What Does “Vulnerability” Mean? San Representatives Define Vulnerability for Themselves

Abstract

The Indigenous San peoples, often referred to as South Africa’s “First Peoples”, experienced a violent history of displacement and genocide. Modern-day San still suffer from the intergenerational trauma inflicted by colonists as well as discrimination, marginalisation and impoverishment. In addition, the South African San are collectively labelled as a vulnerable group, whose inclusion in research should be reduced to a minimum if one follows traditional protection mechanisms from research ethics. The purpose of this chapter is to let the San define “vulnerability” for themselves through workshops and community-administered surveys. It became clear that San representatives did not perceive the word “vulnerable” to be pejorative per se. On the contrary, it served as a useful umbrella term to cover a vast range of issues and problems. However, it also became clear that the term is perceived as negative when external actors block research—in a potentially patronising manner—that could be beneficial to the community. Equitable research partnerships between researchers and South African San community members, facilitated by the South African San Council and guided by the San Code of Research Ethics, can lead to rich data that have the potential to assist the community in finding ways out of vulnerability. Externally labelling them as “vulnerable” as a group and blocking access to research cannot be the solution.

People’s hearts can be broken in so many ways, all make us vulnerable.

—San respondent to survey

3.1 Introduction

Ethics guidance is gradually changing on the topic of who belongs to a vulnerable population in research. While large groups of people used to be labelled “vulnerable” without further reflection on the potentially negative impacts of this labelling, some drafters of ethics guidance are now changing their approach (see also Chaps. 1 and 2).

In research ethics, Indigenous peoples used to be labelled as a vulnerable group. For instance, the 2012 UNAIDS Ethical Considerations in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials noted:

Examples of populations that may have an increased vulnerability include women, children and adolescents, men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, sex workers, transgender persons, indigenous populations, the poor, the homeless, and communities from resource-poor settings in high-income and low- and middle-income countries. (emphasis added) (UNAIDS and WHO 2012: 31)

The 2021 UNAIDS Ethical Considerations in HIV Prevention Trials no longer labels Indigenous populations as vulnerable, but instead points out the social and political contexts of vulnerability (UNAIDS and WHO 2021: 37). The guidance also makes suggestions on how to reduce risks for those involved in research, for example by develo** risk mitigation plans early on in the research process (ibid).

This chapter has two aims. First, it introduces the Indigenous San community from South Africa, who have complex experiences of participation, inclusion and exclusion in research. Second, it lets San representatives define “vulnerability” for themselves in workshops and through a survey administered by 12 community researchers.

3.2 The South African San Community

The San peoples, often referred to as South Africa’s “First Peoples”, experienced a violent history of displacement and genocide following the colonial occupation of the country from 1652. Early Dutch settlers regarded the San peoples—whom they called Bosjemans (Bushmen)—as less than human, due to their click languages and allegedly primitive ways. (In click languages, some of the consonants are clicks, which can sound alien to outsiders, especially those accustomed to European languages.) This demeaning position paved the way for their genocide (Adhikari 2011: 23–24). Research has examined the state-driven decimation of early San communities, where, for example, official hunting parties of farmers obtained licences to “clear the land”, the phrase being a euphemism for the extermination of the prior inhabitants. As Nigel Penn has summarised, hunter-gatherer societies were almost completely destroyed by colonialist farmers during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Penn 2015: 159). Thousands of San were killed as the Cape colony expanded, some of the children and young women being “spared” for slavery (Gordon and Douglas 2000).

In modern times the discrimination and exploitation of San peoples has been less extreme in form, but no less tangible, resulting in the much-reduced San population now living largely in poverty in the semi-desert Northern Cape province of South Africa. The !Khomani, living in the Northern Cape north of U**ton, number about 3000, whilst the !Xun and Khwe, both settled near Kimberley, are estimated at about 6000 and 2000 people respectively. Descendants of the extinct Xam are widely spread, with the San Council having no reliable estimate for their numbers. Hence, the known San population in South Africa is estimated at approximately 11,000, far reduced from the approximate 50,000 who lived in the Cape in 1652 (Adhikari 2011). The countries of Southern Africa are home to an estimated 105,000 San, comprising 50,000 in Botswana, 38,000 in Namibia, 11,000 in South Africa, 4000 in Angola and 2000 in Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Of the South African San, only the !Xun and the Khwe still speak their Indigenous “click” languages. They were settled in South Africa, away from their homelands in Angola and Namibia, in 1990, after fighting in the South African Border War, also known as the Namibian War of Independence (1966–1990), on the side of the South Africans. The !Khomani, who are indigenous to South Africa, failed to maintain their own language during centuries of oppression, and now only speak Afrikaans, a Dutch-derived South African language.

The South African San are largely scattered in small hamlets in the Northern Cape and Eastern Cape provinces, as well as in the outskirts of larger towns such as U**ton and Kimberley. Genetic research places the San as being among the oldest, if not the very oldest, ancestors of modern humankind (Schlebusch et al. 2017), and they have been much researched, not only for their DNA, but also on account of their iconic status as hunter-gatherer peoples living close to nature. Classic texts show San clans living nomadic lives in family groups without material possessions, tracking and bringing down their prey with bows and poisoned arrows. They are known for their deep understanding of the natural world, and for their non-assertive demeanour. For instance, they were given the name “The Harmless People” by the famous American anthropologist Thomas (1959).

As a result of a combination of factors shared by Indigenous peoples around the world, the San in South Africa are currently displaced, discriminated against and subject to social problems linked with poverty (Chennells 2009). Low self-esteem, lack of hope, resort to substance abuse and the resultant social breakdown are characteristics of a community suffering from intergenerational trauma, which is trauma that is transferred from one generation to the next (Smallwood et al. 2021). For these and other related reasons, San community members are generally perceived as “vulnerable” since they are at increased risk of harm or exploitation while substantially lacking the means to protect themselves (Schroeder and Gefenas 2009).

After decades of being subjected to—and, in many cases, harmed by—unwanted research, San leaders have increasingly been standing up against exploitation in research (Chennells and Steenkamp 2018), helped by the fact that the global research ethics community has recognised the need for community approval of sensitive research (Weijer and Emanuel 2000). A recent instance involved genomic research findings published as “Complete Khoisan and Bantu genomes from southern Africa” (Schuster et al. 2010). The authors of the article, which contained private and sensitive information about the San, had not obtained community approval, stating that their own process involving video consent had been approved by their ethics committees (Hayes 2011). This was seen as insensitive by San community leaders and became a further incentive for the San to develop the San Code of Research Ethics (Schroeder et al. 2019).

The initiative was taken up in order to create clear guidelines for prospective researchers on how the community were to be approached. The code sets out the required process of engagement and describes how the values of respect, honesty, justice/‌fairness and care are to be followed via due process (Schroeder et al. 2019: 83–87). Community approval can now be obtained via the government-recognised South African San Council, which was formed in 2001 to legally represent the interests of the three major San communities (South African San Council n.d.).

3.3 What is Vulnerability as Defined by the San Themselves? The Workshops

What is vulnerability?

The San found the question highly stimulating for discussion and had a lot to contribute. Responses to the question were sought in two main ways: first, from young San delegates in workshops, the recruitment for and implementation of which are described in Chap. 5, and second, in surveys administered by 12 community researchers.

Forty-five San were invited to three workshops to consider the word “vulnerability”, translated with some difficulty into the languages of the !Xun and Khwe as well as into Afrikaans, a language brought by the colonial powers and now spoken by the !Khomani. Given that there was no direct equivalent of the term in the San languages, some initial guidance on what the English word “vulnerability” might cover was necessary. After receiving this guidance, offered as judiously as possible by bilingual workshop facilitators, the delegates soon identified a range of descriptive terms associated with the overall concept of being vulnerable, such as “helpless”, “weak”, “woundable”, “fragile”, “anxious”, “being a victim”, “passive” and “unassertive” (see Fig. 3.1).

Fig. 3.1

Synonyms for “vulnerable” according to the San delegates

The topic of “vulnerability” itself elicited enthusiastic debate, and participants were not reticent about exploring the various ways in which the South African San, as a people, might be said to experience vulnerability every day. In particular, they noted, while the English word was not known to most of them initially, it was suitable to express a range of challenges they experienced in their everyday lives, whether or not involving encounters with community externals (such as researchers or the media). The clearest division was between group and individual vulnerability.

Group vulnerability for the South African San comprised the following five factors, according to the workshop delegates: public perception as “others”, economic circumstances, social challenges, common personal traits and intergenerational trauma. These five factors were extracted from three workshop reports and then confirmed in discussions with a subset of the delegates (the community researchers who later administered a survey) in a fourth workshop.

Public perception as “others” The San are known as victims of past genocide, slavery, discrimination and exclusion by other peoples. This public perception is deeply felt by the San and is exacerbated by the distinctiveness of their often mocked click languages. A sense of “otherness”, stigmatisation and victimhood persists, even now that genocides and slavery are long past.

Economic circumstances The San belong to a highly economically disadvantaged group, often homeless or living in makeshift housing without access to running water or electricity. They experience serious poverty and lack of education while being politically excluded: that is, they are not represented in local, regional or national governments.

Social challenges The San suffer to a disproportionate extent from substance abuse, joblessness and broken families, for instance families in which one or even both parents died prematurely.

Common personal traits The San are widely known to be shy, reticent and non-assertive. This trait is also often reflected and demonstrated in non-assertive leadership.

Intergenerational trauma Many South African San are aware that their predecessors were humiliated, murdered and treated as animals, or as less than human. They feel that their present feelings of inferiority are directly related to the trauma of previous generations.

The delegates also discussed the relationship between the different factors for group vulnerability, and approved the diagrammatic summary included here as Fig. 3.2.

Fig. 3.2

Five factors of group vulnerability according to the San delegates

Vulnerability at the personal level was attributed to factors which impact on one another, according to the San delegates, as represented in Fig. 3.3, approved by the delegates at a feedback session.

Fig. 3.3

Interconnected factors of personal vulnerability according to the San delegates

The workshop delegates reached the following consensus, specifically on collaborating with researchers. In engagements with researchers San delegates confirmed their lack of assertiveness, partly based on a lack of knowledge of the world and of their own personal rights. When researchers enter the community with questions and proposals, the San are unsure of what to do and what rights they have. They are also not sure how to manage the conversation, given that the researchers have unknown powers, such as access to money and other benefits. The status and personal power of researchers as educated people are perceived to be dauntingly high. Additionally, workshop delegates testified to a general feeling of mistrust towards researchers, based upon less than favourable experiences in the past (Chennells and Schroeder 2019).

During the workshops it became clear that the San delegates did not perceive the word “vulnerable” to be pejorative per se, or negative towards them as a people. On the contrary, it served as a useful umbrella term to cover the vast range of issues and problems they experience. They regarded the personal synonyms for “vulnerability” as challenges common to all humans, not only applicable to them. They welcomed debate and exploration around the word, as this enabled them, in particular the young delegates, to discuss steps, strategies and possibilities for improvement.

Out of the 45 delegates in the workshops, 12 were selected for further training towards an ambitious survey to be led by community researchers. The next section of this chapter presents an analysis of the survey findings. (For a discussion of the process of selecting and training the 12, see Chap. 5.)

3.4 What is Vulnerability as Defined by the San Themselves? The Surveys

In the survey, 239 San participants responded to five open-ended questions.

• Q1 What does “vulnerability” mean?

• Q2 Give three or more examples of when you as a person were vulnerable.

• Q3 Are the San people as a group vulnerable compared to other groups?

• Q4 Give examples of when other people can become vulnerable.

• Q5 What other words are similar to “vulnerability”?

The survey was administered by 12 San community researchers in Afrikaans (with additional help for the !Xun and the Khwe by the community researcher). Roger Chennells translated all outputs into English before the analysis by Hazel Partington. Issues of clarity were discussed with the community researchers so that the English translation from Afrikaans was as clear as possible. No personal data were solicited from the 239 San research participants and the research was approved by the South African San Council.

For some respondents, “vulnerability” was an unfamiliar word, but for others it could be filled with meaning.

• The first time I heard this word, I think it means injury.

• Vulnerability is something I have not yet experienced in life; I would like to learn about it.

Methodology for Analysing the Survey

The data obtained from the surveys were analysed qualitatively using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke (2022).

Provisional themes were established from an analysis of the answers to Question 1 and then revised and added to as Questions 2, 4 and 5 were looked at in turn.

Question 3, about the San people’s perceptions of their vulnerability as a group compared to other groups, was analysed later, as the overlap with other questions was much smaller. For example, issues about the San language were mentioned by ten or fewer people, each responding to Questions 1, 2, 4 and 5, but there were 98 mentions of language in response to Question 3.

Guided by the principle of authenticity, the following sections include many quotations from survey respondents that offer the reader first-hand access to content on the dominant themes (Lingard 2019) (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Three overarching themes constructed from the data

3.4.1 Theme 1: Understandings of Vulnerability

3.4.1.1 Vulnerability as Weakness

Many respondents understood vulnerability as some sort of weakness in an individual, which then predisposed them to being vulnerable. Words describing weakness such as “weak”, “weakness”, “helpless”, “brittle” and “brittleness” were mentioned 19 times in response to Question 1, which concerned the meaning of vulnerability, and 38 times in response to Question 5, which asked for words that were similar to “vulnerability”.

• Vulnerability is when you feel weak, you don’t know if you can do it right.

• When other people point out your weaknesses.

• When a person is sick, or has lost hope, has no power to fix things, and needs assistance.

A few respondents compared personal vulnerability to weaknesses in computer systems:

• Vulnerability is like the weakness in software that can attack and destroy the integrity of your system.

“Fear”, “anxiety”, “stress” and “panic” were mentioned by some in response to Question 5 as words that were similar to “vulnerability”. These feelings could arise as reactions to sensations of weakness, to circumstances that caused weakness or to the situations described in the next subtheme of feeling in danger of being attacked or injured.

3.4.1.2 Feeling in Danger of Being Attacked or Injured

This subtheme recognises that whether or not a person feels weakness in themselves, they may still be vulnerable to threats or attacks from external forces. Community researchers at the August 2023 workshop expressed this, as reported by co-author Leana Snyders, in a project meeting.

• When we wake up in the morning, we are not vulnerable. We become vulnerable when we go outside, because of what happens when other people become involved. It is the outside forces that make us vulnerable.

Co-author Roger Chennells qualified this with the observation that these outside forces could sometimes be members of their own families, and this was borne out in some of the responses discussed under Theme 2.

Some responses in this subtheme are about fear of or susceptibility to attack, but a significant number detail actual attacks.

• Vulnerability is when a person is exposed to organisations or people who can injure you emotionally or physically.

• You can feel hurt as a result of what somebody says. This causes internal and emotional pain.

• When I went to work on a farm with four people from another nation, I always felt they were talking about me, I thought any moment they might attack me.

• When your private information is spread on social media.

• When you get threatened with a pistol or a knife and your life is in danger.

Other examples of when respondents had felt vulnerable or observed others to be vulnerable were instances of rape, robbery, abuse, being the victim of other sorts of crime, and being bullied, mocked or teased. Much of the scorn and mockery described was linked to the collective San experience and is discussed further under Theme 3.

3.4.1.3 Feelings of Inferiority or Being a Failure

There is an element of self-blame in this theme, in terms of people feeling inferior or a failure and often seeing their own actions as the cause.

• Vulnerability is when a person almost dies out of anxiety about what you have done. When you think there is nothing that can be done about the pain you have caused.

• Debauchery [losbandigheid] makes you vulnerable. You drink and sleep around and then you struggle because you have no money at all.

• When I blame myself for everything I have done.

Failure at school or in other educational settings was mentioned several times. However, it should be remembered that although people may blame themselves for not succeeding in school or other educational settings, it is not just their own actions that contribute to such results. Structural inequalities, language problems, poverty and other factors may all play a part in whether or not a person succeeds educationally.

• When I failed my matric I felt that my world was closing around me.

• I failed Grade 10 last year. I knew it would be bad.

• At school when a teacher does not like you and throws you out of the class.

3.4.1.4 Feeling Heartache, Heartsore

Heartache and the term “heartsore” featured strongly in the data, with heartache mentioned 25 times and heartsore 14 times across Questions 1, 2 and 4. These terms were also strongly in evidence in responses to Question 5 about words that were similar to “vulnerability”, with heartache mentioned 29 times and heartsore 10 times. However, it should be noted that some people may have used a “heart” word in response to more than one question.

• “Vulnerability” is a big word for me. I grew up in a home where you were punished if you did anything wrong, which made me unhappy and heartsore.

• Vulnerability means a lot to me. It is something secret or heavy you keep inside you that can cause pain.

• Sometimes there are those things that are just too painful to share.

• People’s hearts can be broken in so many ways, all make us vulnerable. Any person going through hard times is vulnerable.

• Because your heart gets no rest, you cannot laugh any more, and feel very vulnerable.

Also included in this subtheme are expressions of a feeling that nobody cares.

• When you are at your lowest, it seems you mean nothing to anybody, and everyone looks down on you.

• Invisibility. When you don’t feel accepted, you feel nobody cares about you.

• When your opinion doesn’t count.

• If there is no love in the home.

3.4.1.5 Vulnerability as Openness to Others

About 15 respondents expressed their understanding of vulnerability as an openness to others. This is a small proportion of the respondents, but is mentioned because of the contrast with interpretations of vulnerability as weakness. Being prepared or able to fully show oneself to others was seen by these respondents as beneficial and an antidote to weakness.

• There is a huge force in being vulnerable before people, but when we hide our weaknesses, the weaknesses become worse, and we become false.

• Vulnerability is when you stand with your hand in your heart, you hold it before you, and you say, this is how my heart looks, and it is beautiful.

• When I was hiding my weaknesses instead of working on them.

• When they climb out of their shell and to say to others: I am an independent, strong, vulnerable woman.

3.4.1.6 Summary of Theme 1

People primarily seemed to understand vulnerability as a type of weakness, and also linked it with a feeling of being in danger or being attacked. A sense of being inferior or a failure also featured strongly in the respondents’ answers, and many linked the experience of being vulnerable with heartache or feeling heartsore. A counterpoint to the conceptualisation of vulnerability as weakness was evident in comments mentioning being open about one’s vulnerability as a strength.

3.4.2 Theme 2: Circumstances in Which Respondents Felt Vulnerable, or Observed Others to Be Vulnerable

Respondents gave examples of when they had felt vulnerable or observed others to be vulnerable. This often centred around economic or social circumstances.

3.4.2.1 Poverty

If people are struggling to meet their own and their families’ basic needs, then they are naturally liable to feel more vulnerable than those in a more comfortable situation. Many respondents described situations of poverty as making them vulnerable.

• The word “poverty” is for me the same as “vulnerability”.

• Hunger. When you are hungry you are vulnerable. When you see your kids crying from hunger is painful.

• My house leaks and I have no electricity.

The impact of structural inequalities and the resulting marginalisation was clear.

• When one applies for money, and they ask for bank card details, but one does not have the money to go to town to get a bank card.

Also apparent was the sense of being trapped by poverty.

• Some San go to the community dump to try and find food to eat. Some people steal because they have no other choice to try and get food.

• When you don’t have a decent house, food to eat or things don’t go right, and you don’t know how to get out of it.

3.4.2.2 Joblessness and Work Situations

Joblessness was clearly linked to the subtheme of poverty.

• Unemployment. When you have no work, you will become a thief.

• The joblessness that plays such a big role in our community is for me the biggest vulnerability.

Respondents found jobs hard to come by.

• When I apply for work, but I get no response nor do I get employed.

However, even for those who got jobs, low pay and poor working conditions were common. Hence, a job was not necessarily a way out of poverty.

• Working hard at work but no promotion.

• Getting a very low salary. My first job was for a very low salary.

• I worked in the garden at the clinic without any work clothes and I was not happy.

The words “joblessness” and “unemployment” both featured several times in responses to Question 5 about words that are similar to “vulnerability”.

3.4.2.3 Health Problems

Respondents frequently mentioned health problems and sickness in their answers, often with a sense of hopelessness experienced during sickness.

• Sickness. When you are so sick you lose hope that you will live again.

• I had chickenpox, after which I thought I would not be able to live again.

• When I get blood tests done, I fear for the results.

There were also fears about sickness in members of the family, and the impact of sickness on the family.

• When my daughter was sick, and I could do nothing.

• When I was sick for three months, I feared who would care for my kids.

Pregnancy, including teenage pregnancy, was cited several times as a cause of vulnerability for both the family and the pregnant mother.

• I was very vulnerable when my grandchild got pregnant. I was so ho** she would finish school and study. Now she sits at home as single mother.

3.4.2.4 Home, Family and Relationship Problems

This subtheme describes the vulnerabilities that can arise from insecurities in the home and relationships with family members, whether through difficult relationships, violence, abuse, loss of relationships or bereavements.

• A person’s family situation can make him vulnerable.

• My relationship makes me vulnerable because my man wants to leave me.

Many of the comments here tell very sad stories about the precarity in people’s home lives.

• My parents are dead, I live with my uncle, his son gets drunk and picks on me.

• When my father assaulted my mother, I was vulnerable.

• When my mother chased me away from home I had nowhere to stay.

• When my father stabbed my brother with a knife, we were vulnerable.

• When the boss of the home gives up hope and decides not to work any more.

Stories of bereavement also featured strongly in responses to Questions 1, 2 and 4.

• Loss is a form of vulnerability. It leaves you heartsore.

• My father was my hero and taught me everything, so now without him I don’t know much what to do.

• When my son hanged himself.

• When a loved one in the home dies and it feels like the end of the world.

Linked to the circumstances described under this subtheme, “unhappiness”, “sadness” and “depression” were among words described as similar to “vulnerability” in response to Question 5 and can be seen as natural reactions to these and other difficult situations that respondents had experienced.

3.4.2.5 Drug and Alcohol Problems

Drug and alcohol problems featured in responses across all five questions as understandings of vulnerability, contributions to group vulnerability and examples of when respondents had felt vulnerable themselves or observed others to be vulnerable.

• Addiction. I was a tik [meth] smoker and did many things that nearly caused my death.

• When my father got drunk and caused problems.

• People don’t think right when they are vulnerable. Other people drink when they feel vulnerable.

• I am vulnerable every day when my young brothers smoke dagga [cannabis] and then come home and argue with me about money.

• San drink too much, it is said.

3.4.2.6 Success Can Lead to Vulnerability

This is a minor subtheme but worth mentioning because of its contrast with the difficulties and hardships characterising the other subthemes. Being fortunate, doing good things or being successful was perceived by some as potentially leading to vulnerability because others in the community may begrudge such successes or try to take advantage of those enjoying them.

• When people are jealous of others, they do not want them to do well, speak bad of them. That is to be very vulnerable.

• Generous people are vulnerable.

• When you stand up for your community.

• A person can become vulnerable through independence and being a good leader.

• If a person has got any talent, then the others will try to break that person down.

3.4.2.7 Summary of Theme 2

This theme describes circumstances in which people felt vulnerable or saw others being vulnerable. The subthemes can be seen as associated with economic circumstances such as poverty and joblessness, and social circumstances such as family and relationship issues, addictions and (ironically) being successful. The health subtheme can potentially have both social and economic impacts in terms of isolation, possible loss of income and costs of treatment.

3.4.3 Theme 3: From the Individual to the Collective: Perceptions of the San’s Vulnerability as a Group

Question 3, “Are the San people as a group vulnerable compared to other groups?” broadened the perspective to a collective view of the vulnerability of the San community, rather than individual perspectives and experiences. However, some of the answers given to this question echoed certain responses to the questions about individual vulnerability: for example, perceptions of how outsiders view the San.

3.4.3.1 Are the San Vulnerable as a Group Compared to Other Groups?

The answer to this question was a resounding yes, with 201 respondents out of 239 (84%) believing that the San were vulnerable compared to other groups. Only 21 said no (9%), the San were not vulnerable. Two respondents did not answer the question (1%). The answers in a fourth group were contradictory or inconclusive (6%) and could be described as “yes, but …” or “no, but …” or “yes and no”, as the following examples illustrate.

• No. San were the first people in the world. San is the group that most medicine knowledge in the world comes from. Overseas people want to meet with us. But … San are more vulnerable due to the treatment we receive in South Africa.

• No, but we don’t get work. We get little exposure to opportunities.

• Yes, but the San are an upcoming group.

Some participants, although very definitely in the minority, firmly rejected the notion that the San were vulnerable compared to other groups.

• No! We are a unique nation.

• No. The San are not less than others. They just think that they are. We are just the same as other people, no matter what they say or think.

• San can work with other people as long as we are treated right. We are equal to them all, I refuse to let people say otherwise.

Nearly all of the 201 respondents who said yes, the San were vulnerable as a group, gave reasons for believing this. As detailed earlier, three further subthemes were constructed from these answers:

• language and culture: sources of both embarrassment and pride

• unfairness and exclusion

• shyness and reluctance to mix with other groups.

3.4.3.2 Language and Culture: Sources of Both Embarrassment and Pride

This subtheme articulates the perception that other groups show disdain for the San’s traditions and languages. The lack of respect shown by others to their languages and culture appears to be a major influence on the collective vulnerability experienced by the San, especially when manifested as scornful or bullying behaviour.

• For example, when others hear our language at school and laugh at it.

• Vulnerability is when people scorn you or speak badly of your culture or language.

• When San talk, others laugh and ask if the San still exist. People get mocked for their San language.

• Yes. Our language is not recognised nationally. San communities (especially Platfontein) are less developed. San are regarded as illiterate, although they do not learn their own language at school.

• Whenever we speak our language in public they laugh. Wherever we go we struggle with the language issue. Nothing at all is written in our language.

Comments on language also referred to some respondents’ inability to speak San languages.

• Many of us [!Khomani] are not able to speak our San language.

Other responses relating to San traditions and culture included stories of being called “bushmen” or being told they “speak Chinese” or that the San wear “skins” or “have tails”.

• Other groups discriminate against us San. They say we belong in the bush, and that is why we San feel inferior and vulnerable.

• We are scared to wear traditional clothes because we are shy.

• Yes, others are racist against San people. They say the San people don’t own possessions. They think the San are stupid. They say the San do not deserve a better life.

However, some respondents did express a sense of pride in both the culture and languages of the San.

• No, the San are not more or less vulnerable than other groups. We are the same as other people, I don’t see the difference. I have the right to speak my own language, as they also have the right. Nobody is better than others, God made us all.

• San speak their language in front of other groups. When it’s a cultural celebration we do our own dance in front of others. Even at school, San learners are not scared to speak their home language in class.

3.4.3.3 Unfairness and Exclusion

This subtheme covers a wide range of examples of unfairness and exclusion.

• We are less developed than other groups. Joblessness is high in our community.

• Service delivery is poor, the clinic closes early.

• Yes. The San are very vulnerable. We are very few, and these days the government does not care about us.

• Yes, San are vulnerable. They have to stand up against other groups to have their voices heard. We have to fight for our rights.

Respondents complained about a lack of representation and opportunities. They felt excluded and discriminated against in many situations, including workplaces and the education system.

• There are no San in parliament or prominent positions. Wrong information is spread about us. Other groups always say that we know nothing.

• The government ignores us. We are not treated the same as others. We are only less vulnerable when we are in our own suburb.

• We don’t have privileges like others. We are stuck in a corner. Feel we are not a part of the South African citizens.

• We apply for work in many places but when they see the home address, we do not get the job. Others get government assistance and we do not. We do not have any teachers at school who speak our language.

• We are excluded because of our language. We are under pressure because we are not educated. We feel not as good as the others. We seem unable to do better.

There was also a sense of intergenerational injustice and trauma.

• Our people get misused for their information. Our people were chased off their land.

• They discriminate against us. We have harder lives than other people. We were treated like animals, we were sold as slaves in the old days.

• For years we were kept on one side and not treated like other groups. We feel important, but we are never taken seriously.

Some expressed regret about changes they had witnessed in the San culture.

• The other people are always on our case and exploit us. We never misused drugs in our past in Angola and Namibia, but now, near these other groups, we do.

3.4.3.4 Shyness and Reluctance to Mix with Other Groups

Shyness frequently came up as an issue that affected San people as individuals and as a group.

• Being shy is a form of vulnerability. Then even though you are hungry or have problems, you might be too scared to ask others for help.

• Yes. San people are vulnerable because they don’t want to be with others. San people like their own people a lot and do not like other people.

• Yes. San are vulnerable compared to other groups They always want to be with their own people. San are also shy to be with other people and groups.

There were many comments about the San’s reluctance to mix with other groups, this is hardly surprising, given how they understood themselves to be perceived by other groups (see Sect. 3.4.3.2 on the subtheme of language and culture). Hence, their reluctance to engage with other groups can also be seen as a protective mechanism and not just a result of shyness.

• Yes, San people suffer. No change in our circumstances We always walk in a group.

3.4.3.5 Summary of Theme 3

This theme moves the focus from individual vulnerabilities to the collective vulnerability of the San as a group. An overwhelming majority did indeed see the San as a vulnerable group, although a minority disagreed. The San languages and culture were seen as sources of both pride and embarrassment, with many respondents describing how they had been mocked or teased when speaking in a San language. There was a strong sense of unfairness and exclusion, both historically and currently. Not surprisingly, the characteristic shyness of the San as a group and their reluctance to mix with other groups were strongly in evidence.

The word cloud in Fig. 3.4 represents the frequency of words used in response to the survey.

Fig. 3.4

Word cloud capturing word use in survey responses

Being ostracised and humiliated due to attitudes towards the original San languages dominates this representation, but joblessness and poverty also clearly create stress and heartache.

This chapter was discussed with 11 of the 12 community researchers who administered the survey. They were invited to a one-day workshop to give feedback on the survey analysis. After the discussion, some refinements were made to the chapter: for instance, Sect. 3.4.1.5 on the subtheme discussing openness to others was made clearer and additional quotes were selected for Sect. 3.4.3.3 on unfairness and exclusion. We would like to end this chapter with a thought that was expressed at the workshop by one of the community researchers.

Who is Vulnerable?

While the majority of community researchers agreed with the respondents to the survey that the San are a more vulnerable group than others, one workshop participant said: “Imagine that a major catastrophe destroys all civilisations as we know them. The only people who survive are the San and Harvard professors. If this happens, who will be vulnerable?”

3.5 Conclusion

When asked to define “vulnerability” for themselves in workshops and a community-administered survey, South African San representatives stressed two things. First, they did not perceive the word “vulnerable” to be pejorative per se, or negative towards them as a people. On the contrary, it served as a useful “umbrella term” to cover the vast range of issues and problems they experienced. Second, while the term could be useful in that way, the San did not want it to be employed to exclude them from research they needed and wanted.

The potential for San community members to be exploited by researchers is real, and the survey shows why. A very insightful observation came from one of the San community members who took part in the survey.

The word “poverty” is for me the same as “vulnerability” or “hunger”. When you are hungry you are vulnerable. When you see your kids crying from hunger is painful.

Parents who cannot feed their children will be open to almost any kind of “incentives” to procure food. Giving researchers video-recorded consent to gather information (data) in return for a cash payment (that is unlikely to have been declared to a research ethics committee) seems an obvious way to obtain money for food. San community elder Petrus Vaalbooi referred to researchers “who come and tempt us with ten rand or five rand” (five rand being equivalent to €0.24 or £0.20) (Andries Steenkamp and Petrus Vaalbooi Interviews 2018: 00:57). At the same time, this type of exploitation perpetuates distrust of researchers, even if it is only a small minority of them who use the exploitability of San community members for extractive research.

One way to resolve this is to block the participation of vulnerable peoples in research, which is the traditional way of protecting potential research participants from harm and exploitation. However, it also cuts off access to useful research.

Researchers, including community researchers, might be able to help formulate and refine ways out of the conditions that cause exploitability. To do so, outside researchers need to build trusted relationships with the community, a process that they can facilitate by involving community researchers throughout the research process¹ and by employing research methods that make research less risky for those involved (e.g., by not involving personal data).

San community leader Collin Louw, a co-author of this book, emphasises that it is highly important to distinguish between two uses of the term “vulnerability”. The first is the potentially patronising external use of the term, which involves blocking access to research, instead of reducing the risks of research involvement through careful study planning, methods centred around community needs rather than maximum data extraction, and engaging community involvement in long-term relationships of trust. The second is the internal use of the term to facilitate communication within the San community on factors that make it vulnerable to exploitation and also to the social challenges that can lead to drug abuse and hopelessness (see Figs. 3.2 and 3.3).

Equitable research partnerships between researchers and South African San community members, facilitated by the South African San Council and guided by the San Code of Research Ethics, can lead to rich data that have the potential to assist the community in finding ways out of vulnerability. Externally labelling them “vulnerable” as a group and blocking access to research cannot be the solution, even if almost 85% of San survey respondents consider themselves a vulnerable group. None of the community researchers believed this to be a reason for not involving the San in research, but they were convinced that any research involving the San should be on locally relevant topics and carried out in the right way.