INJA

How are dogs positioned as signifiers in the construction of race and racial difference?
Dogs are used as political entities which help us understand people. In the film Inja, dogs are symbolic as they trace the socio-political and historical dimensions of racial identity formation in South Africa, ‘they can be considered as an example of a culturally contextualized everyday practice.’ (Kuumba et. al. 1998: 227). Dogs are used as ‘indicators or markers of racialised identities developed and deployed to reinforce the identity boundaries of cultural hegemony.’ (Kuumba et. al. 1998: 230). This essay will analyse how dogs have been used as signifiers in the construction of race and racial difference by analysing the way black and white South Africans treat their dogs and the perceptions they have about each other with regards to their treatment of dogs as this highlights the racial differences between them.
‘The trouble around difference is really about privilege and power; the existence of privilege and the loop-sided distribution of power that keeps it going.’ (Johnson. 1997: 15). When looking at the history of colonialism and apartheid, Credo Mutwa states that animals were once part of their family, the chickens, the cows and the dogs. A dog was his closest friend, dogs were part of the hunting activity, they were also used as early warning systems against enemies and each dog even had their own song to which they were praised. In some circumstances, dogs were even seen as warriors. Traditionally, it was even believed that when dogs in the black community died, their spirits also joined ancestors as the people’s spirits did.
However, when dog licensing was introduced by the apartheid government, only Africans were forced to tie their dogs, they were forced to give them away. From this point, Africans did not have the privilege of having their dogs as white people did. The white man had the authority to take over black man’s humanity and possessions through the apartheid system. Steve Biko explains this in stating that:
“The white man’s quest for power has led him to destroy with utter ruthlessness whatever has stood in his way. In an effort to divide the black world in terms of aspirations, the powers that be have evolved a philosophy that stratifies the black world and gives preferential treatment to certain groups.” (Biko.1965: 66).
Dog licences enforced by the law were a way in which black people were alienated from their “four footed companions” – it was a sure way of likening something that was a part of black society as engrained in their daily livelihoods but was being given to King George. In the same way, black people were separated from other races in society and placed in Bantustans. In the same way that “land is the basis of freedom, justice, and equality” (Malcom. X), so can this be likened to the implementation of dog licences that separated the black man from his fellow of creation. The poverty that followed forced them to seek employment from the white man and thus allowed him to own his humanity through law and racial discrimination. It was a licence for separation and oppression. In addition to this, breeds such as German Shepherds and Alsatians were trained to attack black people. Dogs such as these were used to react to African accents and words such as ‘voetsek’ would translate to ‘attack me’. Dogs were therefore catalyzed by historically structured conditions and grounded in oppositional cultures. The role of dogs is seen as a boundary demarcation and identity signifier of race.
According to Halualani (1998), culture is intimately linked to power. Culture is also dialectical in a sense, it is accessible to the forces that facilitate both oppression and liberation, and it is a coherent set of values, beliefs and practices which mitigates the effects of oppression and reaffirms that which is distinct from the majority cultures. Racialised ideologies have resulted in black people been accused of being unable to take care of dogs by white people, this is seen by statements such as: black people do not know how to treat their dogs, they are not treated as part of the family, they do not have the resources and time to pamper their dogs. ‘Inja’ means devourer or eater and protects them against enemies; dogs are culturally seen by black people as swift hunters used to hunt animals. While on the other hand, white people are said to have an emotional connection with their dogs, which they keep as pets and not hunters.
In addition to this, dogs are for companionship, protection and social support. Their lives revolve around dogs; they sleep in their houses even on their couches. Dogs are used as physical territorial markers and guardians of culture, class and difference. They are literally used to protect white privilege. They physical mark territory by barking at black domestic workers, ‘this act which induces fear reminds them of where they are and how they should act in this area.’ (Swart. 2004: 14). Moreover within the dog community, there was a question that arose in the film as to whether the dogs themselves were taught racial profiling. What came about is that dogs were cultured in the way in which their environment allowed. In the same way “race is constituted and driven by a discourse of taste, which locates identity within the commodity culture nurtured through global popular culture”. (Dolby: 2001: 63). The differences in white people’s treatment of dogs to black people’s treatment of dog’s shows this difference in “taste” that enhances a racial divide, even in post apartheid South Africa.
These perceptions highlight the inferiority-superiority complex that exists between black and white people in contemporary South Africa. In Inja, it is said that ‘white people will set their dogs on you just to keep you out of their area, black people are treated worse than their dogs and the treatment of dogs in a better manner than black people shows the political construction of racial differences in a particular historic moment as part of a strategic contestation of white dominance and the cultural power of whiteness-class and racial dynamics. The emptiness of the native’s past and black –white dependency were all deliberate creations of the colonialist. The cultural background of black people was summed up in the word “barbaric”. Black culture has been an arrested mage by the powers. Dogs were therefore used to protect culture and white dominance. (Johnson. 1997: 37). The treatment of dogs in black communities could be likened to the response of black people to education during apartheid: “...the reasons put forward by these people (blacks) carry with them the realisation of their inherent dignity and worth…they see education as the quickest way of destroying the substance of African culture”. (Biko: 1965: 76). Treating dogs the way white people do would be destroying the African Culture that sees dogs as survivors and that which protects the black and his home from danger.
‘Symbols are used to maintain power by demeaning the other.’ (Cornyetz: 1994:129). In the Japanese culture; women maintain power over Japanese men by flaunting their black lovers in front of them. In the same way dogs are used to demean and control black people. Dogs are used to reaffirm the privileged white people. The dog accepts them but not the black person; this is seen in a particular scene when a white lady states that she has had her dog for seven years and her domestic worker for five years and yet the dog still barks at her, it refuse to accept her.
The dog is subservient to me and the black person is subservient to the dog; ‘creating a new hierarchy of power which maintains white superiority at the top.’ (Cornyetz.1994: 131). White people state that black people do not really love their pets. This stereotype is an attempt to make black people change this stereotype by ‘acting more like white people thus creating a hybrid black European that is above the savage native.’ (Swart. 2004: 21). The use of dogs by white people to signify their class and wealth is their attempt to further remove themselves from ‘local culture and be more European/Western.’ (Salo. et al. 2008: 52-3). It is perceived that black people will contaminate their culture and must therefore be kept at bay. ‘They are dirty but their existence gives the other person a sense of superiority.’ (Cornyetz.1994: 127-8). There is perfection in white communities and black people are believed as not being able to relate to dogs as they have different attitudes and perceptions regarding dogs. There is a feeling that black people do not respond much to dogs than whites, as dogs are not part of their family structure.
The concept of race is closely linked to class in South Africa. The apartheid era left many ‘blacks historically, politically and economically disinherited and a disposed group.’ (Biko. 1965: 74). ‘The white man’s quest has led him to destroy with utter ruthlessness whatever has stood in is way, give preferential treatment to certain groups....laws showed how the white men are on top, white supremacy.’ (Biko. 1965: 67). In the townships, there is a lot of poverty; people can barely afford to feed themselves, let alone their dogs. This limits the ways in which black poor people can afford to ‘treat’ their dogs, as opposed to white people that spend an average R200-300 just for top notch dog food. The access to resources that allow the two races to pamper their dogs highlights the huge inequality gaps that still exist in South Africa. Less than 1% of agricultural land has been delivered to black people since democracy; 87% of the land in South Africa is owned by whites and 13% by blacks, in addition to this, almost 10% of the population owns 80% of the resources such as capital, shares etc. Black people therefore form the majority of the poor people in South Africa. The inability to pamper dogs is not pure failure to understand and care for them. Black people in the film are seen as been unable to feed their dogs as they share their food with them. Because of the tradition or culture forced into South Africa ‘the poor shall always be black people as poverty has been related to blackness.’ (Biko. 1965: 68). Being white is a natural passport to the exclusive pool of white privileges from which they do not hesitate to extract whatever suits them; they are born into privilege and are nourished by and nurtured in the system of ruthless exploitation and black energy. In addition to this, the perceptions are biased, there are black people who pamper their dogs and care for them equally as white people. Anita Brown in Inja, loves dogs because of the companionship; She explains her love for dogs as being influenced by white people as she has never had black friends,
In conclusion, dogs become sites of racism. The act and thus responsibility of racism is shifted from the owner to the animal. Explanations such as; dogs are vicious by nature towards strangers or if you are nervous around an animal it will be nervous around you because they can sense fear make the attack purely the dog’s fault. Moreover, the relations black and white people have with their dogs and the perceptions they each have about each other which have been highlighted in this essay show that dogs are used as ‘indicators or markers of racialised identities developed and deployed to reinforce the identity boundaries of cultural hegemony.


BIBLIOGRAPHY:
• Biko : I write what I like (1965) Published by Grove Weidefeld. Division of Grove Press Incorporated.
• Cornyetz, N. (1994). Hip hop and racial desire in contemporary Japan. Social Text. 41, Winter. 113-139.
• Dolby, N.E (2001), Constructing Race: Youth, Identity & Popular Culture in South Africa. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 63-
• Halualani, R. T. (1998). Seeing through the screen: A struggle of culture. In J. N. Martin & T. K. Nakayama, et al. (Eds.). Readings in Cultural Contexts. Mountain View. CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. 264-275
• Johnson, A. G. (2001). Privilege, Power, and Difference. Selected Chapters. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• Kuumba, M. Bahati and Femi Ajanaku. (1998). Dreadlocks: The Hair Aesthetics of Cultural Resistance and Collective Identity Formation. Mobilization 3(2): 227-243
• Magwaza, Thenjiwe. (2001). Private Transgressions: The Visual Voice of
Zulu Women. Agenda (49):25-32.
• Malcom X: Malcom X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements. Editor G: Breitman.
• Salo, E & Davids, B. (2008) Glamour, Glitz and Girls: The meaning of femininity in high School Matric Ball culture in urban South Africa. In: M. Steyn & M. van Zyl . The Prize and the Price. HSRC press Cape Town.
• Swart, S. (2004). “Race” horses: Horses and social dynamics in post-apartheid South Africa. . In Distiller, N. and Steyn, M. E. Under construction: “Race” and identity in South Africa today. Sandton: Heinemann. Pp. 13-24.