Deterritorialization of Culture

This newer term corresponds to a newer cultural space [chiefly under western and also in developing countries’ industrialization strategies] that has been created because of deterritorialization of traditional cultural spaces. It even appears to be mandatory along with the natural institutional growth toward modernization. According to Garcia Canclini, this notion refers to ‘the loss of the natural relation between culture with geographic and social territory [including] relocalizations of new and old forms of symbolic production’. Basically with the industrial [technological] modernization, random inflow of popular cultural elements and forms are deterritorializing traditional cultural spaces and releasing cultural signs from any fixed time and space. Noted analyst James Lull has stated that ‘deterritorialization is the [partial] disintegration of human and symbolic constellations and patterns... it is a consequence of the cultural disjuncture... it is one indication of the cultural change that the disjunctures stimulate’.

But theorists interestingly while further deriving the term ‘deterritorialization’ have time and again exemplified the migration of third world people into ‘more developed’ specially western territories. Naturally this migration causes severe uprooting of the traditional cultural base and major disruption of its valuation that compulsively drives individuals to adapt desirably [or undesirably] new cultural base elements for leading a better cultural life. Prof. Lull exemplified this kind of deterritorialization that the African and Asian slave trade in colonial North America, Brazil, and the Carribbean countries ago...and illegal immigrant Mexican farm workers in United States’. In India also such migrations [though within the national territory but in such a vast location, migration often results in the transportation of individual belongings more than 2000 kilometers from one part to another corner of the country] had been a major occurrence always, both in its colonial and post colonial times, from less developed areas to the bit more affluent places. But theorists like Canclini, Lull in this context do not usually accept any definition of newer cultural codification as they desire to identify this phenomenon as quite natural and inevitable as well. They leave it as purely a ‘human matter’.

But the deterritorialization of culture howsoever occurs in human mind, under any circumstance, through only physical migration from any kind of ‘less to affluent’, this theoretical proposition has been reduced to an idealized end that ‘culture never dies, even in conditions of orchestrated repression’. But this is also an open ended conclusion that people from most of the developing countries, while migrating to a better place for enhanced living, invariably opt out the root cultural praxis to make room for adopting better cultural elements and newer praxis. Only thing may be left alive that people would perform some codes of their root cultural practices superficially that would never percolate to the next generations, e.g., organizing Durga Puja festival by the non resident Bengalee people. This global festival is performed quite differently across regions and settlements outside Bengal keeping the rituals almost unchanged. Here this festival can’t make a course of life along with other popular codifications of that region. Baudrillard once very interestingly quoted that ‘we don’t want nature, we want parks; we similarly don’t want exact course of religion but the Durga Puja as festival only. So it is quite naturally discursive and so deterritorialized. We can also argue that a person migrating more than thousand miles for, say, knitting cut piece cloths from far east of India to the farthest west, say, Gujarat, this migration definitely would cause a severe damage to the cultural practices as the person would have to adopt newer cultural praxis as common or essential cultural interfaces and of course along with some superficial ethno-religious practices, what Lull has nucleated as complete root ‘culture’. In terms of social mediation this phenomenon, across traditional class limitations, in the long term would definitely affect individual’s ideology toward his own life pattern. Therefore he has become completely deterritorialized.

Arjun Appadurai argues in this context, ‘...deterritorialization...sometimes...creates exaggerated and intensified senses of criticism or attachment to politics in the home state. Deterritorialization, whether of Hindus, Sikhs, Palestinians, or Ukranians, is now at the core of a variety of global fundamentalisms, Islamic and Hindu fundamentalism...’. But this example does not ensure common people’s disorientation toward such, if we at all say fundamentalism in general, because apart from fanatic religious outbreaks, or counter political outbreaks, fundamentalist principles, even after killing innocent mass, still comfortably exist both peripheries in common psyche of general people who do not at all participate in any such practices.

Thus deterritorialization analysis must accept the theoretical process of discourse analysis so that the signification of ‘deterritorialization’, ‘fundamentalism’, ‘symbolic power’ and many other terms can be perpetrated and understood appropriately. However deterritorialization of culture should not claim any importance in a determinate cultural space because ‘class’ analysis even can perform here better than deterritorialization. But on the other hand such deterritorialization motion can well initiate an important debate on globalization of culture. It is not really the postmodernism in the alternative or any such related elitist theories what can rescue popular culture from being either dominated by the nationalist force or transcorporate ‘global’ force. The prime question here to be raised is the people’s struggle and the resultant cultural practice which is completely independent of any given format. If it is political or cultural it would then initiate ideology, as Hall argues, ‘ideology can no longer be seen as a dependent variable, a mere reflection of a pre-given reality in the mind. Nor are its outcomes predictable by derivation from some simple determinist logic. They depend on the balance of forces in a historical conjuncture: on the politics of signification...’.

How to criticize media; or be critical to the mass media or mediation

Is it really your politics?

It is nowadays a common non-phenomenal circumstance to make a ground on the other side of the popular mass media or mediated contents. Although people have to be grounding for their individual social positioning in contrast to the power exertion and socialization process of mass media, the individual audience in most of the time takes the lesson of social positioning from the mainstream media. It is therefore a must-do job for an individual audience to get accustomed with the mediated content on the one side and to criticize on the other hand in contrast to his/her own temporal positioning in the public sphere.

What do mass media do? In between media and audience

It is not a simple question as it looks like for many aspects of its manifestation or what people usually accord in common understanding with it. The first approach toward its non-simplicity is that audience-people in any common cultural understanding or plane largely appear to be media-expert, media-friendly, media-observant, counter opinion maker and many such identities what comes suitable at any moment. In other side of such arbitrary identities media people at the back a typically capitalist corporate establishment often commonly manifest protectionist approach within organization and outright opinion maker in the operating society. So the question ‘what do media do?’ appears to be highly monolithic in nature at least to set public agenda and policy agenda in any point of time and space. So the audience in this condition hardly gets any space to criticize media content in general.

Media in this conditional space perpetrate certain jobs for its own hypercommercial purpose:

(i) locate and identify the targeted people;

(ii) form the audience;

(iii) prepare suitable programme contents [news, soaps and any other entertainment material];

(iv) influence the audience [viewing process];

(v) stimulate audience action [in short run];

(vi) change audience behaviour [in the ling run];

Media therefore gradually use the so called democratic space not just trivially to perpetrate ideal duties [to inform, to entertain, to educate, to…all other responsible duties] but to sustain its commercial corporate existence, earn maximized business in terms of turn-over and reach. Media here also played its nationalist role altogether in the post world war global perspective. In India the union government once used mass media extensively to disseminate public agenda along with policy agenda in three four decades since independence. People at that time were not in a position to at least open the lips. Gone are however those days as nationalist media largely being replaced by the hypercommercial media have lost its existence. 

What then do people do to its media?

If it at all appears to be a question accepted in any social format, people do not possess any form of statutory right to do anything substantial for media but to pose a responsible citizen as media-audience following democratic norm. Many will not agree with such harsh and passive looking condition for a growing belief that what media do is just for public perusal. Just for public consumption media produce contents. Mass audience have become gradually more and more active as individuals get enough amount of space to interact with media.

Whatever commonly spoken or uttered hovers close to bankruptcy of such concepts when audience recognizes interaction with the media in contrast to his/her shrunken space in public sphere. The growth of hyperreal mediation not only fictionalizes the reality with many fabricated counter-real arguments but also redefines all social spaces like political, economic, cultural etc. Thus an election oriented talk-show often fabricates the show in a set of a ‘boxing ring’. Such a presentation nevertheless proposes audience activism to make the programme successful outside the media in public sphere. Audience on the other side often transports the content in various lanes public sphere, like discussions in tea shops, lanes and rocks etc.

What is hypercommerciality?

The commerciality of media or consumption of media contents by the audience are often loosely derived as a choice-customization of an individual by Transnational Industrial Corporations (TNC) in any region-state thus defines the hypercommerciality of media. The hypercommeriality therefore moves beyond the once traditional corporate commerciality that only defined the institutional perpetuity. Hypercommerciality appears to be a ‘combined effect syndrome’ of large scale mediation and heavy viewing of media. Huge and incessant mediation greatly influence audience behaviour with a massive homogeneous behavioural effect that causes lowering of reactive space in an individual mind. Hypercommerciality thus dissolves all barriers between fiction and reality even in a finer space that goes beyond audience psyche. So the audience has no option but to consume the mediation.

The hypercommerciality of media thus appears to be a post ‘active audience’ analysis what Joseph Klapper, Denis McQuail et.al. proposed in 1960s in contrast to the dominant media paradigm phase with a clear notion that audience is equally active while they watch media; they usually choose the programme content what they want to view or read. This activism toward using media to gratify individual needs becomes a highly monolithic syndrome extensively used by the media conglomerates in post-eighties period. Thus far beyond the activism of just switching the channels over and surfing the channels, this individual mechanism of media viewing was the USP of media houses throughout the world.

Hypercommerciality thus proposes an outright consumption of media contents and substantial use of such contents in suitable places. As aircrafts need a runway or an airport to operate, such media contents also need a hyperreal space where the consumption can take place. Audience is just supposed to attend such mediated place to hang out and rediscover all mediated symbolic contents; so are they very active audience!!!

Media vs. Ideology? Progressive use of the Mediation?

In such a situation people nevertheless feel there is much space left for launching a huge protest against such mediation and criticize mediated contents. It is almost a counter use of the same media space for progressive and people’s purpose. The progressive use of mediation thus can be traced out:

(i) producing progressive contents using same mediation technology;

(ii) producing a content for a specific causal factor; may be a political issue;

(iii) producing for the making of an ideology; may be a mass political ideology;

(iv) producing for a specific targeted mass for a specific time and space;

(v) revival of ‘to inform-to educate’ syndrome;

(vi) producing benevolent contents for the mass;

(vii) redefining social awareness more than the popular use of mediation;

(viii) more and more participation in popular mediation programmes;

Audience on the other hand needs also to be classified for the underscored progressive use of mediation: 

(i) audience mostly in traditional middle class public spheres;

(ii) audience in an upper social-class formats;

(iii) audience in hyperreal spaces; shopping malls, water parks, viewing newer channels etc.

(iv) audience regularly migrating from traditional residing places to newly transformed hypercommercial office places.

(v) audience promoting democratic norms;

(vi) audience as opinion leaders;

(vii) audience promoting individual ideology; ideology of a rock band etc.

(viii) audience vanguards of a mass political ideology;

(ix) audience ‘partial’ vanguards of political ideology; i.e. representatives of mass organizations; more socially promoted; earlier Marxian social identities.

(x) audience of rural, urban identity specifications;

The progressive use of mediation is thus a competitive replication of popular mediation guided by a socially upgraded ideology that covers maximum benefit of the common mass in contrast to the unlimited entertainment mediation of media conglomerates. So in such cases progressive mediation following the same path of popular mediation promotes somewhere a different mode of ideological dealing.

Criticizing in such a huge gap between mediation and audience-ship

It now though not difficult to undertake an opinion-building process, often comes out very difficult to criticize the popular mediation being in traditional public spheres. Such a huge gap between progressive mediation, audience-ship and popular mediation creates a huge space-jolt for the mass audience to consolidate a non-bourgeois political ideology; or the Left ideology precisely. Mass audience nevertheless criticize media contents, launch debates in public spheres, democratic spaces often play a crucial role to become real vanguards of ideology somewhere more than the mass leaders and political offices. The common oppositions here in such cases are the nationalist bourgeoisie; right political opportunist forces, and newly emerged postcolonial violent extremist forces.

Establishment vs. Opposition Platforms: In search of ideology among common mass

Abir Chattopadhyay

Does this headline stink too much specially in West Bengal? or enough cliché anyway? Whatever it smells people of this state, otherwise, have to sit with this debate for at least coming one and half year, even if anyone ignores imminent 2012 debacle as accorded by some demanding astrologers!!! If it still looks enough viscid please let me introduce that categories like ‘political’, ‘commercial’, ‘social’ are going to be permeated within next one or two years into a complete mutation of the individual meaning of them. Through the postcommercial development of mass media toward becoming a ‘package’ ahead of a ‘message’ all categories of ‘individual and mass’ life are going to hover close to the end of existence. But the most interesting issue is that people of India including this state also largely are quite unaware of such mutation of all earlier meanings and categories as they by the reason of severe economic inequalities, cultural hierarchies, and bourgeois political domination face lots of struggle while in their mundane life. So mass media can easily maneuver such packages of understanding beyond common, traditional understandings of life which are mostly binary oppositional, staying between good or bad, yes or no, we or they, hero or villain etc. etc. The headline represents such a binary oppositional topic of discussion of the hour that often reduces natural plurality of political, social, cultural issues and leads to a simple ‘uneven’ concentration of power specially political and economic power in some bourgeois hierarchical strata. That not only baffles the common mass away from the mainstream political notions but makes them eternal consumer of mediated political packages.

Binarity between two prime categories

In between the above two categories ‘Establishment’ and ‘Opposition’ the leading debate exists between the mediated package and the traditional binary notions of life. Mass media everyday perpetrate an absolute detailing of establishment and opposition as well, as they create every moment of that and people are always eager to reduce the same into any friendly category of life, say government, local politics, village politics, market price,  2009, 2011, alliance, CPM, Trinamool, Congress etc. Therefore in this equation bourgeois media naturally have a tendency to maneuver such reductionist issues toward making of a mass understanding of it by creating pseudo often fabricated public opinion, as suited commercially. Media try thus to realign its audience reorienting their notions into a homogeneous one like ‘this time Mamata’ from 2001 since the birth of Trinamool congress, and Now 2011 etc.

What establishment and what opposition? An oversimplification altogether

Nevertheless people of West Bengal have to participate in this debate between mediated package and common opinion toward identifying establishment and the opposition. So let us better clarify what is establishment? And what indeed the opposition is? Common understanding often says ‘establishment’ is the government that rules, if further reduced, CPM government and opposition is ‘Mamata’ in any sensibility whatever or ‘no’. But extending such ordinary notion we will find various other categories that also rule common psyche and many such deviant or defiant voices on the other hand that do not rule but oppose ruling. Government ruling is often presupposedly taken as absorbing common individuated and oppositional desires. Common sense of ‘opposition’ therefore often comes out to be simply opposing such ruling. But beyond such oversimplified and near obsessive sense there are many other forms of establishment that also participate in ruling the common mass or psyche. 

Opposition dissolves: emergence of new ruling

After Singur and Nandigram fiasco the emergence of new individuals in the name of civil society have taken a self proclaimed ruling stance staunchly standing by the political opposition and have left no stone unturned to rule the mass. These people not disclosing membership of any particular political wing have created a new ruling over the common mass and public opinion straightway to the Trinamool Congress. Being hugely fed by bourgeois mass media the new ruling-power groups have been unceasingly rewarded in every kind possible. The sacred role of the common mass is, if at all needed, to just switch their TV set on or newspaper open and be an unimposing consumer. The unimposing consumer even media disseminate the fabricated death figure of 1500 people on 14th March, 2007 in Nandigram. If bourgeois media even compete among them on the fabrication of the number of death. Media thus create another establishment creating regular newer talk-shows with people who often try to be the opinion leaders of the common mass. The so called opposition platforms have consequently taken the safe shelter behind these opinions of newer individuals. A new binarity is at the same time been created. Opinion leaders on the other hand are to be shown politically independent and saviour of the bourgeois political parties which operate behind them. Binarity is the ‘others’ who are marked by their political identities. So ‘opportunism’ precisely ‘political opportunism’ is another ‘establishment’ that rules common psyche in the guise of so called marked opposition. Please note that this newer establishment is too costly as the members are to be heavily financially fed by another establishment, here it called the ‘Ministry of Railways’ which largely feeds the bourgeoisie with huge public money simply in the name of another establishment called ‘heritage’. Therefore ‘opposition’ here is mutated to become a form of more powerful counter establishment leaving mass distress of poverty, hunger, political killing, price hike, food inflation away from the spotlight. This is also a spectacle that evades ideological plurality.

32 years of left front government: still ‘establishment (!!!) in making’

Another inconsistent and anomalous (category) presupposition is the 32 years of left front ruling which is another ‘establishment in making’ beyond natural plurality of democracy. If democratic naturalism is the frequent change of the government, as often accorded by many social theorists, how then left front have won seven consecutive assembly elections since 1977. Is it beyond democracy!!! Wisely ‘no’. Here natural plurality supports the left front coalition that has ruled the state beyond ruling. This is important. It is not a package because capitalist democracy can’t generate that possibility in its procedural format. Opposition parties since 1982 have been trying to organize people against the left front. They were not totally unsuccessful in this process as they have also earned democratic space among people. But since 2001, opposition again was dissolved and oppositional content had been reduced to a mediated homogeneous ruling “This time or never”. Public however rejected this ultimatum. Same result spilled over in 2006, public again rejected such ‘ruling’. After winning considerably in Parliament election in 2009 and some municipal elections opposition parties have completely forgotten their agenda. The slogan is even further reduced to “Now 2011”. Gone is the oppositional identity, a new ruling emerges not as alternative but a mere consolidation that only desires power against proclaimed “32 years” of establishment. Dear reader, this is a pre-election scenario!!! Naturally opposition here is only the emergence of newer power bloc or consolidation.

Public reaction: backlash or vandalism

Recently a Kolkata based hospital was quite brutally ransacked by a violent mob alleging the hospital for not admitting some accident patients. But the attack was so planned and organized that vandals turned the hospital into a heap of rubble within hours. Is this a notion of opposition? Let us not confine our discussion within the Advertisements given by the hospital authority in almost all newspapers of the very next day that ‘this is a blow to the whole of hospital industry’. The state government has announced a departmental inquiry. But still the binarity remains in between the performance of hospital industry on the one side and the organized vandalism on the other. The deceased members of our society and the rubble of our property mutually symbolize the dissolution of both establishment and opposition toward making of a more powerful establishment structure that only exploits common people. Most importantly the remaining is the uneven power concentration in both sides of the coin where neither government nor any people’s ‘ideology’ have a legitimate entry. These concentrations not only provide a new ruling but destroy all kinds of welfare approaches of common life. State inquiry may throw a new light on it, but will then be anyone there to recognize what has happened really? This is suitably a question that hardly allows even the victims and their families.

People of not only this state but of the country have earlier seen many such incidents in the name of ‘public reaction’ or backlash etc. We have seen the demolition of Babri Mosque, Gujarat genocide, Maoist extremism, ransacking West Bengal state legislative Assembly by handful members of the state opposition and the list is endless. On the other side we have seen 2/3rd of total population of the state for seven consecutive times have supported a political coalition. Is it too non-commercial or chimera? Isn’t it a public reaction and at least better than killing common innocent mass?

In Nandigram since 2007 amongst all categories of events occurred during the year long massacre, the only neglected and impoverished category what have had a least amount of public attention was of those four thousand people being thrown away from their land. These people remained always ousted not only from their land but from the spectacle also. The whole of East Midnapore gradually came under a family ruling. Isn’t it an establishment that gathers only power to engulf the mass in an encircled impasse? Let us still not accept any binarity that declares the earlier regime in East Midnapore innocent. They have accepted public penance in exchange of every wrong stepping.

2011

This four digit combination nowadays acts beyond all its traditional meaning and gradually becomes a symbol many false connotations that somewhere scares people, gives a message of something historic beyond all democratic norms where people only have to perform and make a history of their own what they have done since last three decades. Therefore this was never a continuous process where they had chosen seven distinctly separate governments in West Bengal. 2011 is exactly like 2006, 2001, 1996, 1991, 1987, 1982, 1977 and even 1972 where people used to express their individual grievance, ideology, struggle, gratification, discontent, anger, deprivation. This individuality and a sense of independence keep them united which often wrongly defined as ‘polarization’. The other side of this stream is sheer domination which transcends even governmental ruling toward an emergence of unholy power over the common mass.