Theory Project

“Decolonization” of Fundamental Assumptions Propelling Conception of Relationship Between Mass Communication and Cultural Domination

Humphrey A. Regis

One critical turn in the history of paradigms that guide the study of the relationships between (mass) communication and development involved the juxtaposition of an existing conception of development that sprang from interpretations of history from the more powerful societies with another conception that sprang from interpretations of history from the less powerful societies. One critical turn in paradigms for the study of the relationships between (mass) communication and cultural domination may involve the juxtaposition of the current conception of the cultural domination that has sprung from interpretations of history from the more powerful societies with a conception that springs from interpretations of history from the less powerful societies. The “more-powerful-societies-centered” paradigm conceives of the domination as the outcome of a process or condition that involves the role of (mass) communication in the importation into the less powerful and/or exportation from the more powerful of the output of the culture of the more powerful. The less-powerful-societies-centered paradigm conceives of the domination as the outcome of the role of (mass) communication in the re-importation by the less powerful or re-exportation by the more powerful of modifications the more powerful make in the output of the culture of the less powerful. This second paradigm spawns a bountiful arena for the study of the relationships between the (mass) communication and the domination – especially between the (mass) communication and what some call the reggae music “revolution” of the late 1900s. For the elaboration of each shift, the root is the definition of its core concepts, the elaboration of the associated human conditions and/or processes, and the further elaboration of the role and significance of (mass) communication as correlate of, transmitter of, and promoter of change in, human systems. Thus this manuscript includes a conception of such critical ideas as culture and cultural change, as well as the criteria for consideration in the characterization of the change. It applies the conception of cultural change in the older conception of development and the older conception of cultural domination, and states relationships between mass communication and conditions and processes that spring from the conceptions. It applies the conception of cultural change in the later conception of development and proposed conception of cultural domination, and describes relationships between mass communication and processes that spring from the conceptions. It applies its ideas in the study of the relationships between mass communication and the “cultural change" that was the “reggae revolution” of the latter half of the last century, and argues that between the old and the new conceptions of development or between the old and the new conceptions of cultural domination we find contestation and complementarity. Culture and Cultural Change One way to view culture may be to conceive of it as a phenomenon one “understands” through the observation of its exhibitors. This observation may take place in domains in the lives of the

exhibitors – aspects of the existence, knowledge, behavior or values of them. Domains include the institutions of society, conventions in society or life, and patterns human entities display. In each domain, subjects may be at points or locations on lines or scales called dimensions. At one end of each dimension is the extreme of one characteristic, and at the other is the extreme of a contrasting characteristic. For example, one may borrow from Diop (1978) and view these contrasts as patriarchal vs, matriarchal or individualistic vs. collectivistic or collaborative vs. competitive; may borrow from McGuire (1974) and view them as active vs. passive, cognitive vs. affective, preservation oriented vs. growth oriented, or internally oriented vs. externally oriented; or may borrow from Weaver (1998) and view them as many other continuums with contrasting ends. And, a dimension may have at one end the absence, and at the other end the extremely strong presence, of a characteristic, such as the belief in original sin (Diop, 1978). Observation of a subject may lead to the placement of the subject at a certain point or location on a dimension. The location may be extremely at one end, more toward that end than toward the other, “balanced” between that end and the other, more toward the other end than toward the first, or extremely at the other. For example, from one of the dimensions that Diop (1978) proposed for the analysis of societies, the possible points or locations – attributes – include “extremely matriarchal,” “more matriarchal than patriarchal,” “balanced between matriarchal and patriarchal,” “more patriarchal than matriarchal,” and “extremely patriarchal.” Whether a subject is an individual, a group, an organization, an institution or a society, one may conceive of an aggregate of the attributes in the aggregate of the dimensions in the aggregate of domains in which we may observe and understand the subject. At the level of the single human being or individual, that aggregate is the personality. And at the level of the collective of human beings, such as the group, organization, institution or society, that aggregate is the culture. The relationship between personality and culture appears to be captured in the idea from Benedict (1934) that we may conceive of culture as personality writ large – we may view the culture of a society is the personality of its members when we consider these members as a collective. The ideas of domain, dimension and attribute are useful in the conception of cultural change. We may determine for a subject a domain of interest (for example, the conception of the basic unit in the Universe), the dimension of interest (for example, the individual vs. the collective), and the attribute (for example, extremely individual centered). We also could define cultural change as movement in or by the subject from one “location” to another, from exhibiting one attribute to exhibiting another, on the dimension. One example may be from being “extremely individual centered” to being “more individual centered than collective centered.” The forces that drive the change may have different natures or origins. In the intersection of genetics and evolution, one of the drivers of change is the environment. In cultural evolution, one of the drivers is collaboration in the meeting of such needs as food and water and shelter. We focus here on change that seems to be the result of interactions or relationships within or between subjects. We may place the change in the categories of internally induced (a result of

drivers within the subject) or externally induced (a result of drivers outside the subject), but we focus on the latter. Here, we also may place the change in categories on the basis of whether the interaction that produces it is symmetrical (involving a certain balance between the flows of influence between subjects) or asymmetrical (involving the greater flow of influence from one subject to the other than in the other direction). We also may place the change in categories on the basis of whether it is incidental (not the result of any program or programs by one subject or the other) or cultivated (the result of such a program or programs). And, we may place the change in categories on the basis of the trajectories of the cultural elements at the center of it: one trajectory leads to the concept of change by exportation and/or importation (exportation by an originating subject and/or importation by the receiving other) of the elements; the other leads to the concept of change by re-importation and/or re-exportation (re-importation by an originating subject and/or re-exportation by a receiving other). The application of these labels yields perspectives that utilize the ideas of the less powerful societies, and that both challenge and complement current perspectives on “development” and on “cultural domination.” Mass Communication and Development: Perspectives From “Contrasting” Worlds One of the hallmarks of the thinking and research on “development” seems to be the degree to which the forces that first drove the thinking and research were in the more powerful societies, and seemed to have three fundamental assumptions about the keys to the “development” of the peoples of the less powerful societies: (1) the cultivation within the peoples of a modernization ethic (Lerner, 1958) that has at its center the idea that with hard work one may propel oneself to high(er) stations in life; (2) the importation and utilization by them of new technologies and techniques that are useful in the propulsion (Rogers, 1976); and (3) the replication both in their persons and in their societies of the history of western Europe since the Industrial Revolution (Rogers, 1976). Of course, the exhibitor of the “ethic,” holder of the technology and techniques, and subjects of the history worthy of replication, were all more powerful societies in western Europe; and so, development was the process of following or replicating these societies. This perspective had major implications for the explication of the relationship between (mass) communication and development. The thinkers and researchers saw the communication as a “magic multiplier” of a “modernization ethic” (Lerner, 1958, p. 116), provider of information on the importation of technologies and utilization of the techniques (Rogers, 1976), and provider of connections to conditions and processes and histories in Europe that may be inspirations or models (Rogers, 1976). The explication saw the (mass) communication in the role of changing people in ways that the change agent, and not the subject, would have deemed imperative. The response to these ideas appeared to have received impetus from sources and forces in the less powerful societies, as well as colleagues in the more powerful societies, and to counter the fundamental assumptions of those from the more powerful societies (see Rogers, 1976). One response was that the people of the less powerful societies indeed had “ethics” that propelled them toward individual and societal heights. Another was that the key to their attainment of

their objectives was changing national and international conditions to facilitate the realization of these objectives, rather than the importation of inappropriate technologies and techniques. And the third was that for inspiration, they have histories marked by aspiration and planning and execution and achievement – in societies in the Nile, Indus and Euphrates river valleys. The perspective had major implications for the explication of the relationship between (mass) communication and development. One was the importance, as uses and gratifications theory (see Blumler and Katz, 1974) suggests, of understanding the factors within participants in the communication arena in the process of developing messages that go to them. Another was the importance, as third-variable theory (see Comstock, Chaffee, Katzman, McCombs, and Roberts, 1978) suggests, of understanding factors in the circumstances or environments of subjects in the communication arena in the process of developing these messages. And yet another was the recognition of the powerful place of history and heritage and culture in the shaping of the contingent contextual conditions (see Comstock, Chaffee, Katzman, McCombs, and Roberts, 1978) that ideally would shape the communication and definitely determine its outcomes. Thus the original fundamental assumption about development that came from the peoples of the more powerful societies was that it essentially involved the changing of people so that they become replications of oneself, and the associated fundamental assumption about the role of (mass) communication in development was that it essentially involved the utilization of the communication in the moving of people toward the same end – a “missionary” role. The later fundamental assumption about development that came from the peoples of the less powerful societies was that it essentially involved the facilitation of their realization of their objectives, and the associated fundamental assumption about the role of (mass) communication in the development was that it essentially involved the use of the communication in such realization by bearing in mind the characteristics of both the beneficiaries of the development and their contingent contextual conditions – what we may call a “responsiveness” role. In the analysis and valuation of these fundamental assumptions or paradigms and the related roles for communication, one may apply criteria proposed above for the description of change. The domain is development, and one may apply the “internally-oriented vs. externally oriented” dimension (see McGuire, 1974) of the personality of the individual to the culture of the society. One may argue that the earlier guiding fundamental assumption or paradigm, which came from the more powerful societies, cultivates the external orientation of beneficiaries of development (their orientation toward outsiders), but the later paradigm that came from the less powerful societies cultivates their internal orientation (their orientation toward the local milieux). One also may apply the criteria proposed above for the categorization of instances of change. The former paradigm views development as externally induced, but the latter paradigm sees it as internally induced. The former sees the relationship between the more powerful and the less powerful as asymmetrical and the more powerful as the driver of the relationship, but the latter sees the relationship more as symmetrical, and perhaps as asymmetrical and the less powerful as the driver of the relationship. The former views the relationship between the more powerful

and the less powerful as cultivated by the more powerful rather than incidental, but the latter sees that relationship as perhaps cultivated by the less powerful, but quite possibly, incidental. The former views the relationship as characterized by exportation from the more powerful and importation by the less powerful, but the latter sees the relationship as characterized to some degree by the exportation of the specification of need by the less powerful and to some degree by the exportation of the external responses to the specification of need by the more powerful and the corresponding or complementing importation of these responses by the less powerful. In the analysis of the relationship between (mass) communication and the transition form a more internal orientation to a more external orientation proposed above, there would seem to be three perspectives worthy of application. The correlation perspective of the relationship between (mass) communication and society proposes that the communication is a reflector or correlate of the cultural attribute of the society. Thus one question would be how the greater internal orientation of the less powerful society before a development initiative is reflected in the communication the society originates, and how in comparison the assumed greater external orientation after the initiative is reflected in that communication. The transmission perspective holds that the communication carries the attribute of the culture of an originating society from that society to another or others. Thus one question would be how and how much is the belief in the more powerful society that the less powerful society should be oriented toward the more powerful one embedded in and transmitted via the communication that flows from the former to the latter. The promoter perspective holds that the communication could help produce the development or continuation or change of the attribute of a society. Thus one question would be whether and how and how much the communication from the more powerful society helps the change in the less powerful society toward (greater) orientation to the more powerful one. Mass Communication and Domination: Perspectives From Contrasting Worlds One may define cultural domination by invoking the concepts of symmetry and asymmetry. As the cultures of societies influence each other, that influence may be symmetrical in that the flow of influence in one direction is equivalent to that in the other, or asymmetrical in that the flow in one direction is greater or less than that in the other. But the asymmetry may be incidental in that it may be unplanned and not the outcome of any program, or it may be cultivated in that it may be planned and so the outcome of a program. Cultural domination is the condition in which there is a greater influence from the culture of one society to that of another society than in the other direction, with the difference cultivated by at least one of the societies, or even another. Early in the life of scholarship on the relationship between mass communication and cultural domination, one illustration of the domination went as follows: “A few years ago, Ethiopian radio imported dramatic programs from the United States. Around the time of the Christmas sea- son, these programs promoted the European and American tradition of Christmas trees and gift giving. Ethiopia is a Coptic Christian country, where Christmas was strictly a religious holiday. However, the American programming led to a demand for Christmas trees and gift

giving. . . . The trees had to be shipped in from the U.S.!” (Dennis, 1984). One may analyse this example of domination thus: the domain is the observance of Christmas; the dimension is extremely religious vs. extremely materialistic; the United States is far more materialistic than religious; the United States embedded that attribute in its communication (correlation perspective); the United States exported that communication to Ethiopia, and/or Ethiopia imported the communication from the United States (transmission perspective); then, under the influence of the communication, Ethiopia moved from the strictly religious attribute to the more religious than materialistic attribute (promotion perspective), in the observance of Christmas; this incidence of the influence of the United States on Ethiopia does not have any parallel in the influence of Ethiopia on the United States (we have asymmetry); and the United States conceived and planned and executed the exportation of the communication because it anticipated that its business sector would reap benefits from the sale of products associated with the communication (we have cultivated asymmetry). This episode illustrates the idea of cultural domination by importation by the less powerful or exportation by the more powerful. There is another, and a perhaps a more profound, analysis of the episode – one that recognizes that this illustration of cultural domination comes from a representative of one more powerful society. The relating of the episode asks the reader to start with the consideration of Christmas in the United States, or, perhaps, in the “West.” The relating also asks the reader to understand cultural domination as a process or condition or phenomenon that includes the origination of an attribute of culture in the United States, the “West,” or the more powerful; the embedding of the attributes in the communication the originators produce; the exportation of the attribute within the communication to the less powerful; and the adoption of the attribute by the less powerful. It also asks the reader to submit to the idea of the more powerful as originator, and the less powerful as receiver and adopter, of elements and attributes of culture. And, it asks the reader to call the process of influence cultural domination by exportation (from the perspective of the more powerful) or cultural domination by importation (from that of the less powerful). But there is another perspective that starts with an understanding of the history of the world in general, and religion in particular, not over the last 100 or 500 or even 2,00 years, but over the last 10,000 years. Asante (1981) asks us to conceive of religion as the deification of heritage: to think of the religion a people develop as the result of their attempts to explain their existence (their history and heritage and culture) by connecting that existence to the Creator. Massey (see 1883, 1970, 1992) concludes that the people do that connecting via myths that Finch (1991) calls “unbelievable and fantastic” elements in their religion. Jackson (1985) specifies one of the myths by reporting that a people of Central Africa he says we collectively call the Pygmies hold that the Creator and a mortal Mother gave birth to a Child, who lived the exemplary life, died as sacrifice for the sins of humanity, rose from death for the redemption of humanity, went to the Father in Heaven, and will return to form perfect world government – all in their belief system that wove that drama of a “holy family” and related phenomena into their history and heritage and culture and so deified their history and heritage and culture. Finch (1991) says Massey (see 1883, 1970, 1992), in “36 years of mind-bending labor,” traced the existence of the myth of the

Child as the Saviour of humanity back to 10,000 years ago in Central Africa. After African peoples went north up the Nile River to establish Ta Seti in Nubia and then Kemet farther to the north, those in Kemet at least 6,000 years ago (Finch, 1991) named the Father Asar (we know him as Osiris), the Mother Aset (we know her as Isis), and the Child Heru (we know him as Horus) – and wove the drama and the related phenomena into their history and heritage and culture, and thus deified their history and heritage and culture. For example, their leaders assumed names that indicate that they believed that they displayed attributes of Heru. Millennia later, importers in Palestine renamed the figures God the Father, Virgin Mother, and God the Son – and again, wove the drama and the related phenomena into their history and heritage and culture, and thus deified their history and heritage and culture. The belief system further went to Greeks, then to Romans, and then to western Europeans, who also have woven that drama and the related phenomena into their history and heritage and culture, and in this way deified their history and heritage and culture. Thus, the “Christianity” millions “inherited” from Palestinians, Greeks, Romans, and western Europeans is a result of re-interpretation, re- localization and re-exportation by what Kuhn (1944) calls “later generations,” and it has at its center ideas that deify the histories and heritages and cultures of these “generations” but that originally deified the histories and heritages and cultures of African peoples. And according to Finch (1991), after the re-exportation from Palestine, the people of Ethiopia were among the first to embrace the “new” religion because they saw it as a continuation of their old religion. This provides another basis for the analysis of the influence of the United States programming in Ethiopia – one that uses the dimension of internal orientation vs. external orientation from McGuire (1974). The original creation of the Pygmies and the Kemetu sees the African history and heritage and culture and way of life as deified by virtue of their connection to the Creator. But the religions that the African peoples voluntarily and/or involuntarily adopt from Palestine or Greece or Rome or western Europe views the histories and heritages and cultures of these non-African centers of these religions as deified by virtue of their connection to the Creator. So, in the lives of People of the African Continent who follow the re-exportations that “outsiders” call their religions, there will be a critical cultural change in religion and perhaps in other areas of life: the replacement of a millennia-old internal orientation by a recent external orientation. It seems reasonable to add this change to the outcomes of the consumption of the programs. There is yet another, and perhaps even more profound, analysis of the episode that recognizes that this illustration of cultural domination comes from a representative of a more powerful society. The relating of the episode asks the reader to start with a discussion of Christmas in the United States, or, perhaps, in the “West.” But the relating of the millennia-old history of “Christianity” asks the reader to understand that this history includes the origination of the fundamentals of the faith in Africa and its related deification of the history and heritage and culture of African peoples (origination), the transmission of the fundamentals to other peoples (exportation), the use of them in the deification of the histories and heritages and cultures of these other peoples (modification), the transmission of the modifications by the others to (via

re-exportation), and/or transmission of the modifications by (via re-importation), the African peoples, and the internalization of the modifications (adoption) by the African peoples. This is an illustration of the stages that make up cultural influence by re-importation (from the perspective of the less powerful) or re-exportation (from the perspective of the more powerful) process or framework. Of course, if the illustration shows cultivated asymmetry, we may call it cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation. While the importation/exportation framework, illustrated by the quoted “representative” of the more powerful societies, presents these societies as originators and the less powerful societies as receivers or even dependents, the re-importation/re-exportation framework, illustrated by such examples as Christianity in less powerful societies like Ethiopia in particular and Africa in general, presents these societies as originators, and presents the more powerful societies as the receivers and modifiers of their output, with the less powerful then adopting the results of these modifications. The cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation framework presents a number of opportunities for the study of relationships involving (mass) communication in the framework: through the application of the perspectives of the relationship between (mass) communication and culture (correlation, transmission and/or promotion), and in each stage of the process of cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation (origination, exportation, modification, re-importation or re-exportation, and adoption). One area is the study of the communication as a reflector (correlation perspective) of the original internal orientation of the African peoples in religion (the origination stage). One is the study of the utilization of the communication in the sending of the original religion (transmission perspective) and its African internal orientation to such locations as Palestine and Greece and Rome and western Europe (exportation stage). One is the study of the communication as a reflector (correlation perspective) of the changes that turned the religion into deifications of the histories and heritages and cultures of each of the receiving societies (modification stage). One is the study of the use of the communication in the sending of the modifications (transmission perspective) to Ethiopia in particular and Africa in general (re-importation and/or re-exportation stage). And one is the study of the application of communication in the internalization by receiving Ethiopians and other Africans (promotion perspective) of the modifications from the other societies (adoption stage). This application of the cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation framework will come to life in the study of the reggae “revolution” of the latter part of the last century. Of course, cultural influence or cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation does not necessarily unfold only over millennia – it may unfold over centuries, decades, or years. In the case of centuries, Liverpool (2013) reports that People of the African Continent developed expressions and conventions in music, they took the expressions and conventions with them to the Caribbean in the period of their enslavement there over a few centuries, their descendants applied many of the expressions and conventions in the development of both kaiso music and the steel band, and in recent decades the descendants have been re-exporting the kaiso and the steel band to Africa – where the kaiso was instrumental in the development of highlife music in Ghana and in Nigeria. Also in the case of centuries, Orleans (2002) reports that the People of the

African Continent also took their music to Cuba, they combined that music with elements from the Spanish to develop the rhumba, and their descendants have been re-exporting the rhumba to Central Africa – where it has contributed to the development of soukous music. In decades, in culinary culture, Lowenthal (1972) reports that Trinidadians at first did not accord substantial valuation to the roti, they “exported” it within their island to forces from the United States who attached higher valuation to it, they received word of the higher valuation that the United States forces had accorded the roti, and after that the Trinidadians also attached higher valuation to it. In these and other series of developments, one may apply the perspectives of the relationship between (mass) communication and culture (correlation, transmission and/or promotion), and the perspectives of the relationship between (mass) communication and each stage of cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation (that is, origination, exportation, modification, re-importation or re-exportation, and adoption) in the analysis of the cultural change, whether one regards it as incidental or cultivated in the relationships between the relevant societies. Mass Communication and Domination: the “Sanctioned” Reggae “Revolution” To many observers of culture, cultural processes, cultural relations and cultural change, one of the most arresting developments in the latter half of the last century was the meteoric rise of reggae music from the status of just another sector in the music culture of Jamaica to the status of crown jewel of the music of the island, the Caribbean, the World African Community, and the world in general. To these observers, the explanation for that rise lies in the ideational, lyrical, structural and expressional attributes of the music, and the authenticity and persuasiveness and compelling attractiveness of the presentations of it by the most well known performers of it. Yet, after bearing in mind not only these characterizations but also other considerations, one observer who has been a professional, administrator and professor in (mass) communication deemed the change in the status of reggae a “sanctioned” revolution. At the foundation of this departure from the conventional “wisdom” is the conclusion that the music has been a willing instrument and/or the beneficiary of cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation, and one related view is that (mass) communication has been one resource in this domination. The elaboration of this departure from the conventional “wisdom” involves the use of several key concepts earlier parts of this exposition have employed – the ideas of domain, dimension, attribute, cultural change, cultural domination, and cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation. It also involves the application of the perspectives of the relationship between (mass) communication and culture (that is, correlation, transmission and/or promotion), and the perspectives of the relationship between (mass) communication and each stage of cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation (that is, origination, exportation, modification, re-importation or re-exportation, and adoption). That elaboration includes many conclusions at which the writer arrived by observation and conversation and experience, especially when the writer was the news director for a Caribbean-oriented public affairs radio program.

Throughout the history of the music, as is the case with human expression, there have been two ideational issues or domains. The first is the conception of the units that make up the Universe: one view sees these units as individual entities; one dichotomizes the Universe into opposing camps. The second issue is the ultimate state among the units: the first view sees that state as the coming together of the units in what one of the musicians often calls an African “oneness;” the second sees that state as one in which one camp triumphs over another and then imposes its way – sufferer over system, righteous over heathen, good over bad, and, yes, us over them. The view of the ultimate state as “oneness” is in one of the most popular songs in Jamaica and the Caribbean very early in the history of reggae, Wonderful World, Beautiful People: “Instead of fussing and fighting, cheating, backbiting, scandalizing, hating / We could have a Wonderful World (of) Beautiful People….” The view of the ultimate state as the triumph of one camp and the imposition of its will seems to be captured in one of the most popular songs in Jamaica and the Caribbean a few years later: “Let's get together to fight this Holy Armagiddyon / So when the Man comes there will be no, no doom / Have pity on those whose chances grows t'inner / There ain't no hiding place from the Father of Creation. One Love!” The conception of the ideal condition in the Universe moved from “oneness” to “imposition,” and the view of the basic unit in the Universe more than before stressed the dichotomization of it into opposing camps. During the development of the ska grandparent of reggae, during the development of the rock steady parent of reggae, and early in the history of reggae, the feature aficionados highlighted in the definition of reggae was the rhythm, the structure, the beat. This is in this characterization of reggae from Weber and Skinner (2001 p. 151): “It is characterized by the foregrounding of syncopated bass and drum rhythms, an emphasis on the down beat (beats 1 and 3) rather than the backbeat (beats 2 and 4)… An important difference between reggae and Euro-American pop music is the significance in reggae of drum-and-bass patterns or “riddims.’ In reggae, the riddim rather than the lyric is considered to be the essence of the song.” Later in the history of reggae, aficionados redefined reggae by proposing an essence that emphasized a certain ideational and lyrical content: reggae is the music of the oppressed; reggae is the music that speaks against the oppressor; reggae is the music that speaks against oppression; reggae is the music of Ras Tafari; reggae is the music of revolution; reggae is the music of Jah (the Creator). The culture of reggae music moved from the emphasis-on-rhythm end, and toward the emphasis-on-ideas-and-lyrics end, in the associated dimension in the characterization of the definitive attribute of reggae. One of the hallmarks of the cultures of members of the World African Community, and People of African Descent in Jamaica and the Caribbean, has been the lesser emphasis on the individual and greater emphasis on the collective or the relationship as the essential unit in human affairs. This seems to be revealed in the very high presence in their music genres and cultures of such structural conventions as call and response, and such performance conventions as syncopation, dialogue among voices, and diversity within unity. It also seems to be revealed in the emphasis on not the individual but the collective: in the kaiso and cadence and compass direct cultures, and the early years of reggae culture, the acclaimed musician was “one of the fallas,” “one of the boys,” or “one of us.” But later in the history of reggae, in the identification of the essential unit within the culture, the emphasis changed – from the collective to the individual. Perhaps a very

good example of this is the changing of the name of one of the groups from The Wailers to Bob Marley and the Wailers, and of the status of the person of Marley from member or musician or music player to leader, prophet, visionary, and even “messiah.” Reggae culture moved from the musician-as-member end, toward the musician-as-idol end, of the member vs. idol dimension. Each of these changes in reggae culture took place after the music seems to have seen a rise in its popularity among Indo-European peoples in western Europe and North America in the mid- 1970s. In that period, many in these societies emphasized the dichotomization of humanity into opposing sectors, as was the case in their 1960s counterculture movements. Many of them also idealized the idea of the triumph of their sectors over others, as was the case in the movements. In addition, many continued to use ideas or labels through which they characterized those they opposed, as was the case in the movements. And as Diop (1978) has emphasized, the millennia- old histories of Indo-European peoples indicate that they tend to be more individualistic than collectivistic, an attribute that may explain the elevation by them of singular performances – in such areas as sports and music. Thus it would appear that the changes in reggae culture in the mid-1970s made it less consistent than before with the attributes of the members of the World African Community who developed it, and more consistent than before with the traditional and contemporary attributes of Indo-European peoples in western Europe and North America. Two critiques that capture these attributes of the reggae culture of the Indo-European peoples were one review of the Bob Marley and the Wailers album Rastaman Vibration (Bangs, 1978) and the implicit and explicit elaboration of the attributes of reggae (Frost, 1990). One critique from the Caribbean calls the works that embody the changes, and in particular those from Marley that do so, “alien” and “inauthentic” (Alleyne, 1994, p. 83) representations of reggae. One may describe the changes through the use of the cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation framework. Jamaican and Caribbean People of African Descent developed their reggae culture that reflected their attributes (origination). They transmitted expressions that captured that culture to Indo-European peoples in Europe and North America (exportation). The destinations changed the culture to make it consistent with their attributes (modification). These destinations transmitted the modifications to the creators of reggae (re-exportation), or the creators secured the modifications (re-importation). Then these creators incorporated the modifications in the ideas, lyrics, structure, and emphases of their culture (adoption). One especially may describe the process that the framework spells out, and the changing of the characteristics of the music, through the use of the correlation, transmission and promotion perspectives of the relationship between (mass) communication and culture. These uses of the perspectives especially would yield questions and hypotheses and agendas for the study of the relationship between the communication and the domination – whether these relationships be inside or outside the context of the history of Jamaican and Caribbean reggae. One issue in the study of the reggae culture within the cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation framework is that the culture underwent change, in that in three dimensions the attribute in the early 1970s was different from that in the late 1970s. Here, one major criterion

for establishing that the change took place or the difference exists is the result of a comparison along each dimension of the attribute in the early 1970s and that in the late 1970s. For all three of the dimensions, the correlation perspective spawns at least one important hypothesis: A1: in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media, the presence given the proposition that the

incorporation of the idea of the dichotomization of humanity into opposing camps is a criterion one may apply in evaluations of reggae songs was relatively low in the early 1970s and relatively high in the late 1970s;

A2: in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media, the presence given the proposition that the

emphasis given the rhythm is a criterion one may apply in evaluations of reggae songs was relatively high in the early 1970s and relatively low in the late 1970s;

in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media, the presence given the proposition that the emphasis given the ideas is a criterion one may apply in evaluations of reggae songs was relatively low in the early 1970s and relatively high in the late 1970s;

A3: in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media, in descriptions of musicians, the presence given

musician-as-member labels was relatively high in the early 1970s and relatively low in the late 1970s;

in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media, in descriptions of musicians, the presence given musician-as-idol labels was relatively low in the early 1970s and relatively high in the late 1970s.

In the study of the exportation stage of the process or condition of domination under study, the transmission perspective of the relationship between (mass) communication and culture would seem appropriate, but it would be wise to incorporate ideas from the correlation perspective. Hence, these three questions on the communication used in the exportation: B1. What media did the exporters in Jamaica and the Caribbean, and/or the importers in

Europe and North America, use for their parts in the transmission process; B2: In the milieu-of-the-less-powerful vs. milieu-of-the-more-powerful dimension, at what

point did the exporters in Jamaica and the Caribbean, and/or importers in Europe and North America, lie (this would help anticipate the answer to the next question);

B3: How strongly did the attributes of the content of the exports of each of the sources seem

to correspond with the attributes of the Jamaican and Caribbean reggae culture or those of the European and North American reggae culture.

The modification stage seems similar to the origination stage, as it recommends a focus on the correlation between the cultural attributes of the receiver and the characteristics of the (mass)

communication of the receiver about reggae, as well as on the comparison of the attributes and characteristics of the receiver with those of the originator. Hence, for each of the dimensions, these hypotheses: C1: in European and North American mass media, the presence given the proposition that

the incorporation of the idea of the dichotomization of humanity into opposing camps as one criterion one may apply in evaluations of reggae songs was higher in the middle and late 1970s than it was in the Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the early 1970s;

C2: in European and North American mass media, the presence given the proposition that

the emphasis given the rhythm is one criterion one may apply in evaluations of reggae songs was lower in the middle and late 1970s than it was in the Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the early 1970s;

in European and North American mass media, the presence given the proposition that the emphasis given ideas is one criterion one may apply in evaluations of reggae songs was higher in the middle and late 1970s than it was in the Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the early 1970s;

C3: in European and North American mass media, in reports on musicians, the presence

given musician-as-member labels was lower in the middle and late 1970s than it was in the Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the early 1970s;

in European and North American mass media, in reports on musicians, the presence given musician-as-idol labels was higher in the middle and late 1970s than it was in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the early 1970s.

In the study of the re-importation or re-exportation stage of the process under study here, the transmission perspective of the relationship between (mass) communication and culture also would seem appropriate, but it also would be wise to incorporate ideas from the correlation perspective. Hence, too, three sets of questions on the communication used in the exportation: D1. What media did the re-importers in Jamaica and the Caribbean and/or re-exporters in

Europe and North America use for their parts in this transmission process; D2: In the milieu-of-the-less-powerful vs. milieu-of-the-more-powerful dimension, at what

point did the re-importers in Jamaica and the Caribbean and/or re-exporters in Europe and North America lie (this would help anticipate the answer to the next question);

D3: How strongly did the attributes of the content of the transmissions of each source seem

to correspond with the attributes of the Jamaican and Caribbean reggae culture or those of the European and North American reggae culture.

The adoption stage especially provides opportunities to apply theories and methods of (mass) communication effects in the study of cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation. Here, on the basis of the assumption that the central issue is the adoption by the less powerful originators for their own music of attributes that are different from native attributes, the key issue is the establishment of the existence of change that one may attribute to the influence of forces in the more powerful societies. Hence this combining of selected the hypotheses above: E1: in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media, the presence given the proposition that the

incorporation of the idea of the dichotomization of humanity into opposing camps is a criterion one may apply in evaluations of reggae songs was relatively low in the early 1970s and relatively high in the late 1970s, and that change moved the presence of the proposition in the Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the late 1970s closer than the presence in these media in the in the early 1970s to the presence in European and North American mass media in the middle and late 1970s;

E2: in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media, the presence given the proposition that the

emphasis given the rhythm is a criterion one may apply in evaluations of reggae songs was relatively high in the early 1970s and relatively low in the late 1970s, and that change moved the presence of the proposition in the Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the late 1970s closer than the presence in these media in the early 1970s to the presence in European and North American mass media in the middle and late 1970s;

in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media, the presence given the proposition that the emphasis given the ideas is a criterion one may apply in evaluations of reggae songs was relatively low in the early 1970s and relatively high in the late 1970s, and that change moved the presence of the proposition in the Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the late 1970s closer than the presence in these media in the early 1970s to the presence in European and North American mass media in the middle and late 1970s;

E3: in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the 1970s, in descriptions of musicians, the

presence given musician-as-member labels was relatively high in the early 1970s and relatively low in the late 1970s, and that change moved the presence of the labels in the Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the late 1970s closer than the presence in these media in the early 1970s to the presence in European and North American mass media in the middle and late 1970s;

in Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the 1970s, in descriptions of musicians, the presence given musician-as-idol labels was relatively low in the early 1970s and relatively high in the late 1970s, and that change moved the presence given the labels in the Jamaican and Caribbean mass media in the late 1970s closer than the presence in these media in the early 1970s to the presence in European and North American mass media in the middle and late 1970s;

All inquiries in Group A, Group C, and Group E, and most of those in Group B and Group D, have as their bases the correlation perspective – the idea that individual or collective attributes have reflections in (mass) communication attributes. This is consistent with the premise at the root of content analysis – the determination of the attributes of a subject through the analysis of the (mass) communication in which the subject engages as originator, transmitter, or “consumer.” At the foundation of the cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation framework is the proposition that the members of an originating society may adopt in their culture attributes that are different from those their culture may have exhibited for years, decades, centuries, or even millennia. While the framework describes the sequence of activities that culminate in the adoption, one issue that still remains is the answer to the question of what impels them toward the adoption. The promotion perspective of the relationship between (mass) communication and cultural domination suggests that the uses and gratifications theory and the third variable theory of (mass) communication effects may explain the inclination toward the adoption. Uses and gratifications theory starts with the view that from states that may be internal and/or internal to their persons human beings or collectives develop needs, and the provision to them of resources and conditions and opportunities, and the meeting of these needs through the use of these resources and conditions and opportunities, produces gratification in them (Blumler and Katz, 1974). Thus one imperative is to determine what are the needs within individuals and collectives in the less powerful societies and the more powerful societies that impel them in the direction of their roles in the cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation process. For example, from the seminal work of Diop (1978), it seems that in the less powerful societies in general, and among members of the World African Community (that is, People of the African Continent and People of African descent, including Jamaicans and other Caricommoners), these include the tendencies toward xenophilia and collectivism and cosmopolitanism, but among members of the World European Community (including People of the European Continent and People of European Descent), they include xenophobia and individualism and particularism. In addition, borrowing from the ideas of McGuire (1974), one may add the tendency in the less powerful societies toward an (external) orientation toward their colonial dominators and the tendency in these dominators toward the cultivation of that orientation (and benefits of it). Third variable theory (Comstock, Chaffee, Katzman, McCombs, and Roberts, 1978) argues that the ability of (mass) communication (first variable) to engender some effect (second variable) depends upon on the presence of another factor that helps the communication have the effect (third variable). One factor is an event that takes place before the communication (antecedent condition); one is an event that takes place after the communication (intervening condition); one is a continual or continuous, and enabling or facilitating, aspect of the social/psychological environment (contingent contextual condition). Within the context of cultural domination by re-importation and/or re-exportation, there may be such antecedent conditions as the winning of awards from the more powerful societies; there may be such intervening conditions as the winning of contracts from the more powerful societies; or, there may be contingent contextual conditions such as the securing of revenue from the patronage of the more powerful societies,

or the reliance on them for the production of the works in ways that maximize or optimize the likelihood that the works will appeal to their markets (see Alleyne, 1994 for indications of the role of this reliance in the explanation of changes in the works of Bob Marley and the Wailers). Around the world, in the World African Community in general, and in the world of Jamaican and Caribbean reggae in particular, one contingent contextual condition is a major consequence of the colonial experience. It is the tendency in the subjects of the colonies to replace their internal orientation (toward their selves and societies and histories and heritages and cultures) with an external orientation (toward their colonial dominators, their neo-colonial dominators, and the reasonable facsimiles of these dominators). Among People of African Descent in Jamaica and the Caribbean, this external orientation sits on a fundamental assumption that says that members of the World African Community are inferior to members of the World European Community, and related priorities include: (1) Corrective Automatic Reactions to Membership in the World African Community (CARMWAC), which include the minimization of proximity (MiniProx) to the members of it and the maximization of compensation (MaxiCom) for membership in it; (2) MASSAHIANISM, the philosophy and practice that perceives of the Universe as a hierarchy that includes the Creator at the top, the colonial dominator and the neo-colonial dominator and the reasonable facsimiles of them as intermediaries, and members of the World African Community at the bottom; and (3) PSYCHOLOGICAL DISARMING, which proposes that given the CARMWAC and the MASSAHIANISM, it is imperative to comply with, and not normal to depart from, the understandings and attitudes and behaviors and directives and examples that come from the colonial dominator and the neo-colonial dominator and the reasonable facsimiles of them (the elaboration of the first two of these priorities appears in Regis, 2020). At least two experts who are both Caricommoners and observers of the Jamaican and Caribbean reggae culture have made observations that are consistent with this conceptual elaboration of the contextual conditions that explain the adoption of modifications that Europeans and North Americans have made in the reggae culture by the peoples of Jamaica and the Caribbean. One of the experts argues that because of the degree to which the works of Bob Marley and the Wailers after the mid-1070s reflect the modifications that Europeans and North Americans made in the reggae culture, the works are “alien” and “inauthentic” (Alleyne, 1994, p. 83) representations of the culture. But that expert also noted that in the acceptance of their reggae and other creative works, Jamaican and other Caribbean audiences display an “undue reliance on Western arbiters regarding the value and representation of regional creativity” (p. 76). The second expert noted that the liking or preference that Jamaican and Caribbean audiences display for the works of Marley have been contingent to a substantial degree on the perceptions they had developed of the popularity of the works in the United States and other more powerful societies. The expert proposed that many in these audiences developed a certain liking or preference for the works on the basis of their perceptions of the popularity or endorsement or validation of the works in the United States and these other countries, then rationalized the liking or preference by saying that it was based on their evaluations of the quality of the works (Walrond, 1991). Indeed, that expert proposed that in Jamaica and the Caribbean the perception of reggae as an instrument of revolution developed only after that view had been validated in the United States and the other

more powerful societies, and therefore called the reggae “revolution” a “sanctioned” revolution. Overarching and Philosophical Conclusion In the study of the relationship between (mass) communication and development and between (mass) communication and cultural domination, the earlier perspectives sprang from the more powerful societies, and reflected their understandings of the world through their lenses. In the study of the former relationship, the earlier perspectives have co-existed with those from the less powerful societies. In the study of the latter relationship, there is a need to recognize and to receive guidance from perspectives that spring from the less powerful societies – such as the cultural domination by re-importation or re-exportation framework this document describes. The application of this framework in the study of the reggae “revolution” in the latter half of the last century seems to indicate that the framework has the potential to provide fertile ground for the study of the relationship between (mass) communication and cultural domination. But the adoption of this framework from the less powerful societies does not demand the discarding of the framework from the more powerful societies: nuances and complexities and diversiveness in human relations suggest that it is likely that between the two frameworks there will be both contestation and complementarity in the elaboration of the relationship.

Works Cited

Alleyne, M. 1994. Positive Vibration? Capitalist Textual Hegemony and Bob Marley. Bulletin

of Eastern Caribbean Affairs, 19(3): 76-84. Asante, M. 1981. Afrocentricity. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Bangs, L. 1978. Bob Marley Aims High, Misses Big: Tepid Cliches and Tourist Bait. Rolling

Stone, June 1: 56. Benedict, R. 1934. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Blumler, J. & Katz, E. (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on

Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Comstock, G. Chaffee, S. Katzman, N. McCombs, M. & Roberts, D. 1978. Television and Human

Behavior. New York: Columbia University Press. Dennis, E. 1984. The U. S. is Guilty of Communications Imperialism. In E. Dennis and J.

Merrill (Eds.), Basic Issues in Mass Communication (pp. 183-190). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Diop, C. 1978. The Cultural Unity of Black Africa. Chicago: Third World Press. Dennis, E. 1984. The U. S. is Guilty of Communications Imperialism. In E. Dennis and J.

Merrill (Eds.), Basic Issues in Mass Communication (pp. 183-190). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Diop, C. 1978. Cultural Unity of Black Africa. Chicago: Third World Press. Finch, C. 1991. Echoes of the Old Dark Land: Themes From the African Eden. Decatur, GA:

Khenti, Inc. Frost, L. 1990. DJ Reggae: Slackness Becomes Standard. Caribbean Review, 16 (3 & 4), 6, 74. Jackson, J. 1985. Christianity Before Christ. Austin, TX: American Atheist Press.

Kuhn, A. 1944. Who is This King of Glory? Elizabeth, NJ: Academic Press. Lerner, D. 1958. The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. Glencoe,

IL: Free Press. Liverpool, H. 2013. Cultural Relations and Cultural Change: Traditions Surrounding the

Masquerade. In Regis, H. Ratliff, C. Batiste-Roberts, G. Lashley, L. & Nwachukwu, E. (Eds.), Liberated Academics in Studies of Caricommoners (pp. 73-96) Vieux Fort, Saint Lucia: Vieux Fort Comprehensive Secondary School.

Lowenthal, D.1972. West Indian Societies. New York: Oxford University Press. Regis, H. 2020. Transcending CARMWAC and MASSAHIANISM: Caribbean Creolism and

World Globalism. In H.Regis and R. Collymore, Liberated Academics in Studies of Caricommoners (pp. 343-355). Orlando, FL: Lyenne Dousse.

Rogers, E. 1976. Communication and Development: the Passing of the Dominant Paradigm. In E. Rogers (Ed.), Communication and Development: Critical Perspectives (pp. 121-148). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Walrond, L. 1991. Personal interview with writer, Ideas Management, St. Michael, Barbados. Weaver, G. 1998. Culture, Communication and Conflict: Readings in Intercultural Relations.

Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Publishing. Weber, T. Skinner, E. 2001. Theorizing Reggae and Small Media. In H. A. Regis (Ed.), Culture

and Mass Communication in the Caribbean: Domination, Dialogue, Dispersion (pp. 149-168). Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.