Culture of Dissent - Essay Example

Culture of Dissent In the broadest possible spectrum cultures of dissent are organized by groups of people who disagree with a predominant ideology. Historically they form their own groups and voice their protest, thus their dissent. The first usage of the phrase “culture of dissent” found while researching this paper was referring to John Keats, and his voicing his political concerns via his poetry (Roe,2005). More recently the term has been used to define those who protest against abuses by the Catholic Church (Novak, 2002). But use of the term has broadened considerably and for the context of this paper refers primarily to dissenting voices of individuals against abuses by a nation’s own government, or against nations or world powers, and most specifically; the United States. Superficially it appears almost as a case of the “have nots” complaining about the nations that appear to have it all. But when one delves deeper into the topic there are some valid complaints. Among the cultures of dissent focused upon in the weekly readings and related ones are: neoliberal globalization and its affects upon all the nations of the world, the American was in Iraq, the caste system in India and the subjugation of women throughout the world, but primarily in Third World nations. “Critical Views of the World Social Forum – From Mumbai Resistance” was written by Pao Ching following his participation in the Mumbai (India) Resistance conference of 2004 and the World Social Forum held the same year. “The initial purpose of the World Social Forum was to provide a space for anti-globalization activists to meet and exchange ideas,” Ching states in his document. Additionally it was intended to show that social issues were just as important as economic matters. According to Pao Ching there were six particular resolves to the Mumbai Resistance conference, the most relevant one to this discussion that while the World Social Forum pointed out damage from globalization it was unable to analyze the underlying cause. The Mumbai Resistance blames the damage directly on capitalism and imperialism. This particular paper was a pretty objective analysis of the two conferences and their determinations. Muto Ichiyo is well known in Japan as a scholar of contemporary Japanese politics and society, and for his involvement in peace movements and people’s movements. He was a prominent member of the 1960s anti-Vietnam War movement. Ichiyo begins his article, “Asian Peace Movements and Empire” with a summary of events beginning in Oct. 2001 and the establishment of the Asian Peace Alliance. As part of that network it was hoped to create a response to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan that was representative of all Asian people. Ichiyo goes into more detail about Asia’s own problems: the nuclear confrontation between Indian and Pakistan, fundamentalist fighting in India, and human rights violations among others. But in analyzing the conference on Asian Peace he acknowledges that 40% of the discussion revolved around “the American War”, with the majority of participants concluding that the ensuing violence against civilians had nothing to do with the wishes of the American populace, but was rather the imperialists justifying a global pacification scheme. He uses the term neoliberal globalization and states the war was integral to that process, and as a result it “wreaked havoc” on the world. One of the most forceful voices in clarifying what all of these writers are saying is that of Arundhati Roy in “The Algebra of Infinite Justice”. Infinite Justice was originally the name for Operation Enduring Freedom until complaints were made by Muslims, who stated only Allah could mete out infinite justice. She begins her article by harshly criticizing the United States for its attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan following September 11. She continues by supplying information about the United States originally enabling these nations to attack the United States by supplying them with weapons and other aid. Roy further continues by stating “the desolate landscapes of Afghanistan…made the space for neocapitalism and corporate globalisation (her spelling), again dominated by America.” Roy ends the paper with questions; lots of questions as to whether or not globalization will make the world a better place for the underprivileged of the world. In her award winning novel The God of Small Things she deals more deeply and a personal level with the caste system, and the affects of colonization on the social structure in India. The message is the same in both her novel and in “The Algebra of Infinite Justice”. It is just worded differently. And as she states in “Power Politics”: “True, The God of Small Things is a novel, but it’s no less political than any of my essays.” And it’s not. It’s just not stated in quite as straightforward a manner. There’s a common theme in all of these readings. All the authors blame neoliberal globalization for many of the world’s problems; primarily in economic aspects but filtering down to the contact and changes globalization causes in social and political levels as well. Big money corporations, and the World Trade Organization, and banking cartels are portrayed as the villains. And most of those appear to be based in the United States. While acknowledging that many of those corporations offer employment to people in Third World countries, the authors question the cost in natural resources and in changes to the social structure of the nations involved. It is a documented fact that wages paid in those nations are in no way comparable to those paid workers in the United States, which itself suffers from a loss of jobs. The sole intent of these corporations is to make a profit for their shareholders, with little or no concern for the inhabitants of the nation other than as a labor source. The entire concept of capitalism thus becomes a focal point of the dissent as well, and the idea of someone making a profit at someone else’s expense. This argument is not presented quite as strongly by any of the authors as it seems they realize that it is capitalism that has given the United States the opportunity to achieve its position of dominance, and a living standard most Third World nations would like to have. While the majority of the dissent mentioned in the articles surround globalization issues and are blamed on ‘super powers’ the authors acknowledge that individual nations need to improve conditions on their own. Some are based solely on the cultural foundation of individual nations such as caste systems and subjugation of women. In making that point they criticize the very nations they consider victims of globalization. There are valid reasons for dissent, and for the cultures that evolve from those organized movements. In the United States in the last century there was the women’s suffrage movement, there were organized protests against the war in Viet Nam, and even today the Pro Life movement holds protests for the rights of unborn children, and gays and lesbians struggle for equal rights. The United States is waging a war far from its shores under less than clear cut rationales. Even considering the fact that an unwarranted attack was made does that give the United States the right to use its superior resources to impose its vision of democracy on another nation? And the list goes on and on around the world. Perhaps it will only be when enough people raise their voices and express their concerns and band together in cultures of descent that those world leaders and their governments will take heed and make changes that are more amenable to all. But that won’t end dissent. There will always be some individual…some group that will disagree or see a better way. Once the hold of communism was lifted from Asia and Europe and individuals were free to speak more and more voices have been raised in dissent. But it’s impossible to please everyone, and so dissent shall continue. Bibliography Ching, Pao “Critical Views of the World Social Forum – from Mumbai Resistance”, Inter-Asian Cultural Studies, vol. 5, no.2 pp. 331-335 Global Exchange, “Against Neoliberal Globalization”, 2001, http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/alternatives/alliance081401.html Ichiyo, Muto 2003, “Asian Peace Movements and Empire”, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Vol.4, No. 3 Novak, Michael, National Review Online, March 2002, http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak032902.asp Roe, Nicholas Summary of John Keats and the Culture of Dissent, 2005, http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/roe/dissentrevs.html Roy, Arundhati, “Power Politics”, Southend Press, Cambridge, 2001 Roy, Arundhati, “The Algebra of Infinite Justice”, Flamingo, London, 2002 Roy, Arundhati, “The God of Small Things”, Harper Perennial, New York City, 1998 World Social Forum, 2004, http://www.wsfindia.org/ Read More