This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on the book
From Dictatorship to Democracy by
Dr. Gene Sharp. In this series of posts, I have shortened the title of the book to
From D to D. As I have said in previous posts, the consideration of this book is highly relevant for these times, in which those who support the supremacy of the world's dominant peoples have created a world in which a select few get to Make Themselves Great by exploiting everyone else. The poor of the earth experience this exploitation as enslavement, discrimination, harassment, dispossession, and the threat of genocide. Many live as refugees. (Indeed, when one considers the ways in which people in the United States end up homeless nowadays, one can see that we have created our own homegrown refugees.) This is an experience of apparent utter powerlessness in the face of an all-consuming, murderously abusive power.
In the
last post in this series, I quoted a
source which said that "Whenever people are badly treated, they always resist. In our experience, people always resist violence and abuse in some way." And yet for that resistance to be an effective means of liberation, it must be strategic. Developing an effective strategy of liberating resistance can be challenging. Often the first challenge lies within the resisters themselves, for as Gene Sharp says in Chapter 6 of
From D to D,
"It is also just possible that some democratic movements do not plan a comprehensive strategy to bring down the dictatorship, concentrating instead only on immediate issues, for another reason. Inside themselves, they do not really believe that the dictatorship can be ended by their own efforts."
As I mentioned in that last post, if a victim of oppression is moved to resist that oppression, yet the victim does not really believe that his or her efforts will actually bring an end to that oppression, this pessimism will tend to make the resistance ineffective if not downright dysfunctional. The kind of resistance that actually liberates requires first that the oppressed be liberated in their minds, in their souls. This is the beginning and foundation of the term "cognitive liberation"
as I define it. And according to my definition, the beginning of cognitive liberation is the "point in which an oppressed person decides that he or she will no longer tolerate the oppression and its accompanying humiliation, and that he or she will begin to live in truth from now on - even if it means suffering (up to and including death)." This kind of cognitive liberation therefore must rest on a foundation of willingness to suffer and to die, a foundation of confidence even in the face of death. For me, one foundation of my own cognitive liberation lies in this: "Since then the children [that is, human beings] share in blood and flesh, He Himself [that is, Jesus Christ] likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." (Hebrews 2:14-15)
One effect of this kind of cognitive liberation is that the liberated begin to say, "Where there's a will, there's a way." In other words, they begin to actively explore their situation in order to find out what elements they can shift, and how the shifting of those elements can begin to achieve long-term goals. But it is precisely here that those seeking to liberate themselves encounter a great debate. It's as if one was a character in a fairy tale who escapes from a dragon's lair and begins to tread the path to freedom - only to find the path blocked by two stone towers which face each other on either side of the path, and from which soldiers in each tower lob stones and arrows at the soldiers in the opposite tower. Atop one of the stone towers is a single white banner flying in the wind, with the word "SKILLS" emblazoned on it in in royal blue. Atop the other tower is a single blood-red banner flying in the wind, with a skull and crossbones and a single word emblazoned on it in fire-colored letters: "CONDITIONS." The soldiers in the "SKILLS" tower are a mix of cognitively liberated practitioners of resistance and organizing, and they are helped by a collection of friendly academics. The soldiers in the "CONDITIONS" tower tend to all be academics and mouthpieces of large media outlets. The "CONDITIONS" soldiers also tend at times not only to shoot at the soldiers in the "SKILLS" tower, but also at the pilgrims on the path of life who are escaping from the dragon.
For a central debate among social movement scholars is precisely the importance of skills versus conditions in the creation of transformative social movements. And here I will cite Chapter 3 of Doug McAdam's 1982 book Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970. It is in this chapter that McAdam defines what he means by "cognitive liberation." In that chapter, McAdam mentions two theoretical models of power in a society such as that of the United States. Both models acknowledge that "wealth and power are concentrated in America in the hands of a few groups, thus depriving most people of any real influence over the major decisions that affect their lives. Accordingly, social movements are seen...as rational attempt by excluded groups to mobilize sufficient political leverage to advance collective interests through noninstitutionalized means."
According to one of the two models, the disparity in power between the elite and excluded groups is so great that the power of the elites is virtually unlimited. Thus the "CONDITIONS" scholars cite this structural imbalance of power as a determining condition of any liberation struggle. (Or to put it another way, the message of the "CONDITIONS" soldiers is often, "Dude, it's hopeless! Just give up!") However, the "SKILLS" soldiers understand that every system of domination and oppression depends in some way on the people who are oppressed, and that thus "any system contains within itself the possibility of a power strong enough to alter it." In other words, they see that the oppressed have a certain collective power which is able to fundamentally alter their situation if it is exercised collectively. The reason why this power is not exercised is due to "shared perceptions of powerlessness." Note that the elites "seek to keep unrepresented groups from developing solidarity and politically organizing..." However, "the subjective transformation of consciousness is...crucial to the generation of insurgency." In other words, when the perceptions of powerlessness in the oppressed are changed, the oppressed begin to liberate themselves.
How then does that perception of powerlessness begin to change on a mass basis? McAdam asserts that it first begins by a change in the large-scale circumstances of the oppressed, that is, when the structure of political opportunities changes. Thus when large-scale external events beyond the control of the elites begin to disrupt elite power structures, there is a corresponding shift in the political opportunities available to the oppressed. One thing that McAdam may not have emphasized enough is that the oppressed themselves can, by their collective action, create those large-scale events that disrupt elite power structures.
There are other elements to the shift in the consciousness of the oppressed. One of these elements is the relative abundance or lack of a wide range of organizations created of, by and for the oppressed. For the oppressed to begin to awaken, there must first be "an established associational network," an "indigenous infrastructure" of community organizations created by and for the members of marginalized groups. It is these organizations (and their leaders) who facilitate the large-scale changes in consciousness among the members of marginalized groups. McAdam quotes Piven and Cloward in describing this shift:
"The emergence of a protest movement entails a transformation both of consciousness and of behavior. The change in consciousness has at least three distinct aspects. First, "the system" - or those aspects of the system that people experience and perceive - loses legitimacy. Large numbers of men and women who ordinarily accept the authority of their rulers and the legitimacy of institutional arrangements come to believe in some measure that these rulers and these arrangements are unjust and wrong. Second, people who are ordinarily fatalistic, who believe that existing arrangements are inevitable, begin to assert "rights" that imply demands for change. Third, there is a new sense of efficacy; people who ordinarily consider themselves helpless come to believe that they have some capacity to alter their lot."
But it is to be noted that these changes in consciousness are much more likely to happen among people who regularly associate with each other in groups than among isolated individuals.
And here it is good to take a look at how this process of cognitive liberation has played out in some rather recent social movements. First, on a negative level we can see how a counterfeit of this process has played out among the members of the white American right. Indoctrinated by right-wing, agenda-driven media mouthpieces, many members of the American right came to believe themselves to be members of an oppressed class and to interpret what should have been acknowledged as their own personal problems as something else, namely, as an attempt by poor dark-skinned people to take things away from white America. Second, these interpreted the electoral successes of the Republican Party as an expansion of political opportunities. Third, unscrupulous pastors and other prominent figures in the American Evangelical Right used the association of their congregations in regular Sunday services to engineer a shift in the consciousness of their members such that they began to regard as illegitimate the hopes, dreams, and rights of everyone who was not part of their "tribe." (These, for instance, are the people who for the sake of "liberty" refused to wear masks even as their fellow community members were dying of COVID-19!)
But there are more positive contexts in which this process played out and continues to play out. Russia comes to mind. I want to mention a masters' thesis titled, "
Corruption and Cognitive Liberation in Russian Environmentalism: A Political Process Approach To Social Movement Decline" by Anna Katherine Pride. This thesis was written in 2009, and it described the decline of the Russian environmental movement from the mid-1990's until 2009. She traced this decline to a decline in "cognitive liberation" as defined by Doug McAdam, and hypothesized that this decline was due to a breakdown in social cohesion and trust caused by rampant elite corruption. According to her view, the decline could be traced thus: "Corruption" leads to "Cognitive Liberation recedes/reinstituted fatalism" which leads to "Social Movement declines" which leads to "state reasserts power" which leads to "Political Opportunity Structure closes" which leads to "movement decline continues".
And yet...it must be noted that a strong democracy movement has emerged in Russia over the last ten years, and that its emergence was due in no small part to people who kept working, kept organizing, kept persisting, kept resisting,
and kept experimenting as reflective practitioners even during the reassertion of power by the State and the supposed "closing" of the political opportunity structure. Brown's thesis correctly posits that a breakdown in social cohesion and mutual trust hinders cognitive liberation because it disrupts the very networks along which that liberation and change of consciousness spreads. This is why dictators strive to atomize the members of their societies. And yet successful liberation movements have been instigated in the most atomized, repressive and unlikely of societies, by people who had experienced cognitive liberation
as I define it. In the Maldives, for instance, the initial problem of social atomization was overcome by activists who started throwing evening rice pudding parties on the beach and inviting friends, neighbors and strangers. (See
Blueprint for Revolution, pages 62-64). To quote a martial arts story I read as a kid, "Where there is no door, make one." If we're ready to make that door, it's time to start talking about the elements of strategy. Stay tuned.
