”areconstitutiveofasocialbaseinwhichlegalityandcriminalitydepend

onandfeedoffeachotherinanenhanced,oraccentuated,manner.TheComaroffs

notethat“vastlylucrativereturns…inhereinactivelysustainingzonesofambiguity

betweenthepresenceandabsenceofthelaw;”inthisway,valueisamassed“by

exploitingthenewaporiasofjurisdictionopenedupbyneoliberalconditions.”35

CentraltotheComaroffs’discussionabouttheconsequencesofneoliberal

politicalrationalityinthepostcolonyisnotonlywhatonemightcallon‐the‐ground

conditionsof“lawlessness”behindvalue‐amassinggrabs,butalsothewidespread

mediarepresentationofsuchconditionsas“bad.”Thesemediaversionsofwhat

mightbestyledasakindofgrab‐what‐you‐can‐while‐you‐canapproachtothe“free

33Ibid.34Ibid.35Comaroff,LawandDisorder,5.

17

market”taketheirleadfromanolder,moreequitableliberalrationality.Egalitarian

politicaltheoryinSouthAfrica,Iwouldadd,embeddedinanidealistic(andclassic

liberal‐democratic)Constitution,existsinastateoffundamentaldisjuncturewith

socioeconomicpractice,asobservedandreporteduponfreneticallyinthereal

worldofeverydaymedia.Theconjunctionof“neo”and“liberal”createsa

paradoxicalnexusinwhichitispossiblebothtobewilly‐nillypartofsuchanorder

andtoworkagainstitsgrain,whethercorruptly(asinpolicecommissionerswho

takebribesbutprofesstoupholdthelaw)orfromapositionofgenuineentrapment

asasubjectinsuchanorderofthings.Thecrimewriteroftentakesuptheposition,

onbehalfofanentrappedcitizenry,ofthegalledcivilsubjectobservingdirtydoings

inanewlycreated“democratic”orderthatseemstobelieinits(reported)behavior

everytenetofitsunderlying(liberal‐democratic)ethos.Further,inthemore

reflexivewriters’work,thereisanawarenessthatthecitizensoentrappedin

observingwidespreadneoliberalquashingofclassicliberalismisalsowilly‐nilly

partofthesamesystem.Thiskindoftensionbetweenanidealizednotionof(fair)

legalitythatisconsistentlyinvokedasaleitmotif,anditspersistentcancellingby

(unfair)practiceparadingasdifferentialempowerment,istypicalofthe

postcoloniallaw/disorderconditiondescribedbytheComaroffs.

Ironically,insuchconditionslawisfetishized,“evenas,inmostpostcolonies,

higherandhigherwallsarebuilttoprotectthepropertiedfromlawlessness,evenas

thelanguageoflegalityinsinuatesitselfdeeperanddeeperintotherealmofthe

illicit.”36Lawandlawlessness,asserttheComaroffs,“areconditionsofeachother’s

possibility.”37Andso,too,arethesetwoleitmotifsofthepostcolonyinextricably

boundinfictiveimaginaries:“Massmediation,”writetheComaroffs,quoting

RosalindMorris,“giveslawanddisordera‘communicativeforce’thatpermitsitto

‘traversethesocialfield’.”38TheseargumentsappeartosupportMargieOrford’s

36Ibid.,22.37Ibid.,21.38Ibid.

18

publicviews39thatcrimefictionallowsordinarycitizensimaginativelytotraverse

zonesoflawanditsscrubbingoutwhicharenotgenerallyseenexceptbypolicemen

andjournalists;the“crime”storyisthusa“communicativeforce”inwhichbolted‐in,

apprehensivecitizensoftheneoliberalpostcolonycan“getout”and“see”what

mightactuallybegoingoninthedarkofnight,andintheclearlightofday,too,in

thefrequentlybewildering,unreadablepostapartheidtopography.

Morriscommentsonthepervasivephenomenonofmediated“crime”in

SouthAfrica:“Transmittedalongamyriadvectors,intelevisualserials,newspaper

columns,radiobroadcasts,andmusiclyrics,crimeisthephantomthathauntsthe

newnation’simaginary.”40Crimeisbothaneventintherealworldandamediated

conditionfeedingotherfearsandinsecurities:“Macabretalesofheavilyarmed

robbersandsingle‐mindedcarjackers,ofremorselessmurderers,and–most

remarkedofall–pedophilicrapistsfeedanationalpressthatisinsatiablefornews

ofpersonalizedcatastrophewithwhichtosignifyorprophesypoliticalfailure.”41

Similarly,historianGaryKynoch42arguesforadeeppreoccupationamongwhitesin

SouthAfricainthepostapartheidperiodwithnarrativesoflawlessnessamid

mountingpoliticalsuspense.

‘Crime’asanAllegoryfortheSociopolitical

Understanding,interpreting,describingandrespondingto“crime”inthe“new”

SouthAfricathereforeappearstobeaneverydayallegoryforthesociopolitical

terraininabroadsense,speakingurgentlytoanxietiesaboutveryrealconditionsof

socialdisorder.43“[T]hecausesofcrime’stransformationare…usuallyconstruedin

39SeeOrford’scommentinDeKock,Leon.“RogerSmithandthe‘GenreSnob’Debate.”SLiPnet,http://slipnet.co.za/view/reviews/crime‐fiction‐the‐%E2%80%98new‐political‐novel%E2%80%99/

40Morris,“TheMuteandtheUnspeakable”,61.41Ibid.,61.42Kynoch,“FearandAlienation”.43Onformsof“allegory”inthissense,seealsoRitaBarnard’sinsightfuldiscussionofthefilmversionofFugard’sTsotsi.

19

politicalterms,”arguesMorris;“[c]rimemarkstheboundaryofthepolisasmuchas

anyotherwilderness,”sheadds.44Withinsuchasociopoliticalmilieu,regardlessof

finerpointsofform,genreorthewriter’sintention,writersineluctablygotothe

heartofthepoliticalwitheverynewnarrativeinwhichdetectionisimaginedasa

setofexplorationsacrossthesocialterrain,andthecauseofacrimeissought

withinachainofeventsinthekindofpolitydescribedabove.

Ofcourse,manyshadesofthepalettewillbeevidentaswritersseektodepict

anemergingorderthroughthelensofwhatacommunitydeemstobe“criminal,”in

linewithclassicalsociologistEmileDurkheim’scredothatsocietylearnstoknow

itselfbycomingtounderstandthenatureitsowncriminalshadow.ForDurkheim,

crime–andmoretothepoint,howpeoplerespondtoitsoccurrence–providesa

basisfortheemergenceofanormativeconsensus.“Crimebringstogetherupright

consciencesandconcentratesthem,”Durkheimwroteinthelate19thcentury,45and

thiscontinuestoholdtrue.TheproblemforSouthAfricanwritersonthecuspofthe

20thcentury,however,hasoftenbeentheveryequivocality–andcontestation–of

thelinebetweenlegalityandcriminality,bothinthecivilandinthepublic,or

governmental,sphere.Theconditionof“plotloss”forsuchwritersisacute:notonly

hasthesociopoliticaldispensationat“home”changedfundamentally,makingwhat

intheveryrecentpastwasillegalandwrongsuddenlylegalandright,andvice‐

versa;worldpolitics,too,haveundergoneadisorientingtransformation.Inthe

1990s,leadingintothenewmillenniumandbeyond,thesetwoformerlyfarmore

discretezones(“home”and“outside”world)begantoplayintoeachothersuchthat

newlevelsofuncertaintywouldbedeviltheprojectedreliefatachievinga

democraticconsensusintheSouthAfricanbodypoliticatlarge.Inthewakeof

globalizationanditsdramatic1990supsurge,theruleshadbeenrewrittenacross

thetransformedfaceoftheworld,especiallyfornationsthatforsolonghaddefined

themselvesinrelationtotheantagonismsoftheColdWar.

44Morris,“TheMuteandtheUnspeakable,”61.45Durkheim,TheDivisonofLabor,103.

20

LeadingcrimenovelistoftheSouthAfricantransitionDeonMeyertakes

preciselythedisambiguationofthiscomplexconditionashisimplicittask,his

subtext,inthe“crime”novelHeartoftheHunter.Meyer’sherointhistale,the

muscledmodernwarriorThobela(“Tiny”)Mpayipheli,allegoricallyembodiesthe

intricatecomplexityofthepostapartheiddispensationinseveralways.Notonlywas

MpayiphelischooledinColdWarconditionsasanMKsoldiertrainedinEastern

EuropeunderCommunistconditions;notonlywashe“forgotten”bythenow‐ruling

ANCuponhisreturnfromexile(asmanyhavebeen);hewasalso“shopped”asa

crackassassintotheeasternEuropeansinreturnformuch‐neededpoliticalcapital.

Then,tomakemattersworse,thisXhosa“hunter‐warrior”–associatedexplicitlyin

thetextwithalineofimmemorialpre‐colonialchampionsincludingPhalo,Maqoma

andNgqika–isabandonedbytheEasternEuropeansafterthefalloftheBerlinWall.

TheyhadbeenusinghimasanunusuallysharpColdWarassassin,onewhokillshis

finalvictimwithastabbingspear.Importantly,Meyer’smultilayered“plot”inthis

novelisbuiltpreciselyupontheruinsofearliersociohistoricalplots:1)TheANC’s

alliancewiththeUSSRandtheCommunistworld,whichimplodedontheeveof

liberationinSouthAfrica,justwhenitwasduetobearultimatefruit;2)The

promisedeconomic“newdeal”inSouthAfrica,inconsequenceuponsocialism’s

projectedmoralvictoryontheworldstage;thisisadealthatdramaticallyfailedto

comeabout;Mpayipheli,committedfoot‐soldieroftherevolution,comeshometo

nothing,neitherglorynormoney;3)Thesettingupofasocialistdemocracyinsidea

(pre‐globalization)nation‐statesecuredbytheliberationforces–yetanother

conspicuousfailureofintention.Allofthesebuildingblocksforwhatwaslong

projectedasa“good”andideologicallyvirtuousnewSouthAfricahadbeen

precipitouslysweptaway.Thenation‐state’sabilitytoactlikearelatively

independentWestphalianentity,asmuchinthisnovelasinrealpolitikinthe1990s

andearly2000s,wasnowbeingunderminedtoacriticalextentbythelate‐capitalist

worldorderanditsborder‐bustingmoneyandtechnologicalflows,spreadingits

tentaclesevenasfarasMoscowandtheformerly“Red”China.(NelsonMandelaand

ThaboMebki’saccessiontothecontroversial“market‐friendly”policyforeconomic

growthandemployment,“GEAR”,inthisperiod,isthereforealsonotsurprising.)As

21

Allenconcludesafterasearchingpolitical‐economicenquiry,46theSouthAfrican

postapartheidstatefounditselftrappedbetweenarockandaveryhardplaceas

globaleconomicpressuresincreasinglysettheagendaforanysinglestate–and

moreespeciallycountriesinthedevelopingor“emerging”world–seekingtosecure

economicgrowthandrisingemploymentforitscitizens.

InSearchofthe‘Virtuous’PostapartheidCitizen

Meanwhile,insidethe“fragile,infantdemocracy”47thatHeartoftheHuntermapsin

thecourseofitsplot,mattersarecorrespondinglycomplicated.Goneistheold

struggleorderofgoodrevolutionariespittedagainstbadwhitepoliticians,or

commendableCommunistsout‐thinkingexploitativeWesterncapitalists.Now,in

manyinstances,thegovernmentisatwarwithitselfascertainalliancepartners

pushtotheleftofanunstablecenterandothers,formerlyrock‐solidalliance

partners,totheright;atthesametime,separatelyconstitutedintelligenceagencies

(combiningtheknowledgeregimesoftheformerliberationarmieswiththoseofthe

formerSADefenceForceandSAPolice)findthemselvesbitterlycrossingswords

witheachother.Thecollateraldamagequotientthatresultsfromsuch

intergovernmentalfeudsincludes“good”peoplelikethestruggleheroMpayipheli

himselfandMiriam,hisnewfoundbeloved.Ofcourse,oneneedonlymentionthe

nameVusiPikoliandsimilarexamplestofindreal‐worldcasesofsuchcollateral

damage.The“good,”asin“goodpeople,”andhowtodefinethisinthe“newSouth

Africa,”ideologicallyspeaking,wasfastbecominganaporeticcategory.Anditisthis

blackhole,thisblindspotaboutwhatexactlyconstitutesa“goodcitizen,”ora

“reasonableman”inlegalparlance,towhichbothcrimewriters,nonfictionauthors

andpoliticalanalystshaverepeatedlyturned.48

ImaginativewriterssuchasMeyer,MargieOrford,KgebetliMoele,Nadine

Gordimer,ZakesMda,J.M.Coetzee,DamonGalgut,FredKhumalo,AndrewBrown,

46Allen,TransformationinSouthAfrica,181‐192.47Meyer,HeartoftheHunter,234.48SeeBloom,WaysofStaying;Altbeker,FruitofaPoisonedTree;Chipkin,DoSouthAfricansExist?

22

MarlenevanNiekerk,SiphisoMzobe,LisaFugard,ImraanCoovadia,SarahPenny,

DialeTlholwe,SonjaLoots,ThandoMgqolozana,HenriettaRose‐Innes,NiqMhlongo,

EtiennevanHeerden,RachelZadok,MandlaLanga,IngridWinterbach,EbenVenter,

MichielHeyns,AngelinaMakholwa,HeinrichTroost,andstillothers(toonumerous

tomention)atworkinthisperiodseemedespeciallykeentoprobetheproblemof

the“virtuous”individual–andthelimitsorpressuresbroughttobearindefining

suchvirtue–asalitmustestforthehealthofthesocialbodyatlarge.Wheredoes

onedrawthelinebetweenlegitimateculturaldifference–apolymorphousgood–

andlessennoblingstrainsofdifference?Inafragileensembleofcitizenstryingto

makeanewdemocraticconsensus,“baddifference”arguablyintroducesastrainof

polymorphousperversity,tomisuseFreud’sfamousterm.Coetzeeprobedthelimit‐

conditionsofdemocraticconsensusinthecharacterofDavidLurie,andGordimerin

herexaminationofthetrigger‐fingercharacterinTheHouseGun,DuncanLingard,to

mentionthetwomostobviousexamples.DamonGalgut,inTheGoodDoctor,givesus

twodoctorstryingtodothe“rightthing”inaruralhospital,againstthepolitical

odds,andasksustoweightthemup.49Theotherauthorsmentionedabovecanbe

showntobedoingasimilarexerciseviadifferentmeansineachcase.

Howtodefinea“good”personinthe“newSouthAfrica”isalsowhat’s

urgentlyatissueinMeyer’snovel.Bycreatingasingleprimaryfocusofpublic

attention–arivetingroadchase–Meyersucceedsinconcentratingtheattentionof

threeinterlockingsetsofreadingpublics(hisSouthAfricanreaders,hissizeable

internationalaudience,andtheimaginedgeneral‐publicconsumersofmedia

embeddedinnovel’splot)uponacriticalquestion:isTinyMpayipheliabadguyora

goodguy,aherooravillain?Ishevirtuousormeretriciouswithintheredefined

termsofmoralgoodunderthenewdispensation?Howfardoweallowfor

“difference”inthenewlytolerantconstitutionaldemocracy?A“goodcitizen”isa

category,asChipkin50demonstrates,thatisundererasureinMeyer’s“infant

democracy,”andthereforethesubjectoffeverishlydifferentialredefinition.Itisa

49SeeTitlestad,“AllegoriesofWhiteMasculinity.”50Chipkin,DoSouthAfricansExist?,100.

23

questiononwhichthefateofthecountryhangs,becauseifSouthAfricagetsthis

definitionwrong,orbadlyskewedtowardsrenewedinjusticeand“baddifference,”

thatis,discriminationwritlarge,thenthe“baby”dispensationmightjustemerge

fromthetransitionasabeastlyadult.Thestakes,therefore,areveryhigh.

Thepoliticalimportanceofthismoralfixingofa“goodcitizen”cannotbe

overestimated.Such“fixing”–inthesensesofbothstabilizingaswellascorrecting–

impliesacorrectiveanddiscursivere‐territorializingofthenewcountry,achieving

anext‐to‐impossibleconsensualunderpinning.

ItisthereforenosurprisethatMeyerorchestratessustainedattentionon

preciselythedifficultiesofmoralandethicalcompass‐setting.Heachievesahigh

degreeofnarrativeconcentrationforhisintersectingreadingpublicsbylaunching

hisprotagonistMpayiphelionamovie‐stylemotorcyclechasefromCapeTownto

northernBotswana.Byusingasuchplot‐heavythrillermodel,Meyersucceedsin

doingwhatmanyindubitablyestimable,older‐stylepoliticalwritersoftencannotdo

indiscursivelyheavymodes:revivifythedrama–thebig‐screensenseofplot,the

widerangeofcharacters–inthestoryofpostapartheidpoliticalchange.

AFrankensteinoraRobinHood?

Inconsequence,somemoredetailedplotrecapitulationatthisjuncture,itishoped,

willnotbeamiss.Mpayipheli,figuredperhapsalittleromanticallyasbeingintouch

with“thevoicesofhisancestors–PhaloandRharhabe,NqikaandMaqoma,the

greatXhosachiefs,hisbloodline,source,andrefuge”51–reluctantlyagreestohelpa

formerstrugglecomrade,JohnnyKleintjes,whoisbeingheldhostagebyunknown

partiesinLusakafollowinganintelligencesting.Mpayiphelimusttakeaharddrive

supposedlycontainingsensitiveinformationtoKleintjes’sobscuretransnational

kidnappersintheZambiancapitalsothathecansecurehiscompatriot’sfreedom.

Mpayipheliisreluctanttodothis–hehasboughtaplotoflandinhisancestral

Xhosaland(EasternCape),whencehewantstoreturnwithhisbelovedMiriamand

51Meyer,HeartoftheHunter,3.

24

herson.Hefeelscompelledtonurtureandre‐educatetheboyasamanofthe

people.LiketheAlPacinocharacterCarlitoBriganteinthemovieCarlito’sWay

(1993),Mpayiphelibadlywantstoclosedownthebadpartsofhishistory,tolive

pureandstraight,butthepasthaulshiminforone(seemingly)lastsettlingof

scores.He“owes”Kleintjesanunspecified“struggle”debt,andMpayipheliisnothing

ifnotamanofhisword,a“stand‐upguy”inAmericangang‐movieparlance.He

booksaflightfromCapeTowntoLusaka,thinkinghewillsortthebusinessout

quickly.Unknowntohim,though,various,warringSAintelligenceagenciesare

trailinghim–theyalsodon’tquiteknowwhat’sgoingon,andtheywantthe

intelligenceontheharddriveMpayipheliiscarryingsotheycanfindout.When

agentstrytoapprehendhimatCapeTownInternationalairport,heshowshis

extraordinaryphysicalprowessbystaginganunlikelyescape,exitingtheairport

andeventually“borrowing”aBMW1200GSmotorcyclefromhisplaceofwork,a

MotorraddealershipintheCapeTowncitybowl.

Mpayipheli,accustomedtoridinga200ccHondaBenly,findshimself

compelledtoadapttothebrutishpowerofthemassiveBMW,almostwipinghimself

outashemakeshiswayontotheN1,theroadthatleadsnorthtobothBotswana

andZimbabwe,andbeyondthat,hisintendeddestinationofLusaka.Heknowsthat

thecombinedforcesoftheSAPoliceServices,theSANationalDefenceForce,

variousarmsofthepostapartheidintelligenceservices,alongwithanelitereaction

unit,willsoonbehuntinghimdown.Theydothiswithhelicopters,satellite

surveillance,roadblocks,andanarsenalofarmsfittokillabattalionofsoldiers,let

aloneasolofugitiveonamotorbike.WhenCapeTimesreporterAllisonHealygets

windofthestory,thestageissetforamediaspectaclethat(forthepurposesofthis

novel)concentratestheattentionofsignificantportionsofthenewnationona

dramaticchase,andwhatitrepresents.

Inlinewiththeideathatreportersanddetectivestraversesocialshadow‐

zonesonbehalfofthecitizenry,andbringbackdispatchesonwhat’sactuallygoing

onoutthere,Healy’sreporting,alongwithothermediamissivesinthenovel,pitted

againststatementsbythestate,signalafiercepublic‐spherecontestationoverhow

besttounderstandandinterprettheevents“ontheground”regardingMpayipheli.

25

Thebigquestionishowto“read”him–isheaFrankensteinofthestruggle,asthe

governmentmediacommuniquéssuggest,oraRobinHood,asmanycivilsubjects

begintothinkduringthecourseofthestory?Beforelong,reporterHealyisnotonly

updatingher“story”onadailybasisintheCapeTimesassheforgesdeeperand

furtherinherworkofsocialdetection,sheisalsobeinginterviewedonnationalTV.

TheMpayipheliaffairbecomesamediafanfare,andatestcase,toboot:whoismore

truthful,andmore“good,”inthissaplingdemocracy–thegovernment’sagentsor

theindividualthattheseagentsarehuntingdown?Theresolutionofthisquestion

carriesanenormousburdenofmeaningforthehealthandlongevityofthe

democracy:ifMpayiphelidoesturnouttobeaRobinHood,thenwhyistheStateso

intentoncrushinghim,andotherslikehim?Canthenewgovernmentbetrusted?If

Mpayipheliisessentiallyanupstandingcitizen,thenwhatisbeinghiddenfromsight

andwhy?Whatisontheharddriveheiscarryingonhisperson?Andhow

importantaretheconsequencesofsuchhiding?

Thesequestionswereespeciallyimportantintheearlytransitionperiod

(roughlythefirsttenyears),whenSouthAfricastillloomedlargeintheglobal

imaginaryasasingularcaseofconstitutional,democraticsuccessamongdeveloping

nations,a“miracle,”indeed.AstheGermanscholarJornRüsenloudlyexpostulated

ataWitsUniversitycolloquiumin1998called“LivingDifference,”“[i]tisimperative

forusthatyou[thedemocratictransition]succeed!”52Hewasremindingskeptical

SouthAfricandelegateshowmuchwasatstake,notonlyforSouthAfrica,butalso

fortheverypossibilityofconstitutionaldemocracyinthepostcoloniesoftheworld.

AmongthecolloquiumdiscussantsatthateventwasNancyFraser,forwhom

Habermas’stheoryofpublic‐spheredeliberation,framedasitiswithin

Westphalian‐stateor“national”contexts,aswellasBenedictAnderson’snotionof

nationallyconstituted“imaginedcommunities,”nolongereasilyobtainedinthe

globalizing,post‐andtransnationalsphere.53SouthAfrica,onemightargue,wasin

thisperiodcaughtamidships,betweenthesternofnationalidentity(stillamajor

52SeeDeKock,“SouthAfricaintheGlobalImaginary”,289.53Fraser,“TransnationalizingthePublicSphere”,11‐13.

26

pointofreferenceforSouthAfricansofallpersuasions)andthebowof

globalization,thepointatwhichtheSAshipwasencounteringtheswellsofoceanic

globalinterconnection.

Ontheonehand,theveryexistenceofmediacontestationacrossvarious

publicoutlets,andbetweencivilandstatesubjects(asdepictedinHeartofthe

Hunter,andasdidindeedexistinreality),mighthavesuggestedtoMeyer’sreaders

thatanationallyboundeddemocraticpublicsphereis–orwasthen–onasound

footing;thenovelissetintheearly2000s,severalyearsbeforetheinfamous

ProtectionofStateInformationBill,or“SecrecyBill.”Suchhealthypublic‐sphere

contestationmightsuggestthatFraser’ssenseofasequesterednationalpublic

sphereisprematureinthecaseofSouthAfrica.Meyerisoneofthefewcrime

writerswho,atleastinhisearliernovels,ofwhichHeartoftheHunterisagood

example,evincesoptimismaboutthenewdemocracyanditsprospectsforrobust

health.(Heiscorrespondinglysevereontheoldwhiterenegadeswhocontinue

comeoutofthewoodworkincorruptnew‐eraknavery.)Atthesametime,however,

theundercurrentforcesinMeyer’sstory,theveryfactorsprecipitating“plotloss”

amongthestate’sfunctionaries–namelytheCIAandtransnationalMuslimagentsat

workinthenovel’s“sting”,alongsideanintelligencescaminsidetheSouthAfrican

securityestablishment–aremostlybeyondthenation‐state’scontroland

awareness.ThissuggeststhatFraser’stheoryofnation‐stateslosingtheluxuryofan

efficacious,boundedpublicspheremightbehalf‐rightafterall.InMeyer’snovel,as

inmanydemonstrablereal‐worldincidentsinpostapartheidSouthAfrica,thestate

isitselftooofteninthedarkaboutwhatexactlyisgoingonforcomfort;thisis

especiallysoinstrategicinstances,bothwithregardtoexternalundercurrentsand

internally,whereitsownoperativesareoftenprovablyatwarwitheachother,as

eachweek’sstoriesinthenewsmediatendtosuggest.Thestate,likeitscitizens,

seemstohavelosttheplot,andtosavefaceithastopresentaunifiedfront.Inthe

nameof“nationalsecurity,”inthisnovel,ithasnochoicebuttobackthemost

politicoptionintheshortterm:huntdownMpayiphelisothatitcaneliminatethe

riskthattheintelligenceheiscarryingwillcompromiseitssecurity,nottomention

itsincreasinglysensitivedignity.Inordertodothis,however,itmustfightawarof

27

publicopinion,andintheprocessbetrayMpayipheli,oneofitsformerMKsoldier‐

heroes,paintinghimasapsychopathic,out‐of‐controlrenegade.

ThequestionofwhatexactlyconstitutesavirtuousSouthAfrican–andby

implication,howtodistinguishlegitimatearticulationsofculturaldifferencefrom

“bad”difference–isthereforeamatterofthehighestimportance,bothinsidethis

novelandoutsideofit,involvingasearchingexplorationofcontendingvalues.

“Virtue”herewouldincludethesenseoutlinedabovebytheComaroffsofa

diagnosticpreoccupationinpostcolonieswiththeideaofwhatmakesagoodor

legitimatelegalsubject,apreoccupationwhich,theyadd,is“growingin

counterpointto,anddeeplyentailedin,theriseofthefeloniousstate,private

indirectgovernment,andendemicculturesofillegality.”54Itisacounterpointthat

has“cometofeatureprominentlyinpopulardiscoursesalmosteverywhere,”55

amongwhichonemustcount,Iwouldadd,crimefictionofthekindIamdiscussing

here.Asgovernance“dispersesitselfandmonopoliesovercoercionfragment,”the

Comaroffswrite,“crimeandpolicingprovidearichrepertoireofidiomsand

allegorieswithwhichtoaddress,imaginatively,thenatureofsovereignty,justice,

andsocialorder.”56Intheprocess,thekindofambiguityaboutrightandwrong,

legalityanditsshadow,notedearlierastypicaloflifeinvariouspostcoloniesand

developingnations,loomslarge.Asiftodemonstratethisverypoint,Meyer’s

characterJaninaMentz,headofaneliteintelligenceunitsetupaboveseveral

existing(andwarring)intelligencestructuresinthepostapartheidgovernment,tells

herprotégéTigerMazibukothat“theworldha[s]becomeanevilplace,residents

andcountriesnotknowingwho[is]friendorfoe,warsthat[can]nolongerbe

foughtwitharmiesbutatthefrontofsecretrooms,themini‐activitiesofabduction

andoccupation,suicideattacksandpipebombs.”57

‘Intelligence’inaReconstitutedPublicSphere

54Comaroff,LawandDisorder,20.55Ibid.56Ibid.57Meyer,HeartoftheHunter,104.

28

Takingthisthemeastepfurther,HeartoftheHunter’sfocusonwarsofintelligence

(bothstrategicstateinformation/espionage,and“sense‐making”inanageof

informationoverload)capturesacrisisofoldandnewmethodsofwarfare.Theold

methodsincludedMKfoot‐soldierssuchasMpayipheliconductingguerillawarfare,

butsuchsubjectsnowsuddenlyfindthemselvescaughtupinanInformationAge

meta‐war.Inthisnewerkindofmêléetheoldtricksofinformationand

disinformationareelevatedintoaknowledgeeconomyface‐off,ahyper‐datawarof

contendinginformationregimeswhichclaimshumanlivesasincidentalsacrifices.

BytheendofMeyer’snovel,onecomestounderstandthatlivescanplausiblybelost

inawarofattritionaroundownershipand/orcontrolofinformationinandofitself,

despitethefactthatthedataatthecenterofthedust‐upmightbequiteworthless,

orevenfalse,asitturnsouttobeinHeartoftheHunter.Butjustlookatwhat’sat

stake:thepowertodefinewhatis“right,”andwhatislegitimate(includingwhatis

legallyright)inthenameofthebodypolitic.Thereinliesthekeytothe

knowledge/powerequation,whethertheoutcomeisMachiavellianorMandelian.

Everything,inasense,dependson“intelligence,”thefightforwhichinseveral

sensesdrivesMeyer’snovelonrelentlesslytowardsitsmateriallybloody

conclusion.

IntheplotofHeartoftheHunter,governmentagentsissuecommuniqués

describingMpayipheliasaderangedmadman,basedontheevidenceofahigh‐

rankingformerMK“hero”whomakesthisstatementtoloosenthenooseofasexual

harassmentrap.Meanwhile,reporterAllisonHealyportraysaverydifferentversion

ofMpayiphelitoherreaders:hewasanoldMKheroofgreatdistinction,andhehas

repeatedlytriedtoavoidhurtingpeopleinthehunt‐and‐resistancestoryoccurring

inthenovel.Healy’sversionofMpayipheliisalsobasedonthetestimonyofaformer

comrade.Inaddition,thewordofmoreordinarypeople,suchasMpayipheli’s

common‐lawwifeMiriamandastreetwiseshoeshine‐manwhohasknownhimfor

manyyears,suggesttoAllisonandherreadersthatMapyipheliisindeedamanof

thepeopleratherthanthevillainthestatewishestomakehimappearintheeyesof

29

themasses.“WilltherealThobelaMpayiphelipleasestandup,”58Healyruminates,

echoingthebiggerquestionunderlyingthepoliticalsubtextofthenovel.Whilethe

makingsofpoliticalvirtuearestronglysuggestedinthecharacterofKoosKok,a

“Griquatroubadour”whohelpsMpayipheliescapethestate’shelicopters(Kokis

workingwithmusicianDavidKramer,describinghimselfasa“skeefbroer”),the

countryatlargeremainsindoubt.Boththemotorcyclechaseanditsreported

progressservetoemphasizethatthelinebetweenlawand(dis)ordercannotbe

decisivelydemarcated.Inaddition,itrevealsapoliticalcartographythatisboth

politicallyoccultedanddangerouslylabile.

Intheend,thenovelisticresolutionispolyvalentanddisorienting.

Mpayipheliloseshiscommon‐lawwifeasaresultofablunderbyastatesecurity

agent,butherecoverstheboy,planningtotakePakamileawaywithhimtohis

ancestralplotoflandinXhosaland.Thisishisconsolationafterverynearlydying

himselfatthehandsofhisformercomrades.However,thestateofpublicopinion

aboutwhetherMapyipheliisanobleoradebasedcitizenremainsambiguous.For

Meyer,atthispointinhiscareer,andformanywriterslikehim,the“new”South

Africarefusestoresolveitselfexceptinperversionsofliberality,fairnessandsafety,

especiallyinviolationsagainsttheintendedinheritorsoftherevolution.

Conclusion

Thisarticlehasdemonstratedhowculturaldifferenceactsasalocusfora

transformedandredefinedmoraleconomyinthepostapartheidpublicimaginary,in

themedia,inscholarship,andinthecommunicativelypowerfulformofpopular

crimefiction.Thisconvergencepointstoadisparatelyeffectedbutkeenperception

ofareconfiguredpostapartheid“axisofevil,”onewhichcoincidestosomeextent

withamoregeneralpostcolonialandglobalconditioninthewakeofneoliberal

hegemonyacrosstheworld.Whereasthedenigrationofculturaldifference(in

colonialandneocolonialcontexts)oncemobilizedconcertedactivismforitsre‐

58Meyer,HeartoftheHunter,192.

30

validationandtherestorationofputativelymoresymmetricalpowerrelations,a

widespreademergenceof“bad”difference,instantiatedinthephenomenonofthe

“FeloniousState,”hasseenaprofoundlackofclarityonmattersofrightandwrong,

legalityandillegality,virtuouscitizenryandpolitical(il)legitimacy.Rightorwrong

usesofviolence,too,havebecomelesseasytoidentify,asfictionallydramatizedthe

caseofThobelaMpayipheliinMeyer’sHeartoftheHunter(anditssequel,Devil’s

Peak).InDevil’sPeak,Mpayiphelifindshimselftoresortingtoroughjusticewithhis

assegaiforpedophilesafterherealizesthattheSouthAfricancriminaljustice

system–andthereforethestate–isincapableofprotectingevenchildrenfrom

socialdegenerationofthemostobscenekind.Andyetthisformofkangaroo‐style

socialjusticeisshowntobeanultimatelyunsatisfactorymeasure,especiallywhen

Mpayipheligetstwoofthevictimswrongandtherebybecomesamurdererhimself

ratherthananobleavengerofwrong.Sucharetheknife‐pointintricaciesofthenew

order.Ifneitherthestatenoranyparticularcivilgroupinghasamonopolyover

legitimateviolence,asnotedearlier,thenconditionsareindeedaverseandsurelyin

needofintensivedetection.TheturntocrimefictioninSouthAfrica,Imaintain,is

thereforefarlesstheescapist,formulaicblindspotthatitisoftenmadeouttobe,

butratheraformofsocialhermeneuticsinwhichdetectionwithinanethically

muddledtopographyidentifies,describesandexploresthephenomenonof“bad”

difference.Alternatively,suchdetectioninvestigatesthemanagementofdifference

inwaysthataredisingenuousanddeceitful,asapointatwhichthenewordereither

evillycoheres,orfallsapart.Intheprocess,thebasisof“virtuous”citizenshipwithin

thepostapartheidcontextisbeingextensivelyrewritten.

WorksCitedAllen,MichaelH.Globalization,Negotiation,andtheFutureofTransformationinSouthAfrica:RevolutionataBargain?NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2006.

31

Altbeker,Antony.ACountryatWarwithItself:SouthAfrica’sCrisisofCrime.Johannesburg:JonathanBall,2007.Altbeker,Antony.TheDirtyWorkofDemocracy:AYearontheStreetswiththeSAPS.JohannesburgandCapeTown:JonathanBall,2005.Altbeker,Antony.FruitofaPoisonedTree:ATrueStoryofMurderandtheMiscarriageofJustice.Johannesburg:JonathanBall,2010.Print.Attwell,David.J.M.Coetzee:SouthAfricaandthepoliticsofwriting.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress;CapeTown:D.Philip,1993. Attwell, David. RewritingModernity:StudiesinBlackSouthAfricanLiteraryHistory.Maritzburg:UniversityofNatalPress;Athens,OH:OhioUniversityPress,2006.Print.

Anderson,Muff.“WatchingtheDetectives.”SocialDynamics30,no.2(2004):141–53.Print.Barnard,Rita.“Tsotsis:OnLaw,theOutlaw,andthePostcolonialState.”ContemporaryLiterature49,no.4(491‐718).Bayart,Jean‐Francois,StephenEllisandBéatriceHibou(eds).TheCriminalizationoftheStateinAfrica.London:JamesCurry,1999.Bhabha,HomiK(ed).NationandNarration.NewYork:Routledge,1990.Bloom,Kevin.WaysofStaying.Johannesburg:PicadorAfrica,2009.Bond,Patrick.2013.TheMandelaYearsinPower:DidHeJumporWasHePushed?Counterpunch,6‐8December,2013.http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/06/the‐mandela‐years‐in‐power/Bond,Patrick.TheEliteTransition:FromApartheidtoNeoliberalisminSouthAfrica.London:PlutoPress,2000.

Brown,Andrew.Refuge.Johannesburg:ZebraPress.2010.

Brown,Duncan.VoicingtheText:SouthAfricanOralPoetryandPerformance.CapeTown:OxfordUniversityPress,1998.

Chakrabarty,Dipesh.ProvincializingEurope:PostcolonialThoughtandHistoricalDifference.Princeton,N.J.PrincetonUniversityPress,2000.

32

Chipkin,Ivor.DoSouthAfricansExist?Nationalism,Democracy,andtheIdentityof“ThePeople”.Johannesburg:WitwatersrandUniversityPress,2007.Comaroff,JeanandJohn.OfRevelationandRevolution:Christianity,Colonialism,andConsciousnessinSouthAfrica,Volume1.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1991.Comaroff,JeanandJohn(eds).LawandDisorderinthePostcolony.UniversityOfChicagoPress,2006.DeKock,Leon.CivilisingBarbarians.Johannesburg:WitwatersrandUniversityPressandLovedalePress.1996.DeKock,Leon.“SouthAfricaintheGlobalImaginary:AnIntroduction”.PoeticsToday22,no.2(2001):263‐298.

Dietrich,KeithHamilton.OfSalvationandCivilisation:TheImageofIndigenousSouthernAfricansInEuropeanTravelIllustrationfromtheSixteenthtotheNineteenthCentury.UnpublishedPhDthesis.Pretoria:UniversityofSouthAfrica,1993.Dubow,Saul.ScientificRacisminModernSouthAfrica.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995.Durkheim,Emile.TheDivisionofLaborinSociety.TranslatedbyGeorgeSimpson.NewYork:TheFreePress,1960[1893].Emmett,TonyandAlexButchart(eds)BehindtheMask:GettingtoGripswithCrimeandViolenceinSouthAfrica,Pretoria,HSRC,2000.Finlay,Alan.“Stagingperformance:Race,authenticityandtherighttospeak”.EcquidNovi:AfricanJournalismStudies32,no.3(2011):34‐44. Fraser,Nancy.“TransnationalizingthePublicSphere:OntheLegitimacyandEfficacyofPublicOpinioninaPost‐WestphalianWorld.”Theory,CultureandSociety24,no.4(2007):7‐30.(FirstdeliveredattheGraduateCenter,CityUniversityofNewYork,ataconferenceon“PublicSpace”,February2002.)Frenkel,RonitandCraigMacKenzie.‘Conceptualizing‘Post‐Transitional’SouthAfricanLiteratureinEnglish’.EnglishStudiesinAfrica53,no.1(2010):1–10.Hofmeyr,Isabel.‘WeSpendOurYearsAsaTaleThatisTold’:OralHistoricalNarrativeinaSouthAfricanChiefdom.Portsmouth,N.H.:Heinemann;Johannesburg:WitwatersrandUniversityPress;London:J.Currey,1994.

33

Kynoch,Gary."FearandAlienation:NarrativesofCrimeandRaceinPostapartheidSouthAfrica".CanadianJournalofAfricanStudies47,no.3(2013).Mangcu,Xolela.TotheBrink:TheStateofDemocracyinSouthAfrica.Maritzburg:UniversityofKwaZulu‐NatalPress,2008.Mbembe,Achille.“ConsumedbyourLustforLostSegregation.”Mail&Guardianonline,28March2013.http://mg.co.za/article/2013‐03‐28‐00‐consumed‐by‐our‐lust‐for‐lost‐segregation

Meyer,Deon.HeartoftheHunter.Transl.K.L.Seegers.NewYork:Little,Brown&Co,2003[2002].Meyer,Deon.Devil’sPeak.Transl.K.L.Seegers.NewYork:Little,Brown&Co,2007[2004].

Morris,RosalindC.“TheMuteandtheUnspeakable:PoliticalSubjectivity,ViolentCrime,and‘theSexualThing’inaSouthAfricanminingCommunity”,inLawandDisorderinthePostcolony,ed.JeanComaroffandJohnComaroff(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2006),57‐101.Ndlovu‐Gatsheni,SabeloJ.TrackingtheHistoricalRootsofPostapartheidCitizenshipProblems:TheNativeClub,RestlessNatives,PanickingSettlersandthePoliticsofNativisminSouthAfrica.Leiden:AfricanStudiesCentre,2007.Nuttall,Sarah.Entanglement.Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress.2009.Orford,Margie.GallowsHill.Johannesburg:JonathanBall.2011.Primorac,Ranka.WhodunnitinSouthernAfrica.London:AfricanResearchInstitute,2011.Said,Edward.Orientalism.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1978.Smith,Roger.MixedBlood.NewYork:HenryHolt&Company,2009.Smith,Roger.WakeUpDead.NewYork:HenryHolt&Company,2010.Smith,Roger.DustDevils.London:Serpent’sTail,2011.Spivak,G.C.InOtherWorlds:EssaysInCulturalPolitics.London:Routledge,1998.

34

Steinberg,Jonny.“Crime”,inNewSouthAfricanKeywords,ed.NickShepherdandStevenRobins.Johannesburg:Jacana;Athens:OhioUniversityPress.2008.Titlestad,Michael.“AllegoriesofWhiteMasculinityinDamonGalgut’sTheGoodDoctor”.SocialDynamics35,no.1(2009):111–122.Titlestad,MichaelandAshleyPolatinsky.‘TurningtoCrime:MikeNicol’sTheIbisTapestryandPayback”.TheJournalofCommonwealthLiterature45,no.2(2010):259–273.Warnes,Chris.2012.“WritingCrimeintheNewSouthAfrica:NegotiatingThreatintheNovelsofDeonMeyerandMargieOrford.”JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies38,no.4(2012):981‐991. Wylie,Dan.SavageDelight:WhiteMythsofShaka.Maritzburg:UniversityofKwa‐ZuluNatalPress,2000.Young,RobertJ.C.ColonialDesire:HybridityinTheory,CultureandRace.London:Routledge,1995.Young,RobertJ.C.WhiteMythologies:WritingHistoryandtheWest.London:Routledge,1990.Mangcu,Xolela.TotheBrink:TheStateofDemocracyinSouthAfrica.Maritzburg:UniversityofKwaZulu‐NatalPress,2008.