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

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.

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.

Contents
ABBREVIATIONS 6

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1. Setting the scene 1.2. Research Problem 1.3. Methodology 1.4. Reflections on the Methodology 1.5. Outline of Chapters

7
7 9 10 13 15

CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK & LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction 2.2. The state of Sociology according to Burawoy 2.3. Public Sociology 1.4. Reflections on Burawoys Public Sociology 2.5. Conclusion

17
17 18 21 25 32

CHAPTER THREE: FOCUSING ON SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIOLOGY PAST AND PRESENT

3.1. South African Sociology during the Liberation Struggle Period 3.2. South African Sociology in the Post-Apartheid Period

35
35 37

CHAPTER FOUR: CONTEXTUALISING THE CASE STUDY

4.1. Introducing Abahlali baseMjondolo 4.2. Introducing the University of Abahlali base Mjondolo

51
51 54

CHAPTER FIVE: CASE STUDY: LIVING LEARNING

5.1. Introduction 5.2. Results & Analysis

57
57 60

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION

71

REFERENCE LIST

75

Abbreviations
ABM ANC ASA BCM CBO COSATU GEAR LPM NDA NGO Nedlac SANCO UDF Abahlali baseMjondolo African National Congress American Sociological Association Black Consciousness Movement Community Based Organisation Congress of South African Trade Unions Growth, Employment and Redistribution programme Landless Peoples Movement National Development Agency Non-Governmental Organisation National Economic Development and Labour Council South African National civic Organisation United Democratic Front

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 his 2004 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).

According 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.

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 sociology and 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).

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 in South Africa and what have been the implications of this? 2) Under what conditions has public sociology been weak in South Africa and what have been the implications of this? 3) What is the current status of public sociology in South Africa?

According 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

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) 5) 6) How can the field of public sociology be strengthened? What is the role of the academic in strengthening public sociology? 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

3 4

For an in-depth account of a broader history of South African sociology, see Hugo (1998) See Burawoy (2005d) for further explanations

10

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 this document. 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

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

settlement.
6

Strategic 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, postapartheid, 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)

11

(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 12

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) 2) Form of Intellectual engagement 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 primary data 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 occur through 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. 13

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. 14

1.5. Outline of Chapters

The structure of the rest of the paper will now be outlined. Chapter Two provides the theoretical foundations for the rest of the paper. In this chapter I outline in detail the notion of public sociology through a specific focus on Burawoys thesis. The chapter outlines Burawoys proposals for the relationship of public sociology to other sociologies which he categorises as professional, policy and critical sociologies respectively. Thereafter, I outline and reflect on some of the critiques and proposals for the expansion of Burawoys thesis. Chapter Three is dedicated to reflecting on and analysing the possibilities for strengthening the field of public sociology specifically in the South African context. The chapter begins by outlining the character of sociology during the liberation struggle against apartheid focusing on the period of 1970s until the early 1990's7. Specifically, the section reflects on the role of public sociology and public intellectuals during this period. The second section within this chapter deals with the state of sociology during the post-apartheid period. Attention is paid, particularly, to the period of transition from apartheid to democracy and the structural and political implications that these have had on the field of sociology as a result. Specifically, I focus on the implications of these forces on both critical thought and public engagement within the field. This is followed by a reflection on the possibilities for and channels available to fostering public sociology in South Africa today. Chapter Four contextualises the case study, the Living Learning process. The chapter begins with an introduction to the shackdwellers movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo. Explaining the movement helps to contextualise the case study. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of material available about the Rural Network, therefore, this paper will not outline the movement further than what has been mentioned in the introduction.

Apartheid era policies were abandoned in 1990. The first democratic election took place in 1994

15

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 engagement 2) 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.

16

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).
8

Burawoy 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).

17

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
9

and 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
9

See Buhlungu (2009) & Webster (2004) Neocosmos (2009: 268) suggests that historically, trade unions have constituted the typical

10

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.
11

In 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

18

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 relationships and 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)

19

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).

20

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)

21

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 sociology represents 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 between sociologists 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.

12

Gramsci 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)

22

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 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
13

and

Burawoy 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

23

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).

24

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. (KatzFishmann & 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)

25

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 recognises that thus much more likely to engender opposition. The author 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 nongovernmental 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 26

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.

15 16

See Pithouse 2009 for an in-depth explanation Baiocchi (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.
17

See Burawoy (2005b)

27

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 emancipation meant 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, 28

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 public anthropology 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 29

academic and for the audience. Nevertheless one cannot help getting the feeling that Burawoys conception very clearly envisages a central role for the sociologist in these endeavours with the specific role of educator. Kalleberg (2005) picks up on this element when he points out that, in Burawoys account and despite rhetoric about mutual education Burawoys proposition has real undertones of sociologist as expert rather than as collaborator. Similarly, Boyns & Fletcher (2006) posit that, Public Sociology advances an agenda geared toward a sociology for publics instead of a sociology of publics (p. 2). Fuller & Askins (2010) address this issue when discussing the implications and possibilities of public geography propelled by Burawoys arguments for public sociology. Fuller & Askins, however, manage to pose some important (more radical) questions and propositions than Burawoy. Presumably, Burawoy fails to pose these questions due to his position within the ASA. The authors pose the question that, if we are to take seriously the notion that public sociology is about academics as co-learners rather then educators then what happens when academics are taken out of the equation? This is a valid question. When we consider that sociology can be multiple and does not necessarily take place in the academy then the real possibility of removing the academic from the equation but still having sociology is logical. For Fuller and Askins (2010), Knowledge production debates loom large here. If we take seriously the notion of academics as co-learners together with publics in a two-way process then surely when academics are taken out of the equation people retain the ability to think geographically, think critically abut geographical matters, learn, and act upon their learning. This would suggest that organic public geographies happen regardless of academic involvement. (p.13). The implication here is that, within the field of organic public sociology a wide-range of projects could qualify. Thus posing very real questions about the role of the sociologist. Organic public sociology without sociologists? Katz-Fishmann & Scott (2005) point out that, even during periods where radical sociology was,turning inward and away from publics and movements, movement formations continued to carry out organic public sociology (p.372). The authors point out that Burawoys public sociologists are, individuals connected to 30

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 21st century 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 cocreations. (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

31

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 32

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 33

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.

34

Chapter Three: Focusing on South African Sociology Past and Present

Public Sociology thrived in the opposition to apartheid and continues that civic engagement in the post-apartheid period, although ever more threatened by state cooption and the demobilization of civil society. (Burawoy, 2005c: 9)

3.1. South African Sociology during the Liberation Struggle Period

The 1970s were a period whereby critical New Left thinking on issues of racial inequality and racial domination began (Webster, 2004). This critical thinking deepened during the 1980s when this engagement broadened to include, dialogue with social movements struggling against apartheid. (ibid: 30). During the 1980s civil society in South Africa was linked with a large cadre of organic intellectuals within the trade union movement, within alternative think tanks, and also, within universities. (Gumede, 2009) Vale & Jacklin (2009) posit that when viewing South African Sociology from its position during this period, one would think that, critical social thinking was in the countrys DNA. (p.2) In a nutshell, critical-public sociology resulted from a fusion between critical sociology (from the 1970s) with the liberation sociology of the 1980s.18 Sociology was preoccupied with, infusing Marxism into public debates about the anti-apartheid movement its relation to the apartheid state, to the African National Congress (ANC) and to the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), about the relation between trade unions and community based organisations ( UDF) and so on. (Burawoy, 2004: 22) In a nutshell, theory became praxis. According to Buhlungu (2009), this period in South African history is a rare example of a situation where sociologists moved beyond merely studying society and became actively engaged with actors outside of academia with the end goal being the overthrow of apartheid. Organic public sociologists sought connections and dialogue

18

For a brief overview on South African Sociology from its inception, see Mapadimeng (2009).

Burawoy (2004) traces apartheid sociology back to before the period of the liberation struggle and shows that the field began with policy sociology, then became involved with professional before turning to critical and finally public sociology.

35

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

19

During 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)

36

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.

20

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

37

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 freedomespecially 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 cooption 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 helps to 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.

21

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

38

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.

22

The 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)
23

This 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.

39

According to Ballard et al (2006), the result was a state-driven attempt to collapse the activities and objectives of the state with those of unions and civics24. Civil society was delegated the task of aiding the new South African (democratic) state in its quest for development. In line with the collaborative thrust of state-civil society relations, formal NGOs and intellectuals have been contracted by the state to assist in various projects including policy development, implementation and service delivery. Numerous authors have pointed out that the strength of the liberation struggle against apartheid and its gains was given over to the exiled ANC with the faith that the era of the need for struggle against the state was over. The antagonistic attitude of the state towards opposition became particularly clear during the period when demonstrations by shackdwellers escalated across the country. Gibson (2007) points out that then President Thabo Mbekis25 response to these demonstrations was to announce that, These are the things the youth used to do in the struggle against apartheid, and were no longer applicable, he declared, reminding the country that we must stop this business of people going into the street to demonstrate about lack of delivery (p.66). Thus, the strength of political engagement and activism was significantly weakened during the period of democratic transition (Desai, 2002). The state delivered a clear message that adversarial relationships and, concurrently, critical engagement, were no longer required or tolerated. Neocosmos (2009a) takes this argument further by pointing out that those sectors of civil society that did not/ were not willing to conform to positions of collaboration with (and subordination to) the state were cast aside. South Africas progressive intellectuals before 1994 were firmly based within and connected to an active civil society in the fight against apartheid. Therefore, with the ushering in of democracy, at issue for many progressive intellectuals was how to, relate to a democratic government that has demanded absolute loyalty behind its nation-building project.(Gumede & Dikeni, 2009:5) Reconfigurations of the form
24

Civic associations (civics) operated largely in South Africas informal settlements during the 1970s

and 1980s and played a pivotal role in the overthrow of apartheid. After 1994, civics were organised into a national organisation under the South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO) For a detailed account of South Africas Civic associations, see Bond (2006) and Swilling (1993)
25

Thabo Mbeki was president of South Africa from mid 1999 until late 2008. Mbeki was behind many

of the neoliberal economic reforms in South Africa.

40

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.26 It 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
26

According 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).

41

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 structural effects. 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 42

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.

27

See Khan (2006) for a detailed account of protests against neoliberalism at the University of Durban-

Westville and Pendlebury & van der Walt (2006) at the University of the Witwatersrand

43

Reinvigorating public Sociology in South Africa? From the above account, it is clear that, increasingly, neoliberal managerialism as well as state co-option and intolerance of dissent have imposed structural and ideological constraints on critical output within academia. Put simply, the constraints on academia insofar as critical thinking goes, are imposed by and large through some of the structures pointed to in the previous sections where the material (economic) and political support for academic work is geared toward state agendas and increasingly away from critical engagement (Pithouse, 2009). Discourse produced within universities is often the state discourse which has led Gumede & Dikeni (2009) to assert that, In South Africa, the universities have declined as places for intellectual engagement and debates. Some of societies great intellectuals exist outside universities in churches, for instance, or in civil movements. (p.6). What is important here, though, is that, our academy, as a whole, poses no barrier at all to theoretical critique and no absolute systemic barrier to public intellectual engagement or to the sort of direct involvement in popular politics that so excited Burawoy about the academic practice of sociology during the 1990s.28 (Pithouse 2009: 160) The impediment, then, to critical engagement, in general is material and political - as Pithouse points out, there is no systemic support for this kind of work. (ibid) However, as Pithouse (2009) asserts, this form of engagement is not (in

general) subject to direct repression and intimidation when it is undertaken. In most cases, academic freedom is not subject to severe repression and, given the political will is still possible (ibid). What this means then, is that there is a constraint to the realisation of Burawoys vision for a reinvigorated sociology through strengthening mechanisms of publicsociology within the academy. As the reader will remember, at the root of Burawoys notion of public sociology is that it be recognised and fostered within the academy as equally important and legitimate as the other strands of sociology (Burawoy, 2005b). In the South African case academia (usually the university setting), at this moment in time does not provide the political and material support to foster a critical-public
28

In his account, Pithouse outlines several cases of direct repression of academics and academic

freedom at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), hence his ascertain that the academy, in general does not infringe on critical academics/academic work

44

sociology. 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). Social Movements & Public Sociology In post-apartheid South Africa, oppositional social struggles emerged surprisingly quickly on a range of fronts, but all interconnected around a common dissatisfaction with the neoliberal trajectory of the post-apartheid state (Ballard et al 2006: 2)29. More specifically, the main thrust of these new social movements was dissatisfaction with the post-apartheid governments shift from state-developmentalism to neoliberalism (Gibson, 2006). The conditions that led to these new social movements towards the end of the 1990s was an increase in poverty and inequality, despite rhetoric that neoliberalism would deliver. The rise of new social movements is also linked to the inability of labour to challenge the state on these issues. (ibid), as well as the co-option of other civil society actors by the state30. The new social movements in South Africa can be divided into two distinct camps those rallying around calls for access to state or private resources others have chosen to remain autonomous from the state and other stakeholders. Thus, in South Africa, as in other parts of the world, some of these social movements attempt to work through the state, whilst others prefer to work outside state boundaries (ibid). These struggles have evolved into the numerous diverse social movements now prominent on South

29

Ballard et al (2006: 2) identify three separate but interconnected modes of social struggle to have

emerged in South Africa towards the late 1990s. The first strand mobilised against specific government policies specifically, South Africas macro-economic strategy GEAR. This opposition came mainly from COSATU. The second strand mobilised around governments failure to meet basic needs and addressing socio-economic rights. The third strand of social struggle mobilised around in opposition to government repression and enforcement of certain policies.
30

This is linked, partly, to the challenges that neoliberalism poses to labour unions that are geared

towards formal labour and are ill equipped to deal with shifts such as casualisation of labour as well as those outside the labour market. Also, the alliance between the major trade union in South Africa, COSATU with the ANC government has affected the ability of the union to directly challenge the state.

45

Africas political landscape31. These social movements have become the focus of much scholarship in South Africa32. As I have discussed previously, social movements are believed to be the spaces most conducive to fostering public sociology in the current period both in South Africa (Buhlungu, 2009, Burawoy, 2004) and abroad (Katz-Fishman & Scott, 2005, Brewer, 2005). Hopes for the reinvigoration of public sociology have been penned on forging collaborations between intellectuals and popular social movements. For some, these sites now represent the real sites for popular empowerment under current conditions where civil society has been watered down and means little more than donorfunded NGOs rather than popular politics (Pithouse 2009: 145) or is, at best a contested space, mediated by the colour of money, and intimately tied to the state. (Gibson 2006:5) It is thus that critical engagement is best pursued through South Africas social movements. In fact, Burawoy (2004) suggests that, public sociology in the post-apartheid period has been practiced most often by left oppositional intellectuals, to galvanize poor peoples movements, building alliances. (p.3) This process, however, seems to happen beyond the academy - as Burawoy (2004) points out, An academic sociology has yet to congeal around these movements (p.23). Nevertheless, many radical and leftist intellectuals have begun to engage with new social movements in South Africa and are practicing the organic public sociology of which Burawoy speaks. These engagements are happening mainly outside of the academy. This fact necessitates an exploration of the nature of these engagements. Gibson (2006) points out that, often the relationships between middle class intellectuals and social movements have become problematic:
Over the long run it has led to the demobilization and fracturing of many of these movements and forums, suggesting that intellectuals (i.e.: those who have broken

31

Much scholarly attention has been dedicated to the concept of social movements. It is beyond the

scope of this paper to address this topic. When referring to the term, I have adopted the definition of Ballard et al (2006: 3): Social movements are, in our view, politically and/or socially directed collectives, often involving multiple organisations and networks, focused on changing one or more elements of the social, political and economic system within which they are located.
32

See Ballard et al (2006) as well as Gibson (2006) for a comprehensive overview of the struggles of

South Africas new social movements.

46

with bourgeois as well as vanguardist conceptions of the backwardness of the poor) need to question their own practices (p.15).

The role of the academic in social movements

The time has now come to ask. While we outside academics are researching the practise and analysing the politics of the poor who is researching us, the researchers? (Desai, 2006: 4)

Desai (2006) posits that, within academia (although to a lesser extent) the problematic relationships between movements and other stakeholders relying on these movements for funding, credibility or to do with some other (self-serving) agenda have attracted significant scholarly attention. However, those writing these critiques escape similar critiques he points out, It is quite startling that while social movements have been studied to death, those outsiders who play such a powerful role have largely escaped serious scrutiny. Furthermore, What is almost never written up is the role that those who make these telling and necessary critiques come to play in movements precisely because of the trust they have purchased by denouncing others like them (Desai 2006:6). These studies take on various forms and cannot all be considered public sociology. My focus in this section is the public sociologists within social movements. Walsh (2008) calls these relationships uncomfortable collaborations and draws attention to the fact that power differentials always play out in these spaces. In dealing with these issues, Desai (2006) stresses the need to address these issues i.e.: for intellectuals to engage in a self-reflection of their own role within poor peoples movements. Central to his argument is the fact that many middle-class left wing activists and academics have attached themselves to social movements precisely because the political environment (in general) lacks opportunities for serious leftist academic engagement. It is thus that these individuals are attracted to the, new fires that are burning in communities (Desai 2006:2). In Desais (2006) opinion, however, this attachment to movements especially in cases where academics present themselves as supporters and collaborators hide the political, academic and personal agendas of those academics, this poses several problems. Not least of which is the fact that this collaboration is motivated more by the desire for academic recognition and advancement within certain academic circles rather than as a 47

genuine effort to collaborate with communities involved in these struggles or as Walsh (2008) puts it, academics flourish out of the despondency of the poor (p.255). A central gripe of Desai (2006) which I too feel to be valid, is the real danger that academics manage to steer and legitimise their (ideological) agendas through posing those agendas as those of the movement with which they are affiliated. Central to his argument is the idea that most social movements in the South African setting, initially mobilize around demands for service delivery and material upliftment. The ideological meanings and political goals (largely couched in terms of autonomy, emancipation etc) are seen to be less created within communities and more to do with meanings attached to the movements by outsiders most frequently

activists/academics affiliated with the movement (either directly or indirectly). In a self reflection on the role of academics, Desai (2006) states that, We should not use the poor to satisfy our peculiar (intellectual) fetishes (p.5). Walsh (2008) posits, that in some cases, movements have become a pawn for academics who have been isolated from academic institutions due to personal issues there and thus use the movement to, wage their own battles for institutional space (p.261). This point is important in this context where serious engagement is premised on the idea of the poor as not simple subjects but real, thinking political actors with the ability to steer political change. There is the danger that intellectuals affiliated with movements romanticize those movements and end up lacking the ability to remain objective when reporting on the movement. In fact, when referring to the agenda of public sociology, Burawoy (2005a) points out that it is pivotal for those public sociologists to remain critical of the world with which they engage. Burawoy cautions that every attempt to strengthen civil society and its publics should not be viewed as inherently virtuous and that it is pivotal for the public sociologist to always remain critical and questioning. For Desai (2006), this romanticizing suggests that meaning is attached to movements by intellectuals, as substantiation for discombobulated chunks of whichever new theorist it is chic to corroborate (p.5) For Walsh (2008) the essentialism involved in constructing a homogenous, virtuous poor creates a disempowering framework where allowances for subjectivity are necessarily ruled out. Consequently in her opinion, 48

the disempowerment resulting from envisaging an idealised, homogenous oppressed so common in leftist circles rules out possibilities of firstly, agency on the part of this (homogenised) poor themselves as well as severely restricting opportunities for real, meaningful engagement to confront neoliberalism. Furthermore, for Desai (2006) these activists/academics then use what they have constructed in debates with others within their academic community, but not with meaningful engagement with the actual communities for whom they claim to speak for. The problem with the left Pithouse (2009) suggests a critical examination of the practices of the left. At issue for Pithouse (2009), is the legacy of Marxism within leftist discourse in South Africa. It is true, that Marxism underpinned much of the theoretical undercurrents of the liberation struggle. Furthermore, he points out that, South African Marxism has often been ideologically aligned with authoritarian strands and that, still, much of that authoritarianism remains within leftist circles today. Pithouse (2009) states: There is a considerable degree to which contemporary leftism remains bizarrely paranoid, shockingly authoritarian and predicated on the idea that the people in whose name it speaks are incapable of autonomous, rational thought, speech and action (p.165). He speaks here of leftists within the ANC, but also some within academic and NGO circles. Pithouse (2009) goes further to point out that, left internationalism still takes the form in which the political work of the academic and NGO left in South Africa is driven by two primary tasks to instruct the black poor in the theories and practices of the white northern left and to offer a global credibility to that left (ibid). For Pithouse (2009), academics approaching an engagement with social movements from this stance ignore the possibility of progressive agency on the part of the poor themselves. For him, the real task for the left in South Africa is to identify itself with already existing popular struggles rather than entering the engagement with prepackaged doctrines that instruct the people on how their struggle should be fought (ibid). This assertion is important and draws attention to the weakness of Burawoys account of public sociology where, ultimately, the undertones are of sociologist as educator rather than collaborator (Kalleberg, 2005). Furthermore, the focus on the realities of the South African academic left shows that there may be major

49

impediments to forging meaningful collaborative dialogue rather than authoritative education with social movements by intellectuals engaging with them. Some of these critiques draw attention to the need for a more critical focus on the agendas of intellectuals who become, in the Gramscian sense organic to the movement. The academic needs to be able to critically self-reflect on and engage with those they speak for about the role that they play in shaping, challenging, directing and reporting on struggle. For Walsh (2008) it is through opening up these spaces for debate so that avenues for real collaboration and change are made possible.

50

Chapter Four: Contextualising the Case Study

4.1. Introducing Abahlali baseMjondolo
No Land! No House! No Vote! Land & Housing in the Cities! Bottom up Democracy not Top Down Rule by Councilors!

(Abahlali baseMjondolo2008) Abahlali baseMjondoo (AbM) is a radical shackdwellers movement from Durban, South Africa. The conception of the movement can be traced back to early 2005. AbM is located in and around the city of Durban in KwaZulu-Natal Province and is currently the, largest organisation of the militant poor in post-apartheid South Africa (Abahlali baseMjdondolo 2006). The movement was borne when, on 19 March 2005, 750 Black shack-dwellers from the Kennedy Road informal settlement barricaded off a major road in Durban fighting with police over delays in housing delivery. (Gibson, 2007) Specifically, the road blockade was organised to protest against the sale of a piece of industrial land to a local industrialist promised to the shack dwellers by the local municipal councillor for housing. Instead, the shack-dwellers were offered land 12 miles outside the city, and far away from crucial work opportunities, schools and hospitals. (Abahlali baseMjondolo 2006) Neocosmos (2009a) points out that the context of the emergence of AbM can be located in, the disastrous housing policies of most South African municipal authorities, which have continued with the apartheid policy of removing the poor from inner city areas to beyond the city and dumping them in environments where jobs, schools and amenities are scarce if non-existent (p.322). In order to force people out of these settlements, access to amenities have been cut (ibid). Electricity, especially, has become a major issue for the residents of these informal settlements where pollution and shack fires cause chronic threats to health, lives and property. (Abahlali baseKennedy 2009). In the communities, there are, no sewage facilities, little running water and approximately one toilet per thousand people (Neocosmos 2009a: 322). 51

The movement now encompasses tens of thousands of people in more than 30 settlements (Abahlali baseMjondolo, 2006). The message of the movement is clearthat true liberation for the poor is yet to be realised. The leader of the movement, Sbu Zikode is oft quoted: The first Nelson Mandela was Jesus Christ. The second was Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela. The third Nelson Mandela is the poor people of the world (Gibson 2007: 63). According to AbM, therefore, liberation did not come from the liberation struggle. Thus, it is now the poor that will be responsible for

achieving their own liberation. (ibid) The movement mourn UnFreedom Day on April 27 (Freedom day in South Africa) to commemorate the unfreedom still experienced by South Africas poor 33 (Abahlali, 2006). The politics of AbM are centered on notions of dignity and universal equality at all levels. (Pithouse 2007) AbM has called their politics a living politics. According to the movements leader, Sbu Zikode, living politics 'starts from the places we have taken. We call it a living politics because it comes from the people and stays with the people. It is ours and it is part of our lives It is the politics of our lives. It is made at home with what we have and it is made for us and by us. (Abahlali baseMjondolo 2009)
Thus, living

politics as praxis, requires a commitment to equality in all

spheres. In his 2009 AGM address, Sbu Zikode asserts:

Our movement is founded on the politic of equality. We start from the recognition that we are all equal. We do not struggle to achieve equality. We struggle for the recognition of the equality that already exists. Our Movement therefore demands that we face and confront any element that seeks to undermine our humanity as ordinary citizens (Zikode 2008).

Pithouse (2007a) posits that the movement is unique, in that its politics are not just anti-neoliberal (like many other new social movements in South Africa), but are also, profoundly democratic (pg. unknown). Thus, the movement is one that challenges not only the economic character of neoliberalism, but also its political character (Pithouse 2007a, Neocosmos 2009a, Neocosmos 2009b).

33

Freedom day is a South African public holiday in celebration of the first democratic elections in the

country after the overthrow of apartheid.

52

As the movement has grown, it has established links with other similar movements within South Africa. The AbM, together with the Landless Peoples Movement (LPM) in Gauteng, The Rural Network (KwaZulu- Natal) and the Western Cape AntiEviction Campaign now form the Poor Peoples Alliance a network of radical poor peoples movements. Links have been forged with sympathisers within civil society and academics, both in South Africa and abroad. AbM has developed into a movement that has moved beyond issuing material demands to the state for delivery and firmly maintain that their protests are not merely, service delivery protests (Pithouse, 2006). Neocosmos (2009) points out that, The politics of AbM are resolutely independent of state subjectivity (p.323). Thus, AbM has issued demands to be able to co-determine their future with the state-rather than just by demanding delivery. Pithouse (2007a) sums up what the movement has become:
The movement has suffered severe and systematically illegal state repression but has, nevertheless, continued to grow and to become an articulate and compelling voice for shack dwellers outside of party and electoral politics. Abahlali are rigorously committed to a radically democratic mode of organising and have rejected party politics, the councilor system and NGOisation in favour of what they have called a (non-party and non-electoral) politics of the poor(p.20).

For Pithouse (2007a) one of the most fundamental ideas to arise out of AbM is this notion of a politics whereby the poor (shack dwellers), should organize and think for themselves. Pithouse (2009) points out that the idea of absolute equality that has arisen out of AbM, and other similar movements in South Africa, translates into a praxis whereby vanguardism at any level be it political or intellectual, is intolerable. The crisis this has caused in relation to party politics is clear. Pithouse (2007b) suggests that the decision to reject party politics through the rejection of the councilor system as well as the decision to refuse to vote (under the slogan, No Land, No House, No Vote), has created extreme tension between the state and shackdwellers (who had come to be considered a vote bank for the ANC). Apart from rejecting party politics, the movement has rejected certain modes of NGO politics resulting in backlashes against the movement from within the NGO 53

sector. Pithouse (2007b) attributes this backlash to the fact that, contrary to common assumptions, movements of the poor are not marginal in the sense that many stakeholders rely on access to them in order to claim legitimacy to quote Richard Pithouse, the poor become a desired commodity. (Pithouse, 2007b) For Pithouse (2009), the method of engagement from some NGOs and political parties has been one of clientelism and patronage which is rejected by the movement. (p.169) The mode and terms of engagement with outside actors is rooted in the movements commitment to the notion of equality at all levels, in other words, equality in praxis. In the words of Pithouse (2009):
Put together as a single axiom, everybody counts, everybody thinks, we have a principle of absolute equality, the communist invariant, that, if taken seriously, as an axiom for praxis, is immune to the authoritarianism that has cursed the left in and out of the academy in and out of South Africa (p.169).

4.2. Introducing the University of Abahlali base Mjondolo

Our struggle is thought in action and it is thought from the ground at the University of Abahlali baseMjondolo. We define ourselves and our struggle. (S'bu Zikode in Abahlali, 2006)

AbM maintain that theirs has been an intellectually serious project from the beginning (Abahlali 2006). The movement has adopted the slogan that, every human being matters, every human being thinks (Abahlali baseMjondolo, 2007). It is thus that they have declared their struggle a University. According to Pithouse in Birkenshaw (2007), AbM have organised themselves in a manner whereby they ensure autonomy through the avoidance of reliance on external funding as well as declaring political autonomy by, thinking and doing their politics themselves (p.48). In the words of Sbu Zikode:
I am pleading to intellectuals and NGOs to let us have a platform for our own creativity, our own politics. Our politics does not originate from the institutions of higher learning. It originates from our lives and our experience. I am calling for the intellectuals and NGOs to work with us. We dont want them to think for us (Pithouse 2007b).

54

This means that the movement have rejected vanguardist NGOs and intellectuals along with their rejection of party politics. (Abahlali 2006) Pithouse (2007: page unknown) asserts that this has resulted in a declaration of intellectual autonomy from the state/academic/NGO/donor/consultant complex. For Pithouse (2007: page unknown), the University of AbM is,signally unique intervention into the South African political landscape, because left political education is usually something undertaken by NGOs in conference venue in English and with an overwhelmingly economist orientation that tends to ignore the politics of politics. AbM assert:
We have declared our own university the University of Abahlali baseMjondolo. We have done this because every struggle needs careful thought and we think our struggles for ourselves. People who are serious about thinking about poverty and struggle should come and be part of the discussions here. Letting a few of us into NGO and academic conferences, which are conferences of the rich and the powerful, to sit quietly while people speak about us in languages and words that we dont understand is not solidarity. It just another way to make us into ladders. When we marched into the University of the Government, which is the University for the Rich, the academics that call themselves socialists called us criminals. It is clear that they will defend their right to think and speak for us by all means. Therefore they cannot liberate us. We will liberate ourselves through thinking about our own lives and experiences in our own university (Abahlali baseMjondolo, 2007).

Pithouse (2007) asserts that the intellectual component or self education of AbM draw from some of the same sources as the NGO left for example, academia. However:
it invests most of its time drawing on a wide variety of other streams of militant intellectuality such as the memory of struggles reaching back from the urban rebellion of the UDF in the 1980s (including the popular democratic initiatives developed in shack settlements), to the shack dwellers struggles of the 1950s and 1930s to the 1906 Bhambatha rebellion and including trade union struggles, ideas about communal access to land usually dismissed as 'rural' or 'premodern' and the social technologies and theological innovation developed in various forms of popular religion (page unknown).

55

The University of AbM is a project that encourages intellectual engagement on different levels. The intellectuals involved in analysis and reflection originate largely from within the movement. However, the project is essentially collaborative in the sense that some academic organic public intellectuals, to borrow Burawoys term, have become involved with the movement and regularly contribute to discussions. In fact, on the Abahlali baseMjondolo website, there is a section where one can access intellectual writings relevant to AbM. These writings range from themes relevant to the movement as well as writing more specifically on the movement an their political project. These writings range from those written by AbM members as well as academic research on the movement.
34

Finally, it is worth noting here that certain

academics working with the movement have been accepted into the movement and have become members of the movement.

34

All the intellectual work about AbM by intellectuals and by AbM members is available from

http://www.abahlali.org/node/237

56

Chapter Five: Case Study: Living Learning

5.1. Introduction
It is true that if care is taken to use only a language that is understood by graduates in law and economics, you can easily prove that the masses have to be managed from above. But if you speak the language of the everyday . . . then you will realize that the masses are quick to seize every shade of meaning . . . (Frantz Fanon, Wretched of the Earth).

57

'living learning' is not about heavy things to be learned by us 'fools' from 'smarter' people. Publishing a booklet out of our Living Learning could also be there for those 'smarter' people to learn from the 'fools'. (Figlan et al, Living Learning (2009: 4))

Living Learning is a booklet, published in 2009 by the Church Land Programme (CLP) and produced by AbM in collaboration with The Rural Network, a rural-based movement fighting for restoration of dignity, rights and land, and resisting the brutalisation of the poor by commercial farmers and landowners. (Figlan et al, 2009: 5). The militants had organised discussion sessions to occur simultaneously with their studies towards a Certificate in Education (Participatory Development) at UKZN (University of KwaZulu Natal). The primary aim of the Certificate Programme, offered by the Centre for Adult Education, is, to keep open a space within the academy for teaching and learning premised on liberatory assumptions. (Gibson et al, 2009: 69). The booklet outlines the original discussions which in itself were meant as a reflection on and to grapple with the participants dual role as militants and academic students. The discussions were meant to provide an arena for, careful and critical reflection, and to explore the connection between the experience of being a militants, faced with real threats of landlessness and repression and abuse by authorities, on the one hand, with that of being an academic student engaging other written experiences from a range of contexts. It is their firm belief that, despite the access they had been afforded into the university, any serious and concrete project of transformation must begin and remain in popular grassroots struggles (Figlan et al, 2009:5). In fact, the AbM and Rural Network members attending the university course did so through the mandate of their movements and were afforded the reciprocal objective of taking their politics to the academy and bringing back the knowledge that they encountered in the academy to the movements: Our task is to plough what we can learn back into the struggles and structures of the movements and vice versa: to plough the learning from struggle into the University course processes(Figlan et al, 2009: 12). The booklet consists of twelve chapters - each chapter reflecting the discussions of a separate living learning session. On request from the militants, three academics have contributed to the booklet in a final chapter: It was decided to ask three academic intellectuals who had not been part of Living Learning but who had been working 58

with the movements in various ways to write a guest piece that would include their responses to the work and stress that the movements do not allow academics and professionals to be on top but rather on tap (Gibson et al, 2009: 72). Publishing the booklet was meant to invite (and incite) debate on the themes reflected. The objective of the living learning process explicitly echoes Burawoys calls for a reinvigorated public sociology that fosters a process of mutual education outside the confines of the ivory tower. It is my belief that it is within sites such as this that a reinvigoration of South Africas tradition of public sociology can be undertaken. As the reader will remember, Baiocchi (2005) asserts that Burawoys notion of a reinvigorated organic public sociology requires a fusion between public and critical sociology into a critical-public sociology, however this specific form of public sociology lacks (historical) working models for reference and that, therefore Burawoy underestimates the possibility of resistance from multiple actors, within academia, civil society and the state, against critical-public sociology. Of course, these conditions are different for different geographies and histories. Thus the possibilities and constraints on public sociology cannot be universal. Nevertheless, the interrogation of a specific case can contribute to knowledge on the topic through the attention to problems and constraints that a public-sociology could encounter. This is where, I believe, living learning can slot in. I take up Burawoys mandate of investigating the possibilities for the reinvigoration of public sociology that occurs from the outside in through the reflection on this case study. The Living Learning process is one such site where, I believe, real attempts at fostering organic public sociology of the critical type, is being attempted I have chosen to limit my analysis to the living learning process for a number of reasons. The main motivation being that this is the first time where AbM activists have attempted a direct engagement with and reflection on the academy through direct involvement with the university setting and the material taught in the university. This is useful in examining the possibilities of a public sociology that involves a direct engagement between social movements and the academy. After all, Living Learning is about whats happening in and outside of the University classroom. So we are trying to combine the two universities the one of experience 59

and the one of academics. (Figlan et al, 2009: 7) However, this is not to say that the activities within the University of AbM in general do not warrant similar reflection. Rather, my choice of case study represents a single event that can shed light on the possibility of organic public sociology through collaborations with social movements.

5.2. Results & Analysis

Ultimately, public sociology can be seen as having a distinct: 1) form of intellectual engagement 2) style of sociology My analysis will involve breaking down the living learning process according to these two categories. Through this, the aim is to create a clear picture of the nature of the engagement of the living learners with academics, the university and to sociology (or more generally the social sciences). The aim here is not to determine whether organic public sociology is being undertaken, but rather to examine the scope and possibility of public sociology both by looking at this practical case as an example, and through paying attention to the expectations of the participants as to the role of academics and academia within their movements. After all, a successful public sociology requires that the project be viewed as legitimate and as serving the needs of those towards whom the project is aimed. This study seeks to demonstrate some of the opportunities and impediments that an active, practical engagement with publics could engender. Form of Intellectual Engagement This section will, firstly, explore the general perceptions held by the living learning participants about the nature of intellectual engagement between academics and social movements. This outline will interrogate the role of academics interacting with the movements from both outside and inside the university setting with a detailed outline of the engagement with and reflection on the experience of participants with the formal university setting. The section will also explore the nature of the interaction and role of academics and participants within the living learning process specifically. The section will close with an analysis of the implications of the above findings for the practice of public sociology. 60

During the living learning process there was a lot of reflection on the role and function of academics and academia within poor peoples movements. The discussions dealt with both the nature and function of academics involved in direct engagement with the movements as well as around the function and potential for interaction with academia within the university setting. A central theme during the discussions was that, often, the nature of engagement of intellectuals with publics, whether those publics are social movements or students within the university, involves a one-way process whereby the academic assumes the role of educator. The participants point out:
Education is sometimes one-sided because those in the upper levels want to educate the people so that they feel inferior. So their education is to impose, it is not to ask and listen to the peoples views. Now to ask and to listen, that would be a liberating education! (Figlan et al 2009: 46).

Attempts by intellectuals and NGOs to educate rather than collaborate has been experienced by the movements and has resulted in the rejection of engagement with certain NGOs and academics. The result is that the participants have become sceptical about the role that academics and formal education could play in their struggle:
They think we know nothing and must be taught. They think the people dont understand and therefore need education. We start from the opposite assumption. When elites respond by insisting on education, it shows again and again that they are not listening. When they insist it is the people who need education, it shows they assume the people have no understanding. (Figlan et al 2009: 47)

The movements emphasize their belief that the poor are and should be the drivers of their own liberation. This is not to say that education does not play an important role within the movements, nor does that mean that academics cannot engage with and collaborate with the movements. However, for meaningful engagement to occur there needs to be a common understanding that the interaction is one of dialogue and collaboration and with the recognition that, ultimately, the struggle is led by the community or movement who, know their own situation and are competent and 61

can do much of their own investigation, analysis and planning. (Figlan et al, 2009:34) The participants thus point out that, As Paulo Freire emphasised, we remain the agents of our own recuperation. We do not allow academics and professionals to be on top, but rather on tap. (ibid: 61). The theme of education is a central topic in the living learning booklet. (Gibson et al 2009). The participants focus on the characteristic of formal education as one whereby education serves to, get ahead, a way to privatise the self by acquiring the skills and techniques as well as the languages and way of speaking to market oneself in a neoliberal economy. (ibid: 80) Formal education is seen as a means to propel the agendas of the powerful. Given this, the participants assert that It is better to be out of order, to be outside the prescribed curriculum! We see clearly that the prescribed curriculum has the intention of control built deeply into it and that there are strings attached. (Figlan et al, 2009: 27) Thus knowledge produced under these conditions is seen to be a tool for control rather than empowerment. Thus, for the participants in the living learning process, it is crucial to remain critical of the mechanisms used to educate:
This requires us to analyse what kind of education is going on is it there to make us good boys and girls or is it healing to make us question things and make that part of our struggle to change the world? So for us, learning is not about salaries and CVs. We must always be very aware of the trap that the other students fall into to think that others who have not had this opportunity for University learning are stupid (Figlan et al 2009.20).

The living learning process included discussions about the thrust of the academic university towards an education that alienates the poor through theorization rather than discussion and engagement. (Gibson et al, 2009). According to Gibson et al (2009), Abahlali baseMjondolo have long realised that in order to develop their own politics of the poor they would have to think their own politics of the poor. (p. 79) The participants point out, The whole idea that thinkers do not do and doers do not think is wrong. (Figlan et al 2009: 65) For Gibson et al (2009) point out that paternalism in both academic and other settings, including some left wing politics leads to an, active denial that there could be such a thing as a grassroots intellectual. (p.74) For Gibson et al (2009), mainstream education tends to distance one from the 62

experience of the people. Thus, the idea of living learning emphasises the importance of reporting back to and listening to the community. Education here is not one way. The participants therefore insist that education and intellectualism not be considered the exclusive domain of academia:
Wouldnt it be an important contribution to this (especially when we see that as a country we have too few teachers) to let us as the social movements to learn and teach at the grassroots; creating forums of living learning that would be helping the people to learn that they are not free (Figlan et al, 2009: 39).

The academics asked to report on the Living Learning process hold a similar viewpoint:
A person can think in a shack or on a farm as much as they can think in a university. A person can change the world from a shack or a farm as much as they can from an NGO, perhaps even more (Gibson et al 2009: 77).

Having highlighted the deep scepticism felt by the participants towards the possibility of proactive engagement within certain academic spaces, it is important to reflect on spaces that do exist for collaboration and engagement. The militants assert, our struggle is an invitation to the world to come and learn from us and with us (Figlan et al,2009:39). Furthermore, through a (largely) positive engagement with the University of KwaZulu-Natal, the militants recognise spaces for meaningful, mutually beneficial engagement:
Our task is to plough what we can learn back into the struggles and structures of the movements and vica versa: to plough the learning from struggle into the University course proceedings. (ibid)

The living learning process is seen as a mechanism with which those attending the (formal) university course can critically reflect on the knowledge being received through that setting as well as the knowledge that they receive during struggle. The publishing of the Living Learning booklet is seen as a mechanism for the people to gain access to and critically compare the two universities. Furthermore, the participants point out that, perhaps the opening of spaces for engagement between the two universities could lead to an academy focused on the needs of the people: 63

Perhaps we can talk of achieving the Universal University- invading the academic one in order for it to benefit the people(ibid: 9)

Analysis Within this section, three separate issues have been addressed. The first of these is the problematic and legacy of the dominant mode of interaction between intellectuals and social movements in Burawoys terms, between sociologists and publics. Burawoys public sociology project is spurned by the recognition that sociology has shifted inwards and its mode of engagement is mainly self-referential. The discipline has lost touch with its publics. The interrogation of both the historical and contextual specificities of the discipline in South Africa in general seem to confirm this assertion. Furthermore, the viewpoints unpacked during the living learning process show that these assumptions have been internalised by publics and has resulted in a deep scepticism towards engagement. The second issue relevant to the possibility of public sociology in South Africa has to do with notions of collaboration. Gibson et al (2009) point out that the primary aim of the living learning process is, ultimately, towards creating the opportunity for new spaces for discussion of freedom(p.84). These discussions are based on assumptions of participation and inclusion. The participants see their role and that of the Living Learning booklet as an attempt to bridge the two worlds that of the academy and that of the movement. Ultimately, the aim is to bring the intellectual currents within each setting into direct dialogue. As Gibson et al (2009) point out, whilst the problematic relationship between the two modes of thinking has not been solved, Living Learning is meant to generate a dialogue between the movement intellectuals and the university intellectuals. (p.84) The possibilities of public sociology in the context of these movements necessitates that the academic take seriously his/her role as co-learner rather than educator. Worth addressing here is to a questioning of the role of the sociologist in the production of public sociology. The case of living learning as well as the notion of the University of AbM show how public sociology does not have to be considered the exclusive domain of academic intellectuals. This case shows that this is both the viewpoint of the militants and the practice of grassroots intellectuals within the social movements. Whilst the living learning process involves an attempt at 64

collaboration between the university setting and the social movements, as Fuller & Askins (2010) posit, organic public geographies (engagement) (my italics) happen regardless of academic involvement.(p.13) This involves recognition of the role of the sociologist, in Burawoys terms, as facilitator and articulator rather than driver of social movements. (Burawoy, 2005b) This is a viewpoint shared by the living learning participants in their insistence that sociologists be, on tap rather than on top. (Figlan et al, 2009:61) Whilst the living learning process involves an attempt to join the two worlds that of academia, with the living politics of the movements, one becomes aware that public sociology does and is happening regardless of academic involvement. (Fuller & Askins, 2010) As Katz-Fishmann & Scott (2005) point out, public sociology still goes on, even during periods where the academy becomes increasingly selfreferential. For sociologists seeking to forge public sociology the recognition of this is essential. Style of Sociology This section will begin with an interrogation into the form and function of knowledge produced within the academic setting. Special attention will be paid to the viewpoints of the living learners about the knowledge that they encountered during their year of study at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. I will focus on the knowledge production within the social movements again with a focus on form and function. Lastly, the possibilities and constraints to bridging these two forms of knowledge will be explored. The analysis will deal with implications of the above findings for the practice of public sociology. In the previous section I covered at some length the fact that the militants felt that education within the university setting often serves to educate rather than collaborate. Thus, education and engagement with academics is seen, primarily as one whereby both knowledge and education are imposed on social movements. I will not dwell on this point further. Here, I will rather focus on another point that is relevant to the project of public sociology that of the nature of academic knowledge that ends on theory and talks about the people (Figlan et al, 2009). The Living learners point out:

65

There is this assumption among the people in the shacks, that when you go to the academic university you dont think about what you are learning daily in life but youre just theorising (ibid: 8).

The viewpoint of the participants is that knowledge gained in the university setting lacks critical reflection on its function. For them, therefore, it is always important to challenge the mindsets of those imposing that knowledge given that education and knowledge always come with an ideology and a bias. (Figlan et al, 2009:24) As Gibson et al, (2009) point out, the living learners are sceptical of the form that academic knowledge often takes where, Academic universities often encourage an alienating theorization of poor people rather than talking with them. (p.83) The participants assert:
Gramsci showed how important ideology, which includes education, was to continue to oppress people. (Figlan et al 2009: 24)

A second important theme about academic knowledge that arose during the Living learning process is the preference for neutrality in research. The participants are sceptical about an objective, neutral research and pointed out that it fits with a broader approach of academics toward their movements where research was done to rather than with their movements. (Figlan et al: 60) The participants posit:
A few weeks ago in class, I had a problem with a lecturer at University who is teaching a section on research. I was interrogating what he said. He said that a researcher must be neutral. But I said I will be trying to influence the situation, and that I will be on the side of the people in what they want to do about the problems they might have I cant be neutral. So this teacher talks about participatory research methods but actually sticks to the generally-accepted scientific model of hypothesis, deduction, and objectivity. But participatory methods are not like this because they involve the values and thinking of the people, they are more qualitative than quantitative and you cant be neutral. You are there because there is something to be done, an issue or situation to be influenced by the thinking and actions of people. (ibid: 64)

The participants came up with the term living learning to reflect their style of learning and knowledge production as intimately tied to the notion of Living Politics. Central to the idea of living politics is the idea that, a living politics is a 66

popular politics, a politics of ordinary men and women. It is not an elite politics but a politics of those who do not count. (Gibson et al, 2009:78). For them, it was important to reflect on the knowledge they were receiving in the university setting, precisely because central to their mode of politics is the idea of equality a living communism, whereas, the university is seen as a tool for maintaining inequality. (ibid). It is evident from the previous excerpt, that academic objectivity is antithetical to a process of living learning. For the living learners, the primary goal of both research and engagement often in the form of development, needs to involve its object the community at all stages of the process. Thus for them knowledge needs to be directly aligned to a desire to be on the side of the people. (Figlan et al, 2009: 43). The participants felt that they have an important role to play within the university setting:
And the world that we have to do happens in many spaces- we have work to do at the University too because it is clear that, without us who are from the movements being there, another agenda would be imposed. (ibid: 49).

At its crux, the style of intellectual engagement being undertaken within the living learning process is one of praxis. Within the booklet, the participants frequently cite the contribution of Paulo Freire to this notion. 35 According to the participants:
Living Learning is about whats happening in and outside of the University classroom. So we are trying to combine the two universities the one of experience and the one of academicsthe world we must do through our struggles must always relate to practical things that we can see and touch. (ibid: 49 & 7).

The living learning process became one whereby the participants came to discuss, critique and adapt the lessons from the university to those of the daily life and struggle of the communities within which they are embedded. The participants felt
35

Freire states, "At all stages of their liberation, the oppressed must themselves as people engaged in

the vocation of becoming more fully human. Reflection and action become essential. True reflection leads to action but that action will only be a genuine praxis if there is critical reflection on its consequences. To achieve this praxis it is necessary to trust in the oppressed and their ability to reason. Whoever lacks this trust will fail to bring about, or will abandon, dialogue, reflection and communication, and will fall into using slogans, communiqus, monologues and instructions. (Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed- find page)

67

that, through doing the university course, they were able to build on the knowledge that they have acquired through struggle. The participants point out, of course I have my natural eye to see the world but I now can also add in some of the academic view which helps. (ibid: 13) The participants felt that the opportunity afforded them to attend the university course had equipped them a better ability to connect their daily struggle to broader issues and thus deepen their ability both to reflect and to contribute to the practice of living politics. The participants assert:
All of these things make me to think that the bigger question for us here is how does this living learning that we do here connect with the University of Abahlali baseMjondolo, and the whole of the struggle of the movements? Can we look to extend these discussions? As socialists we must be sharing everything (Figlan et al 2009: 14). Living learning sessions became a space for knowledge production, and the living learners thought that perhaps that knowledge could be a contribution to the world, particularly on issues of education, development, state power, peoples power, etc (Figlan et al 2009: 6).

The participants grappled with the best strategy to bring the insights they gained within the university to the communities. They point out that the combination of the knowledge from the university as well as that gained during the living learning process be shared and utilised with the movements to encourage debate and to expand the reach of the learning process in a manner that is accessible to the people. The living learners insist that some critical ideas that link daily struggles to broader processes, such as neoliberalism and globalisation, be, understood by all (ibid: 68) The participants discussed the possibilities for and the necessity of opening the space for education and learning beyond the university classroom:
wouldnt it be an important contribution to this, to let us as the social movements to learn and teach at the grassroots, creating forums of living learning that would be helping the people to learn that they are not free? (ibid: 51)

Analysis The style of sociology being employed by the living learners can be seen as a critical-public sociology. The emphasis on the purpose and outcomes of knowledge

68

as well as the insistence on praxis shows clearly, that ends rather than the means of engagement are what is critical for the living learners. The arguments by various authors reflecting on the notion of public sociology have pointed out that the possibility for engagement between reflexive and instrumental modes of knowledge are unlikely and that Burawoys idea that public sociology and professional sociology could still engage is valid here. The outright rejection of objective social research that divorces researchers from the publics with which they are engaged is a clear theme throughout the living learning process. This seems to reaffirm concerns about the possibility for a common sociological agenda. Especially given that, ultimately, public sociology requires for an engagement with publics. The publics, in this case, are highly sceptical of instrumental modes of knowledge. This is not a point I will dwell on further. Rather, in this section I would like to grapple with the impediments and opportunities for public sociology that have surfaced during the Living Learning process specifically in terms of the style of sociology that the movement employs. In other words, it is based in praxis. Central to the analysis will be the perception of the participants about the possibilities for engagement between two forms of knowledge-between that from within the university and that of the social movements. This involves drawing attention to some problematic issues within Burawoys typology. At issue here is that a deeper reflection on the agendas of sociology, not only when the motives are overtly instrumental or elitist, but also (perhaps especially) in situations where the form of knowledge seems to pursue the same agenda as social movements. Here, the language of development as well as uncritical assumptions about the homogeneity of the left come to mind. This requires an interrogation not only of the form of intellectual engagement between academics and publics but also of the knowledge that is being communicated through this engagement. The notion that academics necessarily engage with publics as co-learners rather than seeing themselves as educators is a topic I have covered at some length and which is picked up on by the movements as deeply problematic causing them to reject certain modes of NGO and academic engagement. However, what is required here is also to analyse the content of 69

knowledge that is being attached and sometimes imposed on movements by academics. Thus, for those engaging with social movements on a collaborative basis a reflection on the basis of that knowledge is necessary. This entails a critical reflection on all forms of sociological knowledge at all stages of the process and of its ultimate usefulness in working towards achieving the ends envisaged by social movements. The ideological aspirations of leftist academics often need to be reworked to fit with those of the movements in order for a collaborative public sociology to develop. The Living Learning process shows that there is space for positive engagement between academia and publics even within the university setting. However, this necessitates an engagement and reflection on the role of knowledge. In the viewpoint of the living learners this happens when theory is transcended to engage with the knowledge as well as practical conditions of publics in the form of praxis. Lastly, advocates of public sociology need to pay attention to the possibility that there are significant opportunities for the project if the vision is expanded to include the possibilities that exist outside the academic setting. As Webster points out, movements have their own organic intellectuals whose task is to interpret, and give direction to the world around them. (Webster 2004:35) The Living Learners have spoken of the opportunities for taking the knowledge that they have learned in the university and within the living learning process back to the movements. This requires that a project of public sociology could be strengthened if those advocating it remain flexible and reflexive on their role in the process. Remaining responsive to whilst at the same time critical of movements may not be an easy task. Continuous dialogue, in this case, is crucial.

70

Chapter Six: Conclusion

This paper has investigated the prospects for and limitations to a project of public sociology in present day South Africa. The backdrop to the study is concerns raised in recent years by South African academics, warning of the demobilisation of a once robust critical discipline connected to civil society with united liberatory visions. The research was informed by Michael Burawoys notion of public sociology and propelled by the insights of other commentators and critics. The strategy adopted to investigate the possibility of reviving the discipline was to apply, firstly a wide-lens before zooming in on a specific case. The first part of the study was undertaken in order to investigate the current status of the relationship between academia, academics and publics. This was done through an extensive review of literature examining factors that have both facilitated and impeded public sociology. Literature shows that a vibrant public sociology during the liberation struggle was made possible through the collaboration of university based academics with publics the form of intellectual engagement during this period was deeply collaborative and ultimately contributed to the overthrow of apartheid. However, it was found that there are several political, contextual and material challenges affecting the possibilities for strengthening public sociology from within the discipline today. Therefore, in general, engagement between social scientists and publics is not being forged. Within this investigation, it was found that there are not only obstacles to public sociology resulting from the formal structuctures of the academy, but that also, the legacy of leftist engagement with publics. The project of public sociology is premised on ideas of collaboration between academics and publics, but evidence suggests that, in the South African context, collaboration often gives way to vanguardism. 71

The second phase of analysis aimed to explore an existing project that could be seen as a practicing public sociology. Thus, this section involved an in-depth analysis of a specific case study the Living Learning process a project by social movement actors from two grassroots movements in South Africa to reflect on the possibility of linking academic knowledge with the lived experience of the communities. The public sociology undertaken was therefore one that focused on attempts at public sociology by publics themselves. This case allowed for an investigation into the practice of public sociology outside the confines of the academy. Furthermore, through focusing on the social movement actors themselves, it was possible to further investigate the viewpoints on the possibilities of forging links between publics and academia. It was discovered that, in general, the movement actors were highly sceptical of the currents moving into their movements from the academy both in the form of engagement that these encounters often take on, as well as the type of knowledge that is proposed (and often imposed). In this case, the movement actors were willing to engage with academia/academics under the strict understanding that knowledge production should be collaborative and that the knowledge during these encounters needs to be useful, first and foremost, in the struggles of the community. For the participants, in a nutshell, theory needed to be transformed into praxis. Furthermore, it was stressed that academics and other actors from outside should accept that the struggles by the movements should be led by the movements themselves and not by academics. Through this study, I was able to confirm many of the criticisms and limitations to Burawoys project of public sociology that have been raised by other authors. A multitude of contextual factors seem to impede the possibility of realising Burawoys vision for a reinvigorated sociology through the reconnection of the academy to the publics engaged in emancipatory modes of politics. Reconnecting sociology to publics through broadening the audience to include publics necessitates the perceived legitimacy of that project in the eyes of the public with which it is attempting to engage.

72

Throughout this paper, serious doubts about the possibility of a public sociology being forged by the academy have surfaced specifically in South Africa, but also more broadly. Having said this, perhaps all it takes is a shift in mindset to imagine that public sociology could still be revived and serve to reinvigorate the discipline as a whole. This entails taking seriously the propositions of some of Burawoys critical school critics as well as considering some of the political and intellectual currents that have taken hold within social movements such as those represented by the living learning process. The space for significant intellectual engagement with publics exists when those from within the academy recognise that engagement entails proper collaboration, taking seriously the assumption that struggles for liberation and emancipation are driven from within and not without social movements. The living learners and others engaged in similar struggles have, I believe, begun to forge links that make Burawoys visions for public sociology possible. The problem with Burawoys vision is that public sociology is necessarily instigated by academics. However, the living learners have other plans. Collaboration is imagined through bringing the University emijondolo and eplasini to the formal university campus. In this way, public sociology could serve its publics. As Burawoy himself suggests, a strategy of positioning oneself within, the rising tide of social movements and then hoping that the tide will flood back into the academy is worth considering. (Burawoy 2005d: 388). Recommendations for further research The most obvious opportunity for further research surfacing from this paper is to conduct more case-studies of other instances of public sociology emanating from within social movements as suggested by Burawoy. In this way, research can help to provide more empirical examples of public sociology from below, which could then contribute to providing clearer ideas about constraints and opportunities. Specific research could also focus more directly on the role of academic organic public sociologists working with social movements. Reflections on their role within the movements, difficulties that they have faced as well as their viewpoints about the 73

possibilities for public sociology would also help to fill-in some of the gaps about the potential of organic public sociology from below. Lastly, a topic which I was not able to tackle in my research but which could make for interesting and important research is on the role of NGOs and other civil society actors that interact with social movements as collaborators. Here, there is scope for further research related to NGOs directly affiliated with the AbM and Rural Network (for example, the Church Land Programme which published and facilitated the Living Learning process). Furthermore, in the case of AbM and the Rural Network especially, many individuals and structures affiliated with the Church have given strong support to these social movements. Thus, further research into the role of the Church and the nature of collaboration between these Church actors and social movements could prove to be an important topic for research.

74

Reference List
Published Documents & Theses/Dissertations

Alexander, P. 2006. Globalisation and New Social Identities: A Jigsaw Puzzle From Johannesburg (2006) in Alexander, P., Dawson, M.C., & Ichharam, M. (eds), Globalisation & New Identities, Johannesburg: Jacania Media, pp. 13-65

Baiocchi, G. 2005. Interrogating Connections: From Public Criticisms to Critical Publics in Burawoys Public Sociology in Critical Sociology (2005) vol. 31 pp. 339351

Babbie, E. and Mouton, J. 2006. The Practice of Social Research. Oxford University Press: South Africa

Ballard, R., Habib, A., Valodia, I., & Zuern, E. 2006. From Anti-Apartheid to PostApartheid Social Movements in Ballard, R., Habib, A., & Valodia, I. (eds), Voices of Protest: Social Movements in Post-Apartheid South Africa, South Africa: University of KwaZulu Natal Press, pp. 1-22

Baviskar, A. 2008. Pedagogy, Public Sociology and Politics in India : What is to be Done? in Current Sociology (2008) vol. 56. pp. 425-433

Birkenshaw, M. 2009. Rights, democracy, social movements Abahlali baseMjondolo: a living politics paper presented at Alternative Futures and Popular Protest, Manchester Metropolitan University, 15-17 March 2009

Brewer, R, M. 2005. Response to Michael Burawoys Commentary: The Critical Turn to Public Sociology in Critical Sociology (2005) Vol 31: 3, pp. 353-359 Bryman, A. 2004. Social Research Methods (2nd edition), New York: Oxford University Press Inc

75

Bond, P. 2005. Elite Transition: From Apartheid to Neoliberalism in South Africa (2005), South Africa: University of KwaZulu Natal Press.

Bond, P. 2006. Johannesburgs Resurgent Social Movements (2006) in Gibson, N, C. (ed), Challenging Hegemony: Social Movements and the quest for a New Humanism in Post-Apartheid South Africa, Eritrea: Africa World Press, Inc. pp. 103125

Boyns, D & Fletcher, J. 2006. Reflection on Public Sociology: Public Relations, Disciplinary Identity and the Strong Program in Professional Sociology in The American Sociologist, Vol 36, no 3-4 (September 2005) pp. 5-36

Buhlungu, S. 2009. South Africa: The Decline of Labour Studies and the Democratic Transition in Work and Organisation, Volume 36, no 2 ( May 2009) pp. 145-161

Burawoy, M.1998. The Extended Case Method in Sociological Theory, 16 (1), pp .4-33

Burawoy, M., Gamson, W., Ryan, C., Pfohl S., Vaughan, D., Derber, C., & Schor J. 2004. Public Sociologies: A Symposium from Boston College in Social Problems, Vol. 51. No 1 ( Feb, 2004) pp. 103-130

Burawoy, M. 2004. Public Sociology: South African dilemmas in a global context in Society in Transition, Vol 35(1), pp. 11-25

Burawoy, M. 2005a. The Critical Turn to Public Sociology in Critical Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 3, 313-326

Burawoy, M. 2005b. For Public Sociology in American Sociological Review, Vol. 70, No 1 (Feb, 2005), pp. 4-28

Burawoy, M. 2005c. Forging Public Sociologies on National, Regional, and Global Terrains. E-Bulletin, The International Sociological Association, No.2: 42-52 76

Burawoy, M. 2005d. Rejoinder: Toward a Critical Public Sociology, in Critical Sociology, Vol 31 : 3, pp. 379-390

Burawoy, M. 2008 What is to be done? Theses on the Degradation of Social Existence in a Globalizing World in Current Sociology Volume 56 pp. 351-358

Chima, J.S. 2005. Whats the Utility of the Case-Study Method for Social Science Research?: A response to Critiques from the Quantitative/Statistical Perspective paper given at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1-4, 2005

Desai, A. 2002. We are the Poors: Community struggles in post-apartheid South Africa, New York: Monthly Review Press

Desai, A. 2006, Vans, Autos, Kombis and the Drivers of Social Movements, paper given at the Harold Wolpe memorial lecture, Centre for Civil Society, International Convention Centre, 28 July 2006

Esteves, A.M, Motto, S & Cox. 2009. Civil Society vs. Social movements in Interface: a journal for and about social movements Volume 1(2): 1-21 (November 2009)

Figlan, L., Mavuso, R., Ngema, B, Nsibande, Z., Sibisi, S. & Zikode, S, 2009. Living Learning, Pietermaritzburg: Church Land Programme (CLP) accessed from http://abahlali.org/node/5843 on 17/01/2010

Flyvberg, B. 1998. Habermas & Foucault: Thinkers for Civil Society? in The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 49 No. 2 (Jun., 1998), 210-233 accessed from http://links.jstor.org on 15/01/2010

Fuller, D. 2008. Public geographies: taking stock in Progress in Human Geography 32(6) pp 834-84 77

Fuller, D & Askins, K. 2010. Public geographies II: Being organic in Progress in Human Geography, Publication number unknown, pp. 1-14

Gibson, N, C. 2007. Zabalaza, Unfinished Struggles against Apartheid: The Shackdwellers Movement in Durban in Socialism and Democracy, 21:3, 60-96

Gibson, N., Harley, A. & Pithouse, R. 2009. Out of Order: A Living Learning for a living politics in Figlan, L., Mavuso, R., Ngema, B, Nsibande, Z., Sibisi, S. & Zikode, S,. 2009. Living Learning, Pietermaritzburg: Church Land Programme (CLP) accessed from http://abahlali.org/node/5843 on 17/01/2010

Gumede, W. 2009. Building a democratic political culture in Gumede & Dikeni (eds), The Poverty of Ideas: South African democracy and the retreat of Intellectuals Cape Town: Jacana, pp. 11-35

Gumede, W. & Dikeni, L. 2009. Introduction in Gumede, W & Dikeni, L (eds), The Poverty of Ideas: South African democracy and the retreat of Intellectuals Cape Town: Jacana, pp. 1-10

Habib, A. 2005. State-Civil Society Relations in Post-Apartheid South Africa in Social Research, Vol 72: No 3: (Fall 2005), pp. 671-691

Hardt, M. 1995. The Withering of Civil Society in Social Text, No. 45 (Winter, 1995), pp. 27-44 accessed from http://ww.jstor.org/stable/466673 on 29/01/2010

Hugo, P. 1998. Transformation: The Changing Context of Academia in PostApartheid South Africa in African Affairs, Vol. 97, No. 386 (Jan. 1998), p. 5-27

Jacklin, H. & Vale, P. 2009. Introduction in Jacklin, H. & Vale, P (eds) ReImagining the Social in South Africa: Critique, Theory and Post-apartheid Society. Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press

78

Kalleberg, R. 2005. What is public sociology? Why and how should it be made stronger? In The British Journal of Sociology Vol 56, Issue 3 pp. 387-393

Katz-Fishman, W & Scott, J. 2005. Comments on Burawoy: A View From the Bottom-up in Critical Sociology, Vol 31: 3, pp. 371-374

Khan, F. 2006. The Struggle for a better Education for All- University of DurbanWestville, 1995- 2003 in Pithouse (ed) Asinamali: University Struggles in PostApartheid South Africa, Trenton: Africa World Press, Inc.

Mapadimeng, M, S. 2009. The South African Sociology, current challenges and future implications: A review and some empirical evidence from the 2007 national survey of sociology departments. (National Arts Council of South Africa) ISA Conference of the Council of National associations, Taipei, Taiwan 23-25 March 2009

Mariampolski, H & Hughes, D.C,. 1978. The Use of Personal Documents in Historical Sociology, in The American Sociologist 13(1978) pp. 104-113

Mayo, P. 1999. Gramsci, Freire & Adult Education: Possibilities for Transformative Action London: Zed Books

McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D., & Zald, M.N. 2008 Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements in Ruggiero, V. & Montagna, N. Social Movements: A Reader (eds), Oxon: Routledge. pp. 279-289

McDonald, D., & Pape, J. 2002 Cost Recovery and the Crisis of Service Delivery in South Africa. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council Publishers and London: Zed Books

Mittelman, J.2000. The Globalization Syndrome: Transformations and Resistance. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press

79

Neocosmos, M. 2006. Rethinking Politics in Southern Africa Today: Elements of a Critique of Political Liberalism in Gibson, N, C., (ed), Challenging Hegemony : Social Movements and the quest for a New Humanism in Post-Apartheid South Africa, Eritrea: Africa World Press, Inc. pp. 55-94

Neocosmos, M. 2009a. Civil society, Citizenship and the Politics of the (im) possible: Rethinking Militancy in Africa Today (2009) in Interface: a journal for and about social movements, Volume 1(2): 263-334 (November 2009) available at http://groups.google.com/interface-articles/web/neocosmos.pdf

Neocosmos, M. 2009b. The Political Conditions of Social Thought and the Politics of Emancipation: An Introduction to the Work of Sylvain Lazarus in Vale, P. & Jacklin, H (eds) Re-Imagining the Social in South Africa: Critique, Theory and Postapartheid Society, Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press

Ntsebeza, L & Hall, R. 2007. The Land Question in South Africa: The challenge of Transformation and Redistribution. Cape Town: HSRC Press

Ntseng, D. & Philpott, G. 2009. Preface in Figlan, L., Mavuso, R., Ngema, B, Nsibande, Z., Sibisi, S. & Zikode, S,.2009. Living Learning, Pietermaritzburg: Church Land Programme (CLP) accessed from http://abahlali.org/node/5843 on 17/01/2010

Nzimande, B. 2005. The contribution of public intellectuals in defining public interest in South Africa (The edge institute: economic development, growth and equity) Paper for Harold Wolpe Memorial Seminar, 16 February 2005 accessed from http://www.wolpetrust.org.za/dialogue2005/JB022005nzimande_transcript.pdf on 12/01/2010

Pendlebury, J. & van der Walt, L. 2006. Neoliberalism, Bureaucracy and Resistance at Wits University in Pithouse (ed) Asinamali: University Struggles in PostApartheid South Africa, Trenton: Africa World Press, Inc

80

Pithouse, R.2006. Our Struggle is Thought on the Ground Running: the university of Abahlali baseMjondolo Research Report 40 in Centre For Civil Society YonkIndawoUmzabalazo Uyasivumela : New York from Durban, Research Reports 2006 vol 1, University of Kwa-Zulu Natal

Pithouse, R. 2007a. The University of Abahlali baseMjondolo in Voices of Resistance from Occupied London: Quarterly Anarchist Journal of Theory and Action from the British Capital After the Empire, Issue 2 pp. 17-21

Pithouse, R. 2009. Shifting the Ground of Reason in Jacklin, H. & Vale, P (eds), Re-imagining the Social in South Africa: Critique Theory and Post-apartheid Society Durban: University of Natal Press, pp. 141-174

Walsh, S., Bond, P., Desai, A., Walsh, S. 2008. Uncomfortable Collaborations: Contesting Constructions of the Poor in South Africa in Review of African Political Economy, 35:116, pp. 255-279

Webster, E. & Adler, G., 1999. Toward a Class Compromise in South Africas Double Transition: Bargained Liberalization and the Consolidation of Democracy in Politics & Society, Vol. 27:3, pp. 347-385

Webster, E. & Von Holdt, K. 2005. Beyond the Apartheid Workplace : Studies in Transition, South Africa: University of KwaZulu Natal Press

Sinwell, L., 2009. Participation as Popular Agency: The Limitations and Possibilities for Transforming Development in the Alexandra Renewal Project. Ph.D. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.

Sitas, A. 1997. The waning of sociology in South Africa in Society in Transition 1(1-4) pp. 12-19

Swilling, M. 1993. Civics in South Africa in Urban Forum, volume 4 no 3 (June 1993) 81

Newspapers/ Press Releases, Internet Resources and Unpublished documents Abahlali, submitted on 19 October 2006, Unfreedom Day. accessed on 15/01/2010 from http://www.abahlali.org/node/26. Abahlali baseKennedy (June 16 2009) Fire Devastates the Kennedy Road Settlement At least One Hundred Homes Destroyed: The Red Devil Must be Defeated. Press Release. http://www.abahlali.org/node/5386 retrieved on 20/01/20010 Abahlali baseMjondolo, submitted on 19 October 2006, A Short History of Abahlali baseMjondolo, the Durban Shack Dwellers Movement: Introduction to Abahlali baseMjondolo from http://www.abahlali.org/node/16 Abahlali baseMjondolo. 2007. iPolitiki ePhilayo: The Abahlali baseMjdondolo Manifesto for a Politics of the Poor First draft.Unpublished document, accessed from http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:AzxZCcNPh3kJ:abahlali.org/files/draft_abmm anifesto.july2007.doc+abahlalism&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de Abahlali baseMjondolo (April 21,2008). Abahlali BaseMjondolo to Mourn UnFreedom Day Once Again. Press release. http://abahlali.org/node/3480 Community Hall, Kennedy Road Shack Settlement, Clare Estate, Durban. Retrieved 20/01/2010 Abahlali baseMjondolo submitted on 7 October 2009, A living politics: Resisting gentrification accessed on 15/01/2010 from http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/59290 Greenstein, R et al. 2003. Research Methods Training Manual. Unpublished paper Saunders, S. 2009. Relocation, relocation, demonstration in Morning Star accessed on 21/01/2010 from
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/features/Relocation-relocationdemonstration

Zikode, S. 2009. Abahlali AGM: Speech by Sbu Zikode accessed on 15/01/2010 from http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/socialmovements/52843/print

82

Videos Pithouse, R. 2007b. The Shacks Fight Back! : A Talk by Richard Pithouse of the South African Shackdwellers Movement and Respondent David Cunningham (June 2007) hosted by Mute Magazine: London. Available from http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4025

83