Gantis article points out that Bollywood filmmakers who see themselves as cultural translators assume a position of authority because they claim to be able to mediate between the Hollywood form and the desires of the local 'masses' while implicitly ranking themselves in a position of power, since they can appreciate both. This sounds similar to the power gained by Mazzarella's cultural mediators. The question I want to ask here is, how self-conscoius are powers that are held in these ways? To what extent does a power structure perpetuate itself (again, like Warner's public) in a way subtle and implicating, and outside the full self-consciousness of the individuals that speak it?

It reminds me of Sara Dickey's ethnography of domestic service in South India. Dickey found that both servants and employers had morally charged, oppositional identities and accused the other of creating conditions that caused their own behaviour. Servants accused employers of being not altruistic enough for instance, and employers of servants being too demanding. If both groups here agreed in some sense that it was the role of the employer to be paternalistioc and altruistic, and the role of th servant to be a humble beneficiary, this has disturbing implications for how hegemonies perpetuate themselves. For the people speaking they appear to be true, they cannot imagine life in any otehr way. They dont speak the discourse, the discourse speaks them, in Heidiggers terms, "Language Speaks Man".

How does social change happen then? I guess it happens because althoughn history is a myth it feels completely real to us. So when things change (do things always change? why do we only notice certain changes and not others?) we react and change the discourse. This is a good question for Warner. How do modern public discourses give up their power and adapt to change?