Etiek van leeshandelinge: ’n Suid-Afrikaanse geval

Abstract

We are exposed to what readers think and want on a daily basis. Journalists write about what they read, see, hear, and experience. People read newspapers, magazines, articles, books, letters, and so on. Many people provide written feedback on what they read. Metaphysical considerations, ideological convictions, religious beliefs, historical circumstances, political drivers, and all kinds of personal preferences and prejudices determine how texts are handled. Publishers decide what can and should be read and therefore published, especially based on what will sell and even what should sell. Media houses also have their own prescriptions and guidelines on what to write and read, as the newspaper of your choice expects. These prescriptions are often driven by a spirit of political correctness as an issue of the day that easily becomes normative. In line with this, expectations, policies, and prescriptions regarding writing and reading are determined by institutions such as universities, government departments, and their research initiatives. These prescriptions often lead to the abdication of ethical responsibility concerning the act of writing and reading. The diverse nature of responses to the same text is a refl ection of this. The discourse that followed after an opinion column by Hennie van Coller in May, 2022 serves as a good example. This piece of writing dealt with the subject matter currently featuring in Afrikaans language children’s books. This discourse raises questions about how to write and read, but also about how to write and read appropriately. Even though education at all levels accepts writing and reading as a given, it is likely that the instilling of these two acts receive the least attention. How to write and read appropriately simply means that good writing and reading should be done. In the wake of this discourse, the following question arises: How was the Van Coller opinion column read, and was such reading, as well as the various resultant responses to different opinions, ethical? To answer this question, I start by revealing my own position and points of departure on the matter. An overview of the discourse is provided, followed by a reflection on the fundamental points of departure. The selected readings of the Van Coller column are then analysed using a model of interdependent reading modalities to provide a considered answer to the questions posed above. It appears from the reading of the selected responses to the column that some readings lack respect for the written text of the column. Given the sensitive issues raised about, for example, typical or “ordinary” households, or the characters portrayed in children’s literature, it would appear that the true intention of the Van Coller text is mostly ignored in favour of reading an alternative text (that which could be inferred). Consequently, few readings of the text, including responses to said readings, have succeeded in making sense of the real issues raised in the Van Coller piece within the context described by the author. Attempts to identify and expose prejudices and hidden dogmas have also been hindered using an alternative text, as well as by the readers’ own hidden dogmas, distorted communication, and ostensible misunderstandings. From a deconstructive perspective, several readings of the column raised and contextualised implied meanings in the text. Thus, connections between diverse starting points and different universes, “ours”, “theirs”, and norms from the text have been revealed.From the alternative text, the author of the column is, among other things, compared to the violent actions of an American actor, and alleged prejudices and emotions (hurt and threatened) are identified. The different ethical readings of the text succeed to some extent in finding new paths in, through, and beyond the text towards ethical realisation: being at home in Afrikaans. Arguments in response to readings are mostly conducted in an exclusive manner with unambiguous logic. The idiom and context in which the discourse, i.e. the original piece, responses to it, as well as counter responses by readers reacting to first readers of the text unfolded as either differing from or supporting the original piece, were predominantly hostile, aggressive, and ethically foreign. It was difficult to feel at home in this discourse.