Politicised Cultural Universalism and Relativism in South Sudan (1 -2) - Sudan Vision

Medieval and contemporary human histories, are awash with instances whereby, cultural imperatives and narratives, have been politicised, to achieve exclusive comprehensive advantages, in favour of powerful minorities, or majorities, to the determined of others within the same societies.  Militarily powerful others, in these epochs, have at times, succeeded in imposing their cultural milestones, as the foundational cultural pillars, on which, political platforms, whereon, all others stand, are built. These kinds of practices tend to undermine those others, and in fact, assimilate their particularities, into the other cultures, to their total demise.

Cultural symbols on important national artifacts, including national currencies for example, tend to permanently ingrained in the conscious and subconscious mental faculties of others that, the symbols they see are the true representation of their cultural icons which are also national icons, broadly defined. The choice of particular symbols of mode of production, of a particular socio-cultural group, in a country like South Sudan, for example, tend to reify both nationals and non-nationals that, the symbols they see on their currencies are the true and factual representation of their cultural universalism. However, in fact, these are politicised cultural universals, and they do not contribute to true and concrete cultural solidarity of the peoples, like those found in South Sudan for example.

More examples of such politicisation of cultural universalism can be discovered in the use of linguistic catch-phrases and short but meaningful words within the context of cultural and linguistic particularlism. For example, the uses of such linguistic instruments politically include their entry into local government official vocabulary in South Sudan, whereby, districts and local councils have been replaced by names like Bomas and Payams. To the majorities of the peoples of South Sudan, these words are completely meaningless. They do not carry any unifying and integrating cultural units in them, however, they carry units of cultural dispersal and differentiation, because, it is difficult and impossible for a Bari woman and man for example, to identify objectively, logically, rationally, and emotionally with the meaning of Payams or Bomas. To her/him, these are completely alien names and do not represent her or him. He/she does not know the roots of the language used. He does not speak the language used, nor are there others in his or her community who speak the language used, if known at all.

At this juncture, I must point out that, South Sudan is essentially, and existentially, that is, taking into serious considerations, all the identifies of the peoples therein, and their comprehensive ecological, social, and cultural environments into considerations, it can be arrived at that, South Sudan is a multicultural society. Being multicultural society, we need specific culture sensitive methodologies of governance. This is important if we are to avoid sliding into a slippery-slope of cultural dictatorship, and into the quagmires of endless accusations of cultural genocides. Since we have embarked on the task of modern state formation, we have to do it right. Modern states, like all other philosophical creatures, have their own ontological, epistemological, and even phenomenological paradigms. We need to know how to navigate around all of these, so that; we can arrive at the desired destination safely.

I chose to discuss this issue because, I have an honest strong feeling that, we in South Sudan are in the process of creating a very dangerous and complex problem, through our cultural hermeneutics, in terms of various, verbal, spoken, body, and symbolic cultural languages in South Sudan.  There are so many phenomena that are occurring in South Sudan, most of which are consciously designed, and their discursive interrogation, reveal unpleasant indicators of things yet to come. The Balkans and the might of the hitherto Soviet Socialist Republics have been undermined dangerously, by cultural dialectics. It is time, we learnt from other human histories, and then, set our national compass correctly, for our, and posterities’ sake.

It is a statement of fact that, South Sudan is made up of a myriad of tribes, languages and dialects. There are also a number of ethnic taxonomies from Nilotics to Bantus.                   While these groups of human persons occupy the geo-political landmass known as the Republic of South Sudan (RoSS), and while they are linked together, by their African heritage, they do exhibit varying socio-cultural norms and traits as well as varying modes of economic production for the sustenance of the producing and reproducting unit (the family). These modes of economic production ranges from settled agricultural mode of economic production to transhumance nomadic mode of production as well as fisheries plus some degree of hunters and gatherers. These human persons are found across the geographical continuum of the RoSS that includes wet marshlands, thick equatorial forests and dry savannah. Notwithstanding the fact that these groups share and are linked to one another by the same landmass and their African heritage, they are in fact mini nations unto themselves.

Detailed observation of individual tribal and ethnic groups in the RoSS reveals profound                   tangible differences in the way these groups organise and share their resources including the organisation of important institutions in respective tribal groups, such as the                   institution of marriage. This means that, the RoSS like many other African communities is a political human society in the sense that, the various tribes and ethnic groups have been lumped together by the colonialists for colonial interests and not for the interests and benefits of the said groups in the RoSS.