Media Wars

The Geo TV is presenting a very interesting program these days. "35mm @ war" (here) is a commentary and interview based program that examines the history and techniques of propaganda in movies produced by Hollywood, Bollywood, and even Lollywood and their utility for war mongering purposes. I have watched a few episodes and found the research and presentation to be quite impressive. For delivering good knowledge and critical thinking, the producers and the team behind this program at the Geo TV deserve special appreciation. Bravo!

The latter part of the title of this program, “@ war”, provoked a few thoughts that I would like to share here. No doubt, propaganda movies (still) play a crucial role in legitimizing military invasions. A recent attempt could be seen in the movie "300", which has been criticized by many (here, here, here) as a propaganda effort that, considering its time of release and the racist content, advances Bush and his NeoCon war mongers' ambitions of invading Iran.

I also see another subtle level - a more crucial one perhaps - where Western media (including movies, news, and entertainment) is most effective. That level is not exactly constituted by objectives of military warfare and gaining physical dominance over nations. Rather this level is part of the knowledge-sphere. The warfare on this level is aimed at creating cultural dominance or 'cultural hegemony'. For 'it is hard to fight an enemy who has an outpost in your head'. Cultural hegemony is about creating ‘consensual’ submission among the ‘subjects’ (through ‘saqafati yalgaar’ or cultural flooding/invasion). Although it started much earlier, this project has become especially relevant in the post-ColdWar era, that is, in the ‘New World Order’ (here) of our supposedly unipolar world, as proclaimed by some politicians.

The consensual subjugation happens with the internalization of the very categories and thought processes that inform the cultural hegemonic ideals from the West. They could be the cultural-economic ideals of neo-liberal reforms (here) as the best measure for “third-world” economies. They could be the cultural-political ones like who is “good” and “bad” Muslim (here). And, they could be the cultural-social ones like what is “modern” and “progressive”, what is to be desired, who can desire it, and to what end (for example, rising consumerism (here) and endless materialistic competition in our society). To make these Western ideals and values as the global ideals and values for all of humanity is the objective of this cultural hegemony. (I am not treating "West" in monolithic terms here; rather, I am referring to the neo-imperial project that has resulted out of a myriad of institutional and cultural practices in the West).

However, the realities on the ground tell us that such cultural hegemony is hard to achieve in its desired totalizing form, especially in the cultural-political sphere (many polls indicate growing anti-Americanism, especially after Bush’s invasion into Iraq) and to a certain extent in the cultural-economic sphere (see for example, the reactions here, here, and here). But in the cultural-social sphere, the cultural hegemony seems to have been most successful. Perhaps this is best summarized in the following statement: ‘they hate America, but they love American dollars and American jeans’.

The late Eqbal Ahmad has so eloquently explained the internalization involved in “cultural hegemony” (see below), although I am not sure whether he would consider cultural hegemony to be independent from military/political/economic objectives. Perhaps, (like Chomsky?) (here), he would not totally agree with the analytical separation I make above even if he considered “culture of imperialism” an independent causal force (which I think, he did, like Edward Said). I suspect, he would have stressed that in a realistic analysis of politics today, especially post 9/11, cultural hegemony primarily serves the military and economic ends.

After explaining the subtle intricacies of the "Culture of Imperialism" (see the full article here), Eqbal Ahmad concludes his article by making a poignant note about the state of affairs of those at the receiving end of cultural hegemony:

“This culture [of imperialism] is pervasive, it cuts across continents and penetrates our outlook by a variety of mediums. As I outline this talk in the flight from Islamabad to New York, Pakistan International Airlines shows Star Trek: First Contact. I snip at what looks like a high-tech, outer-space replay of an earlier voyage into an 'undiscovered' world. Commander Jean-Luc Picard plays a modern-day Cortes, leading the crew of the newly commissioned Enterprise E to war against the Borg "an insidious race", informs the PIA flier.

Those "half organic aliens" appear like Indians in the early Westerns mysteriously, ubiquitously and sometimes seductively. Violence flows freely as 'contact' is made. Fallen aliens are shot even as they beg for mercy. Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his crew commit quite a holocaust with an insouciance we are expected to appreciate only because they have vanquished an alien race mysterious, dangerous, seductive and, ultimately, vulnerable. The Borgs have no individual identity, only a collective one. Their defeat is deemed final only when their roots are destroyed, when their head which assures life's motion to the entire race is cut off. An idea redeems this "mission"; once contact has been made the world will change. Promises Captain Picard: "Poverty, disease, and war will end."

Star Trek is but a crude, popular expression of the culture of imperialism. This culture is not Western any more. Rather, it enjoys hegemony, it has become global. Note an irony: Pakistan International Airlines, which will not serve wine to passengers, happily serves up Captain Picard on its flights.”