THE COMPLIMENTARY RELATIONSHIP OF LAW AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND

THE ISSUE OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBALTERN.

The essay recognises the multiplicity of not only public spheres and the incapacity of the “mainstream
media” to be representative of the interests of these diverse groups. Hence there exists a need for the
subaltern groups who cannot be adequately represented or subverted by the mainstream media to have a
medium of their own. The essay then sees law and media as performing complimentary roles for through
various examples cited in the essay like that of satyagraha , graffiti art etc in the essay it is established
how law in such cases either illegalises the media of the subaltern or the conditions under which it can
take place. The opening example that is used to depict this is that of the gurgaon auto workers strike and
how article 144 was used in this context.

The other examples that the essay uses highlights the issues of representation and that of how do
different media owing to their own political economic origins define their roles in society differently ranging
from social advocacy to political neutrality. But by problematising the position of neutrality as that not
being political neutral, it sees the mainstream media as contributing to the function of hegemony in a
nation. While each media may work for the legitimate interests of its own group what happens here is that
law is also a product of certain socio political relations and at least the most conservative assertion here
that the essay makes is that if not inherently so at least in the way law is appropriated is to legitimise one
form of media over the other by criminalising the media of the subaltern and at the maximum subjecting
the mainstream media to certain censorship norms.

This differential treatment the law mets out to the different forms of media is then viewed as that
performing the function of unification in society through certain repressive and hegemonic practices.
While it is recognised that constant resistance may legalise certain illegal categories but the essay
analyses the relationship between law, media and subaltern groups in a synchronic space.

The media coverage of the recent auto workers’ strike in Gurgaon which eventually extended to
other parts of the state is an example that lends itself perfectly to the argument of this essay. In
fact it is not only the news media coverage but the entire episode on the whole can be analysed
within the framework of this essay which tries to establish a link between law and mainstream
media in modern societies as that performing complimentary roles to further the project of
unification through hegemonic practices of either partially representing the subaltern groups or
silencing dissent entirely. The workers’ strike mentioned here is by no means an exception and
the power struggles that are inherent in it are replicated constantly in other contexts as well as it
will be clear from the varied examples that are chosen to further the argument of this essay.

Most mainstream media which covered the strike eliminated the reasons for the strike and all
including the business edition of the Hindu Group which is suppose to be a left liberal
publication concentrated on the fact that production was adversely affected and what implication
that would hold for foreign direct investments in India. In addition to a partial coverage in the
news media, citing the strike as a “law and order ‘ problem section 144 of the IPC was applied
to the area which makes conglomeration of more than 4 people illegal and punishable by law so
as to bring the situation back to ‘normalcy’.

The reason for picking this example was to depict the way in which media and law work in
tandem given a certain [political economy framework. While the mainstream media completely
subverted the fact that the fundamental right of the workers’ to organise themselves and bargain
collectively was being violated by under reporting or not mentioning it at all; law on the other
hand illegalised the condition under which the workers could express their opinion, the very
medium through which through which the dominated, underrepresented group sought to express
itself.

Clawson’s, Strine’s and Walterberg’s(2003) study of the black press vs. Mainstream media
further highlight this issue of representation as that of being political in nature. Several different
arguments then seem to emerge from the discussion above. One is that civil society is not
homogenous and that is the reason why the ‘mainstream media’ which claims to be the harbinger
of the entire civil society requires further scrutiny of whether it can ever represent the interests of
multiple groups that are not only defined by its superficial diversity that is of being different
from each other but also marked by power equations when media by itself can be located under
specific relations of production owned by the dominant group.

Each subaltern group then require and appropriate their own medium of expression but law in
these societies shares a different relationship with the mainstream media and the media of the
subaltern group. Subaltern here would stand for any group outside the social and political
hegemonic power structure. While the fact that civil society is not homogenous is a widely
known and debated one what is more important here is the fact as highlighted by Ronald
Jacobs(200) that no only is it non homogenous but is composed of contesting public spheres.
This hints at the fractured quality of the civil society and connects to the argument later made in
this essay of how law then comes through as an agent performing the function of unification.
However coming back to the ongoing argument, it is because of this multiplicity in civil society
& the relations that exist as highlighted above between the subaltern group and mainstream
media that media on the whole takes on a special significance. Smaller media spaces then come
to be seen as potential sources of social change.

Chris Atton (2002) in his book Alternative Media offers a definition of Alternative media that
not only focuses on content of small media but also on the social processes involved in the
production of alternative media. While ideas of social and political change may be at the centre
of small media but by focusing on the social processes involved in production he establishes
production itself as a political activity. Hence subculture media then comes about as that being
produced by members of existing subculture with the idea of it serving as a medium for
propagation of their own ideologies. The medium then used by the gurgaon workers like blogs,
pamphlets and the strike itself as the medium of the subaltern in opposition to that which is
largely considered as the media of the country. The article mentioned earlier in this essay about
the black press – Framing Supreme Court Decisions’ helps elucidate further the argument of
smaller media as vehicles of social change. The black press in the article mentioned viewed it
own role as that of advocacy for blacks engaging itself as a corrective force, against the unjust
treatment meted out to the blacks by the mainstream media. While the mainstream media’ s
focus was on the content by focusing on the implications that judgments hold for the blacks on
the issue of positive discrimination it was able to establish itself as a vehicle of social change. In
addition to establishing smaller media as political media interested in social change what the
above example does is situate the ‘neutrality’ position that is generally taken by mainstream
press through various measures that define ‘objective’ news coverage like multiplicity of sources
etc. , as a political position in conflict with and incapable of representing the interests of the
minority community. However in the preceding example of the black press the subaltern media
was a legitimate (legal) form but very often as shown in the gurgaon auto workers’ strike the
very medium appropriated by the subaltern group is criminalised by itself or the conditions under
which it can take place is illegalised.

This practice of criminalizing the medium or the conditions for the medium of the subaltern
group in fact is found across cultures and geographical places. The same argument then explains
the British effort at maintaining ‘Law and order’ in society by illegalising various forms of
media like newspapers, pamphlets any hand outs produced by the indigenous press and even
public meetings and public protests. Note here that Lokmanya Tilak was booked under sedition
charges for writing inflammatory articles, hence it is not that the entire medium was criminalised
but the conditions under which it could take place were made legally impossible. Jallian Wala
Baugh firing is another example where the very medium through which political struggles were
carried out – public non violent meetings was criminalised and met with the harshest of police
actions.

In the 1970s in US especially in New York, youth gang members especially black youth were
associated with the activity of painting graffiti on trains and downtown city walls. The youth
gangs and the people against the graffiti i.e. the administration and certain white citizen groups
viewed this act very differently. While most graffiti messages carried radical political ideas, the
youth gangs perceived it not only in its content, but in its production as well. The act itself was
aimed at reclaiming downtown urban spaces. That graffiti was being celebrated by art
magazines and even otherwise in pop art exhibitions did not in any way contribute towards
changing the attitude of administration towards it and stop viewing it as an act of ‘vandalism’ the
very legal term under which it was criminaised. Rather murals were commissioned which
‘marked’ the very same public property just like the graffiti did but thee murals since
commissioned by the state were a legitimate form although both – the graffiti and the murals
were in a sense medium of competing public spheres , the legitimacy of one outdid the other.

In all the examples cited through the essay there exists a commonality which leads to the
questioning of the role of law in society. All examples here involved non representation of the
interests of the subaltern groups, illegalising of the subaltern media and that on a larger scale
implies suppressing the voice of dissent by trying to create a homogenous public sphere that is
not representative of all and law plays a very instrumental role in this process.

Durkheim (1984) very long time back saw law as that creating solidarity in society. In fact for
him the nature of law defined the society, implying then law as a central force defining societies.
The idea of collective conscience, from which, for Durkheim laws emerge then hints at certain
homogeneity that is thought to exist in societies and law as a force that ensures the homogeneity.

As societies get more complex under modern state which deals with greater amount of diversity
there arises a need to then have unifying agents such as law in society. Daphane Barak Erez’s
(2005) article talks of how in modern society law presents itself a s a ‘feasible’ option as a
unifying element in society. Law creates communities by applying itself to certain section of
people generally determined by geographical boundaries and by excluding others it creates a
community by creating a commonality through exclusion. In modern rational societies law is an
institution through which legitimacy is derived in society. Hence law has an unprecedented
power in defining legitimate vs. illegitimate, legal vs. illegal actions in society as seen in
previous examples. In modern societies laws are not limited to their limitation or arbitration or
restituitive functions but in fact play a major role in defining and creating nations whose values
i.e. ‘national values’ are determined through legal documents like the modern constitution.
India then is a classic example of this kind of a modern state where diverse set of people are
defined as the same political group by awarding its people the modern constitution which
defines, addresses and protects its ‘citizens’. Even tough the Indian constitution allows for
various personal laws that are based on the premise of religious diversity to exist, the legitimacy
of personal laws is not derived through religion but through the legal interpretation of religion.
This power then of awarding legitimacy that is rested in law then helps in furthering certain
hegemonic functions of law, of creating a somewhat homogenous political community by either
completely suppressing dissent or integrating subaltern interests only partially as most
hegemonies function as elucidated through the examples in the essay.

This essay then tries to highlight the complimentary almost reciprocal relationship shared by law
and mainstream media to further the project of creating a homogenous political sphere through
hegemonic practices of either partial integration or suppression of dissent through various
‘legitimate’ measures, to protect the interests of certain groups over others. What one observes is
that while the mainstream media is generally clearly defined the media of the subaltern groups
are more fluid for they are appropriated according to the need and crisis and hence it is easier to
slot them under illegal categories rather then identify them as rightful medium of expression of u
underrepresented groups.

Constant resistance may allow the full integration of the interests of the subaltern groups like in
the case of the Indian freedom struggle but the essay limits itself at analysing the relationship
between media of the dominant and subaltern group and law in a synchronic space. The
categories of dominant and subaltern are then not treated as constant but as that defined by the
then politico – economic relations.

References

1. Atton Chris. 2002. Alternative Media. London; Sage publications.

2. Clawson, Rosalee A, Harry C. Neil Strine IV, Eric N Walterberg .2003 . Framing
Supreme Court Decisions: The mainstream versus Black Press. Journal of Black Studies,
Vol 33, No. 6 (July 2003).
3. Daphane Barak Erez. (2006). “Law in Society: A unifying power as a source of
conflict?”in Michael Freeman (eds) Law and Sociology; Current Legal Issues. Vol 8. US.
Oxford University Press. Pp165 – pp 185.
4. Durkheim Emile. 1984. Division of labour in society. London; Macmillan
5. Jacobs Ronald. 2000. Race media and the crisis of civil society.. UK; Cambridge
University Press.

Bibliography

1. Synder Gregory. 2006. Graffiti media and the perpetuation of an illegal subculture. Crime
Media and Culture. Vol 2. No 9, Sage publications.