മലയാളി എന്തുകൊണ്ട് ഇംഗ്ലീഷിനെ പേടിക്കുന്നു?

അഞ്ചു വര്‍ഷത്തോളം ആന്ധ്രാപ്രദേശില്‍ നഗരത്തിലും ഗ്രാമത്തിലുമായി ഞാന്‍ ജീവിച്ചു. ഞാന്‍ മലയാളി ആണെന്നറിയുമ്പോള്‍ മിക്കവാറും എല്ലാ അഭ്യസ്തവിദ്യരായ തെലുങ്കരും പറയുന്ന ഒരു കാര്യം ഉണ്ട്- 'എന്റെ ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് ടീച്ചര്‍ ഒരു മലയാളി ആയിരുന്നു'. ഇവിടെ സ്കൂളുകളുടെ പരസ്യ ബോര്‍ഡുകളില്‍ സ്ഥിരം പ്രത്യക്ഷപ്പെടുന്ന ഒരു വാചകം ആണ് 'കേരള ടീച്ചര്‍മാര്‍ പഠിപ്പിക്കുന്ന സ്ഥാപനം'.

ഭാരതത്തിലെ മറ്റു സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളിലും ഇതുതന്നെയാണ് സ്ഥിതി എന്ന് ഞാന്‍ കരുതുന്നു. ഇത്രയധികം ബഹുമാനിക്കപ്പെട്ടിട്ടും, അംഗീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടിട്ടും മലയാളിക്ക് ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് ഭാഷയുടെ കാര്യത്തില്‍ ആത്മവിശ്വാസം കൈവന്നിട്ടില്ല. സാധാരണ മലയാളി, ഡിഗ്രി ഉള്ള ആളാണ്‌ എങ്കിലും ഇംഗ്ലീഷില്‍ സംസാരിക്കണം എന്ന് കേട്ടാല്‍ മുട്ടുവിറച്ച് ഒഴിവാകും. എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഇത് സംഭവിക്കുന്നത്? വിദ്യാഭ്യാസവും അനുഭവങ്ങളും എന്തുകൊണ്ട് ഈ പേടി മാറ്റുന്നില്ല?

മലയാളിയുടെ ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് പേടിയെ 'മലയാളിംഗ്ലിഷ്' അവലോകനം ചെയ്യട്ടെ.

1. മലയാളിക്ക് ഇംഗ്ലീഷിനെയല്ല, ഇംഗ്ലീഷുകാരെയാണ് പേടി
ഇത് ഒരു സാമൂഹ്യ അവലോകനം അല്ലെങ്കിലും താത്വികമായ ഒരു അവലോകനം ആവശ്യമാവുന്നു. വിദേശീയ അടിമത്തം കൊണ്ട് വീര്‍പ്പു മുട്ടുന്നതിനു മുന്‍പേ മലയാളി ജാതി വ്യവസ്ഥയുടെ പിടിയില്‍ ശ്വാസം മുട്ടിയിരുന്നു. അന്ന് മുതലേ സാധാരണക്കാരന് (സാധാരണക്കാരന്‍=താഴ്ന്ന ജാതിക്കാരന്‍=ഇന്നത്തെ മധ്യവര്‍ഗം, പാവപ്പെട്ടവര്‍) പണത്തിലും ജാതിയിലും സ്ഥാനത്തിലും കൂടിയവരെ പേടി ആയിരുന്നു. ഏറാന്‍ മൂളലും താഴ്ന്ന് വണങ്ങലും എല്ലാം ഇതിന്റെ ലക്ഷണങ്ങള്‍ ആണ്. മേലാളനോടുള്ള പേടി ബ്രിട്ടീഷുകാരനോടുള്ള പേടിക്ക്‌ വഴി മാറി. അവര്‍ നമ്മെ ഇംഗ്ലീഷും, വിരലില്‍ എണ്ണാവുന്നാത്ര തോക്കുകളും പട്ടാളക്കാരെയും കാട്ടി പേടിപ്പിച്ച് ഭരിച്ചു. ഒടുക്കം അവര്‍ പോയപ്പോള്‍ നമ്മള്‍ ഇംഗ്ലീഷിനെ തുടര്‍ന്നും പേടിച്ചുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നു. കാരണം ഒന്നുമില്ല ഈ പേടിക്ക്‌. അടിസ്ഥാനം ഇല്ലാത്ത പേടി. ന്യായവും യുക്തിയും ഇല്ലാത്ത പേടി. ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് വെറും ഒരു ഭാഷ ആണെന്നും അത് പഠിക്കാനും സംസാരിക്കാനും ഒരു ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടും ഇല്ല എന്നും തിരിച്ചറിയാത്തതിനാല്‍ ഉള്ള പേടി. സത്യത്തില്‍ മലയാളം പോലെയുള്ള, കടുകട്ടിയായ മറ്റു ഭാഷകള്‍ ചുരുക്കം ആണ്. മലയാളം അറിയുന്നവന്‍ എന്തിന് ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് പോലുള്ള ഒരു ലളിതമായ ഭാഷയെ പേടിക്കണം? അതുകൊണ്ട്, ഇംഗ്ലീഷ്പേടി കളയൂ. അത് കാരണമില്ലാത്ത ഒരു പേടിയാണ്.

2. മലയാളി മടിയനാണ്
ഒരു ഭാഷയും ഉപയോഗിക്കാതെ പഠിക്കാനാവില്ല. തപാലില്‍ നീന്തല്‍ പഠിക്കാനാവില്ലല്ലോ! സംസാരിക്കാതെ, എഴുതാതെ, വായിക്കാതെ, കേള്‍ക്കാതെ ഒരു ഭാഷയും പഠിക്കാന്‍ പറ്റില്ല. കുഞ്ഞുങ്ങള്‍ ഭാഷ പഠിക്കുന്നത് സംസാരിച്ചും കേട്ടും ആണ്. അങ്ങനെയേ മുതിര്‍ന്നവര്‍ക്കും ഭാഷകള്‍ പഠിക്കാന്‍ പറ്റൂ. മടിയനായ മലയാളി സംസാരിക്കാതെ ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് പഠിക്കാന്‍ ഇറങ്ങിത്തിരിച്ചാല്‍?
പ്രിയപ്പെട്ട മലയാളീ, ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് പഠിക്കാന്‍ എളുപ്പം ആണ്. താഴെ പറയുന്ന കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ ചെയ്തു നോക്കൂ, ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് എളുപ്പത്തില്‍ വശമാവുന്നത് അനുഭവിക്കൂ.

• എ. ദിവസവും അല്പം ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് വായിക്കണം
• ബി. ദിവസവും അല്പം ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് കേള്‍ക്കണം
• സി. ദിവസവും അല്പം ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് എഴുതണം
• ഡി. ദിവസവും അല്പം ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് സംസാരിക്കണം

ഇവ ചെയ്‌താല്‍ നിങ്ങള്‍ മടിയന്‍/മടിച്ചി അല്ലാതാവുകയും ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് എളുപ്പത്തില്‍ കൈവശമാവുകയും ചെയ്യും.

3. മലയാളി താരതമ്യം ചെയ്യുന്നു
നക്ഷത്രങ്ങളെ ലക്‌ഷ്യം വച്ചാലേ ചന്ദ്രനില്‍ എങ്കിലും എത്തൂ. അതുകൊണ്ടാവാം മലയാളി ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് പഠിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ 'റ്റൈറ്റാനിക്കിലെ' ജാക്കിനെയും റോസിനെയും പോലെ സംസാരിക്കണം എന്ന് ലക്‌ഷ്യം വയ്ക്കുന്നത്. നല്ലതുതന്നെ. പക്ഷെ, യാഥാര്‍ഥ്യബോധം കൂടി വേണ്ടേ? മലയാളി സംസാരിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ മലയാളി ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് സംസാരിക്കുന്നതില്‍ എന്താണ് തെറ്റ്? ഭാഷ സംവദിക്കാനുള്ളതാണ്. അത് സാധിക്കുന്നിടത്തോളം നിങ്ങള്‍ ജാക്കിനെയോ റോസിനെയോ പോലെ സംസാരിക്കണം എന്നില്ല. ചാക്കുണ്ണിയെ പോലെയും റോസമ്മയെ പോലെയും സംസാരിച്ചാല്‍ മതി. അല്ലെങ്കില്‍ തന്നെ മലയാളിയുടെ ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് ലോകവ്യാപകമായി അംഗീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടു കഴിഞ്ഞു. അതുകൊണ്ടാണല്ലോ ലോകത്തെവിടെയും മലയാളികള്‍ വിജയകരമായി ജീവിക്കുന്നത്. അതുകൊണ്ട് പ്രിയപ്പെട്ട മലയാളീ, നിങ്ങളെ നിങ്ങളുമായി മാത്രം താരതമ്യം ചെയ്യുക. എന്നിട്ട് സംസാരിച്ചുതുടങ്ങുക. ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് എളുപ്പമാണ്.

4. മലയാളി മുഖംമൂടികളെ ഇഷ്ടപ്പെടുന്നു
അല്പം കാശും പത്രാസുമൊക്കെ ആയിക്കഴിയുമ്പോള്‍ മലയാളി കാറും വീടും വാങ്ങി അയല്‍ക്കാരെ അകറ്റും. പിന്നെ പുതിയ 'ഉയര്‍ന്ന' ആളുകളെ പരിചയപ്പെടും. താന്‍ വേറെ 'വലിയ' ആരോ ആയി എന്ന് ഭാവിക്കും. സ്വന്തം മുഖംമൂടി മിനുക്കി താന്‍ വേറെ ആരോ ആണ് എന്ന് അഹങ്കരിക്കും.
ഇതിനുള്ള ഒരു മാര്‍ഗമായി ഇംഗ്ലീഷിനെ കാണുന്ന/ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന മലയാളികള്‍ ഉണ്ട്. അവര്‍ക്ക് പത്രാസ് എളുപ്പത്തില്‍ ഉണ്ടാവുമെങ്കിലും ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് അത്ര എളുപ്പത്തില്‍ ഉണ്ടാവില്ല. കാരണം, നമ്മെ നാം ആയിരിക്കുന്നതുപോലെ പ്രകടിപ്പിക്കാന്‍ ആണ് ഭാഷ ഉപകരിക്കുന്നത്. വച്ചുകെട്ടലുകളെയും മുഖംമൂടികളെയും ഭാഷ എളുപ്പത്തില്‍ ചതിക്കും. അതുകൊണ്ട്, പ്രിയപ്പെട്ട മലയാളീ, മുഖം മൂടിയില്ലാതെ ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് സംസാരിച്ചു തുടങ്ങൂ. ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് എളുപ്പമാണ്.

5. മലയാളിക്ക് തെറ്റു വരുത്താന്‍ പേടിയാണ്
സ്കൂളില്‍ തെറ്റുവരുത്തുമ്പോള്‍ അടികിട്ടിയ ഓര്‍മയില്‍ ജീവിതത്തില്‍ തെറ്റുവരുത്താന്‍ മലയാളി പേടിക്കുന്നു. അത് നാണക്കേടായി കരുതുന്നു. മലയാളീ, നിങ്ങള്‍ ഒന്ന് മറക്കുന്നു: വീഴാതെ നടക്കാന്‍ പഠിക്കില്ല ആരും. ശ്രമിച്ചാല്‍ തെറ്റുവരാന്‍ സാധ്യത ഉണ്ട്. പക്ഷെ, തെറ്റു വരുത്താതെ ഒരു ഭാഷയും പഠിക്കാന്‍ കഴിയില്ല. തെറ്റു വരുത്തിയാലേ, ശരികള്‍ പഠിക്കൂ. നിങ്ങള്‍ തെറ്റുവരുത്തുകയും, അത് തിരിച്ചറിയുകയും ചെയ്യുകയാണെങ്കില്‍ അഭിമാനിക്കൂ, കാരണം നിങ്ങള്‍ നന്നായി പഠിക്കുകയാണ്. അതുകൊണ്ട്, പ്രിയപ്പെട്ട മലയാളീ, പേടിക്കാതെ തെറ്റുവരുത്തൂ, തെറ്റുകളില്‍ നിന്നും പഠിക്കൂ. ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് എളുപ്പമാണ്.

എല്ലാത്തിനും ഉപരിയായി ഏതൊരു ഭാഷയെയും പോലെ,  ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നവര്‍ക്ക് ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് എളുപ്പത്തില്‍ കൈവരുന്നു. ശരീരവ്യായാമം ചെയ്യുന്നവന് മസില്‍ വരുന്നതുപോലെ ഭാഷ ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നവന് ഭാഷ നല്ല വശമാകുന്നു. എത്ര ഉത്സാഹത്തോടെ ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നോ, അത്ര മനോഹരമായി അത് ഉപയോഗിക്കാന്‍ കഴിയും. ഇതില്‍ പേടിയുടെ കാര്യം എന്താണ്? മലയാളീ, പേടിക്കാതെ ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് ഉപയോഗിക്കൂ. നിങ്ങളുടെ ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് മോശമല്ല. നല്ലതാണ്.

Epic to Romance in British Literature: Role of Kingship and the Feminine

Epic to Romance in British Literature: Role of Kingship and the Feminine

(Notes prepared from  Paul Poplawski's English Literature in Context)

Epic is otherwise known as heroic poetry in Old English terminology. Strict definition of heroic poetry says it ended in 1066 with the battle of Hastings. But a loose definition of epic poetry says they are long narrative celebration of military ethos and courageous individuals who risk life and limb for honour of themselves or of others. This longer, loose definition of epic fits well for Middle English Romantic poetry as well. The only difference would be that the scene shifts from chivalry on the battle field to the internal, private, psychological arena. This way Romance is a continuation of OE heroic poetry or they both are similar. But for some they are separate and different. Romance comes from the Old French romans which meant a story told in French. Therefore, the initial difference was in language, not in structure, theme, etc.

Beowulf is considered the best epic poem. Many OE poems are hybrids with religious or elegiac elements in them. They would be short as well sometimes. These examples outside the definition indicate problems and limitations of self contained genres. Over centuries when times change along with language, we have evidences of OE stories changing genre to become Romantic poems during ME.

For Normans and Anglo Saxons heroic poetry was a living tradition. They lived their lives fighting and singing those poems. Warriors dreamt of becoming the characters they celebrated in their songs. They felt they were also making history and songs by being brave in the face of odds.

Place of Women in Epics and Romance

Without elaborating if one wants an answer, this is it: there was no place for women in epics. Heroic poetry was deeply masculinated. The nature of activities described in there excludes women. Comitatus of Tacitus talks about the retinue for fighting elite. There was shared accommodation for them where they delighted in each others' company- all male fighters. If one is an outstanding fighter and proves his mettle, he will be awarded land, home, estate and facilitated marriage. Even after becoming rich and settled such would continue to serve the king whenever the king needs them on a retainer basis. These elite fighters also had their own gang of fighters to keep. All male companies!

Women bore children and brought them up. Nothing else is prominently mentioned in epics. But if we look at Beowulf, one of his main enemies is a woman. Woman's political role becomes evident in marriages which seal pacts between tribes. Women carried physical evidences of pacts in their own bodies. These can be considered exceptions.

Kingship and rulership

Medieval kings were fighters. Royal lineage was strictly kept. The family kept authority and land to themselves strictly. But in Anglo Saxon tradition, kingship was a flexible affair. It depended on need and claims of blood. When there was a need, they could consider men out of the clan to be kings. King was the center of the nation, but king was not the nation itself.

Powerful kings did not limit themselves to their little kingdoms. They ruled trans-tribe. Still their authority had limits. This is evident in Beowulf’s story. Beowulf went to serve Hrothgar of Denmark despite King Hygelac's wish to remain in Geats. King Hygelac did not have the authority to prevent Beowulf from going to Hrothgar. Beowulf was disregarded in Geats. But he built repute through his exploits at Heorot. He represented a nation- like medieval knights of romance. Heroic poetry of Old English is ‘equal’ to chivalric romance of Middle English.

Overlapping

Late heroic poetry, historic chronicle and early English romance overlap. Chronicle was used to fix dates and years to fix movable feasts, etc. But chronicle also gave us heroic poetry, historic commentary, critique and commemorations.

Beowulf, Chronicle and Brut are about kingship between the lines. Brut by Lazamon is between heroic narrative and metrical chronicle. It is also romance in its motif. It was influenced by Insular French. Interaction between Insular French and English brought forth a new identity. This enabled writing about King Arthur. So far such writings were about Romans (Trojans, Alexander, etc.) or about the French (Charlemagne, Roland, etc.). Brut has OE alliterations but also has rhyme, syllabic rhythm and assonance. It lacks presence of distressed damsels like OE heroic poetry.

Treachery has central role in poems like Song of Roland which are influenced by French. Treachery was a cardinal sin and honour was a cardinal chivalric virtue. Honour is celebrated in oath taking on relics. These scenes are picturesquely described in many such poems.

Descriptions of arming scenes, fights, tournaments, etc. show martial rituals of cultural importance. These show the importance of good rulership. King should be as good as best of his men and more. King should be the epitome of justice, administer of law, mediator, peace maker, etc. Such ideal kingship is detailed in short reign of Aurelie who build halls, churches, restored buildings, administered laws, etc. well.

Good rulership is always a concern or theme in this era. It reflects the political circumstances of the period.

Place of the Feminine

All these establish the continuity between heroic poetry and ME Romance. But for romance, at the centre there is a more feminine preoccupation with courtliness, love and marriage unlike epic's masculine interests. These though speaks of love doesn't give up the characteristics of epics like centrality of kingship and courtly integrity. We also find that the line between a saint's life and romance is blurred. Thus romance stories could stand comfortably adjacent to rather than in opposition to religious material. The separation of sacred and secular is slowly beginning to disappear in medieval literature.

Virgin Mary

Feudalism as an economy was so unfriendly to female agency and autonomy. But we see that in Romance, it portrays the lady as pre-eminent and the knight as her vassal. This looks quite strange because of the eroticized and analogized model of feudal homage! Devotion to Mary is at the root of and enhances this portrayal of woman. Historically we see that women were the audience to Romance, apart from providing content to romantic poems (marriage). Narrators identify with women's perspective! Let us put it these way- women were alienated from real political power, but were necessary for the genetic line in order to maintain power and reign. She was therefore offered an alternative world- that of arts and letters where she could reign and be patrons.

By the end of 15th century, romance was not about military function and was fast becoming an icon of social prestige available to whoever could afford it. But before that happened, it was the ultimate expression of chivalry. Though we mentioned the role of women above, we should not hesitate in stating that the owners of English romances were most likely to be men. The class of men who could have it was widened. Lesser knights, provincial men, burghers and the mercantile class could consume romance by 15th century. It was offered to anyone who was free and gentle (Note that free and gentle excluded serfs and commoners!).

Scope of Liberal Arts education in Indian Universities

Scope of Liberal Arts education in Indian Universities

Sajit M Mathews

A recent article in The Hindu (February 10, 2014) made me think of the importance and effects of Liberal Arts education in a country like India.

Liberal arts or artes liberales are those subjects or skills that in classical antiquity were considered essential for a citizen to know in order to take an active part in civic life. Grammar, rhetoric and logic were the core liberal arts subjects. Arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy were also added to the list later. Today's notion categorizes these subjects as literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, psychology, and science. There are many universities that offer undergraduate and post graduate degrees in liberal arts. (Source: www.wikipedia.org)

The idea of learning Liberal Arts is becoming strange to Indian students. It is slowly becoming unheard of in Indian classrooms these days. Indian parents choose ‘job oriented’ courses for their kids at an early stage. This is at the expense of the inclinations and tastes of their children. That is why we see a mushrooming of engineering colleges and other professional colleges even as the industry does not require those many engineers/professionals. This kind of education without a vision in fact spoils our future generation. According to many educationalists, we create a generation that is capable of nothing but despair and deviance. Over-flooding of the market with homogeneous professionals diminish the employability of youngsters and create a generation of idlers who can endanger societal harmony. That is where Liberal Arts has a say.

Liberal Arts as a broad field of study encourages students to have a look at diverse areas of learning without bothering too much about specialization at an early stage. It is like having a foretaste of items on a menu card before deciding what to order. Instead of deciding to specialize in a discipline at a very early stage which stunts the possibilities and scopes of students, Liberal Arts provides students with a world view so wide that they would be able to diversify beyond traditional boundaries. Thus a student might be enabled to consider broader career areas to venture into. It is nothing but an empowering element that trains the students’ minds to think and learn beyond text books. Once a student goes through liberal arts education, he/she can choose area of specialization.

At Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies’ (RGUKT) RK Valley campus, I coordinate the Liberal Arts section. We have many courses ranging from Shakespeare to English Grammar and Big History. These are great courses that wouldn’t be available to engineering students in ordinary Universities. This engineering university gives students an opportunity to graduate with a minor degree in Liberal Arts if they secure sufficient number of credits through their BTech years. Courses like Big History are of international repute and extreme relevance in the development of one’s understanding of the world and everything around. So along with an engineering degree the young professional also has awareness and knowledge of very different fields of learning that could greatly help in his/her future decisions and choices. At present there are only a few courses. If expanded properly with wide variety of subjects RGUKT's curriculum could be a guiding light for other universities to follow suit.

If students at early stage are given an opportunity to explore wide range of options available, they would be at a better position to judge what is compatible with their aptitude. I have often heard my students say that they are here by chance or by compulsion or because of lack of options. This is not the best scenario one can imagine. Universities like RGUKT that educate mass student bodies have to offer Liberal Arts before letting students commit to one particular branch of study. It is not enough that one earns well. It is important that one becomes what one actually desires and what one is fit for.

Indian parents have to learn to consider the choices and aspirations of their children before making decisions about their future careers. Proxy decision making has to take a back seat. Let the youngsters make decisions about their careers. Liberal Arts education would be a great help in enabling them to do so. Let us wish that our universities promote liberal arts education for the good of our young generation.

Reading and the Other

Reading and ‘the Other’

Sajit M. Mathews

Introduction

Human existence is undeniably interrelated and interdependent. Right from pre-birth stage as ovum and sperm, to post-death stage as food for bacteria, life has to encounter numerous situations, persons, ideas and things. All such encounters necessitate the existence of ‘the other’ if we claim ourselves to be ‘selves’. The extent of this encounter varies from person to person depending on one’s psychological disposition and various social, cultural and other factors. Even for those who have minimum possibilities for actual encounters, literature keeps a wide door open, to ‘the other’ in various ways. As C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) says, “In reading great literature, I become a thousand men and yet remain myself,” while sitting in my reading room.

For a reader, a literary text is something that is outside of him/her. It is written by an author of another time and place having probably a totally different upbringing and mental make-up. The reader has to encounter this totally strange object of consciousness, taking risks about his/her identity as in any other encounter in the world. Here, the text itself is ‘the other’. Thus, reading a text of literature is an encounter of the readers’ self with ‘the other’.

The relationship between self and ‘the other’ is always characterized by distance. In encountering the text which is ‘the other’, reader has to cross this distance. Therefore, reading literature entails problems for the reader and ‘the other’.

Two Equations Between the Reader’s Self and ‘the Other’

1.      Introspection- Introspection says that more of you is inside yourself. Self can know itself by itself, from itself. Here, growth or expansion of identity has to do with self reliance. The agency of self growth is introspection.

2.      Interpretation- Interpretation occurs when there is interaction between two parties. The self knows itself by getting in touch with the other because what is outside of you is also part of you. Interpretation happens on a common ground of dialogue.

Literary theory has nothing to do with introspection as a way to or an agency of reading, because the starting point of experience of literature is an engagement with the text, which is a form of ‘the other’. Reading is an act of dialogue or interpretation entailing ‘the other’. The experience of literature is an example of the growth of self from the other. It has to do with ‘the other’ and its role in reader’s self. Experience of a literary text begins with the engagement with the other.

Fusion of Horizons

Reading is a dialogue between the reader and the text which is ‘the other’. Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) maintains that in dialogue we can sometimes achieve fusion of horizons. Horizon is a metaphor for our situation in this world. Fusion of horizons is an event of truth. Our world, comes to presence as the prejudged, the always understood or interpreted. This is truth for us and it is no less truth when we become aware that truth is inseparable from prejudices. In genuine dialogue with the other there is a possibility of risking the very prejudices that make our world and  costitute our truths. Dialogue moves in two directions- ‘back’ towards our pre-understandings and moves ‘forward’ towards achieving a common understandings. This could  be towards agreement or at least toward recognition of exactly what we disagree about and why. This back and forth movement is what Gadamer means by fusion of horizons.

It is the same movement that happens in reading. The alien text engages in a dialogue with the reader. The preunderstandings and pre-knowledge of the reader and the cumulative meanings of the text  enter into a meaningful interaction and a fusion of horizons happens, to reveal truth. New understandings and new meanings emerge out of this interaction, adding to surplus meaning.

Fear of ‘the other’

Literary text is apparently strange or unfamiliar to the reader. This apparent nature breeds fear because ‘the other’ is deemed to be different and strange. So one remains fixated in the familiar. The little ‘me’ is preferred to the alien ‘other’. The limited, comfortable space within is preferred over the ever expanding world outside. According to Wolfgang Iser (1926-2007), we need to step out of the familiar and go into the new and unfamiliar in order to grow.

Object Constancy and Reading

In literary experience, there is a problematic distance between the reader’s self and the other. Only when this distance is bridged, one can enter the unfamiliar other. The courage to do so comes from a concept called ‘object constancy’ in psychology. It is an assurance or trust that a child develops while it is six months to five years old. For a child, mother is the very first object. Even if the mother is physically absent, the child knows that the mother is there. This trust in the mother is called object constancy. That same trust is one’s capacity for dialogue with the other.

            Here, the role of the other (text) is as an agent of expansion of the identity of the reader’s self. The more you read, the more you are connected with yourself because You are ‘the Other’ and more of you is outside of you. Our call in life is to add the other to self, not to isolate. Reading does exactly that, by getting in touch with the other. In the absence of dialogic interpretational skill, one will subtract the other from self leading to exclusivist and extremist world view.

Liminality and the Other

For hermeneutics, when the two different categories meet, there is a space between them where neither is itself. It is the problematic zone of liminality. Interpretation is an exchange of meaning in liminality. Passage through liminality is always problematic. Life is full of limilalities or problematic meeting places like the transition from childhood to adulthood through adolescence. Reader and text are two categories with liminal space between them. Textual interpretation happens in liminality. The engagement of the reader with the text (the other) happens in liminal space. This engagement is not introspection, but interpretation.

Reading and the Other

Every piece of writing is born with a readerly expectation. The Reader is integral to the text as an ontological value. For phenomenology of literature, the ontology of the mode of existence of the text is as an appearance in the consciousness of the reader. A text necessitates a reader. A text as a fete of writing is complete only when it becomes an object of the readers’ consciousness. Prior to reading, text is indeterminate. That is, a scheme of clues, directions, triggers and promptings which expect a reader and is designated as ‘the implied reader’. Implied reader is the ‘act of reading’ that the fete of writing requires (not the historical reader).  It is the act of reading built into the writing, inspisating the writing. In the terminology of reception theory, it is the act of reading that 'concretizes' or ‘realizes’ the literary work. In short, without reading there would be no literary work at all.

But again, there is no grand universal reading provided for all. Everyone reads the same text differently because some of the clues or directions in the implied reader are foregrounded only for particular readers. This emphasizes the fact that one needs muatuality or commonality of ‘horizons’ to read any text. This again implies that no reading is absolute.

Conclusion

We see the application of the same in life. No two people understand a third person uniformly. One’s friend will be another one’s foe and another’s inspiration and so on. The problem of the reader and the other is reflective of the problem of violence and peace. All societies have the problem of ethnic self subtracting self. The more the fear of the other, the more the violence. Exclusive ethnocentric self promotes endless violence. We must orient ourselves as world centric and peace favouring people. Polyphonic magnanimity and dialogic solidarity and bridge building should survive the contracted ethnocentric self that breeds violence. To fear the other is to be afraid of oneself, which is the casualty of adulthood.

Reading as a discipline lets us overcome this difficulty with the other, by offering countless opportunities to get in touch with ‘the other’. Reading teaches us to incorporate the meaning of the other into our horizon. It could help us replace aggressive advocacy of violence with self-respecting inclusivism. Acceptance of the other with its merits and flaws is a virtue reading can promote, without which our world might not see another happy century.

Nature of the Life of Meaning in Time and our Life in Meaning in Time

1.      Nature of the Life of Meaning in Time and our Life in Meaning in Time

Introduction

Written text is fundamental to human communication, second only to spoken word. Text enables us to take history forward. It makes us feel proud of our past and allows us to think of a better future. A text is more than its component words. Texts have influenced minds, raised questions, answered some and left many unanswered. it has caused revolutions. ‘What changes the world’ is what we make out of the text in and for our times- that is, its meaning in time. Readers come and go, but texts continue to influence and change the world. Therefore, study of text and its meaning are extremely important in understanding our life and its meaning in the present world.

Synchronic Language and Diachronic Text

            Our world is composed of many codes. Language is the most complex code. We need this code to speak, write and understand. Any realization of language is only a disclosure or parole of the treasury of the code of language. This code of language is synchronic. It is static and doesn’t have complexities of growth, and is ‘of a time’. It was Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), a Swiss linguist, who proposed that language as a system of signs should be studied as a complete system at any given point in time. This implies that language is synchronic- ‘of a time’.

            On the contrary, a literary text is diachronic. It is an anti-realistic perspective. Diachrony suggests changes in meaning over time. Meaning begins to move across time. The text doesn’t cling to the author’s bosom. It drifts away from the writer. This is called distanciation.

Distanciation

            In the hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005), the transition from speaking to writing is marked by what can be called ‘alienation’ or ‘distanciation’ (Verfremdung). The realization of discourse in writing distances the text from its context of spoken discourse. During this transition, the original context of the discourse vanishes. The text takes on a whole new meaning and is no longer bound by its original writer. The text is distanced or alienated from the author. It is now ready for the reader to read and interpret.

This distanciation is the first step in the diachronic journey of the text. Text leaves its origin and ground and moves away from the author. This can be equated to Individuation in Developmental Psychology, proposed by Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961). The text undergoes a sort of diachronic individuation. The text is now free to move in time and space. There are no limits as to where to go or how far to go.

In Ricoeurian hermeneutics, distanciation is not looked at negatively as something that needs to be overcome. On the contrary, distanciation turns out to be the very condition of meaning making because it paves the way for ‘Semantic Autonomy’. Semantic Autonomy is nothing but the fact that through the act of writing, the text is freed from the ‘intention of the author’. Against this backdrop of distanciation, ‘Semantic Autonomy’ is inbuilt in the text, i.e., the reader is absent from the act of writing; the writer is absent from the act of reading [death of the author].

Thus freed, the text becomes a ‘projected world’ with a career in time. It has a diachronic life of its own. Hermeneutics focuses on this diachronic life. Literary text is an ‘outward seeker’ looking for readers of all times. It sets out on a diachronic journey in time and space. It is disposed with a quality namely, ‘universality of address’. It is ready for uptake anywhere in the world. For Ricoeur destination of the text is readers’ appropriation - self understanding through dialogue with the text which is a form of the other. Text is a complexified other. Appropriation is making the other myself, that is, ‘Otherness’ into ‘own-ness’. Hermeneutics deals with this appropriation- self understanding through dialogue. It happens across problematic zones of liminality.

Liminality

If I am a realist reader, I go back to the author’s time and space to capture the authorial meaning. The spatiotemporal gap does not count for a realist. One is a contemporary of all times in realist reading. It is an unproblematic travel according to realist hermeneutics. But Ricoeur says such an unproblematic passage is not possible. For him, a reader in the present understands a text of the past with all the ‘receptions’ it gathered during the gap between past and present.

Reception History

Hans Robert Jauss (1921-1997) spoke of reception history (Rezeptions Geschichte) of a text. “Literature and art only obtain a history that has the character of a process when the succession of works is mediated not only through the producing subject but also through the consuming subject—through the interaction of author and public.” We receive a text with a history and all the meanings it accumulated during the journey through time and space. Ricoeur says, when you read it, you read it with all its history and the diachronic journey it made. The process of reading, for reception theory, is always a dynamic one, a complex movement.

All readers have an age, history, era and situation in an epoch, which is named a horizon. A horizon of expectation (Prejudice for Gadamer: 1900-2002) is what we can see within a horizon. It is within a horizon of expectations that Reception takes place. Time is a continuum of receptions in horizons of expectation.

Surplus Meaning

Text goes through receptions through generations of horizons of expectations. Text has a meaning, excess/more than what it had at its birth, because it travels in time gathering meaning. The excess meaning a text acquires during its diachronic journey across time is called Surplus Meaning.

This means, text does not remain disembodied in a vacuumized zone, available for uniform reading. Text travelling through history is historicized in reception. No text is complete in the past. Meaning is not closed and complete in the past but open in its future. Meaning of a text is the future of the text. It is not a finished fact, but an unfolding fate. It comes to my horizon as a sedimentation of a complex reception history that it incurs during its diachronic journey. The sum total of all these is the meaning of the text.

Unfolding Meaning

Ricoeur and Gadamer speak of us being implicated into unfolding meaning in an unconcluded world where last word is not said about anything. Jauss says, “A literary text is not an object that stands by itself and offers the same face to each reader in each period.” Neither writer nor reader has the privilege of a final meaning. Meaning is on an unfolding trajectory in contemporary literary theory. This view is anti-theological and sponsors multiple readings and meanings. It is open to the future. Ricoeur’s surplus meaning is a sign of ever unfolding evolutionary meaning on a journey towards the Omega point in the future.

Reflection

“The sense of a text is not behind the text, but in front of it,” says Ricoeur. Such an attitude to written text would revolutionize one’s perspective. Wherever tradition or faith has declared a dead end to meaning making and interpretation, there was bloodshed. When meaning is closed, tolerance vanishes. Self righteousness looms in the world, which in turn brings in wars to eliminate the ‘difference’. An open attitude to meaning would ensure cohabitation of ‘difference’ in a colourful, multi faced and peace promoting world.

As we are being pulled into the future, into an ever unfolding, ever complexified world of meaning, there needs to be an air of magnanimity to breath and elixir of tolerance to quench our thirst with. If humanity has to coexist, we need to turn and see that there is truth in our neighbor too. Such an atmosphere of mutual human trust will blossom only when we accept that meaning is not exclusive, but inclusive.

Conclusion

“Nothing conclusive has yet taken place in the world; the ultimate word of the world and about the world has not yet been spoken; the world is open and free; everything is still in the future and will always be in the future,” says Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975). Meaning is not closed in the past, but is open to the future. There is no degradation, but expansion, addition and increase of meaning. Act of reading is never a distortion. Thus irrespective of changing readers, the text unfolds its meaning into a life of ever increasing spectrum of meaning, enriching the horizons of our lives with prosperous texts of ever blooming realizations. 

A response to Ravi Vasudevan's article: The Exhilaration of Dread: Genre, narrative form and film style in contemporary urban action films

 Sajit M. Mathews

Introduction

            Film is a powerful medium. Nobody has a debate on that. Films have grown in the last century from being a fantasy and a hobby affair to be one of the largest industries of the world. What was taken for granted in the beginning is today, a field of specialization and research. And this huge cultural product and entertainment industry has to go through so many processes, since a huge sum of money is involved. That apart, the quality of films needs to be scrutinized on a regular basis. This check should be in qualitative terms, whether our films are up to the set standards.

            But a qualitative check is not all. There are a million ways in which films influence human lives. Millions of people who throng to cinema halls everyday enter the halls with different purposes. Cinema is not just a medium of entertainment. Cinema has powerful influence on what people think, decide and do. Such consequences make films all the more important. Film can fall into the hands of propagandists and malicious people, who can use to subvert human minds for their purposes. For this reason, there need to be constant analysis of what goes on in cine field.

            Off late, we are doing well in looking at the cinema, audience, its present, past and future. We should continue to look so. Ravi Vasudevan’s articles are a ‘looking at’ of academia, at the cinema of our country. They use the methodology of social sciences to analyze films and related issues.

            In this paper, I have summarized three of his articles and added my responses to them in the form of reflections and comments.

About Ravi Vasudevan

Ravi Vasudevan is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). He completed his research on the history of Indian nationalism at Jawaharlal Nehru University and subsequently on Indian film melodrama at the University of East Anglia. His present research concerns are the history and theory of film and media experience. He is part of the Sarai programme of CSDS, which he co-directs with Ravi Sundaram. He runs the film and contemporary media transformations component in the Sarai project Publics and Practices in the History of the Present: Old and New Media in Contemporary India. Vasudevan teaches on film and is guest faculty with the Department of Film Studies, Jadavpur University, and the Mass Communication Research Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia. In 2004 he coordinated a lecture and film series for the School of Arts and Aesthetics, Jawaharlal Nehru University.*

Vasudevan is a member of the editorial collective of the Sarai Reader series and the advisory board of the film studies journal Screen. He has edited Making Meaning in Indian Cinema (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000). Vasudevan also undertakes film curations regularly for Sarai. In 2003, he curated the film series ‘Selves Made Strange: Violent and Performative Bodies in the Cities of Indian Cinema’ for the exhibition body.city on contemporary Indian arts at the House of World Cultures, Berlin.*

Vasudevan bases most of his studies on the Bombay film industry, the premier and biggest in India. The article The Exhilaration of Dread is a study of the narrative form and film style of the modern urban action films, emanating from Bombay. It appears to me that the article as a whole is composed in rather loose style. Ideas about city and city life and films come in and out of the article in a random style. In this particular article, Vasudevan talks about audience, duality of audience-entertainment relation, progress and shift of style in narrative techniques, play of city on the psyche of audience and spectator and spaces used in these action films.*

(* : Source: Internet)

Article : The Exhilaration of Dread: Genre, narrative form and film style in contemporary urban action films

Introduction

            This article deals with the relationship of audience with the form of film, transformation in narrative structures, new awareness and knowledge these films brought about, relationship between space, politics and realism, and such films. The article is analysed and personal reflections are added.

Audience’s relationship with the Entertainment form

Vasudevan situates this study in the Bombay film industry of 1980s. Audience of those times is seen as having a dual identity relationship with films. While enjoying the film as spectator, they also are injected with anxiety about the life in the city. These action films of 80s provided the audience with ample opportunities to enjoy the pleasures of viewership, provided all kinds of entertainment, songs, sensual satisfaction, etc. But along with these incentives, films also filled the audience with a sense of dread- ‘a gathering sense of anxiety’ according to Vasudevan. This sounds quite realistic as a film is a reflection of real city life. The dangers of city are not visible to everyone. A film could very well spell out such fears. So the audience becomes more and more aware of what goes on around them. This awareness makes them look around with anxiety and they see more than they were seeing earlier. This is what a genre of films over a long period of time could do to a people.

Narrative structures

            From the article, we could allude that the earlier narrative techniques used in Indian films were usually based on binary opposites. Examples given are: east/west, country/city, police/criminal, public/private, etc. These binaries bind the form of the film itself to a certain frame. He points at the depressed and dystopian urban subjectivity of Bombay of mid 80s as a reason for this shift. Thus, in the new sensitivity, there were no clear-cut differences between the good and the evil. Good also could be a failure. Legitimate reasons and aspirations also could end up in death and un-fulfilment- as reality is most of the times. In this way, I would say, Indian films began to look at real life in films.

            The new style was basically confusion! This confusion was based on the portrayal of continuity between the binary opposites, shown earlier as belonging to water tight compartments. Vasudevan says, this conveys a sense of the contemporary urban imaginary as a kind of maze. In fact, it is not only a maze, but also a mess. Unstable and dangerous subjectivity governed the anxiety of audience.

New awareness

            These city action films made the audience aware that all are vulnerable to the terrors of the city. Fear, terror, unimagined danger, etc are part of the city, and anyone could be into it at any time or the day or night. The displacement of focus from binary opposites to related continuities left the audience without explanations. Consequently, vulnerability became the awareness. Vasudevan says, this has something to do with the way life is imagined in the city. Films have used acts of terror and fright to generate both fear and pity! Parinda is cited as an example. An act of terror invites the fascination of the audience in many ways- the burning of Anna’a wife and son. The psychosis of Anna is attributed to this act. But we don’t know if it is real or fake. However, this psychosis gives him the right to dominate others.

            Vasudevan also says that there is always an extra diegetic in films- a force or intelligence that drives the narrative in its ways. It can be director, conventions or its transmutation. Important thing is that, this intelligence appears to assume that the source of terror in the city always slips away, beyond the field of knowledge, into some cavernous other space. This is so real, and is noticeable in our films. The villain is not the real cause of the terror. There is another force or intelligence that designs all these. That force seems to be evading the camera, and the final resolution. It awaits another chance to come back, leaving our apprehensions open ended.

Space in Bollywood

            Here, Vasudevan tries to bring symbolic narrative dimensions and narration mechanism in terms of links between key Spaces used often in films. Those spaces familiar to terror and dread are police stations, dark alleys, courts, busy market, den of criminals, etc. These place have gained the representational capacity to speak for themselves now. Why space becomes important for audience? It’s because, no space is a safe space. There is a surveillance mechanism that penetrates through every kind of walls and secrecy. So the basic assumption in such films is that you are being watched everywhere- home, office, market, bus, train, even hide outs. This overarching gaze presupposes the characters’ ability to receive the hints of him/her being watched. No space is a safe space- for characters and audience!

Physical space is redefined and reinterpreted in the narrative as the internal space of the characters, and in turn as that of the audience. Codes available elsewhere are used to generate terror of physical space- resembling interior space. The logical structures of the underworld and the physical (architectural) structures in which the underworld functions are connected to each other by the fashion the latter is filmed. The dark alleys, shadowy rooms, carefully arranged careless halls, atmosphere of dampness, cobwebbed attics, etc. stand for the interior- psychology of those involved in such places. The audience is dragged into such spaces, both physically and mentally. This is terrible.

Vasudevan mentions why the gothic lineage of these structures is significant. These spaces disclose the inner logic of their narrative worlds. He also quotes Mazumdar as arguing that all these are self conscious drawing on of codes generated elsewhere (post-war American genre of film noir). That is, using codes that are historically available for us. Wherever the origin is, such films have changed the texture of our viewing pattern.

Space and Audience

            The history of Hindi filmdom is punctuated by formal transformations in the technology and style of international cinema. Global availability of ‘new’ changed things within India. 70s saw a transformation in filmic representation of Bombay, to accommodate the emergence of a character and urban subjectivity: says Vasudevan. Within this ‘new,’ the city remained a stage, rather than becoming a realistically evoked space. The reasons could be our tradition in drama based film making. City space, though considerably expanded within films, still worked as a background for new types of conflict, subjectivity, etc.

            One of the interesting notes of Vasudevan is that in such films, the audience is not left in their seats in the cinema, to look figures cast against a background. They are drawn into the film they are to flow amongst objects and figures within the space-rime of the fictive world. This involving cinema drags audience to interact with the form of cinema. The familiar sights on screen and expected responses transport us. Narrative comes to a halt. It becomes spatialised. Later, it takes the audience to engage in a dialogue with the space, and the objects within it. This is because the space in these movies is the urban space, which is integral to the urban dweller. So it is easy for urban audience to get into a discourse with the space.

Climate and space

            The climatic condition of the urban space is also important to films. They help to generate moods. The space which is already associated with various moods, when painted with climatic conditions, there emerges another texture which qualifies the space.

Railway station

            Railway track and station are extensively used to indicate the proximity of death, terror and danger in everyday life - Existential condition of city life/the urban. The presence of railway in the city is used to create a sense of the everyday vulnerability of the crowded city to the railway accident. As described in the article, the villain could get rid of the key witness in a case against him, by plunging a cigarette into the witness’ hand. The city trains are naturally jam-packed. The victim had to leave his hand in unexpected pain and he falls out and dies- as easy as that. A natural accident is created. Such scenes suggest more than the chances of everyday life- something precarious, something unsaid. Probably, this kind of suggestions have increased the urban anxiety even while enjoying every moment of it.

            Railway tracks run parallel to each other, and parallel to urban life. A derailing of either of these parallels could pose danger to each other. This is an aspect of urban life. When camera moves parallel to the track, there is double presence accompanying the audience.

Realism and Reality Effects

            Use of realism in the 80s is attributed to the attempts to reduce explanatory force. The phenomenon of place being abstracted into a non-identifiable space of the globalised imagination took place in the early 90s. But in the urban action films, there is a strong orientation to local constructions of the city, mainly because Bombay functions as part of a national imaginary. Realism in such sense is there in the movies. Then comes the reality effects. These are auditory or visual cues which suggest that which is unexplained, that which doesn’t directly link with the characters. These effects enhance the experience of the movie space. This can afford to perceive incidental space, unlike realism procedure.

Another issue discussed here is how social world and terror tend to overlap everyday. Since the movie locates itself in the city which the audience is familiar with, the characters who are in danger are similar to the audience in the cinema. The same audience who sit in the theatre may be unaware of the dangers that are passing just outside or over the theatre. May be in their courtyard, a gang is hiding to attack another gang or even his/her family! Thus, such films problematise the inside/outside world in the city. Here we see how realism is used or adapted to the popular multi-diegetic format of the hindi films, using spaces of multiple narrations, to insert the spectator into the cinematic imagining of the city.

Politics

            The article, from the beginning hints about the politics of the city influencing film and the other way around. Character formation and space composition are influenced by the current political scenario. The single hero, wandering in the city of the 70s is replaced in the 80s with a group of youngsters sitting in city corners. This sense of joint political action has gone into films. This is seen as an echo of the worldview of the Shiv Sena in Bombay. The VP Singh government’s attempts to implement the Mandal Commission report and the subsequent uprising are other backgrounds to such political developments in these films. Cinema gains lofty position in giving an overview of political scenario in the city. As we see in the film Satya, the camera is placed above the Deity of Ganesha, to look upon the scene of chaos, where the gangster turned politician is bleeding to death. Here, camera along with the audience is privileged to see what people in the mess cannot see. People are made to witness this terror from another angle altogether. Head on engagement between present/ politics/ screen and audience has been a recurrent subtheme of our films.

Audience and Spectator in South India: A short Study

Sajit M. Mathews

Introduction

With regard to South Indian cinema, the terms ‘audience’ and ‘spectator’ gain much importance as they determined and continue to determine the fate of the art and the course it should take in the future. From the times when cinema was silent, it was the role of the audience (in some cases, spectator) that remained stable and unchanging. Trends came and disappeared. Stars appeared and vanished. But audience remained. The interesting phenomenon of the audience in the South, which shares meanings with spectator, fan, citizen, admirer, rowdy, supporter and even protector is worth detailed study.

The Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2003 Edition) defines ‘Audience’ as: ‘the group of people gathered in one place to watch or listen to a play, film, someone speaking, etc., or the (number of) people watching or listening to a particular television or radio programme, or reading a particular book’ and ‘Spectator’ as: ‘a person who watches an activity, especially a sports event, without taking part’.[1] Wikipedia’s definition of Audience is more elaborate and throws more light into our kind of study.[2] It says ‘An audience is a group of people who participate in a show or encounter a work of art, literature, theatre, music or academics in any medium. Audience participate in different ways in different kinds of art; some events invite overt audience participation and others allowing only modest clapping and criticism and reception. Media audiences are studied by academics in media audience studies. ‘Audience theory’ also offers scholarly insight into audiences in general. These insights shape our knowledge of just how audiences affect and are affected by different forms of art. A spectator is just an observer of an event or person who looks on or watches. Thus these terms differ in terms of involvement and participation.

Spectatorship and Audience

                Spectatorship within the film theory is a theoretical concept used to consider how film viewers are constituted and positioned by the textual and representational aspects of films. It is a fact that the theoretical construct of the spectator has always been different from the actual spectator in the social, empirical and historical understanding. Though films are able to dictate how spectator should view the film, it’s not the case always. Spectator is only a theoretical category idealized and homogenized as a logical subject produced by the film itself.[3] If such a reduction takes place, the question of emergence and engagement of audience becomes an impossible consideration.

In India, audience has always been outside this theoretical framework of spectator. From the time of silent cinema, spectator had been divided into strata. Elite crowd, the aspiring-to-be-elite crowd and the low class crowd always existed. Especially in South India, where politics and mass entertainment were always connected, there has been strong undercurrents which lead (or misled) cinema. Those who could afford to vocalize their admiration for cinema and the star were named rowdy. Those who dare not do that stayed elite or close to elite crowd, ‘untarnished’ by these uncouth spectators.

Citizen and audience

                Citizen is defined as member of the general public, possessing inalienable rights. Theoretically every citizen is entitled to be beneficiaries of these rights and privileges. But actually, only a minority enjoys these rights. That means there is a denial of rights to the majority. This majority is the so called ‘low class’ people of the periphery. These people who live on the fringes of the society are also human beings who long for fulfillment and power. One such kind of satisfaction is offered by films. The subaltern hero of the film who commands upper class men and challenges evil social systems and takes a beautiful upper class woman as his bride certainly lives up to the aspirations of the ‘low class.’ They long to destabilize the system that demoralizes and impoverishes them. And in these films, they find their wishes come true in the words and actions of a star. They admire this representative of theirs. Citizen figure (hero) in the film represents these people. The star thus is a means of addressing the anxiety and anger of being outside the domain of rights.

            An interesting point to be noted here is that the citizen in the film is not like the people who watch him. The hero begins like an ordinary subaltern ‘low class.’ Later, he rises to the capability of a citizen. But all through the transformation, the audience is kept reminded of the fact that hero is a star. This gives him the necessary power to stand up against power of the upper class.[4] This gives him the authority to fall in love with an upper class woman. This also keeps the audience reminded that they are ‘subaltern’ and the star is not and that such things happen only in films. The status of star automatically raises the hero above the handicap imposed by community and class identities and gains ‘citizen’ status for him.

            Thus though the star fulfills the desire of the audience to be citizens, the audience continues to be alien to their rights, affirmed by the filmic narration.

Who is a ‘fan’ then?

            How do we define a fan? The whole argument about fan and the way of looking at fan depends on how we define a fan. It is no wonder that we see a fan as a non-educated lower middle class male admirer of a film star. But we should not forget the fact that fan associations were creations of the film industry itself as logical extensions of star systems. It was motivated by profit. The idea was to make use of fans to provide free publicity to actors and their projects. Actually, fan played a major role in the financial success of films. Every ardent fan would be present at the opening show of a film and they would continue to watch the film repeatedly, so that their star’s film is a success. The fan participation also showed whether the film was good or bad.

            Though fans were created by the industry, they have come a long way from being unpaid servants of the industry.[5] Fans at times have gone away from the stars and declared their independence. Most of the fans associations do not stop with mere slogan shouting and poster publicity. Fans associations had major role in Tamil and Telugu Politics and Kannada Linguistic Nationalism. They also undertake charitable work and social work. They have networks sometimes countrywide and sometimes even international. Thus, the old definitions no more fit today’s fan.

 

Audience, Star and Fan: Behind and Beyond the Silver Screen

            What then is the relationship between the audience and star? As history tells us, stars as well as fans were created by the industry. But audience is not the creation of anyone. Here I would like to create a distinction between audience and fan. Fan is also part of the audience. But those other than the fan do not want them to be with counted as audience. Fan thus is pushed a step down the rung. Audience thus creates another class called fans. Thus, more than fan, Audience needs attention in this discussion. Audience is the middle class crowd that names fans ‘fans.’ Audience looks down upon fan for their over-reaction: Excess. According to audience, fans are thugs, goons and an unruly group. This audience doesn’t want to get in touch with fans for fear of appropriation. They criticize them from a distance.

            Audience is not under compulsion. They are not bothered about whether the film succeeds in the box office or not. They don’t bother about the image of the star. All they look for is entertainment (generally). As long as they get it, they are satisfied. They criticize when the film fails to satisfy their taste and expectation. When the audience is mostly admirers or fans, they see the star more than the character. When there is an expectation about the actor, the actor is bound to act according to the expectations of the crowd. Unless the actor rises up to these aspirations, he will be put down. Therefore the star, within his constraints, portrays a character which neither thwarts the demands of the fan, nor irritates the ‘audience’. In short, it is the fan who decides what kind of role the actor plays on screen.

             Where does the audience- other than the fan- stand in relation with the star? Films have often diffused through the fabric of the society and created a social image of stars. Consumption of star is not limited to films. We are able to see stars all around us: in advertisements, news reports, politics, social gatherings, etc. Cinema magazines are read not only by fans, but also by the general public, providing space for an ‘off-screen’ life of the star. The image of star, even in the imagination of the general public is a constructed one. Star has a social image. Everyone wants to connect to this image. This image is against the divinized image of the star somewhere far away. Here star is the next door man or woman. In some cases, audience tries more than identification or escaping into the stars world, by bringing the star home. In this way, the audience keeps themselves away from fans and near to the star.

The difference between fan and audience is subtle. Fan expressions are always in the excess form (as observed by the audience) - unnecessarily extravagant and hyperbolic whereas audience’s expressions are in a muted and sober fashion. They show rationality with purpose. That which the middle class ‘audience’ doesn’t want to be identified as, is termed fan. Fan thus is a mental projection of the fears and anxieties of the ‘audience’ of being incorporated into the ‘low class’ crowd who yells and howls in the cinema hall. This low class audience is also termed as ‘rowdy’ and is kept at a distance. Since audience cannot follow the star as fans do the demarcation helps.

Conclusion

            Cinema exists as a sign of creative and innovative spirit of human beings. Within the space of this creative space, we find side roads where strands of human weaknesses. Here, some powerful people make use of the unprivileged, for their gains. This kind of manipulation occurs in cinema on and off the screen. In short, the drama goes on behind and beyond the screen. Audience is the component, perpetrator and victim of all these complex mechanisms. As times progress and human spirit thrives towards the ultimate spirit as Hegel puts it, we can expect pure engagements with society and its creative expressions like cinema. Audience has a major role in leading film industry into intellectual arenas unexplored and to bring entertainment and education into cinema halls.

---

[1] Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2003, Version 1.0

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience

[3] Hughes, Stephen. P. Unsettling Cinema: a symposium on the place of cinema in India, Pride of Place, # 525, May 2003.

[4] Srinivas, S.V. Citizens and Subjects of Telugu Cinema, Deep Focus: A Film Quarterly, March 2002. P. 63-67.

[5] Srinivas, S. V. Devotion and Defiance in Fan Activity. Making Meaning In Indian Cinema. Oxford University Press,  USA, 2001.