Page 32 - Communication Processes Volume 3 Communication Culture and Confrontation

Introduction 7

towards autonomous interventionist tendencies which the ‘system’ can
either not assimilate, or which are directly confrontationist. In history,
there have been articulations of the subordinated that have been
made peripheral and viewed either as fossilized remnants or devi-
ant phenomena. Though marginalized, such forms of expression are
still vibrant and run contrary to dominant aesthetic values, ideological
agendas and organizational set-ups.
Two central issues that had previously been stressed upon by Par-
thasarathi run once again through the present contribution as leitmotifs
in various terms. The first is that the import of any particular instance
of opposition to the material, political or symbolic basis of dominant
communication is more than a mere assertive performance:

The entry of the underclass into processes of communication signifies
not merely a change in social agents. More importantly, it transforms
their status from being consumers of mass culture to the produc-
ers of a counter-culture; from being the source of information to
proactive subjects of images and texts .… This allows articulations in
non-standard language in as much as they are an attempt at cultural
decolonization. (Parthasarathi 1997: 14)
The second issue is a warning: to equate the ‘non-dominant’ to the
‘alternative’ would be a methodological error:

A resurgence of non-dominant communication is indicative of,
(1) an ideological assertion of subjugated knowledge-systems and
(2) political tendencies which either ‘the system’ can not assimilate
or are foreign to its needs. However … there are instances where
non-dominant modes of communication in fact (re)assert elements
of dominance. These media innovations are oriented towards the
objectives of reactionary politics à la Hindutva’s cultural activism.
At the same time, there are other practices which, although
innovative and an exception to the mainstream mass media, in their
organisation run contrary to the structural essence of non-dominant
communication, that is, they are for the non-dominant and not by
them. This is typified by top-down approaches of participation in-
cessantly on the look-out for target groups. (ibid.)

The relevance of Parthasarathi’s theoretical essay in this volume will
be immediately perceived by many students of various other domains.
We would like to refer only to one typical instance of the ambivalent