Abstract
There is an urgency in this collection of essays not often found in works with such weighty academic titles. It reflects the concern of the editors and contributors to engage social theory with the South African present. It is a country which, for nearly 20 years, has been in a checkered transition from apartheid. The contributors agree in their various ways that the process has resulted in far less than what was envisioned during the struggle against apartheid. The editors are explicit about this. Furthermore, universities and other sites of critical discussion and debate have been seriously compromised. Neo-liberal mantras are invoked repeatedly and all over, even by intellectuals and activists who were once firmly on the left. Conformism, not critique, is the order of things; there is a shortage of critical discourse. The purpose of this collection of essays is to examine the situation and suggest various ways of reading the present and the possibilities to re-invigorate critical social thought in South Africa. It succeeds in the passion it brings to the task and, despite the unevenness, in the quality of the essays on the whole. I know of no other work that makes the case for the relevance of social theory in contemporary South Africa.
It is not a comprehensive collection and was not meant to be; it is not intended to be a work from various humanities and social science disciplinary perspectives. Indeed, it appears to be a consciously inter-disciplinary volume. However, the essays may be broadly classified: after the introduction that sets the scene and tone for the work to follow, three are essays in theoretical reflection (Schatzki, Olivier, and Neocosmos), two on history (Pillay and Lalu), one on literary interpretation (Higgins), two on politics (Chipkin and Pithouse), and one is on an aspect of religion (Rowe). Each chapter does address an issue at the core of their discipline but this is not its aim. Schatzki offers a readable introduction to social theory, its purposes, types, and how the ‘entanglement of disciplines’ might ‘instigate thought’, which is one of the objects of university life, while Olivier argues that philosophy can address power and empire. Higgins gives us a careful philological account of the preface of Marx’s ‘Critique of political economy’ by bringing together Marx and Edward Said. It is an example of literary analysis with implications for Marxist social theory. Pillay explores in some detail the politics of colour, colonialism, and language in South African historiography. He examines a few key moments in the tradition of radical history in the country, revealing their limits and contradictions. Similarly, Lalu examines core concepts of recent South African historiography and then makes a case for a ‘South African subaltern studies’. The essays by Chipkin, Pithouse, and Neocosmos are explications of South African politics from their respective areas of research and engagement. Chipkin argues that South Africa, as a post-colonial phenomenon, is ruled by a ‘nationalist state’, and looks at one of its agencies. Neocosmos’ essay partly looks at ‘human rights discourse’, as politically disabling, and Pithouse at popular struggles and the prospects of linking universities to such struggles. The latter two essays are also calls for political engagement. From a disciplinary perspective, there is no essay on the important subject of economics as taught and thought in South Africa. It would be revealing to learn about the history and politics of this field or its sub-fields, say ‘development economics’. So much of this book is relevant to it because of the persistent inequality in South Africa; despite formal political equality, economic power is deeply undemocratic. A detailed insight into the continuity of neo-classical economics at South African universities and the absence of deliberation on the idea of economic justice would have strengthened this collection. Such work may already be available but it is not represented here. However, this classification and reference to a plausible absence does the essays a disservice since they range far beyond their disciplines.
South African scholars using radical variants of social theory have always been cosmopolitan. They have always followed trends and developments in the North. Debates from elsewhere were largely encountered in their English-language versions articulated in British and North America publications. ‘Continental philosophy’ was and is mostly mediated in this way. This still very largely remains the case. Schatzki’s apposite term ‘westernesque’ applies to South African institutions and scholars. If we can take this collection as an indicator of what social theory means among radical scholars in South Africa, then we can see certain trends: Foucault remains influential but other French theorists get frequent citation (Badiou and Rancière, for instance; and we are also introduced to Sylvain Lazarus). South African universities have welcomed selected South Asians. Thus ‘Subaltern studies’ need no introduction; Partha Chatterjee’s recent work is often invoked in this collection. But ‘Subaltern studies’ has ‘officially’ ended in India: its annual conference has stopped, some of its leading thinkers are overseas, its regular essay collections ceased publication. In India other ‘schools’ are trying to fill the vacuum, such as a new school of labour history and the massive growth of ‘cultural studies’. Interestingly, its intellectual source and the one who first used ‘subaltern’ as a theoretical term, Antonio Gramsci, gets a single, passing mention in this collection. The cosmopolitanism of the South African radical academy, now gradually embracing at least parts of the global South, may reflect something of the settler colonial origins of South Africa. We seem to take on ideas and theory well after their most fecund lives, and out of the context of their places of production. Furthermore, very often they are adopted with little reformulation and critique. Does theory really travel very slowly and in selected set packages to the southern tip of Africa? Is it similar to what was once said of Australia (by Peter Beilharz?), that there ‘the 1960s happened in the 1970s’? But a short review is not the place to speculate about a complex question unless I mean to commit a cardinal sin of social theory, i.e. offer a reductionist explanation.
Marx is a powerful presence in this collection but largely through the close reading by Higgins. Perhaps the Marxist and post-Marxist tradition is so much a part of the theoretical landscape; or is this theoretical tradition less relevant today? In any case, what this collection demonstrates is the eclecticism and diversity of social theory among radical scholars writing from the university. As Schatzki writes: ‘Let a thousand methodologies bloom. ... Let a thousand ends – or at least eight or nine of them – flourish! Social inquiry is a big tent that can accommodate all’ (p. 45). These essays stimulate the imagination and enrich our understanding of South Africa. Their authors would agree that coherent, sophisticated social theory is vitally important; but much more is necessary to change post-apartheid South Africa. There is adherence to Marx’s eleventh thesis on Feuerbach here.