Abstract
This paper examines to the different dimension of the hindu perspective of communication, Sadharanakaran and the SMC(Sadharanakaran Model of Communication) and its implication on the field of media ethics. The study of all the articles related to Sadharanikaran as a theory and its implications in different field of media has been done. The attempt of this paper is to gain a hindu persective of communcition and its implication in the field of media ethics.
Background
Sadharanikaran is a proposed form of communication from eastern perspective that implies on hindu prospect of a communication process. The term sadharanikaran is derived from the Sanskrit word sadharan; and has been translated into English as “generalized presentation”, “simplification” and “universalization”. This concept is bound with another concept, sahridayata, that is, a state of common orientation, commonality or oneness and thus sadharanikaran is the attainment of sahridayata by communicating parties. When senders and receivers accomplish the process of sadharanikaran, they attain saharidayata and become sahridayas. In other words, communicating parties, for e.g., actor and audience, become sahridayas when they are engaged in a communicative relation leading to the attainment saharidayata; and it is in this stage sadharanikaran is accomplished. Thus the essence of sadharanikaran is to achieve commonness or oneness among the people. With the main theme of the communication to attain commonness and mutual understanding, it can be implied to encourage and create a harmonious relationship as a resultant affect of a positive communication process and there by emphasizing in ethical standards as an objective of the communication.
Ethics
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and bad, noble and ignoble, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.
Major branches of ethics include: meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth-values may be determined; normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action; applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations; moral psychology, about how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is; and descriptive ethics, about what moral values people actually abide by.
Ethics is sometimes called moral philosophy; we use it to criticize, defend, promote, justify and suggest moral concepts and to answer questions of morality, such as: How should we live and treat one another? What are right and wrong? How can we know or decide? Where do our ethical ideas come from? What are rights? Who or what has them? Should we coerce one another? Can we find an ethical system that applies to everyone? What do we mean by duty, justice and other similar concepts?
On the basis of traditions ethical practice can be categorized into Philosophical traditions
and religious traditions.
Philosophical traditions include Greek philosophical traditions among others. At the center is the value of using human reason to get beyond appeals to authority or circular religious arguments. Plato emphasized the ideal. His allegory of the cave was meant to show that we live in a world of illusion and that we must shed our illusions to find the truth. Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics held that reason used to create happiness (human telos) gives us moral and intellectual virtues. The moral virtues include moderation, courage and mmagnanimity; the intellectual virtues include art, science and philosophical wisdom. Epicurian and Stoic traditions of ethics followed both traditions. The Golden Mean, the idea that we should seek moderation in all things and that good is usually found between the extremes, is an Epicurian ethical idea. Utilitarian, or consequence ethics, the greatest good for the greatest number, John Stuart Mill and many other Enlightenment philosophers. However, taken to its extreme, the greatest good for the majority might be bad for a minority. Duty Ethics. Another Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said that we should do what would be right if everyone did it. He called this the categorical imperative. John Rawls, Theory of Justice (conceived as a new alternative to utilitarian and duty ethics; Social choices should be made in non-self-serving way from an unbiased original position or "veil of ignorance.").
Religious traditions include the beliefs and philosophy of good in the religious terms. Buddhist religion fallows Eightfold path: (Right views, Right aspirations, Right speech, Right conduct, Right livelihood, Right effort, Right mindfulness, and Right meditational attainment). Christians follow Golden Rule (Love your neighbor; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.). Hinduism follows Ahimsa, do no harm to any living thing. Jewish believes Ten Commandments (also Christian and Islamic) and Islam believe "Surrender" to the will of God.
When making these difficult moral choices, there are many places to turn for guidance, including: first, your own conscience, and in addition, your religion, your professional society, your company policy, and governmental laws and regulations. According to Gerald Corey, Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions, (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999), some basic principles found in ethical traditions are: Autonomy, people make their own choices without manipulation; Nonmaleficence, do no harm; Benificence, help people; Justice, fairness, treat all people alike; Fidelity’ honor commitment to those you serve; Veracity’ truthfulness.
Media Ethics
“Media Ethics is branch of philosophy seeking to help journalist and other media people determine how to behave in their work. In its practical application, it is very much a normative science of conduct, with conduct considered primarily self determined, rational and voluntary.” (Adhikary,2007d, p. 1). It is the subdivision of applied ethics dealing with the specific ethical principles and standards of media, including broadcast media, film, theatre, the arts, print media and the internet. The field covers many varied and highly controversial topics, ranging from war journalism to Benetton advertising. Some important concerns of media ethics are News manipulation, truth and conflict with the law.
News manipulation. News can manipulate and be manipulated. Governments and corporations may attempt to manipulate news media; governments, for example, by censorship, and corporations by share ownership. The methods of manipulation are subtle and many. Manipulation may be voluntary or involuntary. Those being manipulated may not be aware of this.
Truth. Truth may conflict with many other values. Public interest. Revelation of military secrets and other sensitive government information may be contrary to the public interest, even if it is true. The definition of public interest is hard. Privacy. Salacious details of the lives of public figures is a central content element in many media. Publication is not necessarily justified simply because the information is true. Privacy is also a right, and one which conflicts with free speech. See: paparazzi. Fantasy. Fantasy is an element of entertainment, which is a legitimate goal of media content. Journalism may mix fantasy and truth, with resulting ethical dilemmas. Taste. Photo journalists who cover war and disasters confront situations which may shock the sensitivities of their audiences. For example, human remains are rarely screened. The ethical issue is how far should one risk shocking an audience's sensitivities in order to correctly and fully report the truth.
Conflict with the law. Journalistic ethics may conflict with the law over issues such as the protection of confidential news sources. There is also the question of the extent to which it is ethically acceptable to break the law in order to obtain news. For example, undercover reporters may be engaging in deception, trespass and similar torts and crimes. See undercover journalism, investigative journalism. Ethics in journalism is an utopia, can never be applied in practice.
Media Ethics from Hindu Perspective
In 1980, the East-West Communication Institute in Hawaii hosted the first International Symposium on ‘Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives’. J.S. Yadava presented a paper in the seminar and argued that Sadharanikaran is that concept which, in Hindu perspective, refers to what is meant by Communication today. He termed Sadharanikaran as the “Indian Communication Theory.” The term Sadharanikaran is derived from the Sanskrit word Sadharan and has been translated into English as “generalized presentation” (Vedantatirtha, 1936, p. 35) and “simplification” (Yadava, 1998, p. 187). However, the conceptual meaning is quite broader. Conceptually it means achieving oneness or commonness through sharing and comes close to the Latin word communis or its modern English version communication. But the characteristics and the philosophy behind Sadharanikaran are somewhat different from communication concept as developed in the Western societies. The term has its root in Natyashastra of Bharat Muni. It “has been used for communication philosophy expounded in this treatise on … Natya (drama) and Nritya (dance)” (ibid.). In other words, “Bharat Muni, who is credited with the writing of Natyashastra codified the principles of human expression. … Besides giving practical description of various aspects of dance and drama to the minutest details, the document is reach about the basics of human communiation” (op. cit., p. 188). After Bharat Muni and especially Bhattanayak, the term Sadharanikaran has been extensively used in Sanskrit and allied literary circles for explaining poetics, aesthetics and drama.
The Sadharanikaran model, being a non-linear model, is free from the limitations of Aristotle’s model. It incorporates the notion of two-way communication process resulting in mutual understanding of the Sahridayas. Thus the interrelationship between those communicating becomes unique. Its non-linear structure and inclusion of elements such as context has profound consequences.
The scope of Sadharanikarn model is too broad. Sadharanikaran “is total communication and communication at its best. It is a more integrated approach to communication” (IGNOU, 2005, p. 30). It can extend from intra-personal to interpersonal to mass communication. Its scope is not confined to human communication only, rather its scope has been considered even in case of spiritual concerns including the attainment of Moksha.6
Although the purpose of Sadharanikaran is to achieve commonness or oneness the process itself is an asymmetrical one. There is unequal sharing between communicator and receiver; there is a greater flow of communication from the former to the later. … they are not equal. The source is viewed as ‘higher’ and the receiver as ‘lower’. The relationship is hierarchical and that of ‘dominance’ and ‘subordination’. However, the source is held in high esteem by the receiver of communication, a relationship, idealized and romanticized in guru-chela relationship. Sadharanikaran model emphasizes the relationship itself too. For instance, the guru-shishya relationship is always considered sacred in itself.
In Hindu concept, communication is not mere external event. Rather, much emphasis has been given to intrapersonal aspects. In Hindu concept “meaning should necessarily lead to selfawareness. … then to freedom and finally to truth. Here, by freedom we mean the liberation of persons from ignorance, from illusion of the world, and the web of the artificial categories constructed all around us” (IGNOU, 2005, p. 26).
In the context of human communication, the goal of communication in Sadharanikaran model is achieving sharing of Bhavas and achieving mutual understanding. Here, sender and receiver are Sahridayas in true sense. But the goal of communication in the Hindu concept would not be limited to just this extent. Hinduism always emphasizes to achieve all of the purushartha chatustayas, that is, four goals of life: Artha, Kama, Dharma and Moksha.
In brief, following points present the outline of the SMC:
1. The structure of the model is non-linear. It incorporates the notion of two-way communication process resulting in mutual understanding of the communicating parties. Thus it is free from the limitations of linear models of communication.
2. The model illustrates how successful communication is possible in Hindu society where complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices are prevalent. Sahridayata helps those communicating to pervade the unequal relationship prevailed in the society and the very process of communication is facilitated.
3. The interrelationship between the communicating parties is of crucial importance in sadharanikaran. Here, not the cause of the relationship but the relationship itself is significant. For instance, the guru-shishya relationship is always considered sacred in itself. And, unlike in case of most communication theories and models from the West, this does not emphasize on dominance by the sender. Rather, the model gives equal importance to both the communicating parties.
4. The model shows that abhivyanjana (encoding) and rasaswadana (decoding) are the fundamental activities in communication. In other words, they are decisive junctures in sadharanikaran (communication).
5. It shows that Hindu perspective on communication emphasizes more on internal or intrapersonal activity. For instance, both the processes of encoding and decoding consits of four-layer mechanism in its ideal form. Communication involves more experience within than objective rationality of the sensory organs.
6. With the provision of sandarbha (context), the model clarifies how meaning could be provided to the message even if the sender is not identified to the receiver. The intended meaning of any message can be ascertained due to the context, without determining the actual intention in the mind of the speaker just by taking contextual factors into account. Thus due to the context a text can retain its ‘objective’ meaning.
7. The scope of communication from Hindu perspective is broad. As envisioned in the model, communication is broader enough to deal with all of the three dimensions of life: adhibhautika (physical or mundane), adhidaivika (mental) and adhyatmika (spiritual). In social or worldly context, communication is such process by which, in ideal conditions, humans achieve sahridayata. In mental context, communication is the process of gaining true knowledge as well as similar mutual experience. But that is not the whole story; it has spiritual dimension too.
8. The goal of communication as envisioned in the model is certainly achieving commonness or mutual understanding. But, the goal would not be limited to just this extent. Just as Hinduism always emphasizes to achieve all of the purushartha chatustayas (i.e., four goals of life: artha, kama, dharma and moksha), the model also conceives communication capable of attaining all these goals. Thus, the model is in perfect consonance with Hindu World View. (Adhikary, 2009,pg. 84)
The Sadharanikaran model, being a non-linear model, is free from the limitations of Aristotle’s model. It incorporates the notion of two-way communication process resulting in mutual understanding of the Sahridayas. Thus the interrelationship between those communicating becomes unique. Its non-linear structure and inclusion of elements such as context has profound consequences.
The scope of Sadharanikarn model is too broad. Sadharanikaran “is total communication and communication at its best. It is a more integrated approach to communication” (IGNOU, 2005, p. 30). It can extend from intra-personal to interpersonal to mass communication. Its scope is not confined to human communication only, rather its scope has been considered even in case of spiritual concerns including the attainment of Moksha.6
Although the purpose of Sadharanikaran is to achieve commonness or oneness the process itself is an asymmetrical one. There is unequal sharing between communicator and receiver; there is a greater flow of communication from the former to the later. … they are not equal. The source is viewed as ‘higher’ and the receiver as ‘lower’. The relationship is hierarchical and that of ‘dominance’ and ‘subordination’. However, the source is held in high esteem by the receiver of communication, a relationship, idealized and romanticized in guru-chela relationship. Sadharanikaran model emphasizes the relationship itself too. For instance, the guru-shishya relationship is always considered sacred in itself.
In Hindu concept, communication is not mere external event. Rather, much emphasis has been given to intrapersonal aspects. In Hindu concept “meaning should necessarily lead to selfawareness. … then to freedom and finally to truth. Here, by freedom we mean the liberation of persons from ignorance, from illusion of the world, and the web of the artificial categories constructed all around us” (IGNOU, 2005, p. 26).
In the context of human communication, the goal of communication in Sadharanikaran model is achieving sharing of Bhavas and achieving mutual understanding. Here, sender and receiver are Sahridayas in true sense. But the goal of communication in the Hindu concept would not be limited to just this extent. Hinduism always emphasizes to achieve all of the purushartha chatustayas, that is, four goals of life: Artha, Kama, Dharma and Moksha.
In a complex society of pluralistic languages, castes, class and dialects, Sadharanikaran has the answer for a successful communication. It is all about creating an environment conducive for the transmission and reception of messages. The Indian model is not about persuasion and convincing but is a participative model where both the parties involved are in mutual anticipation of each other thereby becoming Sahridayas or people having common sympathetic hearts. Thus the essence of sadharanikaran is to achieve commonness or oneness among the people. With the main theme of the communication to attain commonness and mutual understanding, it can be implied to encourage and create a harmonious relationship as a resultant affect of a positive communication process and there by emphasizing in ethical standards as an objective of the communication. Ethical concerns in relevance to sadharanikaran model, makes a way for the media person to seek the best and highest good in the practice of media as a profession. This means, the sender ( media institution or media person) should never undermine the emotions and mental being of the receivers( audience).
Reference:
• Adhikary, Nirmala Mani. (2006) Understanding Mass Media Research; Prashanti Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu.
• Adhikary, Nirmala Mani. (2007a) “Exploring New Paradigm in Mass Media Ethics.” MBM Anthology of Media Studies (pp. 57-72). Kathmandu: CSC, Madan Bhandari Memorial College.
• Adhikary, Nimala Mani. (2007b). "Mimamsa-Philosophy and Mass Media Ethics" BODHI- An Interdisciplinary Journal ( pp. 24-33). Dhulikhel: Department of Languages and Mass Communication.
• Adhikary, Nirmala Mani. (2007d). Studying Mass Media Ethics Kathmandu: Prashanti Prakashan.
• Adhikary, N. M. (2008a). Communication, media and journalism: An integrated study. Kathmandu: Prashanti Prakashan.
• Adhikary, N. M. (2008b). The sadharanikaran model and Aristotle's model of communication: A comparative study.
• Adhikary, Nirmala Mani. (2009). “Introduction to Sadharanikaran model of communication” Bodhi, 3 (1), (pp. 69-91). Kathmandu University.
• Adhikary, Nirmala Mani. (2010). Explorations Within: Theorizing Communication and Positing Media Ethics Paradigm from Hindu Perspective
Media Research Conference 2010, Katmandu
• Adhikary, N.M.(2010) “Sadharanikaran Model of Communication and Conflict Resolution”
• Mukherjee madhavi “PR with Sahridayas” India PR Blog. 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment