Analysing Articles: Long Enough in Jo’burg by Zenga Longmore
Guiding Question How does the writer’s use of contrast help convey her purpose?
Zenga Longmore’s reflective travelogue, “Long Enough in Jo’Burg,” published in The Spectator critiques apartheid-era South Africa’s systemic injustices. Through contrast as a central device, specifically juxtaposition, antithesis, paradox, oxymoron, irony, and dichotomy, Longmore vividly conveys the stark disparities between privilege and oppression, compelling readers to confront the moral failings of an unjust society.
One of the most prominent features of Longmore’s article is her use of juxtaposition, which places contrasting ideas side by side to emphasize their incongruity. For instance, she contrasts “large bungalows” with “dinky little shops,” drawing attention to the disparity between suburban wealth and the economic struggles faced by marginalized communities. Similarly, the image of “worn-looking women burdened with shopping” juxtaposed against “sulky white babies slumped on their backs” underscores the exploitation inherent in this system. While the former symbolizes exhaustion and labor, the latter represents privilege and entitlement. These images force readers to recognize the deep-rooted inequalities that define life under apartheid. Furthermore, the gleaming train station for privileged South Africans is set against the “small, dark room” reserved for others, illustrating not only physical but also symbolic barriers erected to maintain systemic inequality. Through juxtaposition, Longmore crafts a visual narrative that compels readers to see the glaring contradictions within apartheid society.
Longmore also uses antithesis, another form of contrast, one that operates through syntactic balance, to present opposing ideas. A striking example occurs in the line: “Few whites walked the streets, no Africans drove the cars.” Here, the first clause implies choice and privilege, while the second enforces exclusion and restriction. This balanced structure highlights how apartheid laws dictated access to spaces and resources based on race, creating artificial divisions where none should exist. Another example is found in the statement: “Fabian can walk in that station, but his sister can’t.” This antithetical construction reveals the absurdity and cruelty of apartheid policies, which fractured even familial bonds along racial lines. By structuring her sentences symmetrically, Longmore draws attention to the unnaturalness of these divisions, exposing the arbitrary nature of apartheid’s rules.
Longmore’s use of paradox, characterized by contradictory elements occurring simultaneously, further enriches her critique. One notable example is the description of a sign that appears “civil, even polite,” yet enforces hostility and exclusion. This paradox highlights the insidious nature of apartheid, which masked its discriminatory practices behind a veneer of civility. Additionally, the “small, dark room,” though filled with people, is marked by an eerie silence—a paradoxical representation of suppressed voices. Despite the presence of many individuals, their enforced muteness underscores the dehumanization imposed by apartheid. Finally, the glittering facade of Johannesburg stands in stark contrast to the grim reality of oppressive spaces, revealing the hypocrisy of a society that flaunts modernity while perpetuating injustice. Through paradox, Longmore challenges readers to grapple with the contradictions embedded in apartheid ideology.
Longmore’s use of oxymorons create tension by placing two seemingly contradictory terms side by side. Longmore employs this device effectively when describing interactions with authority figures. For example, the phrase “coldly polite” captures the chilling detachment behind the outward appearance of civility. This oxymoron suggests that apartheid’s cruelty was often concealed beneath a mask of politeness, making it all the more insidious. Similarly, the “ominous silence” combines the expectation of calm with an underlying sense of threat or oppression. This oxymoron encapsulates the stifling atmosphere of apartheid, where silence became a tool of control. By using oxymorons, Longmore draws attention to the dissonance between surface appearances and harsh realities.
Longmore’s use of irony serves as another powerful tool in her arsenal, highlighting the gap between expectation and reality. When the speaker attempts to charm an officer with a “toothy smile” and her “best English accent,” her efforts are met with suspicion rather than approval. This ironic reversal underscores the futility of individual agency in the face of institutionalized racism. It also mocks the notion that personal charm or assimilation could overcome entrenched prejudice. Through irony, Longmore critiques the false promises of equality and mobility offered by apartheid propaganda, exposing them as hollow illusions designed to maintain existing power structures.
Finally, Longmore utilizes dichotomies to emphasize the polarities that apartheid sought to enforce. The binary oppositions of black/white, rich/poor, free/oppressed, and urban/rural illustrate how apartheid deliberately constructed divisions to sustain its hierarchical system. These dichotomies are not merely descriptive; they serve to reinforce the idea that apartheid thrived on separation and exclusion. By framing society in terms of rigid binaries, Longmore exposes the artificiality of these divisions and calls into question their legitimacy. Dichotomies thus function as both a reflection of apartheid’s logic and a critique of its consequences.
Through juxtaposition, antithesis, paradox, oxymoron, irony, and dichotomy, Zenga Longmore unveils the systemic injustices of apartheid-era South Africa in “Long Enough in Jo’Burg.” By presenting these contrasts so vividly, Longmore ensures that her audience cannot remain indifferent to the human cost of systemic inequality.
