Introduction: representing the rainbow nation

South Africa's transition to democracy and acceptance as a member of the community of nations has been accompanied by a quest for a new national identity. The African National Congress (ANC) government and President Mandela personally have encouraged the ritual celebration of the 'rainbow nation' at international sports events such as the 1995 Rugby World Cup (Nauright 1998; Steenveld & Strelitz 1998). Arts and cultural events such as the 1997 South African Music Awards have also been occasions for celebrating the emergence of the 'rainbow nation' (Baines, forthcoming). The by now ubiquitous image of South Africa as the 'rainbow nation' seems to have caught the public imagination. It symbolises the 'new' South Africa, the imaginery nation being constructed in the post-apartheid era.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is usually credited with coining the phrase 'the rainbow nation'. [1] As chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, Tutu is associated in the public mind with the process of reconciliation and nation building. He appeared in a series of television slots in which he spoke of the 'Rainbow People of God'. As a cleric, his image presumably draws on the Old Testament story of the flood where the rainbow symbolises God's promise not to pass further judgment on humankind. Perhaps this represents another chance to build a nation from which the evil of apartheid has been removed? For Tutu, the image probably also resonates with the symbolism of the rainbow in South African indigenous cultures. For instance, in Xhosa cosmology the rainbow signifies hope and the assurance of a bright future. These positive and life-affirming images eclipse negative ones such as that suggested by the mythic narrative of the elusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The 'rainbow nation' metaphor both informs and reinforces the vision of nation building.

The secondary metaphor of the rainbow with its spectrum of colours suggests that South Africa is a multicultural society. This image may have more obviously political derivations. [2] Unlike the primary metaphor, the room for different cultural interpretations of the colour spectrum is slight. For whether the rainbow has Newton's seven colours or the five of the Nguni (i.e. Xhosa and Zulu) cosmology, the colours are not taken literally to represent particular cultural groups. Indeed, the rainbow nation rhetoric avoids direct reference to colour in the sense of race. Instead, the rainbow's colours are simply said to symbolise the diversity of South Africa's usually unspecified cultural/ethnic/racial groups.

Is the image of the 'rainbow nation' an apposite one for the 'new' South Africa? Whose vision is it and to what extent has it informed the imagined community of the nation (Anderson 1991: 15)? And how does national identity intersect with the individual identities of those doing the imagining? These are some of the concerns of this paper.

The Construction of White Identity: Nation Building in Apartheid South Africa

The past has shown that the assertion of a single national identity has precluded the assertion of others. National identity is invariably defined by the dominant group which excludes others from the locus of power. The construction of a white South African identity was predicated on the control of the apparatus of state and privileged access to resources by the white minority. This white minority consists of two main ethnic groups of European origin (English and Afrikaans) both of whom defined themselves primarily in contradistinction to the 'other', the indigenous population. But they also distinguished themselves from each other through adopting a different standpoint to the 'other' (Steyn 1997: 9). The narrative of 'whiteness' which informed the construction of white identity meant that race became a salient social category in South Africa.

Since the creation of the South African state in 1910, there have been numerous efforts at 'whites only' nation building (Giliomee 1990?). In the apartheid era successive Nationalist governments promoted an exclusive Afrikaner ethnic nationalism, as well as a broader white nationalism. Nationalist Party ideologues propagated a particular vision of South Africa as a multiracial (sic) society. [3] They justified separate development policies in terms of primordially-conceived ethnic differences. This had the effect of collapsing individual ethnicities into white and black, us and them. This promoting of racial consciousness over other significant cultural markers was clearly a narrowly-defined form of nation building.

During the apartheid years white nationalism was fostered by the slogans 'unity is strength' and 'unity in diversity'. The first slogan appealed to white jingoism and militarism in the face of the so-called 'total onslaught' (the communist-inspired attack on white 'civilization' in South Africa). The 'unity in diversity' only extended to whites as it effectively excluded others from identifying with the nation. A more accurate rendering would have been 'unity in adversity' for it was forged in the face of international hostility and internal black opposition. Even during apartheid's reform phase, a divide-and-rule strategy sought to consolidate white (Afrikaner) hegemony, co-opt the 'Coloureds' and Indians, and perpetuate differences and divisions amongst the African population. Apartheid effectively created two nations; one white, the other black. South Africa became two political communities in a single national territory.

National Identity, Nation Building and Multiculturalism in Post-Apartheid South Africa

There are always competing configurations of what constitutes national identity in nation states. Invariably civic and ethnic nationalisms have been used to mobilise people behind a vision of the 'nation'. Civic nationalism fosters loyalty to a political community, usually the nation-state, whereas ethnic nationalism emphasizes the common descent or affinities of people with respect to language and religion. The former is tolerant and inclusive, whilst the latter is exclusive and often discriminates against outsiders. Civic nationalism propounds an allegiance to political institutions (viz. the constitution and democracy) and principles (viz. common citizenship rights and obligations) rather than a community. The discourse of ethnic nationalism, on the other hand, emphasises a sense of shared history and common destiny. We have already noted how ethnic nationalism was put to the service of whites by the apartheid regime. And there remains serious doubts about the efficacy of civic nationalism in promoting a sense of national identity in South Africa.

Is it possible and desirable to construct a national identity by way of an alternative route? Miller (1997) believes so. He proposes a multi-level nationalism where people can reconcile national and communal identities. He argues that we need to reconceptualise national identity in terms of a shared public culture and proposes the construction of a culturally-based nationalism. Miller thinks that identity should be defined by participation in a common national culture. This does not amount to a sort of cultural reductionism for national cultures are - by definition - hybrid as they should comprise elements from all constituent cultures. Rather, such participation promises to produce allegiance to certain cultural common denominators and symbols such as the new flag with which most South Africans can identify.

A new South African national identity is being constructed discursively through the media and other forums of public discourse. As public broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has apparently assumed some responsibility for communicating the message of national unity. This is epitomised by the repetitive jingle on SABC-TV: "Simunye - We are one". The content of certain radio and television programmes, and even some private sector funded advertisements convey the message of nation building. For instance, South African Breweries who are the chief sponsors of the national soccer team (the Bafana Bafana) have promoted Castle Lager with the slogan "One Beer, One Nation". As cultural carriers, the media have been crucial in disseminating the rhetoric of 'rainbowism'.

The ANC government has also begun to articulate its vision of the 'imagined community' of the South African nation. In July 1997 it released a discussion document entitled Nation-Formation and Nation Building wherein the framers sought to 'assert African hegemony in the context of a multi-cultural and non-racial society'. In a critique of this document, Filatova (1997: 54) argues that for the ANC:

... Africanism is a much more powerful card to play than 'rainbowism'... at this particular moment of South Africa's history a nationalist stance offers a better political potential to the ANC than non-racialism, whether based on class solidarity or on 'rainbow' all-inclusive nationhood.

Filatova notes that this document challenges the appropriateness of the 'rainbow nation's Charterist conceptualisation of citizenship. She correctly points out, though, that the ANC's commitment to the principle of non-racialism annunciated in the 1955 Freedom Charter has always been tempered by a strand of Africanist thinking. For Filatova, the nationalist rhetoric of the 1997 document is a sure sign that the Africanist tendencies within the ANC are strengthening. This Africanist voice has undoubtedly become more strident as the transformation of South African society fails to take shape. But the premise, as Kwaa Prah (1997: 13) points out, is simply that in a country which is overwhelmingly African, social and cultural life should reflect its demographic character. This has led to calls for the thoroughgoing Africanisation of South African society, of its academic, cultural and social institutions, which has occasioned fierce debate in the press. [4]

The ANC's apparent ambivalence towards non-racialism is apparent in its varied definitions of nationhood. It is both inclusive and qualified. For instance, in Nation-Formation and Nation Building the question of allegiance is raised, thereby implying that citizenship is not enough to identify 'true' (sic) South Africans. Elsewhere, the ANC's concept of nationhood envisages common citizenship for all, irrespective of race, creed or culture. Another ANC discussion policy document, Building the Foundation for a Better Life (1997) mentions the 'affirmation of our Africanness as a nation', as well as 'the melting pot of broad South Africanism' (Filatova 1997: 55). Norval (1996a) holds out the possibility of a new social order constituted by 'difference' - as opposed to 'otherness'. She has argued that the ANC's adoption of the imaginary of non-racialism offers the possibility of transcending the social divisions of apartheid. The shift is from a racially constituted system of inequality and cultural identity to a national identity constituted as culturally diverse but with equality based on citizenship (Simpson 1994).

It is in this light that South Africa's new and essentially liberal democratic constitution should be understood. The new constitution guarantees the rights of individuals rather than collectives such as cultural and ethnic groups. Yet, it makes provision for the recognition of eleven official languages and for groups to foster their identities and preserve their heritages. While it is impractical to accord all official languages equal status, the constitution entrenches the principle of equality before the law for language and cultural groups. This is a tacit acceptance of the principle that 'the recognition of cultural diversity actually enriches and strengthens democracy'(Rex 1995: 31). However, it falls short of actually enshrining a policy of multiculturalism. This is possibly because there is, as yet, no consensus about the meaning of multiculturalism in South Africa. It is still a contested concept.

The discourse of multiculturalism seeks to promote national reconciliation through mutual respect of differences. Farred (1992) holds that it is necessary to articulate difference within an essentially discursive, ideological and cultural - rather than formally political - space. But Farred's notion of the 'politics of affinity' ignores the fact that multiculturalism actually highlights differences rather than commonalities. Indeed, multiculturalism reifies essentialist cultural self-definitions among minorities and other groups which constitute the nation (Werbner in Werbner and Modood: 22-23). Chrisman sees multiculturalism as potentially divisive in a society such as South Africa where wealth and power are so unevenly distributed. He (Chrisman in Cooper and Stern, 1997: 190) contends that

to insist that 'cultural difference' is a material fact of post-apartheid South Africa is one thing, but to suggest that it is a potentially valuable political resource, and the only political resource left to underprivileged groups, are different matters.

Rather than unite the disempowered, multiculturalism emphasises social divisions and exaggerates cultural differences amongst them. In this scenario, the politics of identity is counter-productive of nation building.

The post-apartheid South African state finds itself having to reconcile the tensions implicit in the pursuit of nation building and in adopting some form of multiculturalism. The first imperative strives to construct a new national identity. Nation building seeks to create a sense of belonging to the broader South African community and a pride in its achievements; what Deputy President Thabo Mbeki has recently termed a 'new patriotism'. [5] The second imperative concerns the need to acknowledge cultural diversity and accommodate group identities such as cultural or ethnic minorities. Multiculturalism challenges any conception of the nation as a cultural whole and fosters the recognition of sub-national identities.

The Politics of Identity: Negotiating Multiculturalism in the New South Africa

As a relatively new ideological construct in the South African context, multiculturalism has its proponents and detractors across the political spectrum. It has been appropriated in some unlikely quarters. The very groups who sought to preserve their 'otherness' or sense of separate identity in the past have accepted multiculturalism with the end of apartheid. For example, sections of the former dominant political grouping, the Afrikaners, have sought to redefine themselves as minorities. Gouws (1996: 16) cites as examples the Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, the Afrikaner Broederbond and various Afrikaans cultural societies. According to Humphrey (1997: 8), this is an expression of the lack of confidence in a non-racial future. He holds that

The reimagining of a non-racial nation confronts the political challenges of the politicisation of new ethnicity as a strategy for mobilisation amongst those who do not subscribe to a non-racial future...

But for those who do subscribe to a non-racial future, multiculturalism presents problems. For instance, liberal groupings and academics wedded to the notion of individual rather than group rights are generally sceptical of multiculturalism. Democrats - both neophytes and longstanding liberals - are understandably wary of associating themselves with any form of project which emphasises or reifies cultural differences for fear of being seen to support a policy with similarities to the system of separate development. Thus the neo-liberal Democratic Party has proclaimed The Death of the Rainbow Nation in a policy document. Leader Tony Leon attributes the demise of the 'rainbow nation' to "a creeping re-introduction of race policies in South African society" by the ANC since 1994. [6] Talk and the implementation of affirmative action and black empowerment has, in his view, caused the racialisation of South African society with its attendant fallout of discrimination against whites.

Other liberals are voicing their growing anxiety with regard to the tendency to mythologize a new broad consensus culture through a contrived exercise in nation building (Degenaar 1991, 1994, 1995). Degenaar sees the nation-building project as being a state construct rather than an organic development. For him, it is an instance of the state using its power to "impose a common culture... in a multiracial society" (1994: 24). According to Giliomee (1996: 7-8), the ANC government subordinates its commitment to multiculturalism to the building of a single nation from which any political differences based on race and ethnicity would have been eliminated. He holds that the ANC, with the backing of the English-language press, has pushed individual rights and nation building at the expense of group identities. Giliomee wishes to ensure protection and constitutional safeguards for groups at the sub-national level. He argues though that the groups such as (white?) Afrikaners and (traditional?) Zulus have to sacrifice collective identity in exchange for full rights as individual citizens. Ironically, Giliomee (as President of the liberal think-tank, the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR)) is actually bemoaning the triumph of the liberal-democratic conception of nation building. Adam (1996: 76-77) correctly points out that individuals can and should identify with groups of their own choice; that Giliomee's wish to circumscribe choices for individuals according to ethnic criteria is far more proscriptive than state policy.

Other critics of the ANC government accuse it of pursuing a policy of cultural homogenisation as part of its nation building agenda. Bottomley (1996: 9) points to the danger of multiculturalism becoming a form of majoritarianism. He warns against the imperious imposition of multiculturalism on all South Africans as an offence against their collective values and sense of identities. He appears to be wary of the homogeneity or identitylessness of a common culture. For him, there is always the very real danger of the 'rainbow nation' losing its distinctive hues and colours and becoming monochromatic. This appears unlikely in the current political climate but such assurances are unlikely to stem the alarmist talk of the likely repercussions of the ANC securing a two-thirds majority in the 1999 election.

There are also those who regard nation building as an unaffordable luxury for South Africa. Some have argued that nation building has become paramount and supplanted the government's programme to address the pressing socio-economic needs and raised expectations of the masses. It is their view that reconciliation has been accorded a higher priority than the Reconstruction and Development Programme or, worse still, that the RDP has been sacrificed for the sake of nation building. Clearly, though, tackling socio-economic problems and nation building should not be regarded as mutually exclusive but, rather, as complementary projects.

Multiculturalism and Nation Building in Historical and Comparative Perspective

Are there lessons for South Africa to learn from those countries which have previously pursued policies of multiculturalism? How exactly has multiculturalism been interpreted in other social contexts? Can South Africa learn from the experiences of other societies who have engaged in nation building? What models are available?

In the postwar years assimilationist ideology was in vogue in the English-speaking world. The USA, for example, conceived of its society as a 'melting pot' wherein immigrant groups would subsume their ethnic origins within a national cultural identity (Yuval-Davis in Werbner & Modood, 1997: 198). This was predicated on the integration of immigrant and minority groups into common institutions and their adoption of the official (English) language. But by the 1960s there was tangible evidence that the later generations of non-European immigrants, as well as established African-Americans were not succeeding in being assimilated. Thus the adoption of multiculturalism amounted to an admission of the failure of the assimilation of migrants in the 'New World'. Canada first adopted the term in the early 1970s, with Australia following suit thereafter (Humphrey 1997). Unlike these immigrant-based societies with small (surviving) native populations, South Africa's settlers and their descendants have always been outnumbered by the indigenous population.

In the 'Old World' multiculturalism has been adopted as a means of coming to terms with the changing demographic composition of formerly homogenous societies. Blommaert and Vershueren (in Wilmsen and McAllister, 1996) found that beneath an explicit discourse of anti-racism and tolerance of ethnic diversity in European concepts of nation building there lay a xenophobic ideology which they label homogenism. Jubber (1997: 164) describes it as follows:

This ideology is characterised by antipathy towards fundamental forms of diversity and a hankering for the re-homogenisation of society. Its tolerance and openness is conditional on migrants honouring the existing legal system and behaving according to the basic norms of the majority. The differences that are tolerated relate to those things that do not disturb the established order. What this boils down to typically is a cosmetic tolerance of the art, music, dance, cuisine, and home language of the migrant group.

In other words, these European communities pay lip service to multiculturalism so long as it does not undermine the status quo.

Similarly, Australia recognises cultural diversity to be formally constitutive of the nation so long as it does not threaten the hegemonic Anglo-Australian culture (McAllister 1997: 63). Ideally, though, multiculturalism is seen as providing every individual with a cultural reference point and sense of belonging to a particular ethnic community, as well as the Australian nation. This was in keeping with the rhetoric of the Labour Government's 1994 document entitled Creative Nation. But the practice was somewhat different and immigrant groups were marginalised from mainstream Anglo-Celtic society. And the Liberal-National coalition government's subsequent policy statement in For Art's Sake further 'whitewashes' multiculturalism (McLeay 1997). Like the American model, Australia recognises the 'special contribution' of those of Anglo-Celtic stock in founding the nation and regards the Aborigine and other immigrant groups' contributions as only secondary.

Rather inexplicably, McAllister (1997: 75) reckons that the problem with multiculturalism in South Africa is that there is no majority group as is the case in Australia. Not only is it a mistake to wish to apply the Australian - or any other - model to South Africa, but the lack of an obvious dominant ethnic and/or cultural group is precisely what makes South Africa rather different. We should not, as McAllister proposes, seek to construct a sense of nationhood around a number of strong ethnic groups, nor make a particular ethnic group the object of ultimate political loyalty. This is to revert to an exclusive form of nationalism which arbitrarily differentiates between those who are citizens of the same country. In my view, a truly multicultural society should not privilege any one form of identity. Instead, it should celebrate the French idiom vive la difference! For multiculturalism should foster a political culture which seeks to accommodate - or, at the very least, tolerate - heterogeneity and difference.

The Intersection of Collective and Individual Identities in the New South Africa

It has been asserted that identification with the nation is the dominant form of cultural identity in modern nation-states. But the South African state has embarked on the task of nation building at a critical historical conjuncture when the autonomy of the nation-state is being eroded by the forces of globalisation. Globalisation has been accompanied by countervailing tendencies which create transnational consumption cultures on the one hand, and social fragmentation caused by factors such as ethnicity, religion and sexuality, on the other. This has caused a crisis in the politics of identity in the postmodern world. According to Humphrey (1997), the widespread adoption of multiculturalism signals the disintegration of the national and the emergence of the postnational state.

Identification with the nation, then, is not and nor should it be the only form of cultural identity in South Africa. National identity is a highly mediated imaginary belonging which co-exists with rather than subsumes other sub-national identities. The existence of such social identities are determined by factors such as culture, history, language, ethnicity, gender and locality. All identities - whether individual or collective - are socio-historical constructs and are not immutable or fixed (Martin 1995: 14-15). In a multicultural society there must be open cultural borders for those who wish to cross them, to do so. Rather than policing the borders of race which was the case under apartheid, cultural spaces in the post-apartheid state should not be subjected to state or in-group surveillance of any sort. Consequently, there should be no impediments for those who wish to identify with cultures other than their own. And, equally, those who are more insular should be free to preserve their own cultural heritage and traditions.

Social identities are especially fluid in the new South Africa. Whites, for instance, feel marginalized in having to renegotiate their identities from a different position within society, from an altered relationship to state mechanisms, and to material and symbolic resources (Steyn 1997: 12). As an English-speaking white South African, my own personal identity narrative has to be renegotiated in relation to changing configurations of national identity. The multiple identities of individuals can intersect with an over-arching identity of being South African.

It is here that the metaphor of the 'rainbow nation' as per Alexander's notion of a 'culture without boundaries' (1996: 85-88) is instructive. The rainbow symbolises a range of cultural groups represented by discrete colours and hues which blur into one another; none of which is completely distinct but each is essential to the composition of the entire spectrum. The rainbow is incomplete without each of the colours, but none of the colours or strands is dominant over the other (McAllister 1995: 12). Thus the rainbow implies the co-existence of individual and collective identities; a representation of different cultures and of a shared South Africanness.

[1]My first recollection of the term was the public address given by Albie Sachs. 'Black is beautiful, brown is beautiful, white is beautiful: towards a rainbow culture in a united South Africa'. D.C.S. Oosthuizen Memorial Lecture. Rhodes University, 1991.

[2]Humphrey (1997) links it to Jesse Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition".

[3]Norval (1996b, p.69, note #1) argues that the use of the term "multi-racial" to denote certain types of societies is a misnomer. She points out that such a designation implies the existence of homogeneous societies and that "multi-racial" societies are regarded as the exception to the rule. She further remarks that this designation trades on the questionable assumption of the homogeneity of nation-states.

[4]This was epitomised by the Makgoba affair. See Kwaa Prah (1997).

[5]Eastern Province Herald 29 May 1998.

[6]Mail & Guardian, 12-19 December 1997.

Bibliography

H. Adam. "Cultural pessimism, cultural distinctiveness or genuine multiculturalism: A response to Giliomee" New Contree 4, 1996.

N. Alexander. "Afrikaner identity today: A response to Giliomee" New Contree, 4, 1996.

B. Anderson. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991.

G. Baines. "Popular Music and National Cultural Identity in the New South Africa" Popular Music & Society. Forthcoming, 1998.

J. Blommaert and J. Verschueren. "European concepts of nation-building". In Wilmsen and McAllister (eds.). The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1996.

J. Bottomley. "Seeking the Zeitgeist: Multiculturalism, conformity and conflict - or peaceful coexistence in the New South Africa? New Contree 40, 1996.

L. Chrisman. "Appropriate Appropriations? Developingcultural studies in South Africa". In Cooper and Steyn (eds.).Transgressing Boundaries:new directions in the study of culture in Africa. Cape Town: UCT Press, 1996.

B. Cooper and A. Steyn (eds.). Transgressing Boundaries:new directions in the study of culture in Africa. Cape Town: UCT Press, 1996.

J. Degenaar."The myth of a South African nation". IDASA Occasional Papers, 40. Mowbray: IDASA, 1991.

J. Degenaar. "Beware of Nation Building" in N. Rhoodie and I. Liebenberg (eds.). Democratic Nation-Building in South Africa. Pretoria: HSRC Publishers, 1994.

J. Degenaar. "Art and Culture in a Changing South Africa" In NAC Documents Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. 1996. White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage: All our legacies, our common future. Pretoria, 1995.

I. Filatova. "The Rainbow Against the African Sky or African Hegemony in a Multi-Cultural Context?" Debating Cultural Hybridity. London. Zed Books, 1997.

I. Filatova. "The Rainbow Against the African Sky or African Hegemony in a Multi-Cultural Context?" Transformation 34. 34, 1997.

H. Giliomee "Nation-Building in South Africa". Unpublished paper, (1990?)

H. Giliomee. "Being Afrikaans in the New (multilingual) South Africa" and "Being Afrikaans as a presumed identity: A response to Adam" New Contree 40, 1996.

T. Gouws. "Postmodern identity: History, language and cultural difference, or the true colours of the rainbow nation" New Contree 40, 1996.

S. Hall. "The Question of Cultural Identity" in S. Hall, et al (eds.). Modernity and its Futures. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.

M. Humphrey."Violence, multicultural citizenship and national reconciliation". Paper presented at a conference on Multicultural citizenship in the new South Africa. Cape Town: December 1997.

K. Jubber. "Review Essay: Wilmsen and McAllister (eds.)" African Sociological Review 1-2, 1997.

K. Kwaa Prah. "Africanism and the South African Transition" Social Dynamics 23-2, 1997

L. Martin "The Choices of Identity" Social Identities 1-1, 1995.

P. McAllister. "Australian Multiculturalism - Lessons for South Africa?". Paper presented to the Institute of Social and Economic Research, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, 1996.

P. McAllister. "Cultural diversity and public policy inAustralia and South Africa - the implications of multiculturalism" African Sociological Review 1-2, 1997.

C. McLeay. "Inventing Australia: a critique of Recent Cultural Policy Rhetoric" Australian Geographical Studies 35-1, 1997.

D. Miller. "The Two Faces of Nationalism". Public Lecture, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, 1997.

J. Nauright. Sport, Cultures and Identities in South Africa. Claremont: David Philip, 1998.

NAC Documents.Bringing Cinderella to the Ball. Paperspresented at a conference on Arts and Culture in the New South Africa. Johannesburg: National Arts Coalition. 1995.

A. Norval. Deconstructing Apartheid Discourse. London.Verso, 1996a. .

A. Norval. "Thinking identities" in Wilmsen and McAllister. The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996b

J. Rex. "Ethnic Identity and the nation State: the Political Sociology of Multi-Cultural Societies" Social Identities 1-1, 1995.

M. Simpson. "The Experience of Nation-Building: Some Lessons for South Africa", Journal of Southern African Studies 20-3, 1994.

L. Steenveld and L. Strelitz "The 1995 Rugby World Cup and the politics of nation-building in South Africa" Media & Culture 20, 1998.

M. Steyn. "New shades of "Whiteness": "White" identity in the New South Africa". Paper presented to the Conference on Multicultural Citizenship in the New South Africa, Cape Town: December 1997.

P. Werbner. "Introduction: The Dialectics of Cultural Hybridity" in Werbner and Modood (eds.). Debating Cultural Hybridity. London: Zed Books, 1997.

P. Werbner and T. Modood (eds.). Debating Cultural Hybridity. London: Zed Books, 1997.

J. Williams. "Report of the Arts and Culture Task Group presented to the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, June 1995" Critical Arts 10-1, 1996.

E. Wilmsen and P. McAllister (eds.). The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996

N. Yuval-Davis. "Ethnicity, Gender Relations and Multiculturalism". In Werbner and Modood (eds.).Debating Cultural Hybridity. London. Zed Books, 1997.