Sociology in South Africa: Its past, present and future

Burawoy provides a useful analytical history of South African sociology by suggesting a movement during the apartheid period through the four sectors of his matrix, in anti-clockwise direction from policy sociology to professional, critical and public sociology (Burawoy, 2004). His suggestion that in the post-apartheid era sociology has been forced to shift from a reflexive engagement with publics and a critical engagement with societal goals to a defence of the very idea of sociology, is persuasive. ‘We are witnessing’, he concludes, ‘the instru-mentalization of sociology, turning it away from an integration of ends to an obsession with means, often its own survival. The post-apartheid state … has 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 active society’ (Burawoy, 2004: 15). The response of South African sociologists to this unprecedented interest by the President of the American Sociological Association in their history was one of bemusement. 1 Burawoy's paper was first presented as the keynote address to the annual congress of the South African Sociology Association (SASA) held in Durban from 30 June to 2 July 2003. An earlier version of my paper was presented by way of a response to Burawoy at this meeting (see p 11 this issue). Why is he interested in the self-evident fact that South Africa has a tradition of public sociology? While it may be self-evident to South African sociology, by naming some of its activities ‘public sociology’ Burawoy was giving these activities legitimacy. As a participant in the symposium on Public Sociologies at Boston College last year wrote, ‘In giving public sociology a name, perhaps Burawoy's enduring gift is to confer it with legitimacy’ (Vaughan, 2004: 118). ‘Naming’ public sociology as a legitimate activity brings to the surface a whole range of activities that are not normally accepted as the domain of a professional academic. Other South African sociologists challenged Burawoy's categorisation of types of sociology suggesting that he was drawing artificial boundaries at a time when these boundaries were breaking down. Surprisingly, some even denied that sociology is a distinct discipline or that it has any distinct role to play in the social science project. Sociology's historic role, Burawoy has made clear in a separate paper, is quite distinct within the broader social science project. ‘We are not political scientists who identify with state power and political order. Nor are we economists who identify with the wonders of the free market. We are sociologists who identify with the resilience of civil society. But in defending society against markets and states, we do not claim that this is some harmonious communitarian terrain. To the contrary, racial fissures, scattered hegemonies of sexuality and gender, cover it, it is suffused with deepening inequalities and disciplinary regimes — themselves the product of plundering states and invading markets. Working with the positive moment of civil society, sociology defends its own very existence, but at the same time defends the interests of humanity’ (Burawoy, 2003: 3). These are inspiring and stirring words. What implications do they have for the practice of sociology in South Africa? I have divided my comments on Burawoy's article into three parts: firstly, I have used his analytical categories to examine the development of sociology in South Africa; I then draw out the lessons that I have learnt from practising public sociology in South Africa; and then, in the third part, I examine the erosion of a public sociology in contemporary South Africa. I conclude by suggesting that, while restructuring threatens to undermine our proud public and critical role, it has also opened up opportunities for South African sociology to strengthen its professional role.