Essay MicvieivFlame or Lily? Revisited: A Response and Elaboration ofRhodesian Racial AttitudesG. C. KinlochDepartment of Sociology, Florida State UniversityMy book Flame or Lily?1 was written outof my enthusiasm for the potential insightprovided by the white press into white Rho-desian culture, although I was aware that suchdata do not provide 'perspectives on the societyas a whole, nor the white elite in general' (p.2).Rather, these editorials provide 'a restricteddefinition of Rhodesian culture . . . which mayvery well reflect the white elite in general' (p.6).Instead of attempting yet another interpretationof Rhodesian history, I was concerned withpresenting the views of white editors over timein order to gain some insight into how theseparticular Rhodesians defined their situationover time as participants in the society's majormedia institution. My focus, then, was on theirsocial definitions of societal reality rather thanmy interpretation of these situations for them.Those who take the work as representingsomething more than this provide the author,in a sense, with an indirect compliment whichhe neither sought nor values. More than this,however, they are searching for phenomenawhich were not intended for inclusion andcriticise what they do find on the basis of essen-tially irrelevant criteria. Since interpretationsof works provided by book reviews are wide-spread in circulation and vary so greatly in con-tent and orientation that often the author ishard-pressed to recognise his own material, itis necessary to respond to this kind of evalua-tion in order to ensure the clarity of his originalaims, particularly for the large majority of theacademic audience which does not actuallyread his work.The above reasons compel me, therefore,to respond to the vitriolic review of my bookin Zamhez,iaz and indeed to a similar reviewin Rhodesian History.3 In the following discus-sion I shall deal with these reviewers' majorcriticisms in turn and move, in the second part,to a further elaboration of the interpretationprovided in the book, in an attempt to developa fuller model of Rhodesia's historical develop-ment as revealed in my recent sub-analysis ofthese newspaper data.THE REVIEWSThe two reviews focus, in my opinion, onthree major facets; the methodology of thebook, its probable effects on the Rhodesianpopulation, and, thirdly problematic terms andtitles.MethodologyFirst, Maguire wishes I had empiricallyassessed the influence of newspapers in Rhode-sian society with respect to factors such as95circulation and readership. I agree that thiswould have been an advantage, but in viewof dearth of funds and facilities it was im-possible. In any case, considering the size ofRhodesia's white population and heavy de-pendence on the press for information, at leastin the past, it seems to me that the central roleof this media in Rhodesia's historical develop-ment is obvious. Furthermore, my concern wasin analysing the content of the white pressrather than its effects.Both reviewers lament the absence of aformal content analysis approach to the news-paper data, which they view as essential to thiskind of exercise. I gave such an approach care-ful thought before proceeding and decided thatthe superimposition of formal categories,'analytic concepts' or 'classifications' on thedata would add little to the analysis, and in factmight detract from its level of objectivity, andrun the risk of predetermined interpretations.Such an issue is, in fact, central to sociologicaldebate in contemporary theory: imposed cate-gories and 'definitions of the situation' may beseen as representing the 'value bias' of a parti-cular kind of social science and researcherwhile for others it is more important to under-stand the social definitions from the point ofview of the subject himself.4 I was more con-cerned with the latter, to present the editors'views and arguments over time and thenattempt their analysis. In this way I hopedto keep my 'apparent value bias' as low aspossible and allow the editors to speak forthemselves through their editorial statements.I severely question what preconceived for-malization would add to the data, apart fromoffering the researcher a 'bland sense of thereassurance' that he was being scientific.Further, the consistency of the data results con-vince mo that while my approach was ratherinformal, the results provide the kind of insightI was looking for. In fact, my recent longi-tudinal analyses of the data reinforce thisconclusion.A further criticism relates to the delinea-tion of 'core values'. Professor Roberts feelsthat they are 'so vague as to be either blindinglyobvious or almost meaningless'. This leaves mewith the puzzling question of whether I shouldhave attempted to rewrite these values intomore concise terms or place them in formalcategories? Core values, I believe, are generalby definition, particularly in the mass media,and I was concerned with revealing how theeditors described them rather than interpretingthem for these writers. 'Bland, unexceptionaltruisms' may be unattractive but they existin these data and the aim of my analysis wasto reveal them rather than analyse their rela-tion to particular historical and political con-texts Š another kind of focus entirely. In short,the reviewers were obviously looking for apreconceived, formal kind of analysis and inter-pretive framework, an approach I had no in-tention of taking in view of the dangers ofsubjective and academic distortion of the data.The issue of 'proper' interpretation was one Iwished to avoid.EffectsSecondly both reviewers are concerned withthe possible effects the book may have on thegeneral population. Maguire accuses me of an'apparent value bias towards political stability'and feels the work will reassure the EuropeanRhodesians, while Roberts states that my (?)truisms would be equally acceptable to apar-theid supporters and political radicals. A num-ber of points are raised here: I was concernedmore with the value biases of the editors thanmy own and, secondly, it is difficult if notimpossible to assess the effects of a particularpublication on the population at large. It wouldbe useful if Maguire could provide some em-pirical evidence for 'determining the amount ofinfluence' involved here. Groups utilise parti-cular points of view for their own purposesand whether they are disappointed, depressed,dismayed or reassured, it seems to me that theirreaction depends on their position in the societyand is their own problem. Anyhow, this ques-tion has little relevance to the work at hand.Roberts's point that the core values applyto both ends of the political spectrum is exactlywhat I was attempting to demonstrate in mydelineation of the ambivalence of these values.The white press elite, in my opinion, is am-bivalent: it perceives Africans as having aright to political participation but in a mannerwhich is 'civilised' and limited by the generalcontrol of the white political elite. This am-bivalence is a central ingredient in colonialrace relations, a factor we shall discuss further.However, Roberts appears to miss this entirely.Once again, it seems that these readers arelooking for a kind of analysis which was neverintended in the first place and thereby miss the96approach I was attempting.Terms and TitlesThirdly both writers are concerned overmy use of the term 'minority' in reference toAfricans and other non-whites. This simplyastounded me, for I thought it was obvious thatby 'minority' 1 was referring to the low (thatis, discriminatory) political, social, and econo-mic position accorded these groups by the whiteelite, and not in any sense to their level ofimportance or relevance. The term 'minority"is clearly defined in so many works in con-temporary social science it surprises me thatthis confusion could arise. However, the obviousconcern with it is sociologically indicative of asensitive situation in race relations.Finally, Roberts is not clear what thebook's title is 'meant to convey' although themeaning is spelled out clearly enough in thelast chapter of the book as other reviewers haveindicated.My general response to these two reviews,then, is that the readers were searching for akind of analysis I did not intend and evaluatedwhat I presented in reference to these pre-conceived criteria. I can understand how, inthe usual academic tradition, they were lookingfor an interpretive, formalistic piece of workwhich presented a particular point of view andthen attempted to document it. However, myintentions were to move away from this ap-proach. To criticise my work in these tradi-tional terms is largely missing the point, as thegap between their objections and my intentionsclearly reveals. Moreover, their views arearticulated within the context of a conflict-ridden racial situation making them particular-ly sensive to certain kinds of data and pointsof view. Concern over my perceived use of theterm 'minority', emotional reactions such asdisappointment, depression, and dismay, as wellas the attempt to parody the book's title, areall indicative, so it seems, of a particulargroup's (dare 1 say minority's?) position in asocial situation which is tense and problematic.Thus, all the major points and reactions arehighly specific to these two reviews; and com-ments on the book :n other societies are entirelydifferent, understandably since the reviewer'smotives and situation are different. What I amsuggesting here is that reviews are also sub-ject to content analysis and provide data whichare relevant to a deeper understanding of thesociology of knowledge.Having responded to these criticisms, it isimportant to move to a more constructive levelby elaborating the Flame or Lily? analysis inlight of my recent examination of these datain greater detail.ELABORATIONUpon reflection and further data analysis,an extension of the original work, requires atleast three major elements: a conceptual frame-work which will handle Rhodesia's historicaldevelopment; a greater emphasis on a longi-tudinal analysis of the data in contrast to thelargely cross-sectional approach taken in thebook; and a greater account of the society'scolonial structure, particularly in reference toits subordinate groups, needs to be taken ininterpreting these data, which is a point implicitin the reviews just discussed. I shall attemptto discuss each of these factors in referenceto some of my recent re-analysis of the dataand move towards providing a more sophisti-cated model of Rhodesia's development.Conceptual FrameworkThe basis of a colonial society is its econo-mic structure Š the major motivation behindits foundation, subordination of the indigenouspopulation, and importation of other racegroups for economic purposes. This structureis behind the racial caste system and its ongoingdevelopment as it contributes to social changethrough the processes of industrialization andurbanization. The changing demands of thisstructure, it would appear, are extremely viablein defining the changing racial scene as theybring the major race groups together underdiffering social circumstances. The majoreffect is that both elite and subordinate groupsredefine their orientations to one another overtime: the elite begins to see subordinate groupsin terms other than representing a labour com-modity while these groups begin to reject thelegitimacy of that elite's power monopoly astheir relative deprivation and consequent levelof nationalism emerge in response to economicchange. The economic system, it seems to me,is primary in any explanation of changing racerelations in the colonial situation to the extentof operating over and above the needs andperceptions of its participants, whether eliteor not.Changing economic conditions have been97conceptualized sociologically as ecologicalfrontiers which represent differing contact situa-tions. Lind, for example, has utilised Park'sconcept of the 'frontier', a term recognizing'common controlling factors which operate overwidely separated areas and conditions of life',3referring to differing patterns of race relationsas various kinds of contact and economic pres-sures impinge on the social system at particularphases of its development. Thus, the varyingfrontiers on which groups meet, whether trad-ing, plantation, political, urban, or tourist, are-related to different kinds of race relations inresponse to particular kinds of internal contactand economic developments.6Racial 'frontiers', of course, do not remainstatic but change as their economic structure in-troduces new demands into the social situation.In specifying the directions of possible changein patterns of race relations, Park is well-known for his cycle concept:It is obvious that race relations andall that they imply are generally, andon the whole, the products of migrationand conquest , . . The interracial adjust-ments that follow such migration andconquest are more complex than isordinarily understood. They involveracial competition, conflict, accommoda-tion, and eventually assimilation . . . 7If viewed as a 'suggestive hypothesis',6 thisapproach is useful in tracing the emergence ofdifferent phases of race relations and possibletrends in social change, provided 'assimilation'is not viewed in a physical or linear sense.8Rhodesia's historical development, in myopinion, may be broadly divided into a numberof relatively distinct 'frontiers': an initial mining'frontier' (1890s-1900s), moving through agri-cultural (1910-1929) and urban 'frontiers'(19308-1949), to the recent political 'frontiers'(1950s-1970s). Such categories are admittedlycrude and general and are used only for generalempirical purposes in order to place the news-paper data in a longitudinal framework.Secondly, if one accepts the general direction-ality of Park's cycle notion, these changingfrontiers will result in changing racial orienta-tions among the groups involved. While itis obviously unrealistic to expect assimilation totake place, it is reasonable to expect an on-going process of redefinition at work in theseorientations.Our conceptual framework, then, is aneconomic-ecological approach to be used intracing Rhodesia's changing patterns of racerelations in so far as they are revealed in thesenewspaper data. It is to this longitudinalanalysis that we turn next.The Longitudinal AnalysisAssessment of the newspaper data in longi-tudinal perspective is contained in a numberof my papers exploring the following topics:sources of pluralism in Rhodesian society,changing racial social types, social definitions ofAfricans as compared to Asian-Coloureds, andthe definition of 'community' and communitydevelopment. I shall summarize the results ofthese discussions in that order. Evident in allof these analyses are the dynamic rather thanstatic qualities of the data.As revealed in the book, the white elite de-fines itself as a group of 'civilized' and 'indus-trial' settlers. The initial implications of thisidentity for pluralism in the society9 arecriticism of the administration, an emphasison in-group unity, the negative definition andsubordination of other race groups, fear ofalien immigration, and rejection of externalcriticism. Such orientations typify the colo-nial outlook which is ethnocentric regarding'civilized' standards and industrially ex-ploitive in motivation. These definitions,however, are not static; over time there is anattempt to provide at least limited participa-tion in the political structure for the Africanswhile more positive acceptance of immigrantsdevelops and political parties are examined fortheir ability to ensure racial harmony. Tieswith South Africa are also strengthened despitepolitical differences and historical conflicts.There is thus some movement towards limitedintegration rather than complete exclusionalthough it is obvious on the elite's own terms¥/hich assume general control of the largesociety.Changing definitions of Africans was thefocus of another sub-analysis.10 Early viewson the 'Native' during the mining and agricul-tural frontiers are highly negative and em-phasize social control of this group which re-presents a major labour commodity. Duringthe urban and political periods, however, theeditorials change: while still emphasizing theAfrican's inequality and need for segregation,the writers begin to suggest parallel develop-ment and, in later years, a constitutional981 >system based on merit and opportunity forachievement. Major change from the colony'slabour problems through the African's welfareneeds, to the need for at least a limited formof political participation. According to thisanalysis, economic factors are closely associatedwith white views of the African, his needs andrelationship to the political system, movingtowards at least limited inclusion in that system.Changing racial attitudes in the press arealso evident in regard to the Asian-Colouredgroup." During the mining 'frontiers', Asiaticsare considered undesirable and disrespectful.However, in the agricultural period there ismore acceptance of this Indian group as local,while the urban 'frontier' brings recognition ofthe existence of a 'Coloured' population (whichis classified with the Asians from this point on)deserving the same attention to educational,housing, and social needs as do the Whites,Finally, editorials during the political 'frontier'emphasize that the Asian-Coloured communitydoes not require separate representation in theFederal system and ought to be considered partof the white community on a franchise andsocial basis. Once again, changing economicfrontiers bring with them a change in racialorientations among the white elite, at leastas revealed in these data.Definitions of community and communitydevelopment are closely related to the elite'sidentity as defined earlier.12 Early definitionsdifferentiate between civilized Whites and bar-baric 'natives', with economic and institutionalissues being dominant within the former andproblems of labour supply among the latter.Once again, however, these views change: pro-blems of an urban African community high-light social welfare needs and, eventually, theirright to political participation. Changing'frontiers', then, result in changing definitionsof community and community developmentproblems.Viewing the data in longitudinal perspective,then, highlights the association between econo-mic 'frontiers' and racial orientations as wellas the relative movement towards a more in-clusive view of subordinate racial groups. Whilenot dealt with in these data, it has also beenevident that subordinate groups have changedtheir views of the elite, moving from, relativeconformity to the racial caste system to therecent rise and spread of nationalism. Changing'frontiers' affect all race groups in a particularsocial system, moving towards increasing levelsof competition, conflict, and new forms of racialaccommodation. It is also evident that whilethe white elite modifies its views of the sub-ordinate groups under its control, these revi-sions are on that elite's own terms and in manyrespects function to maintain its powermonopoly. The data thus require considerationin the context of Rhodesia's colonial structureŠ a topic to which we shall now turn.Rhodesia's Colonial StructureImplicit in the two reviews just discussedis the need to take Rhodesia's colonial contextinto account when considering racial orienta-tions within it. Clearly, the significance of thefindings just presented, then requires discussionwithin the present context of Rhodesian society.It is obvious, for example, that the presentpolitical situation, far from emphasizing racialassimilation, is an attempt to prevent such aprocess. Indeed, Rhodesian politics within thepast decade exemplify the nationalistic back-lash of a racial minority attempting to preserveand institutionalize its position of political,legal, and economic dominance.13 Furthermore,it has been empirically demonstrated duringa recent 'frontier* that white Rhodesians arcconservative in their racial attitudes.14 Whataccounts, then, for apparent differences inorientation between the political elite and thewhite news media?Given Rhodesia's colonial structure, Iwould argue that these differences are moreapparent than real, for both groups are con-servative in their own way. Thus, while racialdefinitions in the press change towards thenotion of relative assimilation, it is, of course,on the Whites' own terms of civilising the'natives' who are to be 'advanced' whileColoureds are to be 'helped' to a position ofeventual equality. Such multiracialism, ofcourse, is conservative in its maintenance ofracial domination since it retains politicalpower in the hands of the 'civilised' White asit attempts to absorb subordinate groups onits own terms and at its own rate. Furthermore,the continuing attempt to reinforce traditional,rural culture may be viewed as a tactic de-signed to further enhance white control ofpolitical and economic power.Conversely, a movement towards limitedassimilation is also evident in the developmentof a republican constitution which, theoretically99at least, aims at eventual 'parity'. It is obviousthat such a plan does not envisage completeassimilation and may be interpreted by someas an attempt to maintain white dominancewith the appearance of racial equality. How-ever, such a political system would never havebeen conceived during earlier 'frontiers', suchas the mining and agricultural periods of de-velopment. While adjustment to externalpressure may have been a factor in such amovement, we would still hold to the viewwhich links 'frontiers' to patterns of race rela-tions, moving towards some form of limitedassimilation or accommodation. While thepresent political scene is far from being equali-tarian or non-racist, then, it does show somedevelopment away from the strictly exclusiveregimes of earlier times. Colonial race relationsmay thus be both developmental and paternal-istic at the same time, resulting in ambivalentattitudes. Such a paradox emphasises the basiccolonial dilemma which is outlined so well byPhilip Mason:The conqueror faces a dilemma as soonas the last battle is won. He cannotfor ever maintain the high mood of thepaean and the feast; he will wake, withvictory sour in the mouth, to a colderlight in which he must make peace. Andif he is a realist, the kind of peace opento him is never wholly to his liking.This is true of any conqueror; thedilemma is the more poignant if thevictor proposes to live in the country ofthe vanquished.15One set of pressures thus recognises the needfor some kind of assimilation but meets theresistance of elite conservatism which fears forits own political and economic security. Suchrole conflict demands some form of accom-modation. In the colonial situation this ap-pears to be limited assimilation on the elite'sown terms, the result of which is the develop-ment of subordinate group nationalism. Racerelations in such a setting, it appears to me,represent the interactive effect of changing'frontiers' on the orientations of both elite andsubordinate groups, resulting in a simultaneousattempt by the former to adjust to the changingneeds of the latter in the differing context ofeach 'frontier', while attempting to ensure itssecurity. Subordinate groups, in turn, areradicalized by these economic-political eventsand come to view the elite and their sub-ordinate position in a new light. The generalresult of this elite adjustment and subordinateradicalization is reactionary backlash amongthe former and radical nationalism among thelatter, pushing the race relations scene eventu-ally towards some new form of accommodation.In this manner race relations are dynamic anddevelopmental but remain denned by theparameters of a colonial situation whose eliteis desperately attempting to maintain its controlof the situation.Towards a General Historical ModelHaving discussed the viability of economicfactors in a colonial situation, changing racialorientations over time in the newspaper data,and general characteristics of Rhodesia's colo-nial structure, it appears appropriate at thispoint to attempt to draw together our majorpoints in the form of a model of Rhodesia'sgeneral historical development. Such a modelshould in no way be considered definitive, forit is purely explanatory, based, as it is, onlimited data and theoretical considerations.The major independent variable is thesociety's colonial economic base Š the motiva-tion behind the society's colonial foundationand revealed in the elite's self-identity. Theinitial and changing demands of this systemhave major implications for changing race re-lations within the society as a whole, beyondthe motives and perspectives of the race groupsinvolved.As the economic system develops and movesin the direction of increasing industrialization,a number of ecological 'frontiers' are evidentwhich we have delineated as mining, agricul-tural, urban, and political. The effects of these'frontiers' on the white elite is a change inorientation towards subordinate race groupsfrom their definition as a labour commoditythrough the need for parallel development andsegregation to political participation on alimited and controlled basis. Views of the vari-ous groups change as do definitions of the con-cept 'community'. Acceptance of immigrantsand ties with neighbouring societies also in-crease. These changes, however, are limited bythe conservative motives of the white elite andin some respects may be viewed as attemptsto adjust to a changing situation in a mannerwhich will retain their control. Furthermore, thereactions of subordinate groups, while not re-vealed in these newspaper data, appear to move100from conformity and acceptance to rejectionof the colonial system and the development ofAfrican nationalism. We thus see adjustmentdeveloping on the one hand with rising nation-alism on the other.The interaction of these opposing orienta-tions results in ambivalence and uncertaintyamong the elite, at least for an initial period.However, under internal and external pressure,reactionary forces come to the fore and con-servative white nationalism takes control.Reacting to radical African nationalism, itseems to me, some form of new accommoda-tion will eventually develop out of this inter-active process. While it is difficult to makeany predictions, it is reasonable to assumethat the crucial underlying factors will includethe ongoing demands of the economic system,as well as the effects of forces external to thesociety.CONCLUSIONI have attempted to distinguish two viewson the use of historical data: the formal-interpretive versus the analysis of social valuesfrom the subject's own perspective. In thiselaboration of Flame or Lily?, I hope that Ihave demonstrated that it is a synthesis of bothwhich may provide most insight into Rhodesia'scolonial structure and development: it is thesociety's structural features as they relate tovarying and changing social orientations withinit that are central to an understanding of itssociological development. Such an approach, itseems to me, demands a multi-level and multi-perspective approach in order to more fullyunderstand the problems created by a colonialsocial system. Further debate which is con-structive rather than negative should contributefurther to that understanding if the study ofRhodesia's history is to indeed be dispassionate.REFERENCES'G. G. Kinloch, Flame or Lily? Rhodesian Values as Defined by the Press, Durban, Alpha Graphic, 1970,zReview by K. Maguire in Zambezia, 1971. 2, i, 90-1.sReview by R. S. Roberts in Rhodesian History, 1970, 1, 107."Of. T. Parsons, The System of Modern Societies, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1971, with H. Garfinkel,Studies in Ethnomethodology, Engelwood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1967. The former is a superimposed analysiswhile the latter is more concerned with the subject's definition of reality and how it operates in behaviour.sA. W. Lind, 'Towards a Theory of Race Relations', paper presented to the Social Science Seminar, Universityof Singapore, 23.ix.1969.eSee A. W. Lind, Hawaii: the Last of the Magic Isles, London, Oxford Univ. Press, 1969, ch.2.7R. E, Park, Race and Culture, Glencoe, Free Press. 1950, p. 104.sin this paper assimilation is viewed as a restricted process only ŠŁ implied recognition of the subordinategroup's right to participate in the social system on a permanent basis, even though such 'participation' (e.g.voting) is restricted and controlled.9& C. Kinloch, 'Some Sources of Pluralism in Rhodesian Society as defined by the White Press', Tallahassee,Florida State University, 1972 (mimeo).'°G. G. Kinloch, 'Social types and race relations in the colonial setting: A case study of Rhodesia', Phylon,1972, 33, 276-89.i'G. G, Kinloch, 'Social Definitions of Subordinate Groups: A Comparison between Bantu and Indian-Coloured Minorities in Rhodesia', Honolulu, University of Hawaii, 1971 (mimeo).]zG. C. Kinloch, 'Problems of community development in Rhodesia', Community Development Journal, 1972,7, 189-94.isSee, for example, C. Palley, 'Law and the unequal society: discriminatory legislation in Rhodesia under theRhodesian Front from 1963 to 1969', Race, 1970, 12, 15-48, 139-68."See C. A. Rogers and C. Frantz, Racial Themes in Southern Rhodesia, New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, 1962.isThe Birth of a Dilemma, London, Oxford Univ. Press, 1958. p.312.101