What do you think?
Rate this book
Performing Indigeneity: Spectacles of Culture and Identity in Coloniality
Colonised subjects can play roles that sustain the power structure of coloniality. In this book, Morgan Ndlovu asks why people help support a system responsible for their own subjugation.
Morgan Ndlovu provides a critique of the agency of the colonised subjects as exercised under coloniality. Eschewing abstract theory, he takes a ‘bottom up’ approach to theorising the agency of indigenous people. Through analysis of the experiences of the performance of indigeneity and the staged representations of commodified culture in South Africa, he recognises the efforts of the colonised subjects and the conditions under which they survive. However, he also cautions against choices and actions that may aggravate their conditions.
Performing Indigeneity provides an insightful evaluation of what could constitute an ‘authentic’ indigenous agency among the colonial subalterns in India, Australia, Canada, Africa and the Americas.
Morgan Ndlovu provides a critique of the agency of the colonised subjects as exercised under coloniality. Eschewing abstract theory, he takes a ‘bottom up’ approach to theorising the agency of indigenous people. Through analysis of the experiences of the performance of indigeneity and the staged representations of commodified culture in South Africa, he recognises the efforts of the colonised subjects and the conditions under which they survive. However, he also cautions against choices and actions that may aggravate their conditions.
Performing Indigeneity provides an insightful evaluation of what could constitute an ‘authentic’ indigenous agency among the colonial subalterns in India, Australia, Canada, Africa and the Americas.
208 pages, Hardcover
Published April 15, 2019
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 21, 2021
The last 20 years or so have seen a significant rethinking of notions of colonialism. There has been a growing sense of distinction among its different forms, and a much clearer theorisation of both settler colonialism and of the subtle and complex interweaving of notions of coloniality (that is, the condition of being colonial) and modernity (as a way of making sense of and organising the world). One important strand of this work has seen a growing awareness of the interweaving and mutual inter-relation of the two conditions as creating and sustaining each other. It is a profound rethinking of global history in the last half millennium.
Morgan Ndlovu’s weaving together of these two strands of analysis (coloniality/modernity with aspects of the rethinking of settler colonialism) through an investigation of ‘cultural villages’ as touristic display is a significant engagement with these ideas through a consideration of colonial and Indigenous agency drawing on South African evidence. His analysis turns on two questions: first, how did Zulu become Zulu, and second, how is ‘Zuluness’ performed in contemporary South Africa. The outcome is a theoretically rich, if in places highly problematic, analysis.
Classifying South African history (as was the case in many settler colonial settings) as based in the practices of ‘define and rule’ (as opposed to the more usual ‘divide and rule’), Ndlovu draws on conceptual frames provided by Frantz Fanon’s exploration of performing colonial being (in Black Skin, White Masks as well as key other texts, notably The Wretched of the Earth ) and by Walter Mignolo, among others, on the coloniality/modernity relationship to see Indigeneity and ‘Zuluness’ as a form of performance. Much as I valued his decolonisation of performance the omission of any reference to Irving Goffman or Judith Butler, even if to delineate his notion of colonial performance from their notions, respectively, of front and back-stage or performativity, seemed problematic and weakening the sense of distinctiveness about his approach.
That said, he builds a compelling case for considering the profound almost foundational impact of coloniality and its accompanying epistemicide (that is, the extinguishment of ways of making sense of the world and therefore of being) in the creation of a modern sense of African-ness. He also shows the importance of movements such as Pan-Africanism, Negritude and others as resistance to that epistemicide. Yet even here his case needs refinement, in that although he makes a powerful case against coloniality’s universalising of some essential ‘Africanness’, he still posits a response grounded in an undifferentiated notion of uBuntu philosophy suggesting an essentialist response to an essentialising epistemicidal drive. I’d add here that Ndlovu is in line with almost everything else I have seen that invokes, rather than analyses, the uBuntu ideal. The paradox here is that the overall argument is a powerful rejection of both essentialism and any sort of universalising tendency, yet he posits this as based in an all-African philosophical outlook. Ndolvu’s interweaving the coloniality/modernity and aspects of settler colonial practice are powerful and important – yet flawed in their underpinning theorisation, which is to say only that we still have quite a way to go on this path.
The case Ndolvu makes is an important stepping stone along the way. Once he gets into his cases and comparative discussion of performance of Indigeneity/’Zuluness’, first, in highly touristic cultural villages and, second, in the practices of traditional healing many of these conceptual weaknesses become barely relevant because the evidence has such explanatory power and Ndlovu’s attention to who exercises what social and cultural power so sharp. His analysis pays close attention to who gets to define meaning in which settings, arguing forcefully that cultural villages perform a type of Indigeneity that caters to touristic expectations and for the most part lacks everyday authenticity (I know, this is such a problematic word), both historically and contemporaneously: that is to say, no-one ever lived this touristic vision or performance of being Zulu (Indigenous).
Yet in doing so he distinguishes between villages that are part of a White framed tourist industry and colonial imaginary (‘White’, here, being a subject position and epistemology, not a ‘racial’ or phenotypical identity or characteristic) and those ‘villages’ established by entrepreneurs and others with a more Indigenous positionality. Although he argues that both operate within frames provided by coloniality, they do so to different degrees and in different ways, where both staff and visitors bring different frames of reference to understanding the performance – although throughout the performance of Indigeneity shows alignment with the frames imposed by coloniality and modernity.
His analysis of traditional healing practices and the place of traditional healers in Zulu everyday life, focusing on one healer in an urban setting, points to a way of doing Indigenousness that rejects that definition created by coloniality/modernity, where the power to define and to act rests with the healer, acting entirely within an Indigenous (in this case, Zulu) epistemology. The case here does two important things; first it highlights the problem of the commodification of traditional healing, and second it shows how one healer, who operates in a non-commodified manner, negotiates the social, cultural and spatial forces and factors of urban life whilst retaining a high degree of Indigenous authenticity, or perhaps this is better seen as integrity. Here Ndolvu presents an Indigenousness that rejects the frames imposed by coloniality/modernity.
There is a bigger and powerful point Ndlovu makes here that he might have been better off drawing out further. Even though he invokes notions of synchronic and diachronic practice in relation to coloniality/modernity, he does so without making clear how his notions of synchrony and diachrony work in respect of struggles around the colonisation of time. Had he done so then perhaps the question of who has the agency to define – that is, on whose terms is Indigeneity being performed in each case, might have taken on greater weight in his invocation of epistemicide in and by coloniality/modernity. Had he done so, he might have made clearer the way that the persistence of traditional healing, in the non-commodified form he focuses on, is a systemic rejection of the power of coloniality/modernity and in doing so marking in important ways the persistence of Indigenous space.
These complaints about theorisation should not, however, be taken as undermining the importance of this book as a scholarly text. It is a significant engagement with these recent theoretical developments opening up important questions about coloniality and settler colonialism in a contemporary context and in a setting (South Africa) where these ideas are only starting to weave into scholarship. It is also a valuable addition to tourism studies and Indigenous performance in those settings. On both these fronts, as well as on that question of the power to define, this is an important contribution (that has challenged me to rethink some of my current work).
Although it is very much one for the academics, it deserves our careful attention and consideration.
Morgan Ndlovu’s weaving together of these two strands of analysis (coloniality/modernity with aspects of the rethinking of settler colonialism) through an investigation of ‘cultural villages’ as touristic display is a significant engagement with these ideas through a consideration of colonial and Indigenous agency drawing on South African evidence. His analysis turns on two questions: first, how did Zulu become Zulu, and second, how is ‘Zuluness’ performed in contemporary South Africa. The outcome is a theoretically rich, if in places highly problematic, analysis.
Classifying South African history (as was the case in many settler colonial settings) as based in the practices of ‘define and rule’ (as opposed to the more usual ‘divide and rule’), Ndlovu draws on conceptual frames provided by Frantz Fanon’s exploration of performing colonial being (in Black Skin, White Masks as well as key other texts, notably The Wretched of the Earth ) and by Walter Mignolo, among others, on the coloniality/modernity relationship to see Indigeneity and ‘Zuluness’ as a form of performance. Much as I valued his decolonisation of performance the omission of any reference to Irving Goffman or Judith Butler, even if to delineate his notion of colonial performance from their notions, respectively, of front and back-stage or performativity, seemed problematic and weakening the sense of distinctiveness about his approach.
That said, he builds a compelling case for considering the profound almost foundational impact of coloniality and its accompanying epistemicide (that is, the extinguishment of ways of making sense of the world and therefore of being) in the creation of a modern sense of African-ness. He also shows the importance of movements such as Pan-Africanism, Negritude and others as resistance to that epistemicide. Yet even here his case needs refinement, in that although he makes a powerful case against coloniality’s universalising of some essential ‘Africanness’, he still posits a response grounded in an undifferentiated notion of uBuntu philosophy suggesting an essentialist response to an essentialising epistemicidal drive. I’d add here that Ndlovu is in line with almost everything else I have seen that invokes, rather than analyses, the uBuntu ideal. The paradox here is that the overall argument is a powerful rejection of both essentialism and any sort of universalising tendency, yet he posits this as based in an all-African philosophical outlook. Ndolvu’s interweaving the coloniality/modernity and aspects of settler colonial practice are powerful and important – yet flawed in their underpinning theorisation, which is to say only that we still have quite a way to go on this path.
The case Ndolvu makes is an important stepping stone along the way. Once he gets into his cases and comparative discussion of performance of Indigeneity/’Zuluness’, first, in highly touristic cultural villages and, second, in the practices of traditional healing many of these conceptual weaknesses become barely relevant because the evidence has such explanatory power and Ndlovu’s attention to who exercises what social and cultural power so sharp. His analysis pays close attention to who gets to define meaning in which settings, arguing forcefully that cultural villages perform a type of Indigeneity that caters to touristic expectations and for the most part lacks everyday authenticity (I know, this is such a problematic word), both historically and contemporaneously: that is to say, no-one ever lived this touristic vision or performance of being Zulu (Indigenous).
Yet in doing so he distinguishes between villages that are part of a White framed tourist industry and colonial imaginary (‘White’, here, being a subject position and epistemology, not a ‘racial’ or phenotypical identity or characteristic) and those ‘villages’ established by entrepreneurs and others with a more Indigenous positionality. Although he argues that both operate within frames provided by coloniality, they do so to different degrees and in different ways, where both staff and visitors bring different frames of reference to understanding the performance – although throughout the performance of Indigeneity shows alignment with the frames imposed by coloniality and modernity.
His analysis of traditional healing practices and the place of traditional healers in Zulu everyday life, focusing on one healer in an urban setting, points to a way of doing Indigenousness that rejects that definition created by coloniality/modernity, where the power to define and to act rests with the healer, acting entirely within an Indigenous (in this case, Zulu) epistemology. The case here does two important things; first it highlights the problem of the commodification of traditional healing, and second it shows how one healer, who operates in a non-commodified manner, negotiates the social, cultural and spatial forces and factors of urban life whilst retaining a high degree of Indigenous authenticity, or perhaps this is better seen as integrity. Here Ndolvu presents an Indigenousness that rejects the frames imposed by coloniality/modernity.
There is a bigger and powerful point Ndlovu makes here that he might have been better off drawing out further. Even though he invokes notions of synchronic and diachronic practice in relation to coloniality/modernity, he does so without making clear how his notions of synchrony and diachrony work in respect of struggles around the colonisation of time. Had he done so then perhaps the question of who has the agency to define – that is, on whose terms is Indigeneity being performed in each case, might have taken on greater weight in his invocation of epistemicide in and by coloniality/modernity. Had he done so, he might have made clearer the way that the persistence of traditional healing, in the non-commodified form he focuses on, is a systemic rejection of the power of coloniality/modernity and in doing so marking in important ways the persistence of Indigenous space.
These complaints about theorisation should not, however, be taken as undermining the importance of this book as a scholarly text. It is a significant engagement with these recent theoretical developments opening up important questions about coloniality and settler colonialism in a contemporary context and in a setting (South Africa) where these ideas are only starting to weave into scholarship. It is also a valuable addition to tourism studies and Indigenous performance in those settings. On both these fronts, as well as on that question of the power to define, this is an important contribution (that has challenged me to rethink some of my current work).
Although it is very much one for the academics, it deserves our careful attention and consideration.
Displaying 1 of 1 review