The Commentator www

Is it music or mental re-programming? [From Main Page]

They continue to urge people to be like them – to be drug addicts. One popular musician urges marijuana (what many Rastafarians call “sensimania”) to be legalized. According to these stupid musicians, marijuana or ganja increases peoples’ brainpower. It makes them more “sensible” (that’s why is called “sensimania”!) They continue to make these outrageous claims, despite everything that science says.

DJ - Capleton

One popular musician urges marijuana (what many Rastafarians call “sensimania”) to be legalized. According to these stupid musicians, marijuana or ganja increases peoples’ brainpower. It makes them more “sensible” (that’s why is called “sensimania”!) They continue to make these outrageous claims, despite everything that science says

Our young people, especially our young males, follow whatever these musicians say. As a result, we have seen an explosion in ganja smoking and the attendant problems. Most of our young people don’t understand the long-term effects of this drug. Most don’t even consider it a drug – thanks to these dumb musicians.

Then we have the aggressiveness that these musicians continue to incite. As our music industry is being taken over by Rastafarians, we see an increase in the level of intolerance in the music. According to these Rastafarians, Selassie is the one and only god. Those who don’t worship him are “heathens” who must be “burnt out”. The bible is the only truth. It must be taken literally and those who don’t follow its commandments to the letter must be killed. Those who are not Rastafarians also continue to incite violence and hatred. Also, as many of these musicians are really criminals, they continue to discourage people from interacting with the police. Those who do are seen as “informers” who must die. What do we se as a result?

Largely as a result of their very successful campaign to re-socialize the Jamaican people, we have seen an explosion of crime and especially murder in our country. If one is a witness to a crime, it is very advisable to tell the police secretly. Even if a person is suspected of telling the police anything – his life may be cut short. Our young people have become very intolerant, ignorant and aggressive. They will kill for the slightest of reasons – like if one is suspected of being a police informer, a homosexual, a “heathen” or “disrespecting Selassie” or disrespecting them.

However, the brainwashing does not stop there. Our young people are also being programmed into rejecting education. To get ahead in life, our women should have as many partners as possible. The more she has the more she will get – more “bling, bling”. For our men – the “one woman thing” can’t work. Needless to say, these lunatics are destroying the very social fabric of Jamaica with their microphones.

But how could these social cancers managed to do what they do, on such a national scale? Without a doubt, the main means by which they have been able to poison the minds of our people is the media. The Jamaica media has truly facilitated the destruction of the Jamaican society. They continue to profit from this destruction, as they are under the strange illusion that all of this madness can be sustained indefinitely.

It is really true, it seems, what they say of us black people. We are a people totally incapable of much thought. We have to be lead, by others. Left to our own devices, it seems that the only thing we can achieve is total mayhem and disorder.

[Back to Main Page]

Punish Corporate Predators: A Jamaican Case Study [From Main Page]

This case study has certainly gone a far way in providing credibility to the saying, ‘”the consumer is sovereign” in a free market economic system. This truism is also applicable to the relatively poor consumers of the inner city market. The phenomenal performance of Digicel Jamaica was attributed to their deep understanding of the Jamaican consumer, especially those ranked among the poor and disadvantaged. This was made possible by the employment of one of Jamaica’s most respected marketer. Digicel Jamaica was positioned as a company that understands and cares for Jamaica and the Jamaican people. Now the company has become known as much for their vibrancy and innovativeness as for their commitment to the development of the nation through technology transfer, economic development and social development (CMC, 2005[iv]; Observer Reporter, 2005[v]).

According to the Digicel Jamaica website (at http://www.digiceljamaica.com/about/), despite the significant price-cutting measures by the competitor, most will agree, that with regards to value for money, Digicel remains far ahead of the competition because most mobile users and potential customers suspected that it was Digicel that forced rates down (www.jamaica-gleaner.com/ gleaner/20010419/lead/lead1.html) [vi]

In the minds of the consumer, the competitor was simply a predator whose time has come for punishment. On the other hand, Digicel was perceived as the emerging corporate giant with a gentle and caring heart exhibited through its high value service and product proposition. The emerging leader in the telecommunications market has also impacted the lives of Jamaicans, through its corporate citizenship and sponsorships (Anderson, 2005[vii]; Edwards, 2005[viii]; Evans, 2004[ix]; http://www.jamaica- gleaner.com/gleaner/20040611/lead/lead5.html[x]; http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20050407/news/news1.html[xi]).

It was evident that from a selling, marketing and technology standpoint, Digicel has changed the face of local telecommunications by providing the predominantly poor mobile consumer with an offering far superior to that of the incumbent mobile provider. The primary lesson from the fall of the monopolistic telecommunication giant and the simultaneous phenomenal rise of the emerging “soulful’ leader of the local telecommunication sector is testament that the consumer must be fully understood, appreciated highly valued and served with priority, equity and commitment to high value product offering and service proposition (Economic Research Associates, 2001; MacGillivray et al., 2002[xii]; Pricewaterhouse Coopers & Initiative for a Competitive Inner City, 2000; Robinson, 2001; Stegman & Lobenhofer, 2001). Failure to do so could be a costly affair for the offending retailer.

---------------------

[i] “Punishing Corporate Predators?” (2002) Sunday Herald, editorial, 04 August.

[ii] Http://www.digiceljamaica.com/about/

[iii] Http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20020326/business/business1.html

[iv] CMC (2005) “WIPA: players’ rights will be protected vigorously” Jamaica Observer, 04 April.

[v] “Downswell on advanced course in Paraguay” (2005) Jamaica Observer, 05 April

[vii] Anderson, O. (2005) “1 billion issued in Ivan aid, says ONR” Jamaica Gleaner, 07 April

[viii] Edwards, M. A. (2005) “Popular talent show heads into second season in search of the new stars”, Jamaica Observer, 13 April.

[ix] Evans, T. (2004) “Rising Stars to air this weekend”, Jamaica Gleaner, 21 May

[x] Http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040611/lead/lead5.html

[xi] http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20050407/news/news1.html

[xii] Macgillivray, A., Potts, G., Raymond, P., (n.d.) Secrets of their success: Fast Growth Business in Britain's Inner Cities, The Inner City 100, New Economics Foundation.

[Back to Main Page]

The Politics of Race – An examination of W. E. Du Bios’ life [From Main Page]

It is this dialectical struggle that leads to social change, which occurs either when the oppressors are overthrown by the oppressed, or there is the “mutual ruination” of both (Macionis and Plummer, 1998 pp.). Similarly, as there appears to be a distinct manifestation of dialectic between structure and superstructure, Marx pays much attention to the concept of a dominant ideology, in analyzing class-consciousness.

This dialectical struggle is made manifest in the superstructure where the dominant prevailing “false consciousness” (as seen by Marx) of the bourgeoisie, either suppress or impede the true class consciousness of the proletariat. As such, the value system of each class strive for hegemony there emerges a two (2) sided struggle at the superstructure level, that also drives social change. This explains the dialectical interplay when conflict seeks to threaten the equilibrium in society.

Paul Andrew Bourne

Further analysis of the dialectics of history within Marxian sociology reveal a certain dialectical relationship between and within the two (2) [alternative (end) stages] of society: capitalism and communism. The focus on this realization as well as one’s criticisms of Marxian thought concerning them will be explained in the two (2) concepts of “dialectical capitalism” and “classless consciousness”.

Dialectical Capitalism: New Analytical Currents

The concept of “dialectical capitalism” is critical realization of the notion of capitalism, being a presupposition of conflict within society. Therefore, capitalism is a support of the fact that dialectics exist this stage of society. For there to be value consensus, a collective conscience, or class consciousness, then concurrently there is recognition of the existence of conflicting values, conflict, and false consciousness. As one cannot exist without the other, then the realization of one is the recognition of the other. The fact is, even where integration or collaboration exist, individuals will always strive for self-preservation, irrespective of the needs of others. It is that causes conflict.

However, even with the existence of conflict, a disgruntled proletarian class and the increasing socio-economic lacunae between classes, it appears that such a conflict has become institutionalized and engrafted in advanced capitalist societies (Haralamlos and Holborn, 2002, pp. ). Thus, there may not be any threat to the present social order. The result is that, it appears that the proletarian class, far from being a class of itself, is dissolving in the “class consciousness” of the ruling class, which has created an emerging middle class, making the class structure of capitalist societies even more complex.

While the abovementioned arguments may explain to an extent a number of situations in societies, it can be asserted that even with the “false consciousness” of the proletarian class and the super complex structure of the capitalist societies, there will be a group within the groups, that will not be contented with what they have, will also want to overthrow the others. Similarly, even if this does not occur, and all classes fall to the fallacy of the “collective conscience”, then the mutual ruination of the classes thereby within itself will be a cause for social change.

Another criticism of Marxian dialectical thought came from Max Weber himself, another founding intelligentsia within the discipline. In his (Max Weber) study ‘Of ascetic Protestantism’, he argued that beliefs, values, ethics and attitudes also drive the development of capitalism, and not the economic factors (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000, pp.). Such a criticism appears rather baseless, as Marx in Capital and Communist Manifesto, did make it clear that change also occur at the super-structural level also. Although he (Marx) prioritized the economic factors (after all he was an economist), they from only on aspect of the dialectic of history. Therefore the economy is primary, but not sole determinant of change, as those who own the mode of production also control the thought processes of society (and even that is still economic in its origin).

Communism: Classless Consciousness

Considering (hypothetically) that capitalism came to an end, Marxian thought would assert that it is the final stage of societal evolution. Here lies, what may seem to be a colossal pool of foolishness, cascading down from an active volcano with fierce less in mild stupidity, in Marxian theorizing? It appears that the postulations as purported by Marx are dialectical and contradictory in nature.

The concept of “classless consciousness” is an abstract criticism of Karl Marx’s predictions on how society will change. This is abstract in pure philosophical construct. The fact is history has yet to substantiate Marx’s view of communism and how society would transcend and eventually radical transform to communism. Though one is sure that the historical materialist and economic determinist he (Marx) was, he would way that “these things take time, just wait on another evolution or revolutionary epoch.” To day marks in excess of one hundred years since his (Marx) theories were first purported to the world. Is this time, and is it sufficient time given the World Trade Organization (WTO) position that the gap between the rich and poor economies has significantly widened? The WTO in 2000 forwarded an argument in a position paper that poverty has increased in the world. Then, what has happened to Marx’s position that society would change to collectivism?

The concept also assumes that Marx’s notion of communism is no different from “valued consensus” or the “collective conscience”. In proposing a classless society, Karl Marx is in fact supporting Functionalist claims – in that there is a consensus in values of the proletarian class upon their realization of their “false consciousness” that will cause him to utilize a collective will and action to overthrow, subdue and dissolve the bourgeoisie into usurping ‘proletariat consciousness’, thus forming a classless society. Hence, a ‘classless consciousness’ will take over and allow for the sustaining and maintaining a communist society – but is this really feasible and probable given the structures in our society?

Perhaps, perhaps not – in his postulations, Marx forgot the individualistic, possessive, territorial, materialistic values and attitudes of man that drove him from a classless society (Primitive Communalism) to a class society (Ancient Slave Owning). It may make for fascinated readings and information truths for a position paper to be written on the psychological state of man in his/her pursuit of happiness, the role that materialism plays in that cognitive state. This, therefore, may add an intellectual answer as to the importance of materialistic values in how man organizes him/herself in society.

The notion of religion that Karl criticized as it relates to the ‘pie in the sky’ is arguably the same he offered through a philosophic, economic determinist guise. I must hasten to add that this author has no religious idealism or religious epistemology. Although an abstract thought, it is arguable as to whether or not communism’s last hope and Marx’s avenue of solace and theoretical redemption is in religion, where the notion of a ‘here after’ may be the ideal communist society. Or, is this just an abstract theoretical academic construct that has no bearing on realism. However, even such postulations seem to be punch-drunk, and well out of the realm of sociological theorizing. This, now, lends itself for further research as needed answer must be sought that will explain the probable ness of Marx’s idealism.

In retrospect, although Marxism theorizing on the whole was influenced by Hegelian idealism and dialectical thoughts, it was by rejecting and criticizing Hegelian dialectical idealism that Marx postulated a notion of dialectical materialism in explaining how society exist over time.

Difficulties, however, arise in accepting the Marxian view of the origin of society from a material economic basis. Juxtaposed against this view is the Functionalist view that societies exist when there is working out of ideas and plans to get or even know that you have material needs – some form of social contract. This is, however, still debatable.

Furthermore, Marx did not adequately forward reasons for the emergence of private ownership within (Primitive communism) classless societies. What drove men to seek the private acquisition of wealth as opposed to still looking out for others? In the same way there was a change from classless to class society, how then can Marx expect to maintain a classless society such as communism? Marx must have forgotten the unpredictable behaviour of man even without class conflict. Even within the Soviet Union up to 1989, this nation represented socialism and to some communism, some men were more equal than other. Within that nation many of the organisms that are evident in capitalist countries like the United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy to name a few were evident in that society. Thus to support Communism, Marx supported “value consensus” or the existence of a pre-capitalist dominant consciousness that will unite society. Given the materialistic values and idealism of man today, is Marx’s consensus assumption possible?

It is, however, unambiguously clear that dialectic and conflict goes hand in hand in Marx’s sociology on the whole and their role clear and fundamental essential to Marxism theorizing. Therefore, dialectics in context is the Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and secondary aspect; the secondary aspect succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction (Dictionary.com).

Similarly at the foundation of dialectics is the theory of change and conflict which fuels progression through mounting antagonism between what Marx calls the mean and relations to the mean production. It is the relation of these social productions, which” constitute the economic structure of society” (Preface, 1973, pp.)

Another sociologist who is lauded with the accolade of being one of the founding fathers is Emile Durkheim. According to Dr Orville Taylor (2003:17), Du Bois’s empirical scientific research was the first empirical work with the discipline of sociology in the American sociology. In his view,

“In 1896, he was commissioned to carry out a study on the African descendants in the Philadelphia area. The study comprising more than fifteen months of work, eventually became the first real empirical work in American sociology, The Philadelphia Negro. This works of particular significance for the historical development of sociology as a science. Within the chronology of sociology’s emergence as a science it is positivist. Even more important is the fact that it was not only an attempt to apply a scientific methodology to the study of social phenomena, but it utilized social facts, popularized by Durkheim in his Rules of the Sociological Method (but traced back at least as far as back as Ibn-Khaldun), to explain the condition of Blacks in Philadelphia. His conclusion is as doctrinal to the discipline as one can get. In regard to the Blacks he Declared, “His strange social environment must have immense effect on his wealth and pauperism. That this environment differs and differs broadly from the environment of his fellows …” (Du Bois 1971a:284).

From Dr Taylor writings, Du Bois’s works predated the contributions and empirical writing of Emile Durkheim whom is among the fathers of sociology. Both the traditional and contemporary sociological thinkers argued, Emile Durkheim’s empirical work on suicide used the science of positivism to establish a generalization of suicide in sociology. Durkheim’s work on suicide was similar that of Du Bois who predated him. Then, why is Du Bois not a founding father of the discipline given the fact of his pioneering contribution to the study of sociology? The answer lies in the same phenomenon that he spent his live studying.

We will now critically analyze the works of Emile Durkheim. The study that helped to propelled him to the zenith of sociology is that on Suicide. In his work, Durkheim’s main aim was concerned with the concept of social solidarity, how societies ‘hand together’ to function as one synchronized entity. He strongly recommended that the social life of the individual should not be studied distinctly from a biological or psychological approach. His approach in studying society was that of the deductive method. He believed that society makes the individual what (s)he is. Whatever rules society makes the individual has to abide by them so that society will function as one entity and as a whole. All structures of the society also are inter-related and functions as one unit at large. As a result, he goes on to distinguish a social fact from a psychological fact. A social fact, he states as a phenomenon that is larger than the individual who has two main characteristics – externality and constraint. Externality refers to the outside factor and constraint comes from within the individual. On the other hand, a psychological fact as cognition which has to do with the mind, thinking or thought processes of the individual.

Continuing, Durkheim posits that “Crime represents a social fact and not all men in a given society are criminals.” By this Durkheim means that crime is an issue that comes from the societal level and stems automatically from the society. Society causes crime and the social variable within it causes crime. However, not all men are criminals and crime can only be associated with some men and not all. Using his social fact that constitutes the externality and constraint, externality would refer to all the factors in the society that causes the individual to resort to illegal activities. Such main factors are unemployment, economic instability or depression, poverty among other factors but these being the most important. All these elements are produced by man based on the decisions they make within society, and a negative action will arise because man has no choice but to resort to criminal activities. Therefore, Durkheim would conclude that crime is caused by the society and not from the individual. However, the individual has a choice of not participating in criminal activities based on his level of constraint that comes from within. Deviancy can be viewed as a social fact and can be compared with crime. The end product of deviancy is crime. Society and the individual are both responsible for their acts of deviancy. Exteriority can be traced to deviancy in that man’s behaviour has breached the norms and values of one’s society.

Durkheim like W E B Du Bois used the science of positivism as a tool to propel this branch of social science as being able to use the principles of the natural science. In Durkheim’s contribution to sociology, his study on Suicide is of utmost importance to the field. It helps society to analyze critically the factors influencing man to commit suicide. In studying this phenomenon, he describes four types of suicide – Anomic, Egoistic, Altruistic, and Fatalistic Suicides. He believed that Suicide should not be analyzed from a psychological perspective only but also from a sociological perspective which must take into consideration social factors.

Another area in which Durkheim focuses his study on is mechanical and organic solidarity. According to Durkheim, simple societies with an undeveloped division of labour have strong and well-defined states of the ‘conscience collective’ and a mechanical form of social solidarity. By this he means that because their society is so small and closely intertwined or knitted, individuals do not need to specialize in different skills or modes of production. They are only familiar with one mode of production. Before the industrial revolution took place, the society was made up of only Pre-Industrial Families where the members would participate in cottage industries and all other business transactions were done only by the family members. However, as society became complex more ideas relating to the modes of production developed hence causing the specialization of goods and services. As a result, division of labour came about to equate with the needs of competitive goods and services. With the complexity of the society, individualism came about. People became more for themselves with the habit or principle of independency and self-reliance.

Once again Taylor (2003:18) provides us with analytic arguments that within themselves add powerful answer as to why Du Bois may have been sidelined by American sociologists. In his views,

"There is every reason to suspect that Du Bois’ academic contributions would have been stifled because, first of all, his ideas and research opposed the orthodoxy. America was not ready, more than 60 years before the civil rights movement, for a social science which challenged racism. At this juncture there can be found some utility for the work of Marx, who himself, because of this revolutionary ideas was not taught in American social science. Marx notes that the class, which controls the means of material production also controls the means of ideological reproduction. In simple works, a White ruling class, with its allies in academia, excluded the work of Du Bois from its central role in sociology.”

From Taylor’s (2003:18) writings, Marx offered a powerful theoretical explanation for Du Bois exclusion from the founding fathers of the body of works known as sociology. Marx position was unambiguously clear in that the capitalists controlled both financial resources and ideological thoughts and so Du Bois’s work that sought to topple the status quo could not be place in the forefront of ideological bases as its purpose was to recreate and destroy the capitalists’ position on which they have invested everything. In Taylor’s (2003:18) views,

“While America had to wait 40 years for the emergence of its conservative defender Talcot Parson, before it had a sociology which represented its ideology. Parsons resuscitated the ghost of Spencer and Durkheim and their organic model, and advanced the notion of socialization but steered clear of the race issue. Like the classical theorists, he presented a colour-blind sociology which makes assumptions about the value consensus, suggesting that roles are for the benefit of society on the whole. From this approach we find the work of Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (19450 who implicitly justify racism by suggesting that society is a meritocracy and the unequal divisions within society serve the interest of the whole. In the end sociology, as it was in the nineteenth century, is a defence of the status quo.”

From Taylor’s writing, Karl Marx argument undoubtedly answers the position of the capitalists as it relates to Du Bois. Despite the fact that Dr W E B (William Edward Burghart) Du Bois research on The Philadelphian Negroes used empiricism, statistical inference and postulations, and was the first sociological research of America not being a capitalist a position offered by Karl Marx clear explains why this pioneer was not idealized worldwide by the capitalists’ world. Dr James Jackson states that Du Bois, the scholar and scientist, was equally a man of action. He chose to keep the banners and goals of full equal rights flying high. Jackson later, so rightfully stated that W E B Du Bois was a great fighter for the African people, a true scientist, thinker and humanist. He (Du Bois) held aloft a bright torch of poetic inspiration that lightens the way and illuminates the path of all who struggle for freedom. The question that Du Bois posed and dealt with along the way of his arduous life will find resolution on the path that he chose the route of the great humanist and social scientist.

From what has been forwarded and discussed, William Edward Burghart Du Bois is in a founding father. He led a life of principle and example. Du Bois is responsible for many of the cherished memories that black people share. In addition to memories, he is instrumental in garnering many of the human rights that Black Americans enjoy today. Du Bois was the driving force behind the non-physical confrontational approach taken by Dr Martin Luther King. In that, he believed in education and not physical confrontation as the answer to the Africa-American problem. Du Bois knew what he wanted and worked relentlessly to achieve his ultimate goal the establishment that the black are equally competent and that their position is as a result of a created environment. He came about when there were a lot of sociological questions to be answered and he indeed, answered much of them including that of racism.

Du Bois should also be credited for giving some insight on how the fundamental question of life should be answered. The work of W E B Du Bois The Philadelphia Negroes will always carry an air of prestige and honour for all black to see. He had other works such as The Soul of Black Folks and Black Reconstruction to name a few writings, which Dr Du Bois has left behind that, have made indelible mark on our societies and by extension history.

In concluding with Auguste Comte, Emile Durkheim, and Karl Marx being elevated to the pinnacle of founding father of sociology, with the discussion brought forth herein, Dr W E B Du Bois is undoubtedly a pioneer and a founding father of the discipline named sociology. In Ideaz, Dr Orville Taylor (2003:19) summarized the political and sociological dilemma unlike none other, when he wrote:

"Yet, the so-called founding fathers were affected by a number of other political, and economic developments that they were only able to see in a limited context and exclusive of the African influence. The very pillar of modern society that the classical theorists take as the main subject matter for their theories is conceived of in an anti-historical fashion, bereft of the contribution of and the relationship with African population.”

The statements above offer many explanations for the marginality of the Blacks within our society as they live within a White world. So, DuBois exclusion from the high echelons of sociological scholarship is not accident but is as a result of his blackness and the purpose of his works. He sought to challenge the White establishment by his life’s works. Who was DuBois to challenge an ordered status quo? As such, DuBois’s empirical works although were significant and the first of their kind in the sociology of America, the Whites being the controllers of the financial resources were able to easily sideline the black scientist (W. E. B. DuBois). >Therefore, Dr W. E. B. (William Edward Burghart) DuBois let peace wherein though lie be your comfort. For the Africans to which you fought, encourage and sought to elevate by scholarastic efforts do recognize and have accepted each thought that you sought to impart to us. In the new world, brother Dr DuBois, we recognize your epistemological construct and scholarship left behind as materialist pillars upon which we shall endeavour to build and encourage other blacks to read hereafter.

[Back to Main Page]