Comments on: Bullet proof personal narratives

By: Roger Saner

Roger Saner — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:41:17 +0000

Ah ha – I now understand! I’m just generally a bit bugged with people using “freedom of speech” as a cover to (unresponsibly) say whatever they want – and your post gave me the perfect platform to rant!

And you’re quite right about having a public narrative…which isn’t independant of the leader, so I’m not sure how much it could be “spun” and shaped to be what they’d want. In my view Mbeki has come out the winner, both in how he has dealt with the criticism and in his accepting the award conferred on him by the SACP. And who should introduce him to the podium? Blade Nzimande!

By: Aiden Choles

Aiden Choles — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:51:38 +0000

And so Rog, what has happened subsequent to the event is that the accuser has been silenced and when anyone mentions the topic you can hear the sardonic smile as they say “dictator”. This is what happend when a personal and public narrative is strong … if the public have bought into it well enough, any contradictory information, or narrative, will be subjugated (silenced).

If leaders grasp this, it can work in their favour.

I think you have misunderstood my stance on free speech. I’m not advocatign that we have the right to slate the president, presidency or any one else. What I am saying si that it is testament to Mbeki’s profile that people stand up for the position and institution of what he represents. In most cases where criticsm is laucnhed at an intstituion, people are generally very quick to jump into the fire … not defend it.

By: Roger Saner

Roger Saner — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:26:02 +0000

Not sure I agree with you, Aiden. I like the concept of a “public narrative” especially in the current context of Mbeki, leadership, succession debate etc. What I do dispute is the (democratic?) right to insult other people – especially people (like Mbeki) in important leadership positions. Sure, anyone can say what they like and use “free speech” as a (cowardly?) cover, but in a relationship economy only so many people are going to listen to what you have to say before how you say it becomes a barrier. How you say what you have to say is more important than what you have to say.

In the reading I have done around this, the use of the word “dictator” is not used as a fact-claim but rather as an insult and communicates to me the immaturity of the speaker, of whom (not previously knowing who he is) I have an immensely low opinion simply because of how he has conducted himself in this case.