When discussing communication for development, we tend to argue against the models based only on diffusion of media technologies. That is, in pursuing a critical approach to development practices, we tend to support participatory approaches to technology use and engagement.
Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory.
It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse.
Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or what a new theory would mean for people's quality of life? Some of this is readily documented in market research on the use of mobile phones, radio broadcast interaction, broadband usage, etc.
The pursuit of how communication helps development becomes much simpler with just one assumption. From there, a world of activities come into view. And yes, while these activities are mixed - some are formal businesses, some are public initiatives, some are in between and some are mysteriously everywhere and nowhere - they are embedded in culture.
The pursuit for participatory, community-based approaches to communication for development encourages this as well - to seek culture as a means to understand modes and structures of communication. But it tends to revolve around conceptual arguments made by an academic community, not the community using and engaging with the communication system.
Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory.
It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse.
Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or what a new theory would mean for people's quality of life? Some of this is readily documented in market research on the use of mobile phones, radio broadcast interaction, broadband usage, etc.
The pursuit of how communication helps development becomes much simpler with just one assumption. From there, a world of activities come into view. And yes, while these activities are mixed - some are formal businesses, some are public initiatives, some are in between and some are mysteriously everywhere and nowhere - they are embedded in culture.
The pursuit for participatory, community-based approaches to communication for development encourages this as well - to seek culture as a means to understand modes and structures of communication. But it tends to revolve around conceptual arguments made by an academic community, not the community using and engaging with the communication system.
Comments
Post a Comment