I believe
that power and dominance is also vital factor in defining and presenting
culture in different perspective. The dichotomy between the defining culture
and observing culture is political and modern concept. David Apter in his book,
“Politics of Modernization” argues that the modernization was born in the West
when the commercialization and industrialization was legitimately connected
with the agenda of economic growth. The role allocation and role
differentiation was considered the first step, which brought the concept close
to the traditional institution and consciously started widening the gap between
the individual and social organization.
Although, the theory of modernization
does not recognized the importance of traditional institution but its adaptive
qualities were seen as a force of modernity during the initial period of time. David
Apter further argues that the success of modernization project depends upon the
role of marginality, accessibility of innovative role and medium of mass
communication.
In short, modernization needs people who
are living in the social structure where order means to obey the customary
laws. The marginalization is the potential ground to generate the support for
modernization easily. The survival of the colonialism was hidden in its
consciously directing process, which enabled the colonial power to redefine the
capacity of ‘marginal man’ and allocation of new role within the traditional
institution created new avenue for this process.
Denying the political agenda with
economic pursuit would tantamount to reject the idea of power and dominance in cultural
milieu in the human society. The most illustrated title “Black Man Burden”, in
which the author, Basil Davidson critically develops his argument on the
colonial efforts in building nation state and reshaping the cultural identity
in Africa and outlines the unintended consequences of colonial interference in
Africa.
Basil
Davidson further blames the colonial powers are responsible for the present
crisis of Africa and analogically describes the process of transition from
Asante nation state to the Asante Empire State. He argues that the “party
political” compartment of parliamentary structure encourages the politics of
clientelism, which attempt to maximize accessibility to resource. He also finds that the culture of clientelism
and the legacy of the nation state are adequately responsible for the series of
dictatorships and socio economic disorder in Africa. The colonial power evolved
many institutions to serve their goal and economic objective. The limited
involvement of African in the political and economic institution excluded them
to experience the transition within them and also at society level. Despite of
being independent states, many are still not able to address the issue of
development, governance, democracy.
The presence of Europe rather colonial
power, in Africa not merely disturbed the basic social structure but also
developed new class in the society. This class was not limited in resource but
limited in understanding the politics of development of the colonial power.
Basil Davidson concludes in his book that “Kinship Corporation cannot produce a
democratic state, whether or not they are disguised as political parties”. The
collapse of social economic structure and mutual understanding between the
ruling kinship corporations is consistently addressing the need of colonial
powers. The nature of the nation state and absence of mass participation in
Africa are seen as a major reason behind its backwardness. Justifying the
reason of backwardness is almost rejecting the idea of nation state. The Black
Man Burden is not an Africa’s problem but a state of mind, which promotes the
universal clash between the given identity and acquired identity.
Conflict and violence is inevitably
visible part of human society. When we examine the above exemplary explanation
of Africa’s plight in Basil Davidson’s argument, we can easily fix up the
culprit- the European Nations. This is one way to see the reason behind
nourishment of conflict. There are many reasons, many permutation and
combination work behind both popularizing the reasons and also explaining the
truths. Conflict and its escalation demands and commands our attention,
therefore, the Iceberg Model truly represent the idea of conflict and also it’s
underneath causes. The underneath causes are clearly highlights the ways to
understand the conflict in holistic manners and also broaden our understanding
to perceive the relationship of power and dominance in the context of culture.
The conflict and violence is also not free from the culture, because the human
relationship is largely embedded in the culture. The question arises that is
culture always a factor in every conflict? In a broader extent, the culture
plays a significant role in both escalating and diminishing role in conflict
and conflict like situation.
Culture is also potential source of
power and exploitation, oppression and privilege, hierarchy and collectivism.
The legacy of cultural dominance is visible in today how perception of
individual and group is constructed, with different groups’ stands between the
dominant and subjugated arena. Culture is also important component of human
communication and interaction, which is also seen as a source of domination.
Language shapes our understanding and also helps in maintaining and
establishing social hierarchy.
The French Scholar, Pierre Bourdieu
boldly claims that ‘all cultural symbols and practices, from artistic tastes,
style in dress, eating habit to religion, science and philosophy, even language
itself- embody interests and function to enhance social distinction. The
struggle for social distinction, whatever is symbolic form, is a fundamental
dimension of all social life’ (David
Swartz; Culture and Power- The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu).
The relationship between culture and violence is positively correlated but this
does not mean that every culture promotes violence.
The presence of dominance and power
breeds the causes of conflict and violence in any society. To understanding the
nature of violence and conflict, we need to have cultural lens, but we also
need to understand the spectrum of violence in the broader manner. Generally,
the culture centric approach fuels the tendency of narrowness and makes the
individual and group not to think beyond their own perceived idea of violence
and conflict. Even the concept of violence means that there is physical hurt or
physically molested. A different expression ranges from emotional and verbal
abuse, racial discrimination, sexual discrimination.
There are many valid reasons behind
the occurrence of violence and the culture of dominance play vital role in the
reasons. The violence and violent like situation occurs in many ways, such as,
·
When
the dominant groups take the advantage of legal or extra legal institutions to
create boundaries of subjugation for the “other groups”
·
Prevalence
of separate and unequal treatment, e.g., slavery, castes, sex, and age based
segregation
·
When
the dominant group try to erase other’s cultural or identity related boundaries
and integrate subordinated group
·
Elimination
of subordinate group erupts violence
In one of the paper (Culture,
Violence, and Inequality; Yasmin Jiwani, Ph.D), “Culture Violence and
Equality” this has been acknowledged that ‘Violence is about power-the power to
control, subjugate and dominate others, and to violate their dignity,
integrity, and sovereignty. It is the power to deny a people or a group the
right to exist as they wish and to oppress them. This is the same violence that
we see enacted within the context of gender relations, intra-nation relations
(between groups within a nation), and international relations between
countries. What signifies violence in these contexts is the power of one party
over another. That power can take a discursive form (through the use of verbal threats,
sanctions) or it can manifest in armed conflict and war. Those who are most
vulnerable to violence are groups, individuals, and countries which have less
power, low status, and limited access to resources or recourse’
