1 2 How did the world come to be what it is today? The question itself is a broad one, as the world may mean many things: the natural world or the social structure in which societies continue to fight for existence, dominance, and power. Nonetheless, the term “world” in this paper will be posed as the social structure we take part in as a society. Through analysis, it is evident that in most countries, there are social groups that face inequality: economic, educational, racial, etc. It is useful to note that conflict theory explains the mechanics behind the persistence of inequality. Conflict theory assumes that institutions persist through the exploitation and dominance over others. When discussing dominance and its effects on cultures, theorists Frantz Fanon and Stuart Hall broached the subject of power and its effects -- Fanon presents the Post-Colonial Theory of colonial subjects being affected by the oppressors; Stuart Hall uses the theoretical argument of Globalization to explore its effects on cultures, the consequences, and how individuals are defending themselves against such influence from the dominant group. It can be proclaimed that Stuart Hall’s analysis of the effects of domination, resistance, and globalization can certainly be applied today to most cultures, specifically in the United States based on observations, experiences, and the current political climate. For Frantz Fanon, the world is divided into a two-tier structure: groups that can exert their power and dominance and groups that face continuous oppression. A particular way that countries dominated and continue to is through neo-colonialism, colonialism and violent conquest, as understood when exploring the Post-Colonial Theory by Fanon. Born in a colony himself, Fanon highlights that the colonizer is able to dominate the native through submission 3 through education and socialization (Fanon, 1961: 361). In essence, domination shapes the cultures at the local and national level because, as he presumes, within institutions the native will learn a language different than their own, learn about the colonialists’ history, and will be socialized to fit into their culture -- this process can be thought of as “civilizing” the native. As an example, Fanon’s idea can be connected to the “civilizing” of the native people by the dominant group in efforts to assimilate individuals to American culture and society. Interestingly, such historical facts are not presented in textbooks and can relate to the perpetrators’ power to write history through their own perspective and decide what periods of history to include and omit. Nevertheless, the history of the colonizer is structured in a way to “serve [the] purposes” of the dominant group by manipulating historical facts and manipulating the natives into believing that their version of history is non-existent (Fanon, 1961:363) Consequently, the native will see the savagery when comparing the harsh reality of the world in which he lives and the false conscious that the white culture paints through its history. To reject the white culture, Fanon argues, is to stay true to oneself and if the native assimilates into white culture then he will have exchanged his own culture for theirs, thus pleading the natives to reject it and decolonize even if violence is required. Fanon’s theory builds on the main assumptions of conflict theory because there are persistent conflicts surrounding the haves and have nots. In this context, it may not be based on economic resources -- the haves account for domination and power while the have nots account for resistance against domination. Though conflict theory fits Fanon’s theory best, functionalist theory is not applicable – it assumes that social order is based 4 on common and shared values but these values are being forcibly imposed onto the less powerful. Overall, the powerful want to maintain the oppressed as powerless and continue to assert their dominion over as many cultures as possible. Contrary to Fanon and the Post-Colonial Theory, Stuart Hall presents the return of ethnicity through his analysis of globalization and its effects. While Fanon presented a micro level analysis of the interaction between the dominating group and the native, Hall offers a macro perspective of how globalization affects the world and the cultures, not just one specific nation or group of people. When beginning to think about national culture, Hall defines the term as a composition of symbols and representations through stories, memories, and images relating to the nation. But rather than simply thinking of national culture through symbols or stories, Hall emphasizes that such culture is also related to the structure of cultural power (Hall, 1996: 626, 629). Not only will symbols help shape the national identity, but the power that dominant groups hold can influence the national culture into their aspirations for how the culture should be represented – and to them it would be to unify all cultures into one large cultural identity. Although dominance may have the possibility of uniting cultures into one, the force of globalization or linking nations, also has the power to reduce the efforts of having one national identity among the oppressed. Hall expresses that one consequence of globalization is the decline of a national identity and the strengthening of hybrid cultural identities (Hall, 1996: 360-361). Unlike Fanon, Hall contends that individuals do not necessarily have to choose one culture and 5 abandon the other, rather can assume more than one culture as their identity and reject the notion of being one or the other. Differing assumptions transpire between both theorists because Fanon would have assumed that culture was shaped as being with your own or against your people. Hall, on the other hand, accepts the idea of hybrid identities. Essentially functionalist theory would not be applicable for either theory because there is no consensus for social order -- rather one group maintains national identity through force while other social groups are attempting to resist it through actions that go against the dominant intentions. Both theorists would generally agree that dominant groups have the ability to assert their dominance and influence cultures, but they also have differing opinions on how the less powerful react to the oppressive task of an enforced culture. Considering the political climate and progressive society of today, Stuart Hall’s ideas are more relevant to modern day circumstances and his concepts are applicable to recent observations and experiences. I understand Fanon’s disquietude of natives assimilating to the dominant culture, but identifying with a sole culture is near impossible in today’s world due to neo-colonialism and conquest that influenced many countries and its people. Fanon’s argument is not relevant in today’s culture since he assumes that an individual is either one or the other and describes cultural identity in a binary system of white and black rather than accounting for the various ethnicities and races affected. For instance, the United States is a land of immigrants – there are many cultures, values, norms, and attitudes and one cannot simply take up a single identity. Because I am a daughter born in 6 America from Mexican parents, I do not consider myself one or the other. I am Mexican-American because I practice Mexican culture but still partake in American culture and Hall would describe me as a hybrid identity. Moreover, with globalization and its integration into other cultures, many individuals are resisting this force due to its adverse effects. Every year immigrants leave to escape hunger, poverty, and violence, but with them they bring customs, cultures, and languages. But the white culture and politics of today’s society feel threatened by the influx of cultures and want their national identity to remain as white as possible, hence the current President making comments about immigrants arriving from “shithole countries” while asserting that the United States should have more people come from places like Norway (Vitali, et al. 2018). This goes back to the conflict theory and the historically dominant ideologies of Caucasians as the superior race striving to retain power. It seems that today’s dominant group holds the desire of making the nation great again when their true intentions are to stay in power, keep the oppressed powerless and assimilate them to the superior culture. To conclude, Fanon’s theory of decolonizing and rejecting white culture to assert their own is not viable in today’s society. There are many cultures and many individuals that bring with them customs and attitudes so it would be difficult for someone to identify with one identity. Though for Hall, cultures are shaped by domination and resistance – if there are dominant groups aiming to unify everyone to one, individuals will fight back and proclaim their identities. Stuart Hall’s theory is more relevant today because of the national impacts globalization has on national and local cultures. 7 Bibliography Vitali, Ali, Kasie Hunt, and Frank Thorp. 2018. “Trump Referred to Haiti and African Nations as 'Shithole' Countries.” NBCNews.com. Retrieved October 23, 2018 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-referred-haiti-african-countries-shitholenations-n836946).
