It’s not a secret political, racial, cultural conflict has been occurring for centuries. In the foray of my first 5 weeks of academia, I have never been more keenly aware of the recurring patterns of humanity. Xenophobia is at large in moments of historical importance such as conflicts. Where there are valuable opportunities for cultural reset and reflection, it is instead often ignored by leaders and its people, perpetuating animosity and xenophobia. Durkheim and Foucault can provide direction in breaking this cycle.
Before Trump coined ‘fake news,’ the dramatization of opinion for political gain has always happened. New Zealand had its own historical case, Dr Hirini Kaa mentioned that Frederick Whittaker was prompted by Governor Grey to write “fake news” in the hope to entice hatred for Maori people in the New Zealand Herald, citing the “cultural progression” they are offering to Maori people. Not dissimilar, Trump also spoke racist rhetoric that targeted the inherently racist mythologies that conservative Americans strongly believe about “American Greatness” to get them to vote for him.
Although 200 years apart, these two people are linked through their operation on the same combination of willful ignorance and greed. This example is by no means a historical abnormality. Still, it interests me that despite cultural differences, time, space, this form of manipulation to gain political power is used and re-used repeatedly. Startlingly, Durkheim’s focus on pacifism and the idea that war is an “aberration, a historical relic destined to disappear” (Malesevic, 20) feels less and less likely as history goes on.
I would argue, more important than analyzing the malevolent motivations of leaders are the people’s reactions to these leaders, and how and why these tactics work so effectively on the masses.
Sociological theory and Michel Foucault propose that discourse is produced in power formations and perpetuated by the way those in the power formation discuss topics, ideas, and people related to these power structures. This prompted me to think about Durkheim again, where he argues that “we cannot live outside of an organized society (power structures)…to understand, and hence prevent, war one needs to understand the mechanisms of institutionalized solidarity (the way we discuss those in the power structure), which can never be obliterated but only transformed…”
Despite the eye-brow raising similarity Whittaker has to Trump and the desire to erase these radical ideas, Foucault suggests we ignore these individuals. It’s more important to change the views of the audiences by changing how we discuss power structures embedded in society that we simply cannot exist outside of.
Foucault provides an answer to Durkheim’s proposal. Admittedly, it’s easier said than done, as the question of how that will be achieved leads to many avenues of whose responsibility it will be, who decides the message to dismantle these power formations and questions of ethics. However, in an increasingly connected world, it seems more possible.
