Habermas’ notions of communicative action and the colonization of the life-world have proved to be important concepts in the understanding of political domination and people’s dedicated attempt for emancipation in the modern world. Habermas’ communicative action is basically a situation where (in his own words) “the actions of the agents involved are coordinated not through egocentric calculations of success but through acts of reaching understanding”. In communicative action participants are “not primarily oriented to their own success, they pursue their individual goals under the condition that they can harmonize their plans of action on the basis of common situation definitions” (Habermas, 1988). The colonization of the life-world involves (in Habermas’ terminology) the encroachment of ‘systems’ into the domain of "more or less diffuse, always unproblematic, background convictions" (Habermas 1988, p. 70) that guide us in communicative action? Patsy Healey refers to "the life-world of personal existence; the daily, weekly and yearly going about and getting on in the life of personal experience" (Habermas, 1997) . The idea is more or less the same with Weber’s critique of the dominance of instrumental rationality in modern society. This paper commences with a critique of Habermas’ notions of life-world and the theory of communicative action followed by attempts to contextualize the concepts in Zimbabwe’s political terrain. Since there is no clear distinction between the ruling party and the state (at least before the unity government), the terms ‘ZANU PF’ and the ‘state’ are used interchangeably in this paper.
Habermas’ notions of public sphere and communicative action have been subject to various criticisms based on several inherent flaws in its foundations. The first point of contention according to Keller (1979) is that he does not discuss the normative character of communication media in democracy or suggest how a progressive media politics could evolve. Part of the problem , he says, is that Habermas' notion of the public sphere was grounded historically in the era of print media which, as McLuhan and Gouldner (1979) have argued, fostered modes of argumentation characterized by linear rationality, objectivity, and consensus. (Keller, 1997) Since writing is his medium of choice and print media is his privileged site of intervention, its plausible that Habermas downplays broadcasting and other communication media, the Internet and new spheres of public debate, and various alternative public spheres in part because according to Keller he does not participate in these media and arenas himself and partly because, as I am suggesting, the categorical distinctions in his theory denigrate these domains in contrast to the realms of communicative action and the life-world. But these blind spots and conceptual limitations truncate Habermas' discussions of democracy and undermine his obvious intention of fostering democratization himself. The second contention is that Habermas theory is informed by classical bourgeois public sphere which excluded the voices of the poor masses hence his concepts are still flawed towards middle class public sphere and communicative action. The voices of women, minority groups and the poor masses are not given adequeate theoretical grounding.
In Zimbabwe ZANU PF has been on record interfering with communicative action through in Habermas terminology the colonization of the life-world. One of the major areas in which ZANU PF has manipulated to that effect is the media. For Habermas, the function of the media have thus been transformed from facilitating rational discourse and debate within the public sphere into shaping, constructing, and limiting public discourse to those themes validated and approved by media corporations. Hence, the interconnection between a sphere of public debate and individual participation has been fractured and transmuted into that of a realm of political information and spectacle, in which citizen-consumers ingest and absorb passively entertainment and information. "Citizens" thus become spectators of media presentations and discourse which mold public opinion, reducing consumer/citizens to objects of news, information, and public affairs. In Habermas' words: "Inasmuch as the mass media today strip away the literary husks from the kind of bourgeois self-interpretation and utilize them as marketable forms for the public services provided in a culture of consumers, the original meaning is reversed (Habermas, 1989a: 171). The state in Zimbabwe has dominated public media by monopolizing state run media such as ZBC TV, The Herald and all radio stations while at the same time upsetting the operations of independent media. This has been achieved through various means including legislation and implicit acts of violence such as the bombing of the Daily News offices as well as continuous arrest, intimidations and persecution of journalists. At the base of all this is an attempt to paralyze the public sphere and the colonization of the life-world. The only voice that is permitted officially is the voice of ZANU PF while all contenting voices are suppressed. The enactment of AIPA was a benchmark in ZANU PF attempts to control the life-world. It gave the state the power to ‘legally’ silence divergent voices through conspicuous privacy protection clauses and the necessity for accreditation for all foreign journalists. Massive propaganda was also used to continuously bombard the public with ZANU PF pronunciamento and views so as to shape public perception and opinion. Thus as Habermas would expect ZANU PF used the media as agents of manipulation and social control through the media's power to directly and consistently manipulate the public.
As already noted one of the means through which ZANU PF used to colonize the life-world is through the manipulation of the legal system through the enactment of repressive laws and making sure the interpretation of the law generally achieve its partisan objectives. AIPA was meant to curb the emancipator wings of the media while POSA was meant to directly reduce the public’s potential for meaningful organizations through public participation and collective action the very basis of the theory of communicative action. This action by ZANU PF can also be understood within the context of Habermas notion of Legitimation crises which according to Ritzer (2006) is the systems of ideas generated by the political system, and theoretically any other system to support the existence of that system. They are designed to mystify the political system to make unclear exactly what is happening and it seems ZANU PF did this pretty well by creating an ideology based on British and American and western enemies legitimating its attack on local divergent voices as puppets of the west hence political dissidents.
Also within the realm of the law is the contentious issue of constitution making which has played a central role in Zimbabwean politics. Habermas provides a theoretical basis for a view of law making that emphasizes widespread public participation, sharing of information wit the public, reaching consensus through public dialogue rather than exercise of power, avoiding privileging of experts and bureaucrats, and replacing the model of the technical expert with one of the reflective consultant (Argyris and Schön 1974). In this view, the legitimacy of democracy depends not only on constitutional processes of enacting laws, but also on "the discursive quality of the full processes of deliberation leading up to such a result," as Stephen White (1995, p.12) puts it. John Dryzek notes that Habermas prompts the policy analyst to work on conditions of political interaction and design of institutions rather than merely the content of policy proposals, and Habermasian ideal institutions rule out “authority based on anything other than a good argument” (1995, pp. 108-110). This Habermas terms juridification as opposed to jurisdiction. In this view, the legitimacy of democracy depends not only on constitutional processes of enacting laws, but also on "the discursive quality of the full processes of deliberation leading up to such a result". This is an area of current serious debate in Zimbabwe since so much has been said about the lack of popular participation in the constitution making process which has been trusted in the hands of bureaucrats in the name of parliamentarians and a couple of civic society members. This Habermas correctly sees as a compromise of pure communicative action.
The state in Zimbabwe has also sought to control the public sphere and communicative action as well as effect the colonization of the life-world through what can be seen as a reign of terror. This involves the use of secret intelligence to spy on people, the use of the military and police to disable all forms of popular discourse formation and organization as well as violence against political opponents and other divergent voices. We can also include in this category election fraud as the highest form of efforts to derail communicative action. Habermas sees public political participation in the form of voting as one of the most and often plausible forms of communicative action (one of the few that doesn’t use language) but even in this area ZANU PF has tried to interfere through violent electioneering and rigging. People’s choices are literally eroded and what is left is the will of the powerful being imposed on the masses. The educational system has also seen several changes meant to indoctrinate young people towards accepting the efficacy and legitimacy of ZANU PF as the rulers of Zimbabwe. State run National Service institutions were created and became places of intensive indoctrination with ZANU PF chimurenga ideology and for some time these were made mandatory for anyone wishing to join the civil service.
It is important at this juncture to note that Habermas theory of communicative action has strong elements and opportunities for the redefinition of the public sphere and emancipation. One can say with Keller that there are better opportunities for a more participatory communicative action now than ever before through the internet and satellite television and radio systems which are not all under the control of the state and large corporates. Habermas does not see people as passive recipients of state propaganda and repressive acts but he sees the potential for spheres of political contestations. This view is very apparent in Zimbabwe where as a sign of defiance most people have resorted to satellite television so as to gain a contrasting view of political and social reality to that of state propaganda in local state media.
There has also been an emergence of numerous internet forums and discussions about the Zimbabwean political situation such as Kubatana.org while even social networks such as Facebook have become sites of political discourse. Online news agents have been working hard to portray the true picture of the Zimbabwean situation without state interference while other projects such as Kubatana and SWA Radio went as far as creating a sms platform where subscribers will receive constant updates on state repressive actions on the mobile phones for free. Private radio stations such as Studio 7 have also provided a platform for divergent views and voices to reach the common people hence acting as a counter to state propaganda. Millions of people decided to leave the country as asylum seekers in neibouring countries and abroad where they organize themselves and engage in debates and contestation about political events in Zimbabwe. Some people have also shown their disapproval to the current political establishment through none participation in voting while it seems the final nail in this sort of communicative action was delivered by voting for the MDC in the last election.
Thus communicative action and the colonization of life-worlds if taken beyond their its limited conceptualization by Habermas can provide a plausible reference point for the analysis if democracy and popular political participation especially in Zimbabwe. As noted in this paper the state has instituted several attempts to colonise the life-worlds of the people through repressive laws, media control and propaganda, reign of terror and other means while the public reenacted the public sphere and communicative action through internet public discussions, satellite television and other channels. Thus despite its flaws Habermas concepts have good utility in the understanding of Zimbabwean politics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Argyris, C. and Donald S. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Dryzek, J. S. (1995). "Critical Theory As a Research Program," in Stephen K. White, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, 97-119. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gouldner, A. W. (1976) The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology. New York: Seabury.
Habermas, J. (1977). Knowledge and human interests. (J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon
Habermas, J. (1987). Theory of communicative action, Vol. 2. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (2001). Theory of communicative action, Vol. 1. (T. McCarthy, Trans.).London: Heinemann.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press
Kellner, D. (1990) Television and the Crisis of Democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.
Kellner, D. (1979) "TV, Ideology, and Emancipatory Popular Culture," Socialist Review 45 (May-June): 13-53.
Kellner, D. (1997) "Intellectuals, the New Public Spheres, and Technopolitics," New Political Science 41-42 (Fall): 169-188.
Miller, J. (1994) 'Democracy Is in the Streets': From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ritzer G. Social Theory,
White, S.K. (1995). The Cambridge companion to Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment