This contribution critically considers the findings and recommendations of the report published
in 2011 by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) on the state of the humanities in South
Africa. The study concludes that the humanities are in crisis, but despite the crisis situation in
which they find themselves it is undeniable that they are indispensable. The humanities are
indispensable because of their use or instrumental value as providing “the glue of Ubuntu” (ASSAf
2011:32) and nurturing “the intellectual lifeblood of a democratic project” (ibid., pp. 14, 137).
In other words, the humanities are of vital importance because they teach us how to be truly
“human” and how to live with other “humans” in “society” by uncovering our mutual dependence
and fostering a feeling of solidarity (ibid., p. 25). The fact that the humanities convey essential
analytical, interpretative and problem solving skills is constitutive of their human- and communitybuilding
capacity. According to ASSAf, this ideal model of what it means to be “human” and what constitutes
“community”, which the humanities are equipped to realise, is premised on the humanistic
philosophy of Ubuntu that defines the essence of being human in terms of our mutual connectedness.
The study opposes this “ideal” model to the neo-liberal model that engenders competition,
individualisation, self-responsibilisation and fragmentation instead of a sense of solidarity and
fellow feeling. In other words, the study defends the humanities on the basis of their instrumental
value in the realisation of the ideal (Ubuntu-inspired) model of community. They teach essential
communication skills that facilitate “being truly human” or a “human-centred community”, which
the study considers to be the heart or “spirit” of the humanities (p. 33).
Ubuntu – essentially the idea that we are truly human only through other people – is not a
politically neutral concept or philosophy, however. It is fundamentally complicit with the neoliberal
politico-economic policy which the post-apartheid government took over from their
predecessors. Hence, the crux of my critique against the ASSAf-study is that it defends the
humanities on the basis of their instrumental value and at the expense of their intrinsic value that
supposes an autonomous position independent of political, economic or ideological prejudices
or affiliations. The instrumental nature of their exposition undermines the “spirit” of the
humanities, which they claim to defend and rests upon the very neo-liberal logic which they in
principle oppose. The critique levelled against the ASSAf-report proceeds by first critically assessing the
methodology of the so-called “consensus study”. Attention is subsequently drawn to the various
presuppositions that underlie the wider debate on the state of the humanities. The findings of the
study, which form the foundation for a number of recommendations as to how the diagnosed crisis
of the humanities might be addressed, aim to uncover the problematic nature of these
presuppositions. Upon closer investigation, however, these attempts at problematisation prove to
be more of an apparent than a real protest against the instrumentalist logic of the existing neoliberal
order, which in reality animates the argumentative thrust of the entire study. The most
important presuppositions include the following: (1) the presupposed rigid demarcation between
the humanities and the natural or hard sciences; (2) the uncritical assumption that all forms of
science (including the humanities) should have a “direct” or immediately apparent use-value.
And finally, (3) the presupposition that “the humanities” refers to a consistently defined and
coherent whole, while in actual fact it serves as an umbrella term deployed differently in different
contexts (in this study as opposed to other reports as well as the wider debate, for example), often
grouping a slightly different collection of disciplines together that conflates the difference between
“abstract” (e.g. Philosophy) and “applied” (e.g. Education or Law) forms of knowledge. In the final instance, an argument is put forward in favour of the “indirect utility” of the
humanities, an argument that is fleshed out with the aid of the deconstructivist strategy that
challenges the binary logic of “utility-or-nothing” with a “both/and” approach that insists that
the indirect utility of critique serves as necessary condition for practicable alternative solutions.
In hierdie bydrae word die bevindinge en aanbevelings van die Academy of Science of South
Africa (ASSAf) se verslag oor die toestand waarin die geesteswetenskappe in Suid-Afrika verkeer
wat in 2011 gepubliseer is, krities onder die loep geneem. Na ’n kort opsomming van die
belangrikste gevolgtrekkings van die verslag, word ’n kritiese blik op die metodologie van die
sogenaamde “konsensusstudie” gewerp. Daarna word die aandag gevestig op bepaalde
vooronderstellings waarop die wyer debat rondom die stand van die geesteswetenskappe berus.
ASSAf se bevindinge op grond waarvan hulle ook bepaalde aanbevelings maak oor hoe die
gediagnoseerde krisis aangepak kan word, poog om ’n aantal van hierdie problematiese
vooronderstellings te bevraagteken. By nadere ondersoek blyk hierdie (laasgenoemde) pogings
egter net ’n skynprotes te wees teen die instrumentele logika van die heersende neoliberale bestel
wat in werklikheid die verslag se pleidooi onderlê. Die belangrikste vooronderstellings sluit in:
(1) die vooronderstelde waterskeiding tusssen die geesteswetenskappe en die natuur- of eksakte
wetenskappe; (2) die onkritiese aanname dat enige vorm van wetenskap (ook die geesteswetenskappe)
“regstreeks bruikbaar” moet wees. (3) Laastens, die vooronderstelling dat “die geesteswetenskappe”
na ’n konsekwent gedefinieerde en koherente geheel verwys terwyl dit in werklikheid
’n sambreelterm is wat in verskillende kontekste (in díe verslag teenoor ander verslae asook die
breër debat, byvoorbeeld) verskillend aangewend word en dikwels ’n ander versameling dissiplines
saamgroepeer.
Ten slotte, lig ek my pleidooi ten gunste van die “nieregstreekse bruikbaarheid”
van die geesteswetenskappe toe aan die hand van die dekonstruktiewe strategie wat die binêre
logika van nut-of-niks wil uitdaag met ’n “beide/en”-benadering wat daarop aandring dat die
nieregstreekse
nuttigheidswaarde van kritiek ’n noodsaaklike voorvereiste is vir werkbare alternatiewe
oplossings.
