Coming together at the institutional level appears problematic for many in India. The same is true of other countries in Asia, barring some notable exceptions like Japan. Coming together culturally works well in Asia than in non-Asian contexts. The rise and rise of non-Asian institutions, particularly the academic associations in Communication and the relatively insipid track record of Asian associations in Communication is a case in point to introspect. There are exceptions here too.
But the nagging question before many communication scholars in a vast country like India has always been: why country level associations have always been non-starters in the field of communication. While there are noteworthy country level associations for disciplines such as history and politics, communication associations at the national and state level have always been rare entities and have always had a very short life.
The birth of the All India Communication and Media Association in 2016 wishes to change the scenario qualitatively in the sphere of communication studies in India. It is fledgling one, no doubt. But it is raring to go in terms of new benchmarks, networks and opportunities in communication studies. It seeks to connect its members across institutions in India as well as partnering associations in Asia and elsewhere.
When the Asia Pacific Alliance for Communication was born on October 25 2018 at the exotic new media lab of Tsinghua University, China, it was a moment of hope, optimism and camraderie for academics in Asia Pacific region to leverage the opportunities and challenges of our present times.
Every age begets the opportunities and challenges it deserves politically and economically. Every age also begets the communication association it deserves accordingly. When the speech communication programmes in USA were the norm during early 1900s, the National Communication Association was established in 1912. After the quick turnarounds in the field after Second World War/Cold War was born the International Communication Association in USA in 1950. The first decade of Cold War had a telling effect on the pedagogical methods in communication class rooms that got new inspiration from the activities of UNESCO and the scholars sponsored by the organisation. In this moment was born the International Association of Mass Communication Research (IAMCR). At the very ambivalent political level, the moral fabric worn by the scholars who were affiliated to these two international associations had tacit political overtones of the two blocks of the Cold War regime. At the more concrete geographical level, the two associations reflected their North American and Western Europe orientations respectively and unabashedly.
These associations have now come a long way from their original moorings and are seeking to subvert their characters with every passing annual conference. They have also become massive entities in the process. They are also seeking to pander to the regional demands.
The turn of Asia as regards similar entities within its borders is palpable. One such initiative is the Asia Pacific Communication Alliance. What’s in a name? Alliance is not the same as association. We know the meanings of these words anyway. But in a region where large scale Cold War movements such as the Non-Aligned Movement held sway for several decades, the coming together of scholars from different parts of Asia did not really take off in a big way, there may be misgivings about the coming together of communication associations of different countries in Asia in meaningful manner. The idea of an alliance, no doubt, is a throwback to the idea of alignment and its negation, non alignment. The misgivings are as true and reflective of the historical realities that defined the earlier births of communication associations elsewhere as the current birth of the Asia Pacific Communication Alliance.
China is the numero uno economic success story of the post-Cold War age. India appears to be lagging behind China in terms of visible changes in its economic landscape and everyday contexts at least by 30-40 years. How this happened is not a moot point from their side, but may appear as one from the side of other countries. But the fact is China is where it is, leaving countries like India way behind. When a nation progresses economically, it seeks to register its presence and influence in as many domains as possible. Academia is a domain of attraction in such cases. USA did this, particularly in the domain of communication and caused the logic of development communication to counter the spread of influence of Soviet Union in the “third world” during the cold war. Development Communication gurus like Daniel Learner were working on behalf of the USA’s state dept. The imprint left by them still reverberates in the communication class rooms in India.
China can not be any different. It appears that it too has similar/strong longings in several spheres, including communication studies, as any other economic powerhouse in any age. It has countless number of academic associations in the field of communication and it naturally becomes a natural nesting ground and the incubator for the idea of an alliance of communication associations in Asia Pacific.
The traces of geo-politics can not be wished away in any such initiatives. During the inaugural meeting which was meant to discuss the road ahead for Asia Pacific Communication Alliance, some colleagues had serious concerns about the term, Asia-Pacific. How Asian is Asia when Pacific joins it via an hyphen? There were also concerns about the contestations between the “inclusive” logic of the term “communication” and the disparate terms like “journalism”. I argued that the naming of the baby should be left to the baby when it grows. But the logic of those who favoured the tag of Asia-Pacific was already cast, I believe, in the geo-political history of the term in the region, particularly in South East Asia and North Asia. Similarly, the idea of “journalism” as something that can fit well within the “inclusive” logic of “communication” is as fractured and fragmented as the geo-political idea of an Asia that seeks to include the “other”, the Pacific.
Notwithstanding the above disconcerting notes, the birth of the Asia Pacific Communication Alliance is to be welcomed by all in our fraternity for two reasons: i) Asia ruled the domain of communication philosophy for several centuries before communication became a formal subject of learning in the North American Universities and ii) Asia will rule the realms of the production of communication technologies and the new media market in the coming years and decades.
When the draft note on the constitution of Asia Pacific Communication Alliance was found in my inbox, the first two paras of the note reminded me of almost similar paras in the constitution of the Association of Communication Teachers’ of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (ACT-TNP), which was started in March 2010. The Asia Pacific Communication Alliance wishes to promote best practices in journalism and communication studies. ACT TNP’s constitution warrants the promotion of ethical and quality teaching, research and extension activities in communication. The disparate entity, “journalism” is also missing in the nomenclature of ACT-TNP as it is in Asia Pacific Communication Alliance . But the longing for nurturing it is visibly writ large in the constitutions of both associations which are far removed from their spatio-temporal locations.
GR 