Development of Social Theory - Essay Example

Social Theory POSTSTRUCTURALISM, POSTCOLONIALISM AND THE CRITIQUE OF HUMANISM Colonialism as a Cultural Process Introduction In Europe, fromthe period of the Renaissance, especially during the Enlightenment (second half of the eighteenth century), the idea of the “social factor” in human life was systematically developed. Social theory refers to this distinct and autonomous sphere of social phenomena consisting of the cultural ideas and values of a population, that impact its institutions and traditions, and bring about recurrent patterns of action and advancement. Changes occur because of particular social conditions, problems and contradictions in human life (Scott, 2006: 7, 22). This paper proposes to focus on the developments in social theory during the twentieth century. One of the most important changes in the twentieth century is that the assumption of the classical theorists of the 18th and 19th centuries: that European modernity would be the future of all humanity, came under increasing challenge. The reasons for this challenge and its implications for social theory will be considered. Further, poststructuralism, postcolonialism, the critique of humanism, and colonialism as a cultural process will be discussed. Discussion The British assumption of superiority over the “Orientals” fuelled their colonization, states Said (2003: 31-31). They believed that countries in the East, Egypt, and others were incapable of self-governance, and hence could be brought under imperial subjugation: “which not only is a benefit to them, but undoubtedly is a benefit to the whole of the civilized West”. Their concept was that the colonized had been given a much better government than they had ever experienced in the past, and that the colonizers were undertaking mutually beneficial work. Foucault asserts that the mechanisms of exploitation and domination are closely connected to the mechanisms of subjection. Since the sixteenth century, a new political form of power has been continuously developing. This political structure is the state which focuses on the interests of the total group and also of individuals, an old power technique which Christian institutions originally believed in. This is called the pastoral power, which essentially does not look after only the whole community, but each specific individual during his entire life. Around the eigteenth century, the new phenomenon of individualizing power took place, and in the nineteenth century the struggle against exploitation increased (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1983: 213). “Modernity, which began intellectually with the Enlightenment, attempted to describe the world in rational, empirical and objective terms” (Jones: philosopher.org). It assumed that there was a truth to be uncovered, for obtaining answers to the question posed by the human condition. Postmodernism does not express this confidence and has no certainties. Post-structuralism can be seen as the theoretical formulations of the post-modern condition. Poststructuralism in its various forms puts forth a critique of humanism and the related subject of modern liberalism; conceives of Enlightenment beliefs of truth, rationality and autonomy as oppressive, as results of a mistaken conception of human subjectivity, and as colluding with wider forms of power and domination. The crique of humanism ignores the vital need of the colonized for reconstruction of subjectivity, identity and experience (Anderson, 1992: 64, 70). For a democratic social world and mutually transforming reciprocal recognition, in which humanism is acknowledged, poststructuralism should be modified for flexibility. At the turn of the twentieth century, many bourgeois Europeans expressed hope about the modern world in which they lived. The political revolutions in America and France at the end of the previous century promised a new and better world, as did the great economic revolution that was then spreading from England across modern Europe. “Democracy in politics, capitalism in the marketplace, and science in culture” offered the prospects of a better world, as it appeared on the surface (Lemert, 1999: 2). However, for most people, beneath the hope lay anxieties about the human condition which appeared to be harmed by the modern world. There was destruction brought about by the modern world: throughout the twentieth century, lands were taken to build the railroads that were crucial for the development of the factory system. In America, native civilizations were destroyed for the purpose of progress. After 1853, much of old Paris was destroyed to build the boulevards and monuments that are today mistaken for traditional structures. Modern progress includes the rebuilding of cities vertically, to deal with increasing urban populations. This entails the tearing down of traditional structures and way of life. Thus, modernity can be defined as “that culture in which people are promised a better life: one day” (Lemert, 1999: 3). Until that time, people have to endure contradictory lives in which the benefits of modernity counter the losses that are brought about. There was no guarantee of a future pay-off for the loss, destruction and changes that had to be accepted. These were the cultural conditions prevailing in the modern West from 1848 to the first quarter of the twentieth century, which was the classic age of modernity and of social theory. Change became a practical and professional necessity during this period. Sigmund Freud and others while telling the story of the modern West, gave both sides of the story: the apparent story of progress and the beneficial society and the suppressed story of “destruction, loss, and the terror of life without meaningful traditions” (Lemert, 1999: 4). The oppression of particular races to serve the market in a newly capitalist world: in the fields, factories and homes, is yet another aspect of modernity’s destructive force. Racial, class and gender divisions became a part of the split life of the modern world (Lemert, 1999: 5). Social theorists try to determine whether these degradations are a cause or effect of modern life. Colonialism as a cultural process: Modern European colonialism which occurred for a period of over three centuries, spread European culture to a large part of the globe. In the nineteenth century, many of the public and private rituals of modern life became visible in colonial nations. For example in India, there was increased interest and development of the four basic genres of modern expression: “the novel, the biography, the autobiography and history” (Chakrabarty, 2000: 34). Simultaneously, there was the appearance of modern industry, technology, medicine, and a colonial legal system supported by a nationalized state whose history had Europe as a theoretical subject. These institutions underscored the postcolonial transition. Thomas (1994: 33) signifies colonialism to be a complex process in which dominated populations are represented in ways that legitimize racial and cultural differences. Further, colonialism is considered to be a cultural process, as well as political or economic relationship. According to Loomba (2005: 16), it is more helpful to think of postcolonialism as not just coming after colonialism, marking its demise, but more flexibly “as the contestation of colonial domination and the legacies of colonialism”. This is supported by Mishra & Hodge (2005: 377), who add that postcolonialism is related to the concept of modernity. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the developments in social theory during the modern era starting from the Enlightenment. Poststructuralism, postcolonialism, the critique of humanism, and colonialism as a cultural process have been discussed. The reasons for contesting the assumption of the classical theorists that European modernity is the future of all humanity, have been put forth, the destruction, loss and anxieties caused by modernization, have been considered. The implications for social theory is that continual progress and struggle against oppression have been the hallmark of civilization from the earliest times. References Anderson, A. (1992). Cryptonormativism and double gestures: the politics of poststructuralism. Cultural Critique, 21, Spring 1992: 63-95. Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: postcolonial thought and historical difference. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Dreyfus, H.L. & Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Jones, R. Poststructuralism. Philosophy since the Enlightenment. Available at: http://www.philosopher.org.uk/index.htm Lemert, C.C. (1999). Social theory: the multicultural and classic readings. United Kingdom: Westview Press. Loomba, A. (2005). Colonialism/ postcolonialism. United Kingdom: Routledge. Mishra, V. & Hodge, B. (2005). What was postcolonialism? New Literary History, 36 (3): 375- 402. Said, E.W. (2003). Orientalism. Toronto: Random House. Scott, J. (2006). Social theory: central issues in Sociology. London: Sage Publications Thomas, N. (1994). Colonialism’s culture: anthropology, travel, and government. New Jersey: Princeton Unversity Press. Read More