TOPIC: Post-Colonialism : Theories of Human Communication

: Each student will present to fellow students and the instructor a report on the chapter he or she selects or the instructor assigns to him or her. The report will include the following sections: (a) introduction to or overview of the chapter; (b) at least seven concepts the writer explicitly or implicitly covers in the chapter; (c) at least two theories the writer explicitly or implicitly presents in the chapter and that unifies or incorporates at least two of the concepts; (d) the paradigm that unifies or incorporates the concepts and the theories, that guides thinking about the subject, and that the writer explicitly or implicitly presents in the chapter. From the sum of the concepts, the theories and the paradigm, the student also will state an issue or interest or concern or question that goes beyond the subjects the chapter covers and that should be an area of research and discussion, and explain the importance of addressing this issue as a matter of theory, professional practice, and ethics/aesthetics/policy in communication. 

“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.