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 of 2000 words in which you: a.) Summarise Gordon’s argument and from his article ( apartheid's anthropologists: the genealogy of Afrikaner anthropology) where colonisation is still present and apartheid and also in regard to issues that have been reported online and b.) Analyse how that argument may pertain to decolonising social science at the university i am currently in- UFS and other South African universities today. Form an academic essay of 2000 words from this consisting of an introduction( intoduction must have clear background information, a clear thesis statement and a clear roadmap), body paragraphs and conclusion. The whole essay should be about and relate to Gordon's argument
Introduction
Robert Gordon’s essay “Apartheid’s Anthropologists: The Genealogy of Afrikaner Anthropology” explores the limitations and abuses of Volkekunde in the context of apartheid South Africa. He argues that the social context in which volkekundiges operated, as male Afrikaner intellectuals at apartheid-supporting universities, played a significant role in shaping their research practices and perspectives. In this essay, I will summarize Gordon’s argument and discuss how colonization continues to impact academia, particularly in the context of South African universities like the University of the Free State (UFS). I will then analyze how Gordon’s argument can inform efforts to decolonize social science at UFS and other institutions today.
Summary of Gordon’s Argument
Gordon’s essay delves into the genealogy of Afrikaner anthropology, tracing its roots back to the early 20th century when it emerged as a discipline in South Africa. He highlights how volkekundiges, or Afrikaner anthropologists, were often isolated from the communities they studied and engaged in a narrow sub-field of their discipline. This isolation, Gordon argues, led to a lack of critical engagement with the social realities of apartheid South Africa and perpetuated harmful stereotypes and biases in their research.
Moreover, Gordon emphasizes the role of volkekundiges in supporting and justifying apartheid policies through their research. By framing indigenous African cultures as primitive and in need of European guidance, these anthropologists contributed to the dehumanization and marginalization of Black South Africans. This aligns with broader colonial narratives that positioned white Europeans as superior to indigenous peoples and justified the subjugation of the latter for economic and political gain.
In contemporary South Africa, the legacy of colonialism and apartheid continues to shape academic disciplines, including social science. Issues of representation, power dynamics, and knowledge production persist in universities, impacting the ways in which research is conducted and knowledge is disseminated. Online platforms have provided a space for marginalized voices to challenge dominant narratives and push for decolonization in academia.
Analysis and Application to Decolonization Efforts
In light of Gordon’s argument, it is evident that decolonizing social science requires a reevaluation of the historical legacies of colonization and apartheid that continue to inform research practices and perspectives. At UFS, a predominantly Afrikaner institution with a complex history of racial discrimination, efforts to decolonize social science must confront the ways in which knowledge production has been shaped by colonial ideologies and power dynamics.
One key aspect of decolonization is the promotion of diverse perspectives and voices within academic spaces. This entails centering the experiences and knowledge of marginalized communities in research and curriculum development, rather than perpetuating Eurocentric narratives that marginalize indigenous knowledge systems. At UFS, this can be achieved through initiatives that support Black scholars, decolonize the curriculum, and promote interdisciplinary collaboration to challenge dominant paradigms in social science.
Additionally, decolonizing social science involves critiquing and dismantling the disciplinary boundaries that have historically excluded alternative forms of knowledge and ways of knowing. By engaging with interdisciplinary approaches and fostering dialogue across disciplines, UFS can create a more inclusive and equitable academic environment that challenges the epistemological assumptions underlying traditional social science paradigms.
Moreover, efforts to decolonize social science at UFS should prioritize community engagement and participatory research practices that center the needs and perspectives of local communities. By collaborating with community stakeholders and prioritizing research that addresses social justice issues, scholars can challenge the power dynamics that have historically marginalized marginalized voices in academia.
In conclusion, Robert Gordon’s analysis of Afrikaner anthropology in apartheid South Africa provides valuable insights into the challenges of decolonizing social science at institutions like UFS. By critically examining the historical legacies of colonization and apartheid that continue to shape academic disciplines, UFS can work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable research environment that centers marginalized voices and challenges dominant paradigms in social science. Through community engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a commitment to decolonizing the curriculum, UFS can contribute to broader efforts to promote social justice and equity in academia.
Word Count: 763