Institute for Research in Social Science & Politics - Haiti

Research for Progress

Institute for Research in Social Sciences and Politics

ECCSSA Conference

Culture, Development, and changing politics in democratic Haiti

By Hyppolite Pierre

Introduction

Sections

At the August 17, 1992 Republican Convention, conservative columnist Patrick Buchanan shouted during his speech: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself".

This Buchanan statement was then regarded by conservatives and liberals alike, as heresy. In fact, some moderate republicans attribute Bush's loss in 1992 to Buchanan's call for a "cultural war". Time may have proved that Buchanan was right, however. If so it is, he must then be given credit for his vision that was nonetheless precocious by 12 years: a cultural war that the right should and would win inside the voting booths throughout America. Indeed, the 2004 reelection of republican president George W. Bush was won on cultural issues, exactly those that Patrick Buchanan related to in his 1992 speech: religious convictions with Christian values as corollary.

In this case, the right had won in the United States. The left was relegated to the losing side, forced to reevaluate its philosophy judged too liberal by Americans from the Midwest and rural communities.

It wasn't a total loss for the left, for this cultural issue on which Bush had won showed a divided America roughly between those whose convictions are firmly implanted in traditional values that they consider to be essentially "American", and those from larger urban and metropolitan areas that they consider to be essentially "global".

On December 16, 1990, a significant shift took place in the ways politics is done in Haiti. For the first time in its history the Haitian people and most importantly the disinherited masses, under the guard of a United Nations mission and international observers, elected freely a president.

Culture proved to play a significant role in the choice of the majority of the electorate. Regardless of one's point of view on the then-elected leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the choice of the masses was based on some very important values that the masses held dear to their heart. If only to prove the importance of culture in these elections, Aristide spoke with the skills of a master the language of the majority (Haitian, also known as Creole), rather than using French as the language of communication before and during those elections. The masses loved it so much that they called him "Titid". Indeed, the prefix "Ti" (meaning "Little") in the Haitian language, has the same interpretative value as the Spanish suffix "ito", like "Carlito" for "Carlos". It is a very affectionate way of speaking and so, by calling him Titid, the masses were speaking affectionately.

Aristide was the masses' own because they share common cultural values. They speak the same language. They use the same kind of imagery that each understands so very thoroughly. These elections in 1990, at the same time, also signify that never more will politicians of a class or a group be able to stay in power and control the political terrain as long as they want, unless they have the clear backing of the majority voices expressed through the ballot boxes, through elections.

However apart on the development scale both Haiti and the United States are, culture still proved its resilience and relevance in the political process of both countries. Nevertheless, it is not just in Haiti and the US that culture is proving its relevance in the political process. Cultural influence in politics is springing up in countries throughout Latin America under the puzzled eyes of the West and political analysts.

Since late 2005 and early 2006, left-wing politicians across Latin America are winning the presidency to the surprise of many national and foreign political analysts. This wave keeps on striking the shores of countries like Chile, Bolivia, and most recently Haiti. The Latin American left, in almost every case, is beating odds where until then were deemed insurmountable.

To many analysts in the US, this is just a reaction against the monetary policies of governments and their partners, mainly international financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. In truth the repudiation of an old political class or dissatisfaction with the state of their economy is only half of the story. The other half includes issues like the fact that the left, especially in countries like Bolivia, has consciously or unconsciously tapped into a deeper wealth that is called, the majority culture.

In the United States, the tapping into a cultural divide (between the urban and the rural, the cosmopolitan and the all-American Midwesterner or Southerner, the religious and the secular) exploited by the right is a very well thought-out strategy based on rational data that was accumulated over the years by savvy statisticians for the Republican Party. Better yet, republican political analysts understood the data well enough to successfully carve their electoral niche right through it. In other words, despite the official repudiation of the Buchanan theory of culture and politics, the Republican Party strategists followed his lines and delivered resounding victories for their candidates. The media soon followed.

As in typical fashion, following the November 2004 presidential elections all respectable mass media outlets in the US, from National Public Radio to CNN, decided to have a regular program or an "expert" on Religion to satisfy the "spiritual need" of this emerging market. The culture trend in politics obviously does not end there.

In still teetering Latin American democracies, the phenomenon seems to be much less calculated, much more spontaneous. There, the analysts and party strategists have yet to "catch up". Nonetheless, the electorates are ahead of the pack. The spontaneity of these electorates to choose sometimes thoughtful or cautious center left leaders like Lula of Brazil or Michelle Bachelet of Chile, oftentimes strikes with the election of other more daringly challenging leaders of the harder left like Evo Morales of Bolivia or Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. In either case, whether the chosen leader by democratic process is thoughtful or populist, something new is happening in governance throughout the developing world. Culture is becoming more prevalent a political force.

If in the past, the basic requirement for political leaders was to have the right connections with powerful foreign governments, it is becoming increasingly clear that the more open and democratic a country becomes, the more masses of people are becoming assertive in their choice of representatives. In the process, they choose political leaders whom they believe might best represent their ideal.

Why has culture become so prevalent in the political process of these emerging democracies? What makes a leader more appealing to masses of voters in these uncertain times of transition from dictatorship to democracy throughout Latin America and the Caribbean? What kind of culture dominated the politics of these nations before the emergence of those new political leaders on the scene? All those questions can and need to be answered in other papers and forum. We will focus here on Haiti, where there is much more clarity and assertiveness in the masses' leadership choices than one can find in other Latin American nations.

Background on the causes of the cultural struggle in Haitian Politics
On the surface, Haiti is simply a nation with the fascinating history of a majority of former slaves who rose up against French colonialism at the dawn of the 19th century to fight and win the last battle for their independence on November 18, 1803. On the first of January 1804, they proclaimed officially their independence to the delight of a few white liberals in the US and Western Europe, and the awful revulsion of slave owners and nations. As usual however, the truth is much more complex.

The Haitian Revolution, however, was more complex. It was the accomplishment of at least two different groups fighting for the same final goal but with different objectives. On the one hand, there was this very large group of former slaves, mostly blacks from Africa or of direct African ancestry who wanted to gain or regain their rights as human beings. On the other hand, there was this group of rich blacks and mulattoes who have acquired their freedom, either because of their master's compassion, or because they were the illegitimate children of white slave owners with mostly African women working on their plantation.

At the time of the independence, the nonwhite planters had power which the former slaves never had. They had in many instances, land, property, education, wealth, and most importantly freedom. They had also acquired wealth through a different kind of exploitation of the land, from that of the rich white landowners.

Agricultural exploitation: the whites and the nonwhites 

The classic French white colonizers remained on low land, in the plains where they planted sugarcane. Sugar would be extracted from and exported mostly to France. The nonwhite plantation owners, who also owned slaves, instead exploited mountainous land which they bought or were given to them by their father as payoff to their illegitimate children. The nonwhites worked hard and became owners of very large coffee plantations which they exploited under extremely difficult natural conditions.

These nonwhites (black affranchis and mulattos), social rejects, overtime became so successful that they were viewed as economic and social rivals of the very white and wealthy French colonial planters. By the late 18th century, the nonwhite landowners became so wealthy that Haitian historian and anthropologist Michel Rolph Trouillot in his most acclaimed book Les Racines historiques de l'État Duvaliérien1, proclaimed that the nonwhite financial success in the colony as the period of "The Coffee Revolution". This makes perfect sense, considering that such success came about because of the nonwhites' skillful and disciplined cultivation of coffee on high mountains.

Evolution of two different mentalities 

Once successful business people, many members of the nonwhite elite sent their children to France where they obtained classic French education. Rich and educated, these future generations of nonwhites rightfully thought that they had the right to participate in the political process. The white French colonizers and the French government back in Paris made vain promises to them which they reneged on repeatedly. Once they finally realized that their right to partake in the political process lied in a permanent alliance with the former slaves, they joined forces and fought side by side with them in the final battle for Independence. This partially explains the Haitian motto "Strength comes from Union" (L'Union fait la Force).

It is therefore clear that two different groups with different socioeconomic and political experiences, and vision gave Haiti independence. Who then were the former slaves?

The former slaves were blacks, either direct descendants of transplanted Africans, or Africans themselves. They were transformed into human cattle, could be and were disposed of at will by the white and nonwhite masters alike. If the nonwhite plantation owner lived freely and had accumulated wealth in many cases, the slaves had no right, no money, no education, and very little knowledge of either the French language or the French culture. As a result, they developed something that had since then become thoroughly Haitian: a culture that is part African, part heritage of their colonial past.

The former slaves wanted freedom first, and everything else later. If their ultimate goal was independence, the same as that of the nonwhites, the tactics were almost always very different. They were more radical.

They also spoke differently and almost exclusively what was then a dialect, Creole, that developed out of linguistic friction between French and diverse African languages. Where the nonwhite elite wanted political power, they wanted to have the right to own land as the ultimate proof of their freedom. Many nonwhites received formal education; most former slaves could not even read or write.

Despite it all, these two groups put aside their differences and fought ferociously against the French plantation owners and their repressive army to win independence. This independence came about after the final battle on November 18, 1803. The day of celebration was postponed until the first day of the following year, January 1, 1804. But Haiti could not have been a nation yet because of all these cultural divides. The real battle for nationhood, which will come much later, only began the day after that first morning of January. In fact, with all the social divisions that existed before Haiti became independent, only extraordinarily visionary leaders with strings of great luck would have been able to manage the country so it could succeed. Unfortunately, it is a success that is still being fought for and which can only come about with cultural reckoning on both sides. That sort of reckoning is a process that had barely begun with the advent of democracy in Haiti on December 16, 1990. Before getting into that part of the analysis, it is best to look at Haiti the day after independence, to see how the people of this country were shaping their future, consciously or unconsciously.

The day after Independence 

After Haiti's independence, the political leaders of the nation, the administrators, and also the wealthy elite were most if not all culturally closer to France than the majority of former slaves. They had intimate intellectual and even emotional connection with early 19th century France, a very well-developed society that was well- known and celebrated throughout Europe with its icons, its leaders, its brilliant writers and scholars. As the old adage says, nothing is more contagious than success. France was a success in every way, even though they lost the war in what was St-Domingue and had become Haiti. France is where the future elite by-and-large got their education during and after the colonization period. Moreover, even those who were educated in Haiti and had never stepped foot in France still received their basic education from culturally biased French clergymen and others. This was knowledge transmitted to pupils, honestly or viciously, with a biased flavor for the motherland's culture.

These students, in large majority members of the new Haitian elite, did indeed continue on with the intellectual and cultural trend not necessarily because they had some kind of natural aversion toward African culture. This was instead because they studied in and received knowledge from France where they had learned and experienced the European version of glamour, beauty, and correctness. They had therefore come to believe that the French cultural heritage is at the very least better than that of the former slaves, now poorer members of the new Haitian society.

It is true that not the entire post-colonial leadership in Haiti was educated in France or from a French perspective or bias. In fact many post-colonial leaders, especially among the black military, had very little if any formal education. Nonetheless, if they received no formal education, their children would as they would also become members of the very same elite. Nevertheless, Haiti could have managed to not have become an alienated society. Unfortunately in 1825, then President Boyer agreed to pay to France headed by King Charles X, an indemnity of 150 million francs. The consequence of this deal, which I discussed in depth in my book, was a severe blow to Haiti's sense of self and pride.

In fact, the threat of France taking over Haiti once more was like a Damocles sword on the head of each Haitian citizen. Such a threat and even possible attack by the French, by the end, would have benefited the entire citizenry and also the nation culturally. Once the threat was removed, especially the way that removal took place, Haiti's hope for greater cultural integration was also dashed at least for a very long time2. The ultimate loser was the majority of former slaves which by that time, was already getting impoverished. The elite, composed of mostly rich black men and nonwhites, could now easily discount the voice of the majority in the decision-making process and adhere to the old colonial tradition of culturally viable icons, from language to clothing to culinary habits, and so forth.

Haiti has since then, been run mostly by politicians and civil servants who are members of an elite with the conviction that the masses' customs are not conducive to socioeconomic progress. They thought and still think along those lines, irrespective of the fact that it is largely thanks to the warring skills of military leaders and soldiers transplanted from Africa that St-Domingue became Haiti, that Haiti is a free and independent country. Nonetheless, it is also true that at different and rather short periods in Haiti's history, some political leaders tactfully used the culture of the majority. However, they only did so to maintain a firmer grip on the ropes of power. The best known and some might say, most notorious among such leaders are Emperor Faustin Soulouque (1847 — 1859), and Dr. François Duvalier (1957 — 1971). In both cases indeed, especially in the case of Dr. Duvalier, the masses' culture was used egregiously, if only to help him successfully stay in power against the wishes of the traditional elite, and practically terrify the every one.

However egregious Duvalier's tactics were, his time and that of his son in power, signaled the first phase of a process whereby the majority culture will gain greater significance. In fact, with democratic elections now a prerequisite for political legitimacy, the Haitian culture can no longer be discounted in the political process.

The rise of the majority culture in Haiti, versus Politics by tradition
The final cultural shift in Haiti came about on December 16, 1990 when Haiti for the first time elected all its political leaders through an election that was monitored by the United Nations and different other private and public international organizations. Since that time, the Haitian majority seem resolved in making sure that those who will govern them must at least pass the communicative test. In other words, their leaders ought to speak, read, and communicate with them in no uncertain terms and in their own language, not in French. This is very clear because, those who are able to win elections in Haiti are either members of a political party that fosters overtly or discretely the majority culture, or are associated with a particular leader or trend of thoughts that promote the idea of integrating the culture of the majority.

At the same time, the traditional elite and powerbrokers in Haiti seem baffled or taken by surprise. They either refuse to play by the new rules, or most of them seem unaware of what has happened since the first democratic elections in 1990.

For those who refuse to play by the new rules, it has mostly been an issue of "old habits die hard". They therefore tend to rely on or hope for individuals, or groups, or sympathizers to their cause in the international community to help them overthrow governments in power that they judge to be "populist". In truth, the traditional political class in Haiti is currently not only baffled but also frustrated. They are so used to being in power that they behave as though they have a natural right to it. After having governed the country for so long, either directly or by understudy, power is viewed by the traditional elite not a privilege but as a right.

It is also in this context, of cultural clashes, that one needs to understand the struggle that Haiti had been going through for the last 20 years. Indeed, ever since the fall of Duvalier in 1986, government had come and gone, presumably because that's the way politics is done in Haiti. However, something else is at play this time around. Granted, the traditional elite is uncomfortable with governments that do not play by their rules. But those rules also include a certain discourse and a set of behaviors that correlate with tradition. It is a tradition that is deeply rooted in discourses that are pronounced first and foremost in French, coupled with a relationship with the social elite that is beneficial to them financially to the detriment of the majority. That tradition of course, implies a subtle yet punctuated detachment from the majority in every way possible.

In this context, a politician should not be viewed as friendly to Vodou priests or priestesses, nor should they establish known and overt friendship with public members of that faith. To the traditional elite, including middle class individuals and members of the intelligentsia, getting too close to anything that represents the majority culture is an affront to what they think Haiti represents: a slice of France in the Caribbean basin.

The Haitian elite has such repugnant attitude towards the majority because to them, the majority culture lacks what it takes to celebrate or elevate the common humanity of the Haitian people. It is also an attitude that somehow justifies in the eyes of the traditional elite what seems to be complete detachment from the concern of the majority. After all, they do not see or portray themselves as people with any kind of social or cultural kinship with the masses.

It is in that context that one will hear members of Haiti's traditional elite refer to the poor majority as "moun sa yo" meaning "those people", as opposed to "nou" meaning "us". There is through their eyes, a definite and definable distinction between themselves and the majority. They are sophisticated westerners trapped in a land that is still involved in vulgar and backward practices. From this perspective therefore, every injustice done to the majority, from forcing them to pay taxes disproportionate to their income to stealing their land or other property and having a corrupt judiciary condone it, is not only justified but even necessary. In this context where the lack of respect of the majority culture is used to justify the most abject of behaviors, every exaction is justified for to those who abuse their power, those people (i.e. the majority) don't know any better.3

It is also in that context that one needs to first understand the Haitian majority proverb that says "onè, respè" which means "honor, respect". In other words, if you want me to honor you, you need to first respect me. It is almost like a response, in a tit for tat kind of way to those who insult them.

Shifting paradigm 

The winds have changed direction since December 1990 in Haiti, and slowly so have the very diverse and colorful Haitian political leaders. The same way that 1804 brought political power to the traditional elite, December 16, 1990 equally made it possible for the masses to finally have structured voice in Haiti's political system.

January 1, 1804, was the day when all classes and groups of people in the former colony of St-Domingue became citizens of a new nation. However, the masses of former slaves only benefited from the independence from the perspective that they would never return to slavery. They had from then on, at least physical freedom. They had the right to hold and possess land and even prosper. However because they never had real political power, the lack of which was justified by their supposed lack of sophistication, they never fully benefited from it. They were never allowed to have genuine participation in the political process. In other words, the masses were always part of the political process, but mostly from the sidelines and not based on an inclusive and systemic approach. Their power as in terms of numbers could always be and was oftentimes used by politicians who would later on discard them, betray them. Fortunately now, with a democratic system, the mere necessity of constantly calling for new leaders through scheduled elections, and the public debates that come along impose on all the political forces the obligation to show minimal respect for the electorate. In other words politicians will have to continue to adjust to a new reality that implies among other things, true and deserved respect for the majority in every way. After all, the masses cultural expression is at the core of their humanity for it includes the way they express themselves based on their history, their experience, their relationship with nature and the world.

There is now every reason to hope that things will change for the better. Although Haiti had been described, at least since 1986, as a basket case, things are getting better for the country to move on.

On the one hand, Haiti just has had four presidential elections since 1990, the last of which was on February 7th, 2006. Although the previously elected leader was forced out of power due to street protests, an insurgent group and armed partisans of Aristide who equally threatened mayhem and a sea of blood in the capital, it is very clear that the vast majority of Haitians (from the wealthiest to the poorest) want to see democratic rule in Haiti. Even more importantly, if in the past the traditional elite had preferred to govern by understudy, nowadays they take part in the political process not just as voters but also as candidates. Names like Baker and Boulos for instance, are not readily associated with democracy in Haiti. Yet, they were respectively presidential and senatorial candidates in these elections. Presidential candidate Charles Baker had garnered less than 9 percent of the electorate while senatorial candidate Boulos is ahead in the first round and will face off his challenger for the next round that is scheduled for April 21, 2006.

This is still early in the political process for a new democracy in Haiti that truly takes into account the desiderata, hopes, and fear of the majority. Nonetheless, it is quite interesting to notice how, since the first truly democratic elections in 1990, slowly but surely, even those among the traditional elite who have in the past stayed on the sidelines have now decided to fully partake in this process. This means that they will also have to adapt to the new reality by talking the language of the masses and taking their concern into account, economically as well as culturally, if they wish to win.

The only puzzlement thus far is that very few Haitian experts have analyzed or even noticed this shift. Meanwhile many so-called experts of Latin American and Caribbean politics, have attributed the success of the left to some sort of magic recipe to win elections in their respective nations. The truth remains however that if there is a magic formula, it is firmly attached to culture.

It is a very simple recipe. The Haitian elite, like most elites in Latin American countries from Bolivia to El Salvador, are accustomed to doing politics one way. Now that the masses of those countries are having a more qualitative participation in their political process, they are using their ballots to express themselves not just from the perspective of economic development or lack thereof, but also from the point of view that their cultural points of view have to also be taken into account. Since the left, at least theoretically, represents the voice of the downtrodden, they have also become their natural allies. However, if Haiti could represent some sort of a benchmark in this shifting paradigm, the right might soon catch up and be able to challenge the left. It is in this context that the candidacy of the likes of Boulos and Baker in Haiti may have great significance.

There still is this danger that Haitian politicians from either side may use that newfound political water well to push forth populist agendas. Granted, many may think of populism as a viable way to run the affairs of a state. However, the history of populism in Haiti, from Alexandre Pétion to Faustin Soulouque to François Duvalier to Jean-Bertrand Aristide had done more long-term damage to the very majority that those leaders had implicitly or explicitly promised to help. It is thus important to study methodically the importance of that shifting paradigm so once again, majority or minority cultures are not used by politicians for feel good purposes, while maintaining the very process of victimization they had promised to correct.

From Venezuela with its minorities of indigenous people and dialects, to the 5 percent of Amerindian and other minority Chileans, to Bolivia that is only officially 15 percent white but had mostly been dominated by this ethnic minority, democracy has a very new, perhaps different but definitely important and even crucial meaning.4 As in these countries, with longer democratic experiences than Haiti, the left and right are roughly balanced in the electorate, the greater focus of one political group or party on a certain segment of the population may tilt the balance in unexpected ways. In fact, the greatest among some recent surprises has been the election in Bolivia of Evo Morales to the presidency. Not only does he have the physical outlook of a member of the oppressed majority but also, he promised in no uncertain terms to allow the ethnic Indians in Bolivia the right to use coca leaf in the traditional ways. This promise may be significant in many ways; but it is most certainly so culturally. It is also that promise to respect the cultural right of large segments of the Bolivian population that had made it possible for Morales to win.

As already discussed, the cultural shift and balance (or imbalance) in Haiti is even much clearer. In fact it is an obvious imbalance that nonetheless had been ignored for too long. It is also that cultural shift that made it possible for the left to continuously win elections in Haiti since 1990. This is partly why the study of culture, for thorough understanding of the basic philosophical principles and empirical evidence related to it, is so important.

If third world and post-colonial societies have been wronged for so long, by cultural minorities that behave in manners detrimental to them, what then is culture? Does or did the West indeed have the right to impose their own cultural value to the rest of the world, or is the imposition or encouragement for such a sign of disrespect that may in fact amount to some form of racism?

Theories of Culture or Civilization, and the supremacy of the West

There is much more to it than just a matter of definition. Culture, or civilization, is defined differently by nations and citizens, based on their stated, secret, or even unconscious goal. Culture is basically defined as an ensemble of practices, customs, habits, living codes that people adhere to in a particular community or group. When that definition extends to nations, it is viewed as the ensemble of practices in and of a people based on shared values.

As a general rule, we tend to consider culture as having specific degrees from real, or even some kind of imaginary benchmark. Bluntly speaking, we tend to think that some cultures are superior to others. We consider certain cultures superior to others based on external achievements. It is in that sense that we talk about the great American civilization, the extraordinary legacy of Western European culture, the value of Greek mythology that we all still hold onto very dearly. At the same time, we are unaware of, or simply ignore Haitian mythology that has the same kind of comparative philosophical values to those who know them both. We question the claim that the Egyptian civilization grew out of African customs, as we try to put a more "European" face to it. In other words, we wish to say that certain cultures are superior to others. We even have the facts to prove it, and we almost seem to have it right.

When one looks at the magnitude of the Empire State Building, the stateliness of the Brooklyn or the London Bridge, the spatial achievement of the United States aeronautical industry, it becomes daring and even heretic to claim that, in fact, there really is no culture superior to any another. Virtually all countries in the modern world that have achieved greatness for their people in terms of economic achievement and scientific progress had been able to do so because they had relied on some basic tenets of what we call "Western Culture". Perhaps most importantly, political leaders and elites from post-colonial societies have also accepted the same kind of argument as being essentially correct. In the process, they had rejected if not completely, at least partially the culture of their country's majority. It is in this context that the Haitian dilemma can best be understood. Still, despite it all, post-colonial societies like Haiti seem to be stuck, literally and figuratively. They are trapped in cycles of poverty, social dislocation, and some of them seem to be moving backward rather than forward.

In many of those post-colonial societies, the logic is that in order to develop, a country needs unquestionably to accept completely to photocopy Western culture if they are to develop and improve the life of their citizenry. Unfortunately, after nearly half-a-century since for example most African countries have been free from colonialism, the story of progress in that continent is scant at best. Maybe this is because Western philosophers have gotten it right: there is no human culture that is inherently superior to another.

Indeed, according to many if not most philosophers from the West, the term "culture" means something totally different from what politicians, who benefit from distortions of the term, seem willing to admit. Culture is like the house you build to protect yourself against natural hazards. Depending on the environment and the human relationship with that environment, people develop a series of habits and codes that protect them against those hazards. Culture is a dynamic process that evolves based on existing realities. Culture is always a thought-out process, individual or collective, which the majority agrees on because it renders life livable in one's and the collective's defined place.

In fairness to the West, it is extremely difficult to tell even the most intelligent and open individuals that their culture is not superior to that of individuals from a tribe living along the rugged terrains of Kinshasa, the capital of Congo-Zaire. We live in a world of output and results. As such, it is clear that the quality of our life as citizens of the West, even for the poorest among us, is better than that of a middle or even upper income citizen of Niger in Africa. There, despite vast natural resources like oil, uranium, gold, and a relatively small population (12 million people) for a country nearly twice the size of the state of Texas, poverty is rampant, infant mortality rate is at a high 122 deaths per thousand births, life expectancy is a mere 44 years for both men and women. We could go on and on, depicting Niger as a structurally failed state while at the same time, justifying our point of view that our American culture is superior to theirs. By doing so, we would not only justify our feeling of inherent superiority but also and most importantly, reinforce the point of view that our culture is superior to that of "those natives of Niger".

The questions then range in many levels of the same category. For instance, why are cultures in post-colonial societies so deprived oftentimes amidst vast natural wealth in the heart of Africa? Why were those countries colonized in the first place, by Europeans mostly, if their culture and cultures were not inherently inferior to that of the West? Most importantly, why have they not been able to even have a modicum of normal and stable civil society, organized in reasonable manners, in order to foster better living conditions for their own people?

The goal here is not to thoroughly answer each one of these questions considering that our time is short. Nonetheless, the reality is so depressing in those places that whatever logic put forth resembles, to the skeptics, liberal justification for patent backwardness of basically savage third-world cultures. Moreover, the focus in this paper is Haiti. Nonetheless, since Haiti is part of that so-called backward world, I judged it important to start establishing some background analysis on the issue.

Perhaps there are better questions to ask that can be answered in conventional and reasonable manners. After all, there are answers to all those lingering questions which neither scapegoat the West, nor denigrate further countries and people with humanity as worthy as ours. The most interesting approach, it seems, is to consider the very controversial statement of arguably one of the best known African intellectuals of the 20th century, Leopold Sédar Senghor.

(Emotion is black, reason is white)« L'émotion est nègre, la raison est hellène> 


(Leopold Sédar Senghor)

Born in Senegal in 1906, Senghor was lucky enough to have been born from a well-to-do African family. He moved to France while young, studied there, and at the end of French colonialism became Senegal's first president in 1960. He stayed in power for 20 years and in 1980, became the first African head of State to voluntarily relinquish power. He shortly thereafter moved to France where he became member of the prestigious Académie Française in 1935.

Senghor was also a well-known poet and essayist who espoused the philosophy of Negritude in the post colonial world of the 1950's and 60's. Interestingly enough, one of his most controversial statements is buried in one of his poems in which he wrote that "emotion is black while reason is Greek".

To this day and probably for much longer thereafter, this statement had caused the anger of Black nationalists, the puzzlement of other African intellectual heavyweights, and even liberal or left-leaning whites. When one for instance "googles" this poetic phrase, most of what comes up is either overanalysis of an apparently straightforward statement that expresses poetically, or expressions of anger from people of African descent, or admiration from a few who believe that Senghor was correct in his assessment for at times very different reasons. Was Senghor nevertheless right?

If human culture is an expression of, an action on, or a reaction to reality, why then, some cultures seem to be more prone to success for the majority than others? Senghor's poetic statement may provide a clue in a weird way. It is doubtful that as a black man by ancestry and culture, from a successful merchant family, and one who rose to prominence in every way, Senghor was trying to denigrate his race. His career as the first president in his homeland after independence suggests that he respected both himself and his people. Therefore, understanding Senghor's statement requires some imaginative and rational effort at understanding the context of his time and his belief.

Africa of the 1960's and of today is known for the richness of its music, the skills of its dancers, the beauty of its natural surroundings, the mastering of its artists and painters, the resonant voice of its poets. All those talents refer to emotion, even when controlled by the human mind and movements. African culture, as it had been depicted by the West and internalized by most now in modern times, derives from a core experience that primarily fosters harmony between the natural surrounding and the individual without the critical interposition of reason.

Europe and the West in general are known first and foremost for its industrial revolution, for its writers and philosophers, for its mathematicians, its architects. Those talents imply the constant injection of reason into the realm of human activities. European and Western cultures in general derive from Ancient Greek philosophy and method of reasoning.

In a sense therefore, Senghor was stating the obviously conventional point of view. Yet, if as archeologists are digging and discovering, it has become patently untrue that African culture is just about emotion and not reason. It is nonetheless correct that the new Africa and most post-colonial societies are at a critically difficult phase.

The success of the West is indeed, the success of reason. If our humanity is common whether we are from Bangladesh in South Asia or a Zulu town in South Africa, reason cannot therefore be the exclusive privy of Africans, or Asians, or Europeans, or South and Central Americans.

Reason is a universal gift, given by Nature or God depending on one's belief. It is this unique capacity to separate oneself from the object so one can arrive at conclusions that are as devoid of the deforming prism of our prejudices as humanly possible. It is only that way that we actually arrive at undeniable truths, which we use to impose our will on nature, bend it, and shape it in ways that are convenient and utilitarian to us. This is really where lies the success of the West.

The success of the West is indeed, the success of Reason. But it is the constant work on, and with, and the valuing of, Reason that had made it possible for the West to be so successful and powerful.

For many cultural chauvinists, Reason is something that does not exist in what they prefer to call "rudimentary cultures". However the facts, even without archeologists' intervention or discoveries, suggest otherwise.

There is always Reason where there are people 

Creation, by individuals or the collective of a nation or culture, requires first the process of mental representation. In other words, the creative process is mental first, before it expresses itself in tangible forms. Moreover, the individual or the collective usually rationalizes the created or conceived object to justify its new raison d'être. That rationalization process, requires a thought process that is sometimes explained to others, or is self-explanatory through its application. An invention or creation may be a silly boat that allows a so-called "native" to fish. The invention may also be something as rudimentary as a pick, made out of African hands, which is an object punctuated or transformed into a tool, but which was originally a tree branch. That tree branch however was worked on and transformed to become a pick, thanks to both human imagination and reason, which makes the hunting of certain forest animals possible. In each and every case, depending on the natural condition, of the sea where the fisherman will fish or the forest where the hunter will kill his prey, there is constant work of both reason and imagination to improve the tool that will be used so it can be efficient and achieve the ultimate goal.

Even most importantly, unless there is use of machinery that reproduces the exact same object in the exact same manner under exactly the same conditions, the created products are almost never the same. They are simply look-alikes. In other words no two picks or boats or whatever else, crafted by human beings hands are exactly the same. They may perform the exact same function in exactly the same way but there usually is something else at play: the artistic capacity of humans which make their created products always different one from the next.

This proves two things. On the one hand, human imagination is always at work and thus, all humans have some level of creative, artistic capacity. On the other hand, reason is always applied in human production, considering that the end product almost always performs the exact same function that it was conceived and thought out for. Therefore, in each and every culture, both reason and imagination that characterize our humanity are always at play.

If only in that context the poetic statement of Senghor which many translate to mean, that Blacks are strictly emotional whereas whites (especially those from the West) are strictly rational could not be more wrong. If anything, such narrow interpretation of his thought is equally detrimental to both blacks and whites. Nevertheless, the statement has great significance in the much larger picture.

If people in a culture do not constantly create or correct the object they had originally built to better serve their community, others who do may gain an advantage in the long term. That advantage may be and is often interpreted by others as a sign of superiority of those who improve their condition by refining their own created object. The improvement itself, upon one's original work, requires the same processes of mental representation and explanation of the achievement. That kind of focus may give a qualitative advantage, which in the long term may leave the impression that the basic and original achievements of one individual or group in a society is natural rather than something that was worked on, something cultural.

The effect of colonialism on human craftsmanship 

In most colonized societies, there was very little if any possibility for those who were subjugated to slavery to refine or even work on their natural environment as people in control. Their role was simply to produce what was asked of them by the masters while they were living the life of, and considered as, pure animals. The creative process while always at work, was mostly used by those slaves to figure out the best psychological methods and also the most concrete of ways to hang onto for basic survival as body, not soul.

In a place or environment where one lives but which one has no control over, one of the very few domains left where people can establish their humanity is by using first and foremost their imagination. The colonizer cannot and would not ask a slave to conceive a dam, conceive or build a fortress, and so on. The specific functions of the slaves were to plow, or fulfill very specific tasks which did not require much use of their reason or imagination. In fact, it was legally and officially prohibited for slaves to even learn how to read and write. The only thing that slaves had left for themselves was their imagination. The pain of slavery, the psychology of a man or woman whose son or daughter could be raped or killed at will was enough to shut out all other kinds of mental faculty. In this living context (if one can call it life), all that was left is the imagination, the play on emotion. One's heart or soul was a slave's last resort for internal peace or to endure pain. The actual, concrete possibility for the intelligent slaves to continue on the path of using their reasoning faculty had therefore been shut, halted for centuries even. The creative side therefore, of a slave or a former slave was the only thing left, for it only requires the individual to build his own world through his mind. That imaginative faculty was best expressed in the slave's music, the beating of the drum to signal danger, the repeated use of words in ways that made and still make the master then or former master now, both amazed and shocked. This was the only way left to rationally, reasonably react to the process of dehumanization. This is, therefore, one of the best if not the best of ways to understand Senghor's poetic statement.

The meaning of Senghor's statement 

Senghor's statement is basically laying out in the open the point of view of most people who espouse the idea that their culture is superior to that of a neighboring nation or people. He may have even been claiming blacks' connection with their inner self and their expression of it through art forms as an object of pride. Nevertheless, Senghor's statement can even be considered as an improvement upon even more insensitive comments or ideas from cultural chauvinists. At least, Senghor in this statement claims something that is quite human for the black race.

In the case of a country like Haiti where the alienation that followed independence ran even deeper, the music, the art, and everything else that sprang out of the former slaves' prior experiences in Africa, and living habits in the colony were never respected or honored. The adoption of everything white and European by Haitians from the elite and most middle class people has been total, and even derogatory to the national culture. It was so because it found no value to the masses' common cultural heritage.

The whole Haitian experience in the matter of cultural alienation, of rejection of the emerging national culture would have been completely irrelevant, if there were no further and even more devastating consequences. These consequences include issues of lack of confidence, economic losses, adoption of foreign cultures to the detriment of the majority culture, and even a form of racism.

Culture and Development: the ignored correlation 

Nothing is more tied to development than culture. After all, culture is the sum experience of a people from which derives a philosophy of life which itself brings about or is very much tied to the way people act and react. In that sense alone, any attempt at developing a country without recognizing its core culture will at best be the cause for cultural alienation and at worse, impede forward steps and advancements. At the same time, cultural practices are not all innocent and worthy to expand, replicate, or condone.

Every human culture has its strength and its flaws. It is therefore essential for a country and its leaders to have an inventory of the practices throughout. No society should condone for instance, under any pretext including religious beliefs, the relegation of women to the status of children as practiced in many third world and Middle Eastern countries. The economic consequences for society in general are devastating in the short and long term. It is thus imperative for civil organizations and governments to work together on such issues, to not simply develop comprehensive laws that are disincentives against such practices, but also promote the elevation of women to the status of equals to men. Also, the use of empirical knowledge of plants that cause medical harm to others and even death as known to be practiced in Haiti is also detrimental to cultural habits.

As it is necessary to make an inventory of negative cultural practices, it is also essential to learn about the positive ones so they can be encouraged and even built upon. Unfortunately for Haiti, typical of many third-world post-colonial societies, those in academia and in governmental circles are always behind or always have to play catch-up with the rest of the developed world. This is so essentially because they never seem to find value in what they have.

For example the explosion of the field of ethnobotanism among botanists and anthropologists is an indication that, old or ignored cultures of underdeveloped and emerging nations had developed practices that are well-worth the effort of scientific research. There are those in academia in the United States for instance, who at first thought that the study of non-Western medicinal practices in Zambia or Zimbabwe, old China or Mexico are nothing but folkloric ventures of former hippies. Yet, the time and efforts of those researchers are slowly proving that there is more to these practices than was first thought. While large percentages of people in developed nations suffer from sleep deprivation oftentimes due to stress and are looking for a remedy, poor peasants all over Haiti have used the power of a medicinal plant which they call fèy zombi (zombi leaf). The term "zombi" in this instance refers to the power of the leaf to put one to sleep, almost in a dead-like but restful state, when simply put under one's pillow. No Haitian government to date has financed research at any state-sponsored or private university in the country through the Ministries of Health and Culture to study scientifically the chemical power behind those plants. Thus to date, no one knows for sure in Haiti the full story about the consequences on one's system by using this sleep stimulating method.

Meanwhile, certain Asian nations like Japan had never given up on their medical practices even though they have maintained great contact with the West. In fact, Acupuncture, as a way to practice medicine, had never been given up by the people of Japan despite their use and practice of western medicine, which one can accurately call modern medicine. Their confidence in their centuries-old practice is due to the results it produces and has been so contagious that acupuncture is now accepted, regulated and practiced in the developed nations of Europe and the United States.

On the other hand, if proper authorities in Haiti had conducted scientific study of the plant (fèy zombi) for instance, the economic benefits for the country as a whole would have been more than just marginal. Moreover, they would have begun elevating cultural practices from empirical to scientific. That alone would begin the process of injecting confidence into the nation and its people. As it is known by virtually everyone in whatever field of study the level of confidence, whether in a product or anything else is quite important for social improvement. Economists routinely conduct surveys that show through charts and in percentages the level of consumer confidence. Such surveys are in turn used widely by governments and the private sector to either foster more economic growth or reduce negatives cultural influences.

The same can be said of other fields. Whether it is art, music, or theater, giving value to one's culture can and does enhance confidence in one's humanity, the economic growth of a nation, and greater practical and aesthetic knowledge throughout the world. The list of positives simply goes on and yet, because in poorer nations where one's humanity was and still is oftentimes defined by one's affinity with and practices of western methods, the tendency for normally alienated elites in those countries is to reject all customs that originate among the most destitute elements of society. Unfortunately, however silly this may sound, many have yet to realize that eating a burger at a McDonald's restaurant in Moscow is to a Russian citizen like having a taste of America and its culture. Culinary habits are definitely included in the overall importance of fostering one's culture as society is being transformed.

The danger of cultural chauvinism and the necessity for cultural dynamism 

Arguing for giving value to the majority culture of Haiti may sound as though French and Western cultures should be discounted in Haiti's developmental process. The opposite is in fact true. Acknowledging one's cultural value does not or should not mean the rejection in any way of any other culture. Not only does every culture have flaws and strengths, but they also have limits. The sum of the total human experience does not reside particularly in one or another culture, or cultures of a particular region or people of the world.

There are many examples of people and countries throughout the world that have learned from each other's experiences, integrated them into their own, and moved on to produce a better life for all. The Chinese rejection of Western (Portuguese, Spanish, French, and English) cultural experiences and practices did cost them in land (Hong Kong), forward movement (19th century China was weak), and economic progress. They have learned since then, and are now much more open to putting to good use other Western practices which have proven to be beneficial in other countries and cultures.

The Japanese also opened up to the West in the mid 19th Century due to various pressures, but learned from their mistake at that time to emulate educational, managerial, and other western practices which they all incorporated into the historical period which is known as "The Meiji Restoration" of 1868. Their willingness to absorb and adopt what they had learned from the West helped propel their economy and also helped put an end to seven centuries of feudalism.

In essence, culture is not development per se, but the base for development. Culture is like the foundation that one builds in order to put up one's castle or hut. It does not mean that once the structure is built, it cannot or should not be constantly improved. The foundation itself however has to enjoy the confidence of its dwellers, and this is what is so lacking in so many poorer countries.

Culture is a dynamic force. If or when it becomes static and self-absorbed, rejecting of others that seem foreign or dissimilar, it lacks the necessary tension that can help foster greater social progress. This is why and how great nations sometimes falter.

The world today, with all its access to modern communications, is a tell-all mirror on this issue. Nations that have accomplished much in short periods of time, while embracing exclusively their own culture, tend to be reticent towards accepting successful experiences of other nations to better their own. To make it clearer, France and Europe today in general refuse to learn from successful American experiences in order to improve themselves. Yet it is clear that they are going through crises that demand a different adaptation of economic policies that have already been experienced and have proven to be successful in the US. In the same way, American car manufacturers dismissed advances in Japanese manufacturing processes all through the 1960's and early 1970's because they thought that the Japanese manufacturing and marketing could never match up with their own. After all, Americans wrote the current Japanese constitution.

Any scientific or unscientific survey of people from countries like Japan, China, the US, France, or Italy will reveal that each and everyone of them have some kind of bias against the other, mostly for cultural reasons which they also wrongly attribute to Nature. "It's in the nature of the American, or the nature of the French to act or react a certain way", they'll say. The unwillingness to become like the French or the British or the American keeps each nation from learning valuable lessons regarding the cultures of the others.

If lack of confidence in one's culture hampers or destroys the spirit and actuality of progress in a society, the effect is the same in cultures that have become too self-assured, to trusting of itself. The lack of either humility (which leads to chauvinism) in one corner of the world, or of confidence (which leads to a failure of motivation) in another corner of the world brings about the same result: erosion of genuine potential for the advancement of a true global culture .

Cultural dynamism is therefore key in the developmental and post-developmental process. The more the mind is open to new experiences, or to adapt current knowledge to a higher standard that can bring about genuine advancement for all people, the greater the chances for a nation, a people, or the human race as a whole to genuinely improve their quality of life.

Haiti has been plagued for more than two centuries by a disease that is common in both the developed and the underdeveloped world. One segment of the nation, composed of blacks and mulattos alike, had developed a culturally chauvinistic attitude towards the larger segment of the poor. In other words, they had very little if any confidence in the values of the poor and cultural developments. The cost to the economy and culture of Haiti has been very high.

Putting an end to these attitudes will require great but worthy and concerted efforts. Economic development and cultural advancement in Haiti will require self-acceptance, a dynamic understanding of progress, the willingness to foster positive interaction between and among different cultures and practices, and a social structure that encourages scientific study of cultural, empirical knowledge. Short of cultural self-acceptance, Haiti may not be fully itself, or even confident enough to develop.

References 

501(c)(3) Non-profit Organization

Support IRSP

Get the IRSP Alert


Photo1Cover

Haiti, Rising Flames from Burning Ashes: Haiti the Phoenix — By Hyppolite Pierre. $49.00, Paper, ISBN 0-7618-3369-2, University Press, 390pp, 2006
Add to Cart
Book Reviews

Culture Articles

Français Ayisien

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews