DOMINATION THROUGH KNOWLEDGE
(98 April 22)
Some call it neo-colonialism, but I prefer to name it as world imperialism. It operates mainly on three fronts, political , economical and cultural, the latter being the worst. The cultural imperialism is sometimes not felt by us, especially by the ultra westernised people living in our countries. The education is the most effective weapon in the armoury of cultural imperialists.
In our society education is given not only by the schools and the universities but through the political parties, the NGO’s, and the mass media as well .What we learn is what they construct as knowledge. The concepts and the theories are created in the west . Whenever this cultural imperialism is challenged the west comes out with concepts to mislead the rest of the world concealing the fact that the western civilisation dominates the other cultures.
The concept of the clash of civilisations as formulated by Huntington is also misleading in some ways. Any concept coming from the west , especially in Sociology and Political Science , has to be critically analysed before we decide to absorb it into our culture and the associated system of knowledge. Even if it is absorbed it could be modified so as to convey a meaning not found in the original concept.
The west dominates the rest of the world today mainly through knowledge. The capital, the arms and even trade and politics are secondary in the modern context. In all these areas there are concepts and theories through which we are supposed to understand the world. Invariably these theories and concepts are constructed in the west and all we have to do is to follow and propagate what they have created. The so called explosion of knowledge bewitches us and the information technology will only enhance the process, unless we ourselves begin to create knowledge. The contributions made to the western knowledge through our insignificant theses submitted as requirements for various degrees and our imitative research will only make us "important’ among our not so important countrymen . These so called contributions are in general not creative knowledge of very high order. The westerners also know that but they want us as their agents, in our countries, who essentially function as salesmen (and sales women) of their products.
They tell us that there is an objective knowledge of an objective reality. We are not supposed to question seriously this objectivity. However nobody has so far demonstrated "objectively" the existence of an objective reality. Even the knowledge of an objective reality is subjective and has been constructed in a cultural context. In the modern world this cultural setting is nothing but the western civilisation.
The west has control over the economics and politics of the so called third world, which concept is again one of their creations. They not only exercise power over the governments but influence the public opinion and what are known as protest movements. Even revolutions are not excluded. The most radical theory that was created in the western Political Science was Marxism. However Marxism was not effective in the western civilisation. It was meant for consumption in the countries that belong to the other civilisations. What I am trying to say here is that the west also constructs knowledge which is primarily for the others and not for their consumption and that through such knowledge very often they even direct our "protest movements and revolutions". We have to study Marx, Althusser, Gramsci, Lyotard and others from a different perspective.
Consider the concept of civil society and the functioning of the non governmental organisations which are mainly funded by the west in a well planned way. The civil society is supposed to weaken the "government" and strengthen the ‘society’. What is this society which is being strengthened? In which direction do these people want the ‘society" to move? The "civil society" consists mainly of people who are trained in the theories and concepts of the west .Some of them would have had their education in their mother tongue, but nonetheless they would have been brainwashed. Through the ‘civil society’ the west is now in a position to control the protest movements as well, while at the same time influencing the government.
All these movements have one thing in common. They are created in order to work against the nationalist movements or to prevent such movements been formed. While Soviet Russia was in existence and Marxism was the dominating ideology of the "revolution", the nationalist movements of the colonial countries were submerged either by Marxism and/or Western Liberalism. Even in India it was Nehru’s liberalism, a western liberalism with a facade of socialism which became the dominant ideology among the so called opinion leaders.
The dominant ideology of the west has been western liberalism for more than a century. During this period it also created Marxism basically for the other civilisations. The clash between Marxism and Liberalism has been one of ideologies within the same civilisation. Marxism, even if it was victorious in the west, would not have changed their civilisation. In fact with hindsight one can even say that Marxism has been a Trojan horse through which an attempt was made to destroy the other civilisations. Marxism starts with the basic proposition that socialism and then communism are built on what is achieved by capitalism which is a product of western civilisation. The clash between Marxism and Liberalism has been not very much different from that between Catholicism and western science.
However western liberalism was not able to understand the role of Marxism and with the help of the Catholic Church and the civil society created in the former eastern block, the western politicians were able to dismantle the Soviet Union. Of course, the internal inconsistencies within Marxism also contributed immensely to the downfall of the regime.
Once Marxism was defeated as an ideology some people like Fukuyama who authored "The End of History" thought that western liberalism would have no challenge ideologically or politically. However more serious thinkers in their camp, like Huntington thought otherwise. They realised that liberalism may be unchallenged as an ideology within the western civilisation, but it would be under threat from the ideologies of the other civilisations. Huntington has expressed his views on this matter in "The Clash of Civilisations"
Huntington’s main intention has been to warn the western world of the renewed challenge from the other civilisations to the hegemony of the west. He camouflages this by presenting it as a clash of civilisations. It is somewhat like describing the Dutugemunu - Elara war as a fight between two kings for the crown. The historian following the likes of Huntington had deliberately failed to see the difference between the liberator and the invader.
The clash of civilisations of Huntington hides the most salient feature of international politics today. The non western world today is struggling against the hegemony of the western civilisation. In that sense all civilisations are not on the same footing. Today the clash of civilisations is mainly a clash between the non western civilisations and the western civilisation which dominates the former. In Sri Lanka it happens to be Sinhala Buddhist culture struggling against western domination. Tamil racism is also been used by the west in this struggle.
As long as the Soviet union was in existence Marxism with or without western liberalism was able to deceive the people of the other civilisations and pretend as the ideology of liberation. Thus Marxism and/or liberalism were able to keep nationalism at a distance in most of the other countries belonging to different civilisations. Only some of the Muslim countries and Mianmar had been exceptions to this general pattern. In the seventies and eighties even in the other countries there had sprung up groups which realised the poverty of Marxism, and clamoured for nationalist movements.
Even before these groups came into existence, perhaps the western civilisation knew of the impending challenge. The NGO’s and other such organisations were formed to counter such movements and to control the public opinion. Those who worked in these organisations were projected as opinion leaders and they were provided with the ideology to lead the protest movements. As Marxism became ineffective in the ideological and the political spheres these protest movements came to the forefront.
The west also produced another concept to fight against nationalism. Any nationalist movement that the west did not like was branded as fundamentalist ,racist , extremist action groups. They talked of various forms of fundamentalism, but never of the fundamentalist ideologies of the west. Liberalism and Marxism which pretend to be universal are fundamentalist in the sense that they impose their ideology on the others.
While the rest of the world is going through the worst form of cultural invasion in the history under western civilisation through their agents the west was able to brand the others as fundamentalists. Throughout the history civilisations and cultures have borrowed from other cultures. These civilisations and cultures were able to adopt what they borrowed into their systems, according to their wish. The situation is different now. It is not a question of borrowing from the western civilisation according to our wish but of simply following their culture which includes concepts, theories and attitudes the way they want us to do. This is the worst form of fundamentalism as the west wants us to believe that they are right and that the present west mirrors the future of the other countries. Marx was the worst culprit in this regard.
In Sri Lanka also we try to solve the "problems" created by the west through the so called solutions they prescribe. In the process we get more and more entangled in their web allowing them to dominate us. Until and unless we see the world in our eyes the future will remain very bleak.