JM Modiri: Author

Author: JM Modiri
LAW'S POVERTY
ISSN 1727-3781
2015 VOLUME 18 No 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v18i2.06
JM MODIRI PER / PELJ 2015(18)2
LAW'S POVERTY
JM Modiri*
Of course the freedom struggle is far from over. The ravages of apartheid are
enormous. Its wounds are deep.1
The point is that there are far too many people who suffer. The point is that there
are far too many people living a suboptimal existence.2
1 Introduction
This article joins the call in radical democratic political theory for a shift in the analytic
and conceptual registers in which the relationship between law and poverty is
conventionally addressed. It works to one side of recent South African legal
scholarship on this topic,3 and adopts instead an analysis that explicitly politicises the
issue of poverty and relates it to the concrete history of racialised capitalism and
structural inequality that defined colonialism and apartheid and continues to persist in
"post"-apartheid South Africa.4 In this analysis, then, poverty is to be conceived of
within the broader context of our colonial and apartheid past (racial inequality, land
dispossession, impaired citizenship, inadequate access to health services and quality
education, poor infrastructure and spatial segregation) and the nation's systemic
failure to come to terms with and redress the effects of this past.
*
Joel M Modiri. LLB (UP). Lecturer, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand. E-mail:
[email protected]. This article is based on parts of the research conducted as part of my LLM
studies at the University of Pretoria. I would like to thank my supervisor Karin van Marle for her
support and ongoing critical engagement. Danie Brand, Terblanche Delport and Linda (Jansen van
Rensburg) Stewart read an earlier version of this paper and offered extensive and trenchant
comments. Many of the thoughts shared in this paper also grow out of conversations, provocations
and reflections with colleagues - Tshepo Madlingozi, Isolde De Villers, Anton Kok, Rantsho Moraka,
Sanele Sibanda, Yvonne Jooste, Cathi Albertyn, Ulrike Kistner and Ndumiso Dladla - and I should
like to thank them as well. All errors and shortcomings are undoubtedly my own.
1
Lawrence 1995 Stan L Rev 820.
2
Emeritus Justice Zak Yacoob cited in SAPA 2013 http://goo.gl/K6KyTv.
3
For a sample of the literature see: Mubangizi and Mubangizi 2005 Dev South Afr 277; Van der Walt
Theories of Social and Economic Justice ; Olivier and Jansen van Rensburg "South African Poverty
Law" 107-141; Bilchitz Poverty and Fundamental Rights; Quinot and Liebenberg Law and Poverty;
Dugard "Courts and Structural Poverty" 293-328; Thapanyane "You Can't Eat the Constitution";
Langford et al Socio-Economic Rights.
4
See Cornell and Panfilio Symbolic Forms 125-149.
224
The purpose of thinking race and poverty together in this inquiry is twofold. First, it
interrupts the dominant assumption in legal and political discourse that views the new
constitutional dispensation as a fundamental rupture and radical break with the past
by highlighting the continuing patterns of racial subordination and socio-economic
inequality that were generated by over 350 years of white colonial domination. While
the laws of the country have changed considerably, the architecture, framework and
logic of colonialism-apartheid remains. It refuses to fade. Because South Africa was
for over 350 years expressly organised around white supremacist values and practices,
the true demise of apartheid requires that the rejection of white supremacy as a
normative vision must be tethered to a commitment to the eradication of the
substantive conditions of racial subordination and domination - not merely a formal
declaration of the end of apartheid.5 Secondly, it displaces the orthodox Marxist class-
reductionism which excludes (or minimises) questions of race, racial power and
systemic racism in considerations of poverty and socio-economic rights. The erroneous
view that class as a category of analysis supersedes (or is more foundational than)
race, or that class is free of race, or that race-based identity politics heralds the
abandonment of the critique of capitalism and economic subordination is one that
often implicitly frames discourse on poverty in South Africa. This view is faced with
the statistical oddity that Blacks make up an overwhelming majority of people living
under conditions of poverty6 – which in turn illustrates that the production of poverty
5
Modiri 2012 SA Public Law 256.
6
Throughout this paper I shall use the phrases "the poor", "impoverished people", "people living in
poverty" and "people living under poverty" interchangeably. I do so in part to indicate my own
discomfort, ambivalence and anxiety with acts of naming or speaking for those living under
conditions of poverty as well as to register my acknowledgement that all codifications and
deployments of group identity run the risk of reifying that identity and entrenching woundedness
and victimisation as fundamental to that identity. That said, I take it from thinkers such as Linda
Martin Alcoff, Charles Mills and William Connolly that our identities are not completely voluntary.
Due to the materiality of class, race and gender, for instance, as well as the shared - though not
necessarily exactly similar - experience of a common reality of subordination and suffering
engendered by poverty, it makes sense to speak of "the poor" even if this is always attached to a
concession that all identities are internally homogenous and complicated. I prefer "people living
in/under poverty" over "the poor" (which I will mostly place in inverted commas when used)
because it allows a distance between the people and the poverty in a way that does not naturalise
or reify poverty as an identity when it is more appropriately an injury to one's Be-ing in the world.
My thanks to the one reviewer who pointed this out and pressed me to make this dilemma more
transparent.
225
in South Africa is inseparable from the historical and current workings of racialised
structures of power, domination and exclusion.
Slavoj Zizek famously claimed that "[w]e feel free because we lack the very language
to articulate our unfreedom",7 and so this article could be read as an attempt at
theoretically developing a critical vocabulary through which to articulate aspects of
that unfreedom. In it I shall draw on a variety of diverse traditions, thinkers and
concepts, all of which more or less follow a critical legal leftist or radical democratic
orientation, to examine law's vexed relation to the project of poverty eradication. The
core animating theme is the rejection of economist, managerial, and legalist
approaches to overcoming poverty in favour of approaches that would seek to
challenge the fundamental structure of society and the root causes of poverty,
injustice, inequality and suffering. A second underlying argument, given the explicit
focus on race in this article, is that poverty eradication needs to be understood and
evaluated from the vantage point of racial justice and postcolonial sovereign recovery.8
This article has three main parts. In the first part (part 2) I argue for a
conceptualisation of poverty as a form of systemic oppression. For this argument I
draw on Iris Marion Young's theorisation of the "five faces of oppression" and examine
each of those "faces" from the perspective of racialised poverty in South Africa.
Thereafter I shall (in part 3) refer to Drucilla Cornell's theory of justice, in which
"matters of the heart" also stand central, and her concept of the imaginary domain as
well as Judith Butler's notion of "precarious life" to highlight poverty as also being a
problem that impacts upon moral recognition, the protection of dignity, the symbolic
and ontological integrity of the Human and the ethical relation to the Other. All of
these, I contend, need to be recognised and incorporated in theories, approaches,
policies and laws that wish to comprehensively address the multifaceted injuries and
injustices of poverty. Of central importance in all three thinkers is how, when applied
to the issue of poverty, each enables a focus on both the distributive (economic and
7
Zizek Welcome to the Desert of the Real! 2.
8
See Ramose "I Conquer, Therefore I am the Sovereign" 543-589.
226
material) and non-distributive (non-material, non-economic, ideological social, and

cultural) dimensions of poverty.
Finally, I reflect (in part 4) on the implications of this reformulation of poverty for
rights-based and law reform-oriented approaches. I consider the question of whether
rights can provide the kind of emancipatory vision and praxis required for the full
eradication of poverty and the realisation of radical democracy, substantive equality
and collective freedom. To this end I rely heavily on Wendy Brown's critical study of
legal efforts to procure rights for politicised identities to explore the possible tensions
and contradictions between human and socio-economic rights activism and legal
mobilisation strategies on the one hand and the struggle for substantive poverty
eradication and freedom on the other. Figurations of rights discourse as excessively
legalist to the detriment of radical politics, as regulatory and disciplinary, as silencing
and coercive, as depoliticising, conservative and allied to hegemonic powers are
among some of the lines of critique to be developed in this exploration.
By the end of this inquiry, rather than a pedantic and technical legal discussion on the
law(s) on poverty, something of law's own poverty, its limits, incoherence and
violence, should have come to the fore. Let us begin with the haunting/haunted words
of Jacques Derrida:
For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to evangelise in the
name of a liberal democracy that has finally realised itself as the ideal of human
history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine and thus economic
oppression affected as many human beings in the history of earth and humanity.
Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist
market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the "end of
ideologies" and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect
the obvious microscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no
degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have
so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved and exterminated on
earth.9
9
Derrida Spectres of Marx 85.
227
2 A left (re)conceptualisation of poverty
A useful framework for a politicised account of poverty, in particular poverty generated

by the institutionalisation of anti-black racism, is Iris Marion Young's definition of
"oppression".10 As a disabling constraint, racialised poverty includes deep distributive
and economic patterns but it also extends to issues of culture, epistemology, and
social power, the division of labour, decision-making procedures, autonomy and
agency - all of which are incorporated in Young's analysis.
Young begins with the argument that while many in mainstream society would not
use the term "oppression" to name injustice in society, it is important for emancipatory
social movements and critical theorists that we articulate "oppression as a central
category of political discourse".11 She urges the recognition that oppression – for black
radicals, feminists, socialists etc – makes sense of much of our social experience and
ideological perspective12 - even as she explicitly points out that not all groups are
oppressed to the same extent, in the same way or by the same configuration or kinds
of subordinating social powers.13
What makes Young's idea of oppression resonant with a politicised account of

racialised poverty is its understanding of oppression as a structural concept, and
hence, its opposition to the traditional usage of oppression as meaning only the direct,
formal, institutionalised exercise of tyranny by a ruling group.14 Young notes that in
dominant political discourse, oppression is used sparingly, only to designate either
direct forms of military conquest and colonial occupation. It is also frequently used as
a term of Western "civilizational discourse" to describe the political situation of Other
non-Western, non-secular, communist or certain postcolonial African societies –
societies, in other words, that do not aspire to the modern liberal democratic form.15
10
Young Justice and the Politics of Difference 39-65.
11
Young Justice and the Politics of Difference 39.
12
13
14
15
228
In South Africa, where the dominant political discourse is one of post-racialism and
colour-blindness and where it is assumed that the struggle for Black liberation ended
with the formal demise of the apartheid government and the institutionalisation of
liberal democracy, to use the term oppression to denote the lived experiences of the
majority of Blacks would appear as wholly illegitimate, invidious, and even demagogic.
However when oppression is defined as the disadvantage and injustice suffered by
certain social groups not necessarily because of a tyrannical government but "because
of the everyday practices of a well-intentioned liberal society", even a post-
authoritarian state such as South Africa would be unable to escape being designated
as oppressive.16 Young writes:
Oppression in this sense is structural, rather than the result of a few people's choices
or policies. Its causes are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in
the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of
following these rules.17
For Black South Africans, poverty is a strong constituent element of the objective
material reality of racial oppression and it continues due to the inertia of the racial
inequalities and disadvantages that are the consequence of over 350 years of
totalitarian white supremacist rule in South Africa. Despite the establishment of a
liberal constitutional order, the inclusion of a large catalogue of "justiciable" socio-
economic rights in the Bill of Rights, as well as legal reforms in the area of remedial
equality and anti-discrimination law, Blacks still constitute the majority of the poorest
and most disadvantaged stratum of South African society. 18 Because a central
outcome of de jure apartheid was the racial stratification of society in hierarchical
terms, the unequal distribution of rights, resources and benefits continues to favour
whites and disfavour Blacks. Thus we can say that we currently live under conditions
of de facto apartheid or neo-apartheid/neo-colonialism in which the same macro-
structure of "imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy"19 which defined
colonial apartheid continues to operate, although under a different legal and political
arrangement (ie a liberal democratic government under non-white rule). Following a
16
Young Justice and the Politics of Difference 41. Also see Cudd Analyzing Oppression.
17
18
Terreblanche History of Inequality; Durrheim et al Race Trouble 16-20.
19
Hooks Outlaw Culture 116.
229
structural understanding of poverty reveals that the problems of poverty currently

experienced by Blacks are not caused by our presumed cultural inferiority or lack of
industriousness nor by the fact that apartheid set us back a few years behind whites,
but by the very way in which society is organised and structured.
Young's extended structural definition of oppression shows more clearly the vast and
deep injustices that Blacks suffer not only as a consequence of the legacy of systemic
racial discrimination but also because of the normal routines of everyday life, which
stabilise and perpetuate existing racial hierarchies and inequalities, either by denying
them (colour-blindness and post-racialism), downplaying them (liberalism) or
obscuring them (formalism). Thus, Young notes, "we cannot eliminate this structural
oppression by getting rid of the rulers or making some new laws, because oppressions
are systematically produced in major economic, political, and cultural institutions".20
Because the systemic character of oppression resists its own reduction into the
conscious actions or premeditated intentions of individual social actors, it follows that
the reality of oppression and the existence of an oppressed group does not require a
correlate oppressing group that is organised directly around the objectives of that
oppression. In other words, Blacks are oppressed in ways so well-organised at the
level of social structure that whites do not need to be consciously involved in the actual
oppression of Blacks. This does not mean, however, that many whites, as members
of the dominant group, do not contribute to maintaining and reproducing that
oppression. They do. And it also does not mean that whites as a privileged collective
do not benefit enormously from that oppression and have a strong, even if
unconscious and indirect, interest in its continuation. They do. It simply means that in
modern liberal societies, individuals involved in the maintenance and reproduction of
systems of oppression are usually simply doing their jobs or living their lives.21
Young then goes on to formulate her "plural explication of oppression" by describing

the five faces of oppression, namely exploitation, marginalisation, powerlessness,
20
Young Justice and the Politics of Difference 41. My emphasis.
21
230
cultural imperialism and violence, which show more clearly how poverty is a composite
part of the racial oppression of Blacks. I shall briefly discuss each of these in turn.
2.1 Exploitation
In capitalist societies, with liberal legal systems, legally enforced class, race and
gender distinctions are removed in favour of the promotion of the legal freedom of
persons to work and contract with whomever and however they choose, however
abstract this freedom may be. Without the Marxist understanding of exploitation we
can be left a little clueless as to how it is possible that racialised class distinctions
(between wealthy whites and poor Blacks, for example) can persist even despite the
removal of race and class distinctions in laws prohibiting abuses based on such
distinctions. Young explains it as follows:
The injustice in a capitalist society consists in the fact that some people exercise their
capacities under the control, according to the purposes and for the benefit of other
people".22
Through private ownership of the means of production and through markets that
determine value and allocate labour and the ability to buy goods, capitalism works to
systematically transfer the labour power of some persons to others, thereby giving the
latter power over the former. Under this system, the dominant class acquires and
maintains the power to extract benefits from workers. This extraction and transfer of
power from one group (the workers) to the other (the dominant class) affects the
power of workers not simply in the amount of transfer but also in the fact that the
workers suffer material deprivation, lack of control over their own production capacity
(alienation) and a loss of important elements of self-respect. Exploitation thus
"[e]nacts a structural relation between social groups".23
Because of its roots in the Marxist privileging of class as the basic cleavage of social
stratification, this understanding of exploitation needs to be broadened to explain
racial oppression.24 For our purposes, I want to suggest that the racialised element of
22
23
Young Justice and the Politics of Difference 49 -50.
24
Recall Fanon Wretched of the Earth 31: "[M]arxist analysis should always be slightly stretched
every time we have to deal with the colonial problem".
231
the exploitation still remains despite the creation of a small class of enormously
wealthy black elites and a slowly growing Black middle class and also despite the
presence of poor whites (and here we should note that class differentials between
blacks and poverty in white communities existed prior to 1994). What is important is
not who constitutes the capitalist class, but who constitutes the large majority of the
poor, unemployed and working class (viz Blacks). Furthermore, I want to suggest also
that the structural relation enacted by exploitation is normatively influenced by white
supremacist prescriptions that deny Blackness any sense of human dignity and
purpose and thus provide a justificatory frame for the use and abuse of Black bodies.
How else to understand the institution of slavery and other forms of unfree black
labour except through this connection between capitalist exploitation and white
supremacy?
Derrick Bell, for instance, has noted that in racially-structured polities there exists a
depressingly strong correlation between economic resources and race and between
resources and eventual success, prosperity and fulfilment.25 Young also suggests that
we can distil from Marxist theory a distinct form of exploitation that is racially specific.
She proposes menial labour/servitude as a starting point.26 As she writes,
Wherever there is racism, there is the assumption, more or less enforced, that
members of the oppressed racial groups are or ought to be servants of those or some
of those, in the privileged group.27
In South Africa, poor Blacks occupy a large majority of formal and informal menial
work such as that of domestic workers, car and security guards, cleaners, street
sweepers, garbage collectors, farmworkers, construction workers, miners, drivers etc.
There is a strong historical, symbolic and mnemonic link between these modern forms
of servitude and the system of racial slavery that should be noted here. In all cases
these jobs are a form of "servile, unskilled and low-paying work lacking autonomy".28
They involve Blacks taking orders from many people and their work serving an
auxiliary function to the more important, high-status work of others, thereby rendering
25
Bell 1995 U Ill L Rev 894.
26
27
28
232
them vulnerable to disposal and sacrifice. Because of the normative influence of white
supremacy, there still remains a strong cultural association between menial work,
servitude and non-professionalism and Blackness and also strong cultural pressure to
fill these jobs with Blacks.29
2.2 Marginalisation
The second "face" of oppression in Young's taxonomy is marginalisation, which is

manifested by the creation of an underclass of often racially marked people whose
lives are permanently confined to social marginality. Under conditions of
marginalisation, "[a] whole category of people is expelled from useful participation in
social life and thus potentially subjected to severe material deprivation and even
extermination".30 And of course, in a racialised capitalist society, the medium of that
expulsion takes place along racial lines. Young notes that contemporary advanced
capitalist states respond to marginalisation by means of welfare, social development
programmes and the provision of basic services which in the long run do nothing to
"eliminate large-scale suffering and deprivation".31 She also notes, however, that
material deprivation is not the only harm caused by marginalisation. Young claims that
the provision of welfare produces new injustices by depriving those dependent on it
of rights and freedoms that others have. What makes marginalisation unjust, then, is
the way it blocks the opportunity for the marginalised to exercise their capacities,
express themselves intellectually and culturally, and assume control over the
conditions/processes of their own lives.32
Those dependant on welfare and other medical and social services often have their
needs constructed by agencies and professionals and treated as though they do not
know what is good for them. Worse still, they are often subjected to punitive,
demeaning, inconveniencing and arbitrary treatment by the policies and people
associated with the bureaucratic administration of the welfare. The story of
Skhumbuzo Douglas Mhlongo, a 22 year-old black man who committed suicide in
29
30
31
32
233
despair after not being able to obtain an ID book after a Home Affairs official ripped
up his application and threw it in his face attests to the routine disregard of the dignity
of those dependent upon social welfare.33 The racist (and dishonest) rhetoric of Blacks
as lazy complainers, undeserving of social advancement and suffering from an
"entitlement complex" is obviously implicated in marginalising the Black poor as well.
2.3 Powerlessness
In addition to having their labour exploited and being marginalised, there is another
dimension to oppressed groups' experience which Young names powerlessness.34 We
could also include voicelessness, invisibility and social immobility in this third "face" of
oppression. As Young writes:
The powerless are those who lack authority or power in even this meditated sense,
those over whom power is exercised without their exercising it, the powerless are
situated so that they must take orders and rarely have the right to give them.35
Powerlessness as a social position allows people little opportunity to develop and

exercise their skills; it deprives people of the capacity for autonomy, creativity and
judgement. When one is powerless, one is subject to the plans, decisions and ideas
of others either in the sense that they determine the conditions of your life or in the
sense that you are the one who must execute them. As Hooks puts it, under relations
of powerlessness “the poor” are "overseen" rather than "seen".36 Here again we must
be reminded that the violent devastation of racism in the lives of Black people has
created unequal levers of power not simply at the level of economic and distributive
injustice but more deeply also at the moral, psychic and symbolic levels as well. It is
the structural effects of apartheid that have placed most Blacks in the social position
of powerlessness. Although South Africa is a country "ruled" by the mainly black ANC-
led government, we are faced with the anomaly of large numbers of Black
communities whose grievances and protests in relation to socio-economic rights and
33
Staff Reporter 2009 http://goo.gl/ynGWtN.
34
35
36
Hooks Yearning 22.
234
service delivery remain unheard – sometimes being violently silenced - and their needs
and desires unfulfilled.
2.4 Cultural imperialism
In addition to the concrete socio-economic and political relations of power that are
implicated in the oppression of women and Blacks, there is also another form of
oppression which Young names "cultural imperialism".37 As Young writes:
To experience cultural imperialism means to experience how the dominant meanings

of a society render the particular perspective of one's own group invisible at the same
time as they stereotype one's group and mark it out as Other.38
Cultural imperialism involves the universalisation of a dominant group's experience

and culture, and its assumption of normative superiority. In such a context, the
dominant social group is the one that has exclusive or primary access to the dominant
modes of communication and interpretation in a society, thus enacting a linguistic-
symbolic and cultural hegemony over the social and political order. This hegemony
enables the dominant group to project their experiences and perspectives in such a
way that those experiences and perspectives are the ones expressed in the core
cultural and epistemological products and practices of society, but also in such a way
that those experiences and perspectives become the rubric for humanity. Mogobe
Ramose argues that colonialism (what he calls "the unjust war of colonisation") was
not only genocidal but "epistemicidal" as well.39 As he writes:
Coupled with its mission to christianise and "civilise", colonisation was by intention
and inspiration poised to annihilate and obliterate all the experiences of the
indigenous conquered peoples, replacing their experience and knowledge with its
own unilaterally defined meaning of experience, knowledge and truth.40
Ramose, like most African philosophers, notes the strong philosophical and
epistemological dimensions to colonial racism. As he notes, the belief in the
naturalness of white supremacy, the association of whiteness and Western Europe
with reason, intelligence, complex thought and civilisation (the so-called Prospero
37
38
Young Justice and the Politics of Difference 58-59.
39
Ramose 2007 GLR 313.
40
235
complex) and a general climate of white over-representation in knowledge production

resulted in an "intellectual and spiritual holocaust from which indigenous conquered
peoples are yet to recover".41 The cultural imperialism described by Ramose was also
of concern to Steve Biko in his reflections on African culture. 42
First-generation US critical race theory (CRT) also emphasised the importance of

narrative, storytelling and counter-storytelling as a means of "naming", and perhaps
also finding, one's own reality for Black people. Working mainly as legal theorists, they
stressed the need for a language and vocabulary that could articulate the experiences
of Black people in society in ways that would expose the many ways in which Blacks
experience rights, law and social life differently to whites. They too understood that
the dimension of cultural imperialism inherent in racial oppression would effect an
erasure/omission that would render Black needs and experiences unintelligible within
dominant social meaning and legal discourse. As Young notes:
Those living under conditions of cultural imperialism find themselves defined from
the outside, positioned, placed, by a network of dominant meanings they experience
as arising from elsewhere. From those with whom they do not identify and who do
not identify with them.43
This is what Frantz Fanon meant when he said of the black subject that "I am over-
determined from without. I am not the slave of the idea that others have of me but
my own appearance".44 Black subjectivity then is constructed through the white gaze
that exclaims, "Look a Negro".45 For Fanon, the moment when this devaluation,
objectification and depersonalisation is imposed on the black subject is marked by a
severe trauma and wounding that in turn produces a psycho-racial dynamic in which
Blacks are not only cast as inferior but as non-existent.46 In such a moment, the Black
acquires the status of object rather than subject.
41
42
Biko I Write What I Like 40-46.
43
44
Fanon Black Skin, White Masks 187.
45
46
236
2.5 Violence
The final "face" of oppression that Young discusses is violence.47 Most systems of
oppression are often initiated and maintained by the use of brute force and physical
violence on its subjects. Despite the Foucauldian recognition that the control and
subjugation of oppressed groups is maintained through new and more subtle
technologies of violence,48 actual physical violence, killings, rapes, and beatings still
remain part of the disciplinary apparatus of most forms oppression such as white
supremacy and heteropatriarchy. Young writes:
Members of some groups live with the knowledge that they must fear random,
unprovoked attacks on their persons or property, which have no motive but to
damage, humiliate, or destroy the person.49
South African public discourse contains a vast catalogue of acts of white racist violence
and terror against Blacks - most often poor, homeless, or located in vulnerable areas.
Here we can recall the "Waterkloof Four", four teenage white boys, who taunted and
brutally attacked, stabbed and killed a homeless black man in Moretela Park; 50 or the
case of Martin Scott-Crossley who threw the body of Nelson Chisale, a worker he had
just fired over a wage dispute, into a lion's den on his game farm – leaving most of
his body devoured with only a skull, bones and a few fingers remaining.51 We have
also witnessed the case of Jewell Crossberg, who shot and killed his black employee
and wounded four others because he "mistook" them for a pack of baboons,52 and the
case of Johan Nel, a 15-year old white adolescent who shot four black people including
a three-month old baby in the Skierlik informal settlement in the North West. During
the shooting spree, Nel was heard shouting the word "kaffirs!" repeatedly. 53 The list
is literally endless.
But violence, according to Young, means more than just these severe incidents or hate
crimes; it also includes harassment, intimidation and general ridicule – even when it
47
48
See for example Foucault Discipline and Punish.
49
50
Staff Reporter 2008 http://goo.gl/X7OnKw.
51
Meldrum 2005 http://goo.gl/fLZUOr.
52
SAPA 2007 http://goo.gl/UZjSHF.
53
Lelliot and Brandon 2008 http://goo.gl/ietuLG.
237
appears light-hearted to the perpetrator.54 What makes these phenomena of violence

oppressive is not simply the violent acts in themselves, but the surrounding social
context that makes them possible, frequent and acceptable (or at least tolerated).
Under this view, violence is a phenomenon of social injustice and oppression because
of "its systemic character, its existence as a social practice".55 This violence is systemic
because it is directed at members of a group simply because they are members of
that group.56 Central to the systemic character of violence is the fact that it is often
legally sanctioned as in the case of police brutality and extra-judicial killings in
response to black service delivery and wage protests, as well as court-ordered or
State-initiated evictions of the homeless and demolitions of property.
Frank Wilderson III draws from the Fanonian concept of "vertigo" a distinction
between subjective vertigo and objective vertigo that illuminates how violence
operates as a form of racial oppression.57 Subjective vertigo is the dizzying sense that
one is moving or spinning in an otherwise stationary and stable world. Wilderson III
argues that those who undergo subjective vertigo, human subalterns (whether figured
as workers, as women or as gays and lesbians) suffer from contingent violence, that
is, violence that kicks in only when one resists a disciplinary force or discourse.58 By
contrast, objective vertigo entails a life constituted, rather than interrupted by, the
disorientation of vertigo, a life built on and not simply threatened with violence. He
argues that only Blacks suffer objective vertigo.59 Blacks are subsumed by violence as
a "paradigmatic necessity", not simply as a performative contingency as in the case of
subjective vertigo.60 "This is structural as opposed to performative violence".61 Here
Wilderson III usefully rehearses the idea of the banality of racism, the fact that racism
is normal in a racist society. He borrows from Fanon's contemplation of the dilemma
of being Black in an anti-black world to show that violence against Blacks exists not
simply because of an apathetic social context but more importantly because it is this
54
55
56
57
Wilderson 2011 InTensions 3-5.
58
Wilderson 2011 InTensions 3-4.
59
Wilderson 2011 InTensions 3.
60
61
238
violence against Blacks that conditions normal relations and daily interactions in that
social context. As Young writes, "group-directed violence is institutionalised and
systemic".62 It is encouraged, tolerated and enabled by institutions and social
practices.
2.6 Racial poverty through the lens of the five faces of oppression
Although the schema of oppression that I have outlined here applies generally to most
of those trapped in conditions of abject poverty, I am insisting, at least for the
moment, on a formulation of racialised poverty that remains focused on the way in
which the historical particularity of structural racism remains a central "cause" for the
continued suffering and misery, mistreatment and degradation, disadvantage and
deprivation experienced by most Black South Africans. As we can see, Blacks who are
poor generally suffer all five aspects of oppression. Some will manage at least to
escape the conditions of exploitation and violence through high-level employment and
economic upliftment but the conditions of powerlessness, marginalisation and cultural
imperialism tend to affect Blacks irrespective of their class position.
Conceiving of poverty as a form of oppression and domination opposes the

presumption that poverty is an aberration or a mistake, an unintended side-effect of
certain policy choices or legal arrangements. Instead it demonstrates that poverty is
the logical outcome of a system which distributes benefits and opportunities along
specific axes of social power. It is an inherent feature of a liberal democratic society
governed by a neoliberal capitalist economic order. In our specific context, racialised
poverty is a symptom not so much of a conservative court jurisprudence or badly
implemented policy but of the inherent falsity of the liberal constitutional promise and
the Constitution's seeming blindness to the brutalities engendered by white
supremacist capitalist patriarchy.63
62
63
See Madlingozi 2007 JLS 77-98.
239
In what follows I turn to Drucilla Cornell and Judith Butler for a further exploration of
the aesthetic and moral as well as symbolic and ontological/existential dimensions of
poverty.
3 The effects and affects of poverty: starving hearts and precarious

lives
Central to Young's theorisation of oppression, which I adapted above in linking race

and poverty, is the displacement of a purely distributive paradigm of social justice. By
"distributive paradigm" Young denotes theories of justice that restrict its meaning to
the distribution of benefits and burdens and goods and resources among members of
society to the exclusion of questions about decision-making power, the division of
labour, and culture. In its emphasis on the acquisition of material goods, things,
wealth, money and jobs, the distributive paradigm fails to interrogate, indeed
presumes as given, the institutional contexts and social structure that shape the
distributive patterns in the first place.64
While distributive questions are obviously crucial, the reduction of social justice to
economic outcomes is a mistake. Not only does it focus on persons as possessors,
employees and consumers rather than as social and cultural actors, decision-makers
and persons with the capacity for collective self-governance and public participation,
it also elides crucial questions about the power relations and ideological underpinnings
that inform the particular injustice being contested.65 That is to say that distributive
approaches (including the famed "substantive equality" discourse) tend to presuppose
very contestable features of the society in which the justice claim is made, such as
the capitalist economic system, the centrality of the individual, the traditional family
structure, the hierarchical division of labour and so on.
This displacement of the distributive paradigm surfaces powerfully in Drucilla Cornell's

theory of freedom, justice and equality, which she insists begins with the recognition
64
65
240
that "hearts starve as well as bodies".66 She derives this phrase from the union song:
"hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread and give us roses", and goes on to
argue that "theories of justice that ignore the heart [or what she calls the 'affective
aspects of human life'] can never deliver on the roses".67
Cornell's call for us to take account of both the starving heart and the starving body,
and her claim that questions of the heart need to be addressed by any theory of
justice,68 is useful in underscoring my concern that current approaches to poverty
rooted in socio-legal, empirical and technical-managerial methods reduce
impoverished people to mere bodies, through convening and reiterating a figure of
"the poor" defined solely by their corporeal needs for shelter, clothing, food, medical
treatment, ablution facilities, clean running water, etc, thereby excluding them from
the domain of the imaginary and the aesthetic, of the affective and the sensual, the
intellectual and the artistic – doing to them what poverty does to them: objectifying
and dehumanizing. Incorporating Cornell's insights here would show that freedom
from oppression, from poverty, certainly requires addressing material deprivation and
evaluating the ways in which goods and resources are distributed, but it must also
include the freedom to express and pursue one's desire and to imagine oneself as a
sexual, cultural, spiritual and emotional creature.69 Cornell's theory is based on a
commitment to a notion of human life that promotes not merely survival but also
thriving and flourishing. The notion of freedom she advocates also encompasses the
"freedom to be ourselves and to participate in the richness of life".70
In Cornell's work this freedom is associated with her notion of the "imaginary domain",
which names the moral and psychic space that every person needs to evaluate and to
represent themselves, to articulate their desires, and to freely imagine and re-imagine
themselves as persons of intrinsic moral worth. 71 Although I depart from Cornell's
formulation of the imaginary domain as a "moral and legal right", conceiving of it
66
Cornell At The Heart of Freedom; Cornell Beyond Accommodation xv; Cornell Just Cause 7; Milgate
1999 Rutgers L Rev 1031-1062.
67
Cornell Just Cause 7.
68
Cornell Beyond Accommodation xv.
69
70
Cornell At The Heart of Freedom ix.
71
Cornell At The Heart of Freedom x. See also Cornell The Imaginary Domain.
241
instead as a political ideal of social and cultural difference that cannot ever be fully
codified by legal rules and even as my reading of the imaginary domain asserts a
considerable degree of distance from its potentially conservative connection to a
classic public/private divide and liberal individualist notions of personhood and
rationality, it carries the critical potential of disrupting mainstream distributive,
pragmatic and instrumental theories and discourses on poverty. The idea that people
living in poverty are not merely hungry, vulnerable and sick bodies, but real people
demanding full protection and respect of their dignity corresponds to an understanding
of poverty as not merely a problem of economic distribution and basic needs but also
one of moral recognition.
Following Cornell, it can be argued that official state and NGO institutional
representations of those in poverty as exclusively needy, helpless and vulnerable and
conversely in need of charity and "empowerment" actually denies impoverished people
the agency to be ethically and politically self-representing and self-defining.72 This is
not to deny the reality of imposed need and deprivation that they experience; but
rather to recognise that such need and deprivation does not exhaust who they are
and who they can become under a more just, radical egalitarian and democratic social
order.
A further displacement of a distributive paradigm can be found in the work of Judith

Butler, and specifically her notions of shared vulnerability, mourning and precarious
life. Here poverty is apprehended once again not only in material and economic terms
but also in terms of its psychic, symbolic and ontological dimensions; that is, in terms
of how poverty does not merely violate socio-economic rights or deprive one of basic
needs or resources but more profoundly offends our shared ethical humanness by
structuring the lives of those living in poverty outside or below the category of
humanity. I enlist Butler here because I want to suggest that like war, torture and
genocide, poverty also raises what she calls "a question of the human" 73, namely the
72
Van Marle 2002 Stell LR 299-308.
73
Butler Precarious Life 20
242
question of "who counts as human? whose lives count as lives? and finally, what makes
for a grievable life?".74
It is surely not hard to see how poverty also creates a situation in which "[c]ertain
lives are not considered lives at all, they cannot be humanized … they cannot fit any
dominant frame for human".75 This occurs both in the ways in which impoverished
people are represented in the media, the law and in government welfare programmes
and also because poverty exists in socio-political and economic systems which produce
extreme differentials of wealth, property ownership, living conditions, and access to
resources and opportunities that expose vast populations and social groups to
conditions of precarity, violence and destitution. Those living under such conditions
then inhabit the category of "precarious life".76
Butler's concern is that when lives are rendered precarious in this way, when they are
exposed to such extreme conditions of suffering and vulnerability, our very
understanding of social and human reality is altered, rendering some lives "unreal".
As she asks:
What is real? Whose lives are real? How might reality be remade? Those who are
unreal have, in a sense, already suffered the violence of derealization. What, then, is
the relation between violence and those lives considered as "unreal"?77
The concept of "derealisation" is the name Butler gives to the process by which certain
lives are made "unreal" and thus denuded of any human teleology or presence either
through genocidal and oppressive practices (war, apartheid, Holocaust) or through
systemic state negligence (abject poverty, inequality, homelessness). For her,
derealisation raises two questions. The first is a question of ethics, of "how there can
be an ethical relation to those who cannot appear within the horizon of ethics, who
are not persons, or are not considered to be the kind of beings with whom one can
74
Butler Precarious Life 20.
75
76
77
243
enter into an ethical relation".78 The second is a question of mourning and memory,
of "what counts as a liveable life and a grievable death?"79
We could understand poverty as a form of "derealisation" or "social death", as a

condition that renders certain lives unreal and as an erasure of certain groups of
people from the category of the Human. Once such lives are displaced by the violence
of derealisation, they no longer appear within the horizon of ethics and thus are no
longer regarded as the kind of beings with whom one can enter into an ethical relation.
Thus, both at the normative level and at a practical-experiential level, they are made
to cease being persons altogether. To quote Butler once more:
Some lives are grieveable, and others are not; the differential allocation of grievability
that decides what kind of subject is and must be grieved, and which kind of subject
must not, operates to produce and maintain certain exclusionary conceptions of who
is normatively human…80
The oppressive practices that constitute racism and the systemic negligence by the
government that causes so many people to be trapped in poverty work to discursively
liminalise "the poor" as "non-human others" who are outside the realm of the humans
and thus not subjects of dignity. The racial dimension here inheres in the fact that,
due to the persistent racial character in the levels of poverty and inequality in South
Africa, the production of precarity coincides with enduring forms of white power.
The derealisation of impoverished people in South Africa largely converges with, and
mirrors or repeats, the ontological denial of humanity to Blacks that Aime Cesaire and
his better-known student, Fanon, observed as being at the core of white supremacy.81
While white supremacy is premised on a "perverse ontological designation by race",
whereby the social category of race is biologised and an essentialist and rigid frame is
imposed on Blacks, its fundamental purpose is in fact to draw a distinction between
whites and Blacks, so that whiteness represents humanity and all its great virtues
(goodness, beauty, morality, intelligence, wealth, art, civilisation etc) and blackness
78
Butler "Precarious Life" 7. The thoughts Butler shares in the lecture are expressed in Butler
Precarious Life; Butler Giving an Account of Oneself; Butler Frames of War.
79
Butler Precarious Life xv.
80
Butler Precarious Life xiv-xv.
81
Cesaire A Discourse on Colonialism; Fanon Wretched of the Earth; Fanon Black Skin, White Masks.
See also Birt "Existence, Identity and Liberation" 203-214.
244
symbolises its negation and the lack or corruption of those virtues. On this account,
racism not only promulgates illusions of racial superiority and inferiority, by which an
imposed racial essence forces Blacks to become prisoners of their blackness, it
Otherises Blacks not as a different kind of human (to whites), but as not human at all.
This has given credence to the view held by US black studies scholars that while the
worker, the woman, and the homosexual are subordinated in the world, within the
pale of humanity, Blacks are subordinated by the world, erased from it, and thus
denied even the notion of humanity.82 Poverty, understood through the lens of Butler's
notion of precarious life, is thus sinisterly continuous with the central function of white
supremacy.
For Butler, the reality of the multiple techniques of derealisation that pervade
contemporary global political life (war, imperialism, sexual oppression, and in this case
especially poverty) raises issues about our collective, political and public responsibility
to those who have been dehumanised - a responsibility which is rooted in our shared
vulnerability, in how contemporary global processes have deprived us all of full control
over our lives.83 When people living under conditions of poverty are presented as a
faceless and amorphous mass, when their condition is depoliticised, when they are
blamed and held responsible for their own suffering, when they are criminalised and
demonised, presented as threats to safety, economic growth or public order, or even
when we are made to believe that poverty is natural and insurmountable, we are then
authorised to become senseless and irresponsible to those whose lives have been
eradicated and whose grievability has been postponed.84 We are freed from having to
face up to the annulment of human life – whether as biological or social death –
effected by poverty, and also from recognising our own vulnerability, relationality and
"fundamental dependency on anonymous others".85
Butler's argument is multifaceted and complex, and while we cannot explore it further
here, it is suggestive insofar as it underscores my argument that all current laws,
82
Wilderson "Biko and the Problematic of Presence" 108; Sexton 2011 InTensions 1-47.
83
Butler Precarious Life xii-xiii.
84
Butler Precarious Life xvii. Here we can recall Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal
1998 1 SA 765 (CC).
85
Butler Precarious Life xii.
245
economic strategies and government policies (including but not limited to those
formulated to explicitly address poverty) should be examined and transformed so as
not to affirm or participate in the pervasive derealisation of "the poor" effected by the
inherent brutalities of neoliberal capitalism but also aided by law's affiliation with
capitalist forms of social and economic organisation. Conversely, an understanding
should be cultivated that the eradication of poverty as a means of combatting
precariousness should not just be limited to economic distribution, inclusion into the
free-market and entry into the job market, but it also involves a certain recognition
and respect of the humanity of those caught in the grip of poverty, and a redressing
of the fragmentation of the ethical relation caused by poverty.
4 The critique of rights and the injuries of poverty
Rights emblematize the ghostly sovereignty of the unemancipated individual in

modernity.86
I have so far reconceptualised racialised poverty as a form of oppression, emphasising

its political, moral, ethical and ontological dimensions. To the extent that how we
define poverty also determines how we approach its overcoming, and to the extent
that the discourse of human and in particular socio-economic rights is the dominant
currency in South Africa's battle against poverty,87 it is of substantial importance to
briefly consider the centrality and emancipatory force of rights discourse in the light
of the foregoing reconceptualization of poverty. While the rights critique of scholars in
the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement is most familiar to progressive South African
lawyers,88 the work of political theorist Wendy Brown and her engagement with rights
as a medium of emancipatory politics in relation to politicised identity offers a more
compelling theoretical and political account of the contradiction between rights
discourse and the struggle to end poverty, and of the paradoxes and dangers of rights
discourse in general.
It should be stated at the outset that to label Brown's engagement with identity-based
rights discourse as a rejection of or case against rights as such would be a reductive
86
Brown States of Injury 170.
87
See the sources cited in n 3.
88
See West 2011 Wm & Mary L Rev 713-746 and the sources cited there.
246
and inattentive reading.89 Rather, hers is a historically situated, targeted examination

of the effect of mobilising rights claims on behalf of politicised identities in liberal
regimes.90 In the same vein, for purposes of my argument, what concerns me is not
so much whether or not rights-based legal reforms should be employed in attempts
to eradicate poverty. Rather my interest is with what it means for the discourse of
liberal constitutionalism and human rights to be placed at the heart of poverty
eradication, especially in the light of a leftist understanding of poverty as a form of
oppression.
In this context, the conceptualisation of poverty as oppression is not insignificant, for

if the absence of poverty would imply freedom from oppression, and such freedom
requires the actualisation of substantive political freedom, social equality and justice
and radical democracy, it needs to be asked whether rights can indeed deliver on this
freedom, this equality and justice, and this democracy, especially given the fact that
what rights have more frequently promised and/or offered are specific remedies,
individual relief, and state protection. In any instance, liberal legal scholarship for the
most part tends to posit rights (their assertion, protection, improved enforcement,
clearer elaboration of their content and their cultural proliferation) as the panacea for
all social problems. Paradoxically, rights by definition are constructed in ways that
deny the possibility that they can co-exist with, indeed within, oppressive social orders.
Rights discourse converts oppressive conditions and practices into action or inaction,
into the behaviour of devious persons or the policies of lethargic governments rather
than as expressions of how oppressed social groups are positioned within the social
structure – the stability of which is in large part secured by law in the first place. From
their global instantiation in the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, rights have
always appeared to claim to be what follows after oppression, as symbols of the
triumph over oppression, thus following what could be described as a modernist
narrative of historical progress.91 Here is Brown:
Rights function to articulate a need, a condition of lack or injury, that cannot be fully
redressed or transformed by rights yet within existing political discourses can be
89
See Brown 2000 Political Theory 469-479.
90
See Brown and Halley "Introduction" 25.
91
Brown Politics out of History 3. Also see Kapur 2006 Syd LR 668-673.
247
signified in no other way. Thus rights for the systematically subordinated tend to
rewrite injuries, inequalities and impediments to freedom that are consequent to
social stratification as matters of individual violations and rarely articulate or address
the conditions producing or fomenting that violation.92
Brown suggests, as an initial matter, that in evaluating the efficacy and political value
of rights in any given context, attention should be paid also to "that which rights
discourse does not avow about itself",93 to the ways in which rights, irrespective of
their stated purpose, not only reduce suffering and protect citizens against coercion
or abuse but also harbour their own political rationality, their own ideological vision of
social life, and their own moral prescriptions. The ways in which rights operate, the
nature of the remedies and the protections they promise thus also need to be critically
examined for their own "normative or subject-producing dimensions" and cultural
assumptions and for the particular ways in which they configure the political and rival
other justice projects.94 Therefore, law and rights are not simply empty vessels into
which any and all articulations of political desire can be inserted, but a form of
power/knowledge that actively constructs that desire and regulates the modes of its
insertion into executive policy-making, legislative schemes and judicial processes.
As it turns out, despite their aspiration to an apolitical and universal image, rights,
especially liberal constitutional rights, represent a very particular form of politics that
organises and even monopolises political space. Rights discourse carries its own
(moderate) image of justice, freedom and equality. Even more significantly, rights
discourse operates as a dismissal of more radical political projects and also happens
to converge neatly with and aids in the civilising mission of Western liberal democracy
and the global expansion of neoliberal capitalism.95 In my view, to the extent that
constitutional rights litigation and rights-based reform involves an acceptance of the
key terms of South Africa's faulty negotiated settlement, the disappearance of the
discourse of reparations and redistribution in South African legal and public discourse
and its replacement with a discourse of socio-economic rights and service delivery
should be understood in this light.
92
Brown "Suffering the Paradoxes of Rights" 431-432.
93
Brown 2004 SAQ 461.
94
Brown 2004 SAQ 461; Brown States of Injury 116.
95
Brown 2004 SAQ 461; Derrida Spectres of Marx 85. Also see Mutua 2008 Buff L Rev 1027-1034.
248
The presentation of rights as a benign defence of the innocent and the powerless
against a negligent State and rapacious economic powers centres on a moralistic
discourse of pain and suffering rather than a political discourse of comprehensive
justice and liberation.96 And so, rights discourse potentially depoliticises the historical
and political conditions of the suffering it claims to combat. Brown concludes from a
reading of Karl Marx's "The Jewish Question"97 that the principal "depoliticising move"
of liberal rights discourse transpires in its declaration of all persons as free and equal,
and of race, class, gender and property ownership as irrelevant to one's standing as
a citizen, a declaration which paradoxically removes from public view and from the
ambit of public redress these very elements of social power.98 In other words, when
such elements of social power as race, class and gender are abolished in liberal
constitutions as formal markers of personhood, citizenship and entitlement to rights,
they are "ideologically naturalized as mere differences … in the realm of civil society".99
Thus "the ruse of power" or "deviousness" that according to Brown is integral to liberal
rights discourse lies in the way in which "liberal constitutionalism [grants] freedom,
equality and representation to abstract rather than concrete subjects".100 Similarly,
the Constitution grants equality, dignity, and freedom to our abstract representatives
in the "post"-apartheid State, while failing to address the social powers and historical
inequalities that stratify and subjugate our concrete selves. Consequently, our equal
right to own land is restored but not the land itself and we are all legally given the
rights to education, healthcare, food, water and social security while the majority still
lacks and is unable to freely acquire decent and dignified access to these things. To
be clear, the ruse internal to liberalism occurs in the situation in which our abstract
selves have the rights, but our concrete selves continue to lack the access and thereby
remain subordinated by that which liberal rights purported to have overcome in the
first place. In this way, the subject of rights is "ideally emancipated" through being
anointed, in an abstract way, as a free and equal person while being "practically
96
Brown 2004 SAQ 453, 455.
97
Marx "On the Jewish Question" 50.
98
Brown 2000 Political Theory 475.
99
Brown 2000 Political Theory 475. Also see Brown States of Injury 106-115.
100
249
resubordinated" through the idealist disavowal of the material power relations of race,
class and gender, which in actuality constrain, hinder and contain our freedom.101
But more than depoliticising, rights discourse works to silence and prevent political
deliberation about what poverty is and means, what its root causes are, what systems
sustain it, and how to address it. It does so by already circumscribing and determining
the nature of the particular problem being contested (in this case, poverty) and also
by producing the kind of impoverished subject it deems to be in need of state
protection, welfare and socio-economic upliftment. In most instances, rights discourse
simply cancels out such deliberation by juridicalising it and redefining it into a matter
that falls under the operational domain of the courts and legal professionals.102 This
point cannot be overstated: If the problem is defined in an abstract way as hunger,
homelessness, disease, insufficient water supply, poor service delivery and so on, then
socio-economic rights and technical legal and economic expertise may very well be
the apposite solution. But if the problem is diagnosed politically as the continuation of
racial and gendered inequality and suffering that are symptomatic of a broader system
of oppression under a neoliberal capitalist economic regime and a liberal constitutional
order that privatises public services and commodifies basic necessities, excludes
ordinary citizens from public democratic self-governance and has failed to concretely
and substantively transform the lives of Blacks, another more far-reaching remedy for
the named injustice may be more appropriate.
Brown's assessment of rights acknowledges the multivalent and contradictory ways in

which rights discourse operates across different historical, cultural, political and social
contexts, namely: rights as a boundary and as access, rights as markers of power and
as masking lack, rights as claims and as protections, rights as articulation and as
mystification, rights as disciplinary and as anti-disciplinary, rights as a mark of one's
humanity and as a reduction of one's humanity, rights as the expression of desire and
as the foreclosure of desire.103 While this renders rights indeterminate and contingent,
and consequently vague, impotent and unenforceable, Brown argues that it is the
101
102
103
250
constitutive paradoxes of rights and rights discourse that should be confronted in order
to examine their emancipatory potential. For Brown, the central paradox of rights, that
"between the universal idiom and the local effect of rights",104 transpires on both a
temporal/historical and spatial/social level.
On the temporal/historical level, she argues, with reference to Derrick Bell, that while
rights may operate as an indisputable force of emancipatory social struggle at one
historical moment, "they may become at another time a regulatory discourse, a means
of obstructing or co-opting more radical political demands, or simply the most hollow
of promises".105 So while it may have been the case that 20 years ago the inclusion of
justiciable socio-economic rights in the Constitution echoed the liberatory vision of the
Freedom Charter and symbolically served to consecrate the new dispensation's
commitment to poverty eradication, it is also the case that both that liberatory vision
and that symbolism may have simply become irrelevant for the vast majority of South
Africans. As Bell argued, and as the persistent outbreak of community uprisings in
South Africa together with the rising public visibility of black radical nationalist
sentiments indicate, the symbolic force and material impact of human rights gains and
socio-economic reforms secured through law often substantially erode and wear off
over time as power relations and economic arrangements adapt, leaving the position
of the marginalised and the impoverished unchanged, and their political hopes
frustrated.106
On the social/spatial level, she argues that rights "that empower those in one social
location or strata may disempower those in another",107 or put differently, that "in
inegalitarian orders, rights differentially empower social groups, depending on their
ability to enact the power that a right potentially entails".108 The most classic example
of this is of course the right to private property, which is illuminated usefully in
disagreements over the constitutional property clause.109 The liberty versus equality
104
105
106
See Bell 1991 Howard LJ 79-93; Bell 1992 Conn L Rev 364; Bell Faces at the Bottom of the Well.
107
108
Brown "Suffering the Paradoxes of Rights" 423.
109
See the exchange between Sanele Sibanda (2011 Stell LR 482) and Frank Michelman (2011 Stell
LR 706).
251
debate that haunts legal and political philosophy also captures aspects of this problem.
Liberalism presumes the fundamental antagonism in society as being one between the
State and the individual, and fashions rights as the appropriate medium for the
negotiation of this antagonism. But as we know, horizontal asymmetries of power
between individuals "in economic arrangements where some gain at the expense of
others" affect the workings of rights in such a way that rights to private property as
well as those acquired and exercised in areas of law such as contract, credit,
succession and labour "function not only as power but as deprivation". For example,
"the right to private property is a vehicle for the accumulation of wealth through the
production of another's poverty" just as the right of free trade is a vehicle for the
control of another's labour power.110 Let us consider also how the exclusive focus of
socio-economic rights and other anti-poverty strategies and mechanisms on
benefitting "the poor" and ameliorating their condition conceals law's role in enabling
the monopolisation of massive wealth and opulence in the hands of the few and as a
consequence does not challenge the position of the unjustly enriched and privileged.
But as Brown, following Marx, tells us, this may be an inherent feature of rights and
of the paradoxes that render their emancipatory credentials so dubious:
Historically, rights emerged in modernity both as a vehicle of emancipation from

political disenfranchisement or institutionalised servitude and as a means of
privileging an emerging class within a discourse of formal egalitarianism and universal
citizenship. Thus they emerged both as a means of protection against arbitrary use
and abuse by sovereign and social power and as a mode of securing and naturalizing
dominant social powers ...111
This specific feature of the paradox problematises the traditionally liberal view of law
and the State as fair and neutral arbiters of injury and legitimate sites of rights
protection and welfare security by exposing them as also "invested with the power to
injure", as legitimising inequality and domination through their affiliation to specific
social powers and their annexation by specific moral, cultural and political interests
and values.112 This then is the fundamental political impasse generated by the use of
so-called "in-system" tactics by progressive social movements and lawyers: the effort
110
111
Brown States of Injury 99, 123-124.
112
252
of subaltern social groups and individuals seeking protection and recognition from an
institution that actively and passively participates in their oppression amounts to a
capitulation to the basic premises of legal liberalism and tacitly gives approval to a
cultural order (Western bourgeois individualism) and a politico-economic order (liberal
constitutionalism and neoliberal capitalism) that is complicit in their exclusion. On this
view, the abandonment or suspension of a more radical vision of justice,
transformation and decolonisation is a precondition for the turn to law and rights in
addressing political, economic and social injustice. Indeed such abandonment and
suspension could also be essential for the legitimacy of liberal regimes and human
rights cultures in general. Rights discourse powerfully legitimises law and the state,
elevating law's already hegemonic position in society, cementing it as the normatively
superior mode of action, valuation, and decision-making over, say, civic democracy,
ethics and public politics.
Closely connected to the status quo affirming and depoliticising reflexes of rights is
the conservative nature of its ambitions. As Brown argues, "rights almost always serve
as a mitigation – but not a resolution – of subordinating powers".113 Although rights
may attenuate the subordination, anguish and violation to which people living in
poverty are rendered vulnerable in a capitalist, white supremacist, imperialist regime,
they can neither (nor do they actually promise to) vanquish nor challenge that regime
and its mechanisms of reproduction.114 To be sure, socio-economic rights in general
tend to be aimed only towards poverty alleviation, that is, minor relief through the
provision of the most basic needs, as opposed to comprehensive poverty eradication.
Thus rights, when mobilised to alleviate rather than eradicate poverty, can only work
to make the lives of the poor slightly better, more bearable, without actually
eradicating the existence of poverty itself. Consequently, rights run the danger, quite
ironically, of being enlisted to the indefinite maintenance of poverty and the
normalisation of the positional categories of "rich" and "poor". Tellingly, in seeking to
soften the effects of poverty rather than aspiring to its elimination as a social and
political condition, rights exhibit a stunning tolerance of poverty.
113
114
253
There is one more novelty to Brown's account of the "paradoxes of rights" and it
pertains to the role of rights-based legal reform in the construction and production of
identity. Brown phrases it thus: "rights that entail some specification of our suffering,
injury and inequality lock us into the identity defined by our subordination, and rights
that eschew this specificity not only sustain the invisibility of our subordination but
potentially even enhance it".115 Throughout most of this discussion so far, I have
expanded on the second side of the paradox and so I turn immediately to only the
first side, namely how the insertion of a rights claim based on class, gender and racial
identity, among others, "fixes the identities of the injured as social positions" 116 and
"reifies a historical condition as an ontological one, naturalizing rather than redressing
it".117 And while Brown initially developed these concerns primarily with reference to
sexuality, gender and race, I will suggest that her thoughts are applicable here, since
dominant tropes of "the poor" in South Africa as they are represented in legal and
political discourse also coalesce in varying combinations around the identity categories
of race, sex, gender, class, ethnic origin, HIV status, motherhood, disability,
nationality, age: the head of the childheaded household, the grandmother of orphaned
children, the dying HIV patient, the homeless man, the refugee mother, the disabled
patient, the unemployed person without Matric, the menial labourer, the
disenfranchised community, the inhabitants of informal settlements, or the evicted
occupiers made up of destitute families – all of whom are poor, the majority of whom
black, and whose apex figures of vulnerability are the woman, the elderly and the
child (particularly the infant).
The shift from a Marxist to a Foucauldian formulation of power is central to Brown's

concern with politicised identity. She argues from the point of view that subjects and
identity are historically and discursively produced by power and not simply politically,
economically and socially suppressed and positioned by systems of power.118 That is
to say, that the subjects of racial, sexual and class domination are not simply marked,
exploited and degraded by white supremacy, patriarchy and capitalism, but they are
115
116
117
118
rown States of Injury 117.
254
also formed by regimes, discourses and formations of race, sexuality and political
economy.119 Oppression in such a formulation is both a matter of constructed
subjectivities as well as material social positionality. From this insight that politicised
identity is not only positioned within totalizing systems of power but in in fact a partial
effect of that power,120 Brown develops two powerful lines of critique.
The first deals with the question of whether politicised identity through its inscription
in law (through rights-based claims) does not thereby reiterate its own Othering.121
Given that identity-based claims proceed through an identity category which
historically emerged as a term to enact subordination, the codification of that identity
may resubordinate its subjects even as it claims to eviscerate the conditions of injury
attached to that identity. Brown's theory of "wounded attachments" conceives of
subject formation as constituted by "logics of pain" that incite politicised identity to
invest excessively in its own history of suffering, need and paralysis to the point of
subverting its own pursuit of an emancipatory democratic project.122 In her analysis,
when politicised identity seeks to articulate its desire within liberal juridical and
bureaucratic regimes, it forecloses its own freedom and instead develops the "impulse
to inscribe in law and in other political registers its historical and present pain rather
than conjure and imagine the future of power to make itself".123 Because politicised
identity, especially that of those marked as "poor", operates through a claim to legal
recognition not really as difference but as injury, exclusion and powerlessness, it
thereby installs, ontologises and naturalises that injury as an identity – where historical
injury in the form of poverty is no longer something that happens to and is imposed
on particular persons or groups but something that is endemic to that person or group,
a core property of their identity. In this process, the injury becomes a precondition for
the politicised identity's self-definition, its very raison d'etre. This is what I take to be
119
Brown States of Injury 119-120.
120
See Foucault Society Must Be Defended 29-30; Foucault History of Sexuality; Foucault
Power/Knowledge. Also see Brown "Power After Foucault" 65-84; Lynch "Foucault's Theory of
Power" 13-26.
121
122
123
255
the force of Brown's argument about how politicised identity comes to be constituted
by "wounded attachments":
In its emergence as protest against marginalisation or subordination, politicized

identity thus becomes attached to its own exclusion both because it is premised on
this exclusion for its very existence as identity and because the formation of identity
at the site of exclusion, as exclusion augments or "alters the direction of the suffering"
entailed in subordination or marginalisation by finding a site of blame for it. But in so
doing, it installs its pain over its unredeemed history in the very foundation of its
political claim, in its demand for recognition as identity … Politicized identity thus
enunciates itself, makes claims for itself, only by entrenching, restating, dramatizing,
and inscribing its pain in politics … .124
Thus the consequence of installing politicised identity in the universal discourse of

liberal jurisprudence, of translating political demands against historical injustice into
generic harms or injuries, is to hypostasise the condition and reality of "the poor", so
that poverty becomes the only medium for the recognition and legibility of
impoverished people, "resulting in the eternal repetition of pain". 125 To remedy this,
Brown suggests a shift in the character of political identity from the ontological
("being") to the political ("wanting") and from a moralising discourse centred on pain
and suffering to a politicizing discourse centred on the assertion of an alternative,
more just, political and social future.126 Here we are returned to the limits of law, and
to the question of whether law and rights discourse can facilitate this more
extravagant political assertion without law, rights-based politics and liberal
constitutionalism being called into question in the process.
The second line of critique Brown develops in relation to the juridical instantiation of
politicised identity-based claims through rights discourse stems from the more obvious
Foucauldian concern with the modes of discipline, governmentality, and biopolitical
regulation set in motion by such instantiation. She asks:
[W]hen do rights sought by identity for itself become in themselves a means of

administration? When does identity articulated through rights become the production
and regulation of identity through law and bureaucracy? When does legal recognition
become an instrument of regulation, and political recognition become an instrument
of subordination.127
124
125
126
127
256
Brown explains the problem of the regulatory powers of identity and of rights based
on identity as follows: To have rights as a Black person, or a woman or as an
impoverished person, is not yet to be free of being designated and subordinated by
race or gender or indigence. "Rather though it may entail some protection from the
most immobilizing features of that designation, it reinscribes the designation as it
protects us, and thus enables our further regulation through that designation".128
Given the insight stated earlier that "law produces the subjects it claims to emancipate
and protect",129 and also that rights are a specific (normative) mode of signifying injury
and political resistance to that injury, what subject is produced by a definition of "the
poor" as needy, vulnerable, dependant, and helpless – especially when coupled with
the obviously racialised character of poverty and the pervasive stigma of moral
weakness associated with it? To be clear, when poverty is constructed through
metonymic associations with blackness and immorality, how are impoverished black
people interpellated not only by the law but also by other institutions such as social
security agencies, government officials, NGOs, social workers, clinics, employers,
philanthropists, the police, legal, economic and political discourse, mass media and so
on?
The regulatory and disciplinary dimension of rights discourse primarily plays itself out
in two discrete ways. First, rights are themselves central to the State's disciplinary
apparatus - they produce impoverished and victimised subjects and encode particular
identities whose permanent need for rights and welfare provision makes them
vulnerable to numerous techniques of juridical disciplinary domination in the form of
registration, statistical monitoring, econometric calculation, data gathering and
surveillance. Rights and the welfare institutions through which they are implemented
wield economic discipline over impoverished people by defining their need, setting the
terms of their survival and establishing rules for continued access and entitlement to
those rights and to related goods and services. Secondly, in addition to being forms
of regulation and disciplinarity themselves, socio-economic rights and other rights-
based poverty alleviation approaches also co-exist with other violent disciplinary
128
Brown "Suffering The Paradoxes of Rights" 422.
129
257
practices and discourses through which those marked as poor are governed,
administered and controlled, namely: neoliberal managerialisms which promulgate
discourses of "development"; police surveillance and harassment of the homeless and
informal street traders, media campaigns and spectacles where people in need are
paraded on national television, municipal by-laws that regulate the space and
movement of poor city dwellers in urban areas, urban renewal programmes requiring
the eviction and evacuation, displacement and relocation of poor occupiers, theological
and psychological discourses of responsibilisation whereby impoverished people are
encouraged to develop a positive work ethic and attitude or impelled to restore their
faith in god, to name but a few forms of the control to which they are subjected.
All of this indicates that even when they are indubitably necessary due to certain
institutional contexts and constraints, rights-based legal mobilisation strategies
(specifically when deployed by movements asserting an oppositional left politics) can
only ever be "effective" or "successful" as a strategic move (forcing government to
deliver services or averting state repression), an emergency course of action
(preventing evictions, demolitions or disconnections of water and electricity supplies),
or a functionalist/instrumental means of achieving immediate ends or fulfilling urgent
needs (e.g. for housing, ARV treatment) – but never as the expression or actualisation
of a radical, democratic, emancipatory politics. This is to say that rights (in their
universal idiom), even as they travel under the banner of freedom, equality, dignity,
justice and peace, cannot (in their particular local effect) concretely bring about
substantive versions of each of these ideals. They cannot confront and challenge the
social powers, subjugating practices and power imbalances that produce precarity,
poverty, inequality, misery and extreme deprivation in part because they are brokered
through a truce with and accommodation of those powers, practices and imbalances.
When realised in their most progressive and effective form, they can only improve and
minimally relieve the position and condition of impoverished people without
transforming that position or abolishing that condition. In this sense then, human and
socio-economic rights activism, mobilisation and litigation is a cohesive moral
discourse and political project, with its own autonomous logic, that ideologically
258
configures the legal and political culture in very specific ways.130 Consequently, it is
likely to stand in tension with if not usurp alternative justice projects that are aimed
towards the radical transformation of the broader economic, political and social
structure of society. As a language, rights discourse also overshadows both the
articulation and the coming into being of other registers, vocabularies and grammars
of political and social expression. For those on the critical legal left, this poses a
dilemma worth considering, even as we all accept (to some degree) law's
indeterminacy and hence, its potential, however limited.
Responding to the oft-heard rejoinder that rights are the most we can hope for or the
best we can do at the present moment,131 Brown counsels that we interrogate this
complacent attachment to "interest-bound reformism"132 and reclaim instead the
"ambition to refigure political possibility against the seeming givenness of the
present".133 These are her last words:
Is the prevention or mitigation of suffering promised by human rights the most that
can be hoped for at this point in history? Is this where we are, namely, at a historical
juncture in which all more ambitious justice projects seem remote if not utopian by
comparison with the task of limiting abuses of individuals? Is the prospect of a more
substantive democratization of power so dim that the relief and reduction of human
suffering is really all that progressives can hope for? If so, then human rights politics
probably deserves the support of everyone who cares about such suffering. But if
there are still other historical possibilities, if progressives have not yet arrived at this
degree of fatalism, then we would do well to take the measure of whether and how
the centrality of human rights discourse might render those other political possibilities
more faint.134
5 Conclusion: critical imaginings of alternative futures
The world suffers under a dictatorship of no alternatives. Although ideas all by

themselves are powerless to overthrow this dictatorship we cannot overthrow it
without ideas.135
130
See eg Mutua Human Rights; Baxi Future of Human Rights; Douzinas Human Rights and Empire.
131
The pragmatist and sanguine yet ultimately fatalist logic that undergirds the claims of most
defenders of rights and law reform is typified in the South African context by, among many others,
Kok 2006 PULP Fictions 25-30; Woolman 2007 Stell LR 508-525.
132
Brown Edgework 110.
133
Brown Edgework vii.
134
Brown 2004 SAQ 462.
135
Unger What Should the Left Propose? 1.
259
Spurred on by an upsurge in scholarly interest on the relationship between law and

poverty in the post-apartheid South African context, Sanele Sibanda ingeniously
suggests that rather than thinking of poverty through rights discourse, as a question
of rights violation, we should instead think of it as an index of the eventual success or
failure of the project of post-apartheid constitutional transformation.136 In their
intervention Danie Brand, Stephan de Beer, Isolde de Villiers and Karin van Marle have
taken this sentiment further by arguing that discourses on poverty should eschew the
language of "development", "relief" and "aid" and instead frame poverty in terms of
justice, transformation and liberation.137 In both contributions the authors respond
well to bell hooks' challenge to those interested in economic justice that they should
"think against the grain" and seek out new ways to "end oppressive and exploitative
hierarchies" in pursuit of a "world where we can all have enough to live fully and
well".138 This concern with asserting the ideal, the possibility that the current order of
things is patently unjust and should (and can) be changed against the widespread
complacency of liberal democracy, the passivity of formal legal guarantees and the
security of advanced capitalist life forms the underlying core spirit of my argument.
In this article I have endeavoured to conceptually/theoretically explore an alternative

critical political approach to poverty that radically departs from legalist, technical,
scientific and economist approaches. Following Young, Cornell and Butler, I have made
the case for an understanding of poverty as a form of structural oppression whose
mode of deprivation and denigration extends to both the "body" and the "heart" and
whose fundamental modality is to expose the lives of poor people to conditions of
precarity and destitution, thereby rendering them unreal. I also considered, through
Brown, how this new understanding of poverty raises critical questions about the
utility, impact and emancipatory force of rights. It goes without saying that the inverse
of poverty as oppression would be freedom, both in the sense of liberating people
from the harsh conditions of poverty and its resultant depredations but also in the
sense of a world and social order free of poverty. And it was here that a serious tension
136
Sibanda 2011 Stell LR 482-483.
137
Brand et al 2013 LDD 276-277, 293.
138
Hooks Where We Stand 156-164.
260
could be discerned between rights as a legal remedy for the political problem of
poverty and a more ambitious emancipatory project: whereas rights seek remedies
and services from power (the State, the courts, the media, the wealthy, international
human rights agencies, NGOs, sympathetic citizens), true emancipation would require
claiming and sharing that power; and whereas rights offer protections, true
emancipation would seek collective freedom.
Michel Foucault's critical insight that freedom is a practice rather than a final
achievement or legal guarantee, and that the "liberty of men is never assured by the
institutions and laws that are intended to guarantee them" 139 provoked the explicit
focus on the ways in which race still permeates and shapes the reality of poverty in
South Africa. The continuation and intensification of poverty and inequality along the
axis of race needs to be understood in the context of the failures and "misadventures"
of the post-1994 project of reconstruction and nation-building, and specifically the
failure to place racial justice, restitution, reparation(s) and redistribution at the heart
of the legal and political transformation of the nation.140 Moreover, the structural
inertia of the inequalities, disadvantages and exclusions generated by almost four
centuries of successive systems of white supremacist terror must be attributed as well
to the national government's embrace of a global neoliberal capitalist economic
framework.141 Because of this, the Constitution's promise of dignity, equality and
freedom for all as well as any legal progress made in the area of equality, socio-
economic rights and access to justice are negated and rendered facile and irrelevant
in the face of an unaccountable economic system that has generated huge inequalities
while also deepening and leaving those of the past intact. For this reason, it is no
exaggeration to say that poverty eradication is inseparable from the realisation of
racial justice, which in turn is inseparable from the abolition of capitalism.
Indeed, it will not be possible to truly change the reality and situation of the oppressed
without changing the world itself.142 Current approaches focused on alleviating and
139
Foucault "Space, Knowledge and Power" 245.
140
See Terreblanche Lost in Transformation.
141
See eg Madlingozi 2011 JLS 77-98; Bond Elite Transition.
142
261
reducing poverty and on providing "basic" needs and services to "the poor" cannot
deliver such change; they cannot dismantle the ever-expanding boundaries between
rich and poor. In conceiving of poverty eradication as a project of changing the world,
and in considering the role of law and rights in this project, we should always heed
the limits of law, its incapacity and violence, and ultimately its own "poverty". Rather
than pursuing justice solely through legal and rights-centred institutions and
discourses, we must be prepared to "defatalize the present" and work towards the
creation of radical alternatives.143
Whether through a door needing to be opened or a beckoning window already raised,

what would happen if you entered? What would be on the other side? What on earth
would it be? What on earth?144
… Perhaps paradise.145
143
Agathangelou and Killian 2011 InTensions 1-51.
144
Morrison Paradise 305.
145
Cornell Moral Images of Freedom 163.
262
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Literature
Agathangelou and Killian 2011 InTensions

Agathangelou AM and Killian KD "(De)Fatalizing the Present and Creating
Radical Alternatives" 2011 5 InTensions 1-51
Baxi Future of Human Rights

Baxi U The Future of Human Rights (Oxford University Press New Delhi 2002)
Bell 1991 Howard LJ

Bell D "Racism is Here to Stay: Now What?" 1991 Howard LJ 79-93
Bell 1992 Conn L Rev

Bell D "Racial Realism" 1992 Conn L Rev 363-379
Bell Faces at the Bottom of the Well

Bell D Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism (Basic Books
New York 1992)
Bell 1995 U Ill L Rev

Bell D "Who's Afraid of Critical Race Theory" 1995 U Ill L Rev 893-910
Biko I Write What I Like

Biko S I Write What I Like (Picador Africa Johannesburg 1978)
Bilchitz Poverty and Fundamental Rights

Bilchitz D Poverty and Fundamental Rights: The Justification and Enforcement
of Socio-economic Rights (Oxford University Press Oxford 2007)
Birt "Existence, Identity and Liberation"

Birt R "Existence, Identity and Liberation" in Gordon LR (ed) Existence in Black:
An Anthology of Black Existential Philosophy (Routledge New York 1997) 203-
214
263
Bond Elite Transition

Bond P Elite Transition: From Apartheid to Neoliberalism in South Africa (Pluto
Press and UKZN Press London 2005)
Brand et al 2013 LDD

Brand D et al "Poverty as Injustice" 2013 LDD 273-297
Brown States of Injury

Brown W States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (Princeton
University Press Princeton 1995)
Brown 2000 Political Theory

Brown W "Revaluing Critique: A Response to Kenneth Bayes" 2000 Political
Theory 469-479
Brown Politics out of History

Brown W Politics out of History (Princeton University Press Princeton 2001)
Brown "Suffering the Paradoxes of Rights"

Brown W "Suffering the Paradoxes of Rights" in Brown W and Halley J (eds)
Left Legalism/Left Critique (Duke University Press Durham, NC 2001) 420-434
Brown 2004 SAQ

Brown W ''The Most We Can Hope For … 'Human Rights and the Politics of
Fatalism'" 2004 SAQ 451-463
Brown Edgework
Brown W Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics (Princeton
Brown "Power After Foucault"

Brown W "Power After Foucault" in Dryzek B et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook
of Political Theory (Oxford University Press Oxford 2006) 65-84
264
Brown and Halley "Introduction"

Brown W and Halley J "Introduction" in Brown W and Halley J (eds) Left
Legalism/Left Critique (Duke University Press Durham, NC 2001) 1-36
Butler Precarious Life

Butler J Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence (Verso London
2004)
Butler Giving an Account of Oneself

Butler J Giving an Account of Oneself (Fordham University Press New York
2005)
Butler Frames of War

Butler J Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? (Verso London 2009)
Butler "Precarious Life"

Butler J "Precarious Life and the Obligations of Co-habitation" Noble Museum
Lecture (Stockholm, May 2011) (unpublished paper on file with author)
Cesaire Discourse on Colonialism

Cesaire A A Discourse on Colonialism (Monthly Review Press New York 1972)
Cornell Imaginary Domain

Cornell D The Imaginary Domain: Abortion, Pornography and Sexual
Harassment (Routledge New York 1995)
Cornell At The Heart of Freedom

Cornell D At The Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex and Inequality (Princeton
Cornell Beyond Accommodation

Cornell D Beyond Accommodation: Ethical Feminism, Deconstruction and the
Law (Routledge New York 1999)
265
Cornell Just Cause

Cornell D Just Cause: Freedom, Identity and Rights (Rowman and Littlefield
New York 2000)
Cornell Moral Images of Freedom

Cornell D Moral Images of Freedom: A Future for Critical Theory (Rowman and
Littlefield Lanham, MD 2008)
Cornell and Panfilio Symbolic Forms

Cornell D and Panfilio KM Symbolic Forms for a New Humanity: Cultural and
Racial Configurations of Critical Theory (Fordham University Press New York
2010)
Cudd Analyzing Oppression

Cudd AE Analyzing Oppression (Oxford University Press New York 2006)
Derrida Spectres of Marx

Derrida J Spectres of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and
the New International (Routledge New York 1994)
Douzinas Human Rights and Empire

Douzinas C Human Rights and Empire: The Political Philosophy of
Cosmopolitanism (Routledge London 2007)
Dugard "Courts and Structural Poverty"

Dugard J "Courts and Structural Poverty in South Africa" in Maldonado B (ed)
Constitutionalism of the Global South (Cambridge University Press New York
2013) 293-328
Durrheim et al Race Trouble

Durrheim K et al Race Trouble: Race, Identity and Inequality in Post-apartheid
South Africa (University of Natal Press Scotsville 2011)
Fanon Wretched of the Earth

Fanon F The Wretched of the Earth (Grove Press New York 2004 [1963])
266
Fanon Black Skin, White Masks

Fanon F Black Skin, White Masks (Grove Press New York 2008 [1967])
Foucault History of Sexuality

Foucault M The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction (Pantheon
Books New York 1978)
Foucault Power/Knowledge
Foucault M (Gordon C (ed)) Power/Knowledge: Collected Interviews and Other
Writings (Pantheon Books New York 1980)
Foucault "Space, Knowledge and Power"

Foucault M "Space, Knowledge and Power" in Rabinow P (ed) The Foucault
Reader (Pantheon Books New York 1984) 239-256
Foucault Discipline and Punish

Foucault M Discipline and Punish: Birth of a Prison (Vintage New York 1991)
Foucault Society Must Be Defended

Foucault M Society Must Be Defended (Picador New York 2003)
Gordon Bad Faith

Gordon LR Bad Faith and Antiblack Racism (Humanity Books New York 1995)
Hooks Yearning
Hooks B Yearning: Race, Gender and Cultural Politics (South End Press Boston
1990)
Hooks Outlaw Culture

Hooks B Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations (Routledge New York 1994)
Hooks Where We Stand

Hooks B Where We Stand: Class Matters (Routledge New York 2000)
267
Kapur 2006 Syd LR

Kapur R "Human Rights in the 21st Century: Talk a Walk on the Dark Side" 2006
SydLR 665-687
Kok 2006 PULP Fictions

Kok A "Legal Academics and Progressive Politics in South Africa: Moving Beyond
the Ivory Tower – A Reply to Tshepo Madlingozi" 2006 PULP Fictions 25-30
Langford et al Socio-Economic Rights

Langford M et al (eds) Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa: Symbols or
Substance? (Cambridge University Press New York 2013)
Lawrence 1995 Stan L Rev

Lawrence CR "Race, Multiculturalism, and the Jurisprudence of Reconstruction"
1995 Stan L Rev 819-847
Lynch "Foucault's Theory of Power"

Lynch RA "Foucault's Theory of Power" in Taylor D (ed) Michel Foucault: Key
Concepts (Acumen Durham 2011) 13-26
Madlingozi 2007 JLS

Madlingozi T "Post-apartheid Social Movements and the Quest for the Elusive
'New' South Africa" 2007 JLS 77-98
Marx "On the Jewish Question"

Marx K "On the Jewish Question" in Tucker RC (ed) The Marx-Engels Reader
2nd ed (Norton New York 1978) 26-51
Michelman 2011 Stell LR

Michelman F "Liberal Constitutionalism, Property Rights and the Assault on
Poverty" 2011 Stell LR 706-723
Milgate 1999 Rutgers L Rev

Milgate D '''We Want Bread, We Want Roses': An Interview with Drucilla
Cornell" 1999 Rutgers L Rev 1031-1062
268
Modiri 2012 SA Public Law

Modiri JM "Towards a Post-apartheid Critical Race Jurisprudence: 'Divining our
Racial Themes''' 2012 SA Public Law 229-256
Morrison Paradise
Morrison T Paradise (Knopf New York 1998)
Mubangizi and Mubangizi 2005 Dev South Afr

Mubangizi JC and Mubangizi BC "Poverty, Human Rights and Socio-economic
Realities in South Africa" 2005 Dev South Afr 277-290
Mutua Human Rights

Mutua M Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique (University of
Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia 2002)
Mutua 2008 Buff L Rev

Mutua M "Human Rights and Powerlessness: Pathologies of Choice and
Substance" 2008 Buff L Rev 1027-1034
Olivier and Jansen van Rensburg "South African Poverty Law"

Olivier M and L Jansen van Rensburg, "South African Poverty Law: The Role
and Influence of International Human Rights Instruments" in Williams L (ed)
International Poverty Law: An Emerging Discourse (Zed Books London 2006)
107-141
Quinot and Liebenberg Law and Poverty

Quinot G and Liebenberg S (eds) Law and Poverty: Perspectives from South
Africa and Beyond (Juta Cape Town 2012)
Ramose "I Conquer, Therefore I am the Sovereign"

Ramose MB "I Conquer, Therefore I am the Sovereign: Reflections Upon
Sovereignty, Constitutionalism and Democracy in Zimbabwe and South Africa"
in Coetzee PH and Roux APJ (eds) The African Philosophy Reader (Routledge
London 2003) 543-589
269
Ramose 2007 GLR

Ramose MB "In Memoriam: Sovereignty and the New South Africa" 2007 GLR
310-329
Sexton 2011 InTensions

Sexton J "The Social Life of Social Death: On Afro-Pessimism and Black
Optimism" 2011 InTensions 1-47
Sibanda 2011 Stell LR

Sibanda S "Not Purpose-made! Transformative Constitutionalism, Post-
independence Constitutionalism and the Struggle to Eradicate Poverty" 2011
Stell LR 482-499
Terreblanche History of Inequality

Terreblanche S A History of Inequality in South Africa 1965-2002 (University of
Natal Press Pietermaritzburg 2002)
Terreblanche Lost in Transformation

Terreblanche S Lost in Transformation (KMM Review Sandton 2012)
Thapanyane "You Can't Eat the Constitution"

Thapanyane T "You Can't Eat the Constitution: Is Democracy for the Poor?" in
Bentley K et al (eds) Falls the Shadow: Between the Promise and the Reality of
South African Constitution (UCT Press Cape Town 2013)
Unger What Should the Left Propose?

Unger RM What Should the Left Propose? (Verso London 2005)
Van Marle 2002 Stell LR

Van Marle K '''No Last Word': Reflections on the Imaginary Domain, Dignity and
Intrinsic Worth" 2002 Stell LR 299-308
Van Der Walt Theories of Social and Economic Justice

Van der Walt AJ (ed) Theories of Social and Economic Justice (SUN Press
Stellenbosch 2005)
270
West 2011 Wm & Mary L Rev

West R "Tragic Rights: The Rights Critique in the Age of Obama" 2011 Wm &
Mary L Rev 713-746
Wilderson "Biko and the Problematic of Presence"

Wilderson F "Biko and yhe Problematic of Presence" in Mngxitama A, Alexander
A and Gibson N (eds) Biko Lives! Contesting the Legacies of Steve Biko
(Palgrave Macmillan New York 2008) 95-114
Wilderson 2011 InTensions

Wilderson F "The Vengeance of Vertigo: Aphasia and Abjection in the Political
Trials of Black Insurgents" 2011 InTensions 1-41
Woolman 2007Stell LR
Woolman S "On Rights, Rules, Relationships and Refusals: A Reply to Van
Marle's 'Jurisprudence of Generosity'" 2007 Stell LR 508-525
Young Justice and the Politics of Difference

Young IM Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press
Princeton 1990)
Zizek Welcome to the Desert of the Real!

Zizek S Welcome to the Desert of the Real!: Five Essays on September 11 and
Related Dates (Verso London 2002)
Case law
Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 1998 1 SA 765 (CC)
Internet sources
Lelliot and Brandon 2008 http://goo.gl/ietuLG

Lelliot J and Brandon M 2008 Skielik: Racial Fault Lines Exposed
http://goo.gl/ietuLG accessed 3 June 2014
271
Meldrum 2005 http://goo.gl/fLZUOr

Meldrum A 2005 White Farmer Found Guilty of Throwing Black Worker to Lions
in South Africa http://goo.gl/fLZUOr accessed 3 June 2014
SAPA 2007 http://goo.gl/UZjSHF

SAPA 2007 'Baboon' Murderer Gets 20 Years http://goo.gl/UZjSHF accessed 3
June 2014
SAPA 2013 http://goo.gl/K6KyTv

SAPA 2013 'Freedom from Poverty Important' http://goo.gl/K6KyTv accessed 3
June 2014
Staff Reporter 2008 http://goo.gl/X7OnKw

Staff Reporter 2008 End of the Road for Waterkloof Four http://goo.gl/X7OnKw
accessed 3 June 2014
Staff Reporter 2009 http://goo.gl/ynGWtN

Staff Reporter 2009 Shame of the Home Affairs ID Suicide
http://goo.gl/ynGWtN accessed 3 June 2014
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Buff L Rev Buffalo Law Review

CLS Critical legal studies
Con L Rev Connecticut Law Review
CRT Critical race theory
Dev South Afr Development Southern Africa
GLR Griffith Law Review
Howard LJ Howard Law Journal
JLS Journal of Law and Society
LDD Law, Democracy and Development
Rutgers L Rev Rutgers Law Review
SA Public Law Southern African Public Law
272
SAQ South Atlantic Quarterly

Stan L Rev Stanford Law Review
Stell LR Stellenbosch Law Review
Syd LR Sydney Law Review
U Ill L Rev University of Illinois Law Review
Wm & Mary L Rev William and Mary Law Review
273

JM Modiri: Author

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JM Modiri: Author

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JM Modiri: Author

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Author: JM Modiri

material) and non-distributive (non-material, non-economic, ideological social, and

2 A left (re)conceptualisation of poverty

A useful framework for a politicised account of poverty, in particular poverty generated

What makes Young's idea of oppression resonant with a politicised account of

structural understanding of poverty reveals that the problems of poverty currently

Young then goes on to formulate her "plural explication of oppression" by describing

The second "face" of oppression in Young's taxonomy is marginalisation, which is

Powerlessness as a social position allows people little opportunity to develop and

2.4 Cultural imperialism

To experience cultural imperialism means to experience how the dominant meanings

Cultural imperialism involves the universalisation of a dominant group's experience

complex) and a general climate of white over-representation in knowledge production

First-generation US critical race theory (CRT) also emphasised the importance of

appears light-hearted to the perpetrator.54 What makes these phenomena of violence

Conceiving of poverty as a form of oppression and domination opposes the

3 The effects and affects of poverty: starving hearts and precarious

Central to Young's theorisation of oppression, which I adapted above in linking race

This displacement of the distributive paradigm surfaces powerfully in Drucilla Cornell's

A further displacement of a distributive paradigm can be found in the work of Judith

We could understand poverty as a form of "derealisation" or "social death", as a

4 The critique of rights and the injuries of poverty

Rights emblematize the ghostly sovereignty of the unemancipated individual in

I have so far reconceptualised racialised poverty as a form of oppression, emphasising

and inattentive reading.89 Rather, hers is a historically situated, targeted examination

In this context, the conceptualisation of poverty as oppression is not insignificant, for

Brown's assessment of rights acknowledges the multivalent and contradictory ways in

Historically, rights emerged in modernity both as a vehicle of emancipation from

The shift from a Marxist to a Foucauldian formulation of power is central to Brown's

In its emergence as protest against marginalisation or subordination, politicized

Thus the consequence of installing politicised identity in the universal discourse of

[W]hen do rights sought by identity for itself become in themselves a means of

5 Conclusion: critical imaginings of alternative futures

The world suffers under a dictatorship of no alternatives. Although ideas all by

Spurred on by an upsurge in scholarly interest on the relationship between law and

In this article I have endeavoured to conceptually/theoretically explore an alternative

Whether through a door needing to be opened or a beckoning window already raised,

Agathangelou and Killian 2011 InTensions

Baxi Future of Human Rights

Bell 1991 Howard LJ

Bell 1992 Conn L Rev

Bell Faces at the Bottom of the Well

Bell 1995 U Ill L Rev

Biko I Write What I Like

Bilchitz Poverty and Fundamental Rights

Birt "Existence, Identity and Liberation"

Bond Elite Transition

Brand et al 2013 LDD

Brown States of Injury

Brown 2000 Political Theory

Brown Politics out of History

Brown "Suffering the Paradoxes of Rights"

Brown 2004 SAQ

Brown "Power After Foucault"

Brown and Halley "Introduction"

Butler Precarious Life

Butler Giving an Account of Oneself

Butler Frames of War