Interviews with the senior scholars Interview with Dr Andy Mycock
Dr. Andy Mycock is a policy-orientated academic with a wide range of experience working with governmental and non-governmental organisations in the UK and internationally. His academic research covers such areas as youth democratic engagement and participation, British politics, citizenship and identity. Dr. Mycock's key research interests and publications focus on democratic and community engagement and participation in public policy, and devolution politics and policy in the UK. He has co-edited special editions on devolution and constitutional reform in England. His recent funded research projects include ‘Lowering the Voting Age in the UK’ and ‘The Civic Journey’. He has also published widely on the legacies of the British Empire, Brexit, and the Anglosphere and Commonwealth, and co-organised the British Academy-funded special conference on the theme of ‘The Anglosphere and its Others: The English-Speaking Peoples in a Changing World Order’.
Since 2023, Dr. Andy Mycock has also been a senior scholar of the Aggressor Project. He joined us for an interview to discuss his research contributions to the project.
Amr Elashmawy: Could you please tell us a little bit about your project and how it relates to the overall project of “The Aggressor”?
Dr Andy Mycock: My project focuses on the role of the aggressor in transcontinental and colonial contexts. I am studying Cecil Rhodes who was not, in a traditional sense, a military figure. Instead, Rhodes was primarily an industrialist, a businessman, and a colonial opportunist.
The legacies of Rhodes are influential in debates about the empire in South Africa, modern-day Zimbabwe, previously known as Rhodesia, and in the United Kingdom. I am interested in how the present-day ‘culture wars’ and related battles over colonial history have been reflected in polarisation and ideological dispute over the role of Rhodes as a transnational aggressor.
In choosing Cecil Rhodes, I am keen to rethink the concept of the national aggressor. For example, in South Africa, Rhodes resonates as a controversial figure in the birth of a postcolonial nation. Conversely, in the United Kingdom, historical debates about Rhodes have come to typify reconsidering British legacies as the colonial aggressor. Rhodes is thus not a typical figure within the aggressive project. He is, however, a case study which I hope is going to bring some interesting new perspectives to the project as a whole.
Kai Steinhage: Could you please introduce the figure of Cecil Rhodes?
Cecil Rhodes is an interesting figure in many senses, as he has had a significant but diverse imprint on British national and colonial history. He was a parliamentarian and a significant public figure in the late 19th century in British public life. He bestowed a significant educational legacy, particularly to the University of Oxford, through the Rhodes Scholarships and the number of significant buildings on the University of Oxford campus, such as Rhodes House. He made his fortune in South Africa as a mining magnate, establishing a powerful conglomerate that came to dominate the South African diamond mining business. But he was also a colonial aggressor and was instrumental in the expansion of British influence across southern Africa through extortion, exploitation, and military pressure. He is also a significant political figure in South Africa, particularly in Cape Town.
Rhodes is a controversial figure in South African history in the late 19th century, particularly when considering the tensions between the British and Afrikaans settler communities and the harsh treatment of indigenous peoples. He came to symbolise in many ways British colonial rule in that period. His legacy is associated with colonial violence, exploitation, and persecution. In that sense, he fits into the aggressor model.
A. E.: If we turn to the overarching theme of the general research project, from your perspective, why can Cecil Rhodes be classified as an “aggressor”?
I have sought to challenge the boundaries of the project and push against the idea that the aggressor concept should be uniquely framed within the European spatial framework or historical lens. I think it is very difficult to consider European history in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries in a uniquely continental sense since many European states were also colonial states and empires. Empire was often consciously conflated with the nation-state, thus extending its borders, institutions, and identities beyond the European spatial framework itself.
I have also challenged the idea that aggressors must be military figures. Rhodes is interesting because when we think of aggressors, we often associate them with conflict and war. Yet, in the 21st century, we have significant business figures, particularly in the tech space, who have set up huge multinational companies that are increasingly influencing global international relations and politics. I would argue that Rhodes highlights that this is not a new phenomenon, and he had a similarly influential impact on global affairs in the 19th century. He represented a type of aggressor that provides a portent for our future, whereby multinational tech conglomerates - and the figures that lead them – seek to influence and shape global politics.
There are historical lessons to learn from the way Rhodes operated, particularly in South Africa. The fact that he merged his commercial affairs with the broader interests of the British Empire was not new. For example, Robert Clive and the British East India Company similarly enmeshed commercial and military interests. As with Clive, the legacy of Rhodes resonates in debates about history, identity, and postcolonialism in both South Africa and the United Kingdom, but in very different ways.
I argue in my paper that what brings the national and the transnational together is the so-called ‘campus wars’ in higher education, particularly the purpose of history education, and university campuses as sites of memory. One of the issues that has become increasingly contentious is the memorialisation of contentious figures such as Cecil Rhodes on university campuses. There are – or were - statues on both the Cape Town University and the University of Oxford campuses that have become the focus and flashpoints for broader national disputes regarding the colonial past.
A. E.: Considering this distinction between aggressor figures being military aggressor figures versus business aggressor figures, what would you say is the difference in this portrayal? How does this feature in the portrayal of Rhodes as an aggressor?
Rhodes was always mindful of his personal legacy. Like many contemporary successful business figures, such as Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or Bill Gates, Rhodes was keen to establish a positive philanthropic legacy through education. He also did not trust the British state to wisely spend his accrued wealth.
This in part might reflect that he was not a healthy or well man throughout much of his adult life. He was fundamentally aware of his own mortality and was always conscious of a desire to shape his legacy. When you look at his benevolence towards higher education, particularly towards the University of Cape Town and the University of Oxford, it was clear that he was thinking about how he would be perceived and remembered by future generations. He was certainly not beyond celebrating himself or his achievements.
However, commemoration is a complicated relationship which goes beyond an individual seeking to leave a legacy or commemorate their own achievements. It is clear that Rhodes was popular during his life and in the immediate period after his death, where there is considerable evidence of significant public warmth and distress at his passing. The commemoration of his life was not simply ordained by Rhodes himself or by those linked to his estate; indeed, it demonstrated popular and political affection for the character he was and his achievements. He was in many ways one of the last colonial heroes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
This was, however, a period of history that witnessed a gradual shift away from the idea that empire was something positive in many European states. The lead-up to the First World War saw a shift in public attitudes both regarding the cost and the morality of empire. This noted, Rhodes’ legacy was contentious from the start. There is no evidence of the universal admiration that he no doubt craved in celebrating his achievements. Contention around his legacy has intensified in the last 20 to 30 years as history has become more publicly and politically contended. The so-called ‘history wars’ have been shaped on a binary between conservative and more liberal or progressive views of colonial history. Rhodes has become an important figure in the history wars; a historical figure who has allowed opposing critical and supportive camps to coalesce to debate his life and legacies.
As a businessman, his record may have been no more controversial than many other businessmen in the late 19th century. Many of the actions he undertook were very much in line with a common view of how colonial or imperial business should be conducted. It is the military dimension to him which makes his legacy so contentious.
K. S.: In your research, you distinguish between different types of legacies that Rhodes produced: a general, a post-colonial, a post-imperial, and a higher education one. Could you elaborate on these different types and what they mean? Maybe you can also tell us how you plan to include them within your research.
If we engage with disputes about colonial history, the historical legacy of Rhodes differs in terms of debates about the empire in South Africa and the United Kingdom. This reflects the diverse intersectionality of colonial and national history in each country, but also national politics. The reconsideration and re-articulation of Rhodes' role in South African history have been driven by both the apartheid regime and its fall in the early 1990s. Rhodes’ legacy in South Africa is innately connected with the development of the post-colonial South Africa state and shifting perceptions of post-apartheid politics and identity. For example, the campaign to pull down Rhodes’ statue on the campus of the University of Cape Town was driven not just by a collective revulsion at the celebration of a man so strongly connected with colonialism in South Africa, but it also reflected growing tensions regarding the ruling African National Congress (ANC) party.
It is noteworthy that the original #RhodesMustFall campaign was driven by ANC activists as well as students on the University of Cape Town campus who sought to create political capital. The #RhodesMustFall campaign was thus part of a much broader political movement which sought to address how the legacies of empire manifested in contemporary South African society. The #RhodesMustFall campaign in South Africa connected with a broader political response to the memory of empire, reaching beyond the campus across South African society. As such, Rhodes provided a focal point for a broader review of the post-colonial South African state across many of its higher education institutions and society more widely.
In the United Kingdom, the #RhodesMustFall campaign centered around the University of Oxford, which is widely perceived as an institution that symbolises elitism. Notably, the original activists leading the Oxford-based #RhodesMustFall campaign were mainly international students, many of whom were – somewhat ironically - Rhodes scholars themselves, who came from countries affected by British colonialism. The British #RhodesMustFall campaign highlighted the connected and contagious nature of transnational debates about the legacies of the British Empire. As such, it was both a politicised debate and shared many structural contours with the post-colonial history wars in South Africa.
However, #RhodesMustFall did not garner the same level of public support as in South Africa, either within the University of Oxford or across British society more widely. And while it did resonate politically, it was a debate constrained by the perception of the University of Oxford as an elitist institution. Additionally, as few British universities have similar colonial legacies or statues of contentious political figures, it did not trigger a broader debate about higher education. Indeed, while individual universities have re-examined their colonial origins and legacies, instigating reviews and, in some cases, reparations of artefacts collected during the imperial period, this could not be construed as a national movement as in South Africa.
One notable difference in the two case studies is that the #RhodesMustFall campaign in Oxford failed. Rhodes' statue remains, and although the university has made some adjustments to the way it commemorates Rhodes, his legacy still looms over the university.
A. E: In your opinion, why did the campaign fail in Oxford? In your paper, you also plan to look at Rhodes’ legacy in Scotland. Could you tell us more about that?
There are two reasons why Rhodes did not ‘fall’ in Oxford. One is simply physical: the statue is about 60 feet up in the building, making it very difficult for activists to reach and pull down. The statue on the University of Cape Town campus was easier to access and attack.
Secondly, there were limits to the way in which the #RhodesMustFall activists managed to stimulate a broader public or political reaction. It is noteworthy that in a city where the university and the public mix freely, the campaign did not stimulate a broader public demand for Rhodes to fall as it did in South Africa. It was a significant issue – that lack of the necessary contagion effect. Another issue was the momentum of the campaign in Oxford, as many university students go home at the end of term and some do not return as they graduate. So, the #RhodesMustFall campaign in the UK faced the significant challenge of frequent changes in the composition of activists, which over time led to a loss of agency.
It is noteworthy that if you compare the #RhodesMustFall campaign in Oxford to what happened with Edward Colston in Bristol, where the statue was pulled down and thrown into the river, the difference in outcome is clear. Firstly, the Colston statue was publicly accessible, and secondly, there was a public revulsion and response in Bristol that did not manifest in Oxford. Additionally, the campaign to remove Colston’s statue was connected to the Black Lives Matter movement unlike the #RhodesMustFall campaign.
The second level that has limited the appeal and agency of the #RhodesMustFall campaign reflects the fact that debates about the British colonial past have become increasingly fragmented due to the process of devolution across the United Kingdom. This distinctive national lens has meant Rhodes is seen very much as representing the gentrified English colonial establishment in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.
In Scotland, particularly, debates often focused on Scottish colonial figures without connecting to the broader British legacy. This is partly due to the strong nationalising effect of the Scottish independence question on Scotland's consideration of its own imperial history. Movements concerning Scotland's colonial past, particularly some of its more resonant aggressor figures, have thus been framed within the context of Scottish, not British, history.
K. S.: What are your personal hopes for your research? Also, what do you think will be the main challenges during your project?
The chapter that I am going to contribute to the project aims to do at least two things. One is to challenge the resonant stereotype of the aggressor being a military figure and to introduce a certain level of complexity into that conceptual lens. I want to highlight the intersection between national European and colonial history, providing a more fluid framework to understand colonial aggressors and the way in which they operate. Aggressors do not necessarily need to come from a military background, and they can use industrial or cultural aggression, too. I am interested in how these different forms of aggression manifest by studying Rhodes. How we frame and understand the aggressor is more complicated than it may first appear.
The second thing I want to address is the resonance of the history wars in different parts of public life and how they manifest differently in different countries with colonial connections.
What we have seen across the so-called ‘British World’ is a real connectivity in debates in countries such as Australia, Canada, the United States, and South Africa about settler colonisation and their legacies, and in discussions about colonisation in Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, and the Caribbean. The intersection between these two debates is often overlooked, as post-colonial revisionism is typically seen in national terms. However, the case study of Rhodes as an aggressor highlights their intersectionality in powerful ways.
The ultimate purpose of my chapter is to consider how the connected conceptual framings of colonial aggressors influence both national European and postcolonial history, but in very different ways. Contemporary historical and political debates about the colonial past produce very different results and generate very different political responses.
Interviewers: Amr Elashmawy and Kai Steinhage
July 2024
Blog post design: Vilma Vaskelaitė
