Most people have a naïve – perhaps, even, starry-eyed – notion about academia. For many, it is a place where loads of egg-heads wear cardigans and smoke pipes as they do research and experiments, where fresh, independent thinking is encouraged, and where lively debates and thought-provoking exchanges of views are the order of the day.
Now, and to be fair, in the hard-sciences (physics, chemistry etc), things are probably pretty much like that, though with lab coats sometimes in place of cardigans. These disciplines deal with the natural world using objective, empirical methods, rigorous experimentation, and mathematical models to establish replicable, universal laws. Essentially, the hard sciences are all about objectivity: findings are clear-cut and results are either true or false, as researchers aim for consistency in knowledge. The hard sciences utilise, and, indeed, are often defined by, high levels of mathematical precision, and scientific truth is external, observable and endlessly repeatable.
In the humanities (history, philosophy, politics etc), however, things could not be more different, as they are essentially subjective. The study of history, for example, is all about researching and analysing human culture, values, and experience through interpretive, critical, and qualitative methods. Conclusions allow for diverse interpretations and multiple perspectives, and focus on narratives, themes, and historical context, and upon the understanding of human experience.
The problem with the study of the humanities is that, with no objective methods to ‘prove’ things to be true or false, there is the temptation to pander to the views of those with the power over your degree or doctorate. Needless to say, this naturally leads to group-think and to the stultification of new ideas, the ‘banning’ of different outlooks, the silencing of the ‘awkward squad’, and the slide to orthodoxy.
There was an interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph today, in which Matthew Goodwin, a prospective parliamentary candidate for Reform, and former Professor of Politics at the University of Kent, described his ostracism in academia for daring to hold different views than his peers:
“I’m sorry, but I worked hard. I’m proud of that,” he says. Academia was “a brutal environment” for someone who was in favour of Brexit and critical of mass immigration. “I was miserable, I was depressed,” he says. The atmosphere was one of “coordinated, intensive harassment”
“For 20 years, I was in an environment that was dominated by radical progressives who are overwhelmingly pro-Labour, if not pro-Corbyn,” he says. “So every time you would voice anything that sounded slightly conservative, never mind slightly Reform, you would be compared to being a Nazi.”
The climate in which his comments were received was chilling. “I had a swastika put on my door at [Kent University]”, he remembers. He was disinvited from conferences. “We had a debate over migration and its effects on the country, and 300 academics signed an open letter to say that this was outrageous.”
What wonderful, open-minded people they sound – the truly great-thinkers of our age.
And, of course, this same of sort insidious group-think impacts study into the Boer War too. If, for example, the staff of a History department of a given South Africa university are fanatical defenders of Apartheid-era myths about the war, then this obviously stifles any challenge to the narrative; no student would be foolish enough to submit a paper which is at odds with this outlook, as it would be a sure fire way to be failed. With none of the rigorous experimentation and mathematical models of the hard sciences to fall back on, passing or failing in the humanities is at the whim of the Professors running the department.
Furthermore, when it comes to the Boer War, this also makes the whole notion of ‘peer reviewed’ papers a total joke too – of course these fellows are all going to give glowing reviews to any papers that don’t challenge their much-loved myths, and which keep the nonsense of Boer victimhood alive. The whole thing is, crudely put, simply a back-scratching, circle jerk.
And if you think I am over-egging the pudding, this article gives an example of how a deeply-flawed work was fawningly praised by academics, simply because it didn’t challenge the Apartheid-era myths:
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2019/02/01/how-to-get-a-glowing-review/
In more recent examples, a good friend of mine – who sadly is no longer with us – was working towards a Doctorate about the Boer War, but was unfortunate in that his PhD Supervisor was one of the most fanatical, blinkered, and unpleasant of the True Believer pseudo-academics. When my friend explained what his thesis was all about, he was told in no uncertain terms by this Supervisor that he would be failed if he dared to challenge the comforting myths of Boer victimhood and British aggression. Yes – you read that right: it did not matter to the Supervisor in the least if my friend’s thesis was well-argued, exhaustively referenced, and genuinely ground-breaking work: he simply would not get his Doctorate unless he toed the National Party line. Credit to my late friend, he was having none of this, and was in the process of switching universities when he passed away. If this nonsense is still happening in South African universities today, one can imagine the situation pre-1994.
Another friend – who thankfully is still alive – is in a similar position, and battling to get his years of work and research accepted as the basis for a PhD thesis. He made the observation: “They treat PhDs like joining a gentleman’s club – ‘you need to fit in, old boy’!”.
Being more interested in historical realities, than about ‘fitting in’, is one of the many reasons I am very happy to stand outside the cosy tent of South African academia… and, some might claim, to piss into it. Unlike those poor students who – if they want their work to be passed by these fanatics – have no choice but to play the game, nod at the right time, and laugh at the professor’s jokes, I don’t have to worry about any of that. I am free to call a spade, a spade, and to point out that the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.
It is little wonder why these people are so terrified of people like myself, and my late friend.
9 Comments
When I wrote my MA on Sir Bartle Frere, my tutor made it quite clear to me that if I didn’t take the Marxist view, I would be failed. Fortunately, I was a mature student who was able to rub his nose in the primary sources with the result that he found an examiner (Iain Smith) who was rather more sympathetic to my views than the charlatan Shula Mark.
I wonder how you’d have got on at the University of Pretoria!
The vast majority of faculty at western universities self-identify as being on the left. The result is that they are essentially hostile environments for right of centre intellect. Progressive thinking has eradicated any pretense of academic balance or consideration of alternative views. Diversity has created the exact opposite – ideological uniformity. Western civilisational traditions of free thinking inquiry and empiricism, have been abandoned, to the point of there being no longer a broad balanced exposure to a range of ideas for undergraduate and post graduate students. Much of this has sources in post-modernist quackery based on group identities with origin in Marxist tenants. The Economist magazine has compared Diversity Statements, that most academics are required to sign, as being akin to Medieval loyalty oaths.
Sounds like the unis in SA are as fucked as the ones in Australia
It would be unfair to tar all the South African Universities, and all the various departments, with the same brush, of course. My understanding is that the History faculties of Pretoria and Stellenbosch are pretty much over-run by these types, but I believe there is a bit more objectivity – and a lot less fanatical defence of Apartheid-era myths – at UCT and KZN, for example.
The Elite Afrikaner high schools do not even teach history above grade 10 and that limited history is restricted from the landing of JVR to the first Boer War. A deliberate attempt to suppress interest in the South Africa War , its causes , its prolonged length,its outcome and the aftermath. The available information on the internet etc , must be their worst nightmare and alternative historians such as you Chris are treated as the antichrist . The same is now happening with the Border War , no battles lost, outnumbered , the superman myths being recreated.I suppose as with the USA and JFK , how does a government and constitutions admit they have been lying to the people for so many years
Oh yes – I know that I give a few so-called academics sleepless nights by daring to call them out for still spreading their Apartheid-regime myths and lies. If only they weren’t such arrogant fanatics, they would be able to accept my writing and research objectively – but I guess that would admit their entire academic careers have been a sham.
What concerns me is that some of these academic and “cultural” institutions bestow awards on characters like Rudi Rousseau for his research on the concentration camps. A visit to his website will make you hurl…..the ultimate True Believer with a large following.
Yes, I have been told that he is the ocean-going idiot who defaces Boer War monuments, and replaces them with plaques which spew out his preferred bullshit myths.
Add Comment