Hindi Public Sphere

Defining the Hindi Public Sphere: An Analysis of discussions in Hindi Magazine
Huzaifa Khan
Introduction
Hindi Public sphere is often echoed or alleged with the adjectives such as ‘liberal’
‘Brahmanical’, ‘Patriarchal’, or islamophobic etc. Precisely, the proposed study aims to look at
the ‘ontological assumptions’ behind these markings on the Hindi public sphere. In other words,
this study intends to explore whose experiential understandings regarding the ‘common’ or
‘public’ is defined through public-discussions and also in formulations of opinion regarding the
public-sphere. That is, this study poses a central question on whether the very idea of public or
common is actually coming from the constituent elements of experiential understanding of
different groups, and if so, what are the implications of such experiential formulations in
determining the domination in a particular society. In other words; if one would argue through an
article that the Hindi public sphere is liberal, what logical premise is being placed to substantiate
the character of Hindi public-sphere as ‘liberal’ and from what experiential point the argument is
being made.
Literature Review
‘Public Sphere’ has been an academic inquiry for a very long time. The idea of the public sphere
was theoretically well articulated by Habermas(1989). According to Habermas, the public sphere
is an articulative realm existing between civil society and the state. Public sphere enables the
emergence of common consensus and formulates ‘public opinion’ through critical and rational
discussions of private bodies. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere traces the
transformation from king being the public and rest being spectators to a literary public of
bourgeois resulted by economic transformation. According to Habermas the entry and
participation to the public sphere is open to everyone regardless of status and social location, it is
a domain of common concern following social equality. Theoretical idea of the public sphere is
widely discussed in social science especially after Habermas’ integration of his idea of the public
sphere with his theoretical explanation of communicative action (Habermas 1984a, 1984b). In
Theory of Communicative Action he analyses communicative rationality, a rational potential built
into everyday speech.
But the conceptualization of the public sphere developed far from Habermasian understanding.
After technological advancements and popularization of media many scholars gave focus on
mediated public sphere. Scholars observe that the mediated public sphere has changed the very
nature of the Habermasian public sphere, and gave new meanings and possibilities for the public
sphere. Habermas also considers the crucial role of the press in formulating public opinion.
Public discourses and media have a prominent role in the shaping of public consciousness.
Before the development of the idea of public sphere, the idea of ‘common sense’ or the idea of
public consciousness was well articulated by Gramsci (1971) through his Prison Note Book. For
Gramsci, common sense is an uncritical consciousness, it is absorbed by mass unconsciously.
Theoretical consciousness among masses are classified into two. One is implicit in their actions
and the second one is explicit or verbal that have been absorbed uncritically. On the other hand,
organic intellectuals will try to engage with common sense critically. Media, School, socio-
cultural groups, Political groups etc plays an important role in shaping common sense.
Interestingly, Frankfurt critical tradition examines how the capitalist development and mass
media technologies lead to creation of single ‘common sense’ or a one dimensional man
(Marcuse 1964; Adorno and Horkheimer 2002 Adorno: 1975). Marcuse refers to a social
situation where discourse, culture, politics, thought and imagination etc. are in a single dominant
order. Such a framework limits us to think beyond a dominant framework. Habermasian
conceptualization of the public sphere grabbed a lot of critiques too. Nancy Frazer (1990) offers
a comprehensive account about the limitation of Habermas’s conceptualization. According to
her, the assumptions given by Habermas to participate in the public sphere itself are set
characters of a certain class. These assumptions itself eliminate certain classes such as women,
plebeian class etc.
Research questions and the Theoretical background

Though the idea of public sphere is theoretically well articulated by Habermas (1989) in his
work The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere , before the development of the idea of
public sphere itself, the idea of ‘common sense’ or the idea of ‘public consciousness’ was well
articulated by Gramsci (1971) through his Prison NoteBooks . One could also see a similar
logical connection in the functionalist tradition of the Durkheimian idea of ‘collective
conscience’ as well. Quite interestingly, the critical tradition of Frankfurt School also looks at
how capitalism makes our thought process in a one-dimensional way (Marcuse 1964; Adorno
and Horkheimer 2002 Adorno: 1975). So the question of ‘common sense’ in Gramsci and other
thinkers was always in the realm of political discussion though the theoretical idea of public
sphere was widely discussed in social science only after Habermas’ integration of his idea of
public sphere with his theoretical explanation of communicative action (Habermas 1984a,
1984b). But critiquing the Habemas, Nancy Frazer (1990) rightly pointed out that from the very
beginning of the public sphere in Europe itself, women were excluded from it. Keeping all these
into mind the proposed study tries to address mainly three questions.
1. How do we locate the discussions on the Hindi public sphere through magazine articles in
relation to the larger constituency of the state?
2. From which experiential position, do these arguments develop and what are the implications
of those experiential positions in asserting a specific formulation?
3. Which all specific arguments dominate the public sphere in terms of its visibility and what
does it talk about the hegemony of certain social groups in Hindi society?
Work Cited:
Adorno, T., & Rabinbach, A. (1975). Culture Industry Reconsidered. New German Critique, (6),
12-19. doi:10.2307/487650.
Adorno, Theodor and Max Horkheimer. (2002). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass
Deception in Dialectic of Enlightenment:Philosophical Fragments. 94-137. Stanford &
California:Stanford University Press.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually
Existing Democracy. Social Text, (25/26), 56-80. doi:10.2307/466240.
Gramsci, Antonio. (1971). Selection from the Prison Notebooks. NewYork: International
Publishers
Habermas, Jurgon (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a
Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, Jurgon (1984a). The Theory of Communicative Action . Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jurgon (1989b). The theory of communicative action . Boston: Beacon Press.
Marcuse, Herbert. (1964). One-dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideologies of Advanced

Industrial Society. cartoon.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/christian/marcuse/odm.html.

Hindi Public Sphere

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hindi Public Sphere

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hindi Public Sphere

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defining the Hindi Public Sphere: An Analysis of discussions in Hindi Magazine

Research questions and the Theoretical background

Marcuse, Herbert. (1964). One-dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideologies of Advanced

You might also like