As a teacher, I have been enjoying both respect and affection from my students. I always keep ‘asymmetrical but full of sahridayata‘ relationship with the students. My view on the teacher-student communication in the classroom is geared by the belief that it is the site and situation, at least, in the cultural contexts of Nepal and India, where prevails asymmetrical relationship between the communicating parties (the teacher and the student), but with the experience of sahridayata. Only two incidents had gone contrary to my belief: the case with Preeti was the first one. However, her case has been subjected to reinterpretation very recently. And, at this juncture, it has contributed for strengthening my belief.
Read full text of the article
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
एक अन्तर्वार्ता : संचारको साधारणीकरण ढाँचाबारे
एक अन्तर्वार्ता : संचारको साधारणीकरण ढाँचाबारे
(साभार : मिथिलान्चल विशेष दैनिक, २०६७ भदौ २१, पृ. ३)
काठमाडौँ विश्वविद्यालय, भाषा तथा आमसंचार विभागमा मिडियाअध्ययनका प्राध्यापक निर्मलमणि अधिकारी संचारको सैद्धान्तिक अध्ययनका क्षेत्रमा एक विशिष्ट प्रतिभा हुन् । संचारको हिन्दू दार्शनिक/सांस्कृतिक अध्ययनका क्षेत्रमा त झन् यिनी आधिकारिक विज्ञ नै मानिन्छन् । अधिकारीद्वारा प्रतिपादित संचारको साधारणीकरण ढाँचा (Sadharanikaran Model of Communication) पूर्वीय/हिन्दू दृष्टिकोण अनुसार निर्मित संसारकै पहिलो संचारढाँचा हो । यसलाई संचारविज्ञानको गहन उपलब्धिका रुपमा स्वीकार गर्दै देश-विदेशका विभिन्न विश्वविद्यालयहरुमा अध्ययन/अध्यापन गरिन्छ । संचारसिद्धान्त, पत्रकारिता, साहित्य एवं दर्शनजस्ता क्षेत्रमा अधिकारीद्वारा लिखित दुई दर्जन भन्दा बढी पुस्तक-कृतिहरु र दर्जनौँ अनुसन्धान-लेखहरु प्रकाशित भइसकेका छन् ।
संचारविद् अधिकारीसँग पत्रकार जीवेश झाले गर्नुभएको कुराकानी यहाँ प्रस्तुत छ ः
साधारणीकरण सिद्धान्तबारे संक्षिप्त जानकारी दिनुस् न ।
साधारणीकरण सिद्धान्त भन्नाले भारतवर्षीय काव्यशास्त्रको एक सिद्धान्त बुझिन्छ । यस सिद्धान्तले कुनै एक व्यक्तिको अनुभूति र अभिव्यक्तिलाई कसरी अन्य व्यक्तिहरुले बुझ्दछन् कसरी सफलतापूर्वक रसास्वादन हुन्छ भन्ने व्याख्या गर्दछ । यसलाई भरतमुनिको नाट्यशास्त्र मा वर्णित रससिद्धान्तका आधारमा भट्टनायकले व्याख्या गरेका थिए । साहित्यिक समीक्षाका क्षेत्रमा सदैव चर्चित रहेको यो सिद्धान्तको सान्दर्भिकता ज्ञानका अन्य विधामा पनि हुने कुरातर्फ भने पछि मात्र विद्वानहरुको ध्यान गएको हो । संचारको सैद्धान्तिक अध्ययनका क्षेत्रमा पनि साधारणीकरण सिद्धान्त सान्दर्भिक रहेको भनी भारतीय विद्वानहरु जे.एस. यादव र आई.पी. तिवारीले सन् १९८० मा व्याख्या गरेपछि विश्वभरका संचारअध्येताहरुको ध्यान यतातर्फ तानियो । सोही साधारणीकरण सिद्धान्तलाई संचारका परिप्रेक्ष्यमा थप विश्लेषण गर्दै साचारको साधारणीकरण ढाँचा बनाइएको हो ।
तपाईँले प्रतिपादन गर्नुभएको संचारको साधारणीकरण ढाँचा (Sadharanikaran Model of Communication) लाई कसरी परिभाषित गर्नु हुन्छ ?
संचारप्रकि्रयालाई हिन्दू विश्वदृष्टिकोणबाट गरिएको सैद्धान्तिकरणको चित्रमय प्रस्तुति नै साधारणीकरण ढाँचा हो । यसले हिन्दू समाजमा संचारप्रकि्रया कसरी व्यवहारित हुन्छ भन्ने कुरालाई प्रस्तुत गर्दछ । यसले हिन्दू समाजमा "सहृदयताका लागि संचार" भन्ने मान्यता रहेको प्रष्ट्याउँछ ।
यो ढाँचा प्रतिपादन गरिनुको पृष्ठभूमिबारे प्रष्ट्याइदिनु हुन्छ कि !
पश्चिमा सन्दर्भमा संचारको सैद्धान्तिक अध्ययन गरी सिद्धान्त र ढाँचाहरु निर्माण गर्ने लहर नै चलेकाले धेरैवटा संचारढाँचाहरु बनाएका छन् । हाम्रोमा भने पहिलोपल्ट वि।सं। २०६० सन् २००३ मा यो ढाँचा प्रस्तुत गरिएको हो । आमसंचार र पत्रकारिता विषयमा एम.ए. को शोधपत्रमार्फत् मैले साधारणीकरण ढाँचा प्रस्तुत गरेको थिएँ । प्राचीन साधारणीकरण सिद्धान्तलाई संचार अध्ययनका सन्दर्भमा अर्थापन गर्दै एवं भरतमुनिको नाट्यशास्त्र र भतृ्रहरिको वाक्यपदीय का आधारमा यसको निर्माण गरिएको हो । गैरपश्चिमा संस्कृतिलाई प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने पहिलो संचारढाँचा हुने गौरव यसले पाएको छ ।
हिन्दू समाजमा हुने संचारप्रकि्रयालाई यसले कसरी प्रतिनिधित्व गर्दछ ?
हिन्दू समाज पनि आफैँमा विविधतायुक्त समाज हो । त्यसैले कुनै एउटा मात्र संचार-सिद्धान्त एवं ढाँचाले सारा हिन्दू समाजको शतप्रतिशत प्रतिनिधित्व गर्छ भन्न सकिँदैन । तर जति नै विविधतायुक्त भए तापनि हिन्दू समाजका केही आधारभूत पक्ष भने समान छन् । साधारणीकरण ढाँचामा त्यस्ता आधारभूत पक्षलाई ख्याल राखिएकाले यसले हिन्दू समाजमा व्यवहारित साचारको सामान्यीकृत प्रतिनिधित्व गर्न सक्दछ । संचारकर्ताहरुबीच सहृदयता हुनु नै हिन्दू पद्धतिमा संचारको आदर्श लक्ष्य हो भन्ने कुरालाई साधारणीकरण ढाँचाले देखाउँछ ।
यसलाई हिन्दू संचार सिद्धान्त पनि भनिएको पाइन्छ । किन ? यसलाई धार्मिक वा साम्प्रदायिक आधारमा हेरिने खतरा कत्तिको देख्नु हुन्छ ?
हो यसलाई हिन्दू संचार सिद्धान्त पनि भनिएको पाइन्छ । यसको अर्थ के हो भने यसको मूल हिन्दू संस्कृति एवं दर्शनमा रहेको छ र यसलाई हिन्दू समाजले आफ्नो व्यवहारमा अङ्गीकार गरेको पाइन्छ । यसरी उक्त सिद्धान्त/ढाँचाको उद्भवलाई जनाउनका लागि त्यसको भनिएको हो । यसको कुनै धार्मिक वा साम्प्रदायिक अर्थ छैन । जसरी 'योग' लाई सबै धर्म सम्प्रदाय संस्कृतिका मानिसकालागि उपयुक्त मानिएको छ त्यसरी नै साधारणीकरण पनि बृहद् प्रयोजन भएको सिद्धान्त हो ।
के साधारणीकरण ढाँचा हिन्दूबाहेक अन्य संस्कृतिमा पनि लागू हुन सक्छ ?
यो हिन्दूबाहेक अन्य संस्कृतिमा लागू हुन सक्छ कि सक्दैन भन्ने कुराको निक्र्योल गर्न सजिलो छैन । एकातिर संचारको अध्ययन संस्कृतिसापेक्ष हुनु पर्छ भन्ने विश्वव्यापी मान्यता भएकाले विभिन्न सांस्कृतिक परिवेशमा संचारलाई बुझ्न विभिन्न सिद्धान्त र ढाँचाहरु चाहिन्छन् भन्ने नै मान्नु पर्छ । अर्कोतिर "सहृदयताको लागि संचार" भन्ने जुन मान्यता साधारणीकरण ढाँचाले बोकेको छ त्यसको वैश्विक मूल्य रहेको छ भन्न पनि हिच्किचाउनु पर्दैन । त्यसैले यो संचार ढाँचालाई जुनसुकै परिवेशमा एउटा सन्दर्भ-ढाँचाका रुपमा लिन सकिन्छ । विश्वशान्ति एवं विश्वबन्धुत्वको प्रबद्र्धन तथा द्वन्द्वव्यवस्थापनका लागि यसले सकारात्मक योगदान पुर् याउन सक्छ ।
संचार तथा पत्रकारिताको अध्ययनका क्षेत्रमा नेपालको अवस्थालाई वैश्विक अवस्थासँग कसरी तुलना गर्नुहुन्छ ?
संचार तथा पत्रकारिताको अध्ययन विश्वका विभिन्न देशमा विभिन्न किसिमसँग भइरहेको छ । संस्कृति, मानव संसाधन तथा भौतिक संरचनात्मक विकास यी अनेक पक्षमा रहेको विविधताका कारणले गर्दा फरक फरक ठाउँमा फरक फरक अवस्था हुनु स्वाभाविक पनि हो । केही समययता हामीले यस विधामा निक्कै प्रगति गरेका छौँ भन्न हिच्किचाउनु पर्दैन तर सैद्धान्तिक र व्यावहारिक दुवै पाटामा हामीले गर्न बाँकी काम अझै धेरै छन् ।
नेपालमा संचार तथा पत्रकारिताको अध्ययनलाई विकास गर्नका लागि के गर्नु पर्ला ?
सैद्धान्तिक अध्ययनकै सन्दर्भमा केन्द्रित भएर भन्नुपर्दा बितेका धेरै वर्ष नेपालमा पश्चिमा सिद्धान्तहरुको अन्धानुकरण मात्र गर्नेखालको प्रवृत्ति देखिएको थियो । हालका वर्षहरुमा त्यस्तो प्रवृत्तिमाथि प्रश्न उठाउन थालिएको छ । तर प्रश्न मात्र उठाएर पुग्दैन वैकल्पिक ज्ञान प्रणाली पनि विकास गर्न सक्नु पर्छ । नेपालमा वैश्विक र स्थानिक दुवै ज्ञानलाई समेट्ने गरी 'ग्लोकल' (Glocal) अध्ययन पद्धतिलाई प्रबद्र्धन गर्नु पर्छ भन्ने मेरो मान्यता हो ।
(साभार : मिथिलान्चल विशेष दैनिक, २०६७ भदौ २१, पृ. ३)
काठमाडौँ विश्वविद्यालय, भाषा तथा आमसंचार विभागमा मिडियाअध्ययनका प्राध्यापक निर्मलमणि अधिकारी संचारको सैद्धान्तिक अध्ययनका क्षेत्रमा एक विशिष्ट प्रतिभा हुन् । संचारको हिन्दू दार्शनिक/सांस्कृतिक अध्ययनका क्षेत्रमा त झन् यिनी आधिकारिक विज्ञ नै मानिन्छन् । अधिकारीद्वारा प्रतिपादित संचारको साधारणीकरण ढाँचा (Sadharanikaran Model of Communication) पूर्वीय/हिन्दू दृष्टिकोण अनुसार निर्मित संसारकै पहिलो संचारढाँचा हो । यसलाई संचारविज्ञानको गहन उपलब्धिका रुपमा स्वीकार गर्दै देश-विदेशका विभिन्न विश्वविद्यालयहरुमा अध्ययन/अध्यापन गरिन्छ । संचारसिद्धान्त, पत्रकारिता, साहित्य एवं दर्शनजस्ता क्षेत्रमा अधिकारीद्वारा लिखित दुई दर्जन भन्दा बढी पुस्तक-कृतिहरु र दर्जनौँ अनुसन्धान-लेखहरु प्रकाशित भइसकेका छन् ।
संचारविद् अधिकारीसँग पत्रकार जीवेश झाले गर्नुभएको कुराकानी यहाँ प्रस्तुत छ ः
साधारणीकरण सिद्धान्तबारे संक्षिप्त जानकारी दिनुस् न ।
साधारणीकरण सिद्धान्त भन्नाले भारतवर्षीय काव्यशास्त्रको एक सिद्धान्त बुझिन्छ । यस सिद्धान्तले कुनै एक व्यक्तिको अनुभूति र अभिव्यक्तिलाई कसरी अन्य व्यक्तिहरुले बुझ्दछन् कसरी सफलतापूर्वक रसास्वादन हुन्छ भन्ने व्याख्या गर्दछ । यसलाई भरतमुनिको नाट्यशास्त्र मा वर्णित रससिद्धान्तका आधारमा भट्टनायकले व्याख्या गरेका थिए । साहित्यिक समीक्षाका क्षेत्रमा सदैव चर्चित रहेको यो सिद्धान्तको सान्दर्भिकता ज्ञानका अन्य विधामा पनि हुने कुरातर्फ भने पछि मात्र विद्वानहरुको ध्यान गएको हो । संचारको सैद्धान्तिक अध्ययनका क्षेत्रमा पनि साधारणीकरण सिद्धान्त सान्दर्भिक रहेको भनी भारतीय विद्वानहरु जे.एस. यादव र आई.पी. तिवारीले सन् १९८० मा व्याख्या गरेपछि विश्वभरका संचारअध्येताहरुको ध्यान यतातर्फ तानियो । सोही साधारणीकरण सिद्धान्तलाई संचारका परिप्रेक्ष्यमा थप विश्लेषण गर्दै साचारको साधारणीकरण ढाँचा बनाइएको हो ।
तपाईँले प्रतिपादन गर्नुभएको संचारको साधारणीकरण ढाँचा (Sadharanikaran Model of Communication) लाई कसरी परिभाषित गर्नु हुन्छ ?
संचारप्रकि्रयालाई हिन्दू विश्वदृष्टिकोणबाट गरिएको सैद्धान्तिकरणको चित्रमय प्रस्तुति नै साधारणीकरण ढाँचा हो । यसले हिन्दू समाजमा संचारप्रकि्रया कसरी व्यवहारित हुन्छ भन्ने कुरालाई प्रस्तुत गर्दछ । यसले हिन्दू समाजमा "सहृदयताका लागि संचार" भन्ने मान्यता रहेको प्रष्ट्याउँछ ।
यो ढाँचा प्रतिपादन गरिनुको पृष्ठभूमिबारे प्रष्ट्याइदिनु हुन्छ कि !
पश्चिमा सन्दर्भमा संचारको सैद्धान्तिक अध्ययन गरी सिद्धान्त र ढाँचाहरु निर्माण गर्ने लहर नै चलेकाले धेरैवटा संचारढाँचाहरु बनाएका छन् । हाम्रोमा भने पहिलोपल्ट वि।सं। २०६० सन् २००३ मा यो ढाँचा प्रस्तुत गरिएको हो । आमसंचार र पत्रकारिता विषयमा एम.ए. को शोधपत्रमार्फत् मैले साधारणीकरण ढाँचा प्रस्तुत गरेको थिएँ । प्राचीन साधारणीकरण सिद्धान्तलाई संचार अध्ययनका सन्दर्भमा अर्थापन गर्दै एवं भरतमुनिको नाट्यशास्त्र र भतृ्रहरिको वाक्यपदीय का आधारमा यसको निर्माण गरिएको हो । गैरपश्चिमा संस्कृतिलाई प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने पहिलो संचारढाँचा हुने गौरव यसले पाएको छ ।
हिन्दू समाजमा हुने संचारप्रकि्रयालाई यसले कसरी प्रतिनिधित्व गर्दछ ?
हिन्दू समाज पनि आफैँमा विविधतायुक्त समाज हो । त्यसैले कुनै एउटा मात्र संचार-सिद्धान्त एवं ढाँचाले सारा हिन्दू समाजको शतप्रतिशत प्रतिनिधित्व गर्छ भन्न सकिँदैन । तर जति नै विविधतायुक्त भए तापनि हिन्दू समाजका केही आधारभूत पक्ष भने समान छन् । साधारणीकरण ढाँचामा त्यस्ता आधारभूत पक्षलाई ख्याल राखिएकाले यसले हिन्दू समाजमा व्यवहारित साचारको सामान्यीकृत प्रतिनिधित्व गर्न सक्दछ । संचारकर्ताहरुबीच सहृदयता हुनु नै हिन्दू पद्धतिमा संचारको आदर्श लक्ष्य हो भन्ने कुरालाई साधारणीकरण ढाँचाले देखाउँछ ।
यसलाई हिन्दू संचार सिद्धान्त पनि भनिएको पाइन्छ । किन ? यसलाई धार्मिक वा साम्प्रदायिक आधारमा हेरिने खतरा कत्तिको देख्नु हुन्छ ?
हो यसलाई हिन्दू संचार सिद्धान्त पनि भनिएको पाइन्छ । यसको अर्थ के हो भने यसको मूल हिन्दू संस्कृति एवं दर्शनमा रहेको छ र यसलाई हिन्दू समाजले आफ्नो व्यवहारमा अङ्गीकार गरेको पाइन्छ । यसरी उक्त सिद्धान्त/ढाँचाको उद्भवलाई जनाउनका लागि त्यसको भनिएको हो । यसको कुनै धार्मिक वा साम्प्रदायिक अर्थ छैन । जसरी 'योग' लाई सबै धर्म सम्प्रदाय संस्कृतिका मानिसकालागि उपयुक्त मानिएको छ त्यसरी नै साधारणीकरण पनि बृहद् प्रयोजन भएको सिद्धान्त हो ।
के साधारणीकरण ढाँचा हिन्दूबाहेक अन्य संस्कृतिमा पनि लागू हुन सक्छ ?
यो हिन्दूबाहेक अन्य संस्कृतिमा लागू हुन सक्छ कि सक्दैन भन्ने कुराको निक्र्योल गर्न सजिलो छैन । एकातिर संचारको अध्ययन संस्कृतिसापेक्ष हुनु पर्छ भन्ने विश्वव्यापी मान्यता भएकाले विभिन्न सांस्कृतिक परिवेशमा संचारलाई बुझ्न विभिन्न सिद्धान्त र ढाँचाहरु चाहिन्छन् भन्ने नै मान्नु पर्छ । अर्कोतिर "सहृदयताको लागि संचार" भन्ने जुन मान्यता साधारणीकरण ढाँचाले बोकेको छ त्यसको वैश्विक मूल्य रहेको छ भन्न पनि हिच्किचाउनु पर्दैन । त्यसैले यो संचार ढाँचालाई जुनसुकै परिवेशमा एउटा सन्दर्भ-ढाँचाका रुपमा लिन सकिन्छ । विश्वशान्ति एवं विश्वबन्धुत्वको प्रबद्र्धन तथा द्वन्द्वव्यवस्थापनका लागि यसले सकारात्मक योगदान पुर् याउन सक्छ ।
संचार तथा पत्रकारिताको अध्ययनका क्षेत्रमा नेपालको अवस्थालाई वैश्विक अवस्थासँग कसरी तुलना गर्नुहुन्छ ?
संचार तथा पत्रकारिताको अध्ययन विश्वका विभिन्न देशमा विभिन्न किसिमसँग भइरहेको छ । संस्कृति, मानव संसाधन तथा भौतिक संरचनात्मक विकास यी अनेक पक्षमा रहेको विविधताका कारणले गर्दा फरक फरक ठाउँमा फरक फरक अवस्था हुनु स्वाभाविक पनि हो । केही समययता हामीले यस विधामा निक्कै प्रगति गरेका छौँ भन्न हिच्किचाउनु पर्दैन तर सैद्धान्तिक र व्यावहारिक दुवै पाटामा हामीले गर्न बाँकी काम अझै धेरै छन् ।
नेपालमा संचार तथा पत्रकारिताको अध्ययनलाई विकास गर्नका लागि के गर्नु पर्ला ?
सैद्धान्तिक अध्ययनकै सन्दर्भमा केन्द्रित भएर भन्नुपर्दा बितेका धेरै वर्ष नेपालमा पश्चिमा सिद्धान्तहरुको अन्धानुकरण मात्र गर्नेखालको प्रवृत्ति देखिएको थियो । हालका वर्षहरुमा त्यस्तो प्रवृत्तिमाथि प्रश्न उठाउन थालिएको छ । तर प्रश्न मात्र उठाएर पुग्दैन वैकल्पिक ज्ञान प्रणाली पनि विकास गर्न सक्नु पर्छ । नेपालमा वैश्विक र स्थानिक दुवै ज्ञानलाई समेट्ने गरी 'ग्लोकल' (Glocal) अध्ययन पद्धतिलाई प्रबद्र्धन गर्नु पर्छ भन्ने मेरो मान्यता हो ।
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Explorations Within: Theorizing Communication and Positing Media Ethics Paradigm from Hindu Perspective
Explorations Within: Theorizing Communication and Positing Media Ethics Paradigm from Hindu Perspective
(A paper presented at the Media Research Conference 2010, Kathmandu)
by: Nirmala Mani Adhikary
Asst. Professor of Media Studies
Kathmandu University
The paper presents an account of contemporary endeavors in the field of communication/media studies in Nepal. It first examines the inherently problematic position of communication discipline in Nepal, and uncovers that Westernization-as-Globalization had been the dominant paradigm for the discipline. Then, it outlines the emerging practices of exploring native perspectives on communication. The paper argues of substantive progress in the case of communication studies in Nepal, where a unique communication model has been developed and presented from Hindu perspective. It also assesses media ethics as another area for such academic exploration.
Keywords: communication model, cultural identity consciousness, Hindu perspective, media ethics, native perspectives, paradigm shift
Communication, as a discipline of knowledge or as an academic field of study, has remained inherently problematic in many non-Western countries – Asians and Africans alike; Nepal being no exception. On the one hand, these countries indigenously inherit the concept of communication, and have been practicing it since time-immemorial. On the other, communication-as-modern-discipline-of-knowledge is borrowed from the West.
“No civilization is possible,” as Dissanayake (2003) observes, “without a vigorous system of communication” (p. 18). It implies that there must existed communication practice and theory in every living society. Thus a communication tradition, rich and refined both in theory and practice, should have been an inseparable part of Nepali culture as she is inheritor of culturally rich civilization (Adhikary, 2003, January 13). In this light, communication is to be considered indigenous – both as practice and concept.
But, as a discipline of knowledge or as an academic field of study, communication first gained recognition and evolved in the West, particularly in the United States of America in the twentieth century AD (Beck, Bennett, and Wall, 2004, p. 35; Dissanayake, 1988b, p. 3; IGNOU 2005, p. 23). Particularly, the study of ‘communication theory’ has been traditionally Eurocentric (Miike, 2007a, p. 1) – “generated by Westerners for the West” (Chen and Miike, 2006, p. 1). As Gordon (2007) puts it, “Human Communication Theory: Made in the U.S.A.” (p. 51).
The non-Western countries had three options while they were developing curricula of communication and/or allied disciplines. First, they could have drawn on native perspectives thereby primarily incorporating indigenous concepts, if not theories and models, of communication. Second, it was much easier for them to adopt solely the Western discursive paradigm. Third, they could have adopted comparative approach thus incorporating both indigenous and Western contents, and facilitating ‘indigenization’ (The two terms – indigenous and indigenization – have been distinguished thus: Where as indigenous theories are native, rooted in specific cultures, and emphasize the human experience in specific cultures; indigenization refers to processes of transforming U.S. theories so that they are appropriate in other cultures (Gudykunst, 2005, p. 85).).
Of these, the adoption of the Western paradigm has been the general practice (Adhikary, 2009a, p. 296), “without any rational analysis” (Adhikary, 2008a, p. 61), as it suits the project of globalization, which legitimizes unidirectional gateway for flow of information (Adhikary, 2007e).
As Dissanayake (1988b) observes, “attention has been confined to communication meta-theory associated with industrially advanced Western countries” (p. 1). According to Miike (2008), “Many researchers, Asian and non-Asian alike, in the field have assumed the universal applicability of the meta-theory and methodology of Eurocentric communication scholarship” (p. 57). Miike (2007a) observes,
By and large, Asian communication professionals are more versed in Western intellectual trajectories than Asian traditions of thought. Consequently, it is hardly surprising that there have been not many theoretical investigations that drew out communicative ideas and insights from Asian classical literature. (p. 2)
In this background, it is no wonder that communication, as an academic field of study, lacked indigenous insights, and hence, it was treated as an exogenous entity ‘imported’ from the West into non-Western countries.
But, the communication discipline has been changing as the Western discursive paradigm is being challenged, if not completely replaced, by alternative paradigms. “Such attempts are rooted in cultural identity consciousness” (Adhikary, 2008b, p. 272). In other words, “Eurocentric scholarship” and “its one-sidedly presumed universality and totalizing tendency” (Miike, 2007a, p. 1) does not seem prolonging. Consequently, the idea of universal meta-theory/meta-model of communication has been firmly rejected, and the sphere of communication theory has been broadened in order to incorporate non-Western contributions as well. Due to such paradigm shift, “the multicultural turn in communication theory” (Miike, 2007b, p. 272) has already taken place.
Accordingly, as Dissanayake (2009) observes “a great upsurge of interests in the study and research in Asian theories of communication” (p. 7) has been witnessed in last few decades. Two books (Dissanayake, 1988; Kincaid, 1987) are considered as seminal works in this regard. The published works in the field are increasing (The list of such works can be seen in: Adhikary, 2009b; Miike, 2009a; Miike and Chen, 2003, 2006; Xiaoge, 2000.).
Theorizing communication from Asian perspectives is advancing in such an extent that even the Asiacentric School of communication theories is said to be emerging and developing, and becoming increasingly significant (Edmondson, 2009, p. 104).
In case of Nepal, the study of communication in general, and communication theory in particular, had not been the study of communication from the native perspectives. Even a cursory look on the curricula of Tribhuvan University (TU) and Purvanchal University (PU) is enough to observe that any indigenous concept/theory/model of communication is not incorporated there. The pattern is visible not only in case of communication theory, but in other areas of study too. For instance, a research on the state of media ethics studies in Nepal revealed that the courses offered in media ethics by TU and PU completely lacked indigenous insights (Adhikary, 2008c), even though Nepal is inheritor of rich Hindu and Buddhist ethical traditions.
The issue should be viewed in a larger context. A general predisposition of considering ‘Americanization’/'Westernization’ as globalization (Dahal, 2005, p. 57) is not new thing for Nepal. And, “‘West is the best’ psyche” (Bhattachan, 2005, p. 89) is something that can be easily perceived. In this light, the acceptance of Western discursive paradigm and the rejection or apathy to native perspectives in the curricula implies that Westernization-as-Globalization had been the dominant paradigm for the discipline of communication in Nepal. However, it is to mention that Kathmandu University (KU) has already started incorporating indigenous concept/theory/model of communication in the curriculum of Bachelor in Media Studies (BMS).
Theorizing communication from Hindu perspective and the SMC
Hindu society represents old civilization with a known history of thousands of years and having a distinct cultural identity of its own. It is the inheritor of culturally rich civilization rooted to Vedic period. Communication (sanchar) is not new concept for Hindu society. Likewise, communication theorization is also not alien endeavour here. Rather, both communication and theorizing communication are indigenous for ancient Bharatavarsha. There are many traditional Hindu concepts, theories and methods, which can be unearthed to garner their contemporary relevance and significance.
Many authors seem to be occupied with the misconception of considering theory as “a product of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment of Europe, the foundations of which can be traced to European classical philosophies” (see: Wong, Manvi, and Wong, 1995, qtd. in Miike, 2006, p. 21), and for this reason, a Western notion. But, theorization, and theory itself, are very common in Hindu philosophical systems. Hindu philosophies “subscribe to the view of the unity of theory and practice” (Balasubramanian, 1990, p. 16). In other words, Hindu thinkers have been “constantly engaged in theorizing about practice” (Mohanty, 2001, p. 25), and hence theory can be approached in an entirely indigenous fashion.
The modern history of studying communication practices in Hindu society goes back to at least five decades ago (Majumdar, 1958). However, it was only in the early 1980s and thereafter that scholars emphasized on theorizing communication from Hindu perspective (Dissanayake, 1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988b, 1988c; Saral, 1983; Tewari, 1980; Yadava, 1982, 1987). Tewari (1980, 1992) and Yadava (1987, 1998) argued that sadharanikaran is the concept which, in Hindu context, refers to what is meant by the Latin word ‘communis’ and its modern English version ‘communication’ (also see: Adhikary, 2009b, p. 70). In the course of time, sadharanikaran has gained prominence as a theory of communication. It has become customary to mention sadharanikaran as Hindu/Indian theory of communication, and, numerous academic institutions in India have already incorporated it in their curricula.
In Nepal, my own works (Adhikary, 2003, January 13, p. 4; Ayod-Dhaumya, 2003, October 25, p. 6, 2003, November 22, p. 6) happen to be the earliest initiatives in the study of communication from Hindu perspective. Subsequently, as the outcome of M.A. Thesis, a unique communication model (i.e., sadharanikaran model of communication – SMC) was developed and presented (Adhikary, 2003, p. 84).
The cumulative studies (Adhikary, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2008b, 2009b) and various programs (of them, one was organized by Martin Chautari itself) not only continued the discourse, but also provided me opportunities to get feedbacks from various scholars. Based on these, the SMC has been revised and improved. This paper presents both figures of the model. As mentioned above, the first figure came into existence in 2003, and the second one was presented in early 2010 (Adhikary, 2010a)in progression to the former.
Thus, there have been ‘formulations’ of the SMC. Moreover, there is scope for further revisions, improvements and adjustments in the model. As my own understanding of Hinduism advances and/or if other scholars come up with genuine remarks, I am open to accept that. After all, theories and hence models of communication should be heuristic.
The SMC has been considered landmark in theorizing communication (Annapurna Shiksha, 2010, February 9, p. 6; Jha, 2010, January 14, p. 2; Khanal, 2008, pp. 21-22; Pant, 2009, pp. 84-86, 2009, November 24, p. 4, 2010, pp. 85-89). The model, Khanal (2008) says, gives new dimension to study on communication from Hindu perspective (p. 21). Pant (2009, November 24) says, “The exploration of such a model based on the Eastern perspective will undoubtedly contribute to the development of new communication theories” (p.4).
Presenting a model is considered significant in any discipline of knowledge, and it is to note that models are considered “especially appropriate in the study of communication” (McQuail and Windahl, 1993, p. 4). Even it has been argued that “a new idea in the discipline is not worthy discussing or exploring unless the idea can be represented in a model” (Stone, Singletary, and Richmond, 2003, p. 33). Of different possible forms of communication model, there is tendency to emphasize on diagrammatic or graphic one (McQuail and Windahl, 1993, p. 4; Stone, Singletary, and Richmond, 2003, p. 26). The SMC is first ever model of communication in diagrammatic form that illustrates communication from Hindu perspectives. Though, as discussed above, Asiacentric School of communication theories is said to be developing diagrammatic models of communication are yet to be developed. Appraised in this light, the SMC certainly marks substantive progress of communication studies in Nepal.
Here, due to limitations of this paper, it is not possible to describe the SMC in detail. Following discussion just outlines its fundamentals (which is adopted from Adhikary, 2009b, 2010c).
The SMC is a representation of communication process from Hindu perspective. It is systematic description in diagrammatic form of a process of attaining mutual understanding, commonness or oneness among people. It illustrates how the communicating parties interact in a system (i.e., the process of sadharanikaran) for the attainment saharidayata. Sahridayata is the core concept upon which the meaning of sadharanikaran resides. It is the state of common orientation, commonality, mutual understanding or oneness. Communicating parties become sahridayas with the completion of the process of Sadharanikaran. In this light, the SMC envisions communication for communion.
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.
Bharata’s Natyashastra and Bhartrihari’s Vakyapadiya are two principle sources for the model. Most of the concepts drawn on (for e.g., sadharanikaran, sahridayata, rasaswadana, sakshatkara, etc.) are formal concepts that are firmly established on Sanskrit poetics, aesthetics and linguistics as well as other disciplines of Hindu religious-philosophical knowledge systems. These concepts are the foundations on which the SMC is established.
Sadharanikaran as a concept/theory should not be confused with the sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC). The former, which is one of the significant theories in Sanskrit poetics and other disciplines, has its root in Bharata Muni’s Natyashastra and is identified with Bhattanayaka. Whereas, the SMC refers to a model of communication, which draws on the classical concept/theory of sadharanikaran along with other resources in order to visualize Hindu perspectives on communication, was first developed and proposed in 2003.
The meta-theoretical assumption of the model is Vedantic. Hindu way of communicating certainly emphasizes on internal or intrapersonal activity. It is comprehensible that abhivyanjana and rasaswadana are the fundamental activities in communication, and in Hindu life communication involves more experience within than objective rationality of the sensory organs. This tendency facilitates sahridayata and other concepts to be materialized practically. Thus, communication results in communion in Hindu society.
By virtue of sahridayata envisioned, the sadharanikaran theory and the SMC have scope to be generalized as a “grand theory” (see: Chen and Miike, 2006, p. 5). The SMC’s root being in Hindu culture does not limit its scope for universalization of the model. “Communication theorizing in the local community and the global society ought to move beyond the dualistic thinking of provincial specificity versus universal applicability. Any theory has local resonance and may have global significance” (Miike, 2007b, p. 277). “Cultural particularity leads to human universality. We do not need to walk away from cultural particularity to reach human universality” (Chen and Miike, 2006, p. 4). What is to be avoided is the ethnocentricity and supremacist fundamentalism. Ranganathananda (1971) rightly says, “Without proper understanding of our own culture, we shall never be able to enter the soul of another culture, nor profit from it” (p. 56). From a panhuman vantage point, the utility of such a model of communication is enormous.
I have sought to test the sadharanikaran model in real life situations, such as the teacher-student communication in the classroom. My interest on the teacher-student communication in the classroom is geared by the belief that it is the site and situation where prevails asymmetrical relationship between the communicating parties (the teacher and the student) but with the experience of sahridayata. It is so, at least, in the cultural contexts of Nepal and India. Thus, such site and situation could be studied as a simulation for understanding how sahridayata can be achieved between/among communicating parties even in asymmetrical relations.
In the case of conceptual research, I assert that the identification of communication (sanchar) as a means for moksha-in-life and thus proving it yoga (i.e., ’sancharyoga’) is significant achievement (Adhikary, 2007d). It will have considerable implications for interdisciplinary studies of communication and philosophy. In a forthcoming paper (Adhikary, 2010b) I have discussed how the discipline of communication can be approached as a vidya (true knowledge) in Hindu orthodoxy.
The SMC is not the only possible model of communication from Hindu perspective; rather, there is scope for developing other communication models. With vast diversities of philosophies within Hinduism, it is just one of many models that could be developed. Many theories and models of communication would come out if communication discipline has enthusiasm of encountering different Hindu philosophical traditions.
Positing Media Ethics Paradigm from Hindu Perspective
The Eurocentric scholarship’s dominance is prevalent in the field of media ethics studies too. However, cultural identity consciousness is something that cannot be ignored in this regard. In other words, the ethical considerations must be judged on the touchstone of concerning society and its social cultural inheritance. “A society that ignores its own ethical ideal does it as its own peril” (Babbili, 2001, p. 163). On the other hand, “Understanding one’s own ethical texts and one’s own ethical underpinnings will establish a foundation through which communication problems can be explored and solutions can be delivered” (ibid., p. 173).
There is need of and scope for indigenous studies on media ethics. “Since mass media professionals and their community are inextricably bound together the ethical questions of particular professional communicator must be judged against the social cultural background of the society for which the medium is aiming to work” (Adhikary, 2007g, p. 24). This calls for attention of media academia, educators, students and professionals to explore native perspectives on media ethics, at least theoretically in the beginning.
The studies done so far (Adhikary, 2003, March 18, p. 4, 2006, 2007f, 2007g, 2008c, 2009c) are preliminary works for positing media ethics paradigm from Hindu perspective. Hinduism bears a vast resource for studies on ethics by virtue of rich heritage of philosophy and culture (Adhikary, 2006, 2007f). Of enormous possible resources, only Mimamsa philosophy (Adhikary, 2007g) and Manusmriti (2009c) have been particularly drawn on. Meanwhile, Hindu texts are not the only resources in this regard; rather other philosophical, religious and/or cultural systems including Buddhism also inherit same sort of scope.
Thus, as compared to theorization of communication, the project of positing media ethics paradigm from Hindu perspective is just in exploratory phase. It is yet to develop any ethical model particularly for mass media (i.e., code of conduct) that is indigenous – of Nepali/Hindu origin. Nevertheless, interdisciplinary research on media ethics and Hinduism could enrich the media studies discipline significantly.
Concluding Remarks
Communication scholars have apparently shown their vitality in multicultural turn of communication discipline, and in this regard the role of non-Western in general, and Asian communication scholars in particular is crucial (Dissanayake, 1981, 1986, 1988b, 2003, 2009; Gordon, 2007; Miike, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2008). More particularly, insights from Hindu knowledge system(s) can give what Maxmuller (1951) terms “new light and new life” (p. 38) to the communication discipline.
Though Westernization-as-Globalization perspective is still dominant for the discipline of communication in Nepal, the emerging practices signify an ongoing paradigm shift. Of Nepali universities, KU has already taken a step forward by incorporating communication theories of Bharata Muni and Bhartrihari, and also sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC) in the BMS curriculum. It is to see whether and when TU and PU will be free of West-centric paradigm, and welcome and promote indigenous communication scholarship.
With the development of a unique communication model from Hindu perspective (i.e., sadharanikaran model of communication) Nepal has witnessed a substantive achievement for communication studies in general and indigenous theorization of communication in particular. Media ethics is another area of study bearing a vast scope for academic explorations from Hindu perspective.
Correspondence to:
Nirmala Mani Adhikary
Department of Languages and Mass Communication
Kathmandu University
Dhulikhel, Kavre, Nepal
Tel.: 011-661399
PO Box: 6250, Kathmandu
Email: nma@ku.edu.np
References
Adhikary, N. M. (2003, January 13). Communication in Nepali perspective. Space Time Today, p. 4.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003, March 18). Mass media ethics. Space Time Today, p. 4.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003). Hindu awadharanama sanchar prakriya (M.A. Thesis). Purvanchal University, Nepal.
Adhikary, N. M. (2004). Hindu-sanchar siddhanta: Ek adhyayan. Baha Journal, 1, 25-43.
Adhikary, N. M. (2006). Ethics from Vedic Hindu point of view. In N. M. Adhikary, Studying mass media ethics (pp. 7-10). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007a). Sancharko Hindu awadharanatmak adhyayan. In N. M. Adhikary, Sanchar shodha ra media paryavekshan (pp. 93-138). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007b). Hindu awadharanama gairashabdik sanchar. In N. M. Adhikary, Sanchar shodha ra media paryavekshan (pp. 139-180). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007c). Aristotle’s and the sadharanikaran models of communication: A comparative study (M.Phil. Independent Study). Pokhara University.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007d). Sancharyoga: Verbal communication as a means for attaining moksha (M.Phil. Thesis). Pokhara University, Nepal.
Adhikary, (2007e). Globalization, mass media and cultural intrusion: Nepali perspective. In N. M. Adhikary (Ed.), MBM Anthology of media studies (pp. 1-16). Kathmandu: Madan Bhandari Memorial College.
Adhikary, (2007f). Exploring new paradigm in mass media ethics. In N. M. Adhikary (Ed.), MBM anthology of media studies (pp. 57-72). Kathmandu: Madan Bhandari Memorial College.
Adhikary (2007g). Mimamsa-philosophy and mass media ethics. Bodhi, 1(1), 24-33.
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. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2 (1), 268-289.
Adhikary, N. M. (2008c). Nepalma media nitishastra adhyayan. Media Adhyayan, 3, 293-305.
Adhikary, N. M. (2009a). Amsanchar ra patrakarita: Sanchar, media ra patrakaritako samasti adhyayan. Kathmandu: Prashanti Prakashan.
Adhikary, N. M. (2009b). An introduction to sadharanikaran model of communication. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(1), 69-91.
Adhikary, N. M. (2009c). Manusmriti as a resource for media ethics. In B. KC (Ed.), MBM anthology of media ethics (pp. 47-50). Kathmandu: Madan Bhandari Memorial College.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010a). Sadharanikaran model of communication and conflict resolution. A paper presented at the Third International Conference on Conflict Resolution and Peace, 2010, February 3-4, New Delhi.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010b). Sancharyoga: Approaching communication as a vidya in Hindu orthodoxy. China Media Research, 6(3), forthcoming.
Adhikary, N. M. (2010c). Communication for communion: Hindu worldview and Adhikary’s sadharanikarn model of communication. Forthcoming.
Annapurna Shiksha. (2010, February 9). Nirmalamanikrit sadharanikaran. Annapurna Shiksha (supplement of Annapurna Post on Tuesdays), p. 6.
Ayod-Dhaumya ‘Nirmal’. (2003, October 25). Khoi hamro sanchar awadharana? Space Time Dainik, p. 6.
Ayod-Dhaumya ‘Nirmal’. (2003, November 22). Bhattanayaka ra ’sadharanikaran’ ko punaruddhar. Space Time Dainik, p. 6.
Babbili, A. (2001). Culture, ethics, and burdens of history: Understanding the communication ethos in India. In S. R. Melkote and S. Rao (Eds.), Critical Issues in Communication (pp. 144-176). New Delhi: Sage.
Balasubramanian, R. (1990). Advaita vedanta: Its unity with other systems and its contemporaty relevance. In The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Indian philosophical systems (pp. 15-34). Calcutta.
Beck, A., Bennett, P., & Wall, P. (2004). Communication studies: The essential resource. London: Routledge.
Bhattachan, K. B. (2005). Globalization and its impact on Nepalese society and culture. In M. K. Dahal (Ed.), Impact of globalization in Nepal (pp. 80-102). Kathmandu: NEFAS and FES.
Chen, G.-M., & Miike, Y. (2006). The ferment and future of communication studies in Asia: Chinese and Japanese perspectives. China Media Research, 2(1), 1-12.
Dahal, R. K. (2005). Impact of globalization on Nepalese polity. In M. K. Dahal (Ed.), Impact of globalization in Nepal (pp. 48-79). Kathmandu: NEFAS and FES.
Dissanayake, W. (1981). Towards Asian theories of communication. Communicator: A Journal of the Indian Institute for Mass Communication, 16(4), 13-18.
Dissanayake, W. (1982a). Personality, transpersonality and impersonality: Some reflections on the relationship of man to nature in three different cultures and its implications for communication theory. Asian Culture Quarterly, 10(1), 26-35.
Dissanayake, W. (1982b). The phenomenology of verbal communication: A classical Indian view. In R. L. Lanigan (Ed.), Semiotics and phenomenology [special issue]. Semiotica, 41(1/4), 207-220.
Dissanayake, W. (1983). Communication in the cultural tradition of India. In M. Traber (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on communication [special issue]. Media Development, 30(1), 27-30.
Dissanayake, W. (1986). The need for the study of Asian approaches to communication. Media Asia, 13(1), 6-13.
Dissanayake, W. (1987). The guiding image in Indian culture and its implications for communication. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 151-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dissanayake, W. (Ed.). (1988a). Communication theory: The Asian perspective. Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (1988b). The need for Asian approaches to communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 1-19). Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (1988c). Foundations of Indian verbal communication and phenomenology. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 39-55). Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (2003). Asian approaches to human communication: Retrospect and prospect. In G.-M. Chen and Y. Miike (Eds.), Asian approaches to human communication [Special issue]. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12, 17-37.
Dissanayake, W. (2009). The desire to excavate Asian theories of communication: One strand of the history. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 7-27.
Edmondson, J. Z. (2009). Testing the waters at the crossing of post-modern, post-American and Fu-Bian flows: On the Asiacentric school in international communication theories. China Media Research, 5(1), 104-112.
Gordon, R. D. (2007). The Asian communication scholar for the 21st century. China Media Research, 3(4), 50-59.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). Theories of intercultural communication II. China Media Research, 1(1), 76-89.
IGNOU (2005). Relation between mass media and society. New Delhi.
Jha, J. (2010, January 14). Sadharanikaran: Ekmatra purveli Hindu sanchar siddhanta. Saptahik Bishwadeep, p. 2.
Khanal, S. (2008). Aamsanchar ra patrakarita. Kathmandu: Vidyarthi Pustak Bhandar.
Kincaid, D. L. (Ed.). (1987). Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Majumdar, D. N. (1958). Caste and communication in an Indian village. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Maxmuller, F. (1951). Heritage of India. Calcutta: Sushil Gupta (India) Ltd.
McQuail, D., and Windahl, S. (1993). Communication models for the study of mass communication. London: Longman.
Miike, Y. (2002). Theorizing culture and communication in the Asian context: An assumptive foundation. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11(1), 1-21.
Miike, Y. (2003a). Beyond Eurocentrism in the intercultural field: Searching for an Asiacentric paradigm. In W. J. Starosta and G.-M. Chen (Eds.), Ferment in the intercultural field: Axiology/value/praxis (pp. 243-276). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Miike, Y. (2003b). Toward an alternative metatheory of human communication: An Asiacentric vision. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 39-63.
Miike, Y. (2004). Rethinking humanity, culture, and communication: Asiacentric critiques and contributions. Human Communication, 7(1), 67-82.
Miike, Y. (2006). Non-Western theory in Western research? An Asiacentric agenda for Asian communication studies. The Review of Communication, 6(1/2), 4-31.
Miike, Y. (2007a). Asian contributions to communication theory: An introduction. China Media Research, 3(4), 1-6.
Miike, Y. (2007b). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in communication theory. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 272-278.
Miike, Y. (2008). Toward an alternative metatheory of human communication: An Asiacentric vision. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, and J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp. 57-72). New York: Routledge.
Miike, Y. (2009). “Cherishing the old to know the new”: A bibliography of Asian communication studies. China Media Research, 5(1), 95-103.
Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (2003). Asian approaches to human communication: A selected bibliography. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 209-218.
Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (2006). Perspectives on Asian cultures and communication: An updated bibliography. China Media Research, 2(1), 98-106.
Mohanty, J. N. (2001). Explorations in philosophy (Vol. I). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Pant, L. D. (2009). Introduction to journalism and mass communication. Kathmandu: Vidyarthi Prakashan.
Pant, L. D. (2009, November 24). The Hindu model of communication. The Rising Nepal, p. 4.
Pant, L. D. (2010). Appraisals versus introspections: An ethical perspective on ferementing Nepali media. Kathmandu: Readmore.
Ranganathananda, S. (1971). The message of the Upanishads. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
Saral, T. B. (1983). Hindu philosophy of communication. Communication, 8(3), 47-58.
Stone, G., Singletary, M., & Richmond, V. P. (2003). Clarifying communication theories: A hands-on approach. Delhi: Surjeet Publications.
Tewari, I. P. (1980, June 1). Sadharanikaran: Indian theory of communication. Indian and Foreign Review, pp. 13-14.
Tewari, I. P. (1992). Indian theory of communication. Communicator: Journal of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, 27(1), 35-38.
Xiaoge, X. (2000). Asian perspectives in communication: Assessing the search. Retrieved March 14, 2009 from http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/spec1/Xiaoge.html
Yadava, J. S. (1982, March). Socio-cultural ethos of communication in India. Communication and Culture, pp. 3-4.
Yadava, J. S. (1987). Communication in India: The tenets of sadharanikaran. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 161-171). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Yadava, J. S. (1998). Communication research in India: Some reflections. In J. S. Yadava and P. Mathur (Eds.), Issues in mass communication: The basic concepts (pp. 177-195). New Delhi: Indian Institute of Mass Communication.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Fundamentals of sadharanikaran model of communication
Sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC) is a representation of communication process from Hindu perspective. It is systematic description in diagrammatic form of a process of attaining mutual understanding, commonness or oneness among people. It illustrates how the communicating parties interact in a system (i.e., the process of sadharanikaran) for the attainment saharidayata. Sahridayata is the core concept upon which the meaning of sadharanikaran resides. It is the state of common orientation, commonality, mutual understanding or oneness. Communicating parties become sahridayas with the completion of the process of Sadharanikaran. In this light, the SMC envisions communication for communion.
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.
Bharata's Natyashastra and Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya are two principle sources for the model. Most of the concepts drawn on (for e.g., sadharanikaran, sahridayata, rasaswadana, sakshatkara, etc.) are formal concepts that are firmly established on Sanskrit poetics, aesthetics and linguistics as well as other disciplines of Hindu religious-philosophical knowledge systems. These concepts are the foundations on which the SMC is established.
Sadharanikaran as a concept/theory should not be confused with the sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC). The former, which is one of the significant theories in Sanskrit poetics and other disciplines, has its root in Bharata Muni's Natyashastra and is identified with Bhattanayaka. Whereas, the SMC refers to a model of communication, which draws on the classical concept/theory of sadharanikaran along with other resources in order to visualize Hindu perspectives on communication, was first developed and proposed in 2003.
The meta-theoretical assumption of the model is Vedantic. Hindu way of communicating certainly emphasizes on internal or intrapersonal activity. It is comprehensible that abhivyanjana and rasaswadana are the fundamental activities in communication, and in Hindu life communication involves more experience within than objective rationality of the sensory organs. This tendency facilitates sahridayata and other concepts to be materialized practically. Thus, communication results in communion in Hindu society.
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.
Bharata's Natyashastra and Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya are two principle sources for the model. Most of the concepts drawn on (for e.g., sadharanikaran, sahridayata, rasaswadana, sakshatkara, etc.) are formal concepts that are firmly established on Sanskrit poetics, aesthetics and linguistics as well as other disciplines of Hindu religious-philosophical knowledge systems. These concepts are the foundations on which the SMC is established.
Sadharanikaran as a concept/theory should not be confused with the sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC). The former, which is one of the significant theories in Sanskrit poetics and other disciplines, has its root in Bharata Muni's Natyashastra and is identified with Bhattanayaka. Whereas, the SMC refers to a model of communication, which draws on the classical concept/theory of sadharanikaran along with other resources in order to visualize Hindu perspectives on communication, was first developed and proposed in 2003.
The meta-theoretical assumption of the model is Vedantic. Hindu way of communicating certainly emphasizes on internal or intrapersonal activity. It is comprehensible that abhivyanjana and rasaswadana are the fundamental activities in communication, and in Hindu life communication involves more experience within than objective rationality of the sensory organs. This tendency facilitates sahridayata and other concepts to be materialized practically. Thus, communication results in communion in Hindu society.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
An introduction to sadharanikaran model of communication
An introduction to sadharanikaran model of communication
By - Nirmala Mani Adhikary
Asst. Prof. of Media Studies
Dept. of Languages and Mass Communication
School of Arts
Kathmandu University
Nepal
Note: In the print version, the article is published as: Adhikary, Nirmala Mani (2009). An introduction to sadharanikaran model of communication. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3 (1), 69-91.
The footnotes of the article are missing here. And, the figure of the model is also missing here. So you are recommended to see the printed version, if you want to cite this article.
It is available online at:
http://ku.edu.np/bodhi/vol3_no1/08.%20Nirmala%20Mani%20Adhikary.%20Sadharanikaran%20Model.pdf
This article describes sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC) and outlines its fundamentals. The article initially discusses the concept of ‘sadharanikaran’ as conceived in Hindu poetics aknowledging its relevance for the modern discipline of communication. And, it also presents an account of the background upon which the model was developed and proposed. The descriptive part of the article is primarily indebted to Natyashastra and Vakyapadiya .
Sadharanikaran and communication
Sadharanikaran, drawing from classical Hindu poetics, has been introduced into the modern communication discipline, essentially due to its qualification in this regard. The term has been an extensively used concept in Sanskrit and allied literary circles for explaining poetics, aesthetics and drama. It is rooted in Natyashastra of Bharata. There have been attempts to extend its history up to the Vedic period (Adhikary, 2007a, p. 108), but scholars widely believe that Bhattanayaka introduced the concept of sadharanikaran (Vatsyayan, 1996, p. 146). He is credited for use of the term in his commentary on Natyashastra to explain the concept of rasa.
The term sadharanikaran is derived from the Sanskrit word sadharan; and has been translated into English as "generalized presentation" (Vedantatirtha, 1936, p. 35), "simplification" (Yadava, 1998, p. 187), and "universalization" (Dissanayake, 2006, p. 4). This concept is bound with another concept, sahridayata, that is, a state of common orientation, commonality or oneness. 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.
In this light, the Latin word 'communis' and its modern English version 'communication' come close to sadharanikaran (Adhikary, 2003, pp. 82-83, 2004, pp. 30-33, 2007a, pp. 107-109; Tewari, 1980, 1992; Yadava, 1987, 1998). However, as Yadava puts it, "the characteristics and the philosophy behind Sadharanikaran are somewhat different from communication concept as developed in the Western societies" (1998, p. 187).
From the theory to the model
The history of studying communication from Hindu (or 'Indian') perspective goes back to at least five decades ago (Majumdar, 1958). Various efforts have been made in order to understand, discuss and/or theorize communication from Asian perspectives, sometimes particularly from Hindu perspective (Adhikary, 2003, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2008b; Babbili, 2001; Davis, 1988; Dhole, 2006; Dissanayake, 1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988a, 1988b, 2006; Gangal & Hosterman, 1982; Gumperz, 1964; Gunaratne, 1991; Jain & Matukumalli, 1996; Jayaweera, 1988; Kirkwood, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1997; Kumar, 2005a, 2005b; Mohan, 1992; Oliver, 1971; Rahim, 1987; Saral, 1983; Sitaram, 2004; Tewari, 1980, 1992; Thirumalai, 2003, 2004, 2006; Yadava, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1998). It is not possible here to present a survey of these works. But it is to mention that most of these works identify themselves as a part of searching the 'Asian' communication perspective.
It has become customary to mention Sadharanikaran as Hindu/Indian theory of communication. And, numerous academic institutions have already incorporated sadharanikaran as the Hindu/Indian theory of communication in their curricula.
In the case of Nepal, the researcher has been acknowledged as the initiator of the discourse regarding Hindu/Nepali perspective on communication (Khanal, 2008, pp. 21-22; Pant, 2009, pp. 84-86. Also see: Adhikary, 2009, p. 296). Firstly, an article was published highlighting the need to explore native Nepali perspective while studying communication, and tracing some sources in this regard (Adhikary, 2003, January 13). Then, research was conducted for an M. A. thesis (Adhikary, 2003).
The research (Adhikary, 2003), drawing on Bharata Muni's Natyashastra and Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya, illustrates that communication process as envisioned in Vedic Hinduism can be represented by the concept of sadharanikaran. And, a unique communication model – sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC) – has been developed and presented through that research which was the first ever model of communication in diagrammatic form proposed from the East. “The model,” Khanal (2008) says, “gives new dimension to study on communication from Hindu perspective” (p. 21). Pant (2009, November 24, p.4) says, "The exploration of such a model based on the Eastern perspective will undoubtedly contribute to the development of new communication theories."
A point to note at this juncture is the SMC is not the only possible model of communication from Hindu perspective. Rather, there is scope for other communication models from Hindu perspective:
With vast diversities of cultures and philosophies within the Hindu society, it is just one of many models that could be developed. Many theories and models of communication would come out if communication discipline has enthusiasm of encountering different Hindu philosophical traditions. (Adhikary, 2008b, p. 286)
Till the date, the Sadharanikaran model remains only one of such models that could visualize Hindu perspective on communication.
The Sadharanikaran model
Proposed by Adhikary (2003) the Sadharanikaran model illustrates how the communicating parties interact in a system (i.e., the process of sadharanikaran) for the attainment saharidayata (commonness or oneness). The model "offers an explanation of how successful communication is possible in Hindu society where complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices are prevalent" (Adhikary, 2008a, p. 67). Observing the model as a representation of communication process as envisioned in Hindu perspective, Pant (2009) remarks, “It is systematic description in diagrammatic form of a process of attaining commonness or oneness among people" (pp. 84-85).
The model comprises the following elements:
1. Sahridayas (Preshaka, i.e., sender, and
Prapaka, i.e., receiver)
2. Bhava (Moods or emotions)
3. Abhivyanjana (Expression or encoding)
4. Sandesha (Message or information)
5. Sarani (Channel)
6. Rasaswadana (Firstly receiving, decoding and
interpreting the message and finally achieving
the rasa)
7. Doshas (Noises)
8. Sandarbha (Context)
9. Pratikriya (Process of feedback)
Sadharanikaran as a concept/theory should not be confused with the sadharanikaran model. The former, which is one of the significant theories in Sanskrit poetics, has its root in Natyashastra and is identified with Bhattanayaka. Whereas, latter refers to a model of communication which draws on the classical concept/theory of sadharanikaran along with other resources in order to visualize Hindu perspectives on communication.
Sahridayata is the core concept upon which the meaning of sadharanikaran resides. It is the state of common orientation, commonality or oneness. Senders and receivers become sahridayas with the completion of the process of Sadharanikaran. In a society that has asymmetrical relationships between communication parties, it is only due to sahridayata the two-way communication and mutual understanding is possible. Thus, communicating parties can attain sahridayata irrespective of complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices, and the communication process qualifies to be considered as sadharanikaran.
Sadharanikaran, as the communication process, consists of sahridayas as the communicating parties. As a 'technical term', the word refers to people with a capacity to send and receive messages. They are the parties engaged in communication, and capable of identifying each other as sender and receiver of the process. A sahridaya is a person in such state of emotional intensity which is coequal or parallel to that of other(s) engaged in communication. Ideally, the term refers such persons who are not only engaged in communication but also have attained a special state: sahridayata. As such, a sahridaya is one who has attained sahridayata. Thus, sadharanikaran is the process of attaining sahridayata, and, the sadharanikaran model illustrates the process.
If communication is taken as a step-by-step process, which is just for the shake of easy understanding, the sahridaya-preshaka (simply, the sender), who has bhavas (moods or emotions or thoughts or ideas) in mind, is the initiator of the process. The sahridaya-sender has to pass the process of abhivyanjana for expressing those bhavas in perceivable form. It is the sahridaya-prapaka (simply, the receiver) with whom the bhavas are to be shared. He or she has to pass the process of rasaswadana.
The position of the sahridaya-sender and the sahridaya-receiver is not static. Both parties are engaged in the processes of abhivyanjana and rasaswadana. When sadharanikaran is successful, universalization or commonness of experience takes place. In Natyashastra itself, Bharata Muni has emphasized on a total communication effort including the use of the words as well as limbs, gestures, and body language along with the physical context in order to ensure communication at its best.
As evident from the figure, the sender inherits bhava. Human being in his/her essential characteristics is a bundle of bhavas that constitutes his/her being and form part of his/her total consciousness. It is due to the bhavas that human being aims engaging in communication or sadharanikaran process. If there were no bhavas and human beings had no desire to share their bhavas with others, there would be no need of communication. The bhavas have been categorized into different types, such as sthayee bhavas (permanently dominant) , vyabhichari or sanchari bhavas (moving or transitory) and satvika or sattvaja bhavas (originating from the mind, temperamental) . Corresponding to bhavas, human inherits rasas, which are to be discussed later.
Abhivyanjana refers to the activities that a source goes to translate bhavas into a form that may be perceived by the senses. It can be understood as expression or encoding in English. The guiding principle while encoding in sadharanikaran is simplification. Simplification is the essential dimension here. In the communiation process; the complex concepts and ideas are simplified by the speaker (source) with illustrations and idioms appropriate for the understanding of the listeners (receiver of the messages). This approach makes communication a dynamic, flexible, practical and effective instrument of social relationship and control.
Sanketa (code) is an integral part of abhivyanjana. A kind of code is a must to let the bhavas manifested. Codes are symbols that are organized in accordance with specific rules. For example, the language is a code. The sender encodes the bhava in a code. For communication to be successful, both the sender and receiver must understand the code being used. Abhivyanjana may be in verbal or non-verbal code, and both codes may be used simultaneously.
In case of verbal abhivyanjana, words/languages are used as the code. The process of abhivyanjana has been shown consisting of four stages in the figure. It owes to concept of language as a code as conceived in Sanskrit linguistics and Hindu philosophy of language. Here, there are four levels or stages of language from which the word (shabda or vak) passes: para, pashyanti, madhyama and finally the uttered word vaikhari. In other words, any bhava can be perceived externally only when it comes to the vaikhari level.
Vaikhari vak is the manifested form of the word. It is in the most external and differentiated level. Here, the word is commonly uttered by the speaker and heard by the hearer. Before being uttered, the word or vak resides in mind or intellect, and is named as madhyama. It is the idea, or series of words, as conceived by the mind after hearing or before being spoken out. It may be thought of as inward speech. The next and the innermost stage, according to Bhartrihari, is the pashyanti vak. Pashyanti is the vak at the level of direct intuition, and can be understood through experience. Here, humans get the direct experience of the vakya-sphota, as Bhartrihari says. In Vakyapadiya and its Vritti commentary, this term 'para' is not used to denote a fourth level of speech. Bhartrihari says that speech is threefold; and he treats the third level of pasyanti as ultimate. It is later on in the tradition that the name 'para' appears, referring to a fourth level. Para vak is the Shabda Brahman.
In case of the non-verbal abhivyanjana, the communicator has wide alternatives of code to use. Bharata Muni has described wide alternatives of abhivyanjana including gestures of limbs, representation through make up and temperamental expressions as well as various sounds. Some of them entirely deal the non-verbal aspect while others consists some forms of it. Under angika abhinaya, he has directed as many as 122 types of karmas (performing arts or abhinayas) by using six angas (limb) and six upangas (ancillary limb) of human body (Adhikary, 2007d).
According to Bharata Muni, each bhava is associated with both sensory experience and aesthetic emotion. He considers the bhavas as representation of mental state. They do not come from outside, rather they always remain within the mind. However, they are not always in the awaken state. They have to be or are stirred by external factors called vibhava that is a stimulus or determinant such as song, a bird, a picture, etc. Vibhava may be alamvana or uddipana. When a snake is seen and certain kind of emotion is stirred it is called alamvana vibhava. The sense of fear would increase due to the movement of snake's tongue and such stimulus contributing for the increase in vibhava is called uddipana vibhava.
After the bhavas are stimulated due to vibhava, the anubhava is certain, that is, some sort of manifestation such as glance, lifting of eye, smile, etc. Anubhavas may be internal or external. Bharata Muni has identified three external and eight internal anubhavas. The bhavas need some sort of code for their manifestation. For this, they have to pass through the process of abhivyanjana.
With the completion of the process of abhivyanjana, bhavas are manifested as sandesha. In other words, sandesha is outcome of the abhivyanjana process. A message is the manifestation of the bhava into a form (code) that is perceivable by the senses. It is the information that the sender wants to pass on to the receiver. It is the actual physical product that the source encodes, and which the receiver's sensory organs can detect. In other words, it is the coded idea that conveys meaning. Just doing 'namaste' to explaining the 'Adwaita vedanta' philosophy all are messages.
Messages may be in verbal or non-verbal depending upon the encoding done by the sender. In case of Natyashastra, messages have been distinguished as angika (gestures of limbs), vachika (verbal display), aharya (representation through make up) and sattvika (temperamental), each consisting different types. For instance, angika is seen consisting of three types , where as vachika has twelve forms .
For transmission of sandesha, there needs sarani (channel or medium), which is the means through which sandesha travels across space. The message sent by the source or sender cannot reach the receiver without the channel or medium. The channels may be natural corresponding to biological nature of human being such as: auditory (hearing), tactile (touching), visual (seeing), olfactory (smelling) and taste (tasting through the taste buds on the tongue) channels. The channels may be artifactual such as paintings, sculptures, letters, etc. These two types of channels are extensively described in Natyashastra. The channels may be mechanical such as telephones, radio, TV, computers and so on. It is yet to study whether the text inherits concepts of some kind of mechanincal channels.
Hindu perspective on communication would not be completed unless both manas (mind) and sharira (human body) are understood as sarani. At least, it is so for spiritual dimension of the process. The manas is considered as the sixth indriya (sensory organ) in Hindu belief. It is the vibhu (master) of five senses. However, it is not the final authority in this regard. Its vibhu is the atman. The mental life is not the aspiration, rather the assertion of a higher than the mental life is the whole foundation of Hindu philosophy. In fact, the human life is a means, not the end. In Hindu belief, the bodily self is not the ultimate truth though it is essential for the worldly existence. The body is only a temporary abode of atman, and it is an instrument or means used by the atman. In other words, sharira is a sarani by using which atman has to attain moksha.
With the proper use of various saranis as discussed above, the sender successfully sends the message toward the receiver. As abhivyanjana was crucial for the sender, so is rasaswadana for the receiver. The term as used here should be understood as a 'technical term' carrying a wide range of meaning. Its range is from receiving the message to decoding and interpreting the message and finally to the attainment the rasa. Orthodox Hindu uses of the term refer to the state of rasa experience by the sahridaya-receiver. In case of casual human communication, rasaswadana is said to be successful if the receiver shares the message as intended by the sender. However, the spiritual dimension goes beyond.
Not all communication result in the attainment of rasa in its ideal form. Rasa is the essence or aesthetic enjoyment. Bharata Muni terms this as rasa because it is worthy of being tested (relished). There is unique corresponding rasa to each bhava. According to Bharata Muni, the combination of vibhavas and anubhavas together with vyabhichari bhavas produce rasa. It is the sthayee bhava that leads to rasa. What happens is the sthayee bhava is stimulated by the vibhava in the mind and is heightened by anubhava and sanchari bhava, and the mind would be highly receptive to the rasa experience in this state.
The issue how the meaning of a message is achieved has been much debated by scholars and philosophers. For instance, there are debates regarding the unit of meaning. For instance, some regard the words as the unit of meaning in verbal communication, where as Bhartrihari considers the total sentence as the unit of meaning. Even if a word is taken as the unit of meaning there are diverse views regarding what sort of entity is signified by the word.
As shown in the figure, the four levels of word discussed in case of abhivyanjana have corresponding levels while attempting rasaswadana. Where as shravana corresponds to vaikhari, so do manana, nididhyasana and sakshatkara with madhyama, pashyanti and para respectively. Not all people engaged in communication would be going through all these stages of abhivyanjana and rasaswadana. Sadharanikaran (communication) as social and mental activity would require just vaikhari and madhyama in the part of sender and shravana and manana in the part of receiver. But, spiritual dimension of the process would require further levels too. In other words, not all communicating parties would be attaining rasaswadana in its ideal form. Rather, it can be experienced only by the sahridayas in the ideal sense of the term.
Bharat Muni describes sadharanikaran as that point in the climax of a drama when the audience becomes one with the actor who lives an experience through his/her acting on stage and starts simultaneously reliving the same experience. The process has been described as rasaswadana. When sadharanikaran happens, sharing or commonness of experience takes place in full form. According to Bhattanayak, the essence of sadharanikaran is to achieve commonness or oneness among the people.
Two things are to be noted here. First, the vak (word or speech) in the continuum of para-sakshatkara is identified with the Brahman. Hence, sakshatkara is the state of experiencing the Self as the Brahman ("Aham Brahmasmi"). Second, the Brahman is aslo considered as supreme rasa ("rasovaisah") and hence rasaswadana in its ultimate destination would be the rasaswadana of the Brahman. In this stage also there is unity of the Self and the Brahman. In either ways, sadharanikaran qualifies to be a means for moksha.
There is no such thing as perfect communication. There are continuous forces at work, doshas or noises, which tend to distort the message and lead to miscommunication. If we draw on Hindu poetics, the concept of rasa-bhanga (disruption in rasaswadana) is there. There may be many causes for this. For instance, a mismatch of meaning between sender (encoder) and receiver (decoder) of any message may occur. The model should be interpreted to include all of the noises, viz. semantic, mechanical, and environmental.
Bhartrihari has considered this possibility in Vakyapadiya that it is always possible to say conflicting things about what's in the texts and what they mean. To reduce uncertainty, some sacred text is made authentic, and a settled standpoint is established. This consideration leads us to the concept of sandarbha (context). The effectiveness of any message depends on the communication environment. Same message may have different meanings in different contexts.
The notion of context in the process of communication makes Hindu concept of communication even comprehensive. The importance of context is such that due to this factor meaning could be provided to the message even if the sender is not identified to the receiver. In other words, it is due to context, the intended meaning of any message can be ascertained 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.
Though both the sender and receiver of the message must be sahridayas Bhartrihari theorizes communication from the receiver's viewpoint. He has discussed how intended meaning is ensured though there is possibility of conflicting or diverging meanings of the same message. In brief, sandarbha (context), as discussed above, and intuition (pratibha), which is innate to the receiver, ensure proper understanding of any message.
Pratikriya refers to the responses of the receiver after receiving the message. It is the process of feedback, which allows the receiver to have active role in the communication process. Feedback can be understood as the same step-by-step process returning messages following exactly the same steps outlined above. Sadharanikaran process demands sahridayas undergoing the same kind of automated dynamism in taking the role of sender and receiver back and forth. Here, both the parties (the sahridaya-sender and the sahridaya-receiver) act as senders and receivers simultaneously. And, the process of encoding and decoding also occur simultaneously.
It is not that the feedback is always affirming. However, feedback makes the communication process ongoing. One of the unique features of the sadharanikaran model is that the provision of the feedback is not universal. The process of feedback will be there only when it is needed. It is needed certainly in physical or worldly forms of communication. In such form of communication, adequate feedback is sought. But after achieving the nididhyasana state, there is no need of feedback externally. In this state, the sahridayas become able to understand each other and experience the same obviously. In the sakshatkara state, the sahridaya is already in the state of moksha, which is the ultimate goal of sadharanikaran process.
Conclusion
Communication, as conceived in Sadharanikaran model, is the process of attaining sahridayata, i.e., mutual understanding, commonality or oneness. It is only when the communicating parties attain sahridayata, and the communicating parties identify each other as sahridaya, communication process qualifies to be considered as sadharanikaran. Here, communication is sharing between communicating parties (sahridayas) with a view to not just persuade one or the other as such but to enjoy the very process of sharing. Furthermore, from the discussions in previous section, following conclusions are drawn on:
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 interelationship 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. As such, 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.
References
Abhyankar, K. V., & Limaye, V. P. (Eds.). (1965). Vakyapadiya of Bhartrahari. Poona: University of Poona.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003, January 13). Communication in Nepali perspective. Space Time Today, p. 4.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003). Hindu awadharanama sanchar prakriya (Unpublished M.A. Thesis). Purvanchal University, Nepal.
Adhikary, N. M. (2004). Hindu-sanchar siddhanta: Ek adhyayan. Baha Journal, 1, 25-43.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007a). Sancharko Hindu awadharanatmak adhyayan. In N. M. Adhikary, Sanchar shodha ra media paryavekshan (pp. 93-138). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007b). Aristotle's and the sadharanikaran models of communication: A comparative study (Unpublished M.Phil. Independent Study). Pokhara University.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007c). Sancharyoga: Verbal communication as a means for attaining moksha (Unpublished M.Phil. Thesis). Pokhara University, Nepal.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007d). Hindu awadharanama gairashabdik sanchar. In N. M. Adhikary, Sanchar shodha ra media paryavekshan (pp. 139-180). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar.
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. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2 (1), 268-289.
Adhikary, N. M. (2009). Amsanchar ra patrakarita: Sanchar, media ra patrakaritako samasti adhyayan. Kathmandu: Prashanti Prakashan.
Babbili, A. S. (2001). Culture, ethics, and burdens of history: Understanding the communication ethos of India. In S. R. Melkote & S. Rao (Eds.), Critical issues in communication: Looking inward for answers (pp. 144-176). New Delhi: Sage.
Chen, G.-M., & Miike, Y. (2006). The ferment and future of communication studies in Asia: Chinese and Japanese perspectives. China Media Research, 2(1), 1-12.
Davis, L. (1988). Deep structure and communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 20-38). Singapore: AMIC.
Dhole, V. (2006). Celebrating the incommunicable: The Hindu of social communication. Journal of the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication, 4(1), 27-39.
Dissanayake, W. (1981). Towards Asian theories of communication. Communicator: A Journal of the Indian Institute for Mass Communication, 16(4), 13-18.
Dissanayake, W. (1982a). Personality, transpersonality and impersonality: Some reflections on the relationship of man to nature in three different cultures and its implications for communication theory. Asian Culture Quarterly, 10(1), 26-35.
Dissanayake, W. (1982b). The phenomenology of verbal communication: A classical Indian view. In R. L. Lanigan (Ed.), Semiotics and phenomenology [special issue]. Semiotica, 41(1/4), 207-220.
Dissanayake, W. (1983). Communication in the cultural tradition of India. In M. Traber (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on communication [special issue]. Media Development, 30(1), 27-30.
Dissanayake, W. (1986). The need for the study of Asian approaches to communication. Media Asia, 13(1), 6-13.
Dissanayake, W. (1987). The guiding image in Indian culture and its implications for communication. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 151-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dissanayake, W. (1988a). The need for Asian approaches to communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 1-19). Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (1988b). Foundations of Indian verbal communication and phenomenology. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 39-55). Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (2006). Postcolonial theory and Asian communication theory: Toward a creative dialogue. China Media Research, 2(4), 1-8.
Gangal, A., & Hosterman, C. (1982). Toward an examination of the rhetoric of ancient India. Southern Communication Journal, 47(3), 277-291.
Gordon, R. D. (2007). The Asian communication scholar for the 21st century. China Media Research, 3(4), 50-59.
Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Religion and social communication in village north India. Journal of Asian Studies, 23, 89-97.
Gunaratne, S. A. (1991). Asian approaches to communication theory. Media Development, 38(1), 53-55.
Jain, N. C., & Matukumalli, A. (1996). The role of silence in India: Implications for intercultural communication research. Education in Asia, 16(2-4), 152-158.
Jayaweera, N. (1988). Some tentative thoughts on communication theory and adwaita vedanta. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 56-68). Singapore: AMIC.
Khanal, S. (2008). Aamsanchar ra patrakarita. Kathmandu: Vidyarthi Pustak Bhandar.
Kirkwood, W. G. (1987). The turtle spoke, the donkey brayed: Fables about speech and silence in the Panchatantra. Journal of Communication and Religion, 10(2), 1-11.
Kirkwood, W. G. (1989). Truthfulness as a standard for speech in ancient India. Southern Communication Journal, 54(3), 213-234.
Kirkwood, W. G. (1990). Shiva's dance at sundown: Implications of Indian aesthetics for poetics and rhetoric. Text and Performance Quarterly, 10(2), 93-110.
Kirkwood, W. G. (1997). Indian thought and the intrapersonal consequences of speaking: Implications for ethics in communication. In J. E. Aitken & L. J. Shedletsky (Eds.), Intrapersonal communication processes (pp. 220-226). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Kumar, K. J. (2005a). Hindu perspectives on communication. Journal of the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication, 3(1), 14-20.
Kumar, K. J. (2005b). Indian/Hindu theories of communication. Journal of the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication, 3(2), 90-104.
Majumdar, D. N. (1958). Caste and communication in an Indian village. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Masson, J. L., & Patwardhan, M. V. (1970). Aesthetic rapture: The rasadhyaya of the Natyashastra. Deccan College, Postgraduate and Research Institute.
Miike, Y. (2007). Asian contributions to communication theory: An introduction. China Media Research, 3(4), 1-6.
Miike, Y. (2009). "Cherishing the old to know the new": A bibliography of Asian communication studies. China Media Research, 5(1), 95-103.
Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (2006). Perspectives on Asian cultures and communication: An updated bibliography. China Media Research, 2(1), 98-106.
Mishra, S. R. (1964). Theory of rasa in Indian drama. Chhatarpur: Vindhyachal Prakashan.
Mohan, P. (1992). In between paradigms: A perspective on communication theory for India. Economic and Political Weekly, 27(15/16), 773-778.
Nagar, R. S., & Joshi, K. L. (2005). Natyasastra of Bharatamuni. 4 vols. Delhi: Parimal Publications.
Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Pande, A. (1991). A historical and cultural study of the Natyashastra of Bharata. Kusumanjali.
Pant, L. D. (2009). Introduction to journalism and mass communication. Kathmandu: Vidyarthi Prakashan.
Pant, L. D. (2009, November 24). The Hindu model of communication. The Rising Nepal, p. 4.
Patnaik, T. (1994). Sabda: A study of Bhartrhari's philosophy of language. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld.
Rahim, A. (1987). The practice of antyodaya in agricultural extension communication in India. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 173-182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Saral, T. B. (1983). Hindu philosophy of communication. Communication 8(3). 47-58.
Sastri, G. (1991). Philosophy of Bhartrhari. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan.
Sitaram, K. S. (2004). South Asian theories of speech communication: Origins and applications in ancient, modern, and postmodern times. Human Communication: A Journal of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 7(1), 83-101.
Tarlekar, G. H. (1999). Studies in the Natyasastra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Tewari, I. P. (1980, June 1). Sadharanikaran: Indian theory of communication. Indian and Foreign Review, pp. 13-14.
Tewari, I. P. (1992). Indian theory of communication. Communicator: Journal of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, 27(1), 35-38.
Thirumalai, M. S. (2003, September 9). Understanding nonverbal behavior. Language in India, Vol. 3. Retrieved April 6, 2009 from http://languageinindia.com/sep2003/nonverbalbehavior.html.
Thirumalai, M. S. (2004, July 7). Communication via eye and face in Indian contexts. Language in India, Vol. 4. Retrieved April 7, 2009 from http://languageinindia.com/july2004/eyeandface1.html.
Thirumalai, M. S. (2006, August 8). Communication across castes. Language in India, Vol. 6. Retrieved April 8, 2009 from http://languageinindia.com.
Vatsyayan, K. (1996). Bharata: The Natyashastra. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.
Vedantatirtha, N. C. (Gen. Ed.). (1936). Mammata Bhatta's Kavyaprakasa. The Calcutta Sanskrit Series No. VI.
Xiaoge, X. (2000). Asian perspectives in communication: Assessing the search. Retrieved March 14, 2009 from http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/spec1/Xiaoge.html
Yadava, J. S. (1979). Communication in an Indian village. In W. C. McCormack & S. A. Wurm (Eds.), Language and society: Anthropological issues (pp. 627-636). The Hague: Mouton.
Yadava, J. S. (1982, March). Socio-cultural ethos of communication in India. Communication and Culture, pp. 3-4.
Yadava, J. S. (1987). Communication in India: The tenets of sadharanikaran. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 161-171). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Yadava, J. S. (1998). Communication research in India: Some reflections. In J. S. Yadava and P. Mathur (Eds.), Issues in mass communication: The basic concepts (pp. 177-195). New Delhi: IIMC.
By - Nirmala Mani Adhikary
Asst. Prof. of Media Studies
Dept. of Languages and Mass Communication
School of Arts
Kathmandu University
Nepal
Note: In the print version, the article is published as: Adhikary, Nirmala Mani (2009). An introduction to sadharanikaran model of communication. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3 (1), 69-91.
The footnotes of the article are missing here. And, the figure of the model is also missing here. So you are recommended to see the printed version, if you want to cite this article.
It is available online at:
http://ku.edu.np/bodhi/vol3_no1/08.%20Nirmala%20Mani%20Adhikary.%20Sadharanikaran%20Model.pdf
This article describes sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC) and outlines its fundamentals. The article initially discusses the concept of ‘sadharanikaran’ as conceived in Hindu poetics aknowledging its relevance for the modern discipline of communication. And, it also presents an account of the background upon which the model was developed and proposed. The descriptive part of the article is primarily indebted to Natyashastra and Vakyapadiya .
Sadharanikaran and communication
Sadharanikaran, drawing from classical Hindu poetics, has been introduced into the modern communication discipline, essentially due to its qualification in this regard. The term has been an extensively used concept in Sanskrit and allied literary circles for explaining poetics, aesthetics and drama. It is rooted in Natyashastra of Bharata. There have been attempts to extend its history up to the Vedic period (Adhikary, 2007a, p. 108), but scholars widely believe that Bhattanayaka introduced the concept of sadharanikaran (Vatsyayan, 1996, p. 146). He is credited for use of the term in his commentary on Natyashastra to explain the concept of rasa.
The term sadharanikaran is derived from the Sanskrit word sadharan; and has been translated into English as "generalized presentation" (Vedantatirtha, 1936, p. 35), "simplification" (Yadava, 1998, p. 187), and "universalization" (Dissanayake, 2006, p. 4). This concept is bound with another concept, sahridayata, that is, a state of common orientation, commonality or oneness. 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.
In this light, the Latin word 'communis' and its modern English version 'communication' come close to sadharanikaran (Adhikary, 2003, pp. 82-83, 2004, pp. 30-33, 2007a, pp. 107-109; Tewari, 1980, 1992; Yadava, 1987, 1998). However, as Yadava puts it, "the characteristics and the philosophy behind Sadharanikaran are somewhat different from communication concept as developed in the Western societies" (1998, p. 187).
From the theory to the model
The history of studying communication from Hindu (or 'Indian') perspective goes back to at least five decades ago (Majumdar, 1958). Various efforts have been made in order to understand, discuss and/or theorize communication from Asian perspectives, sometimes particularly from Hindu perspective (Adhikary, 2003, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2008b; Babbili, 2001; Davis, 1988; Dhole, 2006; Dissanayake, 1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988a, 1988b, 2006; Gangal & Hosterman, 1982; Gumperz, 1964; Gunaratne, 1991; Jain & Matukumalli, 1996; Jayaweera, 1988; Kirkwood, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1997; Kumar, 2005a, 2005b; Mohan, 1992; Oliver, 1971; Rahim, 1987; Saral, 1983; Sitaram, 2004; Tewari, 1980, 1992; Thirumalai, 2003, 2004, 2006; Yadava, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1998). It is not possible here to present a survey of these works. But it is to mention that most of these works identify themselves as a part of searching the 'Asian' communication perspective.
It has become customary to mention Sadharanikaran as Hindu/Indian theory of communication. And, numerous academic institutions have already incorporated sadharanikaran as the Hindu/Indian theory of communication in their curricula.
In the case of Nepal, the researcher has been acknowledged as the initiator of the discourse regarding Hindu/Nepali perspective on communication (Khanal, 2008, pp. 21-22; Pant, 2009, pp. 84-86. Also see: Adhikary, 2009, p. 296). Firstly, an article was published highlighting the need to explore native Nepali perspective while studying communication, and tracing some sources in this regard (Adhikary, 2003, January 13). Then, research was conducted for an M. A. thesis (Adhikary, 2003).
The research (Adhikary, 2003), drawing on Bharata Muni's Natyashastra and Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya, illustrates that communication process as envisioned in Vedic Hinduism can be represented by the concept of sadharanikaran. And, a unique communication model – sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC) – has been developed and presented through that research which was the first ever model of communication in diagrammatic form proposed from the East. “The model,” Khanal (2008) says, “gives new dimension to study on communication from Hindu perspective” (p. 21). Pant (2009, November 24, p.4) says, "The exploration of such a model based on the Eastern perspective will undoubtedly contribute to the development of new communication theories."
A point to note at this juncture is the SMC is not the only possible model of communication from Hindu perspective. Rather, there is scope for other communication models from Hindu perspective:
With vast diversities of cultures and philosophies within the Hindu society, it is just one of many models that could be developed. Many theories and models of communication would come out if communication discipline has enthusiasm of encountering different Hindu philosophical traditions. (Adhikary, 2008b, p. 286)
Till the date, the Sadharanikaran model remains only one of such models that could visualize Hindu perspective on communication.
The Sadharanikaran model
Proposed by Adhikary (2003) the Sadharanikaran model illustrates how the communicating parties interact in a system (i.e., the process of sadharanikaran) for the attainment saharidayata (commonness or oneness). The model "offers an explanation of how successful communication is possible in Hindu society where complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices are prevalent" (Adhikary, 2008a, p. 67). Observing the model as a representation of communication process as envisioned in Hindu perspective, Pant (2009) remarks, “It is systematic description in diagrammatic form of a process of attaining commonness or oneness among people" (pp. 84-85).
The model comprises the following elements:
1. Sahridayas (Preshaka, i.e., sender, and
Prapaka, i.e., receiver)
2. Bhava (Moods or emotions)
3. Abhivyanjana (Expression or encoding)
4. Sandesha (Message or information)
5. Sarani (Channel)
6. Rasaswadana (Firstly receiving, decoding and
interpreting the message and finally achieving
the rasa)
7. Doshas (Noises)
8. Sandarbha (Context)
9. Pratikriya (Process of feedback)
Sadharanikaran as a concept/theory should not be confused with the sadharanikaran model. The former, which is one of the significant theories in Sanskrit poetics, has its root in Natyashastra and is identified with Bhattanayaka. Whereas, latter refers to a model of communication which draws on the classical concept/theory of sadharanikaran along with other resources in order to visualize Hindu perspectives on communication.
Sahridayata is the core concept upon which the meaning of sadharanikaran resides. It is the state of common orientation, commonality or oneness. Senders and receivers become sahridayas with the completion of the process of Sadharanikaran. In a society that has asymmetrical relationships between communication parties, it is only due to sahridayata the two-way communication and mutual understanding is possible. Thus, communicating parties can attain sahridayata irrespective of complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices, and the communication process qualifies to be considered as sadharanikaran.
Sadharanikaran, as the communication process, consists of sahridayas as the communicating parties. As a 'technical term', the word refers to people with a capacity to send and receive messages. They are the parties engaged in communication, and capable of identifying each other as sender and receiver of the process. A sahridaya is a person in such state of emotional intensity which is coequal or parallel to that of other(s) engaged in communication. Ideally, the term refers such persons who are not only engaged in communication but also have attained a special state: sahridayata. As such, a sahridaya is one who has attained sahridayata. Thus, sadharanikaran is the process of attaining sahridayata, and, the sadharanikaran model illustrates the process.
If communication is taken as a step-by-step process, which is just for the shake of easy understanding, the sahridaya-preshaka (simply, the sender), who has bhavas (moods or emotions or thoughts or ideas) in mind, is the initiator of the process. The sahridaya-sender has to pass the process of abhivyanjana for expressing those bhavas in perceivable form. It is the sahridaya-prapaka (simply, the receiver) with whom the bhavas are to be shared. He or she has to pass the process of rasaswadana.
The position of the sahridaya-sender and the sahridaya-receiver is not static. Both parties are engaged in the processes of abhivyanjana and rasaswadana. When sadharanikaran is successful, universalization or commonness of experience takes place. In Natyashastra itself, Bharata Muni has emphasized on a total communication effort including the use of the words as well as limbs, gestures, and body language along with the physical context in order to ensure communication at its best.
As evident from the figure, the sender inherits bhava. Human being in his/her essential characteristics is a bundle of bhavas that constitutes his/her being and form part of his/her total consciousness. It is due to the bhavas that human being aims engaging in communication or sadharanikaran process. If there were no bhavas and human beings had no desire to share their bhavas with others, there would be no need of communication. The bhavas have been categorized into different types, such as sthayee bhavas (permanently dominant) , vyabhichari or sanchari bhavas (moving or transitory) and satvika or sattvaja bhavas (originating from the mind, temperamental) . Corresponding to bhavas, human inherits rasas, which are to be discussed later.
Abhivyanjana refers to the activities that a source goes to translate bhavas into a form that may be perceived by the senses. It can be understood as expression or encoding in English. The guiding principle while encoding in sadharanikaran is simplification. Simplification is the essential dimension here. In the communiation process; the complex concepts and ideas are simplified by the speaker (source) with illustrations and idioms appropriate for the understanding of the listeners (receiver of the messages). This approach makes communication a dynamic, flexible, practical and effective instrument of social relationship and control.
Sanketa (code) is an integral part of abhivyanjana. A kind of code is a must to let the bhavas manifested. Codes are symbols that are organized in accordance with specific rules. For example, the language is a code. The sender encodes the bhava in a code. For communication to be successful, both the sender and receiver must understand the code being used. Abhivyanjana may be in verbal or non-verbal code, and both codes may be used simultaneously.
In case of verbal abhivyanjana, words/languages are used as the code. The process of abhivyanjana has been shown consisting of four stages in the figure. It owes to concept of language as a code as conceived in Sanskrit linguistics and Hindu philosophy of language. Here, there are four levels or stages of language from which the word (shabda or vak) passes: para, pashyanti, madhyama and finally the uttered word vaikhari. In other words, any bhava can be perceived externally only when it comes to the vaikhari level.
Vaikhari vak is the manifested form of the word. It is in the most external and differentiated level. Here, the word is commonly uttered by the speaker and heard by the hearer. Before being uttered, the word or vak resides in mind or intellect, and is named as madhyama. It is the idea, or series of words, as conceived by the mind after hearing or before being spoken out. It may be thought of as inward speech. The next and the innermost stage, according to Bhartrihari, is the pashyanti vak. Pashyanti is the vak at the level of direct intuition, and can be understood through experience. Here, humans get the direct experience of the vakya-sphota, as Bhartrihari says. In Vakyapadiya and its Vritti commentary, this term 'para' is not used to denote a fourth level of speech. Bhartrihari says that speech is threefold; and he treats the third level of pasyanti as ultimate. It is later on in the tradition that the name 'para' appears, referring to a fourth level. Para vak is the Shabda Brahman.
In case of the non-verbal abhivyanjana, the communicator has wide alternatives of code to use. Bharata Muni has described wide alternatives of abhivyanjana including gestures of limbs, representation through make up and temperamental expressions as well as various sounds. Some of them entirely deal the non-verbal aspect while others consists some forms of it. Under angika abhinaya, he has directed as many as 122 types of karmas (performing arts or abhinayas) by using six angas (limb) and six upangas (ancillary limb) of human body (Adhikary, 2007d).
According to Bharata Muni, each bhava is associated with both sensory experience and aesthetic emotion. He considers the bhavas as representation of mental state. They do not come from outside, rather they always remain within the mind. However, they are not always in the awaken state. They have to be or are stirred by external factors called vibhava that is a stimulus or determinant such as song, a bird, a picture, etc. Vibhava may be alamvana or uddipana. When a snake is seen and certain kind of emotion is stirred it is called alamvana vibhava. The sense of fear would increase due to the movement of snake's tongue and such stimulus contributing for the increase in vibhava is called uddipana vibhava.
After the bhavas are stimulated due to vibhava, the anubhava is certain, that is, some sort of manifestation such as glance, lifting of eye, smile, etc. Anubhavas may be internal or external. Bharata Muni has identified three external and eight internal anubhavas. The bhavas need some sort of code for their manifestation. For this, they have to pass through the process of abhivyanjana.
With the completion of the process of abhivyanjana, bhavas are manifested as sandesha. In other words, sandesha is outcome of the abhivyanjana process. A message is the manifestation of the bhava into a form (code) that is perceivable by the senses. It is the information that the sender wants to pass on to the receiver. It is the actual physical product that the source encodes, and which the receiver's sensory organs can detect. In other words, it is the coded idea that conveys meaning. Just doing 'namaste' to explaining the 'Adwaita vedanta' philosophy all are messages.
Messages may be in verbal or non-verbal depending upon the encoding done by the sender. In case of Natyashastra, messages have been distinguished as angika (gestures of limbs), vachika (verbal display), aharya (representation through make up) and sattvika (temperamental), each consisting different types. For instance, angika is seen consisting of three types , where as vachika has twelve forms .
For transmission of sandesha, there needs sarani (channel or medium), which is the means through which sandesha travels across space. The message sent by the source or sender cannot reach the receiver without the channel or medium. The channels may be natural corresponding to biological nature of human being such as: auditory (hearing), tactile (touching), visual (seeing), olfactory (smelling) and taste (tasting through the taste buds on the tongue) channels. The channels may be artifactual such as paintings, sculptures, letters, etc. These two types of channels are extensively described in Natyashastra. The channels may be mechanical such as telephones, radio, TV, computers and so on. It is yet to study whether the text inherits concepts of some kind of mechanincal channels.
Hindu perspective on communication would not be completed unless both manas (mind) and sharira (human body) are understood as sarani. At least, it is so for spiritual dimension of the process. The manas is considered as the sixth indriya (sensory organ) in Hindu belief. It is the vibhu (master) of five senses. However, it is not the final authority in this regard. Its vibhu is the atman. The mental life is not the aspiration, rather the assertion of a higher than the mental life is the whole foundation of Hindu philosophy. In fact, the human life is a means, not the end. In Hindu belief, the bodily self is not the ultimate truth though it is essential for the worldly existence. The body is only a temporary abode of atman, and it is an instrument or means used by the atman. In other words, sharira is a sarani by using which atman has to attain moksha.
With the proper use of various saranis as discussed above, the sender successfully sends the message toward the receiver. As abhivyanjana was crucial for the sender, so is rasaswadana for the receiver. The term as used here should be understood as a 'technical term' carrying a wide range of meaning. Its range is from receiving the message to decoding and interpreting the message and finally to the attainment the rasa. Orthodox Hindu uses of the term refer to the state of rasa experience by the sahridaya-receiver. In case of casual human communication, rasaswadana is said to be successful if the receiver shares the message as intended by the sender. However, the spiritual dimension goes beyond.
Not all communication result in the attainment of rasa in its ideal form. Rasa is the essence or aesthetic enjoyment. Bharata Muni terms this as rasa because it is worthy of being tested (relished). There is unique corresponding rasa to each bhava. According to Bharata Muni, the combination of vibhavas and anubhavas together with vyabhichari bhavas produce rasa. It is the sthayee bhava that leads to rasa. What happens is the sthayee bhava is stimulated by the vibhava in the mind and is heightened by anubhava and sanchari bhava, and the mind would be highly receptive to the rasa experience in this state.
The issue how the meaning of a message is achieved has been much debated by scholars and philosophers. For instance, there are debates regarding the unit of meaning. For instance, some regard the words as the unit of meaning in verbal communication, where as Bhartrihari considers the total sentence as the unit of meaning. Even if a word is taken as the unit of meaning there are diverse views regarding what sort of entity is signified by the word.
As shown in the figure, the four levels of word discussed in case of abhivyanjana have corresponding levels while attempting rasaswadana. Where as shravana corresponds to vaikhari, so do manana, nididhyasana and sakshatkara with madhyama, pashyanti and para respectively. Not all people engaged in communication would be going through all these stages of abhivyanjana and rasaswadana. Sadharanikaran (communication) as social and mental activity would require just vaikhari and madhyama in the part of sender and shravana and manana in the part of receiver. But, spiritual dimension of the process would require further levels too. In other words, not all communicating parties would be attaining rasaswadana in its ideal form. Rather, it can be experienced only by the sahridayas in the ideal sense of the term.
Bharat Muni describes sadharanikaran as that point in the climax of a drama when the audience becomes one with the actor who lives an experience through his/her acting on stage and starts simultaneously reliving the same experience. The process has been described as rasaswadana. When sadharanikaran happens, sharing or commonness of experience takes place in full form. According to Bhattanayak, the essence of sadharanikaran is to achieve commonness or oneness among the people.
Two things are to be noted here. First, the vak (word or speech) in the continuum of para-sakshatkara is identified with the Brahman. Hence, sakshatkara is the state of experiencing the Self as the Brahman ("Aham Brahmasmi"). Second, the Brahman is aslo considered as supreme rasa ("rasovaisah") and hence rasaswadana in its ultimate destination would be the rasaswadana of the Brahman. In this stage also there is unity of the Self and the Brahman. In either ways, sadharanikaran qualifies to be a means for moksha.
There is no such thing as perfect communication. There are continuous forces at work, doshas or noises, which tend to distort the message and lead to miscommunication. If we draw on Hindu poetics, the concept of rasa-bhanga (disruption in rasaswadana) is there. There may be many causes for this. For instance, a mismatch of meaning between sender (encoder) and receiver (decoder) of any message may occur. The model should be interpreted to include all of the noises, viz. semantic, mechanical, and environmental.
Bhartrihari has considered this possibility in Vakyapadiya that it is always possible to say conflicting things about what's in the texts and what they mean. To reduce uncertainty, some sacred text is made authentic, and a settled standpoint is established. This consideration leads us to the concept of sandarbha (context). The effectiveness of any message depends on the communication environment. Same message may have different meanings in different contexts.
The notion of context in the process of communication makes Hindu concept of communication even comprehensive. The importance of context is such that due to this factor meaning could be provided to the message even if the sender is not identified to the receiver. In other words, it is due to context, the intended meaning of any message can be ascertained 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.
Though both the sender and receiver of the message must be sahridayas Bhartrihari theorizes communication from the receiver's viewpoint. He has discussed how intended meaning is ensured though there is possibility of conflicting or diverging meanings of the same message. In brief, sandarbha (context), as discussed above, and intuition (pratibha), which is innate to the receiver, ensure proper understanding of any message.
Pratikriya refers to the responses of the receiver after receiving the message. It is the process of feedback, which allows the receiver to have active role in the communication process. Feedback can be understood as the same step-by-step process returning messages following exactly the same steps outlined above. Sadharanikaran process demands sahridayas undergoing the same kind of automated dynamism in taking the role of sender and receiver back and forth. Here, both the parties (the sahridaya-sender and the sahridaya-receiver) act as senders and receivers simultaneously. And, the process of encoding and decoding also occur simultaneously.
It is not that the feedback is always affirming. However, feedback makes the communication process ongoing. One of the unique features of the sadharanikaran model is that the provision of the feedback is not universal. The process of feedback will be there only when it is needed. It is needed certainly in physical or worldly forms of communication. In such form of communication, adequate feedback is sought. But after achieving the nididhyasana state, there is no need of feedback externally. In this state, the sahridayas become able to understand each other and experience the same obviously. In the sakshatkara state, the sahridaya is already in the state of moksha, which is the ultimate goal of sadharanikaran process.
Conclusion
Communication, as conceived in Sadharanikaran model, is the process of attaining sahridayata, i.e., mutual understanding, commonality or oneness. It is only when the communicating parties attain sahridayata, and the communicating parties identify each other as sahridaya, communication process qualifies to be considered as sadharanikaran. Here, communication is sharing between communicating parties (sahridayas) with a view to not just persuade one or the other as such but to enjoy the very process of sharing. Furthermore, from the discussions in previous section, following conclusions are drawn on:
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 interelationship 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. As such, 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.
References
Abhyankar, K. V., & Limaye, V. P. (Eds.). (1965). Vakyapadiya of Bhartrahari. Poona: University of Poona.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003, January 13). Communication in Nepali perspective. Space Time Today, p. 4.
Adhikary, N. M. (2003). Hindu awadharanama sanchar prakriya (Unpublished M.A. Thesis). Purvanchal University, Nepal.
Adhikary, N. M. (2004). Hindu-sanchar siddhanta: Ek adhyayan. Baha Journal, 1, 25-43.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007a). Sancharko Hindu awadharanatmak adhyayan. In N. M. Adhikary, Sanchar shodha ra media paryavekshan (pp. 93-138). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007b). Aristotle's and the sadharanikaran models of communication: A comparative study (Unpublished M.Phil. Independent Study). Pokhara University.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007c). Sancharyoga: Verbal communication as a means for attaining moksha (Unpublished M.Phil. Thesis). Pokhara University, Nepal.
Adhikary, N. M. (2007d). Hindu awadharanama gairashabdik sanchar. In N. M. Adhikary, Sanchar shodha ra media paryavekshan (pp. 139-180). Kathmandu: Prashanti Pustak Bhandar.
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. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2 (1), 268-289.
Adhikary, N. M. (2009). Amsanchar ra patrakarita: Sanchar, media ra patrakaritako samasti adhyayan. Kathmandu: Prashanti Prakashan.
Babbili, A. S. (2001). Culture, ethics, and burdens of history: Understanding the communication ethos of India. In S. R. Melkote & S. Rao (Eds.), Critical issues in communication: Looking inward for answers (pp. 144-176). New Delhi: Sage.
Chen, G.-M., & Miike, Y. (2006). The ferment and future of communication studies in Asia: Chinese and Japanese perspectives. China Media Research, 2(1), 1-12.
Davis, L. (1988). Deep structure and communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 20-38). Singapore: AMIC.
Dhole, V. (2006). Celebrating the incommunicable: The Hindu of social communication. Journal of the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication, 4(1), 27-39.
Dissanayake, W. (1981). Towards Asian theories of communication. Communicator: A Journal of the Indian Institute for Mass Communication, 16(4), 13-18.
Dissanayake, W. (1982a). Personality, transpersonality and impersonality: Some reflections on the relationship of man to nature in three different cultures and its implications for communication theory. Asian Culture Quarterly, 10(1), 26-35.
Dissanayake, W. (1982b). The phenomenology of verbal communication: A classical Indian view. In R. L. Lanigan (Ed.), Semiotics and phenomenology [special issue]. Semiotica, 41(1/4), 207-220.
Dissanayake, W. (1983). Communication in the cultural tradition of India. In M. Traber (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on communication [special issue]. Media Development, 30(1), 27-30.
Dissanayake, W. (1986). The need for the study of Asian approaches to communication. Media Asia, 13(1), 6-13.
Dissanayake, W. (1987). The guiding image in Indian culture and its implications for communication. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 151-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dissanayake, W. (1988a). The need for Asian approaches to communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 1-19). Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (1988b). Foundations of Indian verbal communication and phenomenology. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 39-55). Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.
Dissanayake, W. (2006). Postcolonial theory and Asian communication theory: Toward a creative dialogue. China Media Research, 2(4), 1-8.
Gangal, A., & Hosterman, C. (1982). Toward an examination of the rhetoric of ancient India. Southern Communication Journal, 47(3), 277-291.
Gordon, R. D. (2007). The Asian communication scholar for the 21st century. China Media Research, 3(4), 50-59.
Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Religion and social communication in village north India. Journal of Asian Studies, 23, 89-97.
Gunaratne, S. A. (1991). Asian approaches to communication theory. Media Development, 38(1), 53-55.
Jain, N. C., & Matukumalli, A. (1996). The role of silence in India: Implications for intercultural communication research. Education in Asia, 16(2-4), 152-158.
Jayaweera, N. (1988). Some tentative thoughts on communication theory and adwaita vedanta. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 56-68). Singapore: AMIC.
Khanal, S. (2008). Aamsanchar ra patrakarita. Kathmandu: Vidyarthi Pustak Bhandar.
Kirkwood, W. G. (1987). The turtle spoke, the donkey brayed: Fables about speech and silence in the Panchatantra. Journal of Communication and Religion, 10(2), 1-11.
Kirkwood, W. G. (1989). Truthfulness as a standard for speech in ancient India. Southern Communication Journal, 54(3), 213-234.
Kirkwood, W. G. (1990). Shiva's dance at sundown: Implications of Indian aesthetics for poetics and rhetoric. Text and Performance Quarterly, 10(2), 93-110.
Kirkwood, W. G. (1997). Indian thought and the intrapersonal consequences of speaking: Implications for ethics in communication. In J. E. Aitken & L. J. Shedletsky (Eds.), Intrapersonal communication processes (pp. 220-226). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Kumar, K. J. (2005a). Hindu perspectives on communication. Journal of the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication, 3(1), 14-20.
Kumar, K. J. (2005b). Indian/Hindu theories of communication. Journal of the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication, 3(2), 90-104.
Majumdar, D. N. (1958). Caste and communication in an Indian village. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Masson, J. L., & Patwardhan, M. V. (1970). Aesthetic rapture: The rasadhyaya of the Natyashastra. Deccan College, Postgraduate and Research Institute.
Miike, Y. (2007). Asian contributions to communication theory: An introduction. China Media Research, 3(4), 1-6.
Miike, Y. (2009). "Cherishing the old to know the new": A bibliography of Asian communication studies. China Media Research, 5(1), 95-103.
Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (2006). Perspectives on Asian cultures and communication: An updated bibliography. China Media Research, 2(1), 98-106.
Mishra, S. R. (1964). Theory of rasa in Indian drama. Chhatarpur: Vindhyachal Prakashan.
Mohan, P. (1992). In between paradigms: A perspective on communication theory for India. Economic and Political Weekly, 27(15/16), 773-778.
Nagar, R. S., & Joshi, K. L. (2005). Natyasastra of Bharatamuni. 4 vols. Delhi: Parimal Publications.
Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Pande, A. (1991). A historical and cultural study of the Natyashastra of Bharata. Kusumanjali.
Pant, L. D. (2009). Introduction to journalism and mass communication. Kathmandu: Vidyarthi Prakashan.
Pant, L. D. (2009, November 24). The Hindu model of communication. The Rising Nepal, p. 4.
Patnaik, T. (1994). Sabda: A study of Bhartrhari's philosophy of language. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld.
Rahim, A. (1987). The practice of antyodaya in agricultural extension communication in India. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 173-182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Saral, T. B. (1983). Hindu philosophy of communication. Communication 8(3). 47-58.
Sastri, G. (1991). Philosophy of Bhartrhari. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan.
Sitaram, K. S. (2004). South Asian theories of speech communication: Origins and applications in ancient, modern, and postmodern times. Human Communication: A Journal of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 7(1), 83-101.
Tarlekar, G. H. (1999). Studies in the Natyasastra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Tewari, I. P. (1980, June 1). Sadharanikaran: Indian theory of communication. Indian and Foreign Review, pp. 13-14.
Tewari, I. P. (1992). Indian theory of communication. Communicator: Journal of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, 27(1), 35-38.
Thirumalai, M. S. (2003, September 9). Understanding nonverbal behavior. Language in India, Vol. 3. Retrieved April 6, 2009 from http://languageinindia.com/sep2003/nonverbalbehavior.html.
Thirumalai, M. S. (2004, July 7). Communication via eye and face in Indian contexts. Language in India, Vol. 4. Retrieved April 7, 2009 from http://languageinindia.com/july2004/eyeandface1.html.
Thirumalai, M. S. (2006, August 8). Communication across castes. Language in India, Vol. 6. Retrieved April 8, 2009 from http://languageinindia.com.
Vatsyayan, K. (1996). Bharata: The Natyashastra. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.
Vedantatirtha, N. C. (Gen. Ed.). (1936). Mammata Bhatta's Kavyaprakasa. The Calcutta Sanskrit Series No. VI.
Xiaoge, X. (2000). Asian perspectives in communication: Assessing the search. Retrieved March 14, 2009 from http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/spec1/Xiaoge.html
Yadava, J. S. (1979). Communication in an Indian village. In W. C. McCormack & S. A. Wurm (Eds.), Language and society: Anthropological issues (pp. 627-636). The Hague: Mouton.
Yadava, J. S. (1982, March). Socio-cultural ethos of communication in India. Communication and Culture, pp. 3-4.
Yadava, J. S. (1987). Communication in India: The tenets of sadharanikaran. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 161-171). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Yadava, J. S. (1998). Communication research in India: Some reflections. In J. S. Yadava and P. Mathur (Eds.), Issues in mass communication: The basic concepts (pp. 177-195). New Delhi: IIMC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
