Skip to main content

The Cycle of Supremacy and Oppression and How to Overcome it

 

The Cycle of Supremacy and Opperssion and How to Overcome it 

 

 Adis Duderija 


In the annals of human history, the struggle against oppression has often taken center stage. From medieval forms of imperialism to (neo)- colonialism, various movements have arisen, championing the rights of the marginalized and the disenfranchised. However, a disconcerting pattern emerges when we observe that those who vehemently oppose one form of imperialistic or supremacist ideology often seek to supplant it with another. This paradox raises significant moral questions about the nature of resistance and the ethics of power dynamics. Are we merely trading one form of domination for another? Or is there a deeper understanding of justice and equity at play?

 

 

Imperialism, in its various forms, has historically been characterized by domination whether through military force, economic exploitation, or cultural hegemony. It often involves a powerful entity asserting control over a more vulnerable one, leading to the subjugation of entire populations. This dynamic manifests in numerous ways, including the exploitation of resources, the imposition of foreign governance, and the erosion of indigenous cultures.

 

Opposition to these practices has been a rallying cry for countless movements across the globe. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela emerged as symbols of resistance against oppressive regimes. Their struggles were not merely against foreign powers; they were also against the ideologies that underpin such domination. However, as history has shown, the fall of one oppressive regime does not always herald the dawn of a more equitable society.

 


 

When one examines the aftermath of successful liberation movements, a troubling reality often surfaces: the very ideologies that arose in opposition to oppression sometimes morph into new forms of supremacy. Take, for instance, the rise of certain nationalist movements that emerged in the post-colonial era. While these movements sought to reclaim sovereignty and cultural identity, they sometimes adopted exclusionary practices that marginalized other groups within their own borders.

 

Consider the case of ethnic nationalism, which can arise as a response to imperialistic oppression. Initially, the aim is to unify a people against a common oppressor. However, as power consolidates, the focus can shift from liberation to exclusion. This transition often results in the suppression of minority groups, leading to new forms of discrimination and violence. Thus, the cycle continues: one form of supremacy is dismantled, only to be replaced by another.

 


At the heart of this discussion is the ethical consideration of power dynamics. Simply opposing one form of domination does not automatically confer moral authority. The critical distinction lies in the intention and execution of power. When movements rise to power, they must confront the temptation to replicate the same structures they once opposed. The moral imperative is to build systems that promote equity rather than dominance.

 

The notion of ethical leadership becomes crucial here. Leaders and movements must be held accountable not just for their opposition to existing power structures but also for their actions and policies once they assume power. The transition from resistance to governance requires a commitment to inclusivity and a recognition of the complex tapestry of identities within any society. True liberation cannot be achieved through exclusionary practices, even if they are framed as a means of self-determination.

 


To navigate the complexities of resistance and governance, an intersectional approach is essential. This framework acknowledges that individuals possess multiple identities may it be race, gender, class, sexuality which intersect to shape their experiences of oppression and privilege. By adopting this lens, movements can better understand the diverse needs of their constituents and avoid the pitfalls of replacing one form of supremacy with another.

 

For instance, feminist movements that emerge in post-colonial contexts must consider the unique challenges faced for example by women of colour or other marginalized groups. By centering these voices, movements can work toward a more holistic understanding of justice that transcends mere opposition to existing power structures. In turn, this can foster a more inclusive vision for the future one that prioritises the dignity and rights of all individuals.

 

The Path Forward: A Call for Genuine Inclusivity

 

As we reflect on the moral implications of replacing one form of supremacy with another, a call for genuine inclusivity becomes imperative. Movements for social change must prioritise dialogue, collaboration, and understanding over exclusion and dominance. This requires a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about power dynamics and to recognize that the fight against oppression is not merely a binary struggle.

 

It is crucial for those in positions of power whether political leaders, activists, or community organizers to remain vigilant against the allure of supremacy, even in its most insidious forms. This vigilance must be accompanied by a commitment to solidarity, where the struggles of one group are seen as interconnected with the struggles of all.

 

 

The moral quandary of replacing one set of imperialistic and supremacist views with another is not merely an academic concern; it is a pressing issue that demands our attention. As we navigate the complexities of resistance and governance, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to justice, equity, and inclusivity. Only by embracing these principles can we hope to break the cycle of supremacy and work toward a future where all individuals can thrive, free from oppression and discrimination.

 

In the end, the fight against imperialism and supremacy is not just about dismantling existing structures; it is about envisioning and building a world that celebrates diversity and upholds the rights of all based on a different understand of the concept of power and what constitutes true goodness. The challenge lies in ensuring that our movements are not merely reactions to oppression but proactive efforts to create a more equitable and just society for generations to come.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ON HIJAB AND AWRAH OF WOMEN AND SLAVES ( from FROM EL FADL’S ‘speaking in God’s name p.481-484)

ON HIJAB AND AWRAH OF WOMEN AND SLAVES ( FROM EL FADL’S ‘speaking in God’s name p.481-484)-reproduced verbatim There are several material elements that are often ignored when discussing the issue of ḥijāb or the ‘awrah of women. These elements suggest that the issue of fitnah might have dominated and shaped the discourse on the ‘awrah of women, but they are also informative as to the possible authorial enterprise behind the fitnah traditions. There are six main elements that, I believe, warrant careful examination in trying to analyze the laws of ‘awrah, and that invite us to re-examine the relationship between ‘awrah and fitnah. Firstly, early jurists disagreed on the meaning of zīnah (adornments) that women are commanded to cover. Some jurists argued that it is all of the body including the hair and face except for one eye. The majority argued that women must cover their full body except for the face and hands. Some jurists held that women may expose their feet and their arms up

Khaled Abou El Fadl's Approach to the Hadith

Khaled Abou El Fadl's   Approach to the Hadith Khaled Abou El Fadl (b.1963) is one of the most distinguished scholars of Islamic law today. He is also one of the few progressive Muslim scholars who has fully engaged with the postmodern episteme, post-enlightenment hermeneutics, and literary theory, as well as applied them in relation to gen­der issues in Islam, including the interpretation of hadith pertaining to gender. Much of his Qur’anic hermeneutics and approach to Islamic jurisprudence is in agreement with scholars such as mohsen Kadivar and nasr Abu Zayd , and need not be repeated. However, El Fadl’s work also includes discussions pertaining to (in)determinacy of meaning, ambiguity of textual hermeneu­tics, and the process of meaning derivation as employed, for example, in literary theory and semiotics (which he has applied to both Qur’an and hadith texts) (El Fadl, 2001, 88). El Fadl has systematically engaged in these discussions and has applied them to the issue of wo

A Reply to ‘Abdul Haq Al-Ashanti’s “Critique” of My articles on Neo-Traditional Salafi construction of the Religious Other

A Reply to ‘Abdul Haq Al-Ashanti ’s “Critique” of My articles on Neo-Traditional Salafi construction of the Religious Other By Adis Duderija, Ph.D. Couple of months ago I was contacted by email by AbdulHaq ibn Kofi ibn Kwesi al-Ashanti   who informed me that he wrote a ‘ critique ’ of my two articles on what I term Neo-traditional Salafi (NTS) construction of the Religious Other  (the articles in question can be read here and here ) in which he has made a number of erroneous claims about my work that deserve unequivocal refutation. More importantly,  ‘Abdul  Haqq’s  ‘critique’ warrants attention  because it illustrates well  the problematic nature of more mainstream classical Sunni manahij ( sg. manhaj) on not only the normative relationship between the Muslim Self and the Religious other but also on other issues pertaining to gender , violence and tolerance. REPLY TO POINT ONE: ‘Abdul Haq starts his ‘critique’ by rightly complaining that the label as well as the concept