Social Objects and their "Handles"

Developing a science that measures, quantifies, illustrates relationships between various objects or phenomena, or seeks to find "natural" laws that underpin the order of the social has been the quest of many brilliant scholars. Fascinating arguments have been put on the table, luring much interest only to be found wanting and discarded for newer ones. Authors battled intensely within epistemologies pertaining to social "objects". Some constructed huge, overarching theorizations about how the social world operated (eg structuralists), while others focused on how the "micro" elements in specific settings generated meanings, and went on to characterize the fluid, creative aspect of social life (eg Phenomenologists, Ethnomethodologists, and Social Constructionists). Yet others attempted to bridge the gap between the seemingly stable forms that the "social world" maintained overtime with the human subject who is seemingly able to make choices, to reflect upon his/her actions, and therefore play a creative role in the social realm (eg Structurationists). Social theory, in its present state, is characterized by mammoth efforts to reconcile its various positions to each other. Some of us may have heard of terms such as postmodernism, antimodernism, modernism, post-structuralism, discursivity, reflexivity, reflexive culture, discourse and power, and other terms. The positions advance extremely difficult arguments as scholars attempt to arrive at some "form" of theory that could permit us to account for the seemingly amorpheous form that (post)modern society has taken. In its present form, social theory is at once reorganizing itself, reflecting upon its own adherents, and the society it seeks to examine. The process is extremely dense with sometimes very obscure or hard-to-understand reasoning.

 

The reason for coming forward with such an introduction is so that we can begin to appreciate the severe complexity that presides over any kind of social analysis or commentary. Furthermore, the world cannot be sold these philosophical dilemmas. There is a need for the academy to continue to provide answers, or where such answers are not immediately available, to illustrate possible ventures for interim remedies.

 

Blogging about Malawi stems from a deep passion I have for that country. The reasons for such passion could be merely as self-centred as simply wanting my country to do better than other countries. Or perhaps a sense of gratitude for being so lucky as to not to have been born on the wrong side of the socio-economic divide. By this I mean, if my parents had not been who they were, I most likely would not have been who I am. Such an act of fate reminds me that there is nothing special about me except for the fact that I was merely born in a household that could provide for my needs better than over 85% of other households in a country crippled by great suffering and poverty. That second realization forces me to be humble about my achievements, and most importantly to be more concerned - pragmatically - for the wellbeing of so many others whose only "sin" was to be born in poverty. As such, in my attempts to be pragmatic, I must force myself to think in ways that could usher in a better society, and some of those thoughts are what I have written about in my previous entries on this blog.

 

That being said, even with the very little I presently know, I am aware that the library of social theory from which I draw from in order to develop my own thinking is rife with so many problems, some of which I have very generally highlighted above. As such, my going forward is characterized by caution. A caution that accords due respect to the many unresolved and contesting positions within the domain of the social sciences, and subsequently, the uncertainty that becomes inherent within any argument and/or proposition as a result of those prevailing debates. In developing my commentary, I have attempted to take hold of social "objects" that are immediately apparent to my reader who probably has had some experience or has heard about this small country of mine that I so passionately talk about. These "holds" or "handles" so far have been the organization of the Malawi State, democracy, civil society, law and legislature, institutions (including texts such as the Constitution), the citizenry or public, and other "objects" that perform some function economically, politically or socially within the Malawi State. The reason for deciding to take such an approach in my commentary is to achieve a certain level of pragmatism or practically, thereby loading my blogs with political potential. The downside is that there might be an over-simplification of the greatly troubled waters that characterize social theory. But great minds such as J. Habermus, P. Bourdieu, J. Darrida and even M. Foucault, despite being competent social philosophers and epistemologists in their own rights, have had to surrender some of that raw, potent theorization for some down-to-earth political thinking in order to facilitate change. After all, the quest is to change society and not to merely think about it.

 

The society in Malawi is extremely politicized. And we have, in recent years, seen the emergence of powerful political actors within the public sphere. We have seen civil society hold a president underseige. We have seen how the public defied state security forces with firearms only to obey the paper power a High Court order "enforcing" an injunction or interdiction (which also speaks to legitimation between the public and various state institutions). We have seen the rise of powerful trade unions. And we have seen a citizen - who for a long time was considered illiterate and dum - demonstrate a firm grasp of what a democracy ought to be and subsequently mobilize himself or herself to demand their rights. The question then becomes, "how do we take stock of all these political elements with a view to develop a model for our country going forward?" This is what is at the heart of my commentary. For now, I believe that the answer resides not in a specific course of action. I believe the answer resides in a State system deliberately designed to function based on the continuous consent of its people. In so doing, we are all permitted to contribute to our development or downfall together. This position prevents my argument from falling into the trap of determinism, where my way becomes unintentionally portrayed as the only way. Furthermore, it is only through the installation of such an open society that my views can be heard and embraced, or even rejected. An open society permits me to be politically active as well even as a young, aspiring scholar. In short, these are some of the underpinning assumptions that govern the arguments I propose and the solutions I suggest when I engage on an expedition in this " Odyssey of Consciousness". And as it is a journey, they will evolve in the light of new learning and new evidence.