Why Cognitive Approach
Understanding the activities of pre-independent movements in a cognitive sense provides a hint to the similitude of the different learning processes, and offers a key to understanding knowledge creation as a collective process (Eyerman and Jamison, 1991). In order to apply cognitive approach to these movements, it is necessary to remember that social movements are formation in processes or “transitory phenomena” (Eyerman and Jamison, 1991, p.62). In this sense, we are interested in formal, informal, organized scientific knowledge and the broader aspects of political and social consciousness in the development of human knowledge during this period in Ghana’s history (Eyerman and Jamison, 1991). The hope is to learn how specific social movements contributed to the information and knowledge bowl leading to independence. Furthermore, we hope to examine new ideas, repertoires, and tactics that were produced by these social movements and how they were characterized. Finally, we hope to identify the common cognitive processes or mechanisms central to social movements during this period in Ghana’s history (Eyerman and Jamison, 1991). With this logic, a cognitive analysis of the historical, political and intellectual nature of pre-independent social movements in Ghana seems appropriate.
According to Eyerman and Jamison (1991), a historical engagement of social movements allows them to be read in retrospective and within a dialectical theory of history since “social movements are at once conditioned by the historical context in which they emerge, their particular time and place, and, in turn, affect that context through their cognitive and political praxis” (Eyerman and Jamison, 1991p.62). Reflexivity is another important component of Cognitive practice that is not explicitly discussed by Eyerman and Jamison (1991). Gidden (1990, p.38) explains, “reflexivity involves a continuous questioning and evaluation of social practices in light of new information” (see Bostrom, 2004). Through a reflexive process, pre-independent movements embarked on constant change of tactics, repertoires and identities based on the fluidity or change in colonial governments’ policies, and agendas as well as changes within social movements’ structures, especially within the leadership. The increase in political and historical knowledge base of the local population also contributed to the reflective nature of movements. As more locals got formal education, they became conscious of their rights and responsibilities as citizens, which informed their activism at each stage of movement building. For example, the assessment of continuous violence that occurred across the country among the general Ghanaian population, especially, after the 28th February 1948 arrest and imprisonment of the leaders of the CPP and TUC, forced the British to evaluate its political and social hold on the population. This informed the British decision to finally give Ghana independence. The Arrest of these leaders introduced nationwide violence and destruction of government (colonial) properties. Immediately the violence ceased, the colonial government organised an election from which a local government was established. The split of the CPP from the UGCC showed an instance of reflexivity among movements. Nkrumah’s questioning of the slow pace nature of leaders of the UGCC towards independence informed the formation of the CPP in 1949.
As noted earlier, the conceptions on a social movement is shaped by the role a particular social movement plays in the political culture. Speaking of culture, Swindler (1986) notes that “culture influences action not by providing the ultimate values towards which action is oriented, but by shaping a repertoire or “tool kit” of habits, skills, and styles from which people can construct “strategies of action” (p.273). Simply put, culture provides the cognitive machinery which people need to familiarize themselves in the world (Porta & Diani, 1999). Bostrom (2004) also notes how plurality of identities, especially of culture has shaped the cognitive practices of social movements. He argues that “movements interpret tensions in contemporary societies, demonstrate power inequalities, and suggest alternatives to existing conditions. Through its cognitive praxis a social movement opens up new conceptual spaces and in a way contributes to social change” (Bostrom, 2004, p.75; also see Eyerman and Jamason, 1991).