Growth of Development Communication
In order to understand development communication and its growth, we take a look at our history and how certain terminologies were used to describe the countries that were developed, developing and undeveloped. These terms are today, considered derogatory by the developing nations as they have achieved considerable progress as compared to yester years.
Introduction to Terminology being used to indicate development
Historically, World War II saw the rise of two super powers the US and Russia. During, the Cold War there was also an emerging desire of the US that countries do not concede to the values of Communism promulgated by the Russia. A lot of money was spent in providing relief help to many countries with this vision. There was an attempt by the super-powers to get these countries aligned to themselves. However, there was a prominent divide. It was not uncommon to be addressed by different terminologies like the First World, Second World and Third World. These controversial terms were an outcome of this Alignment vs. Non-alignment.
The term ‘First World’ was an indicator of a country with high development, stable economy, industrialised and well-built infrastructure and probably democratic in nature with open markets. The Second World was a term used in reference to countries that were Communist or Socialist in nature also known as the ‘Eastern countries’, which as compared to First World countries lacked free markets, open economies and democratic practices but were considerable developed. The Third World were at the bottom of the ladder and included countries that were lowest in economic prowess, had lack of infrastructure, facilities, social and political power. The term was indicative of a country being either underdeveloped, undeveloped or poor.
These above- mentioned terms were addressed to countries based on their development and emerged many years prior in places like France in the 18th Century where according to ‘John Isbister (1991) the three social classes were described as the first, second and third estates. The first and the second estates had the political power. The term third estate, or tiers etat, became a revolutionary slogan during the French revolution, which began in 1789 and sought to win and transfer political power from an elite few to the third estate.[1]( Melkote and Steeves, 2001)
Many scholars attribute the first use of the term ‘Third World’ to the French demographer, Alfred Sauvy, who utilised this term to describe the countries who had not aligned with either of the super power countries and primarily because according to him “at the end this ignored, exploited, scorned Third World like the Third Estate wants to become something too”. (The Routledge Handbook of Transregional Studies, 2018)[2] He ‘warned of the revolutionary potential of the Third World and the related danger of it becoming socialist. Thus, the term-Third World Countries has always been associated with the Cold War, Dependency and Development. (The Routledge Handbook of Transregional Studies, 2018)[3] While Sauvy, associated it with the tiers etat, Fanon and Sartre spoke of the Third World as associated with Underdevelopment that stemmed from Colonial exploitation and neo-colonialism. (Kalter, 2011)[4]
There were other terms that were used for the same purpose that included core countries, periphery countries, centre/periphery countries, Northern Countries, Southern countries, dominant/dependent countries, or metropolitan/satellite countries etc,.
In the long run, many scholars in the 1970’s realised, that the Third World countries that received aid for development did develop to some extent but had become dependent on the country that provided aid. Thus, leading to dependency. In today’s context, the varied terms being used are Developed Economies, developing economies, under-developed countries, etc.
The First Five-Year Plan states that “an underdeveloped economy is characterised by the co-existence, in greater or less degree, of unutilised or underutilised manpower on the one hand and of unexploited natural resources on the other. This state of affairs may be due to stagnancy of techniques or to certain inhibiting socio-economic factors which prevent the more dynamic forces in the economy from asserting themselves.”[5]
Today, the concept of Development has changed.
Growth of Development Communication
We need to re-wind to the process of development and the different theories we discussed to take a look at the growth of the concept of Development communication.
The imposition of the Dominant Paradigm
As mentioned, in my prior blogs. Communication in the field of Development played the role of persuasion in order for people to be coaxed into adapting new ideas, habits, innovations and products. Development was purely looked at through the eyes of Economic Stability and wealth, economic use of the country’s resources and a well-planned management of these resources by economic institutions. This was called the Dominant Paradigm. This paradigm only benefitted the rich countries to get richer. The Third world countries or underdeveloped countries became a means of broadening the First world markets. Aid was given to these countries which made them debt-ridden at a later stage, thus even more dependent.
The people of these countries were made to understand, that traditional practices were holding them back from Modernisation and Westernisation which could help them grow economically and develop at a great speed. This resulted in many theories called the Modernisation Theory, Diffusion of innovation theories, etc. Mass Media and Communication were made into tools of promotion and persuasion to adapt to the new products. However, this was a loss as, the countries that imposed the western concept of development, did not take into consideration environmental concerns, existing rich cultural practices or the fact that the countries were reviving a massive exploitation from colonisers which had turned rich and wealthy countries into economically deprived terrains with a huge lack of infrastructure and facilities.
“In the name of development, the state unleashed violence against its citizens, especially on those who are powerless. Mega development projects such as hydro-hydroelectric dams, nuclear power-plants, highways and mines have displaced local people from their lands, their livelihoods and their communities. E.g. Penans of Borneo, The Gond tribes in central India, The local people of Chota Nagpur region, the rubber tappers of Amazon.”[6] The voracious appetite for resources is demonstrated yet more clearly in the example of the United States: less than 6% of the world’s population consumes about 40% of the world’s natural resources. (Ullrich 1992:280)[7]
Development Communication took roots in the west, because the scholars were from there. But it just could not be transplanted into the Third world countries. Development Communication has to explore the dimensions of the third world, cultivate it and use it. However, the effects of this error of massive industrialisation were seen only much later in the long term after effects.
The Dependency of Underdeveloped Countries on the Rich Economies
By the 1970’s many scholars were already aware of this economic manipulation that started occurring in the name of Development. This gave birth to the concept of the Dependency theory which highlighted how the underdeveloped countries were now dependent on the rich developed nations of the world.
Vincent Ferraro says that first, dependency characterizes the international system as comprised of two sets of states, variously described as ‘The dominant states’ those that are the advanced industrial nations in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The second are the dependent states including those states of Latin America, Asia, and Africa which have low per capita GNPs and which rely heavily on the export of a single commodity for foreign exchange earnings.[8] (Ferrao, 2008)
Osvaldo Sunkel (1969) states that Dependency can be defined as “an explanation of the economic development of a state in terms of the external influences--political, economic, and cultural--on national development policies”.[9]
Santos (1971) defines Dependency “as an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such that it favours some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected”.[10]
The Central Propositions of Dependency Theory according to many scholars is that Underdevelopment was different from Undevelopment. Stating various scholars, Ferraro (2008) says that “Underdevelopment refers to a situation in which resources are being actively used, but used in a way which benefits dominant states and not the poorer states in which the resources are found.”[11]
It was also during this time, that Paulo Friere and his unique Paradigm enlightened the world on the necessity to cater to the entire human person in order to develop a nation. This concept was based on education, social awareness, human rights, conscientisation and encouraging people to become aware and contribute their own development.
Towards the Participatory approach in Development
Paulo Freire suggested a model where education becomes a dialogue in which the teacher and student learn from each other. In this model, the student is enabled to understand better the causes of his oppression and thereby to do something about it. This he called conscientisation or consciousness raising (1970).[12] This became an example for many research scholars in the field of Development.
While Dependency Theory opined that the many of the Undeveloped countries were driven into poverty mainly because of their Coloniser, who used them only as modes of expanding the wealth of their own countries, often plundering the national resources, raw material and as repositories of cheap labour. However, Participatory Development led to the understanding that the people of the place had to have their voices and concerns heard, acknowledged and worked upon. There was also a need to understand the indigenous wealth of cultural traditions and practices in the varied fields that had existed in order to have a better growth. The people wah had suffered for years needed to witness an empowerment brought about by Education, Awareness of the Socio-Political rights and Sustainable Development.
Jacob Srampickal in his research paper therefore states that the focus on local empowerment lead to other participatory approaches to development communication that focused on the four elements mentioned below:
- 1. Development communication from a human rights perspective
- 2. Development communication based on indigenous knowledge systems
- 3. Development communication based on the participatory or liberation models
- 4. Development communication based on empowerment.[13]
Participatory communication model
The Participatory communication stems from Paulo Friere’s Model which focusses on dialogue, conscientization, praxis, transformation, and critical consciousness and promulgates a healthy communication between the Indigenous people, their values and culture and the Intervening Parties.
Thomas McPhail in the book, ‘Development Communication: Reframing the Role of the Media’, (2009) states that
- “Dialogue consists of the back and forth communication between those within development organizations and those they serve.
- "Conscientization is the acknowledgement, awareness and handling of the inherent power differential and possible disenfranchisement between the organization and the native population.
- Praxis involves the ongoing examination of theory and real world practice.
- Transformation refers to the enlightenment or education of the native population in a way that promotes active consciousness and critical thinking in regards to their situation and/or why certain change implementation is taking place.
- Critical consciousness is the active social and political involvement of the beneficiaries”.[14]
Jacques Diouf states that “unless people themselves are the driving force of their own development, no amount of investment or provision of technology and inputs will bring about any lasting improvements in their living standards”. (Diouf, 1994) [15]
Thus, there was a gradual growth of the concept of Development into an emerging Participatory Paradigm. Today, this Development Paradigm has further enlarged into a concern for a Development that envelops the concerns of nature and the importance of Sustainable Development.
The two modes of Development Communication as beneficial to Participation
Participatory Communication was not in favour of the Top-down approach of the Western Approach. The approach was a horizontal Participatory model which focussed on the grass roots participation and upliftment. It also took into consideration the cultural wisdom that had existed amidst the people.
Participatory Communication rejected the top-down and bureaucratic ways of aid agencies, foundations, and academic field work, and NGOs, the new focus was on grass-roots participation. It also considers culture as a major tenant in terms of what needed to be held undamaged.[16] As rightly said by Diouf, “Any development programme that regards people as mere recipients, rather than as the actual creators of change and progress, usually fails. Consulting the people and actively involving them in making the decisions that will affect them virtually ensures the programme's success”. (Diouf, 1994) [17]
Dr Rajesh Kumar in his research writes that there are two types of audiences. These include the communicators comprising development bureaucracy, media practitioners and professionals, and the audience who can be informed or uninformed; educated or semi-literate or literate.[18] Therefore, Participatory communication involves, two types of audiences- those that wish to co-ordinate the Development programmes and those that participate in their own development in co-ordination with the prior audience.
The Participatory Paradigm further focused on the two modes of communication:
- The Monologic Mode
- The
Dialogic Mode
The Monologic mode indicates the one way communication that occurs between those initiating the development and provide information, awareness, technological information to promulgate a behavioural change to cater to the betterment of the people. Nibedita Phukan says that “it is broadly equivalent to the diffusion perspective and is based on the transmission model. It adopts one-way communication to send messages, disseminate information, and awareness generation for changing behaviour”.[19]
The Dialogic mode highlights a dialogue between the two audiences. Unlike a monologue, it involves a two-way dynamic communication. In the words of Nibedita Phukan, it “is closely associated with the participation perspective and uses two-way communication methods to build trust, exchange knowledge and perception, achieve mutual understanding and asses the risk and opportunities. Dialogic approaches guarantee that relevant stakeholders have their voice to be heard”.[20]
Participatory Communication includes both these modes of Communication. While, dialogic communication was very important, it was seen that an expert opinion based on a dialogue with the people of the place was also needed. The process was further enhanced when the Bureaucracy collaborated equally with the people of the place. Thus, Development Communication included both the modes.
Conclusion:
Communication with the aid of media was and is continuously used. The 1970’s also saw the use of Community Media to promote Development initiatives. In today’s context media is used by the Government, NGO’s and many others to help promote socially beneficial behaviour. Media is also used to garner attention to the requirement of the needs of the people and to attract funds. Media is not Development Communication, but caters to and helps in supporting all initiatives required for Development. As Jacques Diouf rightly said, “Development programmes can only realise their full potential if knowledge and technology are shared effectively, and if populations are motivated and committed to achieve success”.
[1] Srinivas R. Melkote and H. Leslie Steeves, (2001), Page 21, Communication for development in the third world, Sage Publications India, (14th print)
[2] Edited by Matthias Middell, 8-Nov-2018, The Routledge Handbook of Transregional Studies, Routledge
[3] Edited by Matthias Middell, 8-Nov-2018, The Routledge Handbook of Transregional Studies, Routledge
[4] Edited by Matthias Middell, 8-Nov-2018, The Routledge Handbook of Transregional Studies, Routledge
[5] https://niti.gov.in/planningcommission.gov.in/docs/plans/planrel/fiveyr/1st/1planch1.html
[6] Srinivas R. Melkote and H. Leslie Steeves, (2001), Page 156, Communication for development in the third world, Sage Publications India, (14th print)
[7] Srinivas R. Melkote and H. Leslie Steeves, (2001), Page 157, Communication for development in the third world, Sage Publications India, (14th print)
[8] Vincent Ferraro, "Dependency Theory: An Introduction," in The Development Economics Reader, ed. Giorgio Secondi (London: Routledge, 2008), pp. 58-64, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/depend.htm
[9] Osvaldo Sunkel, "National Development Policy and External Dependence in Latin America," The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 6, no. 1, October 1969, p. 23
[10] Theotonio Dos Santos, 1971, "The Structure of Dependence," p. 226, in K.T. Fann and Donald C. Hodges, eds., Readings in U.S. Imperialism. Boston: Porter Sargent.
[11] Vincent Ferraro, "Dependency Theory: An Introduction," in The Development Economics Reader, ed. Giorgio Secondi (London: Routledge, 2008), pp. 58-64, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/depend.htm
[12] Jacob Srampickal S.J. , Development and Participatory Communication, Communication and Research trends, Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture, Volume 25 (2006) No. 2, Pontificia Università Gregoriana Rome, Italy
[13] Jacob Srampickal S.J. , Development and Participatory Communication, Communication and Research trends, Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture, Volume 25 (2006) No. 2, Pontificia Università Gregoriana Rome, Italy
[14] Thomas L. McPhail, 2009, Major Theories following Modernisation, Edited by Thomas L. McPhail, Development Communication: Reframing the Role of the Media, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-18795-4, https://comunepersoal.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/development-communication_-reframing-the-role-of-the-media-thomas-l-mcphail.pdf
[15] Jacques Diouf, January 1994, Communication a key to human development, http://www.fao.org/3/t1815e/t1815e01.htm,
[16] Development Communication: Reframing the Role of the Media, 2009, Edited by Thomas L. McPhail, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-18795-4, https://comunepersoal.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/development-communication_-reframing-the-role-of-the-media-thomas-l-mcphail.pdf
[17] Jacques Diouf, January 1994, Communication a key to human development, http://www.fao.org/3/t1815e/t1815e01.htm,
[18] Dr Rajesh Kumar, 2011, Development communication: A purposive communication with social conscience- An Indian perspective, Global Media Journal –Indian Edition, December 2011, Vol. 2/Winter Issue, ISSN No.2ISSN 2249-5835, https://www.caluniv.ac.in/academic/department/JMC/Study/DC-Purposive.pdf
[19] Nibedita Phukan, Development Communication - The Emerging Participatory Paradigm, http://www.devalt.org/newsletter/nov09/of_6.htm
[20] Nibedita Phukan, Development Communication - The Emerging Participatory Paradigm, http://www.devalt.org/newsletter/nov09/of_6.htm
