Two Types of Trusteeship in South Africa

From Subjugation to Separate Development

Christopher Allsobrook, Camilla Boisen

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    The basic motivation for trusteeship is the expropriation of land from indigenous inhabitants, for the exploitation of its resources. Yet, the moral, political and epistemic authority of trusteeship is based on the promise of self-determination for such inhabitants. The South African colonial experience is very much part of this narrative and trusteeship's chief legitimating pretention, of the higher level of rational and technological development reached by the white man, was embraced and consolidated both by liberals and nationalists. Though initially deriving from foundations of covering law universalism, we argue that trusteeship evolved conceptually in colonial South Africa from explicitly moral, integrationist Cape Liberal ideal into a pragmatic, positivistic foundation for apartheid, expressed in progressive, pluralist, humanitarian terms of ‘cultural adaptation’ and ‘adapted education’. Our study shows up and explains a seemingly anomalous contradiction that transpired in South Africa during events leading up to apartheid, involving the logically illicit miscegenation of cultural relativist pluralism and covering law universalism that begat trusteeship's disgrace: the Bantustan. Our exploration of this historic incorporation of difference uncovers systematic forces of power and ideology that continue to haunt democratic independence after apartheid.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)265-285
    Number of pages21
    JournalPolitikon
    Volume44
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - May 4 2017

    Fingerprint

    apartheid
    universalism
    inhabitant
    expropriation
    Law
    technical development
    self-determination
    pluralism
    exploitation
    pragmatics
    ideology
    narrative
    event
    resources
    education
    experience

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Sociology and Political Science
    • Political Science and International Relations

    Cite this

    Two Types of Trusteeship in South Africa : From Subjugation to Separate Development. / Allsobrook, Christopher; Boisen, Camilla.

    In: Politikon, Vol. 44, No. 2, 04.05.2017, p. 265-285.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Allsobrook, Christopher ; Boisen, Camilla. / Two Types of Trusteeship in South Africa : From Subjugation to Separate Development. In: Politikon. 2017 ; Vol. 44, No. 2. pp. 265-285.
    @article{0728083d491345769a8553858be5e68c,
    title = "Two Types of Trusteeship in South Africa: From Subjugation to Separate Development",
    abstract = "The basic motivation for trusteeship is the expropriation of land from indigenous inhabitants, for the exploitation of its resources. Yet, the moral, political and epistemic authority of trusteeship is based on the promise of self-determination for such inhabitants. The South African colonial experience is very much part of this narrative and trusteeship's chief legitimating pretention, of the higher level of rational and technological development reached by the white man, was embraced and consolidated both by liberals and nationalists. Though initially deriving from foundations of covering law universalism, we argue that trusteeship evolved conceptually in colonial South Africa from explicitly moral, integrationist Cape Liberal ideal into a pragmatic, positivistic foundation for apartheid, expressed in progressive, pluralist, humanitarian terms of ‘cultural adaptation’ and ‘adapted education’. Our study shows up and explains a seemingly anomalous contradiction that transpired in South Africa during events leading up to apartheid, involving the logically illicit miscegenation of cultural relativist pluralism and covering law universalism that begat trusteeship's disgrace: the Bantustan. Our exploration of this historic incorporation of difference uncovers systematic forces of power and ideology that continue to haunt democratic independence after apartheid.",
    author = "Christopher Allsobrook and Camilla Boisen",
    year = "2017",
    month = "5",
    day = "4",
    doi = "10.1080/02589346.2015.1121623",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "44",
    pages = "265--285",
    journal = "Politikon",
    issn = "0258-9346",
    publisher = "Routledge",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Two Types of Trusteeship in South Africa

    T2 - From Subjugation to Separate Development

    AU - Allsobrook, Christopher

    AU - Boisen, Camilla

    PY - 2017/5/4

    Y1 - 2017/5/4

    N2 - The basic motivation for trusteeship is the expropriation of land from indigenous inhabitants, for the exploitation of its resources. Yet, the moral, political and epistemic authority of trusteeship is based on the promise of self-determination for such inhabitants. The South African colonial experience is very much part of this narrative and trusteeship's chief legitimating pretention, of the higher level of rational and technological development reached by the white man, was embraced and consolidated both by liberals and nationalists. Though initially deriving from foundations of covering law universalism, we argue that trusteeship evolved conceptually in colonial South Africa from explicitly moral, integrationist Cape Liberal ideal into a pragmatic, positivistic foundation for apartheid, expressed in progressive, pluralist, humanitarian terms of ‘cultural adaptation’ and ‘adapted education’. Our study shows up and explains a seemingly anomalous contradiction that transpired in South Africa during events leading up to apartheid, involving the logically illicit miscegenation of cultural relativist pluralism and covering law universalism that begat trusteeship's disgrace: the Bantustan. Our exploration of this historic incorporation of difference uncovers systematic forces of power and ideology that continue to haunt democratic independence after apartheid.

    AB - The basic motivation for trusteeship is the expropriation of land from indigenous inhabitants, for the exploitation of its resources. Yet, the moral, political and epistemic authority of trusteeship is based on the promise of self-determination for such inhabitants. The South African colonial experience is very much part of this narrative and trusteeship's chief legitimating pretention, of the higher level of rational and technological development reached by the white man, was embraced and consolidated both by liberals and nationalists. Though initially deriving from foundations of covering law universalism, we argue that trusteeship evolved conceptually in colonial South Africa from explicitly moral, integrationist Cape Liberal ideal into a pragmatic, positivistic foundation for apartheid, expressed in progressive, pluralist, humanitarian terms of ‘cultural adaptation’ and ‘adapted education’. Our study shows up and explains a seemingly anomalous contradiction that transpired in South Africa during events leading up to apartheid, involving the logically illicit miscegenation of cultural relativist pluralism and covering law universalism that begat trusteeship's disgrace: the Bantustan. Our exploration of this historic incorporation of difference uncovers systematic forces of power and ideology that continue to haunt democratic independence after apartheid.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84954289804&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84954289804&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1080/02589346.2015.1121623

    DO - 10.1080/02589346.2015.1121623

    M3 - Article

    VL - 44

    SP - 265

    EP - 285

    JO - Politikon

    JF - Politikon

    SN - 0258-9346

    IS - 2

    ER -