I am delighted that my colleague and friend Dr. Alissa Trotz has joined many others in Guyana in bringing further attention to the issue of domestic violence. Her contribution is welcomed, but as I suggested yesterday, it would be helpful not to use the issue to gain political mileage. I am sticking to that.

I want to respond to some specific points made by Dr. Trotz in a letter to the editor in Stabroek News (August 13).

Firstly, Trotz should level her criticism at the media in Guyana for not covering elite domestic abuse. She should also take cognizance of a particular newspaper that sensationalises all kinds of violence, domestic violence included. Ask them why they put that kind of material on the front page and why they don’t cover elite domestic violence. Further, it would also be useful to do grounded research to uncover the extent of elite domestic abuse, rather than nonchalantly use the President’s life as a substitute for this research.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that in North America, the reverse happens. Celebrity domestic violence is given wall to wall coverage. The abuse of poor women is usually given one or two lines, unless, of course, some big politician or business person is involved.

Secondly, Alissa Trotz also suggests that I examine my own ideological stance. Fair enough. Yet, I am not sure how that would address the methodological and theoretical acrobatics carried out by Dr. Trotz on the question of culture and domestic violence. I am fully in agreement that culture, in the language of Geertz, is a trafficking symbol, and that is has no inherent essentialism. That said, however, it is quite a leap to extrapolate culture from labour. Quoting George Lamming does not provide any kind of automatic alibi. The quotation functions more as ideological cover, than a mechanism of clarity. In fact, the Lamming quotation confirms my argument that Dr. Trotz analysis of domestic violence is ideological.

Thirdly, culture cannot simply be extrapolated out of the relations of production. Culture is mediated through all kinds of filters. The move from economics to culture is a form of economic reductionism that I thought the academic world had long dispensed with. Worst yet, a straight line from labour to culture, for instance the culture of hegemonic masculinity, is a kind of pre-analytic ‘politicist’ disposition that has no foundation is social scientific inquiry. At best, it is a romantic atavism.

Fourth, and finally, the larger point of my critique should not be lost. I argued in my last piece on this subject that academics should not use the language of theoretical discourse as a subterfuge to gain political mileage. Day in and day out we have the Guyana Opposition/Media Complex at work doing this. It has not been lost to the reading public that intellectuals, most of whom live abroad, are also a key part of this Complex.

All of my disagreements with Dr. Trotz, notwithstanding, I do think that she is right to keep the focus on domestic violence. She is also, of course, correct in stating that domestic violence is not personal. What we need is thoughtful and constructive discussion of the problem. What we do not need is milking the issue to score political points against President Jagdeo and his administration. I might also note that a recent poll done by Vishnu Bisram found Minister Pryia Manickchand of Human Services and Social Security, an engaged Minister. As Dr. Trotz no doubt knows, Minister Manickchand is firm about combating domestic violence.
DR. RANDY PERSAUD