Culture, Language and Revolution in Grenada

Abstract

examined. While Grenada had been a colony of France and Great Britain, it was the United States that maintained its hegemony over Grenada and the rest of the Caribbean in the 20th century. In spite of dominance by the world's foremost power, counter-hegemonic cultures may be seen throughout the region. During the revolution Grenadian culture and language were used by the political leadership to help transform society. The dialectic between language, culture and ideology is complicated by the fact that hegemonic and counter-hegemonic cultures are themselves the products of each other. It is concluded that for revolutions to succeed they should be based on counter-hegemonic culture but they also need new forms of understanding, which are often based in hegemonic culture. One of the most serious mistakes, if not the most serious mistake, made by the colonial powers in Africa, may have been to ignore or underestimate the cultural strength of African peoples--Amilcar Cabral (1979:147) Introduction Many arguments have been put forward for the demise of the Grenada revolution. The sudden reversal of Grenada's revo after the United States' invasion is held up as an example of how the people were controlled, fooled and misled. Persistent questions have arisen over the past decade. Was the Grenada revolution derailed due to the misguided application of Marxism-Leninism, in particular, the vanguard party idea and military control? Was the leadership out of touch with the people? Was it an elite, class-based revolution? Did the revolution impose a foreign, European ideology where it did not fit? If the revolution was indigenous, why did the people so overwhelmingly reject its leaders and the ideas the revolution espoused? (see Thorndike 1985:176ff.; Lewis 1987:161ff.; Heine 1990; Henry 1990a; Marable 1987; Mills 1990; Devonish 1992).(f.1) Whether the revolutionary system consisted of some form of elite domination is not the issue examined here, nor is the related issue of approval or disapproval by the United States, Cuba and the socialist bloc. These are questions mainly for political pundits, journalists and other scavengers.(f.2) On the other hand, cultural issues are seldom addressed. While Devonish (1986) examined the language policy and Searle (1984a) showed how words helped in Grenada's revolutionary consciousness, few have examined how much Grenada's revolution was moulded by its culture. In short, while much ink has been spilled on what the leadership did wrong, less attention has been paid to what the people were saying, thinking and doing. This article explores the process by which culture, language and the political apparatus are transformed in the creation of a revolutionary consciousness. The Grenada revolution had a past from which it emerged and a past from which the revolutionary state extracted a sense of continuity toward a vision of the future. There was also a past, involving external elements, that was contrasted to Grenada's cultural revolution. These may be termed hegemonic and counter-hegemonic tendencies. This article explores the counter-hegemonic tendencies in the formation of Grenadian revolutionary ideology. It is further argued that the cultural basis of the Grenadian revolution may easily be submerged, if not completely erased, by a new hegemonic culture. As I have maintained elsewhere, similar ebbs and flows in Grenadian migration are not unusual despite persistent cultural values underlying migration (Pool 1989). Culture, Language and Power Social transformation in the Caribbean has been examined in many different ways but the relationship between culture and power is poorly understood. Revolutions in Haiti and Cuba could not have been predicted, and in general we do not know when societies are ripe for revolution. At the same time few would dispute the argument that the roots of social revolution lie in discontent, oppression and domination. …