The Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change

Karin Gwinn Wilkins, Thomas Tufte, Rafael Obregon

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781118505366
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This valuable resource offers a wealth of practical and conceptual guidance to all those engaged in struggles for social justice around the world. It explains in accessible language and painstaking detail how to deploy and to understand the tools of media and communication in advancing the goals of social, cultural, and political change.

• A stand-out reference on a vital topic of primary international concern, with a rising profile in communications and media research programs
• Multinational editorial team and global contributors
• Covers the history of the field as well as integrating and reconceptualising its diverse perspectives and approaches
• Provides a fully formed framework of understanding and identifies likely future developments
• Features a wealth of insights into the critical role of digital media in development communication and social change

Part I

Communicating Development and Social Change

1

Development Communication and Social Change in Historical Context

Pradip Ninan Thomas

At any given time, there is a great variety of theoretical and practical approaches in development communications/communications and social change (CSC). Broadly speaking, development communication/communications and social change is about understanding the role played by information, communication, and the media in directed and nondirected social change. It also includes a variety of practical applications based on the mainstreaming of communication as “process” and the leveraging of media technologies in social change. This chapter will specifically deal with development communication/communications for social change from the perspective of communication rights and will include a section on “Voice” making a difference in the context of the “Right to Information” movement in India. In the pedagogy of CSC, we are accustomed to contrasting the “dominant paradigm” and, in particular, its assumptions related to the role of communication in social change along with its preferred methods with that of the participatory school that emerged in the late 1960s, since then becoming global in scope. In its practice, however, it is clear that mixed approaches characterize field applications of CSC and that participation in itself means different things to different people. This has resulted in a variety of participations that can be plotted on the typology that Arnstein created in the late 1960s, ranging from the maximalist to the minimalist.

One of the perennial issues in CSC is whether or not it has an identity that it can call its own and a tradition of theorization that makes it distinctive from other areas in communications. The theorization of CSC has always been dependent on borrowings from other disciples – from rural sociology that provided the basis for the diffusion model to the radical pedagogy best illustrated by the contributions made by the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. CSC theorization has also been shaped by a great variety of “isms” and schools of thought, including Marxism, feminist theory, post-colonial and subaltern theories, identity theory, globalization, social movement theory, and information and communications technology (ICT) for development theories. In recent times, social networking and urban interventions have also contributed to shaping the practice of CSC, although this is yet to be reflected in its theory. While one can argue that these many borrowings and traditions of interdisciplinarity have contributed to the shaping of CSC as a field and to its dynamism, it is also clear that a consequence of these many influences is the existence of a variety of fault lines – between theory and practice, between technology and the social, policy and the implementation of policy, the global and the local, technocratic and managerial approaches versus endogenous, people-centered approaches. In other words, at any given time, the field is characterized by a variety of disjunctures. In spite of the evidence of quantum, what seems to be the case is that the “practical horse” has bolted leaving the “theoretical cart” behind. In other words these literally thousands of initiatives, learnings, and experiences are yet to become foundational material for an explication of theory reflective of, and conversant with, local realities. It would seem that the advent of the “participatory” model stymied further theoretical innovation given that this was interpreted as the “Holy Grail” that would usher in the promised land characterized by communications for all. Key words such as development, participation, social capital, poverty reduction, civil society and empowerment, among others, have an auratic power that disallows any form of questioning. Issue 4–5 of volume 17 of the journal Development in Practice is devoted to a deconstruction of such key words and Andrea Cornwall, in an article entitled “Buzzwords and fuzzwords: Deconstructing development discourse,” makes the following observation:

Development’s buzzwords are not only passwords to funding and influence … The word development itself … has become a ‘modern shibboleth, an unavoidable password’, which comes to be used ‘to convey the idea that tomorrow things will be better, or that more is necessarily better’ … the very taken-for-granted quality of ‘development’ leaves much of what is actually done in its name unquestioned. (Cornwall 2007: 471)

Enclosures are rather unfortunately a characteristic of this rush to invest words with value and this is best illustrated by the fact that the very phrase “communication for social change” was slated for trademarking by a non-profit organization in the USA. What seems to be missing in this situation is any serious theorizing that is grounded in context and that is conversant with local categories.

This chapter will explore critical issues related to the theorizing of communication and social change. In brief, the history of theory in this area is largely made up of two distinct traditions: (1) the dominant paradigm associated with Everett Rogers, Daniel Lerner, and Wilbur Schramm and (2) the participatory/multiplicity model associated with a number of scholars. A recent account of that history is Emile McAnany’s (2012) Saving the World: A Brief History of Communication for Development and Social Change. The dominant paradigm and in particular the tradition associated with Rogers – the diffusion of innovations – has been critiqued for its top-down nature although arguably this model remains global. The dominant paradigm is also associated with a strongly “behaviorist” emphasis at the expense of “structures” and this focus on change at the level of the individual remains persistent and paramount. While the participatory model and its emphasis on communication as process does have its merits; in reality there are different traditions of participation, some that are more inclusive than others. Terms such as the role of communications in empowerment, access to communication, and participation as process were articulated by proponents of this model. Rather than deal with the history of theorizing in this area, it will deal with contemporary deficits in the theorizing of CSC and explore three possible avenues for the reinvigoration of CSC theory: (1) the possibilities for understanding conceptual categories such as participation in and through digital interventions such as the Free and Open Source movement and digital labor, (2) attempts to understand CSC theory through the lens provided by communication rights movements (the example of the Right to Information movement in India is given in order to explore validation of local processes of participation and Voice through the mechanism of Public Hearings), and (3) the need for CSC theory to converse with Actor Network Theory linked to a critical political economy of communications toward an understanding of the role played by power/knowledge in the creation and maintenance of networks of power involved in CSC policymaking.

The Commodifications of Participation

An obvious starting place to explore these dislocations is to begin with the multi-accentual nature of concepts such as participation, access, and Voice that is contextually defined and that offers many meanings to many people and many opportunities for practice. Even within civil society interventions related to CSC, these concepts are routinely invoked by different organizations – from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and UNICEF to the World Bank, and organizations such as AMARC, APC, and WACC. Participation is influenced by political economy and by different visions of utopia, of orderings of the world. A critical, political economy inspired approach offers the means to explore communications and social change in terms of its shapings by structures, ideologies, and power flows. The Slovenian social philosopher Slavoj Žižek in his book First as Tragedy, Then as Farce, in a critique of capitalism and a call to the “left” to reinvent itself, includes an interesting critique of the embrace of “cultural capitalism” that also offers the possibility for a redemption through consumption. He uses the example of a Starbucks coffee advertisement that sells a “coffee ethic” through linking consumption of coffee to Fair Trade, ethical investment, and the enjoyment of good “coffee karma”, thereby enhancing our enjoyment of feel-good consumptive practices. As he points out:

The “cultural” surplus is … spelled out: the price is higher than elsewhere since what you are really buying is the “coffee ethic” which includes care for the environment, social responsibility towards the producers, plus a place where you yourself can participate in communal life … (Žižek 2009: 53–54)

The upshot of our involvement in such circuits of cultural consumption is that we end up contributing to initiatives that are destined to forever deal with the symptoms of poverty but never with its causes, which include unjust trade practices, poverty and exploitation, the issue of land, and so on. Participation in this utopia is limited precisely because it does not give either the producer or consumer the opportunity to take part in an exercise of freedom. It is very similar to the “slacktivist” cultures that are rife in the era of social networking. This is a culture that encourages people to click and contribute to online polls and issues but that does not enable an engagement with real issues in the world of the here and now. NGOs, for the most part, tend to replicate the logic of neoliberalism and participation therefore tends to become the means for extending the project of neoliberalism through enabling people to participate in a variety of forms of “compassionate capitalism.”

This evisceration of meaning has undoubtedly enabled the worldwide diffusion of the concept of participation. Its status as a weasel word has enabled its mainstreaming, given that it can be invested with meaning in context. More often than not this process of divesting and investing in meanings has led to participation becoming an “empty signifier,” the basis for donor–recipient relationships in the funding of aid and in the writing of reports but not as an essential ethic, skill, and process related to building up capacities in local populations. So, one can argue that participation really has become critical to the reinvention of the dominant paradigm in the context of the twenty-first-century development industry. The argument here is that the field has moved away from the Freirean understanding of participation as praxis, as the means for empowerment and the basis for engagements with reality in order to change it. Instead, participation today is invoked by all sections although rarely as the basis for transformative change. Students from the Centre for Communication and Social Change, UQ, Brisbane, have consistently reported after carrying out fieldwork in countries including Nigeria, Vietnam, and Indonesia that participation remains elusive, a mystery to most people although it exists as a buzzword in the background, invoked by everyone involved in development although practiced by none. While extensive projects find it difficult to mainstream “participation,” it is more likely that participation does work in the context of small-scale projects. This is borne out in a 2012 global survey of participation of community radio stations carried out by the Aachen-based organization CAMECO. On the nature and levels of participation, the evidence suggests regional differences: there are bound to be community radio stations in every region of the world that exhibit a maximalist approach to participation.

Whereas the ranking of the different areas of participation is similar in all regions, big differences exist in their importance: Latin America tops participation in programming (90%), but is far below average in management and ownership. In Africa, the level of participation in financing (54%) and ownership (49%) is relatively high; participation in ownership is more common in anglophone countries. In Asia, participation in management plays a crucial role (69%). … The number of radio stations where community members play a greater role in production, presentation or journalism is still rather high: Community members function as local reporters (69%), work as presenters (63%), are responsible for special programmes/time slots (61%), and are musicians (61%), citizen reporters (56%) or editors/producers (39%). The number of radio stations where community members bear a higher responsibility for programme contents, i.e., as editors, producers or presenters, is generally higher in Asia … than in Africa or Latin America. (Frolich et al. 2012: 8–9)

The Cooption and Redemption of Participation in a Digital Era

While these types of assessments of participation do have their limitations, given that they do not generate information on the granular nature of participation or its micropolitics, they have value as a snapshot of participation in the global community radio movement. For CSC theorists, however, one can argue that it is equally profitable to explore participation online, given that it reflects a range of participations – from the corporate control and commodification of participation via myriad versions of “interactivity” to real possibilities for an exploration of alternatives. Henry Jenkins’s “Convergence Culture” that celebrates prosumerism and online freedoms has attracted criticism from media scholars on the left of the academic spectrum including Christian Fuchs, Mark Andrejevic, Graham Murdock, and others. Mark Andrejevic makes the point that interactivity is located within “digital enclosures” and is the perfect means for both the state and private companies for the surveillance of users for security reasons and from a market perspective:

There is a price to be paid for convenience and customization – and we will likely end up paying it not just by sacrificing privacy, but by engaging in the work of being watched: participating in the creation of demographic information to be traded by commercial entities for commercial gain and subcontracted forms of policing and surveillance. (Andrejevic 2007: 98)

In a related piece on the “affective economics” of interactivity, Andrejevic (2011: 616–617) makes the point that at the end of the day audience identification with brands, in spite of the hype of interactivity, are attempts at control and not empowerment. “A context in which control relies increasingly upon expanded opportunities for participation requires a rethinking of the oppositions that place participation per se on the side of democratic empowerment” for there is a need to recognize the “role played by participation in the modulation of affect as a modality of control.” Nicholas Carah (2010) in his book Pop Brands shows how mobile phone-based interactivity with bands in the context of music festivals in Australia facilitates branding through “immaterial labour.”

However this very same terrain of the digital has also become the space for innumerable, collaborative projects involving participation. One of the intriguing aspects of information as a commodity is that it cannot, by its very nature, be completely commodified, unlike the vast majority of physical goods. As an immaterial good and service, its status as property remains elusive and is difficult to map onto the existing system of intellectual property. While not denying the fact that information as a commodity and as flows generates massive amounts of global capital, the disruptive potential of the digital continues to unsettle both governments and...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series page
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Notes on Contributors
• Series Editor’s Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I: Communicating Development and Social Change
• Part II: Developing Strategic Communication for Social Change
• Part III: Activist Approaches for Development and Social Change
• Index
• Eula