Let Us Build a Table: Decolonization, Institutional Hierarchies, and Prestige in Academic Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a programmatic essay on epistemological and academic neo-colonialism and how it hinders decolonsation in higher education. The statement of the paper is very clear and strong and I think it is important to publish it in an European journal.

Author Response

This reviewer did not require any changes.  We completed the revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a novel approach to the two primary topics that the article is engaging with. I think the nuanced discussion of Afro-communitarianism/Ubuntu is very well done.

That said, I do think that as written the article over-promises and under-delivers. The middle section is well worked out, but the application of that philosophical background to the questions announced (namely, universities' knowledge of their students and the question of prestige) are not very much developed here. To this reader, it was clear what paths could be taken to get there, but the paper reads as abruptly coming to a close.

As written, the article seems to suggest it will make the pedagogical case for why professors/the university should know and understand the social context of their students. I think that's a fine point to make, but given the vast amount of literature on that pedagogical question, I think it would be difficult for the manuscript as currently constituted to be quickly revised to make a strong contribution on that question. I might also point out that, to many, the point is easily defended independent of a communitarian framework. 

However, the nuanced discussion of university prestige, including seemingly a qualified defense of that concept in principle, being discussed in the context of decolonial theory (or something along those lines; pick your preferred verbiage) is an important and novel contribution. So, my suggestion would be this:

--Reframe the introduction so that the focus is on (a) the prestige question in relation to (b) an Afro-communitarian philosophical framework and decolonial context. Set aside the material on understanding students' context.

--Expand the discussion of the prestige issue. I think the portrait of Fort Hare vis-a-vis this question is really promising. That said, I don't think the article at present really delivers on that promise. I think three explicit points should be addressed:

(1) How does Afro-communitarianism support a qualified defense of university prestige, as opposed to simply a communitarian/decolonial rejection of prestige altogether? I'm sympathetic to the idea that these are compatible, but it would be an important scholarly contribution to spell out precisely why this is. 

(2) The discussion of Fort Hare's famous alums suggests, to this reader, that part of why Fort Hare has the sort of prestige it has is because its students have contributed to the community in a way that's simply not true of Rhodes and the others. I think it should be straightforward here to explain why Afro-communitarian philosophy supports a model of prestige centered on a criterion or criteria around these sorts of questions, rather than the sets of questions favored by aristocratic and neoliberal valuations of the university. It's clear this is in the background of the paper, but the article would be to this reader an unqualified success were this point to be explicitly articulated and rigorously defended through argument.

(3) Rather than advocating that universities and professors know their students and their social reality, I think the paper would be better served by transforming that material into an explicit criterion for prestige. In other words. how does an Afro-communitarian framework entail the consequence that the better a university, the more it understands the communities of which its students are a part? On this point, a further suggestion: you might argue that this is already a crucial, though often unacknowledged, aspect of prestige for institutions of higher learning. In other words, it can be argued that bourgeois/elite institutions bolster their prestige in large part through understanding bourgeois/elite communities very well. But because such communities have (generally speaking, though not necessarily universally) rather entrenched forms of individualist ideology, this community knowledge is misrepresented in terms of the university's ability to make individuals successful in their careers. But the phenomenon could be redescribed as one in which, not only do universities in the status quo and the neoliberal model enhance their prestige by understanding wealthy communities and viewing their students as, essentially, members (or, in some cases, aspiring members) of such communities, but they do so in a way that belies the individualist ideologies (in other words, they imply forms of elite communal solidarity). Speaking to how Fort Hare's prestigious history implies a radical alternative would, for this reader, really make this a memorable article that demands to be passed around to colleagues. 

Author Response

Please see attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an intriguing perspective for review. The author critically examines the commitment of higher education to the standards of neoliberalism and seeks to develop this argument further. I fully agree with the author’s assertion that the neoliberal model reduces human relationships to a questionable anthropology centered on the competitive individual striving for economic success. This moral and political stance has significant implications for higher education, particularly in Africa, where the colonial past manifests as a history of economic exploitation and cultural-symbolic domination by the morally “superior” colonial powers. A substantial aspect of this domination is evident in the reduction of higher education in Africa to the logic of managerial success, international rankings, and the symbolic capital of “prestige”. The adoption of neoliberal precepts and the logic of corporate culture has led to the commodification of higher education, which neglects the essence of interpersonal relationships and the needs of the community.

The author is developing a philosophy that addresses the needs of the community beyond the confines of neoliberal reductionism and colonial oppression. The foundations for this philosophy within the African context are primarily rooted in African philosophy, particularly in Afro-communitarianism. The concept of  Ubuntu by the philosopher Mogobe Ramose, serves as a guiding thread for this critical perspective on higher education in Africa. According to the Ubuntu perspective, the individual is an integral part of the community. Human beings attain their humanity through their integration into a shared social world. The individual is not an independent and self-sufficient entity but rather an organic member of the community. It is only through this perspective that the individual can fully realize their humanity..

While I agree with the main argument and the overall perspective of the author, there are some problematic aspects in the development of the argument:

pp. 5-6, lines 236-238 & p. 6, line 280: The body metaphor is highly problematic. What occurs when the needs and interests of the individual conflict with those of the community? The author asserts—an assertion with which I wholeheartedly agree— “institutions of higher learning are meant to foster intellectual and moral development in students, equipping them to continually challenge established knowledge.” (lines 295-296). My point is that this imperative applies not only to other communities but also to our own. How can we achieve greater harmony, as the author suggests, without sacrificing, to some extent, the interests and needs of the individual? Why is harmony always considered superior to disharmony? Political disagreement and democratic conflict are, in a certain sense, the essence of democracy. This is precisely what colonial thought seeks to avoid by imposing a singular worldview as the absolute truth, beyond any consideration or critique.

p. 7, lines 318-321 & pp. 8-9, 379-386: Challenging the ideology of meritocracy and the necessity to “build our own table” present significant challenges that cannot be addressed without concrete institutional interventions and specific changes to the structure of higher education. How can this be achieved? On page 6, lines 256-257, the author states, “In light of the above, a just pedagogical system, informed by Afro-communitarian personhood, cannot remain abstract but must recognize the students’ backgrounds, social needs, and academic needs.” However, the author does not provide any insights into the specific institutional changes that are required. It is essential for the author to elaborate on the concrete measures and specific institutional reforms necessary to promote decolonization and liberation from neoliberal ideology.

Author Response

Please see attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) have thoroughly addressed all comments in the revised version of the manuscript. The manuscript is now suitable for publication. 

Author Response

We completed the revision.