Page 89 - Communication Processes Volume 3 Communication Culture and Confrontation

64 Vibodh Parthasarathi

With the proliferation of radio, television and satellite broadcast-
ing, the social role and political importance of such public spaces has
changed drastically. They have either been peripheralized to various
extents or have ceased to be the primary locus of political debate and
cultural production. While both the state and citizens alike are still
being attuned to what is essentially a market-driven ‘publicness’ (such
as in broadcasting), the latest avatar of publicness (the internet) is
already being promoted as one that will not only broaden the terrain
of popular culture, but also redefine the scope of democratic processes
in the next century.
What needs to be recognized is that the nature of cultural practice
within the electronic and virtual public spaces have their own logic,
their own ways of forming public opinion and distinct ways of con-
structing social relations, as compared to the historical, pre-mass
media, public spaces. It has been observed that new sites of public-
ness such as television, due to their intrinsic techno-cultural form
and techno-economic organization, have contributed more towards
isolating individuals rather than bringing them together (Corner 1995:
12–15). Moreover, the social organization of communication shaping
the electronic public sphere has led to a wider terrain and covert
forms of mediation. The caste/class divide, the biggest hindrance to
interaction in the pre-industrial public sphere, has been compounded
by institutions of broadcasting and computer-mediated communication
(CMC). This has not only created another caste/class divide based on
limited access and participation, but has superimposed such divides
on the apex of prevailing socio-political stratification. In influencing the
production and representation of ‘culture’, these factors set limits to
the emancipatory character and interventionist potential of the public
sphere in the evolving digital era.
Although they break with traditional forms of social articulation, this
break is primarily at the level of technology (the means of communica-
tion) and not necessarily with prevailing modes of representation and
of social organization of communication. Therefore, the social context
and economic parameters within which ‘new’, dominant public spaces
are operating share with predating communication technologies (print-
ing and broadcasting) stratification based on access, participation and
‘language’. If the electronic church of the day, namely, television, has
become the hallmark of dominance, how sure can we be of a church