In this extract from her book, The End Of Whiteness: Satanism and Family Murder in Late Apartheid South Africa, the University of the Witwatersrand’s Nicky Falkof explores how, during the height of apartheid, family murders became what was termed a ‘bloody epidemic’
The terms “family murder”/ gesinsmoord only came into frequent use in South Africa in the early 1980s. Murders within families had, of course, happened before, but had not been defined in this way.
Those deaths were reported as individual, tragic killings rather than as symptoms of a larger social problem.
Family murder as a phenomenon was particular to the late apartheid era and developed when it did because it had meaning outside of itself.
By 1984, amid burgeoning cultural awareness of a national “problem” of family murder, the term was sufficiently entrenched to merit a three-page article in the popular Afrikaans magazine, Huis- genoot, often a social barometer of white Afrikanerdom.
This considered three recent murders, of Aurica Costin, Mirian Swanepoel and Talitha Hamman, all killed by estranged spouses who subsequently committed suicide.
These deaths, coming at the start of the panic, did not fit with ideas about family murder that became set as the decade progressed.
Family murder was later characterised as something separate from domestic violence, an act that involved a family structure – always children, sometimes other relatives too – rather than just a couple, and almost always ended in the suicide of the killer.
Nonetheless at this early stage, Huisgenoot referred to the Costin, Swanepoel and Hamman killings as gesinstragedies(“family tragedies”) and to the killers as “family murderers”. The magazine called the deaths a bloedige epidemie(“bloody epidemic”).
Huisgenoot’s article was part of an emergent repertoire of representation about family murder that included the exhortation for the public to watch out for the “warning signs” listed in the pages of popular publications.
There was a certain paranoia at work here. If the family murderer was always white, male and Afrikaans then it followed that each white, male and Afrikaans person could have the seeds of murder within him.
The injunction to watch each other potentially accused all people who fitted into this mould.
All white Afrikaans men could be marked with the possibility of this type of evil and it became everyone’s duty to observe them.
Huisgenoot also reported: “(Family murder is) a sign of a sick society, say psychologists.”
Press responses to family murder turned to psychiatry and medicalisation early on. The notion of expanded blame – that society as a whole rather than just the killer was responsible for these deaths – also came to the forefront early in the coverage of these killings.
Similarly, family murder was understood as a sign of larger ills. In an article on South Africa’s “new brutality”, the right-wing Aida Parker Newsletter, secretly sponsored by intelligence divisions within the South African Police, classified family murder alongside child abuse and other social ills as the consequence of a “sick society”.
That was a society newly filled with pornography, “enlightened” churches that preached politics instead of religious obedience, high divorce rates, “trendy” sex across the colour line and newly “liberal” attitudes towards abortion, homosexuality and lesbianism.
All of these ills were contrary to the rights of the majority who wished to “live in an ordered, humane, civilised society”.
On November 4, 1984, Gert Botha, 38, shot dead his ex-wife, Maretha, 35, their daughter, Madaleen, 15, and himself. Although there had been two similar cases the previous month, this one garnered far more press coverage, at least partly because of the idealisation of the murdered daughter.
“Madaleen, 15, was the beauty of the family. She had already won one pageant… Next year she would be a prefect. That night the family was torn apart. Mrs Botha lay dead. Madaleen was shot in the stomach and the eye when she ran into the bedroom after the first bullets were fired. Gert Botha turned the gun on himself,” reported Huisgenoot at the time.
Madaleen’s healthy normality was repeatedly emphasised in the press. Her gender and ethnicity were combined to depict her as a perfect white Afrikaans daughter. She was the model victim of a social plague.
This was in contrast to parental dysfunction. Newspapers insisted that Gert and Maretha’s constant fighting should have alerted their community to the looming tragedy.
Ideas about warning signs were part of the medicalisation of the family murder, the belief that there was a set of symptoms that could be spotted and avoided. This social-psychiatric narrative also implied that the unwary were to blame for disaster.
The Sunday Tribune, sister newspaper of the Daily News, published in what was then Natal province, went as far as to use the standfirst, “Family ignored danger signs – and paid with their loved ones’ lives”. Complacency and lack of communal care were blamed for the destruction of white South African youth. Society was failing to protect the young from dangers that could have been anticipated.
An editorial in the Afrikaans daily, Beeld, titled Kommerwekkend(“Worrisome”), speculated that deaths like the Bothas’ were part of a national crime problem, the result of a society that was too violent, with firearms too easily available.
The Weekend Argus in Cape Town, sister newspaper of the Daily News, called the deaths part of a “frightening chronicle” of killings and printed a list of possible causes agreed upon by several unnamed psychologists: “unemployment, stress, sex, the availability of firearms, misplaced religious beliefs, immaturity, alcohol, fears about the future and ‘hot weather’”.
This list avoided the most influential, volatile and unsettling factor that affected South African society. Save from fear of the future, apartheid was given no place in a consideration of why family murders happened, although notions of Afrikanerness and gendered cultural identity crept in in the form of religion, immaturity and sexual issues.
Later in the period, other experts suggested a different causal model for family murder that implicated the violence of apartheid as a primary factor.
The family murder panic was thus part of a cultural shift. It helped to inaugurate a public discussion of the fact that apartheid could be dangerously brutalising for white people, allowing them to be critical of the system without having to acknowledge the far more damaging consequences it had had for black South Africans.
www.theconversation.com
* Nicky Falkof is senior lecturer in media studies, University of the Witwatersrand.
