RESPONSE TO DR AZLY RAHMAN'S MANTRA OF THE SUPER CORRIDOR

DR AZLY RAHMAN, FROM THE REPUBLIC OF VIRTUE BLOG, REGULARLY STRESSES ON UNDERSTANDING THE SO-CALLED POSTMODERN WORLD THROUGH THE NOTIONS OF CULTURAL IMPERIALISM & HEGEMONY.

BELOW IS MY RESPONSE TO HIS MANTRA OF THE SUPERCORRIDOR PIECE.


If you talk of cultural imperialism and manipulation from above, then it will be important to look closely at the 'raw materials'--the needs, interests, and culture of the people--that are being manipulated. Hegemony must not be understood from the viewpoint of those implementing the strategies of rule by consent.It must also be seen from the perspective of the masses that are the target of manipulation.Hegemony is always in the process of becoming, as it is always being influenced and moulded by the needs and interests of the grass roots.The grass roots are not passive beings. They are 'live' people with particular needs and interests.Thus in order for strategies of rule by consent to be successful, they have to accommodate those needs and interests of the grass roots.Are the puppet masters manipulating the show or are they being manipulated to manipulate the show in a certain way.If the strategies of rule are influenced by the grass roots, doesn't it imply that the grass roots is essentially right wing in nature. That would be the implication.In Malaysia, Umno's policies can only be understood from the perspective of its members who constitutes the majority in the country.You have to take the local culture of the dominant ethnic group and its relationship with the other ethnic groups into consideration. The works of Pierre Bourdieu on habitus and field would also come into relevancy for such a study.And how the Umno members interact with the others greatly influence the process of creating a viable and suitable form of hegemony.I think it would do you good if you were to come back to Malaysia and spend say three months to six months in a kampung such as Permatang Berangan or Bumbung Lima in North Seberang Prai. I think after spending that time there you may want to revise your theories on cultural imperialism and hegemony.If you 'bracket out' (to use a Husserlian termilogy) the scheming from 'above', you will see the stark naked interests, needs, and aspirations of the grass roots.You will see things a bit differently: that the grass roots play an active role in determining what these hegemonic constructs should be.If the grass roots in this country is essentially right wing, conservative, and retrogressivein nature, then what hope is there for progressive change?The answer is none, unless the grass roots wants to have progressive change.But then what is 'progressive' to them may not be to you and me.

The model of an elite-led revolution, I would argue, is no longer suitable or even desirable in the new millennium.With the arrival of IT, there are new centres of resistance to hegemony or strategies of rule from the above-be it in the form of cultural imperialism or other modes of domination.This is where the methodological tools of social history pioneered by EP Thompson and new theories of power relationships popularised by Foucault become useful.


One of my favourite works is Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit Of Capitalism', which presents a very persuasive argument on the role of religious/cultural forces in transforming the social and economic order.At the turn of the 20th century, Zhou Shuren, a Chinese studying medicine in Japan, saw pictures in a newspaper of Chinese prisoners about to be beheaded by the Japanese. Surrounding the scene were other Chinese, laughing and mocking at the prisoners.It was at this moment that Zhou Shuern decided to become a different type of doctor, one who diagnoses the ills of society.Zhou Shuren adopted the pen name Lu Xun and started to write stories that criticise the thousand-year-old Confucianist tradition in China. The most famous story he wrote was 'The Real Story of Ah Q', a penetrating criticism of that type of mentality that brought Imperial China to its knees.The "Malaysia Boleh" spirit is a classic example of the Ah Q mindset. Features of such mindset: never admit mistakes, never admit defeat, never encourage criticism, promote cover ups, as face saving is more important, and always tell grandeur stories about yourself.And when you tell lies too often, you will soon believe in the lies also.Mao Dun, Lao She, and Bing Xin soon joined Lu Xun, who together exerted enormous influence on the May 4th movement and the origins of the Marxist party in China.Later, Mao called Lu Xun the heart and soul of Chinese literature.Malaysia needs someone like Lu Xun, a literary critic who dares to speak against and make a break with tradition.But I doubt such an individual or individuals would who can inspire positive changes in the mindset and culture of Malaysians would ever come by.Of course, there would be changes in Malaysian society. In fact changes are already taking place.They have been taking place for the past several years, gaining momentum as time goes by.But these changes are not the type that liberal, left liberal, and secular intellectuals would consider as progressive.But remember what is backwards to the liberal and secular intellectuals
maybe progressive to others.

REIFICATION & HEGEMONY

The problem started with Lukacs who talked about reification, a concept drawn not only from Marx, but also from Weber.When the proletariat revolution failed to break out in Western Europe, Lukacs and Gramsci-the founders of Western Marxism-argued that the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat had been fragmentised.Terms such as 'reification' and 'hegemony' were introduced to explain the effects of twentieth-century capitalism on the class-consciousness of the proletariat.To bring about a proletariat revolution, so they argued, a Leninist type of revolutionary party must be formed to guide the proletarian back to true revolutionary class consciousness.But is there really latent revolutionary consciousness that has to be manipulated and neutralised because of the threat it poses to the political status quo?Even if such revolutionary consciousness did exists, as Eduard Bernstein argued, the improved conditions of capitalism of the early twentieth century had made revolutionary struggle an outmoded form of social change. Gramsci realised the problem of an elitist party and tried to come up with a more democratic version of a Communist party, emphasising on the role of factory councils, the importance of working class culture, and the role of organic intellectuals.
The model of an elite-led revolution, I would argue, is no longer suitable or even desirable in the new millennium.With the arrival of IT, there are new centres of resistance to hegemony or strategies of rule from the above-be it in the form of cultural imperialism or other modes of domination.This is where the methodological tools of social history pioneered by EP Thompson and new theories of power relationships popularised by Foucault become useful.

ON SOCIAL CHANGE

The Third Theses on Feuerbach provides a good starting point for understanding Marx.
Sometime in the 1840s, Marx wrote eleven theses criticising Ludwig Feuerbach, a member of the Young Hegelians philosophical school, whose philosophy emphasised on naturalism and materialism.
The Third Theses is particularly interesting because it introduces Marx's views on social change.
Marx wrote very little on revolutionary politics, particularly on the role played by the working-class party in advancing the revolutionary cause.
This subject was left to be developed by twentieth century Marxists such as Kautsky, Lenin, and Gramsci.
A very common view of communism is that it supports an authoritarian and elitist party.
This view is commonly held because all the communist revolutions of the twentieth-century were led by elitist revolutionary parties.
But Marx did not support the role of an elitist party to advance the revolutionary cause.

Until the arrival of Marx, the 18th century philosophers explain social change as stemming from the efforts of enlightened individuals, who somehow could escape from determination by the surrounding conditions.
The 18th century philosophers adopted such an explanation because they adhere to the view that human beings and society are products of conditions (i.e. geography, social situatuion, and education).
If men are the products of circumstances and their upbringing, then how is it possible for them to act on the environment and bring about social change unless the circumstances change by themselves.
But circumstances--the surrounding social, political, and economic environment--do not change themselves.
Thus to explain social schange, Enlightenment philosophy divides society into those enlightened individuals who are free from determination by conditions and those who cannot escape from the fate of being determined.
Since these enlightened individuals are not being conditioned by the circumstances and their upbringing, they know what is best for mankind and can provide the guidance for social changes.
It was against such an elitist conception of social change that Marx wrote the Third Theses on Feuerbach.
'The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated.
Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice'.
In the German Ideology and the Communist Manifesto, Marx talked about the inherent contradictions in the capitalist society, the conflict between the productive forces and relations of production, which engender the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat.
In the German Ideology, Marx wrote: 'Communism is not merely a state to be brought about or an ideal to which reality should conform; what we call Communism is an actual movement which is sweeping away the present state of things'.
Historical materialism and class-consciousness are key tenets introduced by Marx to precisely ensure that his socialism has that scientific basis that would distinguish it from other Utopian socialist beliefs.
(The 'German Ideology', for example, was an attack against the other Left Hegelians such as Max Stirner who wants to impose their ideals on the world)
If there were to be simultaneous changes in both the economic sphere and in the consciousness of people, then the chicken and egg problem of social change will be resolved.
In this Marxian view of history, as the result of the contradiction between the productive forces and relations of production of society, the proletariat achieves revolutionary consciousness and become agents of social change, reducing thereby the role of the party in the revolutionary cause.
An elitist conception of the party goes against the very basic grain of Marx's philosophy of praxis.
Subsequently Marx wrote very little on the relationship between the Communinist party and the proletariat and the strategies of revoltuion.
This topic was to be developed later by twentieth century Marxists such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Kautsky, Luxembourg, Lukacs, and Gramsci.

Zhou Xuan

This blog is dedicated to one of my favourite singers of all time, Zhou Xuan.

Zhou Xuan was China's most famous singer and actress during the period of Japanese occupation of China.

Forever Smiling (Yung Yuen Di Wei Xiao) by Zhou Xuan is one of my favourite song.
It send chills down my spine everytime I listen to it.
It is a love song fill with optimism and hope for tomorrow, although it is written during turbulent times.