Cultural hegemony and “Massa” ideology determine how we think

Jun 22, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I find it interesting that so many speak of change and so many agree that so often change has to come from within the individual as well as influenced by the social circumstances within which we find ourselves. There is also a saying that as we act to change our objective conditions of existence those changes turn around and effect changes in ourselves. However, sometimes the circumstances change but our thinking does not. Very often our thinking goes against our own and our collective interests but we do not even recognise this.
We think in a particular way. We think within a particular system of Logics, a specific paradigm. It allows us to arrive at certain conclusions which we accept to be true. The question is even though we think what we know is true, do we ever accept the possibility that our conclusions can be wrong; how we view things could be wrong.
The usual approach is for us to accept to be true that which we accept to be true and reject that which opposes what we accept to be true. But how can we be so sure. Should we not in a controversial situation question what we know as we question that which opposes what we have accepted to be true? But we generally do not do that. So how can possible change take place? How can we be so absolutely sure that that which we know is the truth as opposed to that which confronts what we have accepted?
This calls for a conscious decision to try to learn the basis of the ideas that confronts our. It’s easy for us to ask questions that would bore holes into the ideas that confront ours. We ask the questions that does just that. But should we not ask questions to more understand where the opposing views are coming from and in that way have two set of ideas in our mental system and so we can reject ours or the other or synthesize them.
Do we ever ask ourselves where our ideas come from? Does our brain generate these ideas in the same manner as the liver produces bile? Is it simply coincidence that so many others think in the same manner? Or is it that we were socialized; that we were indoctrinated; that the basic paradigm within which we think, the system of logics that we utilise were as a result of conditioning.Have we ever examined who controls the major instruments for the dissemination of information? I believe if we did we would realise that 90 percent of it is controlled by the one percent who owns and control most of the wealth.
So do we think they would have a reason for manipulating the information? Would they want to disseminate information that would encourage or facilitate our ability to question the present status quo? Or would they disseminate information to make us feel that the way it is, is the only way it can be or should be. Would they want to disseminate information that would demonise any possible alternatives in order to prevent cracks in the system that benefits them?
In this way we may have internalised a system of thinking that serves to defend the interest of the ruling class while we would have lost sight of our own interests. I am sure we have heard of the concept “house slave”. They usually identify with the interests of Massa. Well there is another interesting concept, “cultural hegemony”.
Wikipedia dictionary defines Cultural hegemony as, “The domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of that society – the beliefs, explanations, perception, values and mores – so that their imposed , ruling class world view become the accepted cultural norm; the universally dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as an artificial social construct that benefits only the ruling class”.
Does this educate us to the fact that the working people would have internalised an ideology that is opposed to their own economic interests and circumstances. So the problem is, i guess, is the merger of our information base, a product of cultural hegemony and our ego. And so we tend to defend our information as if we are defending ourselves.
This obviously precludes any change as whenever the information we possess is questioned we instantly move to defend instead of deliberately learning that which opposes Massa’s information. We need to bear in mind that Massa is a minority and to maintain supremacy Massa has to weaken the exploited and what better way than using race, religion, tribe and more recently gender. In Guyana it was easy to use race,
We have internalised Massa’s ideology so we do not identify as workers. Ideas and systems that benefits workers have been demonised. We are divided because of race consciousness. We have to find some way to kindle class consciousness as the stronger class interest grows the weaker race interest become. Weaker, as they are inversely proportional, but the hegemony of the ruling class prevents us from developing class conscious.
As we become conscious of this situation we need to commence serious questioning of what we have been taught, what we have internalised and make a special effort to learn the opposing views that may very well reflect our real interests. This is the only approach that can facilitate changes in our selves, in our approach and in the way we organise ourselves. This kind of discussion needs to be continued. I am hoping that there would be some response.
Rajendra Bisessar, BSc LLB

---

---