Manufacturing of ‘the Modern' & ‘the Traditional'
Abu-Alwafa
Manufacturing of ‘the Modern' & ‘the Traditional'
Nancy Emara
Anthropologist-Egypt
The attempt to break definitively with an older social order
encounters a kind of historical deposit and threatens the founder upon
it. The more total the aspirations of the new regime, the more
imperiously will it seek to introduce an era of forced forgetting.
Paul Connerton
How Do Societies Remember?
Immanuel Wallerstein postulates that from the sixteenth century
onwards, the West started to establish a world system. A series of
economic and political connections were being established to link the
‘West' to the ‘rest' for the sake of expanding capitalist world
economy. The whole world was being forced into a process of conversion
to modern capitalist production and exchange. By the eighteenth
century, under the impact of travel and trade, the new world system
started to reach much of Asia and Africa. This was the age when Europe
dominated the world.
The European domination played a double game, one of suppression, the
other of tutoring. The former was played through direct geographical
colonialism and worked upon the body, whereas the latter was indirect
and long-term played through a new kind of scholarship and worked upon
the mind.[1] Anthropology, Sociology, Archeology, were all fields of
study, chiefly French and British in nature, belonging to the latter
indirect colonial plan that worked on the mind. They were fields of
study dedicated to understand societies of Africa and Asia for the
sake of domination.
The British and the French, the two supreme powers of the time,
started to produce genres of literature primarily driven from the
intellectual arena[2] to justify the re-ordering of the world in their
advantage and which went hand in hand with direct colonialism. The new
order, whether explicit or implicit, required that a body of knowledge
should be based on a ‘system of representations' of the ‘Self' and the
‘Other'. And needless to mention, the ‘Self' constructed at the
expenses of the ‘Other's' otherness.
Orientalism as a field of study, arose primarily from this colonial
"series of interests..., (from) a certain will or intention... to
control, manipulate or even incorporate what is a manifestly a
different world."[3] Edward Said in his masterpiece Orientalism:
Western Conception of the Orient posed that Orientalism as a ‘system
of representations' was based upon "an ontological and epistemological
distinction made between ‘the Orient' (and most of the time) ‘the
Occident," by which the ‘Occident' gained authority over the
‘Orient'[4]: "The Orient was backward; irrational and disordered and
therefore in need for European order and authority: the domination of
the West over the non-Western world depended on this manner of
creating a ‘West', a singular Western self identity..."[5] and an
‘East' a singular East. These exclusive distinctions or boundaries
between the two entities had homogenized the heterogeneity of each
entity in order to identify one as inherently good, the other as
originally bad.
The colonial order thus, defined the world within a framework of
‘pure' binary oppositions. However, it overloaded the binary
oppositions with new features that were not inherent in the concepts.
The colonial order made the binary oppositions "obedient to the rules
of pure Aristotelian logic", following "the principle of reciprocal
exclusivity."[6] Oppositions that were not only defined differentially
but were reciprocal, and exclusive. Reciprocity infers that the ‘Self'
and the ‘Other' are equally opposite. So if the ‘Other' is represented
as bad, it ought to be understood that the "Self" is as much as good
as the ‘Other' is bad. The darker the image of the ‘Other', the better
the image of the ‘Self'. Exclusivity on the other hand, means that
both groups cannot share the same feature. "No conciliation is
possible, for of the two terms, one is superfluous."[7] If one group
is ‘logical', ‘rational', ‘civilized' and ‘moral', then the ‘other'
group is inevitably and inherently ‘illogical', ‘irrational',
‘ignorant', and ‘immoral'. The colonial order divided the world
absolutely into two. By establishing such a vigorous boundary, that
excludes the ‘Self' from the ‘Other', the ‘Self' acquires its
‘apparent cleanliness, its purity, its uncorrupted and undivided
identity.' "Identity now appears no longer self-divided, no longer
contingent, no longer something arranged out of differences; it
appears instead as something self-formed, and original."[8]
Agricultural countries were of primary concern to the new colonial
order since the growth of large-scale factory production and
commercial life meant a need of raw materials for the European
factories. And as the need intensified, the European rural interest
exacerbated. The countries of significant textile production were
studied carefully in order to design the plan to drag it into
capitalist production and exchange. Rural societies were thus, put
under scholarly scrutiny in the so-called attempt to ‘industrialize
the earth'. The scholarly scrutiny defined the relation between the
colonizer and the colonized as one that is ‘obedient to the rules of
Aristotelian logic of reciprocal exclusivity' discussed above.
Needless to say, all colonies were of acute concern to this scholarly
scrutiny. Egypt was thus, the main source of raw material and crops
for the global industry of Europe. Any colony had to thus, be
transformed " into a country… dominated by the production of a single
commodity to serve the industry of Europe." [9] The so-called
"Saint-Simonists", ‘believers of the new religion of ‘social science',
took the task of industrializing the colonies. How was this to be
done? Hand in hand with the gradual imposition of political authority,
careful and detailed studies justifying this political authority had
to be produced following the same rules of reciprocal exclusivity
typical of the colonial order.
The British and French Orientalist works of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, represented the subjects of the colonial power as
uncivilized suffering beings, enslaved by their ecology, unable to
"progress', ignorant, lacking any cultural system, sense of justice or
moral order. They were photographed as a-historical beings, unchanging
and static[10], unable to plan ahead and always dependent. ‘Blindness
to historical transformation' and inability to plan ahead were crucial
features justifying the imposition of an external force to change that
reality. And what did this representation mean? It meant that they
were in a desperate need for a European hand to change their painful
reality…
However, the concept of ‘modernity' although influencing the elite
during the British occupation, did not really influence the majority
of people who were suffering profound exploitation and subjugation.
The majority could not but view the British as a colonial ‘Other'.
That might explain the rural uprisings and rebellions the area
witnessed during the occupation.
After World War II, as the Americans took the torch of world
domination from the British and the French, the problem of native
resistance against ‘modernity' was resolved through a neo-colonial
global plan; which was called ‘development'[11]. The term was
carefully chosen in a manner that cannot be defeated, since who can be
against ‘development'[12]. ‘Development'[13] was the States' imperial
alternative for the British and French colonialism. On January the
20th president Truman declared: "The old imperialism – exploitation
for foreign profit – has no place in our plans. What we envisage is a
program of development based on concepts of democratic fair
dealings."[14] The old imperialism, namely, exploitation for foreign
profit, had no place in the neo-colonial American plan. Development
was the States' neo-colonial alternative for the old form of
colonialism. Through development the States was able to make entirely
explicit their new position in the world; to consolidate its hegemony
without evoking any sense of resistance on the part of the natives.
Since against whom would the natives revolt or rebel? In the
neo-colonial American plan the nasty, cruel colonizer is not present.
Colonialism too, is not apparent. Everything is disguised under a
curtain of semantics. By way of playing on representations and
semantics the natives were convinced to carry on the neo-colonial plan
and promote ‘modernity' by themselves.
Crucial to note here the difference between the British and French
interests in the Arab region and the American interests. The British
during the occupation, were keen that rural societies would continue
to exist and persist, since it provided them with raw materials for
their industry. The imposition of the binary of ‘modern' and
‘traditional' was just to justify colonialism. The American interest
on the other hand, was against the mere existence of rural spaces. The
States wanted to transform places into markets, and societies into
consumer gatherings. The imposition of the binary of ‘modern' and
‘traditional' was to pursue such a goal. Resisting ‘modernity' was
resisting a symbol of colonialism. In the era of development,
‘modernity' was not resisted, rather it was appreciated and cherished.
The ‘semantics of development' succeeded in pursuing the neo-colonial
American interests in the region.
The American hegemony was made possible, propagated and ensured a
permanency through a ‘system of representations' (of the ‘other')
based on an unprecedented playfulness with words and a formidable
emphasis on semantics. Specialists started to (1) select terms and
overload them with meanings and connotations that were not inherent in
them in the first place (like overloading the word ‘traditional' with
meanings like ‘backward', ‘unprogressive', ‘unenlightened' and the
word ‘modern' with connotations like ‘progressive', ‘rational',
‘enlightened'). (2) Coin new terms with certain connotations and
applying them in a way that will justify and promote the American
hegemony (like coining the terms ‘First World' & ‘Third World', and
‘developed' & ‘underdeveloped'). (3) Marginalize, if not erase
completely, certain terms, mostly those which define things according
to their own attributes, and replace them with other terms overloaded
with different connotations for a certain purpose (like marginalizing
completely the term ‘Islamic institutions' and replacing the term with
‘traditional institutions' with inferences of backwardness and
unprogressiveness, so as to promote Western institutions. The ‘Islamic
institutions' or the so-called ‘traditional institutions' are put in
juxtaposition to Western institutions or the so-called ‘modern
institutions').
A vigilant contemplation on the newly used language; namely, the
language of development, one will find that it is based on a set of
binary oppositions used to define the whole world. Hence, the whole
world became divided into two: ‘developed & underdeveloped', ‘First
World & Third World', ‘Western & non-Western'…etc. Not only this, but
each and every society, in itself, became divided into two, that which
was so-called ‘modern' and that which was so-called ‘traditional'. The
inferences of the terms ‘modern' and ‘traditional' changed from being
cultural to being civilizational or Cosmo-political, since it was
occurring all over the world. Counselor Tarik Al-Bishri states:
During our fathers' generation or the two generations that lived
during the first half of this century in Egypt, the word ‘assri' meant
‘modern', and it was usually used to infer changes occurring in the
social realm, to the values, norms and manners of the community; how
people dressed, ate, drunk, and mixed. The concept ‘raj`i' or
reactionary appeared in opposition to ‘modern', (raj`i is a derivative
of the word raj`a which means to return - and in this context it means
a return to ancestral values and customs). I realized in my
adolescence of the word ‘raj`i'... it used to be applied for those
people that held tight to the traditions and customs that came to us
through our ancestors. It thus was synonymous to the word
‘conservative' or the recently used word ‘authentic' ... In the
sixties, however, a fundamental change occurred to the word ‘assri' or
modern, that changed the word's inferences. It no longer was limited
to connote social or behavioral changes, but it gradually started to
acquire a Cosmo-political meaning. The word ‘modern', became a
collective concept that included people from all over the world... It
was thus, to include all people who belonged to this identifiable
category, as if modernity was a cultural and civilizational identity.
Modernity no longer became the antonym of ‘raj`i', as two oppositional
stances within the same local community, but rather, it became, in its
Cosmo-political sense, an antonym of ‘backward'. This use of the word
had turned the whole world into two parties: a party which is
comprised of Africans, Asians, and Europeans and Americans, standing
against another party which is also comprised of Africans, Asians,
Europeans and Americans… the world became divided in two parts: a part
that viewed itself as being carried through the future, whereas the
other viewed itself as thrown away in the trash of history.[15]
The division of the world into two parties was a product of the
American factory. During the war period the American productive
capacity doubled. By the end of World War II, the States was
confronted with a need to find ‘overseas investment opportunities' and
markets for its goods. "Economic development, trade liberalization
under the aegis of the nascent giant corporations, and the
establishment of multilateral financial institutions were to be the
main instruments to satisfy these requirements and advance the new
strategy."[16]
However, the original institutions and systems in most societies would
hinder the accomplishment of the American world program. The new
strategy, thus, required that almost all societies around the world be
divided into two parts, a part that abides with the American interests
and thus, would be given the ‘honorable' label of ‘modern', and that
which does not serve the American interests and thus would be
stigmatized as ‘traditional'. By the simple logic of such ‘semantics',
the latter group should endeavor to mimic the former group.
Given the emergence of literature on globalization and
alter-globalization, an understanding of the roots of controversy
regarding the very notions of progress, modernity, and universality is
needed. Semantics, conceptual histories, and historical contexts
matter, indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Mitchell, Timothy. Colonizing Egypt. London: Cambridge University
Press, 1988. Pg. 94-95
[2] It might be crucial to note here that most grand/global theories
served a colonial purpose. Diffusionism for example, was related to
the Christian expansion. Evolutionism was associated with colonialism.
Functionalism and structuralism were conservative attempts to preserve
the status quo in the period of post-colonialism. Postmodernism could
also be seen as a theory in vogue to promote globalization, the new
form of colonialism.
[3] Said, Edward. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient.
England: Penguin Books, 1995. Pg. 12
[4] Ibid., 3
[5] Mitchell, Timothy. Colonizing Egypt… pg. 166
[6] Fanon, Franz. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press,
1961. Pgs. 38-9
[7] Ibid., 39
[8] Mitchell, Timothy. Colonizing Egypt… Pg. 167
[9] Ibid., 16
[10] Mitchell declares in his article that the portrayal of the fellah
as unchanging across sixty centuries is ‘complete fiction'. Mitchell
states: "During the 19th century alone, this region… had seen the
decline and virtual elimination of long distance trade with India,
Arabia, and the Sudan; the collapse of the local textile industry; the
introduction and the spread of private landowning, of exports crops,
of mechanical irrigation methods, and of epidemic diseases such as
cholera…(132)
[11] "Development describes a process through which the potentialities
of an object or organism are released, until it reaches its natural,
complete full-fledged form. Hence the metaphoric use of the term to
explain the natural growth of plants and animals. Through this
metaphor, it became possible to show the goal of development and, much
later, its programme. The development or evolution of living beings,
in biology referred to the process through which organisms achieved
their genetic potential: the natural form of the being pre-seen by the
biologist. Development was frustrated whenever the plant or the animal
failed to fulfill its genetic programme, or substituted for it
another. In such cases of failure, its case was not development but
rather an anomaly: pathological and even anti-natural behavior."
(Estava 8)
[12] This is always the Western way to promote whatever is unwanted in
our societies, to choose terms with positive connotations and apply it
on whatever they want to promote, and then put you in a corner, how
could you be fighting against such a ‘positive' plan? Like their usage
of the term ‘peace process' since who is against peace, yet, what they
call peace is nothing but an acceptance of colonialism, subjugation
and exploitation.
[13] In the rest of my paper, the word development will always be put
between collins so as to always remind the reader that it is the
Western usage of the term, which is synonymous to neo-colonialism.
[14] Estava, Gustavo. "Development" in The Development Dictionary: A
Guide to Knowledge as Power. Ed. Wolfgang Sachs. London: Zed Books
Ltd. pg. 6
[15] البشري,
طارق… ص49-50
[16] Escobar, Arturo. "Power and Visibility" pg. 430