Page 87 - Communication Processes Volume 3 Communication Culture and Confrontation

62 Vibodh Parthasarathi

and the importance of independent articulations to foster the politics
of redistribution. For, in the first place, some such initiatives have a
tense relationship with the larger media culture industry. Neverthe-
less, despite the presence of co-optive universals, there is every reason
and need to harness available space within the conservative democra-
cies of today. Second, it has been observed that initiatives rooted in
furthering citizens’ politics, itself beset with internal contradictions,
are often unable to contribute towards the creation of an alternative
culture of discourse (Sethi 1997). For me, only when critique is real-
ized as a state of consciousness is the production of ‘culture’ (be it as
image, text or sound) able to contribute towards a larger conscientiza-
tion. Finally, before celebrating cultural interventions by anti-systemic
movements and complementary innovations outside their fold as a
definitive process of alternative communication, one would like to
recall that most such ‘interventions’ have been, and largely remain, at
the superstructural level. Nevertheless, in opposing the foundations of
dominant communication, they represent varying degrees of challenge
to systemic norms. What is significant, however, is that some such
processes have sought to prevent the reproduction of structures of
dominance—equally through their modes of representation as through
their social organization of communication.
It has been difficult for me to discern why the ‘modern’, especially
when Euro-American in origin, is considered intrinsically superior and,
therefore, desirable. At the other end are propositions to revive social
institutions and, therefore, cultural practices in the name of preserving
tradition. Being well aware of the contradiction between living heritage
and social transformation, which more often than otherwise emerges as
an apology for the status quo, one is far from soliciting the preservation
of certain streams of cultural practice, either as tradition per se or as
exotica for display. For me, if any medium of communication is unable
to retain its capacity to reflect changing social aspirations, the vitality of
the medium undoubtedly ceases to prevail. Instead of a short-sighted
preservation of, say, folk culture as a space for articulations by those
forgotten in the electronic era, my emphasis on the ‘popular’ is oriented
towards a critical rejuvenation of subordinate knowledge systems.
A deeper analysis reveals that the influence of institutions of
culture and communication is essentially a product of competing
knowledge systems, and, only thereafter of competing technology.