Structure exerts causal powers on interaction thereby influencing people by shaping the situations in which they find themselves (Hoel 2010). In essence, structure preconditions certain actions as possible and other actions as difficult if not impossible. The manner in which situations are shaped, and are acted upon, is known as mediation. Mediation can therefore be defined as “an objective influence which conditions action patterns and supplies agents with strategic directional guidance” (Archer 1995: 196). In all this, people remain as the only constant as they are the ones who ultimately mediate structure. While structures are the result of past interaction, they also – through agential powers acting upon them – have diverse and contingent consequences and sometimes these are unintended and unwanted. A key point here then is that, though agential power regularly entails conscious and deliberation action, this does not imply that the actual outcome is as intended and hence structural elaboration is not a pre-determined outcome of agential powers (again, structure as elaborated is not irreducible to agential power in any straightforward manner).
The apartheid government bequeathed to the incoming ANC government deep structures of inequality and poverty. The post-apartheid government inherited these (unwanted) challenges and has had to deal with them as best as is possible (through redistribution programmes) while also seeking to maximise economic growth. Through policies around social assistance (including the CSG), state agency has sought to mediate the impact of preceding structures and bring about or influence redistributive change. These same structures, at local level, are mediated by the actual beneficiaries of CSGs in and through their livelihood activities. But poverty remains pervasive in contemporary South Africa, and this is neither the intended outcome of the state nor of the CSG caregivers. It is clear then that, in examining the interplay between structure and agency, the forces for enablement are vastly deficient in terms of addressing the roots of poverty in post-apartheid society.
In fact, it may be argued that one unintended consequence of all this is dependency amongst the poor upon the state – not a dependency syndrome as such (though this may exist)
but a structural relationship of dependency in which the poor (including the CSG caregivers) have no other option but to look to the state for activating household livelihoods and for any hope in the future. Arguably, this is not a situation which the state itself favours and (certainly based on my fieldwork in Riebeek East) it is not a situation in which caregivers would choose to exist. It is situation to which they do not voluntarily consent but one to which they comply given the unavailability of viable local alternatives. And it is marked more by morphostasis than by morphogenesis.
Constitutionally, it is mandatory for the South African state to address the socio- economic rights of its citizens within what is possible. Within the realm of what is possible, the ANC government has pursued what is considered desirable (neoliberalism over developmentalism). In doing so, it has failed to mediate the apartheid past in a manner which tackles and resolves the preceding inequality and poverty, and simply reproduces these albeit in new post-apartheid forms. The CSG caregivers in Riebeek East and elsewhere continue to pursue their livelihoods under these structural constraints. The caregivers feel trapped within these constraints despite their concerted efforts to mediate the constraints and break free from conditions of poverty. Based on their particular concerns, the caregivers in Riebeek East had to be very frugal in deciding what projects (if any) to embark on, realising certain projects (such as informal economic activities) may not even get off the ground.
Thus, through relevant policies and programmes, the post-apartheid state has failed to address the condition of poverty in a manner which enables (rather than mainly constrains) household-based livelihoods including for the CSG recipients in Riebeek East. Until the South African state breaks free of its current model of macro-economic restructuring (neoliberalism), the reproduction of poverty will continue to be a key unintended (and unwanted) consequence of its actions and the livelihoods of CSG caregivers. Structures of inequality and poverty do not predetermine the state to pursue neoliberalism. And likewise, even in adopting neoliberalism, there is seemingly still some room to manoeuvre despite the neoliberal constraints in effect. But, while structure may not always determine a particular action it does provide a strong incentive for choosing some courses of action over others. For example, given the country’s apparent move towards becoming a developmental state yet still economically limited to being a pronounced neo-liberal state, this situation ensures that social assistance spending – while available – will be limited in terms of the amounts available in order to be in line with fiscal spending priorities. As Archer (1995:216) puts it, though the
structures do not determine they do provide strategic guidance “by supplying good reasons for particular causes of action”.
In Archer’s distinction between the various categories of agency (Persons, Agents and Actors), the Riebeek East caregivers all fall into these categories. As Persons, caregivers (even though dependent on the grant) are individuals able to make their own decisions, exemplified by how they prioritise the money firstly for the child’s nutrition and education and thereafter for other household needs (for some, though, the grant is used exclusively for the child). As Agents, the role of the guardians as ‘caregivers’ entails in itself access to a particular resource – the grant – which they receive on behalf of the children and which they make use of within the specific location of Riebeek East, where there is limited access to alternatives needed for everyday household survival. Thus, the interplay between structure and agency is constantly at play as caregivers (as both Persons and Agents) use the resources at hand in constructing livelihoods within their specific socio-economic location and standing.
The category of Actor entails the positions that the caregivers would hold in society beyond being caregivers to the grant children. However, from the fieldwork evidence, it is clear that the caregivers themselves did not occupy any significant positions within society. Certain caregivers, albeit in limited ways, had positions of prominence locally: some were heads of households, others were responsible for their local associations or societies and still others were employed (whether temporarily or full time) and thus able to enter the world of work and enact roles to enhance their livelihoods. But these roles did not involve any collective action on the part of the caregivers in Riebeek East and thus the caregivers cannot be considered as Corporate Agents. In the end, they tended to pursue their livelihoods on an individual and isolated household basis and they did not engage as a mobilised group in their poverty-reducing livelihoods. This shows the extent to which their voices were muted and it further emphasises their overall marginalisation and disempowerment.