Christopher George Brathwaite, Newcastle University, Resistance in Regional Integration: Critical Theorising of Culture and Common Interest in CARICOM

The Commonwealth Caribbean (English-speaking) as a region represents an intriguing challenge for research given its widely perceived peripheral status in the global system of states. It is less often referred to on its own in literature on the international system. This faux pas generally places Caribbean geopolitical residence within the regions of Central America and/or Latin America. Notwithstanding, as a specifically defined area, the Caribbean region is toned with its own range of complexities and peculiarities despite not being awarded autonomous spatiality in international language. Indeed, the Caribbean has played important roles in the geopolitics of world affairs and especially in strategic nuances across the western hemisphere.

It is in its growing attempts at regional integration that the Caribbean is repositioning itself as a strategic entity (i.e. in trade and commercial activity, diplomacy, and as a zone of peace) so that it can withstand some of the nebulous challenges brought about through processes of globalisation inclusive of cultural penetration and the systematic re-defining of borders and space. “Globalisation has at its core certain new geopolitical dimensions which have devalued the Caribbean from a security and strategic point of view ... [and] on balance predispose the Caribbean towards economic marginalisation” (Arthur 2000, 17).

In order to reduce this propensity towards marginalisation, a certain measure of radicalism is anticipated in this paper. Radicalism being “a situation that is dependent upon an internal strength supported by the Caribbean collective ... an inert driving force for identity as well as for prescribed or spontaneous action once the inner valorisation of consciousness becomes widespread” (Brathwaite 2006, 25). Brathwaite advocates, not only is ‘social radicalism necessary’ in the Caribbean, but it should “emerge as the root ontology directing behaviour and conduct by the Caribbean Community in its quest for survival” (Ibid, 198). It is on these bases that this paper finds its relevance on discourse about Caribbean integration with a view to identifying and critically theorising several problems as it relates to resistance, culture here defined as a system of norms and values, and the binary threshold of homogeneity and heterogeneity.

The Caribbean in extolling the virtues and norms of West Indies regional organisation and deeper integration among the English-speaking territories is mindful if only for the sake of its own survival.[1] It is a region comprising small, independent, post-colonial nation-states. The region remains under the threat and force of exogenous ideologies and processes such as globalisation, neo-liberalism and neo-colonialism. The region is generally suppressed by a cloak of market dogma which coincides with the surge of global capital and rapid technological advancements. Some argue that strain for the Caribbean comes mainly from how globalisation is internalised because it is “regarded as an inevitable fact of life to which small states, like other actors, must adapt” (Byron 2004, 76). Unfortunately, this occurs to the extent that individualism and competitiveness have crept more and more into the language of ‘community’ development. Watson (2000, 409)shares this view and contends that “financial liberalisation and market integration have also benefitted certain strata within third world ruling circles, while contributing to the decomposition of their national societies.” A resulting question therefore, is deeper Caribbean integration an effective strategy as a response to global encroachment?

This brief paper takes focus in the literature on contemporary aspects delineating the socio-cultural dynamics of regional integration. It broadens the threshold to include discourses surrounding sovereignty, globalisation, development, geopolitics, and culture as defined above. It makes inquiry as to those values that inform a character of resistance within social and political organisation. Wallace (1990, 17) makes the assertion that “values and myths ... are significant not only in holding existing political systems together, but also in shaping and reshaping imagined communities.” In the context of what the Caribbean is attempting to achieve through deeper integration it is also valuable to read into Nettleford (1995, 66) who is of the view that through the Caribbean’s increasing awareness of its own cultural aesthetics “the region may begin to believe that it does have a history and an existential reality worth taking seriously.” It is against these narrative frames and because the Caribbean’s expressed intent is on safeguarding its newly won sovereign liberties in the global sphere that questions have to be raised in relation to the deepening of regional integration.

Key Research Questions, Methodology, and Concepts

The main research question in this paper attempts to answer what are the values and myths that are likely to hold the fabric of Caribbean regionalism together. Added to this and in the spatial context of community organisation, the paper seeks answers as to what are those common factors that are perceived to enhance chances for deeper Caribbean integration. Importantly, the question of resistance cannot be ignored and one must therefore ask what types of resistance, and how do these forms of resistance impede or may facilitate the progress of Caribbean integration. While these questions are only representative of a microcosm of a larger study, it is still pertinent that these preliminary questions probe the nature of regional integration in relation to the concept of development. Development in this paper is understood to be the “progressive process of human, cultural, political, economic and social change, which shapes people’s lives” (Mustapha 2006, 195) or more generally speaking, the “diverse and multifaceted process of predominantly positive change in the quality of life of the individuals and society, in both material and nonmaterial respects” (Simon 2003, 8).

Hence, subsidiary yet significant enquiry attempts to find out in its current format, is deeper regional integration best suited for Caribbean development. Furthermore, is Caribbean integration currently appeasing a plurality of needs and interests conducive to human development? These queries have to be grappled withif the intent is to usher in a regional movement with the institutional capacity and support to bring about relative fulfilment of a good and just society. Boxill (1997, 5) posits that the “rationale for regional integration relates to augmenting security arrangements and facilitating economic development.” The contention here is that human development ought to be put above the narrowly etched out phrase of economic development for small development states like the Caribbean and in particular, it has to be cooperative development.

As a result, this paper takes a preliminary journey across leading theoretical arguments in the social sciences to explain that by identifying and understanding forms of resistance in Caribbean integration, adequate responses become amenable to prospects for deeper Caribbean integration and cooperative development. Through this approach, the paper attempts to flesh out possible alternatives as valid responses to globalisation and as conduits to ‘equitable’ and for that reason, cooperative development in Caribbean integration. Undergirding cooperative elements within the regional setting, there is both a perception and presumption that culture and common interests are so synonymous within Caribbean civilisation that such distinguishing marks should form sufficient criteria for achieving regional integration objectives.

Hence, there is a timely dimension to investigating the various discourses that offer critical insight to vexing concerns about regionalism and deeper integration for the Caribbean. On initial evidence, there are forms of resistance that seemingly possess qualities of disintegration that need to be understood in terms of their complexity and potential. Critical theorising allows for a demonstration showing the necessity to present a formula capable of meeting practical challenges associated with social transformation and new spatial configurations in regional discourse. A Grounded Theory Method (GTM) eclectically utilises the salience of inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches to the study of socio-political and socio-cultural phenomena so as to extract as much meaning as possible given the various complexities already mentioned and highlighted. The use of critical international relations theory combined with political theories of the state, the social psychology of culture, and the combination of postmodern and geopolitical thought for comparative analyses attempt to harness an emergent theory of Caribbean integration based upon findings from the data. The consequential analysis provides heterodox interpretations and meaning about those inherent tensions (i.e. class, ethnicity, and to a lesser extent gender) that surface in the sphere of Caribbean regional integration, often times tempered from being described as forces of resistance.

The paper concludes by suggesting possible alternatives for conceptualising how best to address issues of resistance for achieving deeper and relatively successful Caribbean integration. There is however a limitation, in that insufficient raw data is available at this time because of the parameters of the paper and the physical logistics of being away from intended subjects that will be a major part of the larger study. Achieving an understanding for some of the forms of resistance that pervade the regional setting in the Caribbean becomes vital for determining what alternatives may abound for the Caribbean region under the prevailing conditions requiring intense insight to the issues.

Caribbean Integration

Since the 1962 demise of the West Indies Federation, the Commonwealth Caribbean has been attempting to forge for itself an emblem of community spirit first through the Caribbean Free Trade Association (CARIFTA) between 1965 and 1968, and later giving way to the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) in 1973. CARICOM is guided by two principle treaties of engagement: one establishes the concept of Community and the other is drawn up with the Community Common Market in mind. So firstly, “collective identity is interactional – not simply a state of mind but a way of acting and being reacted to as a member of a group” (Ferree and Hess 2000, 29). Further, “becoming a collective actor is thus an accomplishment, an identity that the individual has actively created in concert with others.” This holds true for the individual Caribbean man or woman, as well as for the individual sovereign territories that negotiate the institutionalisation of their identity expressed through Caribbean Community.

Secondly, a common market is designed to maximise the benefit of several economies operating as a single entity or within a particular economic space. According to Beardshaw (1992, 612), a common market implies “the free movement of labour, capital and enterprise” By definition then, the economic space involved in a common market is an overarching assembly containing consensual and harmonised measures of fiscal and commercial policy within a particular boundary or constituency (i.e. Barbados; St. Lucia; the OECS; CARICOM; Florida; the USA; France; the EU; etc.), that may even require monetary convergence. A market economy is not permanently static, nor is it a confined entity unrelenting to any particular geographical setting unless so deliberately expressed for purposes of departure, expansion, or reduction due to several variables inclusive of geographical proximities; legal treaties; and notions of sovereignty protection. This is supported by the realisation that it is possible to have differentials in the national, regional, and global organisational structures of economies. In the a priori sense, one may agree with Rawls (1979, 164) that “a doctrine of political economy must include an interpretation of the public good which is based on a conception of justice.” This broadens the essence of this investigation to see if the public good in regional integration and cooperative development is an ostentatiously contemplated feature under the CSME, or whether it is an amalgam suited to the public good insofar as it can accrue benefits that redound not only to private and sectoral interests but extends throughout to Caribbean society.

In addition, there is the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas establishing the contentious if not pretentious Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME). This ‘revised treaty’[2] came into formal existence on January 30th and June 30th 2006 respectively for six nations followed by a further six of the fifteen member states making up the Caribbean Community. Beneath the language of community and common ground, it becomes clear that regional integration in the Caribbean is built upon the nexus of economics and politics positioned at the apex of its developmental challenges. This notwithstanding, “the social reality of the Caribbean is both symbolic for its cultural ideals and because of a combination of the practical experiences – the prevailing reality” (Brathwaite 2006, 197).

A reasonable reference point rests upon advancing a definition for the term ‘integration’. Johan Galtung proposes that integration is “the process whereby two or more actors form a new actor. When the process is completed, the actors are said to be integrated.” This simplistic definition conveys a meaning that brings into play the understanding of dialectical properties at work in creating a synthesis out of previous binary theses/antithetical relationships. Boxill (1997, 4) contends that “achieving economic development has therefore been associated with regional integration in the Caribbean,” and this reinforces a view that there is connective agency in relation to geography and economic orientation which is facilitated by the political processes at work. Despite this assertion, there is still a missing link that is to be deduced from that deterministic perspective of economic-politico transitioning towards development. There is the sociological/psychological deficit or lack of focus thereof on the ontology of human security understood from material and immaterial needs and interests.

More relevant for universal consideration has to be what Giddens (1985, 268) refers to as a ‘time-space convergence’ so that “prisms of daily conduct are not just geographical or physical boundaries” but there is an essence of that time-space constellation and its relation to “the means of communication and transformation available to agents,” if the intent is human development through mechanisms for integration and social cohesion. Founding member of CARIFTA and CARICOM and a former Prime Minister of Barbados echoes this convergence through conjugal and reproductive factorising. In his final major speech to CARICOM Heads of Government, Prime Minister Barrow in 1986 told a brief but fascinating story:

If we have sometimes failed to comprehend the essence of the regional integration movement, the truth is that thousands of ordinary Caribbean people do in fact, live that reality every day. In Barbados, our families are no longer exclusively Barbadian by island origin. We have Barbadian children of Jamaican mothers, Barbadian children of Antiguan and St. Lucian fathers. And there is no need to mention Trinidad which has always been tied to us not only by the inestimable bonds of consanguinity, but by the burgeoning cross-fertilization of cultural art forms. We are a family of islands nestling closely under the shelter of the great Cooperative Republic of Guyana. And this fact of regional togetherness is lived every day by ordinary West Indian men and women in their comings and goings (2003, 153).

Barrow’s departure through death has not resolved many of the disintegrative and insular proclivities expressed by various individuals, groups, and officials from the various territories. Nevertheless, he has left enough to consider on what rudders should regional integration in the Caribbean run if the developmental challenges are to be overcome. Social and human development must sit at the bedrock of the integration process if the necessary mobilisation and support are likely to become effective channels in the course of policy, polity, and political convergence.

Furthermore, while a drift away from building economic infrastructure is not being advanced here, there is an argument that corresponding effort has to be placed into the communicative and social domains of Caribbean Community – the human factor must count as the priority. This re-prioritising or re-positioning has to be challenged from a perspective of Caribbean lived experience, the social reality, its lifeworld. There has been a tendency to borrow from Europe’s experiences with progression from a narrowly defined and an incongruous common market towards a single union of considerable strength and size. Progress in Europe has been mapped out through gradualism and this is familiarly associated with neo-functionalism. There is the history of a dichotomous if not acrimonious clinging to nationalism although cooperation exists at the level of supra-national interaction. What differs in the Caribbean is that there is limited resource capacity despite a fragile commitment which remains anchored to vague concepts of commonality.

Does commonality and homogeneity equate to social order when fashioning a regional integration process? Giddens again offers insight sufficient to answer this question. He argues that “there are major discrepancies between and within social communities in terms of the constraints on mobility and communication affecting different groups and individuals” (1985, 268). Hence, a key for the regional integration project in the Caribbean has to be the mechanisms it uses to identify forms of resistance that affect communication and mobility, and subsequent to this, being able to formulate the right coping mechanisms to effectively achieve consensus and convergence.

Instead of this, what do we have in the Caribbean? There is much rhetoric, meetings, and debate, except that the supranational institutionalism hoped for as a passage to identify, oversee, formulate, and guide the intensity of Caribbean integration is relatively bare. Several years ago, Ian Boxill successfully argued that a major problem within the regional integration movement for the Caribbean was that “there is no common regionalist ideological framework within which the policies are conceived and formulated” (1997, 93). In the contemporary Caribbean this view may no longer hold because of the increased activities of the CARICOM Secretariat and the regularity with which the leadership engages each other for forging a forward pathway despite its inclination to rely on gradualism and inter-governmentalism.

Theories of neo-functionalism and the practice of inter-governmentalism play significant roles in the structuring of ‘borrowed’ gradualist approaches to Caribbean integration. This preference has been recognised as one of the leading setbacks for Caribbean integration in relation to slow pace and the sometimes subversion of previously agreed upon policy directions (Brewster 2005, 89). The problem may not necessarily be only the gradualist and functionalist theories or even the absence of Giddens incisiveness to ensure there is a time-space convergence, but may reflect more of how those theories are construed with an attempt to make adaptation in the Caribbean environment seamless when the very social conditions among the Caribbean Community are vastly different from those occurring under processes of Europeanisation. What is observable is that the slow implementation of specific policies geared towards community building and deeper integration urge on a tendency for reneging, political fanfare, and in some cases reckless narratives born on the wings of ignorance and xenophobia. The acronym and functionary of CARICOM is for many an uninspiring administrative deluge, and it “has become associated with inordinate delay and indecisiveness, with bureaucracy, with meetings which generate rhetoric and paper but spur little action that makes a difference” (Report of the West Indian Commission Time For Action 1993, 56). CARICOM needs at this critical juncture “a substantial advance in its institutional and governance arrangements” (Brewster 2005, 81) that reflects bottom-up and people-centred approaches to integration and development.