'To define the indefinable': population classification and the census in South Africa¶
A J Christopher (2002). 'To define the indefinable': population classification and the census in South Africa. Area 34(4). Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) / Wiley-Blackwell.
| Type | journal article |
| Scope | Wider apartheid literature |
| Method | archival narrative |
| Period studied | 1865–2001 |
| Regions | South Africa, Cape of Good Hope, Natal, Transvaal, Orange Free State, Western Cape |
| Themes | origins segregation, methods data sources, politics ideology elections, demography urbanisation, bantustans removals influx, transition post apartheid |
| Citation key | christopher2002a |
Argument¶
Christopher traces how South African censuses classified the population from the Cape census of 1865 to 1996. The categories were created by the state for its own purposes, and they changed as those purposes changed. Classification moved from a complex colonial taxonomy to a simplified racial hierarchy in the Union era, and then to the legally binding system of the 1950 Population Registration Act, which underpinned group areas and homeland policy. Following Barrier, he argues that the census tended to reinforce and create the groups it was meant only to observe. Apartheid-era categories persisted in the 1996 census and in affirmative-action legislation. Reading census results therefore requires understanding the shifts in the classification system.
Evidence and method¶
Census reports of the Cape (1865-1904), Natal, Transvaal, Orange River Colony and Union/Republic (1911-1996); statutes (South Africa Act, Population Registration Act 1950, Employment Equity Act 1998); Cape Town Deeds Office title deeds with racial exclusion clauses; Government Gazette notices; secondary literature on censuses and race.
Place in the debates¶
- Do censuses merely describe or actively construct group identities? (see Census, race classification and demographic data). Constructivist: sides with Barrier (1981) that census administrations create and reinforce the identities of the groups they were meant only to observe, and sees the Coloured case as supporting this.
- Can race be scientifically defined for legal and statistical purposes? (see Census, race classification and demographic data). Sceptical: quotes Suzman and the Malaya census commissioner to show that no uniform or scientific basis for race classification exists.
Findings¶
- Race classification was administered by Whites as part of the system of control until 1994, and the state changed the categories as its purposes changed. (p. 2)
-
The first Cape census (1865) used a fourfold classification, and Europeans were the largest group though only about a third of the population. (p. 3)
At that stage, the four groups were reasonably similar in size, with Europeans the largest, despite only representing 36.6 per cent of the population.
-
The quinquennial censuses of 1918-1941 counted only Europeans, because the census served the allocation of House of Assembly seats. (p. 4)
Thus the censuses of 1918, 1926, 1931 and 1941 only enumerated Europeans.
-
The Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act (both 1950) made official race classification vital because it determined where people could live. (p. 5)
-
The Population Registration Board judged race by appearance and social acceptability, using demeaning tests. (p. 5)
such aspects as the demonstration of language skills and demeaning tests for the curliness of hair and skin colour were integral parts of the practical assessment process.
-
Reclassifying the Hottentot population in the census reduced the recorded number of Africans in the western Cape without physical expulsion, in an area proclaimed a Coloured preference area. (p. 5)
-
The census helped lock individuals into groups, supporting Barrier's thesis. (p. 6)
census administrations tend to create and reinforce the identity of population groups that they were initially only meant to observe.
Evidence ledger¶
Sources used¶
| Source | Kind | Period | How used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Census of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope 1865 (G20-'66) | population census | 1865 | Establishes the first modern census in South Africa and its fourfold classification (European, Hottentot, Kafir, Other) and group shares. |
| Census of the Cape of Good Hope 1875 (G42-'76) and its 1891 report (G6-'92) | population census | 1875, 1891 | Documents the elaborate six-category classification and enumerator instructions on Fingo and Hottentot identification, retained in 1891 and 1904. |
| Census of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope 1904 (G19-1905) | population census | 1904 | Shows the census report's criticism of the existing classification as unscientific and its recommended threefold colour-based scheme. |
| Census of the Colony of Natal 1891 | population census | 1891 | Shows Natal's first census only estimated the indigenous population and enumerated mixed-race people with Europeans. |
| Census of the Transvaal Colony and Swaziland 1904 / Census of the Orange River Colony 1904 | population census | 1904 | Shows the 1904 inter-colonial enumeration with categories Europeans, Natives, Asiatics and Mixed, and Asiatic absence in the Orange River Colony. |
| Census of the Union of South Africa 1911 (UG32-1912) | population census | 1911 | Establishes the simplified threefold tabulation and the Hottentot and Indian sub-enumeration deemed unreliable. |
| Census of the population 1921 (UG15-'23) | population census | 1921 | Documents the introduction of the fourfold division including Asiatic and the 'purely European descent' definition. |
| Population census 1946 (UG51-1949) | population census | 1946 | Shows the legalistic definition of European in the census instructions. |
| Population census 1951 (UG42-1955) | population census | 1951 | Provides the fivefold classification, the count of Cape Malay (62,807), and the reclassification of western Cape indigenous people as Native. |
| Population censuses 1960, 1970, 1980, 1985 (RP62-1963; Reports 02-05-01, 02-80-13, 02-85-01) | population census | 1960-1985 | Shows the reversion to the fourfold grouping and the language-group/'Bantu National Units' tabulations tied to homeland policy. |
| Population census 1991 (Report 03-01-06) and The People of South Africa: population census 1996 (Report 03-01-19) | population census | 1991, 1996 | Used for the shift to a home language question and for the 1996 finding that 99.1 per cent identified with apartheid-era categories. |
| Table 1: census classification categories 1865-2001 (compiled from census reports) | population census | 1865-2001 | Tabulates the changing census category labels across all censuses. |
| Cape Government Gazette no. 2174, Government Notice 7 July 1847, Native Locations in the Eastern Districts | legislation gazette | 1847 | Shows that official location-establishment terminology differed from the census categories. |
| Statutes of the Union of South Africa 1910 and 1911 (South Africa Act) | legislation gazette | 1910-1911 | Establishes the 'European descent' requirement and the quinquennial census provisions. |
| Statutes of the Union of South Africa 1950 (Population Registration Act definition of white person) | legislation gazette | 1950 | Provides the legal definition of a white person that became the census definition. |
| Employment Equity Act 1998, Government Gazette no. 19370 | legislation gazette | 1998 | Shows the post-apartheid official 'black people' generic term differing from census usage. |
| Deeds Office, Cape Town: deeds of transfer and township title (T8135/1924, CTT4966/1951, T16024/1949) | state archives | 1924-1951 | Illustrates racial exclusion clauses in property deeds and popular terminology versus official classification. |
| Jeppe and Kotze 1887, De locale wetten der Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek 1849-1885 | legislation gazette | 1849-1885 | Cited for the Republic's one-sixteenth rule on European status. |
| Malaya 1932, A report on the 1931 census | population census | 1931 | Comparative illustration of colonial census difficulty defining race. |
Inference¶
Quantification: Illustrative figures.
Qualitative documentary and comparative-historical reading of successive census reports, instructions, and legislation over time, showing changes in classification categories and relating them to legal and political aims; supported by a few deed examples and quoted secondary authors.
Key claims¶
| Claim | Basis | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Census classification in South Africa shifted from elaborate taxonomic categories in the Cape (1875-1904) to a simplified, colour-based system after Union to match racial legislation. (p. 404) | Successive census reports (1865, 1875, 1891, 1904, 1911, 1921) and Table 1 comparing categories. | Systematic data |
| Official census definitions of race were tied to legal and political rights, notably the Population Registration Act and Group Areas Act, with the 1951 census as the reference point. (p. 405) | Population Registration Act definition in 1950 Statutes and 1951 census report. | Partial data |
| Census reclassifications were used administratively, e.g. Cape Malay separate count to test need for group areas, and Hottentot reclassification to Coloured in 1970 reducing Africans in the western Cape. (p. 405) | 1951 and 1970 census reports and the group area proclamation; author's inference of motive. | Partial data |
| Formal census categories diverged from popular usage in deeds, which converged toward official classification over time. (p. 404) | Three Cape deeds from 1924, 1949 and 1951 cited in notes. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
| Nearly all the population (99.5 per cent historically; 99.1 per cent in 1996) was placed in or self-identified with the four apartheid-era categories. (p. 405) | Census totals, particularly the 1996 census report; the 99.5 per cent figure is not sourced to a specific table. | Partial data |
| The census tended to reinforce and create the group identities it was meant only to observe (Barrier's thesis), as seen in the Coloured population. (p. 406) | Barrier 1981 and Martin 1998 (secondary literature) plus the persistence of categories in the 1996 census. | Asserted |
The author's caveats¶
The author notes that unreliable results led to Hottentot and Indian refinements not being reported in the 1911 main schedules, that early Natal and Orange Free State censuses were partial, that small groups were reclassified differently between censuses, and that 1996 non-response rates suggest similar omission on race.
Gaps in the evidence¶
The argument that classification shaped identities rests on census reports and legislation, with no evidence from enumerator instructions, internal Census Bureau or Population Registration Board files, or survey data on how people understood or responded to categories. Archival records on administrative motives (e.g. the Malay count, the 1970 Hottentot reclassification) and on reclassification appeals exist and could test the claims. Micro-level census returns or post-1994 identity surveys could show whether the categories 'locked in' identity.
Replicability: Data public and well described.