Skip to main content
  • 12 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. See Eisenstadt (1973:209–10).

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Pretorius (1985:74–5). Cf. also Van den Berghe (1970b).

    Google Scholar 

  3. See Brausch (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  4. See Plotnicov (1970:274).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Goldthorpe (1955).

    Google Scholar 

  7. See Mercier (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  8. For example, Miller (1974), Tardits (1966) and Jahoda (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Plotnicov (1970:282).

    Google Scholar 

  10. See Mercier (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Plotnicov (1970:289, 297).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cf. Gluckman (1965) and Mercier (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goldthorpe (1984:181).

    Google Scholar 

  14. The classification still used officially is that of Van Warmelo (1935).

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Seligman (1978:117–21).

    Google Scholar 

  16. See Lloyd (1966:31).

    Google Scholar 

  17. See Moller (part 1, 1972:41).

    Google Scholar 

  18. See Carr (1965:9).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Swart (1981:21).

    Google Scholar 

  20. See Van der Burgh (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  21. See De Beer and Strijdom (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  22. See Markinor (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  23. See Buthelezi Commission (1982:251).

    Google Scholar 

  24. See Carr (1965:76).

    Google Scholar 

  25. See Moller (part 1, 1972:42).

    Google Scholar 

  26. See Swart (1981:20).

    Google Scholar 

  27. See Lloyd (1966:33).

    Google Scholar 

  28. This explication is based on Steyn and Rip (1968), Bruwer (1963), Brandel (1958), Jeffreys (1951), Moller (part 5, 1972) and Durand (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  29. See Lloyd (1966:30).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cf. Carr (1965:25).

    Google Scholar 

  31. See Carr (1965:13, 19).

    Google Scholar 

  32. See Swart (1981:24).

    Google Scholar 

  33. See Durand (1970:39).

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Carr (1965:27).

    Google Scholar 

  35. For a fuller discussion see Bruwer (1963:69–71) and Lungu (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cf. Lungu (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  37. See Pauw (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  38. See Moller (part 5, 1972:160).

    Google Scholar 

  39. See Lungu (1982:31–2).

    Google Scholar 

  40. See De Beer and Strijdom (1983:22).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Swart (1981:24).

    Google Scholar 

  42. See Hoogvelt (1981:118).

    Google Scholar 

  43. See Moller (part 2, 1972:19, 30).

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Swart (1981:24).

    Google Scholar 

  45. See Carr (1965:13).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics