As a lifelong radical and political activist, Ronald Aronson accepted an invitation to lecture in South Africa only after two years of deliberation. ""Stay Out of Politics,"" which begins with the moral questions that Aronson confronted in his decision to go, is a reaffirmation of the necessity for majority rule and the abolition of apartheid. Amidst the pressure of widespread talk of an academic boycott of South Africa, Aronson decided to lecture there as a contribution to the struggle for majority rule. He decided to become mobilized as a philosopher and activist by engaging in the effort close at hand rather than settling for a distant and comfortable protest by avoidance.
Along with his visa, Aronson was given the following warning by a consular officer: "Stay out of politics " Believing that philosophy not only has a role to play but that it can, and must, involve itself in the vital social and political issues of our time, Aronson equally discovered that in South Africa politics is everywhere and inescapable. The lectures Aronson delivered focused on the meaning of progress and hope, on the threat--and experience--of disaster today, and on our responsibility to join the struggle for a humane and rational world. Two of the most provocative lectures are included here, the first a discussion of the Holocaust that has direct and intentional applications to the current situation in South Africa. The second lecture, in memory of the assassinated political philosopher Richard Turner, is a sketch of Aronson's philosophy of hope as seen from within the South African context.
Despite the limitations of teaching under possible surveillance in a revolutionary situation, Aronson witnessed the social reality of apartheid and heard the voices of its victims. Aronson's love for the South African people motivated him to write this powerful account. He presents a lecturer's tour of South Africa: the experiences that both confirmed his belief in the urgent need for majority rule but also revealed the complexities of the society that seeks to continue apartheid through all reforms; and his philosopher's reflections upon returning to the United States on the irrationality of apartheid and the ambiguities of the struggle to end it.
""Stay Out of Politics"" is not only a powerful encounter with South Africa today, it is a provocative statement about philosophy--its nature, its tasks, its duty to understand and change the world in which we live.
Industry Reviews
For some writers, these are perilous times; books written a few months ago seem on publication out of date or irrelevant. Aronson's account of his visit to South Africa, while not irrelevant, is affected - particularly in its analysis and conclusions - by the great changes that have recently taken place in both Europe and South Africa. Asked to give a series of lectures in South Africa in 1987, Aronson (Humanities/Wayne State Univ.) accepted the invitation only when he was assured that is so doing he would be helping the antiapartheid struggle. Although advised by the South African Consular official to "stay out of politics," Aronson found that impossible to do, for South Africans of all color and opinion talked politics. As he travelled around the country lecturing on Sartre, the Holocaust and its application to South Africa, and the "Fetishization of Progress," he came to appreciate the suffering apartheid had inflicted, as well as the complexity of the situation. He was also intellectually stimulated by his recognition that the philosophical questions he was posing were real and urgent, not some hypothetical exercise - for the first time he was really able to apply philosophy. Aronson's conclusions tend to reflect the academic and activist men and women he spent time with, and to neglect the history that has created the present situation - failing, for example, to quite explain the peculiar development of that white tribe, the Afrikaaners. Aronson did come back, however, with a great affection of the country, and a belief that the majority must prevail. Aronson's experiences offer interesting insights into current academic thinking, and his affection for the people he met is touching. But there is something ultimately irritating about his constant emphasis on his own impeccable political credentials and high-mindedness, and it detracts from some of the good things he has to say. (Kirkus Reviews)
