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).