From: South Africa's Radical Tradition, a documentary history, Volume Two 1943 - 1964, by Allison Drew
Document 21 - E.L. Maurice, "The RÁ´le of the Non-European Teacher in the Liberatory Movement", Discussion, 1, 5, June 1952
[”¦] It is necessary for me, by way of introduction, to make two reservations with regard to what I am going to say on the subject of my lecture. In the first place, I have to state quite clearly that what I have to say has no relation whatever to any position I may hold in the Teachers' League of South Africa, and my views and opinions must, on no account, be considered in relation to my position in that organization. [....] In the second place, I wish to submit that the subject of my lecture is a comparatively new one which has only become the subject of thought and speculation within the last decade or so and, because of events in recent years, has become the subject of much controversy and criticism in the last few years. [....]
The Significance of the Organised Teachers in the Liberatory Movement
Now, an individual teacher, or teachers as individuals, means little or nothing in the subject of our discussion. [....] It is the teacher in association, in organization which is important for the Liberatory movement. Put in another way it is the "mass movement" of the teachers - if I may employ that term of a small professional group - which is of significance and not the more advanced individuals who would in any case whatever their profession, play a part in the Movement. The question is therefore, can, do, or will the non-European teachers' organizations play a part m the Liberatory Movement? Quite naturally it must not be thought that I am giving to the teachers' organizations an existence separate from the individuals who compose the organizations –I am merely saying that the corporate nature of the teachers' organizations gives to them - the teachers - their real significance and place in the Liberatory Movement.
The Non-European Teacher and "The Politics of Education"
In addition, it must always be remembered that teachers are merely operatives and that the really important thing about them is that they are the means by which the process of education is kept going in society. And there is no doubt that education, as one of the social forces, has an extremely important place in modem society. To us in South Africa the appointment and recent report of the Eiselen Commission in African Education, the new move to harness "Coloured Education" in a similar way through the suggestion of the appointment of a similar commission, the doctrine of Christian National Education, as well as the general discriminatory, segregated educational systems of this country, with its more than a million children deliberately kept out of school, not to speak of the thousands inside who receive no more than a mere smattering of schooling and no education - all these must adequately serve to illustrate the importance attached to the educational process in society. No greater proof of its importance could, indeed, be required than its denial of education to the oppressed non-Europeans, and the attempts by the ruling class to twist education to serve their own particular political needs. And it is because the teachers play the chief part in the operation and direction of this important social force that they become significant in society. In a sense, therefore, the rÁ´le of the non-European teacher in the Liberatory Movement means the role of education in that movement.
You will have realized by now that I am not circumscribing my definition of education within the narrow limits of the mere acquirements of literacy. [....] For we must all be aware of the intimate relation which exists between the educational system of a country and its political system, for in few places in the world is this relation better exemplified than in South Africa. [....] There are many people who view education merely as a process by which the "cultural heritage" of a group is transmitted from one group to another, and, in that respect give education a completely harmless function in society. Education to them, not being political, must merely perform the task of passing to the rising generation the culture of the older ones and the developments in education must of necessity, wait upon the development of the cultural heritage of the group. Education, therefore, differs according to the cultural heritage which gives it its form and substance and in this way, according to them, each "cultural group" must have its own education in and through that culture which is particularly its own. This view of education, very significantly, in view of the tribal social patterns and organizations which it envisages, has recently been "authoritatively" supported by the Eiselen Report which holds that "In general, the function of education is to transmit the culture of a society from the mature to its immature members, and in so doing to develop their powers." This formulation of the aims of education as the mere transmission of culture is, I submit, merely a reactionary attempt to rob education of its potency and force in the social system and is at complete variance with progressive thought upon the subject. It makes of education a stagnant force, impotent to carry out its real social tasks. And if the teachers were to accept it, their rÁ´le in the Liberatory Movement would be as futile as their philosophy of education would be insane.
Fortunately, [...] non-European teachers have increasingly come to accept a view of education, if not diametrically opposed, is certainly based upon a social evaluÂation quite different from that which, for example, was accepted by Eiselen and his fellow commissioners. Non-European teachers have learned in a variety of ways that they must help to break the prevailing social and political system of this country. Ironically enough, as the group which has made great educational strides, they have learnt that their salvation does not lie in education! There was a time, in the not very distant past, when they believed that the lengthening of their names by the addition of individual letters, usually in pairs placed at the end, would bring liberation to them as a group and that, by begging the authorities for more schools, they could lead others along the same road to salvation. That illusion has been fortunately shattered by the mere course of history. Faced with the task of working a discriminatory and segregatory education system, in which not the least disturbing feature is the unequal pay for equal qualifications and work, and seeking the cause, the teachers have been forced to the inevitable conclusion that the reason is to be found in the prevailing social and political system, and that educational liberation is related to social liberation. Above all, their theoreticians have shown repeatedly that in all countries, and in South Africa more than in any other, education is the mere handmaid of politics and so "the politics of education” has become a phase of everyday currency with them. This realisation that they must play their part in changing the status quo - that education must be for social change - is perhaps the most important lesson the teachers have taught themselves in the history of the profession and the nature of the lesson, as well as the extent to which it has been learnt and can, and will be applied, has the deepest meaning for the Liberatory Movement.
The New Doctrine - "Education for Social Change"
The new doctrine of education for social change is no mere catchword. In a sense, it is allied to the many other progressive educational movements, such as education for democracy, education for citizenship and the like. But in this country, with its system of Herrenvolk domination whose ramifications are found in every walk of life, education for social change finds very fertile ground. [....] The very society in which the education is given provides education with not only the very substance of what requires change but also provides it with the very tools and materials to effect that change. Education can never be for society if the educators and educands are opposed to that society and it is this employment of the educational process to foster opposition to the status quo which is the vital force in education for social change. It is some years ago that the Teacher's League, for example, gave concrete expression to this new educational outlook when it passed a motion which called upon the teachers to create in the pupils a desire for democracy; and there are definite indications among both the teachers the rising generation that this is being done.
It would hardly be correct, of course, to say that all, or even the majority, of non-European teachers have accepted fully, or even partially, the new educational outlook. There are, in the whole of South Africa, approximately twenty-five thousand teachers, and in a total population of about ten million they form a group representing about one four-hundredth of the total population. Numerically, therefore, one maybe inclined to minimise their importance within the non-European class but it must be borne in mind that they have their origin in their policy of educational segregation and this is giving them, more and more, a group consciousness which, when added to the intellectual and theoretical advances they have made, adds considerably to their potential of influence in the community. On the other hand, it must also be said that the policy of educational segregation which gave birth to the non-European teaching profession, is of comparatively recent origin and that the profession is only just passing into its second generation, the first of which had a most dissipated life. Moreover, with over a million children still seeking admission to school, the non-European teaching profession, assuming that the present segregatory system is to continue, is only half its potential size. Above all, however, there are good signs that non-European teachers are seeking a closer unity which must inevitably give to the powerful doctrine of education for social change a wider and more purposeful meaning. [....]
The Role of Enlightenment the Teacher can Play inside and outside the Classroom
We are all aware that, despite the advent of the film, radio and even the television, the textbook is still the great instrument of education. And we are also all aware that the textbooks in this country, thus far, have been written by members of the ruling class. I need hardly spend my time explaining that the ideological bases of these books are diametrically opposed to the interests of the Liberatory Movement and that, by and large, they all serve to preserve the status quo and further the interests of the ruling class. In general, they are written in word and spirit, to entrench the inferiority of the non-Europeans and to regard the domination and supremacy of the white ruling class as part of the unalienable and divine scheme of things for this country. [....]
In these circumstances the non-European teachers have an important contribution to make in nullifying and negativing the effect of these ideas and doctrines upon the minds of their charges and in giving their children an ideological armoury which will later serve them in the adult society in which they will find themselves. There are two related courses open to them. The one is to rewrite the school textbooks and, in particular, the official histories of South Africa, and the other is to equip themselves with correct knowledge and the new idea of the liberatory movement in order to cultivate the proper approach to the teaching of their subjects. The first course naturally bristles with difficulties and all attempts thus far have met with very little success but there is increasing evidence that the teachers are more and more pursuing the second course with much effectiveness. In recent years the discussions among teachers have turned more and more to what they teach and the old slavish servility to the prescribed syllabus has been replaced by the critical approach and the consideration of the mental stock of ideas which the teacher leaves with his pupils. In this respect, I think, the contrast between the teacher of to-day and the teacher of yesterday is more glaring than in any other.
But the school life of the teacher and the pupil is not confined to mere classroom instruction. [....] The recent successful boycott of the Van Riebeeck Celebrations may serve as a useful example of the contribution which teachers may make to the struggle, for there is no doubt that its success was, in part, due to the good work done by the teachers. It is true that it was merely a specific and passing phase in the struggle but it would be incorrect to minimise its importance in the relationship between the three points of the eternal triangle - the parent, the pupil and the pedagogue. Each has learnt a useful lesson which will stand him in good stead in the future. Beyond these concrete examples of the text-books and the school activities it must be remembered that the relationship between the pupil and teacher in the classroom situation provides manifold and varied opportunities to the teacher to carry out educational work - apart from the mere preparations for examinations - which is of great importance in fitting the rising generation into the liberatory movement. I take it for granted that we all accept that the liberatory movement, has, and must have, an ideological basis and that these ideas must grow among the people as widely as possible. Whether it be in the selection of reading books, in papers, in the discussion of current affairs and topical events, the teacher is provided with a hundred and one situations which he can usefully employ for the purpose he has in mind. [....]
The Affiliation of Non-European Teachers' Organizations to the Liberatory Movement
At least two non-European teachers' organizations have come to realize that their own particular educational problems are closely and intimately related to the political and social problems of the non-European people generally, and that, until the latter are solved, the solution of educational problems must remain at the level of mere reformism.54 This realization has led them to affiliate to and co-operate with the political organizations of the people in the Liberatory Movement, and so place upon the teachers an important duty outside of school, a duty no so much as teachers, but as citizens. Not, of course, that such co-operation and alliance with the Liberatory Movement does not naturally give a definite and clear orientation to their work as teachers in the classroom, but that, in addition, it throws upon them the onus of playing their part directly in the organization of the Movement. Outside of school, therefore, the teachers have infiltrated into the organizations of the people, and in many instances are playing leading rÁ´les in those organizations. This movement of teachers into politics is comparatively recent, but I think there is ample evidence that it has great meaning and significance for the Liberatory Movement. The teachers, considered as a social group, form the only section among the oppressed non-Europeans which has had a measure of education and enlightenment and their active participation in the political movement must bring fresh life and vigour and inspiration to the Movement. Indeed, the fact that, on these grounds, the Cape Education Department has found it necessary to refuse official recognition to two such teacher organizations is in itself a measure of their importance in the struggle for freedom. At the same time, of course, it must not be thought, as seems current in many quarters that, because teachers have been fortunate enough to receive education and enlightenment, they are necessarily destined to lead the Movement, to form the leadership, or as some would have it, that they are THE leaders of the people. That is matter for History. I think, generally, teachers are sufficiently modest to claim that because of conditions in this country, they rank among the leaders of the people and that they wish to participate in the Liberatory Movement.
The Shortcomings of and the Limitations placed upon the Teachers
It must always be borne in mind in considering the rÁ´le of the non-European teachers in the Liberatory Movement that there are many obstacles in their way. [....] it would be fallacious to judge the role of teachers' organisations throughout the country by the policies and practices of the one or two progressive ones among the seven or eight that we have in the whole country. So also would it be grossly misleading to believe that the progressive theory of education to which I have referred is generally accepted, even by the majority of teachers in this country. In fact, as a whole, it is a matter of conjecture whether the teachers are really so educated and enlightened as we believe, and whether they really are head and shoulders above the community in this respect. It is too often forgotten that the overwhelmingly majority of them have an academic education of merely a Std. VI or Std. VIII level and that, in addition, the weight of reaction still hangs heavily around their necks. It must not be forgotten, for example, that it was mainly to the teachers, that the ruling class turned for the personnel to work the Coloured Advisory Council, and I am not certain whether they will not again turn in that direction to find some support for the new Coloured Representative Council and the Bantu Local Authorities which are to form the new homes of non-European reactionaries.
In addition, of course, teachers have always held a kind of hybrid position as quasi-civil servants who are paid directly by the government or by some governmental agency, such as the Provincial Councils. Whoever pays the piper generally calls the tune, and the appointment and dismissal of teachers rests with these governmental organs, and, what is more important, their conditions of service-are laid down for them by the State. To a great extent, therefore, their activities are controlled by the law; and while in the Cape the teachers do enjoy a relatively large measure of freedom, in other provinces they are almost bound hand and foot. No non-European teacher in Natal, for example, may take any active part in politics nor may he even criticise the educational administration or write a letter to the press. In the Orange Free State, the burning question is still who employs the teacher, and he, therefore finds himself completely at the mercy of whomever happens to control the school. In the Transvaal, where one finds the largest teachers' organization in the country, it is significant that the authorities collect members’ subÂscriptions. Above all, the non-European schools are dominated by the managers whose powers are wide, evasive and all-pervading. So that, to the legal limitations upon their activities is added a strong administrative straightjacket which often succeeds in holding the teacher in check, and, far worse, often winning him over to the side of reaction. What will happen to the African teachers when the recommendations of the Eiselen Commission are implemented and they become the direct employees of the State, as full-fledged-civil servants, may well be-imagined.
Conclusion
By way of conclusion, I may say that I have attempted to give a balanced picture of the situation as it appears to me. I have no doubt that we all have in our minds imaginary rÁ´les we would like the teachers to play in the Liberatory Movement, and many of us are doubtless severe in our criticisms of the part they have played hitherto. But there are many factors in the situation, and we must take account of all of them. Personally, I see much that is hopeful, but it would be fatal to err on the side of optimism.
DISCUSSION ON THE RÁ”LE OF THE NON-EUROPEAN TEACHER IN THE LIBERATORY MOVEMENT
Mr. Sisam: Does the lecturer think that a liberatory movement does in fact exist in South Africa?
Lecturer: The beginnings of a liberatory movement do exist. Certain liberatory ideas have grown up, and there is an ideological approach to the political problems of the country which certainly form the basis of such a movement.
Mr. Sisam: How would the teacher set about instilling ideas of liberation into the pupil when the subjects to be taught are laid down by the authorities?
Lecturer: the curriculum cannot wholly prescribe what is to be taught or how it is to be taught. How it is to be taught must be determined in the classroom itself by the teacher who has to take into account the situation at the particular time. It is the approach to the syllabus rather than the syllabus itself that is important.
Mr. Gamiet: Is the speaker in favour of the policy of the newspaper "The Torch", which from time to time calls for more "coloured schools"?
Lecturer: I cannot accept the statement that "The Torch" has called for more coloured schools. "The Torch" is opposed to educational segregation, and that being the case, a call for more coloured schools would not conform to its policy. The fact remains, however, that whether one calls for more coloured schools or not, one will receive only coloured schools. Non-Europeans realize that they live under the system of segregation, and that they will therefore have to use segregation to fight segregation.
Mr. Gamiet: The lecturer's approach is idealistic, and he has not connected it with the rÁ´le of the teacher in the political movement. I agree that the teacher's approach in the classroom should be to instill ideas of democracy as far as this can be done, but it is largely in the political sphere that we must associate the rÁ´le of the teacher. This question the lecturer has not squarely faced and fairly answered. The lecturer propounds the amazing idea that the teachers, because they form only one four-hundredth of the non-European groups, cannot play an important rÁ´le in the emancipatory movement. He makes great play of their numerical inferiority. We should remember that it is not numbers that count but the weight of ideological leadership. The rÁ´le of the teacher should be to help in leading the oppressed peoples, ideologically and politically. The teacher's task is to bring guidance and his function is theoretical and political clarification. By virtue of his education and therefore better understanding of political processes he can play a dynamic rÁ´le in the liberatory movement by helping to forge a link between the comparatively well-educated groups and the workers. Social change cannot come about only by theoretical work but by leading the people politically, and here the teachers can play an important part. If, as the lecturer suggests, the non-European teacher is so restricted in Natal, Transvaal and O.F.S. that he is prepared to accept blindly oppressive measures, then who is going to lead? The teachers in these provinces must themselves first break their chains. The teachers there must also realize that their professional disadvantages cannot be removed in isolation; they must link their struggle with the fight of the people.
The coloured teachers in the Cape as a whole have not only evaded the struggles of people but have adapted themselves to the system of segregated coloured education. Coloured teachers are well paid compared to other sections of the coloured people. This has partly been done to separate them from the rest of the people and to lead them into thinking that they have a vested interest in our system of segregated education to the extent of even leading them to defending it. Many have even been bribed into abstaining from the struggles of the people. There has been no real leaning to the mass of the African teachers who suffer from more severe disadvantages than the coloured teachers. Coloured teachers in the Cape, as intellectuals, have a certain amount of tradition, but they are not discharging their duties as political leaders.
There is a tendency for coloured teachers to regard themselves as a peculiar social and economic class. There must be a radical change in this attitude to bring about the integration of teachers into the liberatory movement of the oppressed.
Mr. Clarke: Unlike Mr. Gamiet, I fail to see that the rÁ´le of the teachers as the spearhead of the liberatory movement has any historical basis. My contention is that the teachers as a group have always been a privileged class. I must also point out that Mr. Maurice merely quoted the number of teachers in passing and that he did not use that as any indication of their influence and power.
Mr. Meyer-Fels: I feel that if any correlation between the militancy of the teacher-organisations and the real wages of teachers were to be made the results would be quite revealing. It would, I imagine, reveal less and less militancy with the increase of wages. Secondly, I feel that both the lecturer and Mr. Gamiet have not considered sufficiently the class position of the teacher. The failure to place them where they belong, that is, with the petty bourgeoisie, has led to a wrong assessment of the rÁ´le of the teacher in the movement. It is true that they will at times, due to their superior education, fulfil the role of minor leaders and politicians, but I do not believe that they will play the rÁ´le of leaders in the emancipatory movement.
Mr. Jordaan: I have some disagreement with Mr. Gamiet on the rÁ´le he assigns the non-European teacher in the liberatory movement. He invests the teacher with an historic mission which is clearly unhistoric, for never in the history of liberatory movements the world over have the teachers as a professional group either led or played an important part. At most they have, as individuals become part of the political leadership.
The leadership of the downtrodden masses is drawn from the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie because it is precisely intellectuals from this stratum who, by virtue of having a tradition of property ownership and therefore an independent livelihood, have the time, the money and educational equipment to develop an independent ideology of emancipation for the workers and lead them in their struggles. Precisely also because of this advantageous economic position, they remain unaffected in their ideas and Weltanschauung by any fluctuation in their economic fortunes. Nor are their ideas affected by and subordinate to their bourgeois origins.
The non-European teachers, on the other hand, have sprung from the ranks of the workers to acquire what amounts to a petty-bourgeois mode of life. They have no tradition of economic independence or ownership and because they are in point of fact tied to the state apparatus as servants, they cannot hammer out an independent ideology for the people nor lead them in their day to day struggles. Furthermore, as dependent beings, they are easily influenced in their ideas by fluctuations in the economic conditions under which they work.
I do not think that Mr. Maurice grasps this peculiar place the teacher occupies in society and the rÁ´le a political leadership is called upon to play in the liberatory movement. His lecture is revealing in as much as it does not reveal the rÁ´le the non-European teacher is playing or can play in the liberatory movement. He conceives of a leadership in terms of a pedagogic intercommunication of a small group of professionals and a distant mass of people, and seems to regard what I would call a mere idealistic enlightenment as a sine qua non for liberation. He fails to understand the importance of an independent ideology and the need for a leadership to participate actively in the struggles of the people. It is true that he does not see much the teachers are doing to further the cause of liberation, and, by implication, regards their connecÂtions with the political movement as purely de jure. But what he considers their contribution to liberation can be, is pure enlightenment which has nothing to do with the political task of transforming this country by active political struggle on the basis of an ideology of liberation into a decisive democratic country.
The history of the T.L.S.A. makes my point clear. In 1942, the Coloured teachers were militant because, as grossly underpaid servants, they regarded themselves as part of the oppressed people and forged political ties with them. But from 1946 a radical change came about. To put in simply: the teachers were bribed off by salary increases. They subsequently lost their former militancy and their ideas of liberation from a colour-bar system and for educational and political democracy. Their tenuous connections with the political movement withered away, and they came to consider themselves as a privileged group concerned with their own peculiar problems as teachers. In point of fact, whereas earlier they wanted to break through a colour-bar system, they are now accommodating themselves to and thriving within the framework of that same system. They feel that by struggling for more now, they have something more to lose than their chains.
This fact comes as a belated warning to that political tendency which has up to now concentrated all its forces on the Coloured teachers. They have been building on shifting sands. Now feeling the effect of a purely privileged milieu, the T.L.S.A. leadership is proposing some sort of union with the less privileged African teachers in C.A.T.A. When this move comes at a time when the Coloured teachers feel themselves to be poles part from the African teachers and when reaction is rearing its ugly head in the T.L.S.A., one has perforce to conclude that this is an act of desperation, an act that is hyper-revolutionary because the times are not propitious. Because it would mean a Coloured-African teacher unity at the top and not from below, and would drive out the preponderantly conservative section in the T.L.S.A., leaving this body in rags. I would like to know Mr. Maurice's opinion on this proposed federation scheme.
Mr. Daniels: I have no doubt that teachers can play an important role in the liberatory movement. What Mr. Maurice loses sight of, however, is the fact that education in itself is not the only means for social change. It may be true that pupils take their attitude from teachers, but what will the attitude of pupils amount to if there is no youth movement into which they can be attracted and trained for work in the national movement to provide future cadres for the national movement?
I agree entirely that the existence of a class mentioned by Mr. Jordaan, is necessary, but in South Africa with its peculiar problems the non-European teacher is forced into the position of the intellectual. The conditions under which teachers work, however, where they are in effect doing the work of the rulers means that their work in the national movement is limited. Hence the continuing shelving of important proposals that arise in the T.L.S.A. If teachers were not so limited, that position could not arise.
The rÁ´le of the teacher cannot be considered in abstract. When the proposal was made that the T.L.S.A. should affiliate to the Trade Union movement, a fine opportunity was lost, when the idea of gaining the support of the workers was abandoned, and, as the most advanced of the non-European oppressed, of politicising the Trade Unions. The interests of the teacher class, however, made the T.L.S.A. turn its back on affiliation with the workers. Thus, while I feel that the non-European teacher has a great potential in the task of national liberation, national emancipation will come not because of but in spite of, the teacher.
Mr. Maurice's Reply
Mr. Maurice pointed out that Mr. Jordaan had misinterpreted the federation between C.A.T.A. and T.L.S.A. by labelling it as "an act of desperation". This move towards federation was within the League's Constitution and the first attempt to implement it had been made as early as 1946, and was not something new. He also denied that he had assessed the strength of the teachers in terms of numerical strength. He further felt that he was not called upon to answer the references made to the T.L.S.A. in view of his introductory reservations. That being the case, he would therefore not touch the references made to the T.L.S.A.
In view of the limitations placed upon the teachers it was wishful thinking to expect the teacher to play the rÁ´le Mr. Gamiet expected from them. It was clear from what had been said, that the teacher could not be the spearhead of the emancipatory movement. Non-European teachers as a class had only existed for the last 30 years, and the possibilities of the rÁ´le the teacher could play were now only beginning to crystallise.
He agreed that the salaries of teachers were directly related to their militancy. The leadership had pointed out, and was still pointing out, that the monthly green cheque of the teacher had carried him from the path of 1946.
In conclusion the speaker said he was pleased that his lecture had provoked so much discussion. He pointed out that as this was a new subject, he had therefore expected many different points of view.