My Friendship With John Stone

I have rarely come across a sociologist who excelled at so many universities, both as a teacher, researcher and elected administrator. He rose not just in the Oxford/Cambridge/London triangle, but in several American institutions as well. John exemplified a curious cosmopolitan par excellence. At a time when most race relations experts wallowed in parochial activity, to be exported arrogantly to the ‘backward colonies’, John was moving to explore further. He never stuck to a previous insight when his open mind found it untenable. Always driven by comparisons elsewhere, his reality principle was guided by non-dogmatism. We both shared a rational secularism without losing respect for faith committed fellows. In a private conversation we even confessed no fear of death, as I proudly displayed my 8 year older age as ‘miraculous’. ‘Still sane, sound and sober?’ he quipped when we met. South Africa figured as our main common ground. John had researched his PhD material at various South African universities in the early 1960s. His dissertation dealt with English settlers in South Africa. I made the anti-apartheid struggle my main mission after meeting my future wife in 1966 in Durban. When John visited us in Vancouver later with his daughter, I learned that his wife, Roleen, also originated from this microcosm of global race relations. Yet we never encountered each other in the Apartheid state. We were officially barred from future entry as a ‘mixed’ couple in 1967. My return was only granted again in 1976 at the intervention of our friend Van Zyl Slabbert, the leader of the progressive opposition. I find it a pity that John never met Van Zyl. Sharing similar political strategies for realistic incremental change, they would have also struck an instant friendship. But peripatetic John had moved on to other research foci, like Tocqueville on American democracy. With hindsight I also regret that John and I never engaged on the Frankfurt School's critical theory. The Institute for Social Research shaped my nine years of exposure to sociology. Adorno and Habermas as my PhD examiners ended this period (1956–65). John seemed as unfamiliar with Adorno's Authoritarian Personality, as I was ignorant of academic London/LSE luminaries. Apart from Ralf Dahrendorf, few German sociologists migrated to the UK at the time. Even when John founded the remarkable Ethnic and Racial Studies journal few contributors originated from outside the global English-speaking orbit. After John returned to America having relinquished his editorship, to his credit, the journal continued to grow, sometimes to book-length size. Stringent reviews and a high rejection rate ensured its place as one of the most reputable in the field. As main editor for a decade, John managed not only the financing of the publication, but also an extensive correspondence (see an example later) without material benefit to himself. During the 1980s, till the inauguration of Mandela as president in May 1994, it had become fashionable to hold conferences on how the miracle of a ‘negotiated revolution’ had been achieved. Together with the conference schedule of the International Sociological Association (ISA) and other professional bodies, we solidified our friendship with encounters at several such meetings around the world. My wife Kogi recalls that John had organized one of our cherished Bellagio conferences and another at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC. On one of those occasions, John and I discussed the compelling classic film The Battle of Algiers. The film is used by police and intelligence agencies around the world for training their agents. For reasons I do not recall, John had a special interest in Algeria. The French considered Algeria as their historic homeland rather than their colony. Capitulation to Algerian demands for independence was unthinkable for Paris. The French government, under President de Gaulle, was ready to smash the rebellion with brute force. Explosions in cafés of the European quarter, public outcry at the French army's use of torture against Algerian activists, even the killing of traffic cops in Paris could not move the French to make concessions. Moved by this iconic film, John and I concluded that superior force cannot erase a just idea in people's minds. Even a military victory, as the French achieved in Algiers, does not extinguish a popular ideology. We were reminded of Mandela's retort to two Apartheid generals: ‘I admit your military strength and the stalemate we face. You can kill a lot of my people, but you will never be able to kill all of us!’ At the time Black Africans (different from the other ‘non-white’ Apartheid classifications ‘Coloured’ and Indians) amounted to 80% of the total population. We also concluded that the alternative to negotiating a fair compromise was eternal warfare. In the Algerian case, the outcome of the conflict led to other deplorable consequences. A sizeable group of Algerians who sided with the French are known as ‘Harkis’. Most of these collaborators moved to France. However, they were neither welcomed in their homeland, nor in France. There they landed up in separate fenced areas, sometimes referred to as concentration camps. I downloaded my last correspondence with John. It was dated October 1, 2018, seven years from writing this tribute. What strikes me now is how current such a reading is. Trump's first term of office, Brexit debate in Britain and general ‘craziness, producing weird outcomes’, as John put it. It reads like a comment that happened yesterday. The correspondence also reveals the professionalism with which John conducted his task. Tired after midnight in the tone of her majesty speaking to her subjects: ‘It would be enormously helpful if you could let us know when you expect to deliver your chapter.’ Dear Heribert and Kogi, I do hope this finds you both well—it has been some time since we have been in touch. Political craziness seems to have become a global phenomenon with Trump in America, Brexit, and all manner of other election results producing weird outcomes. The immediate reason for writing is to see if I can get you to contribute to a Companion on Race, Ethnicity and Nationalism, commissioned by the Oxford Editor at Blackwell-Wiley as a complement to the five Volume Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Nationalism (2016). This work will consist of some 25 to 30 essays of around 8000 words in length designed to explore some developing themes in the field and possible directions for future research. Linking this to developments in South Africa and Southern Africa generally would be ideal, but other possibilities on human rights and transitional justice are also possibilities. We are planning to dedicate the volume to the memory of my old friend Anthony Smith who died last year and was a major contributor to nationalism studies as well as to Ethnic and Racial Studies. Hopefully first drafts of the chapters should be completed around next June, although the timetable is somewhat flexible. If you are able to write such an article, this would be a wonderful addition to the Companion. Warm best wishes, John. Dear John, Nice to be in touch with you again. Among many other pressing issues, we have worked on your South African chapter intermittently with various pages ready to be fused and linked. Whether it will add up to the requested 8000 or 5000 words remains to be seen. Would a firmly promised submission by November 15 or 30 at the very latest be ok? I re-read our correspondence where you spell out an open-ended focus of our choice. But let me clarify that we are on the same page. Our idea is to focus mostly on the current political landscape with lesser emphasis on the historical background. While not neglecting theoretical discussions, such as comparative settler colonialism, we want to avoid the boring academic jargon of the race relations literature, if that is ok with you. Above all, we portray SA conditions as they are rather than how they should be. That will make the essay provocative and controversial in parts. On the whole, it will be a critical piece on the ANC, particularly the systemic corruption of a failed liberation party, the destruction of state institutions under Zuma, and the re-racialization in opposition to the vision of Mandela, who, as you know, is now frequently denounced as a sellout among ‘left’ populists (Malema's EFF, and large parts of black university students). But history is always open-ended and nothing is inevitable and another miracle may occur to contradict the frequent prognosis of SA as ‘a train wreck in the making’. Do not hesitate to let us know where you disagree or suggest a different approach. John's reply arrived on the same day, October 3, 2018. It was sent at 6.13 am, obviously by a person who starts his work early in the morning. John did not mince his words either: ‘Such an essay would be exactly what we have in mind for the Companion. All the conventional stuff was handled in the Encyclopedia and what we want are some provocative essays. So, what you are proposing is right on target! We are at a stage in our careers when it doesn't matter too much who we upset. Screw the jargon and tell it as it is!’ There were also differences between us that remained unresolved. John and I employed different strategies with co-authorship. I admire his high number of co-authors from different disciplines and perspectives. This certainly enriches a chapter but can also pose problems for relationships. I mainly publish with my wife in a similar field but at a different institution. When I co-publish with a friend or decline an invitation to collaborate, I fear that disagreements about content could destroy a friendship. With my spouse, I can argue at length until we reach a compromise. When co-publication with a controversial colleague was unavoidable, I published each chapter with our own byline. (See Ethnic Power Mobilized, H. Adam & H Gilliomee, Yale UP 1979). There were similar tensions with another close friend, the renowned sociobiologist Pierre van den Berghe at the University of Washington in Seattle. He wondered why we never collaborated. Unfortunately, we never pursued a project on which we had some disagreements: ‘Transitional Justice and Truth Commissions’, which John viewed more sceptically than I. We both concurred that the Israel-Palestinian conflict borders on intractability because of its sectarian nature. But what can be envisaged as a realistic first step to a solution? I argued that a truth commission of Israeli and Palestinian historians would be a useful first step. John countered that as long as both sides claim a monopoly of truth such a body would never emerge. But it did in Apartheid South Africa that was equally polarized. We both could not solve how to bargain over religious values. Waiting for secularization? We agreed that the various costs of eternal conflict (civil war) are rising constantly on both sides. However, the consequences of these trends are unpredictable. Disappointment about a lost opportunity is now mixed in my memory about the sharp mind of an admirably imaginative friend. Above all, I remember John's personal warmth, his kindness and his untiring attempts to make the world an inclusive livable space. In some ways, he has been spared the craziness of current political forces that undermine all that he aspired to in his life's work.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.