Marketing Mzansi

MARKETING MZANSI: TRANSCULTURATION FOR MARKETING RESEARCH 1

Marketing Mzansi: transculturation as a

theoretical framework for marketing research

in South Africa as an emerging market

Lorna McCullough, Dave Nel

Durban University of Technology

Author Note


Lorna McCullough and Dave Nel are senior lecturers in the

Department of Applied Management at the Durban University of

Technology in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

This research was supported in part by a grant from the National

Research Foundation.

Contact: [email protected]


Abstract

In the wake of the 2010 FIFA World Cup held in South Africa,

singularly the largest marketing campaign in the country’s

history, a new space has emerged: linguistically represented by

the signifier Mzansi, this space exists in the imaginary of the

nation. It is not merely a colloquial term for the country, for

it is a space without easily defined boundaries. It is a liminal

space with fluid psychic, social, economic, historic, lingual and

cultural borders. In this conceptual paper we interrogate

possible research frameworks which have been proposed to conduct

marketing research in so-called emerging markets. Two distinct

approaches are identified as oppositional polarities which form

the foundation from which the critique can proceed. First: the

marketing science approach to understanding emerging markets

(Burgess & Steenkamp, 2006) is explored and the relevancy of

their bounded constructs to the Mzansi phenomenon evaluated.

Second: by contrast, postcolonial critical discourse on marketing

studies in emerging market countries (Varmin & Saha, 2009) argues

strongly that marketing studies constitute an ideologically


loaded discipline which favours Western capitalist hegemony and

promotes Eurocentric and North American epistemologies. We

propose that transculturation, which explores the cultural spaces

in-between the two polarities described above is a highly

appropriate theoretical framework which will rigorously underpin

the development of a research project which focuses on South

Africa as an emerging market. The cultural dimensions of emerging

market research, we will argue, are closely tied into the

colonial encounter and the indigenous, local and autochthonous

constructions of modernity. There is evidence that the so-called

embeddedness of cultural values and traditions in Mzansi is fluid

and flexible; and that modernity and tradition are not binary

opposites, but can bed down together in a form of cultural

symbiosis; not a hybridity which evokes fears of cultural loss

and extinction. Importantly, this paper argues for an ethical

framework and corporate (and individual) social responsibility to

operate within the transcultural, translingual and transhistoric

principles which underpin transculturation research.

Keywords: transculturation, border-crossing, liminality,

consumer-identity


Introduction

The purpose of this discussion paper is to:

briefly contextualise our research position by

introducing two dominant and oppositional approaches

associated with marketing research of emerging markets

unpack the concept of transculturation and understand

its significance in the context of marketing research

in South Africa

identify key strategies, agents and processes which

can be deployed in order to privilege local

communities while acknowledging the interconnectivity

between the local and the global

compare transculturation with so-called glocalisation

recognise transculturation as a communication model

constituted by multiple processes which can counter

forms of disadvantage such as social exclusion

examine transculturation from the perspective of

intersections of multiple discourses which could

enhance marketing research objectives and design


The paper will be constituted by the following sections:

contextualisation of contemporary research into

emerging markets

a critique of the Burgess & Steenkamp (2006) model

proposed for research into emerging markets, in terms

of the rigid bounded groupings of high income

industrial markets (HICs) in opposition to emerging

markets (EMs), based on bipolar cultural value

constructs (Schwartz, 2004)

a recognition of critical postcolonial marketing

studies researchers’ concerns with the privileging of

Western theories in former colonies, giving rise to

epistemic violation in the form of globalisation and

neocolonialism (Varman & Saha, 2009)

transculturation will be presented as a theoretical

and communicative approach to undertaking research in

emerging markets, which could transcend fears of

cultural appropriation and the imposition of the

global to the demise of the local (Rogers, 2006;

Ortiz, 1947)


transculturation will be compared to processes of

glocalisation (Robertson, 1992; Kjeldgaard &

Askegaard, 2006)

It is impossible to ignore the symbolic representation of

global capitalism sprawled across the South African

landscape. From the sleepless pulsating metropolis of

Johannesburg down the escarpment to the dusty rural streets

of Lusikisiki in the Eastern Cape, a panorama of commodities

jostle for market position, to create attention, to persuade

opinion: Coca-Cola, Microsoft, KFC, McDonalds, Mercedes

Benz, BMW, Kellogg’s Cornflakes. From the scenic beauty of

sea and mountains which attract millions of foreign visitors

every year, to the rapidly expanding consumer class, the

abundance of minerals and raw materials, and access to large

reserves of semi-skilled labour, South Africa holds most of

the credentials of an emerging market. Yet the country

is still undergoing the processes of social transformation

and redress, which are made all the more complex by the

multitude of ethnicities, cultural groupings, language


differences, and most striking, the vast differences in

wealth between rich and poor. Research into South Africa’s

role in the global marketplace is clearly required and being

a fairly new player this time around needs an appropriate

holistic research design. One should not forget the

country’s earlier roles on the international marketing stage

with merchandise eagerly demanded by wealthy consumers:

diamonds, gold and even glamorous ostrich feathers were the

order of the day. So the question is now raised within the

context of the twenty-first century global marketplace: how

do we set about researching marketing in Mzansi?

The Marketing Science approach

Burgess & Steenkamp (2006) present a consolidated

methodology for research in emerging markets, suggesting how

such an approach might advance marketing science and

practice more broadly. The authors correctly point out that

international marketing has become an important domain

within the study of marketing science. They also wisely warn

researchers that emerging markets (EMs) could present


significant departures from widely held assumptions based on

Western research. Their use of the terminology EMs in

opposition to high income industrial markets (HICs) is

useful to the degree that such terminology avoids the often

confusing binaries such as: First World versus Third World,

North versus South, West versus East, and Developed versus

Underdeveloped countries. In acknowledging the difficulties

associated with classification, Burgess & Steenkamp point

out that the WTO classifies member states as developed or

developing on the basis of self-selection, with developing

countries equating to EMs. Burgess & Steenkamp however fail

to critically evaluate the voluntariness of this

classification system and the development model as a whole.

They do note that the United Nations categorize countries

based on their score on the human development index

calculated on three criteria: life expectancy at birth;

adult literacy rates in conjunction with educational

achievement; and thirdly, gross domestic product (GDP) at

purchasing power parity. The counterpoint to this

classification approach is based in its total lack of


recognition of the fact that literacy and educational

achievement is culturally bound and is often expressed in

terms of oral literacy, visual literacy, communication with

the spirit world and respect for the environment. Burgess &

Steenkamp (2006) define EMs broadly based on a country’s GDP

adjusted for purchasing power parity and currency

fluctuation. As such these economic based criteria

communicate “development levels better across countries for

the purposes of most marketers” (p. 339). The authors’ call

for continuing research into EMs is necessary because by

their own admission “marketing science is built on the

generalizability of our findings across studies, across

cultures, across national boundaries” (p. 337).

It is in their discussion of theory development with regard

to EMs by firstly, using existing constructs developed in

HICs; and secondly, by identifying new (possibly indigenous)

constructs that the real need for on-going research reveals

itself. Perhaps this will entail the emergence of unexpected


methodologies, which the marketing academy is reluctant to

accept as true scientific method (Chilisa, 2012).

Burgess & Steenkamp (2006) support the notion of the

universality of consumer-related constructs; such

universality they argue is “based on the universal human

needs of individuals as biological organisms, requisites of

coordinated social conduct, and requirements for the smooth

functioning and survival of groups” (p. 340). Such a

construct foregrounds universality over diversity and the

global over the local. Consumer-related issues linked to

social order and control conjure up images of the

commodification of ideology. They do however propose that an

African construct such as Ubuntu which embraces consensus-

based decision-making, mutual respect and organizational

harmony may usefully inform further research in EMs.

We believe that a “marketing renaissance” in Burgess &

Steenkamp’s terms, is highly significant and possible

through continued EM research. More problematic however, is


their attempt to reach understanding and consensus

(generalizations) regarding cultural systems by following

flawed rigid approaches (identified as: Sagiv & Schwartz,

2000; Schwartz, 2004) in which diverse cultural entities are

divided with omnipotence into two separate groups according

to a set of three bipolar criteria. Unsurprisingly the

groups are identified as HICs and EMs. To briefly summarize

this problematic issue we paraphrase from Burgess &

Steenkamp. Cultural values derive from three universal

societal problems: (1) the nature of relations of the

individual to the group (autonomy versus embeddedness); (2)

responsible behavior that preserves the social fabric of the

group (hierarchy versus egalitarianism); (3) managing the

relations of people to society and the environment (mastery

versus harmony) (p. 343).

By stating that the cultural value theory (Schwartz, 2004)

is “one of the most firmly grounded in theory” (p. 343), the

authors are in implicit agreement with a biased worldview

which divides rather than integrates differences in culture.


HICs are represented as societies in which autonomy,

egalitarianism and concern for the welfare of others are

upheld. By contrast, EMs are identified in terms of

hierarchy, cultural stasis and the unequal distribution of

power. In terms of organizational structure, companies in

HICs are likely to be flatter with decentralized authority;

whereas EMs emphasize respect for tradition but autocratic

centralized decision-making is common.

In short, we believe that this approach to the understanding

of cultural systems is too rigid, too dependent on

generalizability and is coded too heavily in the language of

positivist science. To reduce so-called EMs to the level of

“natural laboratories” (p. 337) for research in marketing,

is to stake ownership over the epistemologies of independent

and unique sites of knowledge creation.

A Postcolonial Critique

While Burgess & Steenkamp (2006) recognize that “EMs present

significant departures from the assumptions of theories


developed in the Western world that challenge our

conventional wisdom” (p. 337), it could be argued that

instead of embracing departures from Western theoretical

assumptions, institutions of knowledge creation perpetuate

the status quo. Business schools, marketing academies and

universities, which are often supported by financial grants

from industries and organizations in Europe and North

America, are obliged to globalize, thereby intruding into

institutions of higher learning in EM countries. By sowing

the seed of their own worldviews and knowledge systems,

deploying both overt authoritative devices and subtle

gestures, they reinforce their own positions of dominance

through a form of academic neocolonialism. Varman & Saha

(2009) present an exemplary argument in this regard with

their critical analyses of marketing pedagogy and doctoral

research in two business schools in India.

To briefly summarize the postcolonial critique proffered by

Varman & Saha (2009), we refer to the following elements in

their development of an understanding of the social


landscape which shapes pedagogy and research in the

marketing discipline: (1) from Foucault (1977) the unequal

functioning of the global capital society necessitates

systems of non-egalitarian and asymmetrical power which

create disciplinary processes which produce docile

functionaries; (2) from Bhabha (1994) capitalism in

postcolonial societies is often characterized by a desire to

emulate the colonizer which is manifest through mimesis

situated in postcolonial hybridity; (3) from Spivak (1988)

the silencing of autochthonous voices and the

marginalization of indigenous knowledge systems; and (4) the

role of local compradors acting on behalf of Western

capital. Varman & Saha (2009) summarize their findings by

identifying three broad themes of discursive practices

emerging from their analysis: “Reifying Global Hierarchy,

Creating Compradorian Theatres, and Silencing Subaltern

Voices” (p. 816). The elements and themes mentioned above

warrant further interrogation and delineation which are

beyond the ambit of this current paper. We are however able

to provide a vignette of the underlying ideological tensions


which researchers need to consider, given that most EM

countries are indeed, also postcolonies.

Transculturation as theoretical framework for marketing

research

DeBerry-Spence (2008) seeks to begin a meaningful dialogue

in the “third space which exists between the academy and

places of research in emerging markets” (p. 368). It is our

contention that such a dialogue would necessitate a

transcendence of rigidly bounded ideological positions. The

term transculturation, according to Attwell (2005) “suggests

multiple processes, a dialogue in both directions and, most

importantly, processes of cultural destruction followed by

reconstruction on entirely new terms” (p. 18). Such

processes arise out of the historical collision of vastly

differentiated civilizations, and inevitably, would affect

all aspects of public and personal life. Yet


transculturation as a critical discourse and transformative

modality in a contemporary study of the interconnectivity

between the production, marketing and consumption of

commodities on the one hand, and cultural exchange,

appropriation and performance on the other, is a powerful

non-linear methodology of analysis which produces an

enabling effect in the creation of new knowledge.

Transculturation, in this application of the concept, is

defined as an epistemological process which incorporates

elements of rural indigenous cultures, both traditional and

popular, in flexible conjunction with elements of prominent

global research constructs. As such, transculturation enters

a research space off-limits to linear models of

acculturation and inter-cultural exchange. Furthermore,

transculturation is a counter-current to dominant

homogenising global processes of cultural exchange.

Transculturation emphasizes sociocultural plurality and

diversity while resisting dominance and influence of

globalized culture over local identity and consumption

processes. The concept implies, firstly, a fluidty of


boundariness, liminality, cultural circuitry, border

crossings and contact zones. Secondly, there is a

theoretical implication that transhistorical, translingual

and transcultural processes are circulating between

communities, cultures and nations. These complex processes

are characterised by historical contestations over place,

resources, ownership, gender, authority, authenticity and

power. Ultimately, the terminology “emerging markets” should

imply a discourse of metamorphoses, which arises out of the

inequalities and the asymmetrical power relations of the

past, if there is an unconditional will to transcend, to

cross borders and to relinquish long-held ideological

positions of dominance.

The contradictions which were borne into the postcolonial

and post-apartheid South Africa from the past, such as

inadequate provision of essential services to many

communities, lack of basic amenities such as flushing

toilets in most rural schools, and the vast dichotomy in

lifestyles between a wealthy minority and the poverty


evident in many townships and informal settlements are still

destabilizing factors in the emergence of a stable nation-

state. Yet, running as a counter-discourse to the

aforementioned negativities, is the emergence of a spirit of

“Mzansiness” through which the social exclusion from global

modernity is being overcome in many ironic and unexpected

ways. Seeco (2010) has clearly shown that one of the

characteristics of the Mzansi lifestyle is that tradition,

in terms of indigenous ritual practices, and modernity in

the form of the widespread use of the latest electronic

communication devices, are not mutually exclusive.

In conclusion, we would like to distinguish between the

processes of transculturation and the concept of

glocalization (Kjeldgaard & Askegaard, 2006). While there

are notable similarities, most obviously the tendency for

local communities to adapt and localize the uses and

representation of global commodities and cultural practices

in their everyday lives, on a theoretical level we would

argue that glocalization is strictly a hybrid product of


modernity, whereas transculturation encompasses multiple

modes of cultural exchange.

References

Attwell, D. (2005). Rewriting Modernity: Studies in Black South African Literary History. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.

Burgess, S. M., & Steenkamp, J-B. E. M. (2006). Marketing renaissance: How research in emerging markets advances marketing science and practice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 337-356.

Burns, S. (2012). Crafting research from the liminal space. ActionLearning: Research and Practice, 9(3), 259-273.

Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous Research Methodologies. Los Angeles SAGE.

DeBerry-Spence, B. (2008a). Consumer creations of product meaningin the context of African-style clothing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 395-408.

DeBerry-Spence, B. (2008b). Third-space scholars: bridging the marketing academy and emerging markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(6), 368-373.

Hefer, D. (2010). From witblits to vuvuzelas: marketing in the new South Africa.Cape Town: Oshun Books.

Kalua, F. (2009). Homi Bhabha's Third Space and African identity.Journal of African Cultural Studies, 21(1), 23-32.

Kjeldgaard, D., & Askegaard, S. (2006). The Global Youth Segment as Structures of Common Difference. Journal of Consumer Research,33(2). 23-247.

Kraidy, M. M. (2002). Hybridity in Cultural Globalization. Communication Theory, 12(3), 316-339.

Millington, M. (2007). Transculturation: Contrapuntal Notes to Critical Orthodoxy. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 26(2), 256-268.

Ortiz, F. (1947). Cuban counterpoint: tobacco and sugar (H. De Onis, Trans.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.


Rogers, R. A. (2006). From Cultural Exchange to Transculturation:A Review and Reconceptualization of Cultural Appropriation Communication Theory, 16, 474-503.

Seeco, L. I. (2010). Marketing the same difference: cultural and language dichotomy in advertising. Randburg: Knowres Publishing.

(Attwell, 2005; Burgess & Steenkamp, 2006; Burns, 2012; DeBerry-

Spence, 2008a, 2008b; Hefer, 2010; Kalua, 2009; Kraidy,

2002; Millington, 2007; Ortiz, 1947; Rogers, 2006; Seeco,

2010)


Documents

Marketing Mzansi