reviving public sociology in post-apartheid south africa: conversations between the ivory tower, the...

8/12/2019 Reviving Public Sociology in Post-Apartheid South Africa: Conversations between the Ivory Tower, the Farm and th

1/83

1

Title:

Reviving Public Sociology in Post-Apartheid South Africa:Conversations between the Ivory Tower, the Farm and the

Shack

Master`s Thesis

submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Arts (M.A)

awarded by the Philosophical Faculty of Albert-Ludwigs- Universitt Freiburg

i. Br. (Germany) and the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales

FLACSO- Buenos Aires (Argentina)

Submitted by

Carrie Leigh Byrne

from Johannesburg, South Africa

Wintersemester 2009/2010

Social Sciences


2/83

2

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors, Prof. Dr Hermann

Schwengel, Dr. Alejandro Pelfini and Ercment elik for your support and valuable

insights.

To my parents for making the past two years possible. Thank You.

To all my friends in GSP, thank you for the support and good times. It's been an

amazing ride.

Lastly, to Christian for your patience and tolerance. And for keeping me sane.


3/83

3

Abstract

This paper examines the possibilities for the reinvigoration of the discipline of

sociology through bolstering public sociology, as proposed by Michael Burawoy in

his 2004 address for the American Sociological association (ASA). The study

concentrates specifically on the possibilities for this in present day South Africa. This

paper comes at a time when debates about public sociology are lively. Many

sociologists stress the urgency of this project as the social sciences have become

increasingly disengaged from and accountable to 'publics':

The study examines, firstly, the current status of sociology in South Africa.Thereafter, a specific case - Living Learning, where public sociology is being

practiced is offered in order to reflect on some of the constraints and possibilities for

public sociology in South Africa today.

The study proposes that, despite a multitude of material and political constraints to the

project, spaces for the reinvigoration of public sociology are available through the

reconnection to 'publics' in the form of social movements provided that the connection

is premised on collaborative engagement.


4/83

4

Contents

1.1. 1.2. 1.. 101.. 11.. 1

2.1. 12.2. 12.. 211.. 22.. 2

.1. .2.

.1. 1.2.


5/83

5

.1. .2. & 0


6/83

6

Abbreviations

ABM Abahlali baseMjondolo

ANC African National Congress

ASA American Sociological Association

BCM Black Consciousness Movement

CBO Community Based Organisation

COSATU Congress of South African Trade Unions

GEAR Growth, Employment and Redistribution programme

LPM Landless Peoples Movement

NDA National Development Agency

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

Nedlac National Economic Development and Labour Council

SANCO South African National civic Organisation

UDF United Democratic Front


7/83

7

Chapter One: Introduction and Methodology

1.1. Setting the scene

I write this paper at a time when evidence suggests that South African social science

is in crisis. The dynamic process of collaboration between the academy, unions and

social movements that played a significant role in the overthrow of apartheid has been

replaced with a social science dominated by neoliberal managerialism and an

orientation toward policy, promising development through the trickle-down effect.

(Vale & Jacklin, 2009) In and out of the academy, the notion of development has

been watered down, to a narrow focus on economic growth and service delivery.

Thinking on radical alternatives seem to have all but vanished from mainstream social

theory and practice. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the growing body of

literature on the possibilities for strengthening the discipline of sociology through

bolstering the field of public sociology1.

The importance of a robust public sociology for the discipline in general was

highlighted by Michael Burawoy, the then president of the American Sociological

Assocation (ASA) whose name has now become synonymous with the term, in his2004 presidential address. Burawoys proposal has attracted attention within the

academy and has stimulated debates on the possibilities for opening up new spaces of

academic engagement within the discipline of sociology, as well as in other fields.

Central to Burawoys thesis is that sociology, especially American sociology, has lost

its moral fibre (Burawoy et al, 2004). Thus, public sociology seeks to extend the

reach of sociology by reconnecting with publics in explicitly political ways. Many

advocates of the project recognise its emancipatory potential. Burawoy himself draws

attention to the potential role of public sociology in liberatory projects, citing the

example of the crucial role that public sociologists played during the 1980s in the

liberation struggle against apartheid in South Africa (Burawoy et al, 2004).

1According to Burawoy et al (2004:104), public sociology is defined as, a sociology that seeks to

bring sociology to publics beyond the academy, promoting dialogue about issues that affect the fate of

society, placing the values to which we adhere under a microscope.


8/83

8

Many authors assume that the potential for public sociology today lies in the ability of

the discipline to forge connections with new social movements to form relations that

foster dialogue and develop strategies to resist neoliberalism and its destructive

effects (Katz-Fishmann & Scott, 2005, Brewer, 2006). These authors posit that the

role of the sociologist is to, immerse themselves in struggles for social justice

beyond the university (Burawoy, 2005d: 388). For Burawoy, the term to describe

this type of engagement is organic public sociology.

The nature of engagement that does/should exist between these social movement

publics and academics has been hotly debated. Similarly, academics have grappled

with and often diverged on the possibility that organic public sociologyand organic

public intellectuals can and do exist within the ranks of these movements. In fact,

Eddie Webster, one of the (academic) public sociologists involved in the struggle

against apartheid has pointed out that, first and foremost, public sociology implies a

recognition of the fact that movement intellectuals are the drivers of social

movements (Webster, 2004). Thus, pivotal questions about the potential role of the

academic within these settings arise.

One strategy advocated by some from within the critical school is to view public

sociology as possible through two distinct strategies (Katz-Fishmann & Scott, 2005).

The first, being an active pursuit by sociologists to forge links with movements from

above. In this instance, sociology precedes publics. However, a second type exists

that evolves out of social struggle. In this case, the impetus is on the movements

themselves and the public sociology pursued is one that is both practiced and

thought from below. This form of engagement necessitates the acceptance of public

sociology as co-creation between sociologists and their publics. In this view, it is

within these spaces, and not in academic spheres, that the emancipatory project

against neoliberalism and towards socialism is viewed as most promising. (ibid,

Brewer, 2005) For Burawoy this strategy involves positioning oneself within, the

rising tide of social movements and then hoping that the tide will flood back into

the academy (Burawoy, 2005d: 388).


9/83

9

Burawoy himself recognises the potential of public sociology of this nature. In fact,

referring to a specific case, Project South2, where this type of public sociology is

being undertaken, Burawoy (2005d) posits:

Id like to hear more concrete analysis of the successes and failure, limits and

obstacles of the political engagements of Project South, how sociology may be of

relevance to popular movements and how sociology may itself change as a result. We

desperately need case studies of public sociology and in this regard Project South

could become an important laboratory of organic public sociology (p. 388).

1.2. Research Problem

This papers aims to investigate the possibilities and constraints to a project of public

sociology in the current South African context. Thus, the main research question to be

answered is:

What are the possibilities of and limitations to the practice of public sociology in

South Africa today?

The sub-questions that I seek to answer will be answered on two different levels and

will involve two different approaches.

The first three sub-questions to be answered are:

1) Under what conditions has public sociology been an active field inSouth Africa and what have been the implications of this?

2) Under what conditions has public sociology been weak in SouthAfrica and what have been the implications of this?

3)

What is the current status of public sociology in South Africa?

2According to their own website, Project South is a grassroots organization based in the US South.

For over 23 years, we have created critical spaces for movement building. We work with communities

pushed forward by the struggle to strengthen leadership for long-term transformation. Our programs

focus on communities of colour affected by social control and economic degradation created by

historic and current trends of privatisation, exploitation, and structural racism in the US. For more

information visit www.projectsouth.org


10/83

10

To answer these questions, an investigation into the history of South African

sociology with a specific focus on the practice of public sociology is undertaken. An

in-depth and exhaustive literature review of secondary material is conducted to

answer these three questions.

The first question is answered through an investigation of the role of public sociology

in South Africa during the liberation struggle against apartheid. I have limited my

investigation to this period due to the vibrancy of the engagement of sociology with

publics3. Furthermore, this period in South Africas history has become a common

referent and benchmark in Burawoys proposals for a reinvigoration of the field4.

Thereafter, question two and three are answered thorough an investigation into the

current status of the discipline with a specific focus on the implications of this for

the project of public sociology. Again, secondary literature is consulted in order to

address the issue at hand. Specific attention is paid to the opportunities and constraints

to the project of public sociology in South Africa today.

The second part of my analysis aims to answer these next three questions:

4) How can the field of public sociology be strengthened?

5) What is the role of the academic in strengthening public sociology?6) What contribution can public sociology make to the realisation of

emancipatory goals of new social movements in South Africa?

1.3. Methodology

To answer these questions, I employ an exploratory case study approach. The

motivation for this comes from Burawoys suggestion that case studies of public

sociology from below deserve attention and have been under- researched. This is

relevant when exploring the possibilities of these sites for building public sociology

grounded in emancipatory politics. As Burawoy (2005d)points out, there is a need for

an analysis of case studies that can provide concrete examples that help to broaden

understandings of some of the successes and failures, limits and obstacles as well

3For an in-depth account of a broader history of South African sociology, see Hugo (1998)

4See Burawoy (2005d) for further explanations


11/83

11

as how, sociology may be of relevance to popular movements and how sociology

may change itself as a result (pp.388).

The case study I have chosen to explore some possibilities of public sociology in

South Africa is a booklet that developed out of a year long series of discussions

between social movement members from the shackdwellers5 movements, Abahlali

baseMjondolo and the Rural Network, both based in the province of KwaZulu-Natal

in South Africa.

Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM) is a radical shackdwellers movement located in and

around the city of Durban and spans over several informal settlements. It was formed

in 2005. The movement is the largest shackdwellers movement in South Africa today

(Saunders, 2009). The movement represents the urban poor living in informal

settlements. In 2008, the AbM joined with other radical grassroots movements across

the country to form the Poor Peoples Alliance. The Rural Network is part of this Poor

Peoples Alliance. The Network and other alliance partners have united with the Rural

Network in attempts to resist farm evictions and in struggles over land rights6.

The booklet was published in 2009 by the Church Land Programme and is entitled

Living Learning. Therefore, the specific case study is limited to the analysis of thisdocument. However, the document is a written record of a broader set of discussions

and interactions throughout the time-span of approximately one year (Figlan et al,

2009).

The context of the discussions is that the participants had become students at the

University of KwaZulu-Natal, studying towards a certificate in Education

5Shack is an informal term often used in the South African context. It roughly translates to informal

settlement.

6Strategic segregation and dispossession under colonial rule and apartheid has shaped the

contemporary division of land in South Africa. Land reform has been undertaken in the country, post-

apartheid, under three banners: land redistribution, land restitution & tenure reform. Many South

Africans live on farms under fragile tenure arrangements with little or no rights to the land on which

they have lived. The process has been riddled with inefficiencies and impediments and the process has

been criticised for its slow delivery and inability to secure tenure rights for farm dwellers. Thus, farm

evictions (like shack evictions) are a common feature in South Africas rural areas. For a detailed

account of South African land reform, see Ntsebeza, L & Hall, R. (2007)


12/83

12

(Participatory Development) with the Centre for Adult Education (Ntseng & Philpott,

2009:1). The aim of the discussions were to open up a space for the participants to

reflect on and grapple with ideas about the relationship between knowledge gained

in the university courses as opposed to that from within the movements. (ibid) Of

specific interest to the movements was how to engage with academia, academics and

the modes of knowledge within those spheres in a way that could be mutually

beneficial. Ultimately, the goal of the process was to see how best to combine the two

forms of knowledge that they had encountered that of experience and that of

academia, in order to strengthen their struggles at the grassroots (ibid.).

The booklet contains a summary of these discussions. An additional chapter at the end

allows three academics involved with the movement but not involved in the Living

Learning process to comment.

The booklet reflects a unique opportunity to glean insights into a broad array of topics

and stakeholders, all relevant to the project of public sociology. It is characterised by

the involvement of three separate groups of stakeholders- all with existent or potential

roles to play in strengthening the field. These stakeholders include academics and

academia within the university setting, academics involved with social movements

outside the university setting, as well as movement participants themselves.

Therefore, it was felt that limiting the study to this booklet alone would allow for an

in-depth analysis of a unique process that can be seen as a demonstration of a possible

mode of public engagement relevant to the project of public sociology.

The approach that is adopted is a , qualitative case study. According to Babbie &

Mouton (2006), This approach is more adept to the research as the emphasis in

qualitative methodology strives for a rich detailed description of specifics in an

attempt to understand actions within a specific context (p. 272). This case was

chosen based on its exemplary characteristic. According to Bryman (2004)

exemplary cases are chosen because of their, suitable context for certain research

questions to be answered and the case provides an, apt context for the working

through of the research questions (p. 51).

The booklet allows for a three-fold investigation. Firstly, this case study can be seen

as an example of public sociology at the grassroots. Secondly, it allows for some


13/83

13

insight into the limitations and possibilities for public sociology under certain

conditions. What is especially of use here is that the process allows one to evaluate

the possibilities based on the level of legitimacy in the eyes of the publics it is meant

to serve, i.e.: acceptance/resistance that public sociology and public sociologists could

encounter. Lastly, it can be seen as a working model of possible modes of

engagement between academics and publics.

The Results and Analysis of the case study were ordered according to two broad

headings, namely:

1) Form of Intellectual engagement2) Style of sociology

Approaching the text with these two broad categories is adopted to focus the research.

The research questions are answered by focusing on, firstly, the form of intellectual

engagement adopted within the movements- i.e.: the actors involved, secondly,

attention is paid to the form of intellectual engagement that the actors adopt.

1.4. Reflections on the Methodology

According to Mariampolski and Hughes (1978), the major constraint in using primarydata sources is that data collection and transmission procedures are beyond the

control of the researcher, and that the materials available are not a matter of

choice(p. 110). Due to the fact that I was not present and did not engage directly with

the participants made it impossible for me to guide the process or ask specific

questions relevant to my research question. This omission seems even more glaring

when considering that public sociology as well as the content of so much of the

living learning process centres on the idea that knowledge production should occurthrough dialogue and collaboration rather than in a situation where the researcher is

neutral and disengaged. This seems even more ironic given that the shackdwellers

movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo have adopted the slogan: Talk with us, not about

us (Birkenshaw, 2009:5).

However, I feel that given the aim of my study: to reflect on a process of public

sociology where the case in its entirety is the living learning process and the

reflections of the participants within it, this could also be seen as an advantage.


14/83

14

Especially given the proposition that public sociology can and does happen regardless

of academics. The case study has the advantage of studying social processes in a

particular social setting (Bryman, 2004). Through access to the content of the social

process through the Living Learning booklet, I am able to examine and reflect on the

process. Furthermore, other advantages of using this method are that documents are

non-reactive, and verifiable by others, while being relatively easy to access and

inexpensive to obtain (Greenstein, 2003).

I would now like to reflect on the issue of generalisability for mine, and other case

study research. According to Bryman (2004), one question on which a great deal of

discussion has centred concerns the external validity or generalizability of case study

research (p.51). In my case, as in other case studies it is not possible to view the

case as an example of a general trend. In fact, Bryman points out, it is important to

appreciate that case study researchers do not delude themselves that it is possible to

identify typical cases that can be used to represent a certain class of objects

(Bryman, 2004:51).

Given this, then, it is not viable to infer the possibilities and constraints to public

sociology unpacked through my analysis on a wider scale. However, as Chima (2005)

points out, there is significant scope for, the utility of the case-study method for

theory-building and theory reconstruction (p.2). Rather than viewing this case study

as representative of a general trend (which it is not), I would like the reader to see it as

a deep-investigation into a particular and unique process whereby public sociology

is being practiced and reflected on. Through a detailed thick description and

evaluation, the study aims to demonstrate how a process of public sociology could be

conducted whilst also focusing on possible impediments and constraints. This

motivation, backed up by Burawoys assertion that interrogations into real-world

case-studies can help to strengthen knowledge on the possibilities and constraints to

the project of public sociology.

Ultimately, the aim of this paper is to outline and reflect on the broader project of

public sociology in the South African case, before embarking on a more in-depth,

qualitative case study of a real-world example of where public sociology is being

practiced. In this way, this paper contributes to and expands on the body of literature

already existing in the field of public sociology.


15/83


16/83

16

Thereafter, a more narrow focus on the mode of intellectual engagement of the

movements is offered by reflecting on the University of Abahlali baseMjondolo.

This I an attempt by AbM to document the intellectual currents within Abahlali

baseMjdondolo (AbM) and its alliance partners including contributions from Rural

Network members. Thus the University of AbM represents intellectual currents from

both movements taking part in the Living Learning process.

Chapter Five is dedicated to the case study. First, the Living Learning process is

introduced. This is followed by a section of results. In this section, the process and

the insights from it are broken down into two categories, namely:

1) Form of intellectual engagement2) Style of sociology.

Each section is followed by an analysis through reflecting on the implications of the

results for the possibilities for public sociology.

Chapter Six covers the conclusion and the recommendations for further research.


17/83

17

Chapter Two: Conceptual Framework & Literature Review

2.1. Introduction

Appeals for a (re)turn to public sociology8 by Michael Burawoy in his 2004

presidential address for the American Sociological Association, has elevated the

notion of public sociology to the forefront of the sociological agenda.For Burawoy

there is a renewed interest in public sociology amongst social scientists. This is

related to an increasingly left leaning academy located within a global trend toward

inequality and domination through neoliberalism. Burawoy (2005d) refers to this as

the scissors movement where, Sociology has moved left and the world has moved

right.(p.5) The shift has, prompted critical sociologists to shift away from the

transformation of sociology to tackling the world a more daunting enterprise that I

call public sociology (Burawoy, 2005d). For Burawoy, the much needed

reinvigoration of the public face of sociology is critical and necessary both as a

moral agenda and for reinvigorating the discipline as a whole (Burawoy, 2005b).

Burawoys 2004 ASA address highlights the necessity of addressing the neglected

sphere of public sociology, specifically in the United States. However, he also

recognises that public sociology has been subordinated to the agenda of professional

sociology in other settings.

Burawoys critique of academic sociology frequently point to the fact that the

historical subordination of public sociology in the American context can be set in

direct opposition to the South African case which Burawoy presents as an ideal

type where public sociology has had a strong tradition and forms an integral

component of the discipline itself (Burawoy, 2004, 2005a, 2005b).Thus the term

public sociology is an American invention whereas, in countries such as South Africa,

it forms the basis of the discipline. Burawoy (2005b) states:

When I travel to South Africa, however, to talk about public sociology and this

would be true of many countries in the world my audiences look at me nonplussed.

What else would sociology be, if not an engagement with diverse publics about

public issues (p. 20).

8Burawoy defines public sociology as: A sociology that seeks to bring sociology to publics beyond

the academy, promoting dialogue about issues that affect the fate of society, placing the values to

which we adhere under a microscope (Burawoy et al 2004: 104).


18/83

18

However, in South Africa public sociology has declined. I therefore agree with

Burawoys urgent call for a reinvigoration of public sociology (which, as I will

show later has receded from its vibrancy during the liberation struggle period).

Many authors have documented this demise of public sociology in South Africa

9and it is my belief and argument, that the opportunity now exists for its

reinvigoration not from within the labour movement and in the field of labour

studies where it has traditionally been practiced, but rather by focusing on the

concept in relation to South Africas new social movements, especially within poor

people's movements10

.

My analysis will be grounded in the notion of public sociology coined by Burawoy

the appeal for which I find applicable and useful given the state of the discipline

globally and in South Africa. My theoretical slant will be fine tuned, however,

through extensions on Burawoys thesis by drawing from other authors in areas where

I feel his thesis lacks critical edge or where a more specific focus on the particularities

of my case are necessary.

2.2. The state of Sociology according to Burawoy

For reasons beyond the scope of this paper, Burawoy argues that sociology has

abandoned its moral fibre11

(Burawoy 2005b). For Burawoy this can be linked to

9See Buhlungu (2009) & Webster (2004)

10Neocosmos (2009: 268) suggests that historically, trade unions have constituted the typical

organisation of civil society. However, given the particularities of the current period, it is doubtful that

trade unions can continue to play this role given the different forms of capital accumulation which,

particularly, but not exclusively in the South, assume large numbers of unemployed, subcontracted,

casualisation, increased insecurity and so on. Buhlungu in Neocosmos (2009) has outlined how the

trade union movement in was at the forefront of the liberation struggle in South Africa, but too has lost

much of its vibrancy due to liberalisation and its alignment with the ruling party the ANC. During the

current phase civil society has been hailed as the key to an emancipatory future. However, much of

what is considered civil society under the neoliberal post-apartheid regime is too intimately linked to

private or state interests. Thus, For Neocosmos, and also the stance I will take in this paper, South

Africas new social movements (often poor peoples movements) are the key to an emancipatory future

and thus the domain from within which public sociology of an emancipatory type should be situated.

11In his 2004 ASA address, Burawoy addresses the idea that the origins of sociology can be linked to

its rootedness in and moral commitment to society. However, due to the desire within the discipline

towards scientism and objectivism, sociology has become professionalised and deeply disconnected


19/83

19

the elevation of Professional Sociology (rooted in the building of professional,

objective, scientific knowledge , a dialectic of progress) above other forms of

knowledge within the discipline. Important to Burawoy is that Sociology has

become more about academic credentials and the building of a professional career

than about issues (such as social justice, equality, human rights) that originally

concerned social scientists. The solution is not a return to a more public sociology

but rather the recognition of the merits of this form of knowledge within the

professional academy and more dialogue between sociologies that recognise and

draw from the strengths of other sociologies. In other words all forms of

sociologies have their distinct methods and merits and to subordinate any one form is

to harm others as all sociologies rely on the existence and vigour of the other

forms.(ibid)

At the centre of Burawoys thesis is that the discipline of Sociology can be roughly

divided into four quadrants (what he calls a division of sociological labour) four

distinct fields of sociology. By asking two simple questions namely, Sociology for

whom? And Sociology for What?, Burawoy asserts that it is possible to distinguish

these four distinct strands Professional Sociology, Policy Sociology, Critical

Sociology and Public Sociology. Whilst it is important to understand the relationshipsand difference between these four sociologies, my focus is on the possibility of

reinvigorating specifically public sociology due to its decline in South Africa.

Thus, Table 1 is attached in order to show, briefly, how Burawoy conceptualises the

four types of sociology and the manner that each differs from and relates to the other

forms.

from its rootedness in a primary commitment to civil society. For a detailed account see Burawoy

(2005 b)


20/83

20

In the case of public sociology knowledge centres on communicative knowledge

between sociologists and publics and that knowledge is based on consensus

between sociologists and their publics. (Burawoy, 2005b) It is thus that knowledge

production within this sphere is not contingent on ideas around active academic

conveying knowledge, and passive (lay) recipient. Legitimacy within this sphere can

be claimed based on, relevance, being ultimately accountable to designated publics

and underpinned by a politics based upon democratic public dialogue. (Fuller, 2008:

836) The implications here are that public sociology, then, involves the engagement

of individuals outside academia (the university) through an array of approaches

which need to, ultimately, engage with their intended audience, which, in turn should

simultaneously place the role of academics and the values within which

academics/intellectuals operate, under a microscope. Important to Burawoys

assumption is that, whilst he calls for a wider audience through extending sociology

more broadly to incorporate its public face, it does not discredit or negate the need

for forms that interact with a more narrow academic audience. In fact, Burawoy(2005c) states:

This division between academic audiences and extra-academic audiences implies that

sociology cannot be reduced to its activist or pragmatic moment, but has an

indispensable scholarly moment, requiring its own relative autonomy. Equally, the

necessity for such autonomy does not gainsay our responsibility for taking our

research, or the implications of our research, to constituencies beyond the academy,

constituencies that would benefit from sociological knowledge. Their responses in

turn become a living laboratory for our research programmes ( p. 2).


21/83

21

In Burawoys understanding, public sociology should involve multiple publics- in

this sense, he refers to public sociologies different sociologies that address

different publics. Burawoy et al ( 2004) assert:

What is important here is the multiplicity of public sociologies, reflecting the

multiplicity of publics visible and invisible, thick and thin active and passive local,

national and even global, dominant and counter publics. The variety of publics

stretches from our students to the readers of our books, from newspaper columns to

interviews, from audiences in local civic groups such as churches or neighbourhoods

to social movements we facilitate. The possibilities are endless (p.104)

For Burawoy, public sociology can be divided into two categories: traditional

public sociology and organic public sociology.

2.3. Public Sociology

Traditional public sociology

Within the realm of traditional public sociology exist those sociologists who assist

in shifting academic research into the public realm. Thus, for Burawoy, this includes

those writing books read beyond the academy that become a catalyst for critical

public discussion about the nature of society as well as those, writing in the opinion

pages of national newspapers. (Burawoy, 2005b: 7) In this sphere can be included

newspaper and column writing (journalists) where issues of public importance are

discussed and debated. Burawoy (2005b) summarises this neatly:

Within the traditional public sociology camp, can be placed those sociologists

whose, publics being addressed are generally invisible in that they cannot be seen,

thin in that they do not generate much internal interaction, passive in that they do not

constitute a movement or organization, and they are usually mainstream. The

traditional public sociologist instigates debates within or between publics, although

he or she might not actually participate in them. (p.7)

Organic Public Sociology

The organic public sociologist works directly, often face-to-face with publics in the

trenches of civil society. (Burawoy 2005c: 4)


22/83

22

For Burawoy the primary role of organic public sociology is to foster a process of

mutual education outside of the ivory tower. More specifically, this mutual

education that Burawoy envisages is based on his idea for mechanisms to resist the

destructive effects (at the global as well as local level) of Third-wave marketisation

or neoliberalism. Thus, primary to his vision, is the idea that the role of the organic

public intellectual is to, find their niche as interpreters, communicators and

intermediaries, tying together local movements across national boundaries

(Burawoy, 2008: 357). The role of the sociologist here, is to articulate to publics

that local conditions are intimately tied to this global phenomenon.

Organic public sociologyrepresents a different (but complementary) face of public

sociology to that of traditional public sociology. Burawoys ideas about organic

public sociologists (and intellectuals) have strong connections to Gramscis notion of

the organic intellectual.12

For Burawoy (2005b), the sociologist works in close

connection with a visible, thick, active, local and often counter-public(p.7). It is

through extending the reach of sociology through organic public sociology, that

sociology (as a discipline) will manage to foster greater public currency. (Boyns &

Fletcher, 2006) This is an important proposition. Burawoy posits that the ideal-type

public sociology would ultimately be one whereby there exists a dialogue betweensociologists and lay-people about the values and goals of their communities.

(Burawoy, 2005c: 4) For Burawoy, one of the reasons for the marginality of public

sociology is that, in the case of organic public sociology the field is often

separated from the professional lives of sociologists and thus connections are not

forged between professional and public aspects (between the activist and academic).

Thus, for Burawoy, a central task of public sociology is, to make visible the invisible

to make private public, to validate these organic connections as part of our

sociological life (Burawoy, 2005b: 8). From these assesments, it is clear that public

sociology often has an undeniably normative and political character.

12Gramsci felt it crucial to foster organic intellectuals from within the working class as well as to

win over traditional intellectuals to assist with the revolutionary cause. (Mayo 1999)


23/83

23

Relationship of Public Sociology to Other Sociologies

For Burawoy (2005b) , professional sociology provides the conceptual framework

and bodies of knowledge without which public sociology and policy sociology could

not function. For critical sociology professional sociology is the fiber from

which it exists without a professional sociology to critique, critical sociology

would not exist. Professional sociology is restricted to an academic audience, which

can be entered after one is trained in the discipline, thus professional sociologists do

not interact directly with the public. For Burawoy (2005b), professional sociology is

concerned primarily with , multiple intersecting research programs, each with their

own assumptions, exemplars, defining questions, conceptuals apparatuses and

evolving theores (p.10).

Whilst it is not necessary to explain the role and scope of policy sociology beyond

what is explained in Table 1, I would like to point out that an important role of public

sociology is to, problematize the goals taken for granted by policy science, and to do

so by heightening the self-consciousness of publics through broad converstations

about values (Burawoy, 2005c:3).

The primary role of critical sociology is to examine and reflect on the foundations and

assumptions (both normative and descriptive) of the research programmes of

professional sociology. Burawoy asserts the importance of critical sociology in posing

the two questions mentioned before namely, Sociology for Whom? And Sociology

for What? In this case , rather critical sociology offers a mirror on other forms of

sociology by addressing these aims in a reflexive manner. Firstly it poses the

questions of who is (or should be) the audience for sociology. Thus, although the

audience of critical sociology does not (usually) extend beyond the scope of academic

audiences, it is shining the light in the face of professional sociology and

questioning its narrow academic audience.

Instrumental versus Reflexive Knowledge

For Burawoy the four strands of sociology can be divided up between those

employing instrumental knowledge and those employing reflexive knowledge.13

13Burawoy points out that the question of reflexive knowledge versus instrumental knowledge can be

traced back to Max Webers discussion of technical and value rationality. Burawoy points out that

questions raised by Weber and, following him, the Frankfurt school show that concerns around the fact


24/83

24

Burawoys, central distinction between the two forms of revolves around the notions

of the ends of society versus the means for achieving those ends (Burawoy,

2005b:11). For Burawoy professional and policy sociology are concerned with

questions about means or how to achieve goals. It is from this overt focus on

means that an overtly positivist emphasis on value free methods arises. In contrast

critical and public sociology employ reflexive knowledge (where dialogue centres

around questions of ends). Reflexive knowledge, embraces not detachment but

engagement as the road to knowledge (Burawoy, 1998: 5). A neutral approach to

science is not intended. Central to a reflexive engagement is the acknowledgement

that , power and context need to be at the core of scientific investigation (Sinwell,

2009:30). In fact, for Burawoy (1998), reflexive science thrives on context and seeks

to reduce the effects of power-domination, silencing, objectification and

normalization. Reflexive science realises itself with the elimination of power effects,

with the emanipation of the lifeworld (p.33). Sinwell (2009) asserts that Burawoys

propositions suggest the necessity of social scientific engagement that seeks to

address (and alter) opressive power relations. For Burawoy (2005b) therefore,

reflexive knowledge , questions the value premises of society as well as our

profession (p.11). Approaching theory and research with either reflexive or

instrumental premises entails different ideas about knowledge. For Burawoy, this

explains why different sociologies talk past each other with the result of talking

down to other forms of sociology instead of partaking in constuctive engagement

with each other (see Table 1).

As previously mentioned the real worry for Burawoy is the hegemonic position of

professional sociology and the sidelining of public sociology which has resulted in

the professionalisation and alienation of the discipline as a whole. My stance in this

paper (which I will back up through outlining the decline of public sociology,

public intellectuals and civil society) is in support of Burawoys thesis.

that technical concerns serve to rule out discussions around values. Burawoy points out that these

questions were central concerns for Adorno and Horkheimer or what the former referred to as the

dialectic of enlightenment and what the later referred to as the eclipse of reason (Burawoy 2005b:

11).


25/83

25

My main aim is not in debating whether , in fact, public sociology has declined, but

rather to take it as given ( through providing some evidence) and then moving onto

my point of departure which is in exploring the possibilities for the reinvigoration of

public sociology (as defined by Burawoy) . I believe that, despite institutional and

political impediments, opportunities exist for this in contemporary South Africa. His

proposition has come at a time when bottom-up movement building has come to

inhabit an important place both in theory and practice within the discipline. (Katz-

Fishmann & Scott, 2005) For Burawoy, the site of this reinvigoration is from within

civil society. In my opinion, Burawoys optimism in civil society is too broad.I

believe that many organs of what is today considered civil society such as many

NGOs, trade unions etc are not possible sights for the reinvigoration of public

sociology. Rather, the sites for this revival are from within South African social

movements (specifically its new social movements)14

.

1.4. Reflections on Burawoys Public Sociology

Certain limitations are apparent in Burawoys account of public sociology especially

when applied to the South African context. This next section reflects on the

suggestions and insights gleaned from the critiques of Burawoys public sociology

by others. I will now turn to outlining some relevent critiques.

Critical-Public Sociology

Burawoy proposes conflating some of the functions, forms and commitments of

public and critical sociology. This calls for critical sociologists to break free of the

academic setting in order to engage directly with publics. The aim of this

engagement is, not to control them but to expand their powers of self-determination

(Burawoy 2005 in Baiocchi, 2005: 341). Baiocchi (2005) suggests that this

proposition by Burawoy firmly suggests a public sociology (of a specific type) that is

more obviously normative and counter-hegemonic (engaging directly with publics

such as the poor, delinquents, incarcerated individuals in order to expand their

potential for self determination) he thus calls this specific type critical-public

sociology. As Katz-Fishmann & Scott (2005) assert, Burawoys call is for a critical

and transformative public sociology whose goal is realising the real utopia of

socialism (p.371).

14(See footnote 2)


26/83

26

Baiocchi (2005) points out that, what is being suggested is, a sociology that is more

political and harkens back more to Paulo Freire and Gramsci (p.341). Importantly,

this specific form of public sociology lacks (historical) working models for reference.

Baiocchi (2005) undertakes the task of starting off where Burawoy left off by

investigating in more depth the possibilities of a critical-public sociology.

At the crux of Baiocchis (2005) argument is that calls for a public sociology (in

general) are unlikely to engender much opposition from multiple stakeholders (but

especially universities) when the call is for participation and public debate.

However, the author argues that, when a critical-sociology is proposed, the

implications are that it entails an overt political programme that is normative. In other

words, it clearly adopts the stance that, in the words of Schatzki, is a resounding

affirmation of the desirability of normative investigation (Vale & Jacklin, 2009: 13).

These projects are thus much more likely to engender opposition. The author

recognises that power plays occur both within civil society and

universities/between academics. This is an important point. Whilst Burawoy argues

for more collaboration with civil society this term is employed broadly. This relates

to the definition of civil society employed by Burawoy (2005b), which he defines

as:

a product of late 19th century Western capitalism that produced associations,

movements and publics that were outside both state and economy political parties,

trade unions, schooling, communities of faith, print media and a variety of voluntary

organizations (p.24).

This is problematic in the South African context. The autonomy of civil society in the

African (and South African context) has been debated at length. What is important to

note here, though, is that many organisations (mainly poor peoples movements) that

operate with radical (critical) programmes are excluded from what is considered civil

society. For Pithouse (2009), there are interesting theoretical debates on the nature

of civil society but in the general practice of the media, politicians and most non-

governmental organisations (NGOs), the term is most often assumed to refer to

donor-funded NGOs rather than popular politics (p.145). It is thus, that Chatterjees

distinction between civil society and political society is important in this context

where those operating within the popular sphere are, largely, excluded from the


27/83

27

sphere of civil society and lack the benefits afforded by the legitimacy gained by

being part of it. (Pithouse 2009) Much of what is considered civil society is, in fact,

intimately tied to the state (and its political and economic programmes) especially in

the case of the poor.15

In the South African context sociologists linked with more

radical movements often come up against strong opposition both from the state and

academia where political work is frowned upon and where political neutrality is

expected (Baiocchi, 2005).

For Baiocchi (2005) engagement between academics and civil society (under the

guise of participation) instead, involves the university as a patron offering assistance

and knowledge to those needing it. Thus, the idea of public sociology in itself does

not challenge directly ideas about the necessity of academic expertise, does not

question social change and is, neutral enough to be palatable to mainstream liberals

and conservatives (p. 343). For Baiocchi however, when critical sociology is

coupled with public sociology the result would be resistance from multiple camps

state, academia, and civil society16

.

What are the Ends of Public Sociology?

Through engaging with a multitude of texts by Burawoy, I was struck by the

ambiguity and sometimes contradictory message with regards to exactly what his

political objectives with the project of public sociology are. When addressing a

wider academic audience during his ASA presidential address, the project seems to

imply little more than a call for public participation17

. Yet, when addressing critical

audiences, Burawoys project seems to take on a more radial socialist agenda.

15See Pithouse 2009 for an in-depth explanation

16Baiocchi (2005) offers a fascinating example to demonstrate the difficulties facing critical-public

sociologies within the university setting. The author points out how, during the 1970s, a number of

ethnic studies departments in the USA attempted to challenge eurocentric pedagogy and to foster

community connections and social change. The first Chicano studies department was modelled on

ideas about Chicano liberation and employed means that called for a dialogue where academic

knowledge be subordinated to ethnic knowledge. The demand was not for the people to work for the

university, but rather for the university to work for the people. The author points out that all

departments that have attempted to foster critical publics have come under strong opposition and

repression.

17See Burawoy (2005b)


28/83

28

Regardless, critical sociologists have criticized the project in that it is felt that too

many compromises with professional sociology are made (Burawoy, 2005d).

Academics from the critical school have asserted that Burawoys four-pronged model

for the sociologies is irrevocably tainted (Burawoy 2005d). These authors posit that,

professional sociologies instrumental knowledge is incompatible with the reflexive

knowledge of public sociology. (ibid) Furthermore, The praxis of public sociology

cannot be based on concepts and classifications produced in professional sociology

(Ghamari-Tabrizi in Burawoy, 2005d: 387). Burawoys (2005d) response to these

claims is that both professional and critical-public sociologists should unite over the

common threat that neoliberalism poses to each. For professional sociology, the threat

is that the privatising mechanism of neoliberalism could, strip the university of its

public role (p.388). Whilst, for critical-public sociology, the struggle over the effects

of neoliberalism is playing out in communities. Thus Burawoys main justification for

collaboration, in this sense is that, both the university and the public sphere are

subject to the colonizing pressures of states and markets and it is at this level that the

contradiction between publics and professions sublate into a potentially common

front. (ibid: 389). Here, Burawoys vision for public sociology is posited directly

toward its emancipatory potential. During the anti-apartheid struggle emancipationmeant liberation, whilst, today, For Burawoy and others that advocate public

sociology, emancipation is though against the economic and political forces of

neoliberalism. This is, ultimately, the ends that are imagined in Burawoys public

sociology. It is an end that both Burawoy and his critics from within critical circles

agree on.

What is an issue, then, is the compatibility of other forms of sociology with these

emancipatory goals of public sociology as well as its focus on praxis. Despite the

grounds for common struggle that Burawoy proposes, the fact remains that some of

the central premises of the two forms of sociology are at odds with each other. Some

of these difficulties will become evident through my case study in a later section.

Why Sociology?

It is important to address Burawoys insistence that organic, public engagement is

best located within the field of sociology. For Burawoy, social sciences are not a

melting pot of disciplines but rather each specific strand aims, primarily to,


29/83

29

preserve the grounds on which their knowledge stands (Burawoy, 2005b: 24). For

Burawoy the central tenet of Sociology is that it is focuses on civil society and the

expansion of social issues. The fact that this sphere has been systematically

encroached and threatened by both markets (which is the focus of economics) and

states (the main focus of political science) is the reason that public sociology is

offered in order to bolster a threatened civil society. It is thus that the objectives

(and interest) of both civil society and sociology are (by the very nature of both)

to, keep at bay both state despotism and market tyranny (Burawoy, 2005b: 24). In

the South African case, certainly, official accounts of what can be seen as organic

public sociology has largely occurred between sociologists (sociology of labour) and

civil society in the form of civics and trade unions (Buhlungu, 2009).

To me, however, the necessity of limiting the scope and prospects of public sociology

(or social science) to sociology is short sighted. Numerous examples of other

(smaller) disciplines exploring the possibilities of a more public-academic

engagement exist. In fact, Bacciochi (2005) points out that, often smaller disciplines

without the same focus on science and objectivity have better dealt with expanding

their scope to deal with publics for example cultural studies. Furthermore, Fuller

& Askins (2010) show that the scope for public geography and publicanthropology is enormous and already underway. It is thus that, although I will still

refer to public sociology, I would like the reader to understand the term in a more

loose sense not ruling out the possibility for other social sciences and social

scientists to be understood as practicing public sociology.

Sociology OF or Sociology FOR Publics?

Whilst Burawoys notion of a public sociology certainly pushes the boundaries (and

probably some buttons) within the discipline, it is clear that his conception indicates

an insistence on the central role and importance of the intellectual/academic

(specifically the sociologist). In addressing his (academic) audience, Burawoy

acknowledges that there are risks in bringing sociology to a wider non-academic

audience (although he does not specify what these dangers are). Presumably the risks

alluded to have something to do with the dilution of academic and scientific

credentials of the discipline but stresses that, nevertheless, public sociology is an

important and timely pursuit where the benefits are potentially great both for the


30/83


31/83

31

organisations and movements who are analytical in their perspective and engaged in a

process of social change and social transformation. (ibid). For these authors, there

are two paths to organic public sociology with location as the decisive factor.

The first path is through the academy and involves the search for relevance and

audience. Thus the process is one where sociology precedes publics. The second

type evolves out of social struggle and involves bringing, activists, organisations

and movements to social analysis and social theory out of their social practice and as

a necessity for social transformation. (Katz-Fishmann & Scott, 2005: 372). This

assertion implies that the tools for social analysis are not the exclusive property of

academics and the academy. For these authors organic public sociology occurs when

radicals attach themselves to movements during periods of social struggle thus

suggesting that, the impulse is from the outside in (ibid). The renewed desire for

public sociology, during the first decade of the 21stcentury can thus be explained by

the fact that, we find ourselves in another period of growing social motion; and

radical sociologists are seeking once more to connect to the movement that is arising

in local, national and global civil society. (ibid).

Brewer (2005: 356) points out Burawoys failure to address the question, Whose

knowledge is a public sociology? For Brewer, Burawoys vision of public sociology

assumes the primacy and legitimacy of dominant left discourses and fails to leave

open the space for the possibility of a public-sociology, not only practiced, but also

thought from below. Brewer (2005) posits, here sociology isnt brought to the

public ala the assumption of Burawoys Public Sociology but new societies are co-

creations. (p. 357). For Brewer, sociology is yet to create this deep dialogue that

transcends difference and power and is required for a meaningful and

emancipatory project of public sociology. (ibid: 358) Instead, the seeds for a united

struggle across borders, is being articulated from within these spaces, rather than

within sociology with the ability to confront and challenge, neoliberalism and

global capitalism and empire.

Regardless of these critiques, for Katz-Fishman & Scott (2005), Burawoys naming of

public sociology is important. This is because it helps to set it apart from

professional sociology and assert clearly, public sociologies aim -which, is


32/83

32

ultimately, the revolutionary transformation of society socialism and communism.

(Ibid: 373).

The questioning of the role of the public sociologist by Fuller & Askins as well as the

(re) definition of public sociology and public sociologist by Katz-Fishman & Scott

and Brewer are important. What these authors have suggested is that sociology

cannot be considered the exclusive domain of the academy especially if the notion

of public sociology continues to gain legitimacy within that academy. The real

challenge for public sociologists is whether they can remain connected to and

approach as equals the publics involved in social movements as well as remaining

committed to ideas about popular education without retreating into the academy

(ibid).

Public Sociologist as puppet?

It is important to scrutinise the role expected of intellectuals by those who they

represent beyond the academy. Baviskar (2008) addresses the notion that many

organisations (such as social movements) seek out sociologists to champion their

cause rather than to engage critically with them. It is thus that academics adopting

this role garner praise for these groups while, at the same time, recognition for

themselves. Whilst this engagement with publics beyond the academy is necessary,

it does raise questions about the danger of uncritical engagement on the part of the

intellectual. In other words, as Baviskar (2008) states, engagement on these terms

may entail suppressing critical issues, steering clear of questions about internal

democracy, ideological contradictions or long term strategy (p.431). Similarly,

Habib (2008) points out that concerns surface about Burawoys, idealized advocacy

of the public sociologists engagement in public discourse in the service of the

subaltern, which may lead her or him to lose the ability to be the scientist, which

involves in part the ability to critique the common sense of the subaltern (p.390).

Under this scenario then, uncritical engagement by academics with publics (social

movements) could lead to a situation that, ultimately does not serve either social

movements or sociology.

2.5. Conclusion

I take up Burawoys proposition that public forms of sociology have been

marginalized globally and in South Africa. Furthermore, I adopt Burawoys call for


33/83

33

the urgent bolstering of public sociology. However, like some critical theorists, I

remain hesitant about the extent to which reflexive and instrumental knowledge can

engage and benefit from one another or more specifically, the possible mutual

engagement between professional and critical-public sociology. This is an issue that

will be explored within this paper. Ultimately my analysis will explore the

possibilities of and reflect on the obstacles to reinvigorating public sociology in

South Africa.

Fuller & Askins (2010) questioning of the role of the academic will be central to my

analysis as well as questions about participation and mutual determination by

reflecting on a concrete example to tackle Baviskar (2008) assumptions. It is thus that

I accept the argument that public sociology cannot be the exclusive domain of

academic intellectuals but can (and is) practiced by individuals and groups outside of

academia.

I feel that Katz-Fitchmann & Scotts (2005) contribution, that of viewing public

sociology as coming from two very different positions one outside academia and

the other from within the academy, is useful. In fact, Burawoy recognises the merits

in the strategies of some academics that are, immersing themselves in struggles for

social justice beyond the university (Burawoy 2005d: 388). For Burawoy this

strategy involves positioning oneself within, the rising tide of social movements and

then hoping that the tide will flood back into the academy. (ibid) For him, this is a

valid approach and deserves further investigation. Here, Burawoy (2005d) cites the

example of Katz-Fitchmann & Scotts Project South:

Id like to hear more concrete analysis of the successes and failure, limits and

obstacles of the political engagements of Project South how sociology may be of

relevance to popular movements and how sociology may itself change as a result. We

desperately need case studies of public sociology and in this regard Project South

could become an important laboratory of organic public sociology. (p.388)

This statement by Burawoy summarises the aim of this paper. I too seek to grapple

with the notion of public sociology and to explore the opportunities and limitations of

it. The next two chapters aim to explore this problematic. Firstly, I will investigate

more carefully the particularities of the South African situation through a reflection

on both its past and present and the implications of these for the practice of public


34/83

34

sociology today. Thereafter, I introduce my case study as a real-world South

African case where organic public sociology is being practiced. The next two chapters

of this study aim to further reflect on the possibilities and constraints to a project of

public sociology.


35/83


36/83

36

with other actors. For Buhlungu (2009), intellectuals showed not only a dedication to

scholarship, but also to ideas of social justice and equality. Intellectuals and activists

within the trade unions and social movements collaborated with university-based

intellectuals and also undertook active collaboration with publics (ibid.)19

.

Buhlungu (2009) points out that collaboration was not a one-way street especially

after 1985 when COSATU was formed and the labour movement began to find its

own voice. The concepts presented by public sociology during this period were often

appropriated by these groups and given new meanings that were more in tune with the

lived experiences of members of the public. (ibid) Importantly, this period signalled a

shift, whereby unions began to develop their own intellectual capacity and their

dependence on university-based intellectuals waned, increasingly causing the retreat

of the public-intellectual with a reduced role to play within the struggle as civil

society was mobilising and strengthening its ability to fight its own struggle.

Nzimande (2005) points out:

The South African liberation struggle has thrown up thousands of organic

intellectuals, many of whom cannot even write, and who are hardly quoted in what

we sometimes regard as platforms for public intellectuals (e.g. media, journals etc).

These are neither accredited with the status of being intellectuals, let alone public

intellectuals. Yet they play their role of public intellectuals, within the public that is

the mass of people of our country on the ground and in their respective organisations

(p. 2).

This was a period of strong critical organic engagement that epitomises Burawoys

ideal-type of public sociology where organic intellectuals engaged reflexively with

civil society in theorising and actively pursuing the goal of liberation. In fact, it was

during this period (the early 1990s) that Burawoy was struck by the stark contrast

19During this period, public sociology was primarily carried out by labour sociologists and within

labour studies departments within the universities. The growth of labour studies in South Africa is

rooted primarily in events linked to the 1973 strikes in Durban, South Africa with African workers

demanding wage increases. Later the interest of labour sociologists shifted to a preoccupation with

formulating, a response by helping Black workers in general to form their own movements and

organizations and by providing them with ideas and concepts to make sense of their circumstances.

(Buhlungu 2009: 146)


37/83

37

between South African sociology and the, hyper-professionalized American

sociology (Burawoy, 2004: 11).

Burawoy warns that, given global forces and trends within the field of sociology

towards professional and policy sociology, South Africa may be under considerable

pressure to shift its focus towards these fields and away from its strong tradition of

public sociology.

3.2. South African Sociology in the Post-Apartheid Period

The post-apartheid statehas little patience for public and critical sociologies that

articulate the disparate interests to be found in society. The assault on sociology

becomes part of a broader offensive against an active society.

Burawoy quoted in Webster (2004:27)

For many authors, the post-apartheid period has signalled a decline, not only for

public sociology, but also for the social sciences in general.20

The decline of public

sociology in post-apartheid South Africa is a complex issue. Opinions vary according

to vantage point. Burawoy (2005c) opines that public sociology is inimical to South

African Sociology and, despite several impediments, still shows promise. Others

lament its decline. The issue is complex. When the decline of public sociology is

specifically tackled, it is largely attributed to the downswing of labour studies in the

country as the sphere where public sociology formally defined, has historically

been most active (Buhlungu, 2009, Webster, 2004).

In the previous section, I posited that sociology not be considered in a vacuum - and

that the possibility of organic public (sociological) engagement does not have to be

within the exclusive domain of sociology and sociologists. When Burawoy tackles the

issue, he speaks of broader issues that are affecting the academy, but with a direct

focus on the erosion of the autonomy of sociology. I will tackle this section with a

broader focus on the effects on critical and public engagement within the humanities

and on intellectuals in general.

20For example, Sitas (1997) & Buhlungu (2009)


38/83

38

Considerable literature on the retreat of intellectuals in South Africa is available.21

At

the centre of current debates is the issue of a perceived erosion of academic freedom-

especially with regards to dissent with state policies and politics. The decline of a

critical-public academia is intimately tangled with shifts occurring at the level of the

post-apartheid state as well as in civil society. The shifts are both structural and

social. At the crux of the shifts within civil society and academia, is the fact of co-

option of these structures and aversion of dissent by South Africas new democratic

state. Neoliberalism has also played a pivotal role. This is linked to the post-apartheid

States developmental agenda as well as its adoption of the Growth, Employment and

Redistribution strategy (GEAR) in 1996 - a broad based neoliberal macro-economic

strategy. Burawoy (2004) summarises the effects that these shifts have had on

sociology:

The cornerstone of anti-apartheid sociology was its public face that depended on

close engagement with burgeoning civic organizations and trade unions. Whether the

result of the upward mobility of leaders or of the neoliberal offensive, South Africa

has witnessed the demobilization of civics and trade unions, rendering sociology

increasingly rudderless. (Burawoy, p.23)

The current state of the academy is important for this paper. Its interrogation helpsto understand both the opportunities for and impediments to a reinvigorated South

African public sociology. It is beyond the scope of this paper to cover the vast

literature on the topic. The line of analysis I follow is primarily the possibilities for

critical-public engagement within the field in present day South Africa with an eye

toward emancipatory politics. These are the visions alluded to by Burawoy (2005d)

and further expanded on and commented on by authors such as Katz-Fishman & Scott

(2005), Brewer (2005) as well as Fuller & Askins (2010). Here, I fine tune these

visions by focusing specifically on the South African case in terms of the possibilities

for critical reflection, public engagement and also the mixture of the two in the form

of critical-public sociology. Special focus will be given to the possibility of critical

public engagement from within the university - as this is, ultimately, Burawoy's

grand vision.

21See Pithouse (2006), Gumede & Dikeni (2009) & Jacklin & Vale (2009)


39/83

39

I will begin by outlining what Webster & Adler (1999) call South Africas double

transition with a specific emphasis on its implications for critical-public engagement

in South Africa. Thereafter, I will turn to the possibilities for and channels that are

most likely to facilitate a critical-public sociology in South Africa today.

South Africas Double Transition

Critical thinking and its language have been flattened by the combined effects of the

marketisation of the academy, on the one hand, and the greed and avarice of South

Africas political class who have benefited from the closing down of critical space, on

the other hand. (Vale & Jacklin 2009: 11)

The early 1990s were a period of significant uncertainty for the future of South

Africa. During this period, the country underwent what Webster & Adler (1999) call a

double transition. On the political front, the shift was towards democracy.

Economically, an agenda of market liberalism, or neoliberalism, was pursued. The

adoption of a broad-based neoliberal macro-economic programme (GEAR) in South

Africa in 1996 was a far cry from the socialist visions of the liberation struggle. Thus,

Bond (2005) calls it the, betrayal of the liberation struggle (p.3).

The Post-apartheid State,The University, Sociology and Intellectuals

The democratic transition dramatically altered state/civil society/intellectual relations

(Habib, 2005: 677). Ballard et al (2006) point out that this moment in South Africas

history signifies the moment when the leaders of South Africas anti-apartheid social

movements entered the corridors of political power and that, the euphoria of the

political transition led many to expect that the need for adversarial social struggle

with the state was over22

(p.1). This period became primarily considered one

whereby state-civil society relations were, and should be, primarily collaborative23

.

22The role of civil society in the overthrow of apartheid is frequently outlined. For the sake of brevity,

I will not outline the vibrant civil society that existed in South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s,

leading up to the end of apartheid in 1994. For a detailed account of this, see Bond in Gibson (2006)

and Bond (2005) as well as Neocosmos (2009)

23This is not to say that all state-civil society relations during apartheid were, necessarily antagonistic-

there was a significant portion of what was then conceptualised as legitimate civil society that worked

largely with/within the domain of the state what can now be referred to as white civil society. See

Habib (2005) for further explanations.


40/83


41/83

41

and function of South African civil society during the post-apartheid period

necessarily signalled similar shifts in the role of the organic intellectuals working with

civil society during the liberation struggle. (Gumede, 2009). Gumede (2009) points

out, after 1994, many progressive intellectuals in South Africa were demobilised,

by being offered jobs in government, often on condition that they did not speak

against the government or party (p.29). Many intellectuals joined either government

or NGOs designated the task of helping the post-apartheid state with its agenda for

development. The effect has been the demobilisation of public engagement from

within the social sciences.

Civil Society , Academia and Intellectuals under Neoliberalism in Post-apartheid

South Africa

One distinctive feature of the South African case is that the globalisation process was

simultaneously accompanied by a political transition from apartheid to a democratic

order. The substantive compromise of this transition was the incoming regimes

support for neo-liberal economic policies in exchange for capitals acceptance of

black economic empowerment and some affirmative action.

(Ballard et al in Ballard et al 2006:12)

Globalisation has been described in both horizontal as well as in vertical terms.26It is

the vertical dimension of globalisation that concerns us here (neo-liberal

globalisation). (Alexander in Alexander, 2006) Since the 1980s a liberalizing trend

was set in motion in South Africa, and, during the shift from apartheid to democracy

was fully realised with the implementation of GEAR. Thus, the aim of integrating

South Africa into the global economy was solidified. The effect on the economic and

social realities of many South Africans has been devastating. Fiscal austerity

measures and practices of cost-recovery have cut off access to basic services for many

poor communities; others have faced home repossessions and rent evictions

(McDonald & Pape, 2002). In a nutshell, the major impact has been an increase in

inequality as well as poverty in the country (Habib, 2005). Furthermore, neoliberalism

26According to Alexander in Alexander (2006:14), it was during the 1990s that globalisation was

viewed in more horizontal terms. This is evident in many different dimensions of conceptualising

globalisation , as time-space compression (Harvey 1989), intensification of worldwide social

relations (Giddens 1990), an integrated world economy (Harris 1983) and an information

technology' revolution (Castells 1997).


42/83

42

has complicated and divided various organs within the sphere of civil society.

According to Esteves et al (2009):

This situation (neoliberalism) has led to an increasing tension between, on one hand,

officially-approved versions of popular participation in politics geared towards the

mobilization of consent for neo-liberalism through institutional channels the world

of "consultation", NGOs and civil society - and, on the other hand, the less polite and

polished world of people's attempts to participate in politics on their own terms, in

their own forms and for their own purposes social movements, popular protest,

direct action, and so on what Sen (2005), and Piotrowski (2009) distinguish as civil

and incivil society (p.1).

Within the academy, neoliberalism has had distinct ideological as well as structuraleffects. Firstly, the adoption of neoliberalism and its promise of redistribution through

the trickle-down effect stamped out the possibility of imagining radical

alternatives such as those envisaged during the liberation struggle period. (Jacklin &

Vale 2009) Furthermore, structural shifts in line with neoliberal guidelines have

inhibited critical currents within the academy in general, but especially in the social

sciences, where critical thought and a focus on social issues predominate. Burawoy

(2004) maintains, following the lead of the World Bank disquisitions on higher

education, the government has imposed a structural adjustment on the social

sciences, demanding that they be cost-effective, by turning to vocational education

and supplying specific skills rather than critical intelligence. (p.23) This reform of

higher education was advertised as the globalisation of higher education and were

meant to align the universities in South Africa with the, instrumental routines of

neoliberal thinking. (Jacklin & Vale, 2009: 5). The preoccupation was with

producing world class universities (Gumede, 2009).

This restructuring has had the effect of exposing higher education institutions to the

dominant values of the market. The language of efficiency has thus infiltrated the

ideological and practical activities within these settings and, increasingly, the

academic output and structures have come to be evaluated in quantitative terms. It is

beyond the scope of this paper to explore the effects of the marketisation of the

academy in detail. The effects of neoliberalism have been felt in campuses across the

country - including student fee hikes, sub-contracting of staff, downsizing or


43/83

43

eradicating inefficient departments etc. All of these shifts have been strongly

protested across campuses in South Africa27

.

The result of the changes, relevant to this paper is that, ultimately, the purpose of

education has been narrowed to one where market logic predominates and that, as

Jacklin and Vale (2009) call them, education customers (often the state) want a

more, practical outcome to their investment. (p. 5). In the case of the social

sciences, the value of the discipline has been questioned because its outcomes are

not quantifiable in terms of its direct contribution to employment or industry. The

social sciences have thus been remoulded in line with the dictates of the market (ibid).

In a nutshell, social scientists are geared toward the job market and toward

fulfilling positions within the field of policy or in NGOs aligned with the states

market driven development. Social science has become an area, enmeshed in the

technocratic world of policy and the intricacies of its making, both of which were

embedded in a depoliticised and technicist discourse (ibid: 7).

In step with the market-model, an increased focus on measuring the academic output

of individual academics and institutions has been undertaken (Nash 2006:9). In this

way, research becomes driven by financial rather than intellectual concerns.

(Pendlebury & van der Walt, 2006). This necessitates that the end goal of research

becomes publishing in presitigious journals and that the content of academic output

be aligned with the prescriptions of these (often international) journals (ibid). The

focus, then, is on specialisation. Thus wide-ranging and critical engagement with

subject matter becomes less important and is seldom rewarded.

The marketisation of the academy has produced an environment where, the critical

project of the social sciences has faded (Jacklin & Vale, 2009: 6). For Neocosmos

(2009b), the humanities have lost their emancipatory focus, and instead, dedicate

themselves either to technical policy endeavours or to uncritical praise singing of the

state.

27See Khan (2006) for a detailed account

reviving public sociology in post-apartheid south africa: conversations between the ivory tower, the...

Documents