Steve Biko was undoubtedly the most influential South African liberation struggle theorist and activist of the 1970s. Rick Turner was arguably among the most effectual white anti-apartheid activists of the era. Biko espoused black consciousness while Turner was a Marxist philosopher. Biko (30) was murdered by apartheid police in 1977. Turner (36) was shot dead by an apartheid assassin in 1978. Their ideas continue to resonate. Political scientist and philosopher Michael Onyebuchi Eze sets out, in a chapter of a new book, Rick Turner’s Politics as the Art of the Impossible, how the two men’s philosophies mirrored and critiqued each other. The Conversation Africa asked him to explain.
What were Turner’s and Biko’s philosophies?
Following almost three centuries of colonialism, the National Party came into power in South Africa in 1948. It formalised apartheid (apartness) into law. The policy kept black people and white people apart, and discriminated against the black majority. In 1960, the apartheid regime banned the African National Congress and Pan Africanist Congress liberation movements.
Rick Turner and Steve Biko gained prominence in the freedom struggle in the 1970s. Turner taught philosophy at the segregated University of Natal. Biko was studying at the “non-European” section of the university’s medical school. They met in Durban in 1970. The meeting triggered the “Durban Movement”, which mobilised workers’ and wider societal resistance against apartheid and capitalist exploitation. The movement shaped strategies in the fight against apartheid.
Biko’s black consciousness movement articulated a profound and multilayered critique of apartheid. It called for the psychological and cultural liberation of black South Africans. The core argument of black consciousness was that black people (“Africans”, “Coloureds” and “Indians”) needed to rally together around the cause of their oppression — the blackness of their skin. It implored them to work as a group to rid themselves of the shackles that bound them to perpetual servitude.
Freedom would only be possible if black people cultivated a sense of pride, self-worth and agency. Black consciousness sought to change negative connotations of blackness into an empowering ideal of freedom. This also meant liberty from the internalised racism and self-hate imposed by apartheid.
It involved rejecting the imposed narratives and values of the white oppressors, and developing a positive self identity.
Biko advocated for black people to champion their own liberation without reliance on white paternalism. As he famously noted,
the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.
Since Christianity was also implicated in apartheid, Biko championed a new understanding of Christianity, rooted in black theology.
Black theology said Christianity was not about surrendering to oppression as the will of God, but about liberation from oppression. Biko’s philosophy was centred on the psychological and cultural liberation of black South Africans. For Biko, resistance meant freedom as defiance and defiance as freedom.
Turner called for radical social and political change through his critique of apartheid, capitalism and liberalism. These ideologies were connected in reproducing social systems of oppression and dehumanisation.
Apartheid was a form of racialist capitalism: the idea that access to labour, jobs or economic life is determined by race. It perpetuated unjust capitalist accumulation through oppressing black South Africans and excluding them from the economy.
Turner was not only critical of racialist capitalism; he also condemned white liberalism: an ideology of social justice and equality championed by white activists, who often do not fully understand their own privileges or biases.
Read more: Why Biko's Black Consciousness philosophy resonates with youth today
He saw white liberalism as inadequate and superficial in fighting the root causes of systemic inequality, and often complicit in maintaining the status quo. Beyond the material basis of oppression, Turner also challenged the ideological foundation of apartheid.
Turner advanced a new idea of freedom that focused on transformation of the mind and socio-cultural mindset. He linked political rights with dignity. Doing so made apartheid oppression inherently illegal and immoral. Where apartheid used Christianity to justify racialist capitalism, Turner found potential in Christian egalitarian principles for mobilising resistance.
He rejected white paternalism, and championed a radical restructuring of society based on egalitarian principles and Christian liberation theology.
Therefore, Turner and Biko’s philosophies mirrored each other in several ways. They reflected a shared vision for radical social and political change in South Africa. Their shared vision of resistance was rooted in human restoration, freedom from imposed colonial language and ideas, and a rejection of white paternalism.
They saw political freedom as synonymous with dignity and rights (Biko), and a radical restructuring of society based on egalitarian principles (Turner).
To Turner and Biko resistance was not just a reaction to oppression but a proactive effort to create new social relations and restore agency to the oppressed.
How did their philosophies differ?
While Turner and Biko shared many philosophical similarities, their approaches and emphases had notable differences. Turner’s critique was rooted in the analysis of capitalism. His focus was on disrupting the capitalist structures that underpinned apartheid.
Biko’s focus was on the psychological and cultural dimensions of oppression. He emphasised the importance of black consciousness, which aimed to instil pride and a sense of agency among blacks. He was more concerned with internalised racism and psychological liberation.
Read more: How the failed ideals of 1970s activists haunt post-apartheid South Africa
To Turner, Christianity was instrumental to dismantling apartheid. To Biko, black liberation was the purpose of Christianity.
They both rejected white liberalism and its paternalism, but for different reasons. Turner rejected it on pragmatic grounds of not being forceful enough to achieve substantial change. Biko rejected liberalism because racial privilege meant whites could not experience what it meant to be black.
What can South Africa learn from both men?
Turner and Biko offered lessons for contemporary South Africa. They are particularly valuable in the context of ongoing struggles for social justice, equality and true decolonisation.
South Africa remains the most unequal society in the world despite government reform efforts. Where change is visible, the distinction between the new black elites and the less privileged turns into elitist discrimination.
Superficial reforms – land distribution, access to basic healthcare or even basic education – do not address the root causes of systemic inequality. Both Turner and Biko emphasised the need for deep structural changes.
True decolonisation requires a shift on how knowledge is acquired, affects and shapes the cultural foundations of a society. This involves challenging the narratives and values that justify and sustain oppression.
Turner and Biko teach that paternalistic attitudes, even from well-meaning allies, can undermine genuine liberation efforts. Empowerment initiatives should be led by those directly affected by oppression, ensuring that their voices and experiences are at the forefront of the movement.
Rick Turner’s Politics as the Art of the Impossible is published by Wits University Press (2024).
Michael Onyebuchi Eze does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
