Despite the clarity of the effects of the imbalance in relations between the various
international components, the dominant has always intended to present his
dominance as a service he provides to the oppressed. The effect of dominance,
which takes all social movements that subject to it towards serving the interests of
one group, is hidden from many people. This applies to the intellectual field, where
the flow of the dominant culture deprives others of the possibility of activating an
intellectual movement that is appropriate to their aspirations and commensurate
with their needs. This is what disrupts the intellectual movement, and limits its
consumption, environment, and serving the intellectual context that the foreign
producer, who is different in his personality, and environment, wants.
Many intertwined problems arise in this research. Does the foreign outcome,
which comes from the dominant, have a negative influence on the intellectual
activity of the oppressed? Does accepting that outcome and adapting it to the
oppressed community have negative effects as well? Is everything coming from
countries, that have dominated, considered an outcome integrated with the
idea and program of dominance? How did the dominant deal specifically with
the issue of intellectual dominance? How does the dominant think about these
problems, and how does he use them to develop and perpetuate the extent of his
dominance?
If we do not have an intellectual modernization, which based on the Western
culture that has dominated for decades and centuries, how can we describe the
intellectual movement resulting from this modernization?
addcomment