Abstract
The spread of modernity around the world and the intellectual construction of a traditional-modern continuum has, sometimes, erroneously been interpreted as though traditionality and modernity are mutually exclusive and that modern societies are traditionless. The experience of other societies has demonstrated that modernization does not mean that societies undergoing change relinquish their traditions, or that there is no attachment to customs and ways of the past or to symbols of collective identity. On the contrary, modernity has been shown to affect only one specific aspect of traditionality, namely the legitimation of the social, political and cultural orders in terms of traditional symbols, while it has given rise to a continuous process of reconstitution of the other aspects of tradition.1 This process is relevant to the African elite of South Africa as they are a fully Westernized category of people, while as part of the general African population which is known for its traditional heritage, they have been excluded from the societal community. The traditionality and particularly the ethnic extraction of the African population of South Africa has been interpreted in various ways, among others as a basis for the political ordering of South African society. As was pointed out in Chapter 1, it became official policy after 1948 that the Africans should exercise their civil rights in homelands where a traditional lifestyle predominates, while measures were taken to discourage their upward mobility in the modern sector of society.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
See Eisenstadt (1973:209–10).
See Pretorius (1985:74–5). Cf. also Van den Berghe (1970b).
See Brausch (1956).
See Plotnicov (1970:274).
For example, Mercier (1956) in respect of Senegal; Wallerstein (1965) in respect of West Africa; Plotnicov (1970) in respect of Nigeria; Goldthorpe (1984:80 et seq.), Eisenstadt (1973) and Lloyd (1966) in respect of Tropical Africa; Bechtold (1976) in respect of Sudan; Beteille (1967) in respect of India; Akhavi (1975) in respect of Egypt; Van Dusen (1975) in respect of Syria; Zartman (1975) in respect of Algeria; and Abu-Lughod (1967) for Africa in general.
See Goldthorpe (1955).
See Mercier (1956).
For example, Miller (1974), Tardits (1966) and Jahoda (1966).
See Plotnicov (1970:282).
See Mercier (1956).
See Plotnicov (1970:289, 297).
Cf. Gluckman (1965) and Mercier (1956).
Goldthorpe (1984:181).
The classification still used officially is that of Van Warmelo (1935).
See Seligman (1978:117–21).
See Lloyd (1966:31).
See Moller (part 1, 1972:41).
See Carr (1965:9).
Swart (1981:21).
See Van der Burgh (1980).
See De Beer and Strijdom (1983).
See Markinor (1986).
See Buthelezi Commission (1982:251).
See Carr (1965:76).
See Moller (part 1, 1972:42).
See Swart (1981:20).
See Lloyd (1966:33).
This explication is based on Steyn and Rip (1968), Bruwer (1963), Brandel (1958), Jeffreys (1951), Moller (part 5, 1972) and Durand (1970).
See Lloyd (1966:30).
Cf. Carr (1965:25).
See Carr (1965:13, 19).
See Swart (1981:24).
See Durand (1970:39).
See Carr (1965:27).
For a fuller discussion see Bruwer (1963:69–71) and Lungu (1982).
Cf. Lungu (1982).
See Pauw (1974).
See Moller (part 5, 1972:160).
See Lungu (1982:31–2).
See De Beer and Strijdom (1983:22).
Swart (1981:24).
See Hoogvelt (1981:118).
See Moller (part 2, 1972:19, 30).
See Swart (1981:24).
See Carr (1965:13).
Copyright information
© 1989 K.L. Dreyer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dreyer, L. (1989). Traditionality. In: The Modern African Elite of South Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10191-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-10191-7_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-10193-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-10191-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)