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 Analyse how that argument may pertain to decolonising social science at the UFS and other South African universities today.
In his essay, Robert Gordon presents a compelling argument about the limitations and abuses of Volkekunde, a form of anthropology practiced by Afrikaner scholars during the apartheid era in South Africa. He argues that the social context in which these scholars operated, as male Afrikaner intellectuals at apartheid-supporting universities, played a significant role in shaping their research practices and the knowledge they produced. Gordon highlights how these scholars tended to be isolated from the communities they were studying and from broader intellectual currents outside their narrow sub-field of anthropology, which ultimately limited the perspectives and insights they could bring to their work.
This argument has important implications for the process of decolonising social science at the University of the Free State (UFS) and other South African universities today. The legacy of apartheid-era scholarship, including the practices of isolation and narrowness of perspective that Gordon describes, continues to shape the way in which knowledge is produced and circulated in the social sciences in South Africa. Decolonising social science involves challenging and changing these entrenched patterns of scholarship in order to create a more inclusive and socially relevant body of knowledge.
One way in which Gordon’s argument pertains to decolonising social science at UFS and other South African universities is through the need to diversify the voices and perspectives that are represented in academia. Just as the volkekundiges of the apartheid era were isolated from the lived experiences and perspectives of the communities they studied, so too are contemporary social scientists often disconnected from the diverse voices and knowledges that exist within South African society. Decolonising social science requires actively seeking out and amplifying marginalized and underrepresented voices, including those of black South Africans, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others who have historically been excluded from academic discourse.
Additionally, Gordon’s argument highlights the importance of breaking down disciplinary boundaries and engaging with a broader range of intellectual perspectives in order to enrich social science scholarship in South Africa. Just as the volkekundiges of the apartheid era isolated themselves within a narrow sub-field of anthropology, contemporary social scientists at UFS and other universities may be constrained by disciplinary silos that limit the range of perspectives and approaches they can bring to their research. Decolonising social science involves fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and dialogue, as well as engaging with knowledge production outside of traditional Western academic frameworks.
Overall, Robert Gordon’s argument about the limitations and abuses of Volkekunde during the apartheid era provides valuable insights for the process of decolonising social science at UFS and other South African universities today. By critically examining the social context in which knowledge is produced and challenging entrenched patterns of scholarship, social scientists can work towards creating a more inclusive, relevant, and socially engaged body of knowledge that reflects the diversity and complexity of South African society.