Talk is Cheap But Lies are Expensive

‘Talk is Cheap,
But Lies are Expensive’

This study begins with a comparative analysis of the difference in perspectives between young adult males currently studying at the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University, mainly with regards to sexuality and HIV/AIDS. I chose two groups from the student population. The first, consisting of young adult males who grew up in cities. And second, young adult males who grew up in ‘platteland’ communities. By doing this I test the common assumption, that those who grew up in cities, would be better informed than their ‘platteland’ counterparts. With ‘platteland’ meaning farming communities, and with participants either residing in a small town or on a farm. These two groups provided the ‘urban’ vs. ‘rural’ concept that is used throughout the paper. In addition to this I examine the presumed connection between, the amount of sexual knowledge and sexual practice. In an effort to establish if their level of sexual knowledge was the main determining factor when it came to participants’ choices regarding sexual conduct. Instead, I found that the dominant narrative that emerged, was religion. From this, I analyse the influence of the religious hegemonic discourse on participants’ social organisation and behaviour. I do this drawing on the works of: Ashcraft (2006); Bird (1996); Campbell (1997); Dowsett (2003); Farmer (1995); Kiesling (2001, Volume 11, Number 1); Kiesling (2001, Volume 11, Number2); Klein (2000); Levine & Ross (2002); Watson (n.d)




Background

The North-West University is the product of a merger of the University of the North-West with that of the Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education and consists of three campuses namely: Mafikeng, Potchefstroom and Vaal Triangle. This study was conducted on the Potchefstroom campus of the North-West University. This campus was formerly known as the Potchefstroom University for Higher Education, and most of the participants refer to it as the PUK (Our recent history). Despite the fact that things have changed in recent years, there still exists a strong sense of tradition. This sense of tradition and the focus on religious values consistently draws students who claim to subscribe to these same religious beliefs (Why the NWU-PUK Campus?). But even when the majority of students describe themselves as religious, that does not mean that they will always see eye to eye when it comes to sexuality.

Literature Review

Ashcraft’s (2006) paper on teen sexuality shows how the dominant discourses of sexuality not only shape social identities, but also serve to reinforce social inequalities. Another common element is the way in which participants revise dominant discourses, challenging some while incorporating others, actively participating in the creation of their own social order.

Bird’s (1996) paper concerning multiple masculinities and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity is interesting when viewed in relation to the current study. The way Bird describes how individuals who differ from the masculine norm are pushed aside and condemned bears a strong resemblance to the reactions displayed by the members of the abstinence collective. Another far less entertaining parallel comes in the form of the subordination of femininity, and viewing women as sexual objects. Even though members of the present study started out very careful about what they said, by the middle of the questionnaire they were freely making comments about young women, who were perceived as promiscuous. Using a variety of descriptions and social slang, all condemning them for actions such as ‘being too friendly’ and ‘not wearing the right clothes’.

Campbell’s (1997) study, highlights the psychosocial context of HIV transmission. In addition to this, he looks at how an individual’s social identity goes on to shape their behaviour. This influence not only dictates their general social behaviour, but influences their sexual behaviour as well. And although the participants in Campbell’s (1997) study, had masculinity playing the leading role in their social narrative instead of religion, as is the case in the present study, being made aware of how the dominant narrative permeates and influences social contexts, should lend valuable insight into my analysis of the present context.

Dowsett’s (2003) paper on sexuality and gender shows what a valuable tool gender becomes when one aims to understand the HIV pandemic. Social structure dominates the pandemic and since gender makes up such an important building block of this structure its importance becomes self-evident. Dowsett (2003) pays a lot of attention on how social structures that seem ‘natural’ are actually created by the individuals living in them.

Farmer (1995) on the other hand, makes use of the influence of the “cultural component” when he discusses the spread of HIV/AIDS. This element is useful for the present study since analysis of common cultural discourse should enable me to detect and later analyse those elements that could influence participants’ susceptibility to HIV/AIDS transmission.




In Kiesling’s (2001, Vol. 11( 1)) paper, he discusses the use of linguistic devices as a method of creating and maintaining social hierarchy. Even though Kiesling’s fieldwork was conducted far away from this university, the methods young males employ to create and cement their social hierarchy in America is employed with equal amounts of zeal by participants in the present study.

In Kiesling’s (2002, Vol. 11(2)) paper on the shifting constructions of masculinity he describes a number of mechanisms used by men to claim their place in the social hierarchy. He mentions four specific mechanisms, and three of those are employed by participants in the current study. These are: direct indexing, the use of speech acts that presuppose and indirect indexing through speech activities associated with particular powerful groups. The last is particularly clear in Joep’s interview, but variations are present in most of the discussions.

The work of Klein (2000), regarding narratives provides important insight into not only the existence of narratives in everyday communication, but also into how they become tools in the social organization. By highlighting the meaning and possible interpretations of the term, Klein makes one aware of, narratives present in everyday life, paving the way for improved interpretation.

Levine & Ross’ (2002) paper on the perceptions of young adults at UCT bears the most resemblance to the current study, but although it may be temping to lean heavily on this seemingly parallel data, it should be avoided since there is a very real risk of coming to the ‘expected’ conclusions in the present study, regardless of whether or not the data support such conclusions. However, by being aware of this possibility of contamination, I will endeavour to avoid it. There are certain trends that feature in both studies, such as the fact that few participants had been for AIDS tests or had discussed HIV/AIDS with their partner. Another common trend comes in the fact that participants make use of stereotypes when describing risk and high risk groups in order to distance themselves from these groups and in effect the implications of HIV/AIDS. Even more interesting than the similarities, are the differences between the findings of the two studies. The participants of the current study were far more positive towards the idea of condom use than those reported in Levine & Ross’(2002) study. Since the studies were done about five years apart, this could possibly indicate at least the partial success of AIDS awareness campaigns especially relating to condom use. What is troubling though is that participants are still not keen on the idea of going for an AIDS test, or discussing the subject of AIDS with their partner. Only one of the participants in the present study had been for an AIDS test and that same participant was the only one who had in fact discussed AIDS with a partner.

In Lund et al.’s (2006) paper on hierarchy negotiation makes the bold claim that “getting ahead” is the fundamental driving force behind motivation. They set about naming various tactics of hierarchy negotiation and when one draws the parallels between the actions of the participants between that study and the present one, one specific technique takes centre stage. Lund et al. (2006) call this “Deception/ Manipulation” and this refers to the way that participants will often engage in deceptive self promotion as well as taking time out to derogate competitors. This tactic was usually employed by members of the ‘rural’ group. Another less popular technique displayed was “Social Display/ Networking” where participants make a point of displaying positive characteristics and make a show of helping others. This last tecnique was consistently displayed by Andries Papenvoes, who represented the only abstaining member of the ‘urban’ group.

Watson’s (n.d.) description of a sociolinguistic model intended for narrative analysis supplies a formal and functional framework from which one can identify a narrative style and study it. It alerts the reader to recurring patterns in narrative as well as showing how to break it up into its component parts. Watson also stresses the importance of narrative in the study of culture.


Methodology

For this study I have chosen one on one interviews with participants. These interviews were conducted privately, using a questionnaire with a number of set questions as a guideline. The questions were designed in such a way that I could get a good oversight not only of the participants’ social views, but also into the depth of their knowledge regarding HIV/AIDS. To supplement the information I had gained from these questions, I also let each participant write a simple test, to better gauge their HIV/AIDS knowledge. The test consisted of twenty statements, to which participants needed to supply simple ‘true’ or ‘false’ answers. The results gained from these tests proved to be valuable when it came to analysing the information gained from the interview questions.
The reasoning behind adding a test to the interviews, lies in the comparative nature of the study. I used the test as an added safety device when I compared the depth of participant’s knowledge, looking to find if the test results confirmed the information I had already gained from the interviews.

Who are the participants, and how were they selected

For this study, I have chosen six young adult males currently studying on the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University. Due to the comparative nature of the study, I have elected to divide them into two groups, each consisting of three members. With one group representing the ‘city’ or ‘urban’ and the other representing the ‘platteland’ or ‘rural’ aspect. All the participants are Afrikaans males and their ages range between 21 years and 25 years old.

Types of data and Sources

In an effort to be as thorough as possible, I elected to tape the interviews and then set about transcribing them. This is why majority of the raw data for this study comes from a combination of transcripts of interviews and notes taken during interviews with participants, along with the participants’ test results. To supplement the information gained in this way, as well as providing background for analysis I relied on a selection of journals and online resources. These include: Journal of Linguistic Anthropology; Anthropology and Education Quarterly; Reproductive Health Matters; Journal of Research in Personality; Gender and Society; and American Anthropologist.

Procedures for data analysis

To facilitate analysis of the data gained from the sources mentioned above, I broke the procedure down into smaller parts. I started out by looking for possible similarities between the current study and previous studies. Along with this I was also on the look out for possible differences that could be of interest. I then isolated any the trends present in the interviews of participants in the same group, as those present in all interviews. From this I was able not only to compare the two groups, but also test the new facts against the previous assumptions.


Gaining Perspective

At the beginning of each interview, participants were asked to supply their definitions to certain basic terms used in this study. This was done as a safety measure, to ensure that the definitions of terms used by participants and that of the reader were the same. When one looks at the variations between participants’ answers, the reasoning behind this soon becomes clear.

Janus: “ Seksuele aktiwiteite… Karfoefel. Mutual gratification.”, (Sexual activities. Fooling around. Mutual gratification);Jannie Gietergat: “… verder as vry, is te ver.”, (When you go further than french kissing, then you are going too far); Joep: “ … waar jy begin vatterig raak en daai goed… as jy begin vat waar jy nie moet vat nie en dan begin dit nou bietjie in daai lyn, in daai rigting gaan.”,(When you start getting touchy feely. Once you start touching places where you’re not supposed to and things like that, then you are starting to go in that direction).


‘Urban’ vs. ‘Rural’

Difference in perspectives, regarding HIV/AIDS transmission, between young men who grew up in cities as opposed to those who grew up on the ‘platteland’

This basic contrast between the views of the ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ participants regarding the subject of sexual intercourse, serves as the starting point for a discourse, with two contrasting views, that seem impossible to reconcile.

The majority of the ‘urban’ males approved of pre-marital sex as long as it was in a relationship. As can bee seen by Joe F’s response: “Ek het glad nie ‘n pyn daarmee nie… As jy omgee vir ‘n persoon, dank an jy seks hê met daai persoon.”, when he was asked about his view on pre-marital sex(I have no problem with it… If you care about a person, then you can have sex with that person). This point was shared by Janus, another member of the ‘urban’ group, who represents the only other sexually active male.
On the other hand, all the ‘rural’ males were strongly apposed to the idea of pre-marital sex. As can be seen from the response of Ballonetjie: ”Mm, verkeerd. Soek jy ‘n rede? Um, dis vir my ook half, half ‘n geloof saak. Want jy weet, seks is bedoel vir die huwelik.” (It’s wrong. Do you want a reason? It’s a question of faith for me. ‘Cos you know, sex was made for marriage). This extended explanation came without prompting, and represents the first emergence of the religious narrative in the text (based on the works of: Campbell:1997; Lund:2006; Kiesling:2000;Klein:2000 ). This religious connection between ‘sexual intercourse’ and marriage, dominates all ‘rural’ participants’ answers relating to the subject. This negative view of pre-marital sex was shared by the remaining ‘urban’ participant Andries Papenvoes, but the extended explanation is noticeably absent (Lund: 2006; Kiesling: 2001).



The ‘urban’ participants, were significantly more tolerant of those members of the community who did not comply with their own personal ideal (Kiesling:2001; Lund:2006). Even Andries Papenvoes, who has elected to abstain from ‘sexual activity’, expressed concern rather than contempt for the choices made by the sexually active members of society. “…ons persentasies van mense wat VIGS het is nogal redelik hoog. En van mense wat al seksueel aktief is. Mens kan sien daar is soos, ‘n nodigheid vir kommer. Ja, ja daar is ‘n nodigheid vir kommer.”,(The percentages (On the Potchefstroom Campus) of people who have AIDS are quite high. That and those of people who are already sexually active. You can see there is reason to worry. Yes, there is reason to be worried).Displaying the “Social Display” tactic described in Lund (2006)

While the ‘rural’ participants made a point of actively and vocally condemning those who were in fact ‘sexually active’ at every possible opportunity (Ashcraft:2006; Lund:2006; Kiesling:2001). Take for example Ballonetjie’s reaction while discussing making condoms available as a possible method of AIDS prevention on campus: “ Ek gaan dit nou terugvat na die hele losbandige mense toe. Want hoekom vat jy daai ding? Om hom te gebruik.”, (I’m going to take that back to promiscuous people. Because, why would you take that thing (a condom)?To go and use it). For him, offering students a method of contraception was a way of condoning and even maybe encouraging students to be sexually active. This is a belief that was shared by Jannie Gietergat: “ Man, hulle moet vir steek seker nie kondome uitdeel nie, want dis ‘common’. Nee, heerder man, dis stupid. Jy hits mos nou net ‘n mens aan.”, (They really shouldn’t hand out condoms, because it’s cheap. It’s stupid. You just encourages people). Similar can be seen in Ashcraft (2006) and Dowsett (2003).

A worrying trend among the ‘rural’ participants is a high level of naivety, that comes across in some of the casual remarks they made regarding HIV/AIDS, it’s transmission and sexual activity in general they all deny knowing anyone who is HIV+ and even go as far as denying that anyone they’re friends with is currently sexually active. Even though they made all the right noises when answering the obvious questions, they often lacked a deeper understanding of the broad principles that they were reciting from memory (Levine & Ross: 2002). None of them honestly believe that HIV/AIDS or even any form of sexual activity will ever have an impact on them, and they trust that if it does, they will be able to tell ‘what kind of girl she is’ (Ashcraft:2006; Bird: 1996; Dowsett: 2003). Jannie Gietergat was often the most frank of the three “Die girls wat ek sal like is eerder van die plaas af… so daar hoef jy nie te worry nie” (The girls I like come from farms, and you don’t have to worry about them), but even Ballonetjie “Jy kan dit sommer sien… dit wat jy is straal buitentoe” (You can see it… the type of person that you are shows on the outside) and Joep “ ‘n Mens kan as jy… vir iemand kyk, dan kan jy sien” (You can see when you look at someone), let some comments slip during the conversation that indicates just how deep this problem really goes.

Another thorny subject between the participants is the subject of HIV/AIDS education. Neither the ‘urban’ nor the ‘rural’ group adopted specific position regarding HIV/AIDS education. Participants seemed conflicted, not with other views this time, but mostly with themselves. All participants were pro-HIV/AIDS education in theory, but when it came to when and where or any other detail their train of thought jumped the rails as illustrated by Ballonetjie’s contradictions. Interestingly, whether or not the participant considered himself informed was not the major deciding factor when it came to thinking about HIV/AIDS education in a university context. With some, like Ballonetjie, Janus and Jannie Gietergat feeling it’s too late, even though they admitted that they weren’t that well informed. Another thing that all participants could agree on was the need for parental involvement in HIV/AIDS education, this comes despite the fact that most their parents had not discussed the subject with them (Ashcraft: 2006).



Inconsistency Between ‘Ideal’ and ‘Action’

Contradictions between what participants claimed to think when they answered certain questions such as: “Do you think you can tell if someone has AIDS?”; “Do you consider yourself to be at risk?” and “Who does AIDS concern?”, and what they actually do were rampant. As can be seen in the following responses: Joe F “Ja. Dit is ‘n kwessie wat van toepassing is op enige persoon” (Yes, it is an issue that affects everybody) followed by “Ek meen, meeste van die mense in die hoë risiko groepe, is gewoonlik jou laer opgevoede klas mense.” (The most people in high risk groups are usually ‘low class’ people) and Joep:” Ja, wel almal is”(Yes, well everybody is) and “Spanners… daai klas”( Common people… that class of people) (Bird: 1996; Klein: 2000; Levine & Ross: 2002) . This was as problem for both the ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ participants. But was expressed particularly clearly in, the difference between ‘sexually active’ participants’ claims and their actions (Barrett:2000). The assumed connection between the level of knowledge and participants’ sexual practices, only made it as far as the articulation of their ‘ideal’ beliefs (Barrett: 2000; Levine & Ross: 2002).

Even though the ‘sexually active’ participants truly attempted to translate their knowledge on the subject of HIV/AIDS into social practice, human fallibility, combined with incomplete assimilation, meant that their actions sometimes contradicted their claims. Joe F: “Ek hou nie daarvan om saam met iemand te slaap wat ek nie ken nie, maar dit het al gebeur… Alhoewel ek dit nie wil doen nie” (I don’t like sleeping with someone that I don’t know, but it has happened in the past… Even though I don’t want to do it).

It is important to take the social context at work during interviews into account (Bird: 1996; Barrett: 2000; Campbell: 1997; Kiesling: 2001; Klein: 2000). By doing this, the claims made by participants while engaging in their current social performance, takes on a new and intricately constructed meaning (drawing on Bird: 1996; Barrett: 2000; Campbell: 1997; Kiesling: 2001 (1&2); Lund: 2006, ) Participants’ claims have more to do with the role that they have elected to play in this social interaction, than their actual beliefs (Kiesling: 2001; Klein: 2000; Watson: nd.).

This conflict between ‘ideal’ and ‘actual’ belief becomes clear when one compares the differences between the claims and participants’ discourse (Barrett:2000).
All participants openly condemned ‘one-night-stands’, and yet half of them were guilty of this very transgression. Those who were guilty, felt a very real sense of remorse and were quietly ashamed of their inability to live up to the social ‘ideal’. Some even went as far as expressing regret Ballonetjie: “ Een keer ja… ek is meer half in die ding ingepraat in my eerste jaar”(It happened once yes… I was convinced by someone during my first year).


Religion as Collective Hegemonic Narrative

Religion emerges as a dominant narrative in the hegemonic discourse of these participants (Bird: 1996; Campbell: 1997; Kiesling: 2001; Klein: 2000; Lund: 2006). All participants claim to be religious and gave themselves scores between 6 and 8 out of ten, when asked to rate how religious they were. By doing this they automatically align themselves with the hegemonic majority (Bird: 1996; Kiesling: 2001). However, this membership comes at a price. Those who abstain are constantly condemning and judging the “immoral” people, who are sexually active (Lund:2006; ).

These vocal reprimands serve as a constant confirmation of their membership to the hegemonic collective, as well as repeatedly excluding those who fail to conform to the guidelines set out by the group (Bird: 1996; Kiesling: 2001; Lund: 2006). This leaves sexually active participants with a bit of a conundrum. They must choose between three equally unattractive options (Bird: 1996; Campbell: 1997; Kiesling: 2001):
1. They must alter their current behaviour and conform to the prescribed ideal of abstinence.
2. They must conceal their sexual activity from other members of the group.
3. They must separate themselves from the religious hegemony and relinquish their current position in the social hierarchy.

In this study, all sexually active participants chose the second option. The first comes from a group that consists entirely of sexually active young men, who have all privately chosen the same option. This ‘shared secret’ affords him and other members of that particular group a certain amount of protection from the hegemonic ‘gatekeepers’, who judge harshly and condemn without mercy (Kiesling: 2001).

Unfortunately the second sexually active participant finds himself in a more precarious position (Bird: 1996; Kiesling: 2001). He is not part of such a ‘shared secret’ group, but rather finds himself in the middle of a very hostile abstinence collective. The constant harsh criticisms of members of a similar group, makes his a truly unenviable position to be in. He risks being ostracized if his sexual practice becomes public, as well as potentially leaving himself without a support system, if his actions were to lead him in to trouble. It seems highly unlikely that the members of this particular abstinence collective would be willing to offer support if his transgressions were to become public (Bird: 1996;Lund: 2006).

One participant, Andries Papenvoes, represents an interesting deviation from the abstinence collective norm. Although he in fact, ‘plays by the rules’ of the religious hegemonic collective by abstaining, he remains almost uncharacteristically sympathetic to the sexually active deviants, offering support and advice instead of just blanket condemnation. Make no mistake, he laments the fact that young people today are sexually active and seem to be almost predominantly reckless when it comes to their sexual behaviour, but still he chooses to at least attempt to respect the choices made by others. This is even though he does not understand them, and certainly does not agree with them. This behaviour conforms to the “Social Display” principle and to a lesser extend the “Manipulation” principle described by Lund (2006)

Conclusion

In response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in South Africa, I set about unraveling the mystery. Looking not only for reasons, but also possible solutions. In an effort to understand the reasoning that male university students employ when making sexual choices, I compared the views and knowledge of participants from ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ settings. I found that the religious narrative permeates deeply into all forms of social construction in the lives of those who participated (Klein: 2000; Watson: nd.). This dominant narrative both protects and endangers those that subscribe to it as was seen in Campell’s (1997) study. Since my study only involved six participants, it cannot be taken as absolute proof of the entire student population of the North-West University’s views regarding HIV/AIDS. Yet some of the trends that are present, are so consistent that they merit a closer look.

There has been some measure of success on the part of AIDS campaigns. Students are far more willing to use condoms than was indicated by a previous study based in Cape Town (Levine & Ross: 2002). It is still not nearly enough. Students remain unwilling to go for AIDS tests and have failed to grasp the seriousness of the HIV/AIDS threat. Policy makers can no longer afford to deny the impact of HIV/AIDS on the student population. Denial is putting students at risk, and will continue to do so until an effort is made to raise awareness in a way that touches these students (Ashcraft: 2006; Campbell: 1997). If the current discourse of denial persists, there is a risk that students could simply continue along their present path, without ever truly believing that they are at risk.


References

• Ashcraft, C. (2006) ‘Ready or Not… Teen Sexuality and the Troubling Discourse of Readiness’ in Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Volume 37, Number 4, pp. 328-346
• Author Unknown (2005) ‘Ethical Guidelines and Principles of Conduct for Anthropologists’ in Anthropology Southern Africa, 28(3&4), pp.142-143
• Barrett, S.R. 2002 ‘Unleashing the Anthropologist: A Historical Overview’ and ‘Method’ in Anthropology: A Student’s Guide to Theory and Method University of Toronto Press inc. pg 3-46; 69-83
• Bird, S.R (1996) ‘Welcome to the Men’s Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity’ in Gender and Society, Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 120-132
• Campbell, C. (1997) ‘Migrancy, Masculine Identities and AIDS: The Psychosocial Context of HIV transmission on the South African Gold Mines’ in Social Sciences Med., Volume 45, Number 2, pp. 273-281
• Dowsett, G. W. (2003) ‘Some Considerations on Sexuality and Gender in the Context of AIDS’ in Reproductive Health Matters, Volume 11, Number 22, pp.21-29
• Farmer, P. 1995 ‘Culture, Poverty, and the Dynamics of AIDS Transmission in Rural Haiti’ in T Brummelhuis, and G Herdt (ed.) Culture and Sexual Risk: Anthropological Perspectives on AIDS Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Publishers
• Kiesling, S. (2001) ‘Stances in Whiteness and Hegemony in Fraternity Men’s Discourse’ in Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Volume 11, Number 1, pp. 101-115
• Kiesling, S.F. (2001) “Now I Gotta Whatch What I Say’: Shifting Constructions of Masculinity in Discourse” in Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Volume 11, Number 2, pp. 250-273
• Klein, H.E.M (2000) ‘Narrative’ in Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Volume 9, Number 1-2, pp. 167-169
• Levine, S. & Ross, F. 2002 ‘Perceptions of and Attitudes to HIV/AIDS among young adults at UCT’ in Social Dynamics 28(1): 89-108
• Lund, O.C.H., et al. (2006) ‘Tactics of Hierarchy Negotiation’ in Journal of Research in Personality, Volume 41, pp. 25-44
• North West University (2007) ‘Our recent history’ in About Us, url:http://www.nwu.ac.za/opencms/export/NWU/html/nwu/about-us-rhistory.html accessed: 20 April 2007
• North West University, Potchefstroom Campus (2007) ‘Why the NWU-PUK Campus?’ in Prospective Students, url:http://www.puk.ac.za/vstudente/index_e.html accessed: 20 April 2007
• Prinsloo, A.F. (2005) Spreekwoorde en waar hulle vandaan kom, Pharos Woordeboeke, NB Uitgewers, Kaapstad
• Watson, K.A. (n.d) ‘A Rheutorical and Sociolinguistic Model for the Analysis of Narritive’ in American Anthropologist, Volume , pp. 243-
• Wikipedia, Baseball Metaphor in a sexual context, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baseball_Metaphor , accessed: 25 April 2007




Appendix A:

Ethical Considerations

Anthropologists often have to interact very closely with the members of the community that have chosen to participate in the study and our first responsibility should always be towards them. Participants should never be reduced to a “means to an end”, but should always be handled with care and respect. This has certain implications for any given study and even as a student anthropologist, I am bound by these conventions. In an effort to guarantee my participants’ anonymity, I gave them the opportunity to choose their own pseudonyms and conducted all my interviews privately. Because this study might one day form part of a larger one, the participants were required to sign release forms, but there is no way that I am aware of to connect these forms with the transcripts of their interviews. I have also tried to make sure that my participants all received fair representation, and have strived to keep my comments as neutral as possible. During interviews I gave my participants the choice about whether or not to answer certain questions and Jannie Gietergat was one of the few who used this right by refusing to explain “koekkie hollander broekkies” on tape.


(Based on: Ethical Guidelines and Principles of Conduct for Anthropologists)





Appendix B:
Translation and Explanations of Certain Phrases

• Kat uit die boom uit kyk – “’n Afwagtende houding inneem. Versigtig wees. See which way the cat jumps.” – Prinsloo (2005)
• Meng jou met die semels en die varke vreet jou op – “As jy met slegte geselskap omgaan, word jy ook sleg. Touch pitch and be defiled.”—Prinsloo (2005)
• Uit die bloute uit – Out of the blue. Something that happens that is unexpected.
• In ‘n negatiewe lig sien – “ Swak voorstel. Present something in a bad light.”—Prinsloo (2005)
• As ‘n yster warm genoeg raak, dan buig hy – If someone comes under enough pressure, they will change their mind. In context this means that getting excited in a sexual context could influence someone’s choices.
• Hy het nog nie die pyp gerook nie – He has not had sex yet.
• Selfbeeld in ‘n bottel – Self esteem from a bottle, similar to the idea of “Dutch courage”.
• Oop en bloot – Out in the open. Someone said something without disguising it in any way.
• Nie ‘n halwe kans nie – There is no way. Not even half a chance.
• Hits ‘n mens aan – Encourage someone to do something
• ‘n Pad saam met iemand gestap het – Based on the belief that when you have spent a lot of time with someone and gone through certain things with them, you should know them reasonably well.