Any social group, ranging from a family to a tribe to a country, or group of countries, possess a set of beliefs and regulations that relate to its behaviors. These beliefs are created by the group to sustain and propagate its societal values. Collectively these values are subjective; created and defined by the group and for the group. Now, subjectively defined behaviors and rules are effective within the groups' boundaries and less effective outside its boundaries. These boundaries are defined by the range of influence and knowledge that that group has with the objective, exterior world. When social groups interact, the effectiveness of communication and mutual understanding of societal values are related to the similarities between the interacting groups.
Since these values are defined internally, they can make sense and be justified when viewed by the group, but when placed outside of the normal domain of the group and viewed from a different set of behaviors and values, the original values may loose their validity and sensibility. If groups with similar traits interact, then values and information can be exchanged and understood with high effectiveness. When groups with different values attempt to interact, the level of mutual intelligibility is low. Whether the groups can communication effectively or not plays a role in the outcome of the interaction. Since the rules of group behavior are only understood by that group and every societal group is subjective the values are inherently ineffective in dealing with the dynamics involved with interaction and communication between groups that possess different societal traits.
Drawing from the ideas that each group has a subjective and abridged perspective and that the effectiveness of communication is low between dissimilar groups, the reasons why imperialism can have negative impact are explored. Among the effects of imperialism is the idea of development.
“Development” is a term used to define and rate the act of improving by expanding, refining or, enlarging something, a set of values or an economic system. The definition and the rating of “development” is subjectively defined and therefore is inherently positioned to be ineffective in handling the dynamics involved with the exterior world. This is the case when a group seeks to expand or involve itself with groups that have different values and behaviors.
Heart of Darkness (Joseph Conrad, 1899) and The Gods must be Crazy (Jamie Ulys, 1980) are two works that can provide key examples that illustrate the negative results of “development” by imperialistic means.The natives of the Kalahari prior to the discovery of the Coke Bottle, in harmony with their environment and had little need for complex social dynamics to regulate the behavior of the group. Upon discovery of the bottle, the group experienced new emotional and social pressures that stemmed from the idea of ownership. The bottle came to represent a finite resource that is in high demand among the members of the Bushman community. The entrance of these new dynamics, the concept of ownership and resource allocation, gave rise to conflict among the group members. As a result, the quality of life declined.
The bottle is a social device that represents a set of values. In its original setting, the bottle is viewed as a transient provider of a unnecessary but enjoyable resource, the soft drink. The bottle is not viewed as highly valued commodity as it is often thrown away after a single use. When the bottle is thrown out of the airplane, the intended use of the bottle is lost since there was no way for the subjective values associated with the bottle to be transmitted to the indigenous natives that found it. This leaves the value of the bottle to be defined a second time.
The resulting struggle of the Bushman to define this new item caused the community to experience violence and destructive actions for the first time. The fall from the idyllic state of peace was ushered by the entrance of the bottle into their community without the appropriate information relating to the bottle.
A parallel can be drawn from Heart of Darkness. The Congo provided the European traders at that time with a place to gather resources that where in high demand. Ivory was one of the major commodities that was desired in Europe at the time. The pursuit of ivory by the Europeans in the Congo region of Africa has similar dynamics as the entrance of the Coke Bottle into the Kalahari.
The natives of the Congo viewed ivory as a by product of the death of an animal and not as a valued possession. On many occasions the Europeans were frustrated with the tendency of the natives to bury ivory in the ground instead of trading or giving it to them. The natives did not assign a high value to the ivory as the Europeans did. This difference caused the Europeans to view the natives less as “sensible” humans and more as an annoyance that was provided by the environment. Now “development” from the vantage point of the Europeans could be interpreted as the installment of an economically profitable system of trading ivory and gold with the natives or perhaps the use of the natives for labor. In short, “development” for the Europeans in Africa would include any arrangement that would propagate or sustain their values and establish them in the Congo. In contrast the idea of “development” from the natives' point of view would be the liberation from the quasi-slave conditions that some laborers found themselves in or the removal of the Europeans from the region. In this dynamic, the subjective definition of “development” places the natives and the Europeans at odds.
The Europeans have a set of values and behaviors just as the natives of the Congo do. These are innate cultural traits that contribute to the identity of each respective group. The Europeans with the commodity based culture and the natives' with a system of tribal social organization and ritual cannibalism. The values by themselves are not the source of the negative impacts that follow “development”, it is simply the concept and the subjective justification of that concept that creates unfortunate situations. The European's perpetrated imperialistic acts upon the Congo in the spirit of “development”, i.e. the expansion of their subjective values upon another independent group, the natives. The advancement of a set of values, in the case of ivory trade, an economic value, in the spirit of subjective justification causes “development” to yield negative results.
Now to contend with the idea that European “development” could benefit the Congo and that a all the values involved, i.e. monetary value, central government etc. there by placing “development” in a good light. Heart of Darkness describes the coming of the Roman forces to Britain and the Roman organization of resources and society. This places the native's of the Congo in parallel to the pre-Roman Britons. The native population could sustain themselves and participate in cultural events without the Roman methodologies. The culture in place was sufficient enough to provide the means for the Britons to live as they chose to. This was without the presence of a central government, a state military or a central monetary system. As the native in Briton became overwhelmed by the Romans, the internally defined culture was replaced and England became a derivative of Roman culture. This outcome dictates that the native population must not have the right or privileges to possess their own values and that “development” is governed by the social group that has more military or economical power. Additionally, the internal and subjective values are some how inferior to the values that justify “development”.
The right for a social group, the pre-Roman Britons or the natives of the Congo, to define the world should not be taken away by the spirit of “development”. The expanding groups, the Romans and the Europeans in the Congo, would not appreciate being subjected to the removal of their beliefs in exchange for an external set of values. The same can be said for the indigenous population of the Congo and of Britain. The forceful expansion of an arbitrary and subjectively justified set of values upon another set of values is a direct and negative impact of “development”.
The concept of “development” is an idea that is highly based on perception. Different cultures define objects in a different way. The physical object of the bottle and the ivory are the same object from an exterior point of view but when looked at with the vantage point of the Bushman or native Congo communities, the object has a set of information and values associated with it. Through the eyes of the European and urban Africans, the objects again change form. This difference in perception is a gateway to conflict and misunderstanding. The urge to perform imperialistic acts follows, resulting in the negative effects of the “development” or displacement of a native set in exchange with an externally defined set of beliefs and behaviors. “Development” since it is based on a flawed and arbitrary perception is a negative force that displaces native values in a forceful way.
0 comments:
Post a Comment