THE INDIVIDUALS VERSUS THE COLLECTIVE

By Saif Ali Premji

Introduction

The concept of cultural domination is not an alien one; over the course of centuries it has been witnessed that a multitude of cultures have been wiped off the face of the earth and have been replaced by singular hegemonic cultural systems, this can be widely noticed in today’s somewhat monocentric world. The domination of culture by a particular group to oppress weaker cultures is a historical phenomenon and has been taking place as a form of ideological control in societies for eons. Empires, religions, and other ideological superstructures rise and tend to engulf other smaller segments of society and the dominant cultures may never be affected by this cataclysm. We have seen this form of cultural domination take place in the ancient world by the Greeks and Romans and further by the Imperialist powers of Europe such as the British, French, Germans, or Spanish. In the case of the ancient empires, they would control on the basis of war and military strength, where they would infiltrate other territories and set up their own form of governance and hegemony which had to be adhered to. Furthermore, when we talk about the imperialist powers of the world and how they implemented cultural control on the places that they eventually dominated, it is very different from that of ancient civilizations, first of they did not wage war to implement their culture or use their military power as a tool for cultural domination, rather they used economic superiority to infiltrate their way into imperialized territories, by first controlling the factors of production in a country (under the emblem of free trade) and then infiltrating their way into the bureaucracy as well as other major functionalities of the state. These imperialist powers further used an idea of “civilizing the people of the third world” to implement their tools of cultural control, which majorly consisted of introducing their own language, a system of education, and in many places their own religion as well which were previously unknown concepts to the people being colonized. Hence through this form of cultural domination the

Photography by Mustafa Jawed

colonizers would ensure that the importance of the multiple and segmented cultures previously present in the society would end and all would adhere to the dominant culture they have set in their colonized society. Further, this study will define the aspects of cultural domination on the basis of four principal ideas i.e. belief, explanation, perception, and values: the manipulation of these ideas is what leads to cultural control. Belief: is obviously the acceptance of something being true without having to rely on empirical evidence; explanation: refers to the way in which culture will understand, describe and clarify facts which may be laden with cultural bias as an explanation is subjected to interpretation; perception: is the processes of analyzing sensory information in order to understand the environment around us and values: are synonymous with an ethic which may be of a religious nature for some cultures or maybe absolutely constructed by the society a culture belongs to, we can also define them as the actions people believe are best to undergo or what way to live is thought to be the best.

The work of sociologist Stuart Hall

The work of sociologist Stuart Hall, who takes into consideration the concepts of cultural hegemony and how it links with cultural studies, highlights the danger of an extremely sluggish type of pluralism. He cautions of an 'overwhelming textualization of cultural studies' that transforms control into a simple signifier and the field of cultural studies into a vague study. In light of the fact that Hall has had a noteworthy impact in establishing Cultural studies, spreading over from his part at the Birmingham Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies in the 1970s through to his continuingly persuasive work today hence we absolutely have justifiable reason to expect that he would not wholeheartedly support any stance which is against sociological bounds. Hall further asserts in that oppression is not carried out only by the upper class rather it is a cooperative achievement. Hence the Birmingham school of thought believes that cultural hegemony does not take place in isolation rather it must have some sort of consent with the lower classes of a society. One way to accomplish this is through social convenience. In this, hegemonic culture draws parts of different cultures in without permitting them to drastically affect focal thoughts and convictions of the upper class. As a result of this the “bourgeois culture" stops to be completely upper class, it has amalgamated numerous other social components and the subordinated groups and their societies are never straightforwardly defied or oppressed by an upper class cultural system what's more is that they even see components of themselves in the way of life of the upper class but these are merely fabricated elements.Hall asserts another vital strategy through which the predominant class evokes the subordinate's participation is by incorporating their experiences within the emblem of the statuesque it works principally by embedding the subordinate class into the key establishments and structures which strengthen the power and social control of the dominant order. It is in these structures and relations that the subordinate class “lives its subordination” Due to the fact that the subornments must work and have quite a bit of their reality inside associations and structures controlled by the upper class, they have no choice but to adjust to the desires and thoughts of the hegemonic culture.Antonio Gramsci also wrote on the same lines as Hall and added to the Marxist paradigm as he felt that to control a society if was not merely enough just to take over the factors of production he felt that earlier theorist has missed out on the aspects of cultural control i.e. cultural hegemony. Antonio Gramsci also wrote on the same lines as Hall and added to the Marxist paradigm as he felt that to control a society if was not merely enough just to take over the factors of production he felt that earlier theorist has missed out on the aspects of cultural control i.e. cultural hegemony. Gramsci also related his ideas to the cultural and ideological control that the Catholic Church had within his society and he felt that cultural domination was an important aspect to gaining total control of a society. He further asserted that a key aspect of awareness is culture. This incorporates both “Big C” i.e. culture in the aesthetic sense of the word which incorporates language, religion, clothing, food etc. and the “small c” which is attributed to culture and its anthropological aspects. Culture, in its anthropological sense are the thing that permits us to explore our reality, directing our thoughts of good and bad, just and unjust, conceivable and inconceivable. Hence some classes might have the capacity to oppress others however unless this material power is backed up by a culture that strengthens the thought that what you are doing is mutually beneficial, just and conceivable, then any forms of occupation be it on a financial, military or political front will probably be very brief. He further states that imperceptibility is what keeps cultural domination going. Unlike a military which is backed by firepower or a political intuition which derives its legitimacy by a legal constitution, culture dwells inside us. However Gramsci does go on to say that no culture is totally hegemonic. Indeed, even under the most totalitarian frameworks of control, there are pockets of what Gramsci, and later Hall, called "counter-hegemonic" cultures. These counter hegemonic cultures have revolutionary potential since they run counter to the predominant power. For Gramsci, these cultures may be situated in the customary labourer; for Hall they may be found in youth subcultures like

Rastafarians and punks. The theories of philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau have been adopted for this paper to show a historical perspective of cultural control with reference to the social contract theory and the theory of the general will. Rousseau’s school of thought propagates those ideas which are used as the very base of cultural oppression today for instance Rousseau accepted that all individuals are fit to make ethical decisions which would mutually benefit everyone and that, in the event they did this, they would achieve mutually agreeable ideas in society. Along these lines, in a perfect state, laws express the general will. While citizens might not always be right or even moral, they will aim for justice as long as they pursue the interests of the general population instead of aiming for self-interest or the interests of particular groups in society. Seen from this point of view, the person who breaks the law is acting against the government as well as against the collective interest. In a renowned section of The Social Contract, Rousseau contends that compelling a person to submit to the law is in a manner nothing else than "driving him to be free." On this premise many theorist such as Benjamin Constant and J.L. Talmon have blamed Rousseau for being a forerunner of totalitarian governmental views. This viewpoint can be seen as the collectivism that the dominant classes in societies try to propagate today, especially in positions of power such as the bureaucracy of a state or in positions of governance. Moving on to the second aspect of this study we have tried to relate the ideas of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche to truly understand the importance of forming an individual identity and how it helps in the aspects of human progression. Nietzsche has been an avid critic of mass culture as well as religion, morality and at times philosophy. He has contended that Greek tragedy emerged out of the combination of what he named Apollonian and Dionysian components the previous speaking to gauge, restrain, and harmony and the last speaking to uncontrolled enthusiasm and that Socratic logic and idealism brought about the passing of Greek tragedy. Hence his stance on this matter shows that he believed culture could be whipped out by modernistic ideals such as Socratic logic which he sometimes compared to modern ideologies and propagated that they have a detrimental effect on harmony, individual expression and emotion. Furthermore when we talk about the importance of the individual identity and the implementation of such for the progression of the human race we can relate this to Nietzsche’s idea of the “Übermensch”, as portrayed by Zarathustra, the primary character in “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, it is the person who will take risks just for the purpose of the improvement of mankind. Contrary to the normal man whose sole longing is his own solace the Übermensch is somebody who can set up his own particular values in the world in which others experience their lives, frequently uninformed. This implies an Übermensch can influence and impact the lives of others. As it were, an Übermensch has his own qualities; free from others influence however others’ lives may be influenced by the Übermensch. Further the Übermensch is somebody who has an existence which is not just to experience every day without any implications but rather is lived for the purpose of humanity and societal progression. In Nietzsche's view an Übermensch ought to have the capacity to influence history for an indefinite period, he will continue reemerging and effecting other individuals minds and influences their thoughts and values. To look at this cultural hegemony from a postmodern lens the theories of Foucault, who describes culture as an organization perpetrated by a hierarchy of values, which is reachable to everybody, but simultaneously the juncture of a mechanism of selection and exclusion is implemented. This is close to the notion expresses by Hall as he believe that the subordinate class could see assumed similarities within their own cultures and those that were being imposed on them. He even felt that the things that made up culture were somewhat constructed by society in terms of values ideals and morals. Foucault characterizes morality as an arrangement of qualities and rules for activity which are proposed to people and classes by differing foundations, such as; the family, education systems and religious institutions.

Forms of Cultural Dominance

Photography by Mustafa Jawed

Our main question is does cultural domination truly affect the development of a self-identity within the individuals of a society? Firstly after laying down the frame work to analyse this assumption we must go about it in a systematic way. Pertaining to Hall’s theory we can see that the methods of manipulating the four basis set for cultural domination i.e. belief, explanation, perception and values are present; furthermore we can see the historical implementation of this form of cultural dominance especial in context to a colonized state. We have seen that colonizers have given members of the subordinate class positions in establishments and structures which strengthen the power and social control of the dominant ideology. We have seen how this internalization of the statuesque takes place and how it is a continual technique used by the dominant class to impose their culture on other classes within society. Furthermore the amalgamation of culture also takes place in many societies where the dominant class uses a mixture of cultures to create one which will be adhered to and this one amalgamated class upholds the values that are of the utmost importance to the dominant class. Hence the new culture is relatable and yet fulfils its purpose to be culturally dominating. For this we can use an example from the recent elections held in the U.S.A and how the propagated ideals of the Republican Party are those that a majority of the country related to and felt that would bring about a positive change. . After the unsuccessful government of his predecessor it was easy for the republican candidate “Trump” to propagate ideas that were culturally relatable to the people of the country all the while still maintaining the hidden agenda that comes along with the amalgamated culture. This was a tool used to collectively control the people and bring them towards mutual agreeability. Furthermore we can say that this ideological control may have brought the country together but this collectivism may only be detrimental to them in the long run. Furthermore implementing that collectivism is a passage to the greater good for society is a farce, in actuality all collectivism does is uphold the values that are a part of the dominant discourse in society.

Collectivism never focuses on the minorities of a society or the persecuted class of a society rather it only focuses on the dominant voices that are present in society. Furthermore we can even safely say that a collective ideology does not eve work in favor of the majority within a society as it just excludes them further from the other segments of society and due to a lack of social cohesion there may be stagnation present within a society. We can see this through the concept of ethnocentrism, for instance if the upper-class propagates that in a pluralistic society the dominant culture will consist of only one predominant religious sect (which is the case in Pakistan) there will be cultural isolation and this may lead to violence or further degradation of the other faiths within the society. Further the puppet mentality that cultural domination brings with it is only beneficial to the classes that are propagating this ideological control it is not for the people actually living in the society. The oppression that they face in the society will start to transform into norms for them as the new culture they are adhering to will ideologically reinforce that their oppressed position is acceptable in society. WE can infer that the propagation of a greater good scenario is not always ideal for the individual in society, we can take the case of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, where the country was governed on the basis of a collective ideology and culture and how the Aryan race and culture was propagated to be supreme however this was not an ideal situation for all that were present in society. There are countless examples of how a collective hegemonic culture which is imposed by the dominant class has been absolutely detrimental for a society and has caused noting but stagnation and degradation for the society and the human condition. Concepts such as ethnocentrism and extreme nationalism have caused society to falter during a time of human progression. We can relate this principal to religious basis of culture as well, for

instance during the Iranian revolution 1979 a collective ideal of the supremacy of Shia Islam was used to manipulate people into adhering to the ideas set by the dominant clergy at the time, although on the basis of ideology and culture this was a religious uprising, there was an obvious political and power centred agenda that was hidden under the veil of religion. Hence we can conclude that are first preposition is plausible in the context of history and from a theoretical perspective as well. Now moving on to our second assumption, if the formation of a self-identity is a crucial element in helping society progress in the future? We have established that cultural domination prevents the formation of the self-identity however the importance of this is debatable. Yes some theorist seem to think that it is a crucial element in the way of societal improvement and human progress however there may be some contradictions to this theory as well. For instance the idea of an individual adhering to his/her own system of values and morality within a society may be seen as some form of anarchy, where the laws of the state and norms of society mean near to noting to such individuals. This may escalate to a point where even the most initial and basic norms of society may not be followed. If we lived in a system where the self-identity was rampant how would the world cope to such a sociological change? Furthermore in Nietzsche's view of the Übermensch; he proclaims that the Übermensch will construct his own values and ideals and will not be affected by cultural control however this superior human specimen will be the one who influences others with his own personal values. Hence this may lead to another form of cultural domination where the dominate class will be full of people who resemble the ideal of Übermensch and the subordinate class will be the rest of the people in society who can and will be affected by cultural control.

CONCLUSION

To conclude we can safely say that proposition one can be proven plausible and the detrimental nature of cultural domination can be seen from a historical as well as a theoretical perspective. However due to a lack of apt data and of course the inability to see the impact of the formation of a self-identity it is hard to prove whether or not the second proposition is plausible, hence this paper will leave it inclusive. The paper has realized the true nature of cultural dominance and how it emerges within society. It has also uncovered what tools are used to implement this form of cultural dominance. The essay has also justified the adverse effects detrimental that this domination of culture has on the individual’s identity and how the domination of culture has left people inert however it is inconclusive whether self-identity is beneficial or detrimental to societal progress.

Page updated

Report abuse