By Takura Zhangazha*
It is always going to be a difficult question to
answer. The one about how something that
effectively represents temporality can evolve into a more regular/cyclical
pattern or occurrence. And generally
with the same probable results.
Almost as a situation in which the immediate suddenly also
becomes the future. On repeat.
I am referring here to the emerging patterns of what would
be Zimbabwean’s national consciousness or to be more straightforward- national
or ‘nationalized’ emotions.
But with an explainer that this is not just peculiar to our
own country. It is probably a global
phenomenon caused by various factors.
With the most prominent being the world political economy as determined
by the neo-liberal ideological straightjacket and misplaced faith in the ‘free
market’ as defined by the interests of private capital and our general global consumerism/hedonism.
But for this write up it would be much simpler to focus on
Zimbabwe.
In doing so I am aware that not many of us would be aware of
the turn of phrase ‘national consciousness’.
Save for those who may have encountered revolutionaries such as Franz
Fanon and read their organic analysis of what should inform struggles for the
liberation of not only African countries but also African minds.
In our current context however this may be too complex an analytical
angle to attempt. Not for lack of trying
but because of the very same emerging culture of ‘temporality/ immediacy’. Or
what I would call ‘ephemeralism’ that is emerging in our national political,
economic and social culture.
In this, there is no general national desire to understand
things, events as they occur more holistically.
We function essentially in the immediacy of the moment. With convenient and
scant references to our preferred versions of either national history or societal
models in the global north/east.
And it is understandable. For at least four relatively ‘easy’
reasons. The first and more obvious being that of the fact of the mediums in which
we now expand our understanding of issues and the world. Foremost among these being social media as we
immediately access it via technologies such as the mobile phone and its
accessories. Or how those with the aforementioned access bring it to those
without.
Social media is essentially designed to function in the
immediate for its users. But not its
owners, a point often lost to us when we claim it as our very personal own. And
there have been a number of researches on the psycho-social impact it has had
in either modifying human behavior or establishing ‘echo-chambers’ that fortify
our own prejudices or even resistances to progressive change. Hence you will not find that much critical or
ideological analysis in the privately owned Twittersphere’s, Facebook and WhatsApp
platforms in Zimbabwe or its Diaspora. Again,
for emphasis, this is not a bad thing because free expression can never be
prescriptive. It can however be assumed to have some sort of long term progressive
perspectives and understanding of events as they unfold.
And this is where we probably are. It is easier to move from one #hashtag to the
next than take a step back and try to understand the underlying causes. Probably for fear of getting left
behind. In any event it would definitely
be easier than trying to speed-read an e-book or detailed article on the #hashtag
subject matter.
A key question would then be, “Are events that have been occurring in Zimbabwe
that unexpected beyond social media’s ephemeral gaze?” Their (events) shock and awe characteristics
as presented via social media platforms tend to make the heart skip a beat but
the mind to also set aside some sort of due contextual cognitive process. It is therefore a question of, “How does it
make you feel?” As opposed to, “what does it make you think?”
The latter two questions are now interplaying themselves in real
life offline situations such as how we handle the short and long term effects
of the Covid-19 pandemic on Zimbabwean society.
And many other forms of activism that either seek to challenge or affirm
the ruling establishment. And in this,
as individuals, we function with too much that we may want to be ‘recognized’ for.
Even if briefly and with too little
time.
To the extent that before we know it, our target audiences
have moved on to the next new phenomenon with limited little learnt or gleaned.
Except for entertainment and probable expansion of again, ephemeral influence.
Beyond the new mediums of ephemeral national consciousness/emotion
there are also other factors that play a significant role in its
expansion.
These include in the second instance the role of religion in
its new found focus on the materialist aspects of Zimbabwean human existence. Almost
as though it is arguing ‘we are what we consume’ in order to find ‘eternal life’. The inter-changeability of material hedonism
with mainstream and newer religious outfits in an age of global neoliberalism
has been phenomenal to say the least.
Especially in Zimbabwe’s last twenty or so years. Something that some have called the ‘rise of the
prophets’ into our national consciousness.
And in most cases, for rather short term reasons and end-effect.
Thirdly, the ‘curious’ state of mainstream political parties
(ruling and opposition) has unfortunately led to an undermining of what should have
been a long term ingrained democratic culture in Zimbabwe. In the instance of
the ruling party the fact that it could not effect a democratic leadership
succession plan brought Zimbabwe to the precipice via the intervention of the
military in a coup.
In the mainstream opposition, again the same affliction of a
lack of intra-party democracy means that consciousness remains mired in the
immediacy of power than any longer term considerations beyond the same.
Fourthly and finally, our increasingly ephemeral national
consciousness is probably down to a lack of a continuum of previous and new ideas
that sift and shift through our national history for organic alternatives that young
Zimbabweans can learn from, look up to or at least teach others. A situation
that in borrowing from Gramsci refer to as the lack of a ‘generational praxis’ approach
to an ideologically liberatory history. It
may sound a tad too intellectual or academic for social media, religious institutions
or mainstream political actors. But I am sure it will help at some point.
Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment