Let us Pontus Pilate
all the unmentionable sins
discolouring our p(s)alms
as we recognize that
The niggers of the universe
come in all shades
and that universal suffering
is the colourless man’s burden.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
What are the hegemony defining institutions?
There is a certain correlation between the state-running institutions and the institutions that define the hegemony. (I am obviously using the term hegemony as defined by Antonio Gramsci.) The state is run by a government, administered by ministries and financed through and by a series of financial institutions. None of these (government, bureaucracy and financial institutions) define the boundaries of political thought. Hence the correlation is not direct. Rather it is co-dependency that relates them. The relationship must be investigated by any person (or party) that seriously seeks to change society. For the sake of simplicity we must assume that our analysis is based on the democratic model, although many of the same characteristics are pertained in a dictatorship. However, the complexities of influencing the hegemony in a dictatorship needs to be studied by more intelligent people than myself. As the liberty of assuming democracy, truly a liberty indeed, has been taken, we can proceed.
As the hegemony defines what is politically imaginable, any political party that operates outside this given spectrum of ideas cannot be elected. The hegemony defines the discourses and the political arguments that breach this accepted set of words, expressions, ideas, etc. become invalidated – unlistenable. Since political parties are elected by the electorate based on the “soundness” of their arguments it is vital that the hegemony is as much in tune with ones political views as possible. The less in tune they are, the less likely one is of obtaining support. The political parties who are in tune with the hegemony can thus change society in their own image, thereby further strengthening the hegemony. Those political parties outside the hegemony, however, find themselves incapable of changing society, and, being forced against the wall, must either change themselves or challenge, that is attempt to change, the hegemony. In order to do this it is vital that one understands which institutions build, strengthen and hence possess the potential for tearing the hegemony down and rebuilding it.
These institutions must, ipso facto, be the institutions of words and thoughts. Such institutions would therefore include, in order of bottom to top: schools, ranging from first grade to university; labour unions and other similar social institutions; publishing houses; think tanks; the media, be it television or “the press” in all its forms; and finally political parties and their discussion forums, debates etc.
Although the top, ie. the later mentioned in the list possess the most direct influence, in the classic sense, they are almost completely dependent on the “lower” hegemony to institutions. That is to say that politicians, the media, think tanks, publishing houses etc. are completely dependent on an audience. This audience must, in a sense, have been raised. From this one can deduce that the hegemony is formed in and by the education system. Hence pedagogue is the very science of hegemonic alteration. Change in thought, as with most other forms of change, has a bottom to top structure, whereby the teacher, in the concrete rather than abstract sense, has the pivotal role. A person taught, from the age of six to eighteen (or more), that the world is flat, will have great difficulty changing his mind when informed by a newspaper later in his life that the world is in fact round. Likewise a person educated on the roundness of the earth will, with a flick of the wrist, denounce the journalist who fraudently reports on flatness.
As the hegemony defines what is politically imaginable, any political party that operates outside this given spectrum of ideas cannot be elected. The hegemony defines the discourses and the political arguments that breach this accepted set of words, expressions, ideas, etc. become invalidated – unlistenable. Since political parties are elected by the electorate based on the “soundness” of their arguments it is vital that the hegemony is as much in tune with ones political views as possible. The less in tune they are, the less likely one is of obtaining support. The political parties who are in tune with the hegemony can thus change society in their own image, thereby further strengthening the hegemony. Those political parties outside the hegemony, however, find themselves incapable of changing society, and, being forced against the wall, must either change themselves or challenge, that is attempt to change, the hegemony. In order to do this it is vital that one understands which institutions build, strengthen and hence possess the potential for tearing the hegemony down and rebuilding it.
These institutions must, ipso facto, be the institutions of words and thoughts. Such institutions would therefore include, in order of bottom to top: schools, ranging from first grade to university; labour unions and other similar social institutions; publishing houses; think tanks; the media, be it television or “the press” in all its forms; and finally political parties and their discussion forums, debates etc.
Although the top, ie. the later mentioned in the list possess the most direct influence, in the classic sense, they are almost completely dependent on the “lower” hegemony to institutions. That is to say that politicians, the media, think tanks, publishing houses etc. are completely dependent on an audience. This audience must, in a sense, have been raised. From this one can deduce that the hegemony is formed in and by the education system. Hence pedagogue is the very science of hegemonic alteration. Change in thought, as with most other forms of change, has a bottom to top structure, whereby the teacher, in the concrete rather than abstract sense, has the pivotal role. A person taught, from the age of six to eighteen (or more), that the world is flat, will have great difficulty changing his mind when informed by a newspaper later in his life that the world is in fact round. Likewise a person educated on the roundness of the earth will, with a flick of the wrist, denounce the journalist who fraudently reports on flatness.
Friday, September 14, 2007
On morality and circumstance
Is a moral man in an immoral system, that is a man who breaks with the immorality of the system yet still works within its confines, a moral man independent of the system or is he merely moral when contrasted to the system? Phrased differently - is personal morality dependent on circumstance or is morality independent of circumstance? This is a difficult question, and one for which I have no good answer, but the question is nonetheless worth investigating.
Take for instance the jailor who befriended Nelson Mandela. (If we indeed are to believe his version of events. For the purpose of argument, let’s accept it.) In his story he is portrayed as a moral person because he deviates from the norm. He is a firm believer in Apartheid, and works for the inner echelons of the security system, yet he doesn’t exhort to extraordinary violence – he stays within the confines of what is “permitted”. All his colleagues use that extra energy that is “required”. What does this tell us about him? Not that he is moral, nor that he is non-violent, in fact all it tells us is that he is obedient and has a firm belief that the racist system can function without the use of excessive violence. He is in fact just following the law that is made by an immoral system. The fact that he is not excessively immoral does not make him moral, only apparently so as he is, by degree, more moral than his fellow immoralists. Furthermore, as he loses faith in the system and sees the wrongs that are committed he hopes that it will end, yet he remains a jailor. Still, for reasons that are not clear, we perceive him as the good guy. Why? Is it perhaps that he doubts? Is it that he wills the system to end? But as they say – action speaks louder than words – and by this standard this jailor is so silent you can hear a pin drop. If he was so feverishly against the system could he really defend the fact that he was working for the very system that had held Nelson Mandela in prison for 20+ years? “I want to witness history unfolding,” he says (perhaps not in those exact words), and this is supposed to make us feel sympathy – and in a sense we do. But has this anything to do with morality? If he really wanted to make a change, based on moral grounds, he would leave his job in protest. He doesn’t – he risks nothing – he stays. Yes, he befriends Mandela. Yes, he is not as bad as the other jailors. Yes, he hopes Apartheid will end. But does this make him good or is this only a fata morgana produced by the circumstance of Apartheid?
Take for instance the jailor who befriended Nelson Mandela. (If we indeed are to believe his version of events. For the purpose of argument, let’s accept it.) In his story he is portrayed as a moral person because he deviates from the norm. He is a firm believer in Apartheid, and works for the inner echelons of the security system, yet he doesn’t exhort to extraordinary violence – he stays within the confines of what is “permitted”. All his colleagues use that extra energy that is “required”. What does this tell us about him? Not that he is moral, nor that he is non-violent, in fact all it tells us is that he is obedient and has a firm belief that the racist system can function without the use of excessive violence. He is in fact just following the law that is made by an immoral system. The fact that he is not excessively immoral does not make him moral, only apparently so as he is, by degree, more moral than his fellow immoralists. Furthermore, as he loses faith in the system and sees the wrongs that are committed he hopes that it will end, yet he remains a jailor. Still, for reasons that are not clear, we perceive him as the good guy. Why? Is it perhaps that he doubts? Is it that he wills the system to end? But as they say – action speaks louder than words – and by this standard this jailor is so silent you can hear a pin drop. If he was so feverishly against the system could he really defend the fact that he was working for the very system that had held Nelson Mandela in prison for 20+ years? “I want to witness history unfolding,” he says (perhaps not in those exact words), and this is supposed to make us feel sympathy – and in a sense we do. But has this anything to do with morality? If he really wanted to make a change, based on moral grounds, he would leave his job in protest. He doesn’t – he risks nothing – he stays. Yes, he befriends Mandela. Yes, he is not as bad as the other jailors. Yes, he hopes Apartheid will end. But does this make him good or is this only a fata morgana produced by the circumstance of Apartheid?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)