Dissecting Module 0: Welcome Back, Faith!
Defining development communication can be as hazy as defining development itself. Is it about using communication for development, or simply about discussing development? Rather than choosing which, development practitioners around the globe ventured into evolving both these concepts.
Before, the usual paradigm of communication development was for imposing top-down approaches within and among nations. On the international level, developed countries would prescribe neoliberal development interventions to promote modernization in developing countries through development communication. National governments would also use this to encourage their citizens to modernize and participate in exercising these neoliberal policies.
Now, this way of development has been problematized because of its detrimental effects in the Global South. Since then development communication, although gained notoriety for being labeled as government propaganda, is now being used by development practitioners to encourage communities to organize and empower their members.
In my DEV 108 class, I want to properly dissect how this evolution came about through assessing and analyzing three different texts. I took note of which ones I had trouble understanding, while also attempting to synthesize which parts they converge and diverge.
The first text managed to chronologically enumerate definitions of development communication and social change. However, some definitions seemed to only stitch together the definition of development and communication without providing enough nuance. Also, what I found common among these definitions is that our task in the development sector should be fitting these communities towards the current system, rather than making the system tailor-fit for them. I'm aware that there might be some personal bias in my analysis. But it's valid to point out that if a system fails to be inclusive, then it needs to change, rather than blaming it to the communities for not achieving the system's standards.
The second text is a primer by Quebral (2012). It grants it's readers some context as to why development communication is necessary, but it lacks specificity.
It quotes, "It is communication through the mainstream and new media that can project this national identity to a people and that can demonstrate to them that a united nation can be fashioned out of diverse cultures."
I find this to be an alarming statement because it fails to contextualize what the media really is in the country for the past few decades. Media in the Philippines, particularly in the Metro has a history of being Janus-faced. On one face, it promotes its goal of being service-oriented, truthful, and independent from the state's control. With this face, mainstream media looks like an intimidating force against those who wish to coerce and controlâ the "fifth state". But behind it is it's hidden face. The media, in truth, fails to achieve genuine inclusivityâ with this comes forth a complex web of problems. Most of their coverages are focused on Luzon. It sensationalizes scenes of violence, government mismanagement, and crime. Its mission of being objective fails to create an in-depth understanding of the root causes of our country's problems. It simply narrates, because it is in fear of bigger monstersâ politicians, elites, and businesses. In other words, mainstream media is capitalist before anything else.
So I pose a more nuanced question: how do we use development communication at its maximum potential to organize as one united nation that fights injustice while embracing our diverse cultures?
As for the third text from Chatterjee (2010), I have trouble understanding how important the entertainment media is as a stakeholder if their goal is to have profit and encourage homogeneity. In the context of the Philippines, being homogenous in terms of culture has led to the neglect of other minorities, and somehow encouraged a mindset of xenocentrisim in Luzon/the Metro. If the goal of development communication is to uplift the voices of the disadvantaged, will it further discourage the entertainment media to participate in development communication?
It also mentions the problem of activism mode and it's tendency to be one-sided. I wish to say otherwise. I think development communication is rather similar in nature with activism -- which is to promote inclusivity, fight for social justice, and secure everyone's freedoms. In Quebral's primer, development communication is described as the means to promote those I mentioned. So, why does this Chatterjee seem to imply that it's not "effective" or "actual" development measures (as it was written after this clause in the text)?
As much as I'm pointing out nothing but my issues with the texts, I also think media outlets in the grassroots who go against this norm are worth commending. I believe they are the ones who truly practice development communication (or development journalism). Yet these are the ones being targeted by the governmentâ accusing them of terrorism and sedition just because they reveal naked truths about power, oppression, and exploitation in the country.
This is what they all fail to mention with enough emphasis; that in the context of practicing development communication, we are faced with a complex web of problems that are historical, capitalist, and anti-democratic. Quebral assumes that the media, in its current structure, is accepting of development. While Chatterjee fails to write about how different stakeholders with different motives can clash.Â
To finally conclude, there still seems to be a disparity in describing how communication is used for development, and this mostly stems from who defines it. I think our next step as development students should be to redefine it as we embody the core values of inclusivity, democracy, and sustainabilityâ which ironically falls under practicing development communication.
