This half-thesis has developed as a supporting document to an exhibition titled Vabvakure, people from far away, which responds to the growing trends of violence perpetrated against African foreign nationals living in South Africa. This violence which has generally been termed as 'xenophobia' has been framed within this discourse as 'afrophobia', as it is fraught with complexities of race, ethnicity and class. Evidently, not all foreign nationals are at risk but selective targeting of working class black African foreign nationals seems to be the modus operandi. Fanning these flames of prejudice are stereotypes and negative perceptions of Africa and African immigrants that have permeated into the national consciousness of South Africa, which the mainstream media has been complicit in cultivating. My practice is concerned with challenging this politic of representation in relation to the image of the African foreign national within South African society, who have been presented negatively and labelled as the 'Makwerekwere', the 'bogeymen' that have been blamed for the country’s current woes. In response to this, my research adopts the premise that forms of cultural mediation such as visual and performance art can offer further insights and possibly yield solutions that can be used to address these sentiments. As globalisation and neoliberal ideologies reshape the world, there is a growing need in the post-colonial state to revisit and re-construct notions of individual and collective identity, especially that of the nation. Nations, nationalisms and citizenry can no longer be defined solely through indigeneity, for as a result of radical shifts in the flow of migration and immigration policies that allow for naturalisation of aliens and foreign nationals, we are now faced with burgeoning levels of social diversity to the extent that constructions of nationhood that are based on the concept of autochthony have resulted in the persecution of the ‘other’.

South Africa has long been associated with racial and ethnic issues surrounding prejudice and discrimination and despite a move post-1994 to a democratic ‘rainbow nation’ society, the country has remained plagued by unequal power relations. One such instance of inequality relates to the marginalisation of migrants which has been realised through xenophobic attitudes and actions, most notably the violence that swept across the country in 2008. Several reasons have been suggested in an attempt to explain the cause of the violence, including claims that migrants are taking ‘our jobs and our women’, migrants are ‘illegal and criminal’ and bringing ‘disease and contamination’ with them from their countries of origin. Although widely accepted that many, if not all, of these beliefs are based on ignorance and hearsay, these extensive generalisations shape and reinforce prejudiced ideologies about migrant communities. It is thus only when confronted with evidence that challenges this dominant discourse, that South Africans are able to reconsider their views. Williams (2008) suggests that for many South Africans, Africa continues to be the ‘dark continent’ that is seen as an ominous, threatening force of which they have very little knowledge. For this reason, anti-immigrant sentiment in a South African context has traditionally been directed at African foreigners. In this study I examine the ways in which African migrants and migrant communities, as well as the overall processes of migration, are depicted by selected South African print media: City Press, Mail & Guardian and Sunday Times. Using a combined Corpus Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis approach, I investigate the following questions: How are migrants and the process of migration into South Africa represented by these established newspapers between 2006 and 2010? Are there any differences or similarities between these representations? In particular, what ideologies regarding migrants and migrant communities underlie these representations? My analysis focuses on the landscape of public discourse about migration with an exploration of the rise and fall of the terminologies used to categorise migrants and the social implications of these classifications. Additionally, I analyse the expansive occurrences of negative representations of migrants, particularly through the use of ‘othering’ pronouns ‘us’ versus ‘them’ and through the use of metaphorical language which largely depicts these individuals as en masse natural disasters. I conclude that these discursive elements play a crucial role in contributing to an overall xenophobic rhetoric. Despite subtle differences between the three newspapers which can be accounted for based on their political persuasions and agendas, it is surprising to note how aligned these publications are with regard to their portrayal of migrants. With a few exceptions, this representation positions these individuals as powerless and disenfranchised and maintains the status quo view of migrants as burdens on the South African economy and resources. Overall, the newspaper articles contribute to mainstream dominant discourse on migrants and migration with the underlying ideology that migrants are responsible for the hardships suffered by South African citizens. Thus, this study contributes significantly to existing bodies of research detailing discourse on migrants and emphasises the intrinsic links between language, ideology and society.

This study was conducted to identify and analyse Mail and Guardian Online moderation outputs which contradicted the platform‟s own stated policy on hate speech and other forms of problematic speech. The moderation outputs considered were a battery of readers‟ comments that were posted in response to Thought Leader blogs on xenophobia published between May and June, 2008. This was the same period a series of xenophobic attacks was taking place in some parts of South Africa, leaving an estimated 62 people dead, more than 30,000 displaced, and countless victims injured and robbed of their property. The attacks were a catalytic moment that enabled a whole range of discursive positions to be articulated, defended, contested and given form in the media. They also made visible the potential tensions between free speech on the one hand, and hate and other problematic speech on the other. Using qualitative methods of thematic content analysis, document review, individual interviews, and an eclectic approach of framing analysis and rhetorical argumentation, this study found instances of divergence between the M&G policy and practice on User Generated Content. It found that some moderator-approved content advocated hate, hatred, hostility, incitement to violence and/or harm, and unfair discrimination against foreign residents, contrary to the M&G policy which is informed by the constitutional provisions in both section 16 of the Bill of Rights and section 10 of the Equality Act. Based on examples in the readers‟ comments of how „the foreigner‟ was made to signify unemployment, poverty, disease, unfair competition, and all manner of deprivation, and bearing in mind how such individuals have also become a site for the violent convergence of different unresolved tensions in the country, the study‟s findings argue that the M&G – a progressive paper dealing with a potentially xenophobic readership (at least a portion of it) – should have implemented its policy on acceptable speech more effectively. The study also argues that the unjustifiable reference to foreigners as makwerekwere, illegals, illegal aliens, parasites, invaders and border jumpers, among other terms, assigned them a diminished place – that of unwanted foreigner – thereby reproducing the order of discourse that utilises nationality as a space for the expurgation of the „other‟. The study argues that the use of bogus (inflated) immigration statistics and repeated reference to the foreigners‟ supposedly parasitic relationship to the country‟s resources also unfairly constructed them as the „threatening other‟ and potentially justified action against them.