The Nature and Development of Social Conflict in Guyana

• Author: Maurice St. Pierre
• Pages: 177-193

Maurice St. Pierre 177177

177177

177

The Nature and Development of

Social Conflict in Guyana

Introduction

From the moment the Dutch West India

Company was provided with a Charter to

exploit the natural resources of Guyana, the

colony, perhaps more than other Caribbean

territories, has been the locale of social

conflict in various forms. This chapter seeks

to explore the nature of this phenomenon and

takes the position that Guyana’s current

sociopolitical uneasiness cannot be understood

without an appraisal of the various historical

forces that have contributed to social conflict

from the early stages of its colonization. With

this in mind, a conflated theoretical framework

that privileges social conflict theory with

particular emphasis on the question of culture,

and collective action theories that focus on the

importance of social space are used to guide

the analysis.

Theoretical Guidelines

Arguably, conflict theory emerged as a

reaction to the paramountcy of organic unity

that found expression in structural

functionalism, which stressed the

interrelatedness of systemic components in

such a manner as to produce organic stability,

with each part making its own specific

contribution to the maintenance of solidarity

for the whole. Indeed, the most famous of the

11 M A U R I C E ST. P I E R R E

Morgan State University

early conflict theorists, Karl Marx, maintained

that especially capitalist society can be

conveniently divided into two main social

classes in terms of their relationship to the

means of production, and which are

dialectically related in such a manner as to

enable the ruling class or bourgeoisie, to

exploit the labour power of the working class

or proletariat, thereby producing wealth for

the former, but immiseration and alienation

for the latter.1 The emphasis on productive

relations led Marx to view the economy as

the focal point for understanding the workings

of other facets of the society, most notably the

ruling ideas (ideologies), which by definition

are false because they represent the interests

merely of the ruling class. This conflict

conception of society, however, was only

partially accepted by Max Weber who, though

acknowledging the importance of economic

factors, particularly the market situation as a

basis for class differentiation, nonetheless

maintained that the economy was not

necessarily always the key factor in the social

stratification system. Thus, in his celebrated

effort to draw a link between ideas and social

action, he argued that various ideas

embedded in Protestantism in general, and

Calvinism in particular, were responsible for

generating the ethos or as he put it, the ‘spirit’

of western capitalism.2 In other words,

although culture may supersede the economy,

The Nature and Development of Social Conflict in Guyana

178178

178178

178

social conflict rather than organic unity was

more critical in explaining the social

construction of society.

Again, as will be seen, social conflict in

Guyana cannot be understood unless attention

is paid to the question of social differentiation,3

that is, how social differences are socially

constructed in such a manner that they are

internalized, taken for granted and, ultimately,

become part of social reality. Thus, Berger

and Luckmann4 argue that the construction of

social reality involves (a) externalization

whereby cultural products are created through

social interaction and differences are

determined by social, economic and political

forces, (b) objectification whereby the

products become reified and take on a life of

their own that is independent of their creators,

and (c) internalization which is fostered

through the socialization process, as

individuals learn the expectations (specific

roles) attached to social positions (or statuses)

in society, which become part of their

subjective consciousness.

For its part, collective action theory originally

viewed actions such as revolutions, social

movements, riots, et cetera, as occasioning

the decline of civilization and therefore, as

non-rational or irrational. However, these

efforts of the aggrieved who, because they

are systematically omitted from sharing in

some of the benefits of society (such as voting

or access to certain economic opportunities),

seek grievance redress through extra-

institutional methods. As a result, such actions

came to be regarded as rational. Typically,

therefore, collective action theorists maintain

that a leader emerges who (a) takes advantage

of political opportunities such as vulnerabilities

in the system,5 (b) interprets grievances and

educates and raises the consciousness of his

followers as different resources are utilized

for the purpose of mobilizing them for

collective action around specific grievances,

and (c) with respect to social movements in

particular, is instrumental in promulgating an

organization (for instance a trade union or a

political party) that embodies the aspirations

of the aggrieved and the movement. Typically,

also, the challenged are forced to respond

and the severity of the response is directly

related to the extent to which the goals of the

aggrieved are related to the displacement of

the challenged.6

While time, and place and space have

always been implicitly treated in studies of

collective action and some have focused their

attention on various sites as locales (space) of

contentious political action,7 and as a location

for the emergence of a dissident anti-

hegemonic culture,8 more recently specific

attention has turned to the extent to which

various locales have been transformed into

arenas of contention that, following Henri

Lefebvre, are characterized by specific social

and political relations.9 Conceivably, therefore,

social conflict is viewed as a consequence of

competition for scarce resources (economic,

political, and cultural) caused by social

differentiation and inequality, which become

part of the social construction of reality, and

which are likely to conduce to collective action

by the disadvantaged intended to produce

social change.

Early Social Conflict

Early colonization of Guyana was

characterized by efforts on the part of the

Dutch to exploit the labour power10 of the

indigenous population — the Amerindians.

The latter, however, refused to be enslaved

and ran away into the interior where they used

their superior knowledge of the food supply

that was not poisonous, the rivers, the trees,

and, indeed, the general terrain which

enabled them, for example, to place different

signs as messages to the initiated and as forms

of protection from incursions by potential

enemies. In addition, the mosquito-infested