Why does South African history continue to be written primarily by white scholars?

In an eloquent and insightful review of the new Cambridge History of South Africa, historian Andrew MacDonald broached this elephant in our collective bedroom. A work of enormous labour, this two volume, one thousand page summation of the radical or “revisionist” generation of scholarship includes a striking minority of black contributors—a troubling fact after over forty years of self-consciously progressive South African history. Somewhat pre-emptively, MacDonald tells us that only the most parochial of critics would “begrudge the quality of the work” on this basis. The editors are mostly left-leaning historians with long, and unquestionable, commitments to writing the country’s history from an anti-racist perspective. Moreover, South Africa’s history of white supremacy, the exile of black intellectuals during apartheid, the economic challenges faced by many black students, and the institutional crisis of the universities has meant that many would-be scholars have (in MacDonald’s words) “jump[ed] the historian’s ship.” But something doesn’t sit quite right here.

Yes, we need (and many of us are having) a serious conversation about the limits to institutional transformation in the South African universities and the obstacles to training a new generation of black historians. But as an explanation for the predominance of white contributors in a project presenting itself as an authoritative synthesis, the institutional argument too quickly glosses over the fact that a large and diverse body of historical writing exists by black scholars, many of whom have played a central role in the field for decades. I have no desire to conduct an apartheid-style census of my colleagues, but I know that I regularly read the work of at least as many black historians as there are contributors to the CUP volumes. Add scholars doing historical work in other fields—sociology, art history, literary studies—the number probably doubles, and I am thinking only of university employed academics. That, already, is a fraught limitation in deciding who counts as a historian in the South African context. Editors rarely get the set of contributors that they initially imagined; many factors (including those outside of anyone’s control) determine a table of contents. But the appearance of the field’s most comprehensive and accomplished survey in this form is unnerving.

I’m not going to attempt a full review of the Cambridge volumes. The editing and writing are exemplary, and some of the chapters will probably achieve the status of classics. My own taste runs towards the contributions by Paul Landau, John Wright, Tlhalo Radithlahlo (who is a black South African), Deborah Posel, Philip Bonner, and Bill Freund. Such projects are virtually designed to invite dissent, baiting the ambitions of younger scholars hungry for their mark. The magisterial tome conjurers many a would-be Oedipus. Reviewers will certainly query the rational behind cutting off the narrative at 1994 and the excision of other African countries, especially Southern African, from the later account. There are also important questions to ask about the genre of the grand national synthesis, the historical and theoretical problems it privileges, and the forms of writing and critique it pushes to the margins—issues that have been central to scholarship informed by feminist, transnational, and post-colonial studies for some decades. Would a more capacious sense of the discipline, and an effort to include a wider variety of political and methodological perspectives, have produced a more diverse group of authors? It’s a thought worth considering.

The Cambridge volumes provide an opportunity to raise some uncomfortable questions regarding race and the field of South African history. At one level, this discussion rages interminably in spaces like conference organizing committees, hiring committees, and the living rooms of friends. Shadow discourses about race—which only emerge occasionally in the pages of journals or conference debates—shape the day-to-day politics of our profession in far-reaching ways. Among white historians, they frequently take forms that are exculpatory (“we were stuck with the people who actually applied”) or tokenistic (“does anyone know a black Lesbian scholar who can speak on the environment for my conference panel?”). I won’t deny for a second that I have participated in such discussions—and worse. The result is that the problem of race is displaced elsewhere. We rarely seem to reflect on the general whiteness of South African history as a field, at least not publicly. When this issue does get discussed, we often use a self-congratulatory language of progress and generational transition: the old tropes of liberal stewardship.

The explanations offered by MacDonald and the Cambridge editors are a crucial part of the story. But we also need to reflect on the kinds of history that we write, and the voices and experiences that our discipline privileges in practice. I have two observations based on my own position teaching in North America. First, South African history abroad remains largely identified with the Marxian social history of the 1980s, which in U.S. and Canada was read through a paternalistic project of “giving Africans a voice.” Don’t get me wrong. I am against cheap social history bashing. Some of my best friends (and most important mentors) were revisionists, and they have long ago come to terms with the weaknesses of their early scholarship, such as the absence of gender analysis or the downplaying of ethnicity and religion. But the version of the historiography institutionalized in the U.S. and the UK often feels like a strange time warp, as if each generation of graduate students must rise against the old liberal masters (which they almost never read), vicariously participating in the politics of a bygone era. At the same time, the work of black scholars—particularly black historians critical of social history from nationalist or post-colonial perspectives—is often missing from course syllabi, comps lists, and edited volumes. Undoubtedly, the reasons behind these absences are complex. But we should start to discuss them.

Second, I think that it is important to interrogate the place of South Africa in different American and British cultural imaginaries, and the ways in which the field has sometimes reproduced these narratives. South Africa has frequently served as the mise-en-scène for a powerful set of racial fantasies. The most infamous is now the most thread-bare: South Africa as the “Rainbow Nation,” the site of a reconciliation and forgiveness cruelly denied in the post-Civil Rights-era U.S. But we should not forget the radical tourist, the white activist seeking the centre of the world revolution, who has come to help lead the “black masses” whose languages he doesn’t speak and history he barely knows—a Lenin-complex meets Tarzan of the Jungle. There are Afro-pessimistic versions as well: the thrill of exploring a perilous and legendary country of witches, shebeens, and gangsters; or the imperative to bear witness to a violence stricken nation, to endow tragedy with meaning through listening to the testimony of the suffering. Some roles die hard: the desire to be accepted, to be forgiven, to be the revolutionary, the adventurer, the missionary. I am not the only young scholar that I know who has unconsciously adopted, struggled with, and attempted to move beyond one or more of these scripts. Needless to say, these play books leave little room for the voices of black students or scholars.

As several friends have warned me, this form of critique risks erasing the enormous amount of work that has been done and the emergence of a younger, more diverse, generation of scholars. Polemics don’t substitute for institution building, and one could point to a several crucial projects, such as the Wits History Workshop, the South African Democratic Education Trust series, and the District Six museum, that have sought to re-envision the field in far reaching (and very different) ways. These efforts underline that expanding the discipline requires the rethinking of our platforms and collective practices.

Recently, I was involved in co-editing a volume on the 100th anniversary of the ANC on behalf of South African History Online (SAHO). While the volume has its own shortcomings (including a majority of white contributors), it attempts to include intellectuals of widely varying methodological, political, and disciplinary perspectives. SAHO has ensured that all of its contents will be available online and, in the coming year, will begin to collect and link the primary and secondary sources referenced in each chapter, producing a new archive immediately accessible to the reader. At the same time, SAHO will integrate this material into its more popularly accessible accounts of liberation history, creating multiple entry points geared toward different audiences. The project will be connected to two internship programmes—one consisting of South African students, the other run through a small group of North American universities—that will encourage aspiring scholars to identify lacunae and work together (through residencies and online collaboration) to write new histories. This type of undertaking strengthens research infrastructure in South Africa while developing a new generation of black South African and foreign historians trained through collaborative intellectual production. We should find new ways to support such initiatives.

At the end of the day, I am not sure which I loathe more: the odious practice of racializing my colleagues by counting their bodies or a “non-racial” colour blindness that refuses to grapple with institutionalized white privilege. I am desperate for another set of conversations. I agree with Ciraj Rassool and Andile Mngxitama that we need to have a discussion about the liberal scripts of voice giving and racial atonement that frequently play themselves out in the practice of social history. But that is only the start. Is it possible to have a conversation about who gets counted as a historian and what projects are valorised through their associations with traditional centres of academic prestige and power? Or about the continuing role that certain South African “historically white universities” play in mediating funding and access to international academic networks in ways that continue to marginalize important scholarship produced in still very black universities? Can we talk about the ways that the historiographic concerns of the field in Britain and North America sometimes overshadow new directions of research that have developed in South Africa since 1994? Can we address why, after years of debate over South African “exceptionalism,” we can still produce histories that abstract the country from the continent? Can we speak about the ways that white colleagues often shield each other from criticism on the basis of past commitments and current good intentions? I ask these questions as a provocation, and as someone who is fully implicated in the global asymmetries that shape the practice of African history today.

* Jon Soske teaches history at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

Comments

comments

20 Comments
  1. I have to say that while I sympathise with these concerns, as a South African I am more concerned with African and South African histories being written by Americans and Europeans, or Africans who have permanently relocated overseas. I would say that these three groups account for the vast majority of scholarship on Africa in general, and SA is no exception. (Surely it is doubly incongruous that you were chosen as co-editor of the ANC volume?). At least the white scholars you refer to are, for the most part, to some extent part of the society they are studying (albeit perhaps particular parts of that society).

    I think another way of framing the question is to ask how the (internationally and cross-disciplinary) typical academic problems that characterise selection of authors for edited volumes – social networks, patronage and cronyism – serve to reinforce racial divisions within the SA academy. It’s not as if similar issues do not play out elsewhere…

    1. I see your point. It is important to disentangle whiteness and foreigness, which can interact in complex ways. I think your second paragraph is very apt.

  2. Interesting post, but blasting the Cambridge History of SA on the basis of the skin color of the editors and authors comes across as little more than a political swipe. Sure, as the prof notes, this new synthesis does not provide all the answers or ask all the “right” questions.

    However, as specialists in and out of SA know, the transformation of “History” in SA is an ongoing process. It involves professional historians, government, heritage specialists, curators, archivists, bloggers, journalists, NGOs, and many non-specialists. More than a decade ago, institutional and disciplinary challenges, as well as some suggestions for future directions, were laid out in the 2001 “Report of the History and Archaeology Panel in South Africa” [http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=70331].

    The new Cambridge History presents one kind of history, but as Prof. Soske points out, lots of other kinds of historical works are also bubbling in the pot. This work is taking place inside academia (including at Wits, UWC) and outside (SADET and D6M among others). Some of it is done locally and nationally, other work is done internationally. Some of it is analog, some digital (not just SAHO, also Archival Platform, African Online Digital Library, etc.). This variety and vigor seems like a healthy sign compared to the late 1990s “crisis.”

    What is really needed in SA and elsewhere, are fresh new ideas and much greater investment in the human and material resources needed for “doing history.” Because without adequate financial aid, research grants, travel and writing support, and constructive mentoring, gender, class, and age inequalities among historians are likely to endure. Phambili!

    1. You are correct in saying that many admirable initiatives do exist that are currently contributing to the SA historical archive, but I think you’re missing Professor Soske’s point. He’s not calling for a wealth of new endeavours, he’s looking to build on the current infrastructure and “find new ways to support such initiatives” (which is actually the point you present in your final paragraph). While high-quality research archives such as Archival Platform and SAHO do exist, the fact remains that most people, specifically outside the country, will look to the better known (aka better funded and advertised) source of history such as The Cambridge History. By side-stepping and dismissing the main point of Soske’s response, really you’re just contributing to the exact “elephant in the room” pitfall that Soske points out as inhibiting the growth and improvement of professional SA scholarship.

      1. I did not dismiss Soske’s point, I just disagree with it. There’s a difference.. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that “most people…outside the country will look to” the Cambridge History as their source. Says who? Based on what? In fact, sales figures for books like Jacob Dlamini’s *Native Nostalgia* (among others) and web usage of open access SA resources suggest quite a different reality.

    2. I agree with all most all of your post. My only additional point would be that this health is, in some ways, very precarious, and some of the efforts you name struggle financially from project to project and have for years. In my own experience, university trained academics have been slow to engage these platforms (even if we use them constantly) and leverage our own institutional positions (which, of course, can also be precarious and resource limited) to support them in new ways. In an earlier draft of my essay, I suggested that some of the people now reviewing the CUP volumes should give the same kind of critical evaluations of the flawed, uneven, but invaluable SAHO.

      1. Soske, I thank you for beginning such a discussion and having the savy to call concepts such as the ‘rainbow nation’ in your words, ‘thread bare’, and also realizing the root of the problem lying in white privilege. Where you go wrong is the proposed solution, which presumes a readiness and a willingness on the part of ‘the privileged’ to abandon the maintenance of that privilege. This is a similar flaw to that underlying the current thinking on economic transformation in South Africa, and thus the reason for such delayed progress in that sphere. Human beings are trained and socialized to do the exact opposite, which is to maintain and build upon every privilege they current. To really address the problem, abandon the request to your white peers to abandon their privilege, and support the individuals and institutions you feel need to be heard! Support their publishing efforts, help them access the billions in research funding that goes to Western institutions every year. Identify and support young writers too. I won’t even begin to touch on how the major book chains in South Africa ignore all but the most media savvy of African writers, therefore the majority have NO market. Having lived in the West, I know first hand the abundance of black/African literature available at major chains as compared to SA.

        Let’s work on practical solutions if we are to address the problem posed in your article.

    3. What we really need is Black/African people telling their own stories. End of discussion.

  3. As a black South African historian, I find this intervention (by a white North American) irritating at best, offensive at worst. It exemplifies the very thing it claims to criticise: a white liberal paternalism that aims to ‘recover’ and ‘give voice to’ the marginalised and silenced. Black South African historians are capable of defending themselves. We do not need an obsequious white North American to claim recognition for us. White scholars (like Soske) who can only critique the racial paternalism of other white scholars by deploying forms of racial paternalism themselves betray an ugly and persistent ‘whiteliness.’ Samantha Vice prescribes humility as an antidote. Soske certainly could use a dose of that.

    1. I understand this critique and worried quite a bit about my piece being read in this fashion. I am not claiming to speak for black historians or anyone else, but am writing as a white historian, often directly addressing our white colleagues, and trying to reflect on my own position in the field, especially my place in North America. I do think that the task of addressing race and the profession often gets “subcontracted” out to black colleagues, where it needs to be part of a broader conversation within the field, and white scholars should be part of that. I am not arguing for tokenistic inclusion in projects like the CUP volumes on the basis of race (if this was your reading, then I would agree with you completely), but a more open confrontation with certain questions for intellectual and political reasons.

  4. Soske needs a lesson in South Africaness to come to understand why only white South African historians write history. Perhaps he would seek tenure at the university of Fort Hare – I wish I could offer it to him!

  5. I’m not sure if South African historians are uniquely at fault – if that’s the word – for being white. Academia remains overwhelmingly white in this country – as it does in the US, and, indeed, Canada. We need to address the fact that so few black students enroll for postgraduate courses in the humanities and social science. Also, I think your implication that very few black students become historians is because – you believe – we tend to exclude the work of (unnamed) black scholars who’ve offered up criticisms of mainstream historiography, is simplistic. The black students who I’ve taught are considerably more sophisticated than that.

  6. Again, Sarah Emily Duff, is there any willingness in White academia, or business, to abandon a position of privilege? The answer is no. The focus should be on identifying and supporting black writers and historians, no matter how few you claim there are.

  7. I certainly identify and support young black students who’d make excellent historians, and I think the same goes for my colleagues. It would be great if there was greater funding available to them – and, indeed, all – postgrad students in South Africa to pursue masters and PhD study both here and abroad. (I know how complicated and difficult it was for me to secure enough funding to finish my PhD in the UK.) I really, really don’t think that there’s a kind of white, academic cabal actively preventing black students from becoming historians. But, then, I’m white – but, as a woman in a male-dominated environment, I can’t say that my gender has been a hindrance to my career.

  8. (Which isn’t to argue – obviously – that women aren’t discriminated against in academia.) I think my point is that we need to look at the wider, structural issues – funding being one of them – which prevent black students from enrolling in postgraduate degrees.

  9. A cabal need not be present for established privilege or social capital to work in favor of one group versus another. However, I will agree on the importance of finance in modern academia.

  10. This is exactly my problem.African History through white eyes and minds,with a twisted version for the purpose of white people who intended to keep Africans mentally enslaved.
    Where are our historians? Why must we have our books published by white people who take most of the profits while doing little work.it is the same way in music. The Jews own all the recording companies and most of our brothers and sisters end up broke as they fade from the lights.
    I call on all African Heads of State to address problems of this magnitude and forge ahead with the development of the African Central Bank which will finance ventures of this nature.We must be the authors of our intellectual property and not allow the white world to relegate us to buffoons and clowns.

Mailing List

Sign up for email updates!

 

Not the continent with 54 countries







©Africa is a Country, 2016