3 Sociedad de la Información como “traducción”
3.1 La hipótesis de la “traducción” como fuente de políticas
1.7. Multi-dimensional Context of the Study
This study is geared “to identify[ing] the effects of social context on individual-level outcomes.
The idea that individuals are affected by and respond to their social surroundings” (Scott, 2014:496), is the essence of this study. The multi-dimensional factors which have a significant bearing on Ethiopians’ survival in Johannesburg include but are not exclusively their migration to South Africa; interactions with other Ethiopians and non-Ethiopians including members of the host society in their daily life; and working with public and private sector institutions with the norms, values, and structures that are culturally different, new, and perplexing to their worldview.
In examining Ethiopian migrants’ encounters and experiences in Johannesburg, one must be mindful that they hail from a society that is highly textured and which constitutes “a vast ecological area and historical arena in which kindred peoples have shared many traditions and interacted with one another for millennia” (Levine, 1974:26). The corollary to this phenomenon is that Ethiopians have a well-honed cultural prism through which they judge and evaluate other societies. South Africa is a heterogeneous society (www.gautengcc.co.za,n.d.) which has had diverse experiences with various immigrants including but not exclusively Whites, Indians from the sub-continent, Africans from other countries who provided labour for the mining industry, and Chinese (Buhle, 2015:18). The culture that has emerged in South Africa is a social collage of
17
these diverse groups and their normative patterns of relationships that have been welded into a holistic culture with identifiable subcultures. For South Africans, this cultural pluralism is effectively functional.
Ethiopians are coming from a unique socio-cultural background that makes them quite distinct historically, politically and religiously from other Africans. Their socio-economic world-view as well as their cultural prism with its built-in ethnocentrism (Wessels, 2017) has enveloped them and has culminated in their seeing other people in general but especially other Africans as being below their social station in life, more times than not, irrespective of other people’s history. This is largely because Ethiopians have never been enslaved and/or colonized. Consequently, one of the fundamental results of this is that Ethiopians find it extremely difficult to understand in the short term, the nature of the diverse cultural traits that have been blended into what has been referred to as South African culture.
As a result of the foregoing, Ethiopians face various culture clashes and numerous challenges as the perception of them among members of the host society is that, in most cases, they regard themselves as being superior to other Black Africans. This social and mutual discomfort has contributed significantly to the lack of social integration and corresponding social distance between the two constituencies. By the term “social distance” in this regard we mean
the lack of availability and relational openness – of variable intensity – of a subject in regard to others perceived and acknowledged as different on the basis of their inclusion in a social category.
It is the result of the dynamic interaction of factors situated on three different dimensions of space, themselves in a reciprocal co-production: physical, symbolic and geometrical (Bichi, 2008:489)
This social distance and cultural perspectives are further compounded by South Africa’s long-running as well as current socio-economic problems. As a result of this, state of affairs, members of the indigenous society blame foreigners for a number of societal ills including the idea that foreigners are contributing to terrorism (Cruz, 2008), and to the reduction of the host society’s cohesiveness (Castles and Miller, 2009:15). An outgrowth of this misperception is the excuse for xenophobic behaviour which has an adverse effect on foreigners including Ethiopian migrants.
This negatively charged social climate, has resulted in the prevalence of shysterism, anxiety on the part of members of the host society, official indifference (Horwood, 2009:106), especially
18
within the bureaucracy, as well as arbitrary and exploitative law enforcement practices (Crush, 2001:8), and xenophobia itself (Castles and Miller, 2009:156). The above are the consequences of the diversity that is integral to migration. This new set of phenomena is often viewed as a challenge to existing norms, rather than as having the potential to rationally reshape and enhance democracy (Fleming and Lovat, 2014:378). The latter phenomenon will result if disparate groups acknowledge diversity and work towards the development of a relationship between them, which results in the maintenance of in-groups and out-groups compatibility. This would emerge if both groups viewed each other “with indifference, sympathy, even admiration, as long as intergroup distinctiveness is maintained” (Brewer, 2002). In this regard, scholars have offered their hypotheses as to how commonality may be developed to foster social cohesion and societal stability.
Fleming and Lovat (2014) maintain that commonality could emerge “when [engagement and imagination] operate together and manifest in a personality that ‘is able to move beyond immediate self-interest, to conceptualize alternative social systems, think impartially about moral problems, counteract harmful instincts or behave altruistically in circumstances.” Such a dialogue ought to be facilitated by a third party, be it governmental or non-governmental in order to bringing about the “reduction of conflict” and “achieving a common goal” (Brewer, 2002).
In spite of the above-mentioned challenges which pertain, Ethiopian migrants are able to cope and indeed excel in some instances in Johannesburg. This is accomplished by relying on their long-standing, highly structured and effective sacred and secular cultural institutions and their values that accompanied them to South Africa and are used in their day-to-day interaction and survival. Among some of the institutions that are functional in their everyday lives in Johannesburg are the EOTC, equb, iddir, and mahbär. Among the cultural institutions on which Ethiopian migrants rely, these are the main vehicles that help them “to face their challenges collectively” (Menkir, 2013).
Despite their different internal workings and social valences, these cultural institutions mentioned above are a combination of mainly self-help as in the cases of equb and iddir. In the case of mahbär, it is primarily spiritual and is a part of the EOTC’s religious outreach among Ethiopians. All three cultural institutions, however, have got a sense of the philanthropic. These
19
institutional practices are also implemented in Johannesburg among Ethiopian migrants in order to “maintain a stable social whole” (Scott, 2014:264)), in this case, economic advancement and spiritual enrichment as “Ethiopian Orthodox Christians are known for their deep religiosity.
Most people’s everyday lives are linked to Church life, and follow the rhythms of fasting, praying, and attending church, especially on the numerous festivals that rule the calendar”
(Flemmen and Zenebe, 2016:5).
Through her/his availability to participate as a member of equb, iddir, and mahbär, the individual contributes to the group and vice versa. One of the main consequences of participating in these is that a network of connectivity is established through which members reinforce each other’s economic interest and survival (in the case of equb and, iddir) and in the case of mahbär, strengthening their spirituality. All three institutions are characterized by a co-operative culture in order to “work together for common end” (Persell and Cookson, Jr., 1993:72-73).
So deeply entrenched in Ethiopia’s system of cultural values are equb, iddir, and mahbär that no internal intra-ethnic group conflict negates their functioning. On a substantive level, it may be said with much certainty that ontologically, notwithstanding their differing internal workings, what characterizes one’s behaviour in all three self-help institutions is that in the act of giving,
“one gives away what is in reality a part of what is one’s nature and substance, while to receive something is to receive a part of someone’s spiritual essence” (ibid., p. 10). The internal workings of each of these institutions and the dynamics of the individual’s relationship to the group through various networks which are a part of the Ethiopian migrants’ everyday life in Johannesburg are examined in this study.
Ethiopians migrants in Johannesburg are unable to penetrate the commanding heights of the South African economy. However, on the micro level of their day-to-day activities, they are able to use their cultural institutions such as equb, iddir, and mahbär to accomplish their economic objectives. Generally speaking, members of Ethiopian society rely largely on these invaluable institutions for their everyday social and economic survival. These institutions fall under the category of the values that have encouraged the evolution of what Levine calls “adaptive radiation [which] makes the various populations more efficient in particular modes of life”
(1974: 167) and are vital parts of the society. Levine elaborates on this point by maintaining that
20
the social capital that emerges from comparable networks manifests itself in what he called
“holistic specialization” (1974:166). It is through this process that Ethiopians share their socio-economic skills with each other and foster what Levine would describe as “a particular habitat or ecological niche” (ibid., p. 167). Among Ethiopians, the traits associated with “holistic specialization” manifest themselves in their spirit of entrepreneurialism both at home and abroad including among those who migrated to Johannesburg.
Through their extended and extensive networks, these self-help home-grown cultural institutions have manifested their effectiveness, potential, and durability, based on mutual trust, reciprocity, and the emergence of a set of norms which, although they are uuencoded, are, in many ways, more binding laws. This is because the subjective nature of expectations is inextricably interwoven into the individual’s social and spiritual life. All three self-help philanthropic and cultural institutions mentioned above, in Bourdieu’s words, are “made up of social obligations (‘connections’), which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital” (Claridge, 2004) which may be used “through a network of social relations” (Thieme, 2006:51) to generate benefits at a later stage (ibid.). This ontological perspective is that which dictates this qualitative study’s use of social capital as a theoretical framework and method of analysis. This is “to investigate an actor’s resources that originate from that actor’s relation to a specific social structure” (Weber, 2009: 107).
In conclusion,