Shane Moran - Alternation Journal

taking up the inco~nplete democratic and social tasks in a sti-uggle for workers' power.
.lust as the social context of the 1980s affected the clirnate of historiography, so does the
'uncompletedrevolution' context ofthe 1990s.
Coasting with the tide in the 1980s, social history has attracted powerful
compliments. Terence Ranger (1991 :5), though critical of aspects of'its 'radicalness',
has celebrated its achicvernents as 'dynamic and committed and honest'. Sllula Marks
(1.386) has called the rewriting represented in the work of revisionist scholars a
'revolution in our undel-standing of South African history'. Eric Foner (1995: 166). the
celebl.::led liniied Slates historian, has described South Akican social history as Ilaving
;?reduced 'seine of the world's finest historical scholarship' in this vein. tie argues that
tile social historians have 'rewritten Soutlt African l~istoly to ctnphasise the experie~tce
of black lal?onreis in I-ural areas and in urban tnines and industries' and that 'it gave
il()i~~
to those excluded i-'rom traditional accounts, often tl~rough oral histories that
allowed ordinai-y pcopie torelate their lives and express theiraspirations'.
Thc consonance of popular revolutionism and radical history-making in the
acaderily in the 1980s introduced some heady ideas. It was believed that academic
histay, as social histoty, could become popularised: translated into the conception of
history held by 'the masses'. The atmosphere was captured by Colin Bundy
(1 990: I39t) in the following terms:
behets ~npopulalis~ttloil on the constluctlon ofh~sto~ rn the academ) '
Consciously or not, the urge to 'popula~rsitt~on' of revlc~onist h ~sto~
const~tuted an ~ntervent~on ru the polrt~cal arena In thls respect, In orrt vtew,
spokespersons of Ii~story Workshop can be cr~ticlsed for a belief ~n the 'upl~ft~ng' role
ofthe rntcllectual qua ~ntellectual'~ In a reflectwe prece at the end of the 1980s Boz~oli
contrasted the 'Gramsclan' concept of thls ole from what she regarded as the
'hlthusserran'
Forging an alternative set of historical interpretations ~vould challenge
hegemony on a lrigll level: but making these new interpretations popular
would provide the already-conscientized masses with greater insiglrt and
understanding of the structural conditions they confronted. The essentially
Gvalnscian aim of raising the capacity of the mass of the people for self
emancipation--so that the popularisation of history involved a process of
empowerment of the people thernsclves-ran against the Althusserian idea
that emancipation would come from above and from 'theory'. Gramscians
stood somewhere between a belief in tlre subordination ofthc intellectual to
the movement, and one in the subol-dination of tlie movement to theory
(Bozzoli 1990:24lc see also Bozzoli 1983:8).
hat Bozzoli llere calls 'Althusserian' is that mis-interpretation of Lenin's Wh~t is lo
the ivory tower has already been breached by popular pressures: grappling
irons promise f~lrther to scale its \valls. and its base of acadelllic autonomy is
Don$ which is held by Communist Parties and inany Trotskyist groupjets: the idea
being undermined .... South African radical historians inhabit a present that
workers are capable only of 'trade-union consciousness' and that 'socialisln' must
makes con1pl~ehension of the past seem particularly important. ~ ‘ l ~ ~ i ~
rought to theln from outside by intel~ectuals'~. In fact Bozzoli's characterisation of
society's histor). docs not present itself meekly for exatniuation. It jnt~-~dC~, the 'Gramscian' does not entirely escape this". Moreover, an 'intellectual' is
ficrcc and feverisll, baring its deformities, and demanding ilnmediate
attention.
The attendance at Wits History Workshop 'open days', the support of the NECC for
'people's history' projects, etc. all encouraged such a belief.
The turn to negotiations ir-r the 1990s and the resultant de~nobilisation of a
mass rnovelnent has transformed the conditions for the 'popularisation' ofhistory. With
politics in the 1990s now more concerned with the 'pacting of elites' rather than
eruptions of the masses, once again 'histoly' is made 'from above' rather than 'fi-om
below'. The ANC has become transformed from the vehicle through which the inasses
sought transformation of society in the 1980s into the staunch defender of neo-liberal
capltalisrn in the 1990s. In parallel, there has been a huge erosion in popular interest in
academic presentations of the past. As Paul Maylarn (1 995) observed at the 1995 SAHS
conference at Rhodes, social history has largely been confined to the site of the
professional historian and the university. Leslie Witz and Ciraj Rassool (1992) have
described how, despite near 'missionary work' of popularisation, social histo~y has
remained 'on the margins' of popular- and public domains. Shula Marks (1996) has
cornlnented on tlie 'disappointed expectations' as a result of the limited recognition in
school llisto~y curricula ancl textbook of 'the [real] iiistoriographical advances of the
last thirty years'. As to tlie character of tlre 'popiilar iristory' being plesently made, ive
return below. For the moment what we are concerned tvith is the effects of the 1980s
In these paragraphs we have benefited St-om reading Rousseau (1994: 1995) and Greenstein
996). 111 the original version of the paper we also offered some criticism of Rosseau and
reenstein's standpoint wliieh wc have dropped from this version bccausr it is not central to tile
rgunlent: we still ],old to the essence ofour critique ofthenr however. Subsequent to writing tlie
raft of this paper we read Tshidiso Maloka's as yet unpuhlislled 'Writillg for T~ICIII: '.Radical"
istoriography in South Africaand the "Radical" Other', whicli makes telling points.
As with other critics of Wits IIistoly Workshop. we direct our attention to tlre ‘manifestoes‘
of its chid spokesperson of tlie 1980s, Helinda Rozzoli. in her introductions to collected
volumes. This of coursebegs the question as to how fB. the pieces in the collections live up to the
prescriptions of the manifestoes: seeMinkley (1986).
'"e Legassick (1991 :17f) where it is argued that the llisto~y of the twentietll century ~110~s
ratlrer non-socialist 'intellectual' leaders of working-class orgartisations crushing 'socialist'
struggles by tl~c working class. Bozzoli (1983:34) criticires the view that 'inadequacics in
leadership, organisation or "line" arc to be bla~ncd for the usual failure of Lhe op\>res"ed classes to
develop "proper" class consciousness'. I.egassick'svic\v differs in that (a) it is not it qucstio11 ofa
'failure' of the oppressed classes to .develop "propei." class consciousncss'; nnci (b) as Trotsky
pointed out, 'leadership is not at a11 a lnerc "rellection" ofa class', but is likely to Inse -above‘
accountability to the class and thus to lag behind it inconsciousnzss.