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.