In my dissertation entitled, Thesis on Cyberjaya: Hegemony and Utopianism in a Southeast Asian State , I proposed that we ought to look at how we are conditioned not only by the signs and symbols produced by those who own the means of economic and intellectual production, but also on what is inscribed onto our landscape.

The interplay between technology and culture produces the definition of how we exist and shapes our consciousness. We are, essentially, 'inscribed beings', tattooed by the scripts that have evolved historical-materialistically. The "scripts" help define policies, create institutions, and maintain hegemony. The phenomena create the spaces of power between the Existential Self and the Cyberneticism of this Modern World.

I find that this is also a useful perspective to look at how British imperialism created communal politics, how the Iranian Revolution of 1979 helped inscribe its ideology onto Malaysia, how Wahhabism influenced the Malaysian Islamic party, how Marxist-Maoist-Leninist ideology inspired the Malaysian Communist party, and in fact, even how the Zouk disco in Kuala Lumpur and hip-hop culture became inscribed and installed in Malaysia.

We become creatures of the creation of these ideologies. Our consciousness becomes colonised by these 'truth-forces'. Our thinking becomes tattooed by these transcultural thought-systems.

In my dissertation, I also explored the geneaology of ideas and how they flow transculturally, the spread of ideologies from the Centre to the Periphery nations. I believe that the installation of ideas is determined by the attractiveness of the ideas as well as, by how they are marketed successfully or forced to be accepted militarily.

Ideas need not necessarily be produced as ideology from only political parties, powerful global corporations, or spiritual frameworks of thinking, or any form of group-collaborations. Ideas can come from an individual.

Anwar's Pentagon meet

Hence we see in the history of the world, the impact of individuals in crafting the geneaology of ideas and because of the popularity of the ideas, these ideas take the form of 'isms'. We therefore read ideologies and "truth-forces" in the form of Marxism, Buddhism, Reaganism, Thatcherism, and Ghandi-ism, for instance. Depending on which point of view one is coming from, these "ism" may carry positive or negative connotations.

Let me analyse a case in point.

Recently, Anwar Ibrahim met with Paul Wolfowitz, one of the producers of 'The Project of the New American Century'. The producers of this doctrine, besides Wolfowitz, are the current vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, the current governor of Florida and brother of President George Bush, Jeb, and the current secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Keen researchers in international politics will trace the idea of this 'new American century' amongst others, from the above document produced before Sept 11, 2001, which originated from what was then popularly known as 'The Wolfowitz Doctrine', [See Project for The New American Century ]

The synopsis of the project states:

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organisation dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership." - William Kristol, project chairman

How does the above synopsis translate into the notion of the transcultural flow of 'inscription-installation-institution'?

The doctrine in the form of 'statements of principles' constitutes 'inscriptions', the setting up of 'democratic institutions' onto Afghanistan, Iraq, and perhaps Iran and North Korea next, constitutes 'installations'. The maintaining of governing bodies in these "peripheries and hinterlands" of the Center-Empire, constitutes the establishment of 'institutions'.

The New American Century Project has clear objectives to make the American Empire flourish: that its 'truth-force' must also be built via military-force. Wolfowitz authored a document on the need to have a more 'effective' policy on Iraq when he was the dean of the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. In 1998, he testified in Congress on the United States' policy towards Iraq.

Deconstructing the American empire

Hence, if we subscribe to the idea that the 21st century is the century of the American Empire and that to achieve this, nations of this world would see the ascendancy of militarism as a 'truth-force', we must ask where this idea comes from.

And then, we should ask: How should Malaysians read why Anwar met Wolfowitz? Should Anwar manage to wrestle power and win, one day, how might his relationship with the Pentagon impact our nation?

This also leads me to the question: How do we study complex societies and inquire into the meaning of the global empire-building?

What perspective might we need to study nations that emerge not only out of colonialism, but also continue to develop out of the ruins of modernity and trajectorised into the age of hyper-consumption?

In the column, How we get indoctrinated , I wrote of the nature of 'truth-force' that dominates our existence as well as our practice as cultural beings. If, following Hans-Georg Gadamer' proposition that truth is derived from the method of acquiring the truth, and if following Noam Chomsky that the structure of our reality is dependent upon inventions of reality by the media, we ought to also inquire upon the nature of knowledge itself.

We need to explore the phenomena of colonialism, dependency, and imperialism as what can be called a 'structuring experience' in world history and politics. The theme of inquiry, or the object of our study, as committed intellectuals is to read, discuss, and reflect upon the fundamental nature of these concepts and how they shape our understanding of international affairs: from the colonisation strategies of the traditional rulers to the nature of hegemony in international affairs.

We need to explore how ideologies are inscribed and installed onto the landscape of humanity and how they become ideological state apparatuses, institutions, and tools of imperialism.

Becoming a postmodern social scientist

Intellectuals, we need to unite and use critical sensibility to help our society understand the predicaments it is in.

Let us begin to acquire an understanding of the phenomena from the point of view of a social scientist generally, and a "postmodern flaneur", specifically. While the former requires us to ground our understanding from the perspective of a scientist, the latter invites us to see things from kaleidoscopic, and constructivist points of view.

We ought to engage in critical reflection to understand what the Italian thinker, Antonio Gramsci calls the hegemonic forces of the modern world and to look at this world of international affairs and the march of historical progress, from the point of view of what Russian thinker Mikhail Bakhtin calls "carnival".

Our practice ought to be transdisciplinary; we will need to look at the philosophical, political, and psychological dimensions of the phenomena of the changes Malaysia is going through. We ought to rigorously read Albert Memmi, Jean Paul Sartre, and Frantz Fanon, Pierre Bourdieu, and the work of nationalists such as Sukarno, Julius Nyerere, and Ho Chi Minh, of the 'formerly-Third World'.

Our readings, as postmodern and committed intellectuals must help us reflect on these multidisciplinary considerations.

Let us begin at the level of perspectives and theories, from World Systems Theory to Complexity Theory and proceed to the analyses of cases and specific practices of colonialism, imperialism, and dependency and conclude with a larger picture of the phenomena of "empire". We can then move on to analyzing how individuals in societies can also become objects to be manipulated by others in power.

As intellectuals in hypermodernising society, we need to acquire the skills of analysing the genealogy of concepts, their evolution, transmutation, and finally, the manner they take shape - all these within the context of the interplay between technology and culture that helps build systems of control and historical progress.

These are the skills critical to our understanding of the world we live in specifically and to that of becoming a social scientist and a postmodern flaneur.

The study of colonialism, imperialism, and dependency requires us to 'step outside of the field', adopt a 'metaphysical view of human affairs' and perhaps, as French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre said, to be an 'existentialist' and objectify reality, so that we may hopefully be able to subjectify it and act upon it.

We can begin our inquiry with a historical perspective of the phenomena (i.e. the what and when of colonialism, imperialism, and dependency) and progress to the historical-material perspective (the interplay between technology, culture and consciousness).

Guided by inquiry themes, we may engage in constant critical discussions and reflections and acquire a taste for phenomenologically systematic analysis of the key concepts of colonialism, imperialism, and dependency.

Road to new Asian Renaissance?

Is this the nature of the new Asian Renaissance?

Given proper tools, committed Malaysian intellectuals may be able to understand how ideological alliances work in national and international affairs.

Given the proper tools, we may learn to become more efficient educators who can read the sign of our times.

We may observe how inscriptions become installations and then become ideologies and next become means of 'better' control of the minds, spirits and souls of our generation and the generation of our children, grandchildren, and beyond.

We will not want Malaysia to continue to be colonised under whatever government that is going to make our lives "better".

I think Anwar will have to explain to his supporters particularly, and to the Malaysian intellectuals in general, the intended message of his meeting at the Pentagon.

In decades to come will we have foreign military bases, like Subic Bay and Clark in the Philippines, that will change the social relations of production and hideously disfigure local cultures?

Is this going to be the 'grand finale' of the Asian Renaissance?

High-flying political friendships can result in a sovereign nation's journey into a long and treacherous road toward the abyss of empire.