Archives

by Vibodh Parthasarathi

The poor of Nepal: some people at the grassroots

Investigating communication as a process forces one to recognise and explore its multiple dimensions. Although unfolding themselves as an overlapping aggregate, such a complex of dimensions could be separated for conceptual clarity and analytical scrutiny.

In doing so, the way in which these dimensions have been epistemologically viewed, methodologically prioritised and their inter-relationships approached, has given rise to three 'standpoints' on communication. These could be encapsulated as the Transmission, Dialogical and Symbolic views - which respectively privilege a techno-institutional, ritualist and hermeneutic analysis of communication.

As heuristic angles of analysis, we may consider them as specific structuring standpoints of any process of communication, - which in reality is a mix, although in various proportions, of all these theoretical ingredients. Situating oneself in any one of these standpoints, quite obviously, influences the entry point of an academic investigation or policy dialogue, as also the questions raised and methods employed therein.

In liberal parlance, the term mass media has been used in referring to the technological apparatus employed to create social meaning. As a result, such research has predominantly focused on the means of communication - invariably in an instrumental manner concerning their role in affecting social change. A more methodologically grounded approach would contend such a flaw by giving due weight to the dynamics of representation and social relations which equally constitute the complex of communication. For, comprising of three primary structural dimensions, communication processes demand exploration at three levels: with respect to their conception, purpose & enshrined ideas; as forms of expression including their technological form; and in their structuring set of social relations. In other words, any commentary needs to be informed by the dimensions of production, representation and the social organisation of communication.

With such a sensibility, one ought to refrain from either viewing communication processes as being autonomous from socio-economic activity, or posing communication technology as the determinant variable. For communication processes are equally shaped by the contexts within which (new) technology is employed and the structuring of human interaction such technology embodies. Recognising that a communication process is "co-determined" by various instances - viz. material (availability of infrastructure), economic (demand-supply equations of commodities & labour), technological (levels & distribution of means of communication and those of accompanying skills), symbolic (information, knowledge or values) and institutional instances - one seeks to explore them as an interplay between these instances.

Such an approach would prevent not only a crude reductionism but equally tendencies towards superstructural isolation, which are common in the "Communication and" genre of writings on development or social change.

In the last two decades, social movements all over the world have gradually broadened the content and process of "the political". This has resulted in mass based, political practice being extended to spheres and citizens hitherto dismissed as apolitical or non-political.

Following these developments, the study of social movements has come to challenge traditional concepts of power (economic & biological) and space (physical and bio-ecological), resulting in some propounding the notion of new Social Movements. Arguments against this find that far from being an entirely "new" phenomenon, the nature, role and space of such voices of democratisation stem as much from the problematic of human condition in contemporary settings, as from the drawbacks of past efforts to challenge it. In other words, it is more likely that these so called New Social Movements are contemporary forms and variants of antisystemic processes of the last 100 years.

In either case, "new" dimension of these political processes is evident in the creation of alternative modes of communication and means of mobilization. One has observed that the evolution of such modes is not only endogenous to a movement, but is equally realised between various means of organisation - be they autonomous groups, professional forums, pluralist coalitions and small collectives - towards common strategic orientations. Stemming from efforts at economic and political transformations, they reflect efforts at creating alternative frameworks of meaning - initiative which directly relates to information, symbolic representation and cultural knowledge.

Looking at grass roots movement as the 'new change-agents", the term macro-initiatives was once employed in referring to their devising new forms of political action and organisational linkages. Interestingly, the notion of macro-initiatives goes beyond a narrow, purely organisational scope. It refers to the realisation of interventions which create alternative fulcrums of communication aimed at the production and sharing of subjugated knowledge - a practice to be achieved through dialogue, documentation and information dissemination within and across a spectrum of grass roots movements.

However, the importance of changing the mode of communication associated with such macro-initiatives is absent; and so on what basis are we to assume that communication processes associated with macro-initiatives do actually unfold in accordance with the broader praxis of 'another' politics? One lesson, consequently, is that in describing (innovations in ) such social interventions, the democratic nature of the emergent modes of communication needs to be addressed - especially the high value of aspired democracy in the evolution of new forms of struggle.

At the micro-level, the entry of the underclass into communication interventions has had three effects. Firstly, prevalent conceptions of 'target audiences' governing various mass media get fundamentally modified; secondly, it brings about a change of agents; and thirdly, it changes the status of citizens, from being a passive 'source', 'receiver' and 'objects' of 'messages' to active producers and vocal subjects of contextual knowledge.

Nevertheless, at the macro-level, political processes geared towards coalition-building and collective strategising have been propelled by the limitations of micro-level intervention together with the need to influence wider public policy. As a result, the 'new' dynamics of communication is seen to be operating not only at the grass roots and inter-/national levels, but also in the space between them. They are viewed as providing a locus for political actors finding themselves fragmented on account of their varying social base, objectives and strategies. As an immediate response, communication interventions resolved to emphasise, in the first instance, the production and circulation of experiences.

While the origins of such initiatives lie in the imperatives of the 'the local' and the 'non-formal', overtime they tend to demonstrate the limitations of 'the small' or/and the 'un-institutionalised'. Often as a response to this, such initiatives - be it a niche news-agency, movement newsletter or documentation centre - slip into 'establishment' orders, and tend to reproduce dominant economic contours internally, and power-equations externally.

And so, exploring the implications of 'Small is Beautiful' in an era witnessing a plethora of global-local encounters, requires an analytical, not rhetorical, approach. This deems it fundamental to investigate the status of information and knowledge, the modes of producing and sharing such knowledge and their role in the construction of social ties at micro, intermediate and macro levels. For instance, one could empirically distinguish the structures and attributes of such interventionist media initiatives by considering the values pronounced and practices demonstrated.

One must equally question some fundamentals: for example, what material and ideological millieu is implied in the discourse of 'Small' on Community media pertaining to poverty alleviation? To begin with, we need to realise that the very articulation and self-perception of 'the Community' has undergone a change with the advent of new communication technology.

Cases in point could range from the perception of urbanism with the coming of FM Radio, the emerging notion of labour with the expansion of Wide Area Networks and trans-continental cabelling, and the raison detre of regionalism in an era of satellite and trans-national broadcasting Instances like these in our mediascape have altered the reality and perception of, amongst other, Territorialisation, Identity, and Citizenship. And consequently, have significant implications on the nature and role of 'community media' in initiatives of democratisation in general and poverty eradication in particular.

Furthermore, one must differentiate between instances where the economic and Technological 'footprint' of new media technology has come to construct the community (as consumers), where the instrumentalities of new technology have strengthened the basis of 'a community' (as a historical or ideological identity), and instances where the absorbtion of new technology has been organised within frameworks of civil society to construct a community based on common needs and rights (as citizens).

This will better enable us to understand, firstly, the character of community media - ie. is it illustrative of an interventionist or parallel process. And secondly, the vitality of community media - either vis-a-vis their immediate politico-jural power structures or the 'distant' influences of globalisation, which contextualises them.

In thinking about the status & role of Knowledge in facilitating a renewed convergence between theory and practice as a collective praxis, media production, training and capacity building becomes an important springboard. Even the most functional views of democracy imply that citizens not only be provided with realistic choices, but also be capacitated to execute such choices.

However, being able to choose- neither under ignorance nor constraints - is not a function of information alone; it rests on nurturing the capacity to think independently, think critically. In media production, one must transcend a narrow 'message' centredness, skill-building and information dissemination. More specifically, efforts at archiving and documentation are of tremendous importance as a repository of individual experiences and 'another' history, which contribute towards envisioning and strategising alternative futures. And whilst addressing media educaiton - be it in formal and non-formal settings - one may find out how differences in training & capacity-building achieve prevalent standards (i.e. 'quality' and 'technique') and predetermined social objectives (participation', 'empowerment', 'solidarity' et al).

In both these avenues, may I emphasise, democratisation could be said to act at three inter-related terrains - in its purpose, its institutional frameworks and in 'shopfloor' methods.

With regards to traditional practices, whether their presence in our mediascape is a blessing in disguise, or whether they could be incorporated into interventionist processes, are questions which communication theorists and poverty planners alike are grappling with. Lot depends upon whether practices are viewed merely as remnants of the past - those not swept away by the tide of modernity; or whether they survive as practices that have historically opposed dominant relations - be they feudal, colonial or neo-colonial.

For, an emphasis on 'the traditional' in subaltern action for cultural and economic entitlements concerns, in its essence, knowledge systems eroded by the state-market complex. Such a contextual re-appropriation of traditional systems of knowledge and communication of knowledge provide idioms to understand, and act upon, the present without a rupture from the past. However, only a critical rejuvenation can contribute towards such an encounter seeking cultural affirmation and economic rights.

A concrete step in this direction would be to document these initiatives - both creatively and constructively, together with professionals sharing a critical perspective equally on, Communication and Poverty Eradication. In doing so, one could investigate the extent to which these grassroot practices are democratic, dialogical and sustainable by virtue of being open to permanent (re)interpretation - and resultantly, retain their capacity to reflect, and productively act upon, changing social aspirations.

(The writer is a communication theorist, videographer and media policy consultant based in New Delhi)

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager