1. In his essay “Apartheid’s Anthropologists: The Genealogy of Afrikaner Anthropology,” Robert Gordon argues that the limitations and abuses of Volkekunde must be understood in terms of the social context in which volkekundiges were producing knowledge. As male Afrikaner intellectuals at apartheid-supporting universities, these scholars tended to be isolated, and to isolate themselves, from the lives of those whom they were studying and the ideas exchanged outside a narrow sub-field of their discipline. Write an essay in which you: a.) Summarise Gordon’s argument and b.) Analyse how that argument may pertain to decolonising social science at the UFS and other South African universities today.

Question

1. In his essay “Apartheid’s Anthropologists: The Genealogy of Afrikaner Anthropology,” Robert Gordon argues that the limitations and abuses of Volkekunde must be understood in terms of the social context in which volkekundiges were producing knowledge. As male Afrikaner intellectuals at apartheid-supporting universities, these scholars tended to be isolated, and to isolate themselves, from the lives of those whom they were studying and the ideas exchanged outside a narrow sub-field of their discipline. Write an essay in which you: a.) Summarise Gordon’s argument and b.) Analyse how that argument may pertain to decolonising social science at the UFS and other South African universities today.

Answer 1

In his essay “Apartheid’s Anthropologists: The Genealogy of Afrikaner Anthropology,” Robert Gordon explores the limitations and abuses of Volkekunde, a field of anthropology developed by Afrikaner scholars in South Africa during the apartheid era. Gordon argues that in order to understand the problematic nature of Volkendunde, it is essential to consider the social context in which these volkekundiges were operating.

Gordon highlights how the scholars in the field of Volkekunde were predominantly male Afrikaner intellectuals who were entrenched in apartheid-supporting universities. This environment often led to these scholars isolating themselves from the lives of those whom they were studying, as well as from diverse intellectual ideas and perspectives. Their research was influenced by their own biases and prejudices, further perpetuating discriminatory practices within social science research during apartheid.

Gordon’s analysis reveals how the limited perspective and isolated nature of volkekundiges contributed to the perpetuation of apartheid ideology and policies through their research. Their work was used to justify racial segregation and discrimination, and their findings were often used to uphold the oppressive system in place at the time.

When considering how Gordon’s argument may pertain to decolonising social science at the University of the Free State (UFS) and other South African universities today, it is crucial to recognize the importance of diversifying perspectives and challenging entrenched power dynamics within academic institutions. Decolonising social science involves deconstructing colonial legacies, questioning dominant narratives, and amplifying marginalized voices within research and academia.

By addressing the historical context and biases that have shaped social science research in South Africa, universities can work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable environment for scholarship. This includes promoting interdisciplinary collaboration, engaging with diverse communities, and centering the experiences and knowledge of marginalized groups in research practices.

In conclusion, Gordon’s analysis of apartheid-era anthropology sheds light on the limitations and abuses of volkekunde, and highlights the importance of critically examining the social context in which research is conducted. By learning from this historical perspective, universities like the UFS can take steps towards decolonising social science and promoting a more inclusive approach to knowledge production in South Africa.