Descriptions and Outline of Conference Commissions
Commission 1 (3 March, 11:00-12:45)
Violence in Relation to South Africa’s Construction of Impoverishment to Masculinity
Keywords: impoverishment, black masculinities, violence, structural violence, media discourse, criminalisation
The first commission should focus on violence, the criminalisation of black men, and the processes of impoverishment to constructing black masculinities, including the negative constructions of black masculinities. The commission should attempt to understand the relationship of current cycles of violence against black men, women and children in abject economies to the historical moments of slavery, colonization and apartheid. In general, this commission needs to examine the socio-historical construction of masculinity, black masculinities and its socio-economic context primarily in South Africa.
The questions to be addressed include:
What is the context of violence and impoverishment in South Africa?
What does black masculinity mean?
What are the relationships between individuated social emasculation, entrenched structural economic exclusion and male violence?
What are the intentions and implications of the media constructing black men stereotypically as just violent?
Commission 2 (3 March, 11:00-12:45)
Psycho-social Challenges Facing Post-conflict South Africa
Keywords: cycles of defeat, cycles of violence, socio-economic abjection, naturalised poverty, structural inequality
The second commission should address the perpetuation of violence in post-conflict South Africa in the context of extreme economic and social inequality. It should examine, in particular, the silent obstacles that hinder socio-structural repair after several cycles of war. We have found through our own psycho-social program development that there are many repetitive patterns hampering psycho-social reintegration which we think may be related to structural effects of socio-economic abjection. It seems that the discursive conditions of socio-economic circumstance at times but not always are related to the legacy of slavery, colonization, and apartheid. Histories of structural and administrative violence have had a role in constructing poverty and violence in poor communities as natural. This leads to severe challenges in the post-conflict context for government, the private and the non-profit sector programs and agencies. It is the responsibility of this commission to reflect very carefully on these questions. Toward a strengthening of both our understandings as well as our praxis with regard to psycho-social service delivery and program implementation in areas that have experienced multiple cycles of harm relating to conflict.
The questions to be addressed include:
How severe is violence in South Africa?
Who are the victims and offenders of violence?
Why does violence against women and men continue?
Is violence increasing? Why?
Do we lack constructive vision for changing the cycle of violence and if so why?
Commission 3 (4 March, 10:15-12:00)
How can we break ongoing cycles of social violence?
Keywords: interventions, individual, NGO, government, former combatants, bottom-up interventions
The third commission opens the conference to examining what the role of the individual, NGOs and the state is in ending the cycle of violence against the self and others. The goal is to draw attention to the strengths and inadequacies of the discourse/s which inform intervention strategies and programs. Interventions from service providers tend to be project based, fragmented, uncoordinated, short term and once off. These interventions have tended to treat their target groups (e.g. former combatants, black men, youth at risk, etc.) only as the problem and have not included them effectively in the solutions. This commission will focus forms of praxis that have developed to address the difficulties associated with cycles of social violence together and/or in conversation with target communities.
The questions to be addressed include:
What is the role of government and NGOs?
Are there intervention strategies?
What is your organization intervention strategy?
Are there organisations working with innovative/creative approaches to breaking the ongoing cycles of violence?
What are the lessons from organisations and programs already working in this area?
What is the role of former combatants, black men and youth at risk in finding and building effective solutions?
Commission 4 (4 March, 10:15-12:00)
What are the responsibilities of men in post-conflict South Africa?
Keywords: social violence, victim, solutions, role of men, productivity, safety, intervention solutions, responsibility
The last commission draws attention to the responsibility of men toward ending the escalating cycles of violence, not as victims, but as an integral part of the solution. Men have been forefront and the interface of ongoing cycles of violence in this country for decades. This commission should examine the effects on identity and social constructions of masculinities, specifically its relationship to ongoing social violence in South Africa. It should not shy away from asking itself difficult questions relating to the roles of men of all colours who have been impacted differently by the multiple administrative cycles of conflict and violence in post-conflict South Africa. What men do at home, at the workplace and in their community are crucial to stopping the violence they perpetuate against themselves, women and children. In South Africa we know the category “men” is not simple and relates also to class, colour and the proximity of social location to economic opportunity and this to type of violence experienced socially.
The questions to be addressed include:
What can your organization do to empower men to stop the cycle of violence?
What role can the media have in shifting the negative constructions of black masculinities?
Do men who participated actively in conflict/violence have a role to play in ensuring that the cycles of ensuing social violence after conflict are broken?
What responsibilities do white South African men have to look deeper into the militarization of their male identity and into the ongoing violence inherent in the social and economic continuity of “white supremacy”?
These commission abstracts are not in anyway the final answer. They are there to contextualise, direct and provide an acute focus for the many dialogues we hope to have at this conference.
1