Skip to main content

The powerless mass…

After more than five decades, the arguments of C W Mills still hold good to understand and analyze the present societal mechanisms. In the last half of twentieth century we have seen two major global trends- formation of a more uni-polar world and developments in Information technology and media.

Mills discussed three main processes that influenced masses, namely roles of leadership/ politician, mass-media and structural trend of society. Though we have seen some changing faces of democracy and leadership; but the basic elements/ intensions remain the same (e.g. - the ancestors of Nehru family are still ruling India). With the change of time politicians have modulated and modified their leadership strategy; but the true voices of people still remain mostly unrepresented. On the other hand, mass media and other interactive media (e.g.- internet, mobile devices) influenced the whole society significantly. They practically dictate the information exposure/ awareness level, computational ability level, and availability of options for decision making for individual/ society. Lastly, in the new structural trend, the societies became more individualistic and individuals became less aware about real-environments. It makes individuals more vulnerable and controllable, and thereby strengthens the power-elites. E.g. - In neoliberal setup, the control and bargaining power of labor force is reducing.

The unipolarity of power in contemporary world accelerates the neoliberal operations, and implementations initiatives of capitalist agenda. Fundamentally the process operates very methodically; that includes structural control, strong institutional hierarchy, and continuous coordination between economical, political and military powers/domains. To elaborate, I want to mention one aspect of it- the aspect of ‘fit’ corporate executive: which means, a ‘fit’ corporate executive ‘must meet the expectation of his superiors and peers; that in personal manner and political view, in social ways and business style…’ (p.141). Moreover, this process is highly coordinated; it ensures unity by interchangeability of roles of the representatives of the big three domains. In this manner, this united (& often invisible) and centralized ‘unhealthy’ mechanism established more and more control over the social processes and thereby increased the inequality in society.

As a member of Academia, we need to take initiatives to integrate/ organize and to raise consciousness among the affected population of the society. That may be one small step towards building a better, healthy and humane world.

Comments

Sydney D said…
I'm wondering, and I had a similar conversation with another student who isn't a critical scholar, how important is awareness raising in the critical project? Do you see raised consciousness as a catalyst to social change or simply an entry point for major cooptation by the hegemonic forces. For example, see my blog about the DePaul University professor who was raising awareness but had no intentions on actual social change/material change.

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...

Echoing Malcom

Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t...