Gordon's argument on volkekunde, or Afrikaner anthropology, delves deeper into the ways in which these anthropologists perpetuated harmful stereotypes and biases in their research. He points out how the isolation of volkekundiges from the communities they studied led to a narrow focus on specific aspects of culture, often overlooking the complex social realities of apartheid South Africa. This lack of critical engagement with the lived experiences of Black South Africans allowed volkekundiges to frame indigenous African cultures as inferior and in need of European guidance.
Furthermore, Gordon highlights how volkekundiges played a significant role in supporting and justifying apartheid policies through their research. By emphasizing the supposed primitiveness of indigenous cultures, these anthropologists provided a pseudo-scientific basis for the segregation and disenfranchisement of Black South Africans. This dehumanization of Black South Africans not only perpetuated harmful stereotypes but also served to legitimize the continued dominance of white Europeans in South African society.
In contemporary South Africa, the legacy of volkekunde and its impact on academic disciplines, such as social science, continue to be felt. Issues of representation, power dynamics, and knowledge production remain prevalent in universities, affecting the ways in which research is conducted and knowledge is disseminated. Gordon argues that the decolonization of academic disciplines is necessary to challenge dominant narratives and uplift marginalized voices. Online platforms have provided a space for these voices to push for more inclusive and equitable forms of knowledge production and dissemination.
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.
Expand the above information further into more detail about Gordon's argument on volkekunde
1 answer