Rhetoric and Reality of Power: On Institutions and Power!

                                                                                                  John Samuel

Rhetoric and reality are in eternal competition when it comes to legitimation of power in and power of institutions!

Obama Rhetoric is one thing and reality is another. Rhetoric and reality often do not match in politics. The fact of the matter is once a politician get in to driver seat of a government, he/she is often driven by the power-matrix and logic of a particular nation-state. In spite of all pre-election rhetoric and promises, most of them get entrenched in to the dominant ideology and logic of power of a nation-state in a given context. While there can be incremental change in the policy options, by and large almost all of them follow the  'status-quo' of ideological and power-equations of the nation-state. That is why there was not so much of huge difference even when NDA was in power in Delhi.  And one did not have any illusions about Obama rhetoric, as he too is driven by the logic and dominant ideology of USA- as a nation state. That has been the story- so far, and that will be story even now.

I have never been formal student of history, though an ardent reader of history of institution, ideas, ideals and power. And this is what I have learnt from history:

1) In any forms of institutions ( family to government to a corporate or NGO), power operates at three levels- at the level of a set of dominant 'ideals', predominant 'interests' and ' identity'-which together make the power-matrix within a given institution- and the predominant ideology that drive the institutions.

2) Institutionalised forms of power often thrive by promising 'freedom' and invoking 'fear'.

3) Institutions tend to thrive providing 'security' and 'services', that address a threshold level of psychological and physical need of people involved in the given particular institutional- and institutionalised 'arena' of power.

4) All institutionalised forms of power creates its own sets of 'myths'- to 'sustain both 'power' and status' by a combination 'collective', 'consesus' and 'control'

5) Once power get institutionalised and entrenched, it requires a 'legitimating' and 'legitimising' rational of 'language'' symbols' and 'argument'- along with its 'totems' and 'taboos'. These narratives of legitimation of gets codified as 'ideals'- to conceal the dominant interest that operate in the 'foreground' and background' of such ideals. In the beginning those 'ideals' got legitimised by the dominant institutions of power- and then got sanctified'- as myths, symbols, icons, behaviour, beliefs and rituals- and that is how most of the religions got established.

6) When religions themselves established as the most dominant and dominating forms of power, counter discourse begin to emerge, and alternate forms of power get constituted.

7) And when an 'institutionalised' forms of power gets less 'consensual' and 'collective'- and fail  to provide 'security' or 'services' to the stake-holders , the performance quotient of such power decreases and leading to 'legitimacy' crisis, paving the way for another set of legitimating ideas and ideals- and physical ( war) or societal forces( revolutions). And in the history every now and then highly institutionalised and saturated 'power-matrix' get contested and another set of 'rationalisation' of power emerges.

8)The present forms of 'nation-state' is simply a form of institutionalised power that too thrive on ideals, interests and identity( language,territory, religion, coloure and creed). And 'liberalism' ' socialism'' communism' are rationalised 'knowledge' arguments to legitimise one or other set of power at given point in time and space. All institutionalised forms of power tend to maintain the 'status' quo- through negotiating between ideals, interests and identity- and by a mix of 'security' and 'services': whether it is family or 'governments'

9) As longs as an institution is able to ensure 'security' 'service'- 'collective' legitimation- and threshold level of consensus, people tend to 'confirm. When these core 'performance' of institutions get compromised change is imminent, either through violent reaction or 'revolution' or by 'peaceful' transition or transformation.

10) Human beings don't live by bread alone. So in spite of 'interest' people do need 'ideals' and 'identity' for a sense of 'belonging' to an institutionalised form of power to feel 'free' and 'secure. And hence all institutionalised power needs 'vision', 'values' and a 'sense' of mission, though many of them happened to be 'games' of language to 'reveal' and 'conceal' at the same time.

This is often what happened and happen to all institutions- and 'institutionalised' forms of power, from family to government, from village community to the nation-state

Epiphany of Economic Growth in 1992? : Notes on Indian Economy

                                                                                                         John Samuel

 

Is it true that Indian policy makers and the Finance Minister of India all of a sudden got an epiphany that resulted in dramatic economic growth in  1992? No! It is not. And still the latest issue of The Economist tends to preach Indian policy makers about the need to accelerate the economic growth that appeared on the Indian horizon in 1992! The problem with the recent lead article of The Economist ( September 29, 2012) on India is that it tends to sell more myth on economy and politics of India, rather than an informed analysis of India’s economic or political history. And this is not the first time such myths were pedalled with veneer of analysis  from London.  India, the erstwhile 'jewel' on the 'crown' of the British Colony, managed to survive and thrive as a functional democracy, in spite of all the predictions of dooms and dissolution by a cottage industry of Euro-American pundits in the 1950s-1970s. The general impression is that India witnessed a dramatic economic growth all of a sudden in 1992 when at last Manmohan Singh appeared on the scene.

The Economist  repeats the  same lie spread by the so-called 'reform' ( whatever it means!!) minded journalists, who conceal more history rather than reveal. The foremost lie is that India has begun to 'progress' only in 1992!!! The second falsification is that India's balance of crisis (1991) was due to the so-called 'Hindu' growth rate. The third propagated myth is that Nehru was responsible for the 'stunted' growth. Many of those who do not bother to recognise India's social, political or economic history   tend to spread the utter lie that Manmohan Singh began to 'save' India in 1992- and before it was all the so-called 'Hindu' rate of growth. The problem with the e free market' ecomistic-evangelists  are that they read history as per their convenience and their 'empirical' data for dressing up  their  pet argument  about the epiphany in 1992. In the process the tend to ignore the depth and breadth of the political and social history of the country.

 

It is not to say that there was no economic reform in 1992; it is also not to say that the then Finance Minister Manmohan Singh did not have role. It is simply to say there was a larger political economy and political history behind the shift- and the shift was partly due to political and economic compulsions of the Narasimha Rao government, rather than due to the Finance Minister he chose to develop or implement the policies. The fact of the matter is that India has been growing steadily and building institutional and knowledge capacity ever since 1950s- and the growth accelerated in the 1980s- as India achieved a certain optimal level of internal productive and knowledge capacity to produce, consume and also to market. So let us look at the myths perpetuated by the ‘reform’ evangelists . In any case, Manmohan Singh also not appeared on the scene in 1992, he was behind the curtain ever since 1970s. It is  a lack of appreciation of the complex politics and history of India that tend to attribute India's economic growth to few policies and a fine gentle man!!.

 

The economic growth of India has not dramatically got accelerated in 1992!!

Atul Kohili has very well argued this in a well researched paper published in EPW (2006, April):

 

“A number of scholars have in recent years demonstrated that, though growth in manufacturing in the 1990s was somewhat lower than in the 1980s, the shift in growth trend since 1991-92 was not statistically significant [see e g, Nagaraj 2003, and Table 3 in Part I of this paper]. The stunning fact is then this: in spite of all the noise about reforms – for and against – the growth rate of India’s manufacturing industry was not influenced all that greatly by the reforms. The real break in growth occurred around 1980. Since then nothing dramatic has changed in terms of the aggregate outcomes.The growth data is further supported by employment data: employment in manufacturing remained constant around 12 percent of the workforce during the 1980s and the 1990.

"The “big bang” rhetoric of a dramatic policy shift aside, India’s economic policies during the 1990s altered only incrementally, responding to objective changes, the evolving views of key policy makers, and to a variety of political pressures " ( For more details read- Atul Kohli , EPW, April 8 ,2006 )

Here are the three myths entrenched in the lead article of  The Economist.

1) Myth number one: Few leaders in 1947 chose to make India democratic. This is a typical 'narrow' and 'shallow' reading of the history by a significant number of journalists in the global North! This position tends to reduce the struggle for Independence to few political 'elites' - Gandhi and Nehru. The fact of the matter is that struggle for India's freedom began in the 1850s and became a mass movement of struggle for the people to demand freedom, dignity and rights. India's struggle for Independence was on the one hand a social reform movement and on the other hand one of the best example in the recent history of massive trend to democratisation of society and broader political process owned by a large section of people. With all its problems of cast, creed, religion and language, there is nothing similar like India's freedom struggle in any of the colonies or for that matter elsewhere in the world. India's political party process too evolved through such broad based political process. If India' still remains a relatively vibrant democracy and the only one continued democracy of any decolonised country in the 1940s to 60s, the credit goes to the broad political and social process that got entrenched over a period of 150 years in India- and not because of two or three political elites. It is also Birsa Munda, Ambedkar, Ayyankali, Phule, Pandita Ramabhai, Sree Naryana Guru Vakkom Moulavi and umpteen number of local social- and cultural activists(including socialists, communists and even 'communalists' or conservatives) who authored story of a socially and politically vibrant India.

 

2) Myth number 2: India began to economically 'grow' only in 1992, under Manmohan Singh (it is interesting that this myth does not even recognise the role of Narasimha Rao- as if Finance Minister of the country decides the policy choices!!!). First look at the pattern of economic growth from the early 1980s. Then it would be crystal clear that the growth in 1990s was simply a continuation of the pattern rather than the new 'break through' to 'progress'. When India became Independent the 'growth'  rate was zero. The British left a country impoverished and  divided. The only positive residue of the British rule was the institutional, rail and legal residues they left behind that helped to have a primary institutional infrastructure and bureaucratic( particularly civil service) to build a system of governance from the day one. I And it from that zero growth rate  India began to wake up and slowly and steadily built the social, economic and political foundations (with all its problems). In the 1950s and 60s, there was a cottage industry of economic and political 'scientists' predicting  the doom and dissolution of India- and governance 'experts' saying that India was too large, complex and diverse to govern or even to think of a 'functional ‘democracy. The 'Economy mists' 'advice' for India may be treated in the same legacy of the 'western' 'academic' gaze of India or for that matter China.

 

3) Myth Number 3: It is Nehru who did not have an 'economic' vision. This is the most well known non-sense of an utter lie. Nehru did have a political, social and economic vision. If Nehru did not invest in education, generation of power, core industrial base, science and technology, India would not have been able to even compete in the global market place.What was the story of countries which were' opened' up for America and Europe to sell? None of these countries (particularly in Latin America, Africa etc) developed their own productive or knowledge capacity. One of the reasons that India could compete in the 2000s is that Nehru's insistence on investing in higher education, engineering, science and basic framework for industrialisation. Even in the so-called Hindu growth period, India produced its own cars, buses, trucks and trains. India produced high quality engineers, scientists, researchers and economists. It is this industrial and knowledge capacity invested over a period of thirty years that helped India to compete relatively better than other countries.

 

Look at the most of first generation entrepreneurs in IT or other fields emerged in the 1980s, and 1990s. All of them are 'desi' products- products of the Indian Universities or institutions. Whether they went to Silicon Valley or UK (Laxmi Mittal) or became wealthy in India- all of them owe their education and capacity to the economic vision of Nehru who realised that basic knowledge and technological capacity is what make a nation to compete economically.

If today, Tata, or Mahindra could make all the Japanese, American or Koreans cars to run for money, it is because India also had a relatively protected and vibrant private sectors nurtured under the Nehruvian policy. If there are a vibrant outsourcing of IT and allied fields, it is also because of the relatively higher investment in higher education.

 

If India has Amul- one of the most celebrated brand  and India had a Varghese Kurian in the 1960s-1970s who transformed India's productive capacity, that has nothing whatsoever to do with epiphany in 1992!. In fact, if India opened up for the MNCs in the milk or agricultural sector in the 1960s, India would not have developed the technical competence or even institutional infrastructure of the white revolution.

The key challenge for India is to develop the very Indian model of economic growth- based on the productive capacity, knowledge competence and technological breakthrough. India has to invest more in science, technology and create more incentives to ensure that it becomes the real 'software' powerhouse of knowledge, technology and basic capacity. India can only sustain its economic growth when it is based on productive, human, social and political capabilities. India does not have to be too 'closed'. India does not have to be bureaucratic. India can open its doors to investment provided we have our own economic, technical, human, natural resources; provided that India can indeed grow in an equitable, inclusive just and sustainable manner. And the last thing that Indian policy makers should listen to is the 'advice' of the Economist variety!

What is people-centred advocacy?

                                           

John Samuel

http://www.planotes.org/documents/plan_04302.pdf

We have not made a single gain in civil rights

without determined legal and non violent pressure…

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor;

it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Martin Luther King

Be the Change you want.

Mahatma Gandhi

Advocacy means amplifying the voice, but the

fundamental question facing activists is whose voice and

for what purpose. Across the world large numbers of

people are marginalised and unheard in the corridors of

power. Advocacy can work to amplify their voices,

however, this aspect of advocacy is often less understood

or put into practice. Advocacy is more often perceived as

a systematic process of influencing public policies. Yet,

while policy change is

necessary, it is not sufficient to

transform the structures, attitudes, and values that are at

the root of societal inequities and injustice. Instead a more

people-centred approach focused on social transformation

is needed.

Characteristics of people-centred

advocacy

People-centred advocacy is a set of organised actions

aimed at influencing public policies, societal attitudes, and

socio-political processes that enable and empower the

marginalised to speak for themselves. Its purpose is social

transformation through the realisation of human rights:

civil, political, economic, social, and cultural. Peoplecentred

advocacy is by the people, of the people, and for

the people. Hence, it is the spirit of democracy that drives

the very idea of people-centred advocacy.

A ‘people-centred’ approach acknowledges the critical

role of citizens. However, it seeks to go beyond the

framework of a ‘State-Citizen’ axis to the arena of the

people that include both citizens as well as

disenfranchised people not recognised by the state as

citizens. That is why the term people-centred, instead of

citizen-centred is preferred. As Mikhail Bakumin pointed

out ‘No state, however democratic… is capable of giving

the people what they need: the free organisation of their

own interest from below upward, without any

interference, tutelage or coercion from above. …no

state… in essence represents anything but government…

by an educated, and thereby privileged minority which

supposedly understand the real interest of the people

better than people themselves.’

1 Hence, people-centred

advocacy is about mobilising

the politics of the people to

ensure that the

politics of the state is accountable,

transparent, ethical, and democratic. It is a mode of social

and political action.

Ethical choices

In people-centred advocacy

being is as important as

becoming.

• Unless one believes in a cause, one cannot advocate for

that particular cause. Integrity and legitimacy of

advocates are what provide moral force to advocacy.

Hence, it seeks to bridge the gap between the words

and the deeds; theory and practice; rhetoric and real

life experience. It stresses that unless you challenge and

change yourself, you cannot change others.

• People-centred advocacy stresses the

compatibility of

means and ends

. Unjust means can never be used for a

just end. In this sense, people-centred advocacy seeks

to change unjust power relations through non-violent

direct action.

Rights-based approach

People-centred advocacy encompasses a rights-based

approach to social change and transformation.

• People are not passive beneficiaries or charity seekers

of the state or government. The state’s political and

moral responsibility is to guarantee all human rights to

all human beings; particularly the right to live with

dignity. Hence people have a right to demand that the

state ensures equitable social change and distributive

justice.

• Citizens are the owners of the state. Hence, the state

should be transparent and accountable to citizens and

defend human rights. People-centred advocacy

1

M. Bakumin (1873) Statism and Anarchy, translated and edited by

Marshel S. Shatz, Cambridge University Press, 1990. p. 24.

Citation: Samuel, J. (2002)

What is people-centred advocacy? PLA Notes, 43: 9-12

xxx

mobilises people and civil society against societal

violations of human rights.

• It seeks to bridge the gap between micro-level activism

and macro-level policy change. It stresses a bottom-up

approach to social change rather than a top-down

approach through macro-level policy change. It seeks to

strengthen people’s participation in the process of

policy making and implementation.

Political perspective

• People-centred advocacy seeks to go beyond the idea

of

advocating on behalf of the marginalised to the

practice of enabling and empowering the

marginalised

to speak for themselves

.

• A value-driven process, it works to challenge and

change unjust and unequal power relations, e.g.

patriarchy at every level of society; from private to

public, from family to governance. Values of social

justice and human rights are at its core.

• It seeks to go beyond a state-centred approach to

social change and politics to one shaped and led by the

people. Grounded in the right to democratic dissent, it

also includes the responsibility to work for just and

viable political and policy alternatives.

Integrating principles

The three integrating principles of people-centred

approaches are:

participation, communication and

legitimacy

. They integrate its politics and ethics as well as

the various arenas of advocacy.

Participation

Participation is not a mere strategy to manufacture

consent, manipulate consensus or extract cheap labour.

Participation is a principle based on an

inclusive moral

choice; participation means sharing power, legitimacy,

freedom, responsibilities, and accountability. Participation

is both a principle and means to include as many people

as possible in the process of social change. Built on a deep

respect for plurality, tolerance, and dissent, it also involves

an ability to understand and appreciate differences.

Transparency is a pre-requisite for true participation. In

people-centred advocacy, participation is a crucial means

to initiate, inform, and inspire change in all arenas of

advocacy.

A deep sense of participation and communication help

promote solidarity. Strong social movements sprout from a

cause and identity common to large numbers of people

sharing a vision and passion for change.

Communication

Advocacy is a communicative act and a set of actions that

involves communications designed to promote social

action. Community, collectivism, and communication are

closely interwoven. The process of advocacy involves

different elements. These include:

Communicate to

Convince; Convince to Change; Change to Commit; and

Commit to Convert to the cause.

Communication is not merely the use of language. It is an

attitude – a willingness to share; to learn; to reach out;

and to speak. The clarity of the message is as important

as the choice of medium. An effective communication

strategy involves the creative use of symbols, language,

information, knowledge, poetry, prose, and politics. The

commitment of the communicator is as important as the

message. Such a process involves learning from people,

sharing with them, and inspiring and being inspired by

them. Advocacy communication needs to be consistent,

continuous, creative, compelling, and convincing.

Legitimacy

Legitimacy is not merely about legality; it is both about

ethics and politics. Legitimacy is not something one

assumes, but something one acquires. Connected to the

perception of power, legitimacy is derived over a period of

time through a series of actions. It is the sense of deep

commitment, accountability, communicability, and action

that help to derive legitimacy. It is both relative and

dynamic, and fosters credibility. Each arena of advocacy

demands a particular type of legitimacy.

Arenas of people-centred advocacy

Defining the arenas of people-centred advocacy helps

clarify the roles and strategies of different set of actors in

bringing about social change. As Figure I shows, there are

four arenas of people-centred advocacy – a) People b)

Public c) Network/Alliance, and d) Decision-makers – that

are linked to each other and overlap at certain points.

People

Key to the process is the arena of

people:

• those who are directly affected by an issue;

• those with whom an organisation or movement is

directly working; and,

• those who identify with a particular cause or issue.

Advocacy work in this arena involves educating people on

an issue, mobilising people around an issue, and

organising a particular group or community for long-term

social transformation. Mobilisation is a continuous process

of interaction, learning, critical awareness, and collective

action. It needs to educate, enable, and empower the

people. Such a process needs a clear political perspective

and a long-term strategy for communication and

participation.

Public

‘The Public’ is one of the most used yet least understood

terms. People-centred advocacy defines the public

principally as the middle class, opinion makers,

intellectuals, and media. Whether as perpetuators or

PEOPLE

a) Affected

b) Directly working with

C) Who identify with the cause

Citation: Samuel, J. (2002)

What is people-centred advocacy? PLA Notes, 43: 9-12

xxx

challengers of the status quo, they play a substantial role

in shaping the political agenda and have the means to

amplify the voice of the voiceless. To be effective,

advocacy needs to tap a critical mass of the public.

Media Advocacy is the strategic use of communication

and mass media to bring an issue into the public arena

and the political discourse. It has two aspects:

• creating news through building collective action; and,

• articulating views through the media (see Box 1).

Knowledge-based activism is an important factor that

influences the public. In the information age, it is not only

the emotional appeal of an issue that matters, but the

overall rationale based on a knowledge-based argument

that makes a decisive impact.

Networking and alliance

The arena of networking and alliance is important for

sharing resources, coordinating multiple strategies, and

involving a large number of actors in advocacy.

Networking widens the outreach and helps to build up a

multiplier effect in terms of impact and public discourse.

Advocacy seeks to integrate power of knowledge and the

power of networking. Advocacy is also a process of

negotiating with various institutions, including institutions

of governance. Such a process requires long-term

commitment and optimal institutional and financial

resources. Networking is an important means to synergise

the strengths of both institutions and individuals that

identify with the advocacy cause. Clarity of goals,

compatibility of perspective, and convergence of interest

are crucial for any sustainable networking. It seeks to

bridge the gap between micro-level activism and macrolevel

policy initiative, developing multiple voices and

diverse efforts in favour of the advocacy cause.

Box 1

Both

poetry and politics c a n play a role in developing

communication strategies. In a campaign against a Hydro e l e c t r i c

p roject in Silent Va l l e y, a virgin forest in Kerala India, our

experience validates the power of poetry in influencing the public.

The Silent Valley campaign (1978-83) was basically meant to

p rotect bio-diversity and to raise critical questions about the

n a t u re of development. No community was to be displaced by the

p roject. The entire media, political establishment, and trade

unions were for the hydroelectric project. Yet over a period of time

four poets and five poems changed the public mood and political

context. The poems caught the imagination of the young people,

and many were mobilised through the People’s Science

Movement. Media could not aff o rd to ignore the concerns of

such a large number of middle class youth nor the opinion of

poets, writers, and intellectuals. This created one of the first public

discourses on the environment and sustainable development in

India during the late seventies and early eighties. Advocacy

strategies focused on the public arena can influence all other

a renas substantially.

Figure 1 Arenas of people-centred advocacy

NETWORK /

ALLIANCE

(Social Justice and

Human Rights)

Legitimacy

PUBLIC

Middle class, Media, Opinion

Makers, Writers,

Intellectuals etc.

DECISION MAKERS

Government, Socio-cultural

Institutions, Local Self

Government, Corporators,

Religion etc.

PERSONAL

VALUES

Citation: Samuel, J. (2002)

What is people-centred advocacy? PLA Notes, 43: 9-12

xxx

Decision makers

The decision makers are those who have authority to

make decisions and influence power relationships. This

includes not only state policies, but also those who have

the power to make decision in socio-cultural institutions,

corporations, religious institutions, etc. There are multiple

arenas of power and institutions that influence public

policies and social attitudes. For instance, many of the

religious institutions and practices perpetuate

discrimination on the basis of gender and cast.

Lobbying is a strategic process of convincing those in the

corridors of power to make decisions or to exert their

influence in favour of an advocacy cause. It is a rational

process of making a convincing argument, using

information and knowledge. However, the real bargaining

power of a lobbyist comes from people, the public, as well

as the process of networking. A people-centred

perspective insists that lobbyists should be grounded in

real life experience, and have an organic relationship with

grassroots movements and the credibility and legitimacy

that comes from that relationship.

Power, politics, and policy

Public policy is a function of the dominant politics. Politics

is a dominant set of power relationships, so there is a

need to understand the link between public policies and

political process on the one hand; and political process

and power relationship within the society on the other

hand. An issue needs to be framed the way people feel

and perceive it. An issue is a social, economic or political

concern or phenomenon, which affects a large number of

people over a long period of time. It needs to be

understood in terms of power relationships within the

society, politics of the state, and policy priorities.

One of the key problems in most of the countries in the

Global South is the increasing gap between policy rhetoric

and real implementation. Radical sounding language is

increasingly used to gloss over deprivation, injustice, and

inequality. Through the co-option of language, symbols,

and institutions that claim to represent civil society and

the marginalised, decision makers tend to create more

and more

policy mirage. Policy mirage is a public policy

statement, which articulates a lofty vision and principles

for change, without any clear programme to move toward

that vision and without any budgetary allocation to

implement the policy. Such policy mirages create illusions

of change while perpetuating the status quo. Hence, there

is a need to understand and change a public policy in

terms of policy direction, relevant legislation,

accompanying programme, implementing mechanisms,

and most importantly, financial allocation.

People-centred advocacy always considers every aspect of

policy, process, and negotiation in terms of the real impact

it can bring to the lives of the poorest. Every action needs

to be inspired and informed by Mahatma Gandhi’s

talisman:

I will give you a talisman… Recall the face of the

poorest and the weakest man whom you may have

seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is

going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything

by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own

life and destiny? Then you will find your doubts and

yourself melting away.

Monsoon Magic

Walking in the drizzle

Walking on wet grass

Feel of sapling

Fleeting shadows of clouds



Sun and rain

Ever playing hide and seek.

Dancing in the rain

A romance for ever

Murmurs of leaves,

Swaying plantains

And drunken trees

Enthralled green of paddy

The jingles of streams



The ripples in the pond

And flow of the river

Smell of fertile earth

Green intoxications

Embrace of the wind

Seeds waiting to sprout

Springs spiral down the hill

Music of the flowing water



Nostalgia of a monsoon romance

Makes one fall in love again and again!

Monsoon magic!
In Gods own country!!

Notes on

Politics and Culture of New Media and Social Network (Malayalanatu lecture at the Indian Association Sharjah - 10.6.2010)

                                                                                                                                John Samuel

a) Phase of Profound transition- Technology, Communication, Language and Power.

The mode of technology influences the modes of communications. The modes of communication influence the modes of perception, thinking and knowledge. The modes of communication, thinking and knowledge influences the modes of institutionalisation. The modes of institutionalisation influence the modes of economy and power. The modes of economy and power influence the modes of political configuration. And the dominant power formation seeks to influence the world through the control over technology, language, communication and knowledge process. The history of the world is not merely the history of class struggle. It is also a struggle to control the world through the ‘words’- through language, communication, and knowledge. All governments are run with ‘rule’ of ‘law’ and rule of ‘money’. The ‘rational’ – ideological, social or political- are always a ‘rational’ of the ordering of the words. The ‘grammar’ of power is often maintained through the ‘grammar’ of words, sword and trade-in that order. Language matters. Communication is the life line of power. And when the technology and communication change, the power configurations also change. That is what the history of the world in the last three thousand years indicates.

We are living in the midst of a profound transition in the history of technology, communications, and knowledge process. It is the invention and innovations of printing press, bible translation, and later on development of lexicography and languages that determine the knowledge, political and institutional process of the last four hundred years. Without printing and the dissemination of knowledge through the printed words and books, the history of communications and knowledge would not have been the same. The development of grammar in many ways is the ordering of power. In that sense the ‘grammar’ itself is a sort of ‘standardisation’ technology of language- where language can be interpreted, translated and reproduced in a predictable way. And anyone beyond the ‘standardised’ language becomes an ‘anomaly’ – and with relatively less power. It is through language that all the power structures and empires established the hegemony over the thinking and knowledge. The ‘purity’ and the ‘divinity’ of the language is through which most of the religions established the power over communications, thinking and interpretations. Hence, Sanskrit, old Hebrew, or Arabic became the language of ‘divinity’. The moment there is control over the language, there is better control over communication, perceptions, interpretations, thinking and actions. The biggest contribution of Buddha was in challenging and changing the ‘purity’ and ‘divinity’ of Sanskrit (symbol of hegemonic or brhaminical culture) in to ‘prakrut’. This challenging of the ‘devaa vaani’ of Sanskrit (culturally superior language with an order grammar- and power) in to ‘prakrut’ in to the ‘natural’ language that human beings speak was not only a linguistic revolution, but also a cultural revolution, religious revolution and political revolution. Because, the Buddha sought to influence the mode of communication, thinking and actions of human beings as well as the society.

In so many ways, the process of Bible translations unlocked a process of knowledge by making the Bible available in so many languages – and consequently opening the flood gates of interpretations and challenging and changing the institutional monopoly of the Catholic Church in interpreting the Bible. This relative de-monopolization of knowledge and possibilities of multiple interpretations that gave rise to the spread of language, communication and knowledge process from the 16nth century onwards. The printed world provided the incentive for literacy and consequently the spread of education. And the spread of education provided the base for spread of knowledge as well as institutional process. It is such a revolution of and in languages and the consequent possibilities of interpretations that led to a paradigm shift in human thinking, knowledge process and actions in the history of the world in the last four hundred years. This had profound consequence in the history of knowledge, institutions and politics. In many ways, the migration of a very significant number of puritan Christians from England to America had its linguistic as well as knowledge connotations. All empires ruled through the control over the technology, language, law, interpretations and institutions. The control over technology and language provides a space to rule by coercion as well as through building consent through a mix of language, knowledge and institutionalisation of both. The dominance of English is ‘standardised’ through grammar and modes of communications. And the dominance of English was established through the institutional network of colonial linguistic, knowledge and political process.

b) The age of Internet

We are going through a phase of history where there is a paradigm shift in the modes of technology, modes of communication, modes of thinking and actions. The internet as a mode of communication with its origins in the US defence establishment unleashed a paradigm shift in the way we communicate, think and act. The internet – like the printing press- profoundly influenced the modes of communication, modes of language and modes of thinking and knowledge process. With the last fifteen years, more than 1/3 of the humanity has access to internet. With the explosion of mobile technology, this would almost double in years. There are more than 5.2 billion mobile subscribers in the world. Last year alone people send more than 3 trillion mobile messages and within a couple of years 500 million people joined face book to communicate and out of this 74% log in to their face book account once in a day. This massive paradigm shift influenced not only our communication patterns, but also our behaviour patterns, sociology and politics of human relationships and eventually culture, institutions and society itself.

 Just twenty years ago, human beings knew how to write long letters to their dear ones. Inland and post card in many ways opened up modes of intimate communications between the loved ones.  And today, Inland and post card became almost ‘archaeological’ artefacts. So is the Remington typewriter.

c) Social and Cultural consequences of the new communications.

Today people fall in love over few words in SMS or couple of phone calls. People simply break relationship over SMS. The new technology provides ‘detached’ as well as ‘intimate’ options.

The new modes of communications provide new spaces for ‘individuation’. On the one hand individual – end up as a lonely person in the physical sense- and on the other hand he or she finds people to communicate beyond the usual time zone or space constraints. In the same house, people get less time to speak to each other or even argue or fight with each other. Everyone is busy communicating with an imagined or project person on the net far away- through multiple modes of communication. A large number of young people today access news, views and information through the internet. It is a Google and Wikipedia generation. The extent of communication has increased though the quality of intimate human to human communication has decreased. The quantity of information load and consumption of information has increased and the quality of knowledge process in many ways decreased.  This ‘individuation’ of communications will have very significant influence over the sociology of family, relationship as well as the political process in the city.

d) Politics of new media and social networks

In spite of the ‘individuation’ – eroding the ‘speech community’ or ‘organic forms of intimate human communication- new forms of ‘imagined communities ‘get formed over virtual spaces.  Human beings invented new spaces of ‘individiated’ as well as ‘anonymous’ communications mode giving rise to new forms of human relations beyond space. For example, today a very significant number of marriages happen through these virtual spaces- formal as well as informal. This has also created ‘communities’ of interests, identity and ‘ideology’, language over the net. While it opens up new channels of communications, it also begins to constraints virtual spaces around identities of language, interests, and ideology (religious as well as politics). While it helped to opened up new ways of expressing protests and democratisation, it also gave rise to new forms of conservatism. Anders Beverick (who bombed the government headquarters and killed around 80 people) in Norway is a telling example of this. The various conservative as well as fundamentalist networks also make use of these spaces in subversive ways. While such spaces open up the possibilities of a new politics, they also paradoxically capable of depoliticising a generation.

In 2011, there were more than 80 protests by young people across the world. There was one thing in common with the kind of protests happened. It is often the young people, often with middle class background and access to internet and who are not a part of any formal political parties who got mobilised through the new modes of communications. This modes of mobilisation- using social network and others modes- is indicative of the shape of politics in the coming years. So in a way the shift in communication changed the way the protest happens- through networked society. Here, there was not ‘structured’ leadership or structured or cadre organisations. The movement spontaneously erupted- in a ‘decentred’ yet networked way. There was no single ‘charismatic leader’ to mobilise. In many ways, it challenged and changed the modes of modernist organisations (as theorised by Marx, Max Weber or others). In many ways, the Obama moment in the politics of USA also indicate this paradigm shift. Because, Obama does not come from the ‘structured’ institutional space of the Democratic Party. In a way, he is a product of a networked society and his campaign was built on the internet spaces and his ‘democratised’ fund raising through internet raising millions of dollars for the campaign. During the last earthquake in Haiti, American Red Cross raised more than 8 million dollars within days over the twitter. In India, we had a politician who climbed the ladder of popularity fast through his ‘twitter’ following and also in the ‘ladder and snake’ game of politics, he lost the minister ship through the very same ‘twitter’ trap.

Today, the blogs, independent websites, face-book and twitter has changed the media scene. Information monopoly of the media monopolies are over. In the next fifty years, the printed news paper may disappear. The monumental documentation of knowledge, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, stopped printing hard copies. Today increasing number of people use ‘kindle’ where one can have access to hundreds of books within seconds or minutes- beyond time and space constraints. This revolution in New Media and Social Network will have immense implications to political and social process.

This shift also began to shift the mode of governance. Today the mantra is e-governance. This also means the ‘privacy’ of an individual is gone. With biometric unique identifications at the airports, at the government office, at the bank, every movement and behaviour human beings are tracked. The use of credit and debit card opens up whole new dimensions where the sociology, politics and behaviour of human beings – as individual or collective- can be tracked and interpreted. This on the one hand provides new ‘security’ and ‘freedom’ to people and paradoxically it makes everyone in to an ‘impersonal id’- alienating the ‘real’ sense of human freedom. This also will provide new means to control people and society, giving new forms of ‘techno- imperialism’ at multiple levels.

However, the new modes of technology also provide a space for citizens to monitor and challenge the government. The ‘wiki-leaks’ would have been impossible twenty years ago. Today in Kenya, citizens monitor the schools and hospital through mobile phones. Mobile phones have become a powerful weapon in the hands of ordinary people to expose corruption and also to monitory governance. Hence we have moved from representative democracy to a monitory democracy where citizens begin to challenge the government.

In the next fifty years, the present institutionalisation forms would dramatically change. The cadre modes of ‘structured’ political parties will begin to dissolve and eventually wither away in a new modes of networked and ‘inviduated’ society. When the modes of communication and mode of thinking change, the ‘structure’ of thinking as well as the ‘structure’ of organisation also changes over a period of years. In a way, part of the problems in all the ‘structured’ cadre parties of India is indicative of this paradigm shift that has already begun at multiple levels.

While the dominance of the world by few powers had always a technological corollary, the politics of technology may give rise to shift in the power configuration of the world. The Mongols captured the world, by innovating ‘horse breeding’ technology and gaining new modes warfare. The empires of Portugal and Spain sought to control over the world through innovating the shipping technology – by harnessing wind energy. The British sought to control the world through the control over the technology of ‘steam’ and ‘steel’. In many ways they were in the business of ‘stealing’ the steel and ‘steam’ (coal) from India and many countries. When ‘steam’ (or coal based technology) was overtaken by the ‘petro-technology’, it dramatically changed the modes of transport, modes of trade, modes of economy and modes of power. And the power shifted to those who controlled the ‘petro-technology’ ‘petro-dollar’ – and the trade network. The emergence of USA as  a super-power to a large extent based on this new control over technology in the post-second world war and in the post-modern times. However, it is quite possible to have a post-petro- technology, most probably based on solar energy or even a mix of  a tamed electro power, and this shift in the source-technology of ‘power’ also will shift the power of technology as well as technology of power.

So there could be a significant shift in the way we do communicate, organise and live within the next fifty years. In the year, 2060 0r 2080, most of the present political parties may not survive the way we know them. This would also give rise to entirely different forms of education, doing business and organising government.

The politics and culture of new media and social network are still in the transition phase of evolution. This would indeed profoundly shift the political and cultural space – including the modes of literature, in the next thirty years.