There are 861,000 domestic workers employed in South Africa. They make up about 25% of the informal (non-agricultural) labour sector. By and large, it is still uneducated, black working-class females who clean and care for the country’s middle- to upper-class homes. It’s an eerily familiar scene.
Paid domestic work provides a microcosm of South Africa’s continuing struggle with its apartheid past. While the slavery of the colonial era and the servitude of black people under apartheid’s white minority rule are now gone, paid domestic work has adapted to post-apartheid realities. A great deal has changed in the country’s legal landscape, but domestic labour preserves racial identities and inequalities.
Read more:
What is apartheid? New book for young readers explains South Africa’s racist system
We have researched domestic labour in South Africa extensively for more than a decade, including the first author’s PhD. We have done in-depth interviews with over 70 employers and workers through a range of studies in the province of KwaZulu-Natal.
Our research shows that these racial identities and inequalities persist, particularly when domestic employers and workers avoid discussing the racial aspects of their relationships, feeling these are “too close for comfort” and liable to evoke explosive apartheid-era stereotypes.
It’s clear that the injustices of paid domestic labour cannot be solved through legislation alone. The history, norms, and pain from the country’s past run too deep. They touch people personally, and affect the way they engage each other (or don’t).
Social change requires innovative solutions to disrupt the status quo, while also facing the country’s haunting past.
Changes on paper
The end of apartheid in 1994 brought about a wave of changes, including equal rights for all citizens. Labour laws were extensively reformed. Rights and standards for domestic workers were introduced to address wages, working conditions, and other aspects of employment, theoretically ensuring fair treatment.
These legal advancements led to some improvements in the minimum wage and the use of employment contracts of domestic workers. But they didn’t stop entrenched practices like payments-in-kind (for example giving groceries or housing instead of cash) and unpaid overtime.
Read more:
Why Nigerian women in Oyo state use child domestic workers
The informal and private nature of domestic work makes it difficult to regulate. Progressive laws cannot reach here to eliminate cultural attitudes and behaviours that echo apartheid.
In other words…
In her 1980 book Maids and Madams, South African sociologist Jacklyn Cock was one of the first researchers to treat paid domestic labour as a reflection of broad structures of oppression in the country. She set out how apartheid racial hierarchies were overt, widely acknowledged, and crudely enacted. Domestic workers faced conditions close to slavery, with employers wielding unchecked power over their lives. Domestic work reinforced a rigid racial hierarchy, clearly demarcating the roles and status of the “madam” and the “maid”.
Through a close analysis of extensive interviews, our research shows how language underpins this relationship today, both through what is said and what isn’t. Domestic workers and employers go to great lengths not to talk about themselves as the “maid” or the “madam”. They focus instead on intimacy, reciprocation, and mutual support, avoiding the need to negotiate their employment relationship or any other topic that might arouse issues relating to race or inequality.
Read more:
Household gardeners in South Africa: a survivalist life with little protection
Middle- to upper-class employers are particularly sensitive to racial stereotypes and avoid language that hints at hierarchy or power. They sometimes say that domestic workers “feel like one of the family”, which obscures the underlying power dynamics.
This matters because it allows potentially unfair or exploitative labour practices to be carried out under the guise of “familial” relations. For example, we might expect an aunt to go the extra mile for the family, staying late to help out and showing she cares about the household. Outside of these familial boundaries, an “employee” should not have these obligations.
Polite language can create a veneer of equality that hides ongoing exploitation. To avoid sounding like “the baas” (boss) or “the madam”, with racial overtones, many employers are reluctant to give direct feedback or set clear boundaries for their employees.
Instead, we found that many give ambiguous instructions, or no instructions at all, avoiding the uncomfortable post-apartheid situation of being a middle-class white woman telling a working-class black woman what to do. This can lead to confusion, frustration, and potentially unfair treatment. As a result, employers may feel that their expectations go unfulfilled and workers don’t know what is required of them.
Calculations based on Quarterly Labour Force Statistics consistently demonstrate that only 20% of domestic workers are registered for the state’s Unemployment Insurance Fund. Instead, work relationships are regulated by informal understandings between parties, a fact that became apparent when domestic workers could not access unemployment insurance benefits during the COVID-19 lockdowns.
A contract requires negotiations that would make the employment-centred nature of the relationship, with its hierarchy and expectations, undeniable for all involved.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, these sensitivities and avoidances are apparent in conversations with domestic workers too. Workers prefer to focus on the value of their labour and justify, subvert, and evaluate their place in their employer’s household. Sometimes they talk about themselves as being “the boss” or “the owner” of the house, based on the responsibilities they have, the types of work they do – like caring for children or the elderly in the household – and the amount of time that they spend tending the home.
However, these assertions have a hollow ring when workers are excluded from big decisions in the household, like their right to have visitors, or small decisions like where to place household furniture. Feeling like part of the family is ruptured by exclusion from intimate moments like family celebrations, creating an all too familiar reminder of race and hierarchy.
Moving forward
The very real progress that has been made over the past 30 years of democracy should be celebrated. Legal reforms have achieved basic rights for domestic workers. Nevertheless, the spectre of apartheid still haunts South Africa and it’s clear that much work remains to be done.
It’s our view that disrupting the patterns that seem so ingrained in this relationship will take fresh thinking. Mutually negotiated employment contracts should be a norm. Professionalising paid domestic labour provides the opportunity to break the informality that has come to define domestic labour relations in South Africa.
And, with increasing access to the internet in South Africa, the digitisation of domestic labour holds promise for instituting social change through technology.
This has been successful in the developing world, including the African continent.
Workers have greater agency to market themselves, choose where and who to work for, and to rate and regulate employers. Online platforms could also provide the opportunity for vetting each other and for negotiating compliance with regulations.
Kevin Durrheim receives funding from the National Research Foundation.
Amy Jo Murray does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
