Developers and Communication in
South Africa

Background article for training course:
MANAGING DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEW SOUTH AFRICA. 
Session: Tuesday 3/10/95, 13.00 ‑ 16.30 

by Guy Berger, Professor and Head of Department of Journalism and  Media Studies, Rhodes University.

1. Introduction:

Development is a concept that needs ‑ to put it crudely ‑ to be  blasted out of the ideological water. Only once we dispense with  the rosy focus and twinkling romance ‑ or in some cases, the  cynical disillusionment, and focus on some hard realities, can we really investigate the scope for development communications. 

2. Defining development: 

(Note: Many of the following ideas are drawn from my phd thesis,  published as Social Structure and Rural Economic Development,  Oxford University Press.)

Development is a term that has all the status of a myth, in much  the same way that democracy is canonised into a un‑investigated  cover‑all to mean a myriad of often extremely different things:  all self‑serving to the particular person and context of use. 

Development may mean a host of things to those who use the term,  but in most uses, for instance in the ANC's Reconstruction and Development programme, it is definitively a good thing. Even fundamentalist environmentalists would say development is a good  thing, give or take a number of conditions about sustainability  and ecology.

Of course, on this earth, there are many things that are good  things, and confusingly, many of these are what people tend to  mean when they talk about development. Thus "development" in  everyday usage refers to happy well‑nourished people, engaging in  productive labour, and generally improving their lot in life,  sometimes even empowering themselves in the decision‑making about  their activities. It is used typically to refer to something done  to poor people, or rural people, or to any group seen as lacking  development. They are communities that get developed.  

Development is what overcomes poverty, misery, powerlessness. It  brings people into reach of the material benefits of the 20th  century (and ‑ although less is made of this ‑ also into ills of  the 20th century like pollution, western diets, addictions,  stress levels and so on). (Interestingly, indices of development  usually also focus on specific variables like literacy rates and  GDP per capita. Left out of the picture, typically, are indices  like whether the goods produced are socially useful (or are they  tobacco and armaments?), or how the goods produced relate to per  capita consumption thereof.

Now, generally speaking, it is a fine sentiment to want to  improve the lot of the disadvantaged, the downtrodden and the  underprivileged: no one would disagree. But what does this have to do with development? I believe that such value considerations  are, in fact, entirely different considerations to the question  of development as such. They may accompany development, they may  not, they may even exist without development: that is,  development conceived in an economic sense.

For example, there is  no doubt that poor people could improve their lot simply through  redistributing the resources currently enjoyed by the privileged.  Yet we would not call that development, I think. Another example:  the Tanzanian ruling party, formerly known as Tanu, declared some  23 years ago that development meant more say in people  determining their affairs "even if it does not offer them better  health or bread". In short, said Tanu, "for people who have been  slaves and have been oppressed, exploited and disregarded by  colonialism or capitalism, 'development' means 'liberation'."  Well, I think one should separate the two, that development and  liberation are distinct concepts.  After all, liberation does not  mean development ‑ as African experience all to graphically  reveals.

In my view, one has to link the term development to economics  first and foremost ‑ and not only economics, but to economic  growth. Now lots of people argue you can have growth without  development: they say for instance the SA economy has had growth,  but the majority of our people have not developed. Again, I would  say they are conflating things: blurring the question of  development with the question of its effects and its benefits. In  fact, what one is talking about is a particular type of economic  growth, and contrasting it with another type which they (and most of us) would regard as more desirable. I don't think, however, it  is very useful to reserve the term development for what is judged  to be politically "good" growth, as opposed to other growth (which is presumably bad). Of course, the value basis of  assessing growth is important, but our moral attitude to the  different kinds growth paths does not actually help us understand  or explain any of them: only to pass judgement on them.

So if we keep the term "development" and use it in a narrowly  economic sense, what does it mean? One way to understand it is to  contrast it to its opposite: to underdevelopment or  undevelopment.  The distinction between the two is that an  underdeveloped situation, in much developmental literature, has  been actively underdeveloped by outside forces and agencies as  under colonial exploitation; an undeveloped situation is a  pristine one, simply lacking the benefit of development. In both  cases, development means some forward momentum: either reversing  the process of underdevelopment, or kicking off a process of  development ‑ out of a static or stagnant situation. The sense  conveyed by all this, however, is that development is an active  process of movement. Movement in what? In my view, movement in  improved productive capacity. Which in turns means the power to  produce goods and services. Those who measure development in  terms of jobs, or health, or education have a point: but what has  to underpin these is a society's ability to become more and more  productive. So by development, I believe we are referring to no  more and no less than the growth of productive capacity.

Clearly, this kind of approach runs counter to that of Manfred  Max‑Neeff and other humanist views. I do not necessarily disagree  with their politics. Nor do I denigrate their evident need to  locate themselves against what ‑ for them ‑ is a dominant  economistic and technicist view which leaves people's needs and  welfare out of the development equation. For me, these concerns  may be linked to the equation, but that does not mean that on  their own they actually equate development. I have no real  problem with those who would say I am talking about economic  growth, and they reserve the term development to designate  economic plus extra‑economic dimensions.  For them, I am talking  growth without development ‑ which is fine, because my concern is  precisely to distinguish these two factors and remind us not to  forget about the first one. This is especially relevant with  regard to the Reconstruction and Development Programme, where we  are in danger sometimes of focussing on distribution ‑ popularly  known as "delivery" or undefined "empowerment" ‑ to the neglect  of production and growth. In South Africa today, this delivery  conception is the dominant view, which I feel a need to  counterbalance.

However you wish to define development is up to you. All I would  say is: let us get our semantics straight and commonly  understood. For this paper, development means economic growth ‑  and not just any economic growth, but a pattern of economic  growth that will develop the productive capacity of the unit.

So far so good: I am sure many people will not raise major objections to going along, at least for this paper, with such a  definition of development, and with my argument that extra‑ economic questions (like who benefits from development) are a  distinct (even if often related) consideration from that of the  matter of productive capacity. The advantage of this perspective  is that we can see that even better off societies are still  growing and developing, still increasing their productive  capacity.

This is an important matter, because there is often an appealing  popular mistake made whereby people say that development only  occurs at the expense of underdevelopment, that rich societies  are so only because they ripped off the Third World. Certainly, a  rip off did ‑ and still does ‑ take place. But that is not in  itself enough explanation. After all, the Spanish and Portuguese  ripped off their colonies without becoming developed societies at  the time. The reason was that they piled up their ill‑gotten  riches in castles and monasteries, and failed to invest in  enhancing their own productive capacity. Development is not so  much a matter of consumption, as production. This is not to say  that Third World societies do not suffer from rip‑off, but it is  to also ask the question about what happens to that portion of  people's sweat and products which are left behind: how are these  organised and used? Is the Third World's low productive capacity  simply a result of underdevelopment, and is there not some  potential to increase this capacity?

How one identifies these problems integrally affects how one hopes to deal with them. If you blame poverty on underdevelopment  caused by external forces, then certain strategies suggest  themselves. If you think poverty is simply the traditional effect  of undeveloped potential, other things spring to mind. In SA,  obviously much of the present situation is the result of  systematic dispossession, deskilling, the denial of opportunities  and capital to black people, not to mention the economic effect  of political, cultural and linguistic domination. And yet,  clearly to change all these is not an overnight matter, and nor  will their simple removal inherently generate development of the  hoped for rate and character. Whites actively stopped black  economic development over the centuries. Taking away white  domination, however, is only a necessary precondition for black  development: on its own it is not sufficient ‑ other things are  needed, such as for instance, affirmative action mechanisms. So,  while blame must be apportioned where it is due, the situation  requires more than a moral resolution.  Particular development  practices need to be identified and supported, or fostered from  scratch by those with an interest in the situation.

3. The Development Industry

And so we come to the question of what is to be done. Because,  whatever the reason for poverty, humans seem to tend to want to  rise above it. They act. And although I do not by any means deny  that productive capacity in many places suffers from active  underdevelopment (eg. Western Cape textiles and garment  production suffers from imports of cheap second‑hand clothing), it is all too evident that people in a competitive society do  generally act to combat underdevelopment and to promote  development. Before the advent of capitalism, the same imperative  did not exist: a wealthy person could simply consume, rather than  reinvest, their wealth. But today, no one can escape the  pressures of the marketplace, with its global to local reach and  its international impact. So, the human beings we know move: they  action development in a range of manifestations. Even criminals  attempt to increase their capacity to produce the goods.

Yet this is not quite the picture one often gets from development  speak. In the minds of many do‑gooders, development does not  refer to a process taking place in society. It is rather  something that is done to people lacking this.  The assumption,  as academic Gavin Williams has argued, is that people must be  developed. By whom? By the governments on the one hand, and/or  the development industry on the other. What is the development  industry?  This is an international form of production, bearing  noticeably low levels of productive capacity itself, but which  still thrives on the business provided by un‑developed or  underdeveloped countries or communities. It is an extremely  cynical sector, with scores of agencies competing for contracts  and clients, and riven with national rivalries, political  interference such as patronage or pet prestige projects,  momentary fashions and flavours and even academic squabbles.  Development is big business ‑ for the developers. Which is not to  say it is therefore a bad thing. It is an industry that is  preferable, for example, to that which deals in death ‑ the armaments sector whose increase in productive capacity is  ultimately measured in human fatalities. And within the  development industry, some organisations are certainly better  than others. Most, though, in my (limited) experience are  exceedingly inefficient ‑ especially, and ironically, in  comparison to the standards they demand from their development  "partners".
What almost all these agencies by dint of their existence share  is the basic assumption in much development thinking, which is:  there is no development taking place outside of that initiated by  development agencies, coming in from outside to bring the gospel,  plus some money and expertise, to those who do not have this. At  its worst, this kind of thinking not only becomes myopic as to  what is already taking place, but imports and imposes its own  preconceptions of what should happen. Cultures, for instance, are  identified as antipathetic to development along certain lines,  and the strategy adopted to deal with these is re‑education or  riding roughshod over ordinary people's established habits.

4. Communicating Development

Now, when one comes to conceiving of and communicating  development, a number of things follow from the argument above.  Later in this paper, I will tackle issues around communicating   development. Here, I focus on communication development.

Firstly, it is a major mistake to communicate the correlatives of  development ‑ health, education, etc, ‑ and ignore the question  of productive capacity. There are objectives and achievements in  health and education, and certainly one must deal with these in  their own right. But if they are to be communicated within a  development perspective, then the question is how they relate to  productive capacity, which in the end is how they will be paid  for. So a health scheme is obviously a nice thing to have, nice  even if there are no jobs for the people being kept healthy. But  health should also be located precisely within the context of the  whole: within which the impact of health on the economy is  important, as illustrated for instance by assessing the impact of  Aids not only on sufferers and victims, but on their children and  indeed society as a whole.

Secondly, we need to look at what development activities are communicated. In the news media, what makes news 99% of the time  are the activities of outside agencies, of the development  industry.  Fair enough: these activities need to be reported  upon. But what about the pre‑existing efforts, indeed the same  ones that will likely continue in some form long after the  development agencies and consultants have come and gone, as long  as people remain behind eking out a living in one way or another?  I would suggest that any starting point in development  communications should be here:  that this is the reference point  from which the "invaders" are assessed. It's like reporting  police‑crowd conflicts during the 1980s: it made a difference as  to where you stood, as to who was rendered as active, and who was presented as passive. Whether communicating about development, or  communicating within development, (or a mix of the two), one has  to consciously struggle to avoid slipping into an approach where  the agencies are the subject, and the people are the object.  There is this dimension to reality, but people are active  subjects in their own right, and let no one forget it.

Thirdly, going further, it is all too easy to conceive, and  communicate to, the people as if they were a singular object: an  approach reinforced by the bi‑party model of development  discussed above ‑ the developers and the developees. The term  "community" is the biggest offender here. Classically,  development agencies like to say that they work "hand‑in‑hand"  (in schmaltz or in reality) with these "communities" in bringing  about development. In fact, while a community does have a kind of  effectivity as a total entity greater than the sum of its parts,  the reality is that development happens through individual humans  with all kinds of complications. The assumption is often made  that poor people all uniformly seek development, will welcome it,  and wish to take part in it ‑ that they are empty receptacles  just waiting to be filled with development.

When one investigates, a different picture emerges. Mrs Manini  Booi is too busy with a sick baby to think of anything else; her  nephew is eyeing girls in between tinkering with his bicycle;  neighbour Mr Mbulelo Djantjies is incapacitated with TB, his  daughter is simply lazy and wants the good life without having to  work for any of it, and so on. The last thing they want is a cheery development worker nagging them to get involved in  meetings. On the other hand, one‑time civic activist Jongisizwe  Ngawe sees an opportunity to boost his esteem, perhaps make a bit  of money, feel important. These are some of the people. And the  best communication deals with real concrete people, i.e.  individuals, not committees come to life as subjects with a  single voice and identity. "The committee decided ...., the  committee says it wants ...". Good communicators need to know ‑  and say ‑ who concretely says or does what, and with what claim  to speak or do it.

Fourthly, there is of course also the matter of the purpose of  one's development communication: is this intended as a  prescriptive, interventionist involvement in development, or at  the other extreme a more distanced chronicling of developments?   And what kinds of in‑between mixes are there? Whichever is chosen  is influenced by the kind of view of development one has. For  example, there is a clear difference between communicating the  developmental activities of an individual or group, and  didactically telling one's audience what to do. There are  mixtures between the two.  This also has a bearing on what gets  communicated. My preference is to emphasise what people are  doing, not simply saying: there is too much reportage (not  followed up) of fancy words spoken, various plans announced and a  range of good intentions in evidence. Another instance involving  the distinction mentioned in this section is whether one is  communicating rural information for urban audiences, and whether  it would be different if one were dealing in rural information for rural audiences, or urban information for the same rural  audiences.

And this brings me to a final point: practising communications  explicitly with developmental objectives in mind can become a  form of development itself. In so doing, we are also dealing in  information that may make a difference to the lives of people who  want to enhance ‑ or change ‑ their personal growth paths. 

However, to properly comprehend the potential ‑ and limits ‑ for  communicating development, through a range of media, we have to  consider some theory.

5. The place of communications in development

Communication can be described as the lifeblood of development.  It is critical for spreading information and experience of both  the macro and micro varieties.  It is vital for formulating individual and group strategies, and for putting particular  issues on the public agenda. Mass communication serves to pool  information resources and to network individuals.  It can  facilitate participation in a broader process, express the views  of thousands, and thereby assist in the empowerment of people.  Communication and media, in 101 forms, are preconditions for  development ‑ as well as a natural addendum to development  initiatives as well. Lastly, communication, and especially the  media, can function as a watchdog, keeping a baleful eye open for  abuse, inefficiencies and corruption in the development process.

Unfortunately, these truisms are typically unrecognised by the  development industry. The industry likes measurable things, and  who can say exactly what communication does or does not achieve,  and why? There almost seems to be the assumption that  communication is either irrelevant or peripheral to the hard  facts of a dam being built. The call is to sponsor bread, houses  and jobs, and not waste money on media: after all you can't eat a  newspaper!. That communication, and the value of media in  communication, is central to all development ‑ at macro policy  levels down to the tiniest project ‑ is often not recognised, nor  budgetted for.

On top of this, the development industry has its own view of what  the priorities are, and even where communications in rare  instances makes the listing, there are often preconceived notions  of what's needed. Your greatest need in development  communications might be for capital in grant or loan form, while  funders will only countenance training. You may need funding for  management training, but anything going may be earmarked for  other kinds of training. 

What should managers in the Development Industry do then? How  much time, attention and money do they put into communications?  Their response should be tailored according to a sophisticated  understanding of the role of communication in development.  Several different positions may be outlined:

5.1. Communications ignored:

Typically, development planners and agencies ‑ especially in South Africa today ‑ all but ignore the role of media and  communication. 

The ANC too, has said little specific about the role of the media  in development. There is, of course, the criticism of the press  sabotaging the RDP. But nothing about what the alternative could  be, or could achieve.

You can make a big case for what the media can do in promoting  development. In this light, far from sabotaging the RDP, exposing  corruption or incompetence can be a positive contribution to  development and the RDP by publicising the whole gravy train  issue. Or is it, can the media actually support the RDP ‑ or  sabotage it ‑ in terms of its real social effects?  Thobile Mhlahlo, the regional Eastern Cape RDP minister, like many  politicians, believes in the power of the press. He is quoted as  saying: "We note with contempt attempts by the media to undermine  and destabilise provincial government through a concerted  campaign of disinformation and lies."  He goes on to say, of the  one incident he refers to, "This is but one example in an overall  attempt to destabilise the provincial government." Is he right,  could the media have this power?

The alleged effect of the media on development is not simply a  political question: it is also a broader theoretical one. People often talk about the media's role as political watchdog, or its  functions as informer, educator and entertainer. But how can we  be sure as to whether the media actually succeeds in achieving  these roles ‑ i.e. concretely affects society in their regard. 

The question remains: is it actually so obvious that  communication is actually central to development? Are the  developmentalists right to ignore it as much as they do? This is  a serious point to examine, because in direct mirror reflection  to the perspective I have just outlined, there also exists its  direct opposite.

5.2. Communication overrated:

It may well be that people like me forget that there is more than  communication that makes the world go around. We can establish  this by asking the basic question: who drives development? You  can get very different answers here, and only one is the media.  Because alongside media, are a host of other players and a host  of extra‑communication factors and strategies. There are ngos,  the quangos, the state and business. There are fieldworkers,  government bureaucrats, volunteers, entrepreneurs. There are "the  people" who are supposed to be developed. All of them busy at  work, all interacting with different things, struggling to  overcome problems associated with underdevelopment, problems  assocated with development, problems even with overdevelopment.  Many simply take their existing communications for granted, or  acting pretty much without major attention to communications, let alone to media.

Into this pool, us communicators have blundered ‑ believing that  we are, for the first time, bringing communication to the masses.  Indeed, as Melkote (1987) says, there has been a tendency  sometimes to think that development problems can be solved by  throwing information at them.

6. Paradigms of development communication

The two extremes noted above: media as powerful in development,  media as powerless in development, have a close link to  particular views of development. Put another way, the different  weightings of the importance of communication in development are  typically closely related to the concept and definition of  development, i.e. to the development paradigm within which one  works. Here we may identify fundamentally a modernisation  approach and a humanist‑liberatory approach. The former has a  been updated with more sophistication being added, culminating in  a kind of Social Marketing communication. Strands from both these  two basic paradigms have also fused to some extent into what is  known as Development Support Communication.

6.1.  Modernisation. 

In the Modernisation view, the assumption was of a Eurocentric,  conveyor belt view of development, which took it that humans were  economically rational, driven by the profit motive. All that was needed was to expose man to the benefits of modern behaviour,  institutions and technology, and he would adopt them. Media could  be a "magic multiplier for development" (Rogers 1976:226). All  that was needed was to get the message to people without it. This  meant a one‑way flow of communication from development agency to  audience, the old subject‑object assumption, and the mass media  was ideal for this. Media would be the leading edge in promoting  the innovation  of a technological idea or device, with fitted in  well with the dominant paradigms focus on technology transfer as  the key to development. (Rogers, 1976:229)

Arch theorist of this view, Wilbur Schramm wrote: "Countries in a  hurry cannot afford the luxury of ... an inert mass. They require  the active and informed cooperation of their village people as  well as their citypeople. Their human resources are  indispensable. Therefore, they are going to have to speed the  flow of information, offer education where it has never been  offered before, teach literacy and technical skills very widely.  This is the only way they can rouse and prepare their populace to  climb the economic mountains. And the only way they can do it and  keep the timetable they have in mind is to make full use of  modern communcation" (cited in Sonaike, 1988:87). One can almost  hear an echo of this today among proponents of the RDP who want  to harness all social resources, including media, for development  and redistribution in South Africa.

This was a grand picture. But it didn't work. And many people in  the 1970s and 1980s lost faith in the powerful role they had previously attributed to media. "Communication and Third World  development: a dead end?" is the title of an article by Sonaike  (1988). Perhaps the only group still clinging to the idea that  media played a role in development were leftist nationalist theorisers who believed that the media had a powerful effect in  thwarting development and in reproducing the conditions of  underdevelopment. Their focus was on the media as agents of  cultural imperialism, dumping individualistic, escapist,  consumerist, anti‑democratic, and pro‑American ideology on the  media consumers of the Third World. In a way, this turned the  modernisers directly on their heads: the modernisers believed  media could deliver development, the left nationalists blamed  media for underdevelopment.

6.2 Modernisation's sophistications. 

Naturally, things were not quite as caricatured as I have  outlined here. Within the behaviouralist stimulus‑response view  of the modernisers, more sophisticated strands emerged. Thus, it  was gradually realised that the role of mass communication in  development was probably more likely to be indirect, and only  contributory, rather than direct and powerful (Rogers, 1976:227).

This came with realisation that media did not equal comunication,  (Quebral, 1985:26), that developmental communication was more  wide‑ranging than mass communication. This led to a focus on  mediated flow. Thus there were theories of two step development  communication flow, which regarded the population as divided between the active and the passive, the opinion‑leaders and the  followers. There was also some critical research which found that  i.e. two‑step and multi‑step flow was not especially effective.  Especially when reinforced by the verbal literacy bias of most  communication about development, this kind of communication tended to stop at the first step, with the result of increasing  the knowledge gap between rich and poor in third world  communities. Thus for eg. primarily wealthy farmers would respond  to developmental information, rather than poorer and more needy.  (Okigbo, 1985:24)

There was also some soul‑searching and research on the  appropriateness or otherwise of pro‑development messages. Media  personnel were not necessarily sensitive to developmental issues.  Thus one writer commented that although the media people involved  bore a media badge, "by their tools are they known" ‑ as  broadcasters, writers, photographers ‑ the medium was not the  message. (Quebral, 1985: 26).

The modernising perspective of media playing a role in  development also came to take into account the role of culture.  It was recognised that culture in the target group, rather than  any myth of a homo economicus human nature, impacted on the  diffusion and adaptation of pro‑development innovations,  individual values and attitude changes.

Thus for instance, there were high hopes originally that  agriculture extension activity could transfer new farming innovations to target communities, but often this failed to  impact successfully. Analysis suggested that peasants were  resistant, that their social‑psychological characteristics, were  obstacles (Melkote 1987:41). The remedy prescribed was simple:  what was needed was cultural re‑orientation achieved through the  media. Getting rid of the non‑capitalist, or anti‑capitalist,  behaviour and attitudes thought to be obstacles to growth.  Thus,  media was to promote secularisation, differentiation of social  roles, and individualistic frames of reference. The idea was that  tradition was obstacle to modernity, and the media could prepare  individuals for change by establishing a climate for  modernisation. (Rogers, 1976c, cited by Melkote 1987:41). It is  precisely this model which the cultural imperialist school fixed  upon and attacked as perpetuating subservience, exploitation,  underdevelopment.

Most likely, the continuation of these characteristics had a great deal to do with factors extraneous to communication.  Certainly, however, it was clear that development was not  resulting from this kind of communication. In part this  disappointment to the modernisers was a consequence of their  narrow concept of media effects, even with its multi‑step flow  and cultural refinements. It assumed that the audience was simply  a passive object, ripe for uncritical reception of messages. Of  course, audiences are much more active and discriminating than  this model could have guessed. Thus it was, for example, that  analysis began to turn up the fact that media use did not  correlate with modernising attitudes. For instance, development communication in some instances succeeding in reaching its target  audience in appropriate form, but did not lead to behavioural  change. As with Western audiences, people's recognition of  rational changes can end there (like die‑hard smokers knowing  their habit is suicidal, but not acting on the logic of this  knowledge). Thus, it was shown, for example, that Third World  people knew the problems associated with having lots of kids, but  still did not practise family planning (Okigbo 1985:23).

In more recent years, a modernisation thrust has reached its apex  of sophistication by adopting advertising and corporate  communications strategies. This entails "social marketing", and  involves selling Knowledge, Attitudes and Practises to  specialised target markets. In some ways, however, this has still  not been as successful as its proponents would have liked.  Basically because the assumption still is that audiences are  there as objects, to be targetted by a media that at the end of  the day is still powerful.

6.3 The humanist counterattack

As Everett Rogers (1976:219) noted, the Modernisation model as a  whole assumed that the main causes of underdevelopment lay within  the underdeveloped nation itself, rather than being external to  it. These views were disrupted by the oil crisis of the 1970s,  where oil‑producing countries suddenly became rich oil‑producing  countries, after the OPEC cartel changed the external factors by  fixing the oil price. Further challenges to modernisation's core assumptions about separate, parallel and similar development  paths, came from the resistance by revolutionary nationalist  movements in the Third World, especially in Latin America. In the  1970s, it it came to be widely believed that not only had  capitalism failed to develop the Third World, that it was an  obstacle to such development.

In its international shape, it exploited Third World economies  and blocked their own industrial progress. Internally, it was  represented by a class of subservient business, a collaborating  Comprador Bourgeoisie, only making money by being party to the  structures and processes of dependency and underdevelopment. In  short: The very economic system which had succeeded in developing  the First World was the major obstacle to developing the Third.  The corollary of all this: Something else needed to be tried. If  you wanted development in the Third World, any development,  socialism was your only answer. And, indeed during that period,  it did appear that socialism was doing wonders in Cuba, China,  and Eastern Europe.

Into this broad picture, the humanist approach to development  arose as a critique of modernisation theory and practice. With  the humanists came particular views of the role of communication  in development. First, the more left‑inclined among them,  rejected the view of communication as a panacea for  underdevelopment. They stressed popular involvement in  development, and self‑reliance as opposed to dependency. In this  light, it was not a lack of communication that was part of the problem, but the existence of real dependent structures.  Development then needed social structural changes, often  requiring revolutionary changes in political power, not primarily  communication about new economic methods and technology. To the  extent there was communication, this was subsumed into its  political function in mobilising people's power against  imperialism, seen as being an absolute pre‑requisite to any  serious developmental activity.

But some strands in the humanist approach still saw a role for  communication and again a very particular one. The humanists, as  we will recall, were concerned with human values, not economic  statistics. The humanists argued for values such as dignity,  justice and freedom to be incorporated into development.
They found that where there was growth, its benefits did not trickle down to the poor (rather there was an exploitative  process of trickle up: the position of the poor had actually  deteriorated). Development, said the humanists in the 1970s, had  to be about meeting basic needs of every person; hence they  stressed the delivery of education, health services, water,  sanitation, and housing. They argued that the rural and urban  poor should be the priority audience for development ‑ and for  development communication.

Where exactly did communication and media fit into this? In the  modernisation view, the more communication and media, the more  the development in the underdeveloped society.  This view sees  development as the flow of modern commercial technology and behaviour into the underdeveloped society. Media in this  modernisation view is seen as opening the way to promote this.  Thus, modernisers urged the spread of literacy and radio  communication in the Third World to reach a level of per capita  penetration equating that of the First World. Elliot and Golding  have pointed out, however, that in this view, the communication  flow was entirely one‑sided: with First World media and media  content directed to Third World audiences.

With the humanists, this approach to communication was anathema.  For them, domination and dependency in inter‑relationships was  the block to development, hence the antidote needed to be on  building the capacity of the weaker side. In more extreme cases,  this projected a radical xenophobia, and economic autarchy as a  strategy, with one unfortunate country, Cambodia, taking this  route, and ending up with what western journalists described as  Year Zero. But in its less extreme form, the emphasis was on  communication as a tool in building self‑reliance as against the  financial, commercial, technological, cultural and psychological  dependencies characterising underdeveloped regions.
This approach tied up with a critique of subject‑object  assumptions in development theory, and where communication was  seen as the way of ensuring participation by previously  objectified, passive and targetted communities. There was  emphasis on the need for horizontal communication, between groups  of people, contrasted with vertical, from upper strata to lower.  This stress on participation entailed a view of the role of  development communication as being to respond to local needs and questions,  rather than top‑down communications.

This concept is but a short step to another humanist principle,  that of introducing communication rights as parallel to basic  human needs, in terms of what development was supposed to be all  about. The idea, it seemed, was that people needed bread, but  also that they did not live by bread alone, but by communication  too. Horizontal communication was a means to development, as well  as an objective of development too. One writer thus declared in  favour of communication that was horizontal, decentralised, and  access orientated ‑ "only the concept of the right to communicate  provides a suitable standard to achieve the goals of development  by means of appropriate communication," he said (Servaes,  1985:2). 

If development communication is seen as horizontal rather than  vertical ‑  within the target community not to it ‑ this fitted  in well with some more humanist traits. First, it pointed people  towards looking at traditional communications and existing  channels, eg. the church. (Butler, 1985:34) Secondly, it entailed a  recognition, at least in part, of the cultures of traditional and  underdeveloped communities. Certainly, it has been belatedly  recognised that the environmental management systems of many  Third World communities were more sustainable than contemporary  Western ones, and that a host of other cultural traits ‑ like the  importance of kinship ‑ play a valuable role in helping  individuals accumulate capital for development, in providing  social security for children and the elderly, at no cost to the state, and so on.

Basically, however, the principle was that reduced dependence  required a higher priority on the preservation of cultural  values, and so communication could play a role in fostering  national pride, and in integrating tradtional and modern systems.  (Rogers 1976:223) There is sometimes a conflict here: recognition  of traditional cultures may mean endorsing or strengthening some  practices that could offend against other humanist concerns: such  as the emancipation of women for instance.

6.4. Comparing the two paradigms

Modernisation views see underdevelopment as an independent and  intrinsic condition, and see communication as a kind of education  bringing the light of the successful experiences into the  backward darkness of poor communities and countries. Humanists  blame underdevelopment on external exploitation and an  insufficient attention to issues like justice, and they thus  stress communication that will help organise people for  participation in overcoming these obstacles. 

There may be some insight in each paradigm. After all,  modernisation insight is right in some instances: for example, a  degree of development could occur if ignorance was wiped out in  underdeveloped communities. Latent surplus, for instance, could  be realised by teaching peasants the benefits of contour  ploughing.  On the other hand, some assumptions about the role of development communication are fatally paternalistic, Eurocentric,  myopic, and out of proportion to reality. But even here, we must  bring another qualification: all that is Eurocentric is not  necessarily bad or inappropriate. The equality of women with men,  for instance, is an assumption sometimes imposed on developees ‑  and one for which one may make a very good case. We must also  realise that in such situations, social marketing techniques ‑  for all their manipulative intent, may be quite justifiable.

On the Humanist side, however, there is also merit. Clearly  horizontal communication is something that developers ignore to  their disadvantage. Likewise, the importance of promoting  democratic values, justice, etc, and the developmental value of  some aspects of traditional cultures. My question is, however,  once again that the humanists risk conflating two distinct  concerns: failing to extricate the issues of productive capacity  from human rights, basic needs and participation.

My fear is that the humanists miss a precise focus on  communication for development, as in the development of  productive capacity. Instead, they concentrate on communication  as participation, as a promoter of democracy. A woolly concept of  development, produces a woolly view of the place of communication  in development. 

7. A different paradigm

An alternative way of interpreting the role of communication in development could be in terms of the framework of articulation.  Drawing on 1970s neo‑Marxist analysis of modes of production, the  emphasis here is on the articulations between, and within, people  in various economic relationships. Such relationships may exist  at different levels: economic, technical, scientific, cultural,  religious, political, ideological and so on. Essentially,  articulation refers to different entities linking up.

Where does communication fit into this? In my view, it fits in  absolutely perfectly. Communication entails the sending and receiving of messages and meanings? Right? Not so: in my view, it  is more, and more complex, than this.  Communication is not a  one‑way flow of messages (cf. McQuail 1975). That would be  information, not communication. Information implies informing  people, a one‑way flow; it is the telling of things ‑ talking to  people, not with them. Communication, thus, entails sending,  receiving and responding (and not necessarily in any linear order: eg. people may receive messages that are not even  intended). In analysing the impact that communications may have  on and in development, we need to be sure to examine sending,  receiving and responding. We need to remember that communication  entails people hearing, and being heard.

Communication then is nothing other than dynamic articulation.  Development communication is not getting the developers' messages  out to the developees, and the process ending there. For a start,  the messages may arrive, and as social marketing tells us,  operate only at the level of knowledge, not attitude or practise. But further, what is also crucial are the messages coming from  the developees ‑ to each other, and to the developers.
 In this conception, there may be imbalances in relationships ‑  but where at least both sides are active subjects rather than one  being the subject and the other the object. There is also an  acknowledgement of a mass of articulations, horizontal and  vertical. Thus, to analyse the place of communication in  articulation, one thus needs to take cognisance of communication  amongst and between developees, as noted, and we should not  forget the importance of communication amongst developers (as in  the workshop for which this paper has been prepared).

It is in regard to this latter point that I would like to address  a few remarks. Developers need to be aware that every person in  their team dealing with the developees is a communicator to one  extent or another. The "footsoldiers" involved in this direct,  unmediated communication are arguably as important in terms of  achieving results as any formal, specialised and/or professional  communications and media campaign around development objectives. 

Effective internal communication among developees empowers all  levels of officials with understanding of the issues. One wonders  at present how much communication there is within development  agency staff about the RDP, etc. It should not be that, as in the  USA, officials have to look to the media to tell them "what their  boss wants, who has power, and 'who's got the action'" (Sigal,  1973:136). For development managers, one of the first priorities  therefore has to be internal communication. It makes no sense to  work on external communication policies and strategies, if the internal is not in order.

And placing the question of development in the centre of all this, the focus is on how communication impacts on productive  capacity, and vice versa.  Some kinds of communication reinforce  some kinds of economic articulation; others may help change that.  Some communication may be initiated by the developers, some by  the developees. The effect may be development on the part of the  developees. It may be development of productive capacity in the  sense of more output of crops; it may even be development in the  sense of more output of communication. And consider this: the  effect may be to enhance the productive capacity to communicate  on the part not only the developees, but also of of the  developers. Which prompts the pleasant observation: who gets  developed most in development? Although they do not realise it,  very often the developers themselves are the real developees, and  the interaction (or articulation) involved makes the putative  developees the real developers.

So much for dynamics: how does communication in all its  directions actually impact on productive capacity? The bad news  is that it is not the case that Development Communication is  omnisciently powerful. The good news is that it is not lacking in  any social significance at all.

Certainly, high hopes that development journalism could change  the world have proved to be hopelessly utopian. Does this mean  that development communication should be abandoned (Okigbo, 1985:24)? 

I don't think so: communication's role may be hit or miss, that  is no reason for not considering what the possible consequences  are of either. 

In this framework, one can talk about the role of communication  in development as Development Support Communication. This refers  to a limited role that communication may play, alongside other  activities, and in an interactive form,  in the articulation of a  range of multi‑faceted relationships. Development Support, in the  sense of planned development activities and initiatives, suggests  that one should plan communication activities as part of a  campaign.

The implications of this perspective are that development  communication is unlikely to achieve anything in isolation of  other social processes and efforts. Secondly, that development  communication is unlikely to achieve anything if it fails to  overcome the subject‑object dichotomy. Thirdly, that development  communication has to be about people in dynamic relationships. To  embark on communicating development with this mindframe will open  a whole new vista of narratives, styles and successes.

7. Communicating development through the mass media
7.1 The media industry

This paper paints development agents as part of an industry, one with its own dynamics and agenda that in turn belie the  philanthropic claims made by, or on behalf of, this institution.  Just as we need to acknowledge and deal with these great  unspokens, so to it is valuable to recognise that the media is ‑  at the end of the day ‑ also a business. For the development  industry to relate to the media industry, it needs to understand  that industry.

The media business, generally speaking, deals with information in  a very special way.  News is a very particular way of  identifying, selecting, arranging and presenting particular  information. It makes one blind to other kinds of information at  the same time as placing a straitjacket around that with which it  does work. On the good side, news is clear, to the point,  factual, concise, interesting. 

On the bad side, it is event‑based ‑ meaning that underlying and  unfolding slower trends are missed by news, and this is vital for  reporting development which is a process. Long‑breaking stories  are difficult to conceive, recognise and to research within the  parameters of news. This is vital, however, for focussing on the  sustainability of development. Another problem is that news is  dead in a day usually, and it is an unfortunate, but strongly  entrenched, custom that current news always sidelines older news  and even precludes decent follow ‑up news.

On the bad side, too, news depends typically on elite newsmakers,  whereas most development communications want to tell about ordinary people as well, to report their real development‑ relevant activities. 

Also on the bad side, news is often negative ‑ whereas one wants  to highlight achievements as well as the problems, failures,  corruption, and so on in development. This negativity is not  because journalists are inherently disagreeable individuals. It  is rather because negative news interests people ‑ and not  surprisingly because it impacts on them severely. Good tidings  are a bonus to people's lives: bad news can mean a setback.
For these reasons, it is more important for the public to hear  about corruption in the school feeding schemes, than when things  are running smoothly. Action is required to halt the  deterioration and to remedy the situation. Negative events are  also characterised typically by that other key ingredient of  news: drama and conflict. These are the part of the language of  (admittedly Western‑style) journalism ‑ a mode of communication  to which the public is accustomed, and which has such an  important place in a democracy. From the point of view of the  press, people in development need to understand and accept these  characteristics.

A further point from the press gallery would be that when  complaining of negative press coverage, development communicators  need to be clear on the distinction between criticism by the  press itself, and reportage of public criticisms. To blur the two  is to begin to blame the messenger for the message, and to embark  on a strategy in which the logic is to deal with the manifest symptom, while ignoring the more profound causes.

In addition, a further necessary distinction is between the  press's responsibility for what is carried, and the part played  by the source of that content. If the RDP sends contradictory  signals by saying on the one hand that it is not a pot of gold,  and on the other presents the President's projects which suggest  there is money to dish out, the press cannot be blamed for public  confusion. 

Finally, to the extent that the press sees itself as a watchdog,  seeking out bad news rather than good, it is important to  acknowledge where this comes from. It arises, of course, out of  an historical, and very widespread, liberal ideology of the press  combined with the special circumstances of fighting the extreme  authoritarianism of the apartheid state institutions.  We should  welcome this as being of benefit to our new democracy, and indeed  of being in the interests of clean governance and good  development.

Many people in politics and development have great frustrations  with the media, and these have increased in proportion to growing  frustrations with the slow pace of transformation in society and  the implementation of the Reconstruction and Development  Programme.

The complaints about the mass media thend to be of ommission and  commission. There is the claim that development is ignored, underplayed or inadequately reported. There appears to be some  substance in this. Why is it so? Even apart from staff shortages  in the mass media, existing staffs are very poorly trained.  Compounding this problem are the demographics of much South  African journalism (and indeed professional life in general).  Most media owners are still disproportionately white, most  journalists are still disproportionately white, most experts  cited in the media are still disproportionately white. Little  wonder that there is a lack of media sensitivity to different  life concerns and experiences in much of the media ‑ in contrast  to the situation in the political and developmental world. There  is escalating change in this unfortunate situation, although not  fast enough for many.

The media then is undeniably vulnerable to criticism of the  quality of its coverage. In the light of this, of the problems of  having one section of the community trying to report on concerns  alien to their experience, not to mention vast array of extremely  complicated and specialist kinds of information, a question  arises. Could not development experts themselves, then, do a  better job than the journos? Perhaps so. Yet it is also precisely  the value of the journalist as an experienced communicator that  needs to be fostered, rather than bypassed.
Although officials prefer to see stories in the press on their  own terms, there is value in their handing over control to  journalists. "It is the responsibility of the reporter ... to  translate the activities of the agency into pertinent information  for the reader." (Hage et al, 1983:187). The example is given of reporters having to translate terms like "comprehensive  modalities of treatment" into simple English like "a range of  methods" in a story on health issues (Hage et al, 1983:188).

So, the message is: don't bypass the media ‑ supplement it by all  means, but use it as well. Remember that some of the blame for  poor press coverage must also be laid at the door of government  as well. Inefficient and slow press liaison, like unstructured  rambling press conferences, press statements issued on Friday  afternoons, poor access to the actors involved are all areas  about which journalists could talk a lot.

How to have better media liaison then? The major point to  recognise is that the media industry is an industry ‑ and one in  the business of producing and selling certain kinds of  commodities. Some of these commodities have scarcity value, and  exclusivity: a good media liaison side to development will  recognise this and exploit it. "Stop shouting at the news media  and start whispering to increase the newsworthiness of that which  is to be conveyed." (De Wet, 1988:89).

An example of astute media manipulation is recorded by Gaber (1994:78/9) who describes the case of a major speech by a party  leader: "Several days beforehand judicious leaks from 'sources  close to the leader' (not infrequently the leader himself) will  start to spin ‑ 'watch for the vision thing' or 'he'll be  stamping his authority on the Party' are two well‑known refrains.   On the day before the speech his press secretary will brief the media officially about the text, and sub‑text, of the speech;  after the official briefing new lines will emerge in one‑to‑one  conversations. After the speech, which the journalists would have  been following with the aid of an advance copy, but before they  will have had time to consider and reflect upon it, they will  have received yet another briefing, either from the leader or his  aides, at which the spin will have been re‑spun, the nuances re‑ nuanced, and the whole message re‑packaged." The same example  could easily be applied to the launch of any major development  project.

It would be simplistic to work on the assumption that the press  is solely in a watchdog role, only looking for corruption  scandals and improper conduct. There is also, at least, the role  of performance monitor ‑ where the verdict is not necessarily  negative, and the role of service provider where simply useful  information is supplied (Hage et al, 1983:185). 

The development industry could do well to ask how much reactive  and how much proactive media liaison it gets involved in. Are its  officials doing the kind of sustained press outreach and liaison  required to provide their news to increasingly overstretched (and  undertrained) journalists?  The potential for success is much  higher than they might think.

Part of media liaison must include a policy definition about the  level at which information can be released. Usually holding briefings or issuing statements is the prerogative of senior officials or public information officers. But lesser people  banned from speaking to the press may resort to anonymous leaks,  notwithstanding all manner of controls and surveillance  mechanisms (Segal 1973:144/5) ‑ not to mention the developees  themselves getting in on the act.

A policy where each individual may speak to the media (provided  he or she takes responsibility for what is said), seems  preferable. Such a policy is strengthened when effective internal  communication with government and state empowers all levels of  officials with understanding of the issues.

To the extent that the development industry hopes to utilise the  mass media, it needs to exploit the strengths and dodge the weaknesses of the system.

To use the media effectively requires training relevant  specialist officials. And this is not just training in efficient  operational skills, but in understanding the nature of news and  deadlines, and the social value of an independent press even when  the relationship is an adversarial one. That means understanding  that the media are not free agents, but industrial and business  institutions limited by things like their need to be topical,  news values which include impact and drama, dependence on events  rather than processes. And it means acknowledging the distinct  social functions between development agents and the mass media.

7.2 Other than mass media ‑ and internal communication. 

What is clear, however, is that the development industry should  not confine itself to an understanding of media as being only the  mass media, or indeed being only media as traditionally defined.  Adapting from film theorist, Christian Metz (1982), media can be  characterised as those things that deal in vehicles and codes of  communication. A vehicle may be a newspaper, and the codes are  photographic, verbal, layout‑design, shape, weight, colour, etc.  But a vehicle may also be voice, and the code may be speech (and  specifically a given language), or song and laughter, sobs,  tenor, and so on. The vehicle may even be the body, the codes  being body language: it can be clothing, and the codes of fashion  and status.

So communicating messages occurs through much more than what is  traditionally understood as the media. There is, in all this, a  huge potential to have contradictory messages ‑ eg. speech saying  one thing, and body language another; the radio story saying  something and the developer's representative saying something  else. But, if one is aware of the range, it is also possible to  plan for complimentary messages and media.

List of references:

Berger, G. 1992. Social Structure and Rural Economic Development.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Butler, P. 1985. Asking the right questions about the  communication elements in projects, in Media Development, , vol  XXXII no 4. 

De Wet, J C. 1988. The Art of Persuasive Communication. Kenwyn:  Juta.

Gaber, I. 1994. More spinned against than spinning? British  Journalism Review. vol 5, no 4.

Hage, G S; Dennis, E E: Ismach, A H; and Hartgen, S. 1983. New  Strategies for Public Affairs Reporting. Investigation,  Interpretation and Research. (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice  Hall.

Lerner, D and Schramm, W (eds) 1976. Communication and change in  the developing countries: ten years after. Honolulu: East‑West  Center.

McQuail, D. 1975. Communication. London: Longman.

Melkote, S. 1986. What hope for the future of development  communication?,  Media Development, Vol XXXII, no 2.

Metz, C. 1982. Psychoanalysis and the Cinema: the imaginery  signifier. London: Macmillan.

Okigbo, C. 1985. Is development communication a dead issue? Media  Development vol XXXII, no 4. 

Quebral, N C. 1985. Media habits of rural and semi‑rural (slum)  Kenya. Gazette, vol. 36.

Rogers, E. 1976. Communication and development: the passing of  the dominant paradigm. Communication Research, vol 3 no 2.

Sigal, L V. 1973. Reporters and Officials. The Organization and  Politics of Newsmaking. Lexington: DC Heath and Company.

Servaes, J. 1986. Communication and development paradigms, an  overview, in Media Asia, vol 13 no 3.

Sonaike, SA 1988. Communication and Third World development: a  dead end?  Gazette, vol 41.

Williams, G. 1981. The World Bank and the peasant problem, in  Heyer et al (eds), Rural Development in Tropical Africa. London:  Macmillan.