I decided that it would be a good idea to write the theory part of my paper separately because then I could just think about that without any other thoughts in my head. I generally put all my citations in when I’m done writing the paper so that I don’t interrupt my flow while writing. That’s why after some parts I have a (source 3, 54) because that came from the my “source 3” and it was on the 54th page.
There are many reasons for why these events have occurred. Theorists Goldsmith and Foucault have written much about the way in which Colombia is controlled by outside interests and how its current government is able to perpetuate this ideology. Goldsmith explains the process by which North America is able to control Colombia. Back in colonial times, Spain politically controlled Colombia. The emphasis is on “politically” because under colonialism, a country controls its colony by implementing a governing body over the colony. This ensured that there was a reliable and safe system for powerful countries to trade within, since they directly controlled the system (source 8). After colonialism; however, Spain no longer controlled Colombia since politically, it was its own country with its own government. This does not mean Colombia is completely independent. “Much like the Spanish colonialists searched for gold using military might during the sixteenth century, the United States is searching for green fuel” (source 5). Unlike the Spanish colonists, the United States does not have political control over Colombia so it cannot directly extract green fuel. The United States, and other countries, have to obtain the goods they want through other means.
Thus ushers in the age of neocolonialism. Neocolonialism is where former colonial powers still economically control their colonies. Supposedly, former colonies are independent and able to make their own decisions, entitling them to a new form of freedom that they did not have before under colonialism. However, “…formal colonialism came to an end not because the colonial powers had decided to forego the economic advantages it provided, but because, in the new conditions, these could now largely be obtained by more politically acceptable and more effective methods.” (source 8). The former colonies’ new found freedom was just a façade for what was really happening. While politically these new countries were independent, economically they needed the former colonial powers to survive. If a government wants to stay in power in a developing country, it has to adopt economic policies that appeal to developed countries and even large corporations (source 8). While these policies are almost always detrimental to the people of a country, their government is willing to do whatever it takes to remain in power.
These new governments have to be wily if they are going to trick their people into obeying them when their policies negatively impact the people. This is where Foucault’s theory of power and knowledge comes into play. Whenever theorists go to publish their work, it has to go through an institution of learning and be approved by others in the same field. If the theorist wants to be published; however, it is in their best interest to write something that coincides with the current thinking of the time (source 9, 52). Theorists, and people, who agree with the ruling ideology are the ones that will be published and heard by the rest of the world. Dissenting voices, and new ideas, are almost never acknowledged because they create unrest and reside in conflict with those in power. Those who are in power, call the shots and are the main leaders in not only ideological thought, but also political and economical thought.
The people who are in power in the former colonies, generally adopt an ideology that coincides with the desires of the former colonial powers and corporations. This ideology usually consists of economic policies that are favorable to developed countries. Since governments are supposed to represent what the people want, it is understood by the rest of the world that, that is the particular ideal within a country. It is much more complex than one state choosing an ideology because “…the state consists in the codification of a whole number of power relations which render its functioning possible…” ( source 9, 64). The government has to use its power of discourse to convince its own people, or enough of its own people, that a certain ideology is the correct one. This same government is itself subscribing to an ideology when it agrees to dominant economic policies that in the end, have a negative impact. The developed countries have their own discourse that developing countries subscribe to, creating the web of different power relations that make up the world.