The Pitfalls Of Biological Essentialism In Understanding Society And Progress
Biological essentialism, in some ways, continues to be a lens that people use to make sense of issues and difference in South Africa.
Some research I conducted recently on South Africa’s informal sector reminded me of the importance of contextualising difference between people rather than essentialising it.
I wanted to understand why immigrants have a higher market share than locals in this sector. What I found is that locals, among other reasons, are less likely to pursue work in the informal sector because dependence on welfare from a massive nanny state – whether full or partial – provides some degree of social security that reduces economic pressure.
By contrast, immigrants often have little to no access to welfare, and economic pressure compels them to find a myriad of ways to earn a living and survive.
Such a nuanced reality stands at odds with a simplistic, biologically essentialist discourse that suggests that there is some inborn characteristic that predisposes black South Africans to “laziness” or another perceived shortcoming.
Biological essentialism, in some ways, continues to be a lens that people use to make sense of issues and difference in South Africa. Whether it is endemic corruption in the state or the dominance of left-leaning economic thought in public discourse, the reflex is often less about situating phenomena in context and more about saying “those people” are fundamentally defective or biologically predisposed to problematic behaviour.
In the broader picture, there is obviously room to discuss certain biological trends and how they might shape outcomes in specific contexts. But even this discussion does not justify collectivism – especially crude forms of it that have historically underpinned repression.
If one refuses, at the very least, to accept that biological essentialism must be critically examined, then they must explain why practices that are regarded as “primitive” in South Africa – and the African continent broadly – once existed in regions of the world that enjoy higher levels of development today.
Does the progression of humanity in some regions of the world not undermine the claim that others elsewhere are doomed to stagnation because of supposedly innate traits? Here, if one insists on rationalising essentialism, are they not, in effect, compartmentalising the very notion of humanity?
What’s concerning is that this kind of thinking often falsely dresses up itself as commentary on culture, which is an important topic that requires discussion without being simplified.
I’m obviously making a generalisation – a racial one at that – for a purely rhetorical purpose, but there is, for instance, a broader cultural problem of over reliance on the state among many black South Africans and a dearth of a healthy appetite for institution building. This is a culture that has developed over time, in part, due to excessive state intervention and the positioning of the state as a vehicle of empowerment and upward mobility.
The fact that there are pockets of success despite it not only underscores the importance of agency but also undermines the claim of inherent deficiency. The fact that there was success in the pre-1994 era further demonstrates how certain circumstances, which should never be romanticised in that specific context, can contribute to a different culture that emphasises self-reliance and institution building.
Culture is what deserves more attention because it allows for a richer discussion of the issues without falling into the trap of Afro-pessimism. The other important thing about culture is that it can change over time and enable progress. The legendary Thomas Sowell has written extensively on the correlation between culture and societal advancement.
Essentialising is unhelpful because it oversimplifies the discourse. It suggests that there is something inherently wrong with people and that they can never progress. This is defeatist thinking that stifles imagination and action.
As people continue making sense of the issues in the country, they need to recognise that progress is not confined to certain parts of the world. It is within everyone’s reach, and under the right circumstances, it can be achieved. Other parts of the world like Asia have demonstrated this, and nothing prevents South Africa from doing the same.
Ayanda Sakhile Zulu holds a BSocSci in Political Studies from the University of Pretoria and is an intern at the Free Market Foundation.
 | A guest post by
|