Power to the People: Black Publishing for Social Change in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The black power salute is a powerful call to arms for resistance and social change. In South Africa, black power is tied up with the Black Consciousness Movement of the 1970s, aiming to reclaim black identity. Integral to this attempt was the use of cultural and intellectual means, and under its aegis writers’ groups started forming in place of political groups (which were suppressed), as a base for mobilisation and collective action. But these writers could not effect social change on their own: they needed a platform—a publisher. Sipho Sepamla, writing in the New Classic in 1976, pointed to the absence of publishers as a hurdle for black writers: ‘A problem that wears us down is lack of publishers and outlets. There is not a single black publisher I know of in this country.’ In the context of the competing forces of repression and Black Consciousness, a few black publishers did emerge. Skotaville Press, for instance, aimed ‘to produce black literature that is relevant and contemporary—and to do it under black control from start to finish.’ However, it did this in somewhat ambiguous circumstances, relying on foreign funds and white patrons. Using archival records and interviews, this paper will assess the operations and output of these publishers, considering how race and context affects and inflects publishing. Moreover, it will ask why, in contrast to the legacy created by black power publishers in the US, a tradition of viable black‑owned publishing has not continued into the post‑apartheid period.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".