Respond to the following prompt in 1500 words or less:
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.
In his essay “Apartheid’s Anthropologists: The Genealogy of Afrikaner Anthropology,” Robert Gordon discusses the limitations and abuses of Volkekunde, a particular form of anthropology practiced by Afrikaner scholars in apartheid-era South Africa. He argues that these limitations must be understood within the social context in which these scholars operated. Gordon highlights that many of these volkekundiges were male Afrikaner intellectuals working at universities that supported the apartheid regime. As a result, they tended to isolate themselves from the individuals and communities they were studying, as well as from broader intellectual currents in the social sciences. This isolation contributed to a narrow, biased understanding of South African society and culture, which in turn perpetuated and supported the oppressive structures of apartheid.
Gordon’s argument can be summarized in the following points:
1. Volkekundiges, or Afrikaner anthropologists, were predominantly male academics working within the Afrikaner nationalist framework of apartheid South Africa. They operated in a highly ideological and politically charged environment that shaped their research agendas and methodologies.
2. These scholars tended to study indigenous South African communities through a lens of racial superiority and cultural difference, viewing black Africans as “other” and inferior to themselves. This perspective influenced the types of questions they asked, the methods they used, and the conclusions they drew about the societies they were studying.
3. The isolation of these scholars within their academic institutions and intellectual circles led to a lack of engagement with alternative ideas and perspectives. They tended to ignore or dismiss critical voices, both within and outside of their discipline, that challenged their assumptions and methodologies.
4. The findings of volkekunde research were used to justify and support the policies of the apartheid regime, reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices about different racial and cultural groups in South Africa.
In analyzing how Gordon’s argument may pertain to decolonizing social science at the University of the Free State (UFS) and other South African universities today, it is important to consider the legacy of apartheid on academic disciplines and the ongoing challenges of transforming these institutions. Decolonization involves not only addressing the historical injustices and biases of the past but also rethinking the structures and practices that continue to perpetuate inequalities and exclusions in the present.
One key aspect of decolonizing social science at UFS and other universities is the need to critically examine the intellectual genealogy of disciplines like anthropology and sociology. This involves acknowledging the ways in which colonial and apartheid-era ideologies have shaped the theories, methods, and concepts that have been traditionally taught and practiced in these fields. By recognizing and confronting this legacy, scholars can begin to deconstruct the Eurocentric and racist frameworks that have marginalized indigenous knowledge systems and silenced alternative perspectives.
Furthermore, decolonizing social science requires a commitment to diversity, inclusivity, and social justice in research and teaching. This means actively seeking out and incorporating perspectives from historically marginalized and oppressed groups, such as black South Africans, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people with disabilities. It also involves challenging the hierarchies of knowledge that privilege Western modes of thought and devalue indigenous ways of knowing.
Another important aspect of decolonization is fostering collaborative and reciprocal relationships between academics and the communities they study. This means moving away from the model of the detached, objective observer towards a more participatory and engaged approach to research. By working in partnership with local communities and learning from their experiences, researchers can develop more nuanced and ethical understandings of social issues and dynamics.
In conclusion, Robert Gordon’s argument about the limitations of volkekundiges in apartheid-era South Africa provides important insights for understanding the challenges of decolonizing social science at the University of the Free State and other South African universities today. By critically examining the historical legacies of colonialism and apartheid, fostering diversity and inclusivity in research and teaching, and building collaborative relationships with communities, scholars can begin to transform the discipline of anthropology and sociology in ways that are more ethical, just, and responsive to the needs and aspirations of all South Africans.