Abstract
Afrikaans linguistics and literary studies, much like the language community more broadly, faces various pressing issues in relation to its position and future within the South African academy specifically and society at large. A recent movement that has attempted to grapple with these concerns is represented by the Unlaagering project – a series of academic gatherings that has led to the publication of special editions of peer-reviewed journals – and the Sitkamer podcast. With the majority of organisers and speakers at the Unlaagering conferences also being the central interlocutors of the podcast, Unlaagering-Sitkamer is described as a grouping representing a particular discursive formation within Afrikaans linguistics and literary studies. Although largely homogenous as it relates to age, the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping consists of two types of academics relative to Afrikaans: experts and non-experts, with the non-experts representing academics whose expertise lies outside of Afrikaans studies.
The discourses embodied by the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping are analysed through the concept of the colonialesque. Initially conceptualised in the context of Khoesan studies (Staphorst 2021), it refers to a form of academic colonialism whereby non-experts misrepresent other academics and extant scholarship through a moralising lens. Previous academics and the existing scholarship are, therefore, presented as morally inferior relative to the progressive view embodied by the “new” expert. The concept draws on the oral testimony of ||kabbo (1911), one of the main 19th-century |xam informants, and the idea of the ordinary as conceived by Njabulo Ndebele (2006). The colonialesque, then, is firmly rooted within the realm of epistemology. This conceptualisation of the colonialesque is tested, challenged, and broadened in this article in three ways.
Firstly, the received understanding of colonialesque scholarship is tested in relation to the discourse of the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping. This is done by analysing the claims and presuppositions of novelty that undergird much of this discourse. A historicised account of transformation and critical pedagogical innovation in Afrikaans linguistics and literary studies is presented that references the work of Marxist, Women, and Black scholars within Afrikaans with particular reference to the period 1980–2000. This historicised view challenges the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping’s presupposed originality, and, more importantly, points to their lack of expertise in relation to the broader, complex dynamics of knowledge production and transformation that have preceded their intervention. It also challenges the received understanding of the colonialesque as a phenomenon only attributable to non-experts; many of those who make work of the presupposition of novelty are, in fact, “experts” in Afrikaans studies. Further, beyond negating historical developments, the discussion illustrates how emergent academics – in their search for novelty and social and epistemic justice – often find themselves favouring supposed novelty at the expense of justice. In this way, the negation of historical developments may translate into the negation of marginal voices – despite the claim that they want to amplify the marginalised. As a possible counter to this amnesia, and to avoid a hagiographical approach to history, N.P. Van Wyk Louw’s (1971) idea of the “cultured person” is presented as model, with the “cultured person” reflecting one who, akin to Friedrich Nietzsche’s (1874) critical orientation towards history, sees themselves as working from within tradition, not outside of it.
Secondly, colonialesque is explicitly challenged through discussing the ways in which the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping engage with identity formation. The discussion draws on the distinction between multiracialism and nonracialism as drawn by Antjie Krog (2003) in relation to the Afrikaans language community. Afrikaans, Krog argues, has in post-apartheid South Africa become a multiracial community, but nonracialism – or the active deconstruction of racial regimes – has not yet taken root. The analysis illustrates how the concept of whitenesshas been mobilised in the discourse of the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping, and how this mobilisation feeds into multiracialism, rather than non-racial deconstruction. After the analysis of race, the focus shifts towards the binary relationship between academic and non-academic. This section of the analysis draws on Mahmood Mamdani’s (1996) distinction between citizens and subjects – historical political identities that marked colonial rule, with citizenship reserved for the settler-colonist and subjecthood for the colonised. This distinction is drawn upon to illustrate how the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping keeps a rigid distinction between insiders and outsiders of the grouping intact, with this distinction leading to differential treatment relative to one’s position vis-à-vis the grouping. This analysis of race and interpersonal identity formations leads to the conclusion that the colonialesque goes beyond the confines of the epistemological, and also speaks to the ontological. As possible counter, the need for non-racial futures and a commitment to equality of opinion is argued for.
Thirdly, colonialesque is once again challenged – this time through analysing the relationship between network formation and the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping. This discussion is influenced by Walter Mignolo’s (2000) explication of the centralised and prejudiced networks that characterise colonial trade routes: all roads lead to Buenos Aires, for example, and on to the colonial metropole; but not all routes connect smaller locales in Argentina. Against this backdrop, examples of regressive and conservative network formation by and through the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping are discussed and critiqued – specifically as they relate to centralisation around the group’s members, and in relation to Dutch, Afrikaans’s oldest “laager”. Two arguments are made in this regard: both for the establishment of networks amongst and between Afrikaans and other African, Latin-American, and Asian literatures, and for critical and wary approaches to networks as such.
Finally, the article reflects on the colonialesque in the context of broader phenomena within Afrikaans linguistics and literary studies. Specifically, examples of conservative network formation and historical ignorance are discussed; the difference, however, between these examples and the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping is their moral agenda. Whilst there are, therefore, numerous examples of academics forming “laagers” and evidencing ignorance of their field of study, they do not reflect the moralising agenda shared by the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping. The article’s expanded, three-tiered understanding of the colonialesque – as epistemological, as ontological, and as sociological – is finally brought into conversation with Aníbal Quijano’s (2000) conception of coloniality of power. There is, therefore, an underlying will to power that drives the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping and the discourses they engage in.
The article concludes by reflecting on the need for careful, humble, and committed scholarship that does not replace sound research with a moral agenda. Despite the arguably just and necessary impulses that the Unlaagering-Sitkamer grouping acts upon, their endeavours nevertheless lead to opposite outcomes: silenced histories, regressive identities, and conservative networks. An approach to scholarship that is radically different from the colonialesque, it is finally noted, is especially important when considering the article’s expanded understanding of the colonialesque as not only evident within the annals of academia, but as a phenomenon actively taking shape in broader societal spaces and discourses.
Keywords: academic discourse; Afrikaans; colonialesque; language politics; pedagogy; public intellectual; sitkamer podcast; transformation; unlaagering; unlaagering project
- This article’s featured image was created by Yevgraf Zhivago and obtained from Unsplash.