Government, glory be its name, claims the monopoly on both violence and the rules that govern our lives. So-called illicit “drugs” present hegemony-minded government with two challenges: dealing with perceived problem groups and maintaining a predictable and obedient public mindset. And who can think of a more disruptive bunch of garden party-crashing, pee-on-your-bonfire types than the marijuana-smoking cabal?
Marijuana prohibition began as an outlet of anti-Mexican-American sentiment, beginning in Utah in 1910 and quickly spreading across the country. One Texan senator said, “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy.”
In Eastern US states, fear of blacks drove marijuana prohibition as the drug traveled from New Orleans to Chicago to Harlem and became part of the music of Cab Calloway, Louis Armstrong, and others. An editorial in a newspaper in 1934 ran, “marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice.”
But racially-motivated prohibition didn't stop marijuana's spread. In the 1930s, the racial story was dropped in favor of the violent behavior rationale and the government's attention began to focus on general public obedience.
However, a few decades later, the 60s happened and pot was everywhere. The government tried to propagandize against the flow, but look who they were up against.
When hegemonies can't beat down a threat, they often try to neutralize it, absorbing part of it into public culture (this is not necessarily a conscious process). It took 1978 to finally make it happen to pot on the silver screen, when the leaf was cast as a fun diversion for (lovable, I guess) losers.
Following successful institutional efforts dominant powers usually rely on continued and spontaneous consent by the public. With marijuana widely accepted by much of the public as undesirable, the drug (and drugs in general) has become interwoven with other government hegemonic messages, be they post-9/11 terrorist fears, use of superhero role models, fear of disapproval from one's dog, or, most infamously, danger of overcooking eggs.
However, neutralization through absorption might mean eventual victory for the rebels. If the role models in this newest absorption device are the current faces of pot, is marijuana legalization so far away?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Adam. Great use of media to argue your point. The question is, would the marxist theologians believe that absorption would lead to neutralization?
I think that you are right however, in that absorption does benefit the 'rebels' in this case.
My other question revolved around the idea of spontaneous consent by the public. Is it possible to have spontaneous consent, given the examples you show previously in your post?
I agree with you that what happened in late 60s was something beneficial for the society. People became relaxed and looked more for their rights. On the other hand, I do not see the messages against drugs hegemonic. I do not care if somebody smokes a pot, but it should be accepted that most of those terrorist organizations support their arms by selling drugs.
Post a Comment