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. However in your introduction including background information, theis statement and roadmap also reference your findings using havard method

Answer 1

Gordon's essay “Apartheid’s Anthropologists: The Genealogy of Afrikaner Anthropology” delves into the historical context in which volkekundiges (Afrikaner anthropologists) operated during the apartheid era in South Africa. He argues that the limitations and abuses of Volkekunde (the study of the Afrikaner people) must be understood within the social and political context of apartheid. Gordon highlights how these scholars, as male Afrikaner intellectuals at apartheid-supporting universities, were isolated from the lives of those they were studying and from broader intellectual exchanges.

In his essay, Gordon emphasizes the role of isolation in shaping the knowledge production of volkekundiges. These scholars were often disconnected from the lived experiences and perspectives of the people they were studying, leading to a narrow focus on Afrikaner cultural purity and superiority. This isolation also resulted in a lack of engagement with diverse ideas and methodologies, limiting the potential for critical and reflexive research.

In the context of decolonising social science at the University of the Free State (UFS) and other South African universities today, Gordon's argument remains relevant. The legacy of apartheid continues to shape academic practices and perspectives, reinforcing patterns of isolation and exclusion. Decolonising social science involves challenging these legacies and promoting more inclusive and diverse forms of knowledge production.

To decolonise social science at institutions like UFS, it is essential to address the historical and structural roots of exclusion and isolation. This may involve promoting diverse perspectives and methodologies, fostering connections with local communities, and critically examining the underlying assumptions and biases in research practices. By engaging with a wider range of voices and experiences, scholars can work towards more socially just and relevant forms of knowledge production.

In conclusion, Gordon's analysis of the limitations of Afrikaner anthropology under apartheid offers important insights for the decolonisation of social science in contemporary South Africa. By recognizing the role of isolation and exclusion in shaping knowledge production, scholars can work towards more inclusive and transformative research practices. Decolonising social science requires a commitment to challenging historical legacies and building more equitable and engaged intellectual communities.