Questions on Definitions of Communication for Development
After getting a lot of terms mixed up, here is my attempt in understanding the definition of Communication for Development.
Do lend your ears and offer what you have to say as I am new to this. I tried to make sense of it from where the confusion starts, so from my conference with my groupmates and the questions that were formed is where the starting point will be.
For this intro activity...
I was group mates with Nina, Kyle, Dana. I didn't know them from outside this class since this is my first DEV course for a minor. I am from BFA ID. They were very welcoming and definitely eased my worries entering my first DS class.
I had a lot of questions...
Not that development or communication were entirely new encounters for me (I’ve heard of them before), but this is the first time I sat down and read about them, especially in the context of development studies and surround by DS students.
There are more questions than answers right now, even after I’ve reviewed the readings. Treat this post as my most raw and initial processing of these definitions and new concepts to me. I’ll definitely go back to this post throughout the course to see how much I’ve really understood.
I’ll focus on my most burning questions so as not to make the post too long, but will try to address the other questions and reflect on them in separate posts maybe.
ON QUEBRAL AND CHATTERJEE
“In working towards specified development goals, the creativity of the writer, the broadcaster, the performer, the graphic artist, the director and all those associated with the art-related side of the old and new media can make the difference between pedestrian, and therefore ineffective, communication and sensitive, and therefore more meaningful communication.”
Coming from an FA major and minoring in DS, I was very much intrigued to find this in the reading. If this is what we claim true, I wondered and also remembered prompts from my own FA classes—what are the telling points of good and nuanced communication for development when it is translated to the arts? How do we hit the mark without being tone-deaf? Other than consultations and listening to the real stories of stakeholders, how do we amplify voices using imagery and art without resorting to sounding like a generic charitable feel-good initiative?
Taking cues from the readings, one can deduce that consultation and consensus in itself is not a simple task especially in the topic of development for marginalized and vulnerable communities. From the readings, we are introduced to the top-down approach, where institutions have already set goals and standards of development and communication is based on theory. We are also introduced to the very opposite of that—which, in my opinion, is also a better approach—a grassroots campaign that listens and looks for action points from hearing the voices of the people themselves.
As people who have the potential to have a career with communication for development, it is important to determine first what we are communicating. Why’s and how’s are important, of course, but from what the readings have emphasized, perhaps we only think we know what to say. For all we know, the people we are talking to already know and have repeatedly heard of whatever suggestions, campaigns, and initiatives we want to propose—highly likely because they are the most familiar with their crises than anyone could ever be. So the what, should come from them. The development communicator can merely assist.
I am definitely reminded of similar lessons we’ve had in ID and it was very interesting to me how as communication tools, human-centered design and communication for development share the same perspective. Most designers can fall into the trap of the designer messianic complex, taking statistics at face value tp justify whatever aesthetically pleasing material they already want to produce prior to discerning whether that is indeed the correct design intervention by consulting, again and again, with stakeholders and partners.
I think it is similar to what Quebral and Chatterjee were referring to when they emphasize two-way communication and empowering grassroots voices. At the end of the day, communicators can find ways and assist, but they will never be the answer. Without, say our personal contribution to assisting communities—and even if we do not encounter these communities at all—they will continue to brave through their struggles and eventually find a way to make it through. If their struggles have formed without us, so can their liberation.
