1 Introduction

Captured by the euphoria of a South African utopia, post-1994 witnessed the coining of terms like “Rainbow Nation” and “born-free”. These terms have been used to describe post-apartheid South Africa over the past two decades: “as in, we apparently have been living in, and now live in, a ‘Rainbow Nation’ where ‘born-frees’ run wild and free” (^{CAWE, 2014}), possess the inherent ability and are obligated to change society for the better. In South Africa, the concept “born-free” refers to a person who was born or grew up after the end of the apartheid era. This concept however, does not originate from the youth themselves (^{MAIMELA, 2014}). Its origins stem from the South African media and it is craftily appropriated by various interests in society in the course of the battle of ideas, jostling to shape society in their own image (^{MAIMELA, 2014}). In a democratic South Africa, youth have the right to cultural freedom that enables them to define themselves.

Almost all countries in the world face the daunting task of managing diversity. South Africa is no different. During the apartheid era, people were categorised and placed into neat little boxes namely, white, Indian, Coloured and African, with no room for deaggregation within each of these categories. The advent of democracy witnessed the mass entry of “black” immigrants into South Africa, which for a brief moment created quite a stir, given the South African psyche, as this was a new “breed” that did not neatly fit into any of the existing boxes. Almost instantaneously a new box namely “the makwerekwere” was created to solve this problem. Aligned ironically with the apartheid ideology of categorisation, the media coined the term “born-free”, meaning those who have no living memory of apartheid and refers to a specific generation of South Africans born after 1990, regardless of race, income, or ethnicity. Given the complexities of the South African context, how then do these South African youth identify? Do they identify as “born-frees”, and if so why and if not why not? Accordingly, this study asks how do “born-free” students constitute, negotiate and represent their identity twenty years after democracy in South Africa.

2 Theorizing Identity

A brief history of the theoretical field of identity illustrates how studies began from the notion of groups and developed to that of identity. As early as 1961, Wirth claimed that ethnic distinctions are based on power relations and therefore on inequality between dominant and minority social groups. ^{Glazer and Moyniham (1963)} saw ethnic groups as interest groups, emphasizing political aspects in them. Ethnicity was seen as a subjective process of identifying a group in which people use ethnic labels to define themselves and their interaction with other groups (^{BARTH, 1969}). ^{Cohen (1978)} advocated for the concept of situational identity, arguing that the question of the salience of ethnic identity should be understood and accepted as involving a subject or a characteristic considered important in a given social situation. He claimed that identities of members and categorizations by others is more or less fluid, more or less multiple, forming hierarchies of dichotomizations us/them (^{COHEN, 1978}).

It was from this theoretical framework that ensuing studies began to adopt the concept of identity, instead of a group, in order to study the phenomenon of ethnicity. The nature of ethnic identity, as it would persist, change or disappear among other forms of identity begun to be explored (^{EPSTEIN, 1978}). Ethnic identity came to be understood as a psychosocial process, neither given nor innate, but constructed, involving a certain amount of choice on the part of individuals, from their analyses in the face of social coercion (^{EPSTEIN 1978}). ^{Okamura (1981)} proposed the concept of situational ethnicity that afforded individuals the option of assuming either their primary ethnic identity or other social identities such as class or occupation. This offered the possibility for the manipulation of a constructed identity (^{OLIVEIRA, 1976}). According to ^{Oliveira (1976)} the concept of ethnic group would not account for the persistence of ethnic identification of people and groups. He claimed that in assuming an ethnic category individuals occupy a particular place in the system of relations and, therefore, exercise a certain social status (^{OLIVEIRA, 1976}). The difference, however, would lie in the fact that, while status and roles would fragment the person, identity would essentially be a synthesis concept, representing “the process by which the person integrates his various statuses and roles, as well as his various experiences in a coherent image of itself” (^{EPSTEIN, 1978}, p. 100). “Variability is the essence of ethnicity in its importance for structuring social relations in diverse situational contexts” (^{BARTH, 1981}, p. 463).

Researchers’ interest in identity developed from ^{Erikson’s (1968)} seminal work and opened debates on the meaning of identity (^{FEARON, 1999}; ^{MARCIA, 1980};^{YUVAL-DAVIS, 2010}), ethnic identity (^{PHINNEY et al., 2001}; ^{YIP, 2018}), identity and immigrant students (^{SCHWARTZ et al., 2017}; ^{SUAREZ-OROZCO; SUAREZ-OROZCO, 2008}; ^{VANDEYAR, 2010}), identity and acculturation (^{BERRY et al., 2006}; ^{COHEN, 2004}), cultural identity (^{FORSYTH, 2018}; ^{JENSEN, 2003}), and personal and social identities (^{BRIEGER, 2018}; ^{STETS; BURKE, 2000}; ^{TAJFEL, 2010}). Identity is therefore used by scholars in varied ways and contexts to emphasise different facets of human self-definition (^{ONORATO; TURNER, 2004}). Identity is an important aspect in the development of an individual, as it is a new way of thinking about oneself that becomes pronounced during adolescence (^{MEEUS et al., 1999}) and when firmly developed, it provides a sense of belonging and uniqueness to an individual.

A review of the voluminous literature reveals that identity construction is an ongoing process, which does not unfold neatly, but involves a commitment to a social orientation, an ideological stance, and a vocational direction (^{MARCIA, 1980}). This suggests that identity choice varies within individuals across time, and is influenced by the characteristics of the individual and the context.

^{Marcia (1980}, p. 159) claims that identity is “an internal self- constructed, dynamic organisation of drives, abilities, beliefs and individual history”, which facilitates psychological differentiation from others. The construction of an identity “follows a hierarchical sequence” (^{MARCIA, 1966}; ¹⁹⁸⁰, p. 111) in which all youth move steadily from a stage of ethnic or “racial unawareness” to one of “exploration” to a final stage of an “achieved” sense of racial or ethnic identity. ^{Parham (1989)} argues that the process of identity formation is a “spiralling” back to revisit previous stages, each time from a different vantage point. According to ^{Hall (1996a}; ^1996b), identity is something that is produced and created from the ingredients of a personal past but is always in a process of transformation. The focus of identity formation is on becoming rather than being and is subject to how one is positioned by and positions oneself with respect to the past. ^{Hall (1993)} claims that identities are never complete; they are never finished concepts, and that they are always in the process of formation. Thus, the notion of what identity to see with “people who look”, “feel the same” or “call themselves by the same name”, does not make the same sense anymore. Because, like a process, as a narrative or as a discourse, “identity is always viewed from the perspective of the other” (^{HALL, 1993}, p. 49). Identity is always influenced by culture, history, and power and refers to “a process located in the core of the individual and yet, also in the core of his communal culture” (^{ERIKSON, 1968}, p. 22).

Drawing from Erikson’s view, ^{Israelite, Oliver and Goldstein (2002}, p. 134) define identity as a “complex, multi-layered, multifaceted social construction that is a product of a wide range of societal and cultural forces”. This definition implies that forming an identity, whether a personal or social one, is not a simple task, as it involves negotiating it from complex cultural and societal forces. As a result of the dynamic character of the social world, identity cannot be said to be a fixed phenomenon, rather it is a contemporary context-driven and evolving set of constructions (^{ALVESSON, ASCHCRAFT; THOMAS, 2008}). Consequently, identity consists of a range of markers, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, and religion, all of which play a role in assisting the individual to determine who they are, what they believe in and how they claim membership to their society. Identity represents the intersection of the individual and society (^{YIP, 2008}), which means an individual plots a sense of self from what the society provides at a particular time. Identity is shaped by daily interactions and practices that are characteristic of the social context, and does not have a fixed end. ^{Teixeira (2018}, p. 1) argues that “we must recognize ethnic and racial identities as cultural phenomena that are susceptible to change, which drives us to continue the discussion, trying to capture the meaning of these transformations”.

In the process of identity construction, adolescents go through “identity crises” (^{ERIKSON, 1968}; ^{MARCIA, 1980}), which involves engaging in an intensive analysis and exploration of different ways of looking at oneself (^{MEEUS et al., 1999}). According to Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development, the emergence of identity crises means the adolescent struggles between feelings of identity and role confusion, and to move out of the crises, the individual needs to commit to a particular identity, which is not an easy task. It becomes a difficult task because it involves reconciling the identity imposed upon oneself by the family and society with one’s need to assert control and seek out an identity that creates a sense of satisfaction, uniqueness, as well as feelings of competency (^{FRENCH et al., 2006}). Resolving an identity crisis becomes more complex as it goes beyond exploring possible selves and finding ways of attaining these selves; it involves negotiating other identities, such as ethnic and cultural identities, and doing so in the social context. ^{Jensen (2003)} claims that as diverse ethnic and cultural groups come into contact with one another, there are invariably differences in power and status among these groups, making identity formation a complex activity for adolescents.

Identity can thus be depicted as multiple and shifting notions of self that are largely shaped by daily interactions and practices, and plays out in multiple identities such as personal, racial, ethnic, social and cultural.

3 Theoretical framework: Ecological model of racial identity development

Ethnic identities are not given, fixed, or unchanging, but are continually evolving products of material and social circumstances and of the actions of groups themselves, wrestling with, interpreting, and responding to those circumstances, building or transforming identities in the process (^{CORNWELL, 2000}). When ecological models incorporate historical, geographical, and gender lenses, then identity – both racial and ethnic – will always be in flux because identities are dynamic. In this study I will use the ecological model of racial identity development (^{ROOT, 2003}) to guide my process of inquiry, as this model takes into account the following factors, which may affect the identity construction of participants, namely, the contextual macrolenses of gender, class, and regional history of race with which to filter the meanings of situations and experiences to which people are exposed; the microlenses of inherited influences (for example, given names, languages spoken in the home, phenotype, cultural values, sexual orientation), traits (for example, temperament, talents, coping skills), and social environments (for example, home, school, work) which also filter the meaning of daily experiences (^{ROOT, 1998}). This ecological framework for identity development not only explains the different ways in which people come to identify themselves but it also allows for understanding environments and experiences that shape conventional monoracial identities, racially simultaneous identities, or multiracial identities. When investigating an individual’s identity, it is important to take into account the geographical history of race, gender, family influences, individual “personality”, community, and generation. Any attempt to discuss identity choice will remain at an unsophisticated level, should the diversity apparent within these broad categories of influence not be considered (^{ROOT; KELLEY, 2003}).

4 Research Strategy

This research study employed the meta-theoretical paradigm of social constructivism. The methodological paradigm was a qualitative case study and narrative inquiry. The unit of analysis comprised the overall school environment with a particular focus on how “born-free” students constituted, negotiated and represented their identities in educational and social spaces in South Africa.

The research sites for this study comprised of six schools namely, a former White Model C school (English-medium and Afrikaans-medium), a former Indian school, a former Coloured school, a former township school (African) and an inner-city school that has a majority of black African learners. Race, gender and age were the criteria used to select participants for this study. Data capture included a mix of semi-structured interviews and field notes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of approximately 8–9 “born-free” students across Grades 8–10 at each of the identified schools. The selection of “born-free” students was dependant on the variety that was present at each of the research sites. In total, 58 students were interviewed in 2015–2016, over a period of eight months. Open-ended questions were posed across five to six broad categories over a duration of 1 to 2 hours. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Pseudonyms were assigned to research sites and participants, to ensure anonymity and confidentiality.

Cognisance was also taken of the institutional culture and the classroom and school climate. Observations of artefacts such as paintings, decor, photographs, portraits and school magazines provided a sense of the institutional culture of the school, which was captured by means of field notes. Field notes also served to capture the ethos, classroom and school climate and practices of the school. Informal conversations with teachers provided a valuable resource for triangulation of data and were captured as field notes. The emphasis was on experiences of “born-free” students and how they tried to negotiate a balance between establishing relationships with other cultures on the one hand, and simultaneously maintaining what they perceived to be their own ethnic identity and cultural characteristics, on the other.

Inductive thematic analysis/qualitative content analysis was used to identify patterns or themes within the qualitative data (^{JAVADO; ZAREA, 2016}; ^{MAYRING, 2000}). Data was coded by means of open coding and continuously modified by the researcher’s treatment of the data “to accommodate new data and new insights about those data” (^{SANDELOWSKI, 2000}, p. 338). The process was reflexive and interactive and yielded extensive codes and themes, which were further analysed to identify data related to key concepts in the research question, theoretical frameworks, and literature review (^{MILES; HUBERMAN, 1994}). The organization of codes and themes into higher levels of categories within and across the interviews, observations, and other sources of data required multiple readings of the data (^{MERRIAM, 1998}).

Quality measures of this study in terms of research rigour were met by means of trustworthiness of the study namely, transferability, credibility, dependability and confirmability and authenticity. Transferability refers to the scope and the restrictions to which findings of this research can be applied. Credibility of the research findings included the purposeful sampling of the research participant, the sampling of the research site and the application of appropriate data gathering strategies (^{BUTLER-KISBER, 2010}). Dependability was achieved by a process known as auditing. The audit trail procedure can also be valuable when verifying confirmability (^{SEALE, 2002}). The authenticity of this study rests in the “faithful reconstruction of the participant’s multiple perceptions” (^{MCMILLAN; SCHUMACHER, 2001}, p. 415). The Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Education granted approval for this study.

5 Findings

6 Discussion and Analysis

The different ways in which these students identified allows for an understanding of the environments, the contexts and the experiences that shape conventional mono-racial identities, racially simultaneous identities, or multiracial identities. With the designation “born frees”, it is easy to assume that the identity of this generation of students is obvious and freely crafted. However, this assumption is far from the truth. Identities of these students seemed to be framed within the political, geographical and historical contexts and shaped by the enduring legacies of apartheid. Self and geography were shaped both by institutional realities and the “situatedness” of identity (^{NORGAARD, 2015}).

Findings seem to indicate that “born frees” seemed to be seeking an identity even as the label “born free” was thrust upon them. The data revealed a few distinctive elements of the struggle that “born frees” encounter in constructing, negotiating and representing their identities. The current political freedom experienced by “born frees” is but one dimension of a larger dynamic of psychological freedom and bondage. Some “born-frees” were trapped in a state of “in-betweeness” as represented by the contours of the hyphen. Privilege and power seemed to constrain what freedom there is, and both have their roots in the geographical contours of apartheid that currently still persists. Two decades into democracy, the “situatedness” of identities and racial divides, is still apparent in South African society. Identities of the majority of these students seemed to be viewed through contextual macro-lenses of gender, class, and regional history of race, which filtered the meanings of situations and experiences to which they were exposed.

The fact that all the participants at a mono-racial school in the township identified in terms of personality traits and characteristics can be interpreted in two ways. First, since they were all “Black” students at the school, they identified as a collective i.e. Black. There seemed to be no need for them to distinguish themselves from other “Blacks” and hence the emphasis on personality traits and characteristics. Alternatively, could it be that the poor circumstances in which they found themselves warranted a need to reject the racial categorisation of “Black”, which in their minds may still hold undertones of the oppressed?

Genealogy also featured strongly in the way some students identified, mainly because this is what they were told and what had been passed down through the generations. Identities of these students seemed to be viewed through the microlenses of inherited influences (e.g. given names, languages spoken in the home, phenotype, cultural values, sexual orientation), traits (e.g. temperament, talents, coping skills), and social environments (e.g. home, school, work) which filter the meaning of daily experiences (^{ROOT, 1998}). ^{Jansen (2009)} argues that knowledge is “embedded in the emotional, psychic, spiritual, social, economic, political, and psychological lives of a community” and uses the imagery of “blood” to invoke a life or death issue and to reveal just how deep knowledge is embedded in the individual. However, it does not mean that “through the transfusion of new knowledge the authority of received knowledge cannot be overcome”, as blood transfusion is inherently tasked with “change” (^{JANSEN, 2009}).

For the majority of the students in this study, identity seemed to be imposed on them by external factors, to which they silently and unquestioningly acquiesced. There seemed to be a lack of student agency in the formation of their identities. However, despite the persistent geography of apartheid, designed to thwart the shaping of identities, the data revealed the emergence of new identities and the discovery of agency. Some students seemed to be stepping out of the narrow confines of South African societal stereotypes by imposing self-identities related to globalisation and social networking. The profound philosophical identification of an “individual who occupies space” by a 14 year old, is illustrative of the shedding of historical, political, social and psychological bondage and points to a more scientifically-oriented identity. This student could be situated anywhere in the world. Another student found the categories of race and gender limiting and wanted to be identified in terms of capabilities and interests. Perhaps her identity as a young woman has already worked against her in a patriarchal society? The response “I can’t exactly call myself “born-free”. Our country has not reached that level of development whereby we can proudly call ourselves free from any form of oppression” by a 15 year old student, indicates that these students are not only well aware of the social and political dynamics of the country, but are also beginning to question externally imposed identities.

The fact that only two students identified as “born-free” is indicative of the fallacy of the term “born-free”. The invested hope in the “born-frees” to build the “Rainbow Nation” seems to stem from the fact that their upbringing occurred in a different time and context from previous generations of South Africans, and their right to cultural freedom that enables them to define themselves. Yet, South Africa imposes the identity of “born-free” on them. Ironic, is it not?

7 Conclusion

What conclusion can we glean from this data? We learn that the “born free” generation as a whole mirrors the South African general population. The generation’s demographic diversity seems to extend towards many competing views of identity. At the aggregate level, at least, “born free” South Africans do not possess distinctive views on their generations” identity. Racial identity by contrast still plays a large role. Some “born frees” expressed optimism with the freedom their identity provides, while others felt constrained by the enduring legacies and memories of the past. Although “born frees” themselves did not live through apartheid, the physical legacies of apartheid –such as geographical segregation– served as a daily reminder of its presence. In this regard, “born free” South Africans are not as different as their struggle pre-apartheid counterparts as one might think.

It is hoped that through the construction of narratives of experience, their lived and told stories will unfold and the diversity of their identities that will be negotiated with others within personal, historical and situational contexts will be revealed. The study of “born-free” students” lives from their perspective, in which they actively and socially develop their identities, not only provides a lens through which they can be understood as shifting constructions of identity, but allows them to rethink who they are and have become and what influence power relations and the social, historical and political contexts have had in promoting or negating their sense of self. It also allows for the exploration of what implications these shifting constructions of identities hold for educational change.