By Josué Bila, uhurubila@gmail.com
Maputo (MOZTIMES) - Professor Elísio Macamo has helped many of us to reflect, in a refined way, on the difference between observation and analysis. Last week, he unleashed his sociological arsenal on us, criticizing Joseph Hanlon's latest book, entitled ‘Mozambique Recolonised through Corruption: How the IMF created an oligarchic state’. Personally, I recognize the importance of Hanlon's work in the descriptive field and in the bibliographic material, which I will cite in the coming months in a paper I am writing. I also recognize that the criticism that sociologist Macamo is receiving makes sense, according to which journalist Hanlon did his work as an investigative journalist, not as a social scientist. Nevertheless, regardless of the supposed inconvenience of Macamo's criticism, I recognize his sociological role in deepening and problematizing Mozambican issues, from which he has helped many social science researchers to sophisticate their methodologies and refine their theories and socio-anthropological questions.
What does sociologist Macamo propose?
Macamo understands that complaints and findings reinforce and amplify what the streets, citizens and non-governmental organizations are saying – and, consequently, activist intellectuals will continue to act as spokespersons for the “people”, perhaps in the name of reproducing rancorous citizenship against the alleged oligarchic elites of the Mozambican state. Furthermore, according to sociologist Macamo, all this contributes almost nothing to scientific endeavor, especially when such ‘findings’ fuel the debate that we have “oppressors” against the ‘oppressed’, without, however, understanding the historical and social factors that produce oppression and privilege in the social structure.
The understanding of social or political phenomena does not primarily follow a pro- or anti-government logic, which is why social scientists are antonyms of ‘common sayings,’ as they deeply deconstruct the components of the social mortar. Thus, in this work of deconstruction, social scientists have discovered the invisible compositions of the social mortar. Similarly, social scientists seek to understand what sometimes invisible details (components/compositions) mean to people interconnected in many ties and institutions. Perhaps what it means to be or strive to be a neighborhood leader has similarities to striving to be a head chef (at a wedding or funeral), director, administrator, governor or president (public/state/NGO/business). The social scientist must be diligent and delve deeper to discover the (ir)regular behavioral lines of these struggles or positions and, consequently, what these positions mean in society as a whole. These struggles for positions or power can also lead to the question: what does power mean for people interconnected with each other in the social structure? What to do with power? Are there regular behavioral patterns amongst the power exercised in the family (by the head of the family), in the church (by leaders [pastors, reverends, apostles, prophets]), in the company, in the school (by principals or heads), in the municipal, provincial or central government?
Perhaps social scientists can, depending on theories, methodologies and creativity, clarify why regular behavioral patterns of seeking positions or struggling to belong to and remain in the ‘oligarchic elites’ in Mozambique, for example, are similar regardless of the origin of the group or individual. Therefore, the question remains: what does power mean in our social relationships? My small abstraction may follow the teachings of Professor Carlos Serra, according to whom his sociology sought to ‘peel away the shell of phenomena and try to understand the soul of social buds, without forgetting that the most difficult thing is to understand the shell.’ In fact, a visit to Serra's sociology books will reveal warnings that understanding social phenomena is much more complex than descriptions and observations. It seems to me that Professor Macamo is warning participants in the national debate to distinguish between describing the buds and peels and understanding the soul of the buds and peels.
Political cosmovision in Mozambique
If we look at the regular behavioural patterns in society, we will understand that the overwhelming majority of men and women belonging to ‘anti-status quo groups’ (because they allegedly side with the oppressed) reproduce the same oppressions and privileges as the so-called oligarchic/recolonizing elites of the state. However, because of many accusations and findings, we lose sight of the fact that social ties, political interconnections, the production or reproduction of power, friendships, coalitions, interests between groups and individuals, and the local cosmovision on politics and economics outweigh the immediate observations of the recolonization of Mozambique through corruption and how the IMF created an oligarchic state. Intellectuals and activists, who allegedly claim to be pro-justice, accountability, and transparency in Mozambique, need to understand the socio-historical causes of our ‘existential rascality’.
Socio-historical causes are not just scattered and dynamic fragments of the past. They are processes that shape or have shaped the way a society or community thinks, feels, and acts in everyday circumstances. Cosmovision is obviously the result of socio-historical processes. In this regard, aspects such as why, at a wedding or funeral ceremony, we first serve the pastor of a church, some “special” guests, and only then serve impoverished children and widows, demonstrate our general cosmovision as people interconnected with one another, with implications for our political cosmovision. The political cosmovision does not come only from the state, nor from the elites, but is influenced by various historical melting pots and social dynamics.
The difference between the corrupt practices of various groups lies in where each group or individual operates in their lives. All of us (where are the exceptions?) are bearers of the burdens of republican dishonor. We have all been socialized to fight for justice, using moralistic discourse and unjust undertakings, as long as my/your group or friend helps my/your project to expand. Therefore, the fundamental question cannot be to denounce the oppressive/colonizing elites, but to ask whether these behaviors of the elites (oppressive/recolonizing) are not a reproduction of existing behaviors in the social structure. I will repeat the usual maxim: one of the serious problems with our analysts is that they “analyses” politics from the top down. The resentment of citizens towards the oligarchic elites also stems from the multiple “analyses” of politics from the top down, as we refuse to understand and hold accountable the politics from the bottom up. I capitalize “Politics”. And I also lowercase “politics”. ‘Politics from below’ and ‘politics from above’ are twin sisters, feeding off each other, supporting each other, without knowing, however, which is the older. They do not operate ‘suddenly’. They are the product of various historical cauldrons and social dynamics. What are the legacies, worldviews, and procedures that the current generation has inherited from previous ones? What are the behavioral impacts of these legacies?
Perhaps this rancorous citizenship against ‘Politics’ (oligarchic/recolonizing elites of the State) prevents us from understanding that our maid, our roasted peanut seller or our bus fare collector are just as wicked as the oligarchic elites, precisely because we prefer to publicize the visible elements (oligarchic/recolonizing elites, for example), ignoring other underlying structural elements and, worse still, without linking them to the history of the production of what I call the political cosmovision of contemporary Mozambique, whose practices boil down to privileges, unpredictability, trickery, favors, rudeness and vulgarity, where each group or individual exploits and plunders ‘everything’ at their disposal, ignoring the rights of the majority, undermining the construction of the Republic, in the insatiable proliferation of impunity. What sometimes differentiates some social actors from others are the spaces from which they energize their lives, but the mindset (or ‘political cosmovision of contemporary Mozambique’) that exists in the social structure may be the ‘same’. Why do we expose and mobilize our inter-individual vulgarities and republican missteps, without mercy or regret?
Conclusion
We have all been socialized within this ‘political cosmovision of contemporary Mozambique’ – and it did not begin in 1975 – from which we carry trunks of shady dealings, to divert money, objects and various resources, the fruits of dishonesty and theft, in the streets, in families, at parties, in stalls, on public transport and in civil society, business and state institutions. Recognizing that these chests of shady dealings are not only carried by the ‘colonizing elites’ but also by society as a whole is therapeutic and honest. Unfortunately, there are many dishonest intellectual voices in our national criticism, which prefer to talk about the visible sins of an “oligarchic”/‘colonizing’ group rather than the social heart that produces them. (JB)
