Media as a tool for development

Media as a tool for development

Introduction.

Using the media to influence public opinion and gain greater control is not a new idea, governments and various political movements have been doing this successfully for years (Carroll & Ratner: 1999). In certain cases, there have even been those that use media to influence the way a country is run by boosting public awareness (Page:1996). This is where ethnic minorities come in, with skilful use of these available resources, it is possible to not only boost the public’s awareness but also influence their opinion (Ginsburg: 1995; Herman&Chomsky: 1987; Page: 1996).

Discussion.

This new sounding board offers a unique opportunity for minorities to get their point across, but it inevitably comes at a price (Ginsburg: 1995; Banner: 1996). So far, the rewards have been enough to justify possible pitfalls, but constant revaluation will be needed to make sure that this stays true (Rogers: 1996; Ginsburg: 1995). Culture is by no means a bounded entity; interaction will lead to a certain degree of assimilation in both directions (Ginsburg: 1995; Banner: 1996). This is inevitable and even though this is mostly positive, it can also lead to minority cultures losing a certain degree of distinction from the majority (Eriksen: 2001). When your influence rests largely on your ethnic identity, it becomes clear how such a loss will be detrimental to your bargaining ability (Ginsburg: 1995).

However just like all that glitters is not gold, not all interaction leads to a loss of identity in fact some even argue that this leads to an increased distinction (Eriksen; 2001). Thus far, successful use of media has been an invaluable tool to cross cultural boundaries (Ginsburg: 1995; Wright: 1998). When ‘indigenous people’ have become a minority in their own country media provides a ‘soap box’ for these cultures, where their voice can still be heard in the rabble (Rogers: 1996; Ginsburg: 1995). Sadly, such productions have been relatively poorly funded, but even so, it is an effective way to resist domination from outside cultures (Wright: 1995). In this paper, Ginsburg focuses mainly on the Aboriginal people from Australia, but as can be seen from Wright; Chomsky; Banner and Rogers this is certainly not a unique occurrence. Ginsburg also mentions the importance of viewing these phenomena within their particular social and political context and this provides a more holistic view of these interactions.

Such a view addresses not only the occurrence of interactions, but also the mediations that take place between cultures due to these works. By offering a little more insight into their culture, minorities create empathy with their demands by humanising their ‘otherness’ in such a way that they become more real. Initial attempts at such mediation were hampered by an inability to effectively incorporate ‘natives’ own social frame into film representations (Ginsburg: 1995). This lack of insight as well as adaptation on the part of the natives meant that as time passed they wanted to take an active part instead of just being filmed and portrayed the way the producers saw them (Wright: 1998; Ginsburg: 1995). Being actively involved meant not only greater control, but also the opportunity to determine and produce their image (Wright: 1998; Ginsburg: 1995; Rogers: 1996; Page: 1996).

Conclusion.

The use of various means of mass communication by minority cultures enables them to spread awareness, but also gives them greater control over policies that concern them (Ginsburg: 1995; Wright: 1998; Page: 1996; Carrol&Ratner: 1999). By acting collectively, minorities reserve the right for self-determination and offer better resistance to domination imposed by majority cultures (Wright: 1998; Rogers: 1996). Thus ensuring greater control over their own welfare (Eriksen: 2001; Ginsburg: 1995; Wright: 1998)


References

Banner, S. 1996 ‘Written Law and Unwritten Norms in Colonial St.Louis’ in Law and History Review, Vol.14, No.1, pp.33-80

Carroll, W.K. & Ratner, R.S. 1999 ‘Media Strategies and Political Projects: A Comparative Study of Social Movements’ in Canadian Journal of Sociology, Vol.24, No.1, pp.1-34

Eriksen, T.H. 2001 ‘The Politics of Identity: Nationalism and Minorities’ in Small Places, Large Issues: An introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology pp.275-291

Ginsburg, F. ‘Mediating Culture: Indigenous Media, Ethnographic Film, and the Production of Identity’ in L. Devereaux & R. Hillman (eds) Fields of Vision: Essays in Film Studies, Visual Anthropology, and Photography, Berkley: University of California Press

Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. 1987 ‘A Propaganda Model’ in Manufacturing Consent New York: Pantheon

Page, B.I. 1996 ‘The Mass Media as Political Actors’ in PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol.29, No.1, pp.20-24

Rogers, E.M. 1996 ‘Bright Spots in Communication for Development’ presented at the Conference on Communication and Empowerment: Uses of Media and Information Technologies in Developing Countries, Los Angeles, April 11-13, 1996 website: http://www.usc.edu/dept/ancntr/pdcomm/roger.html accessed 16 Sep 2006

Wright, S. 1998 ‘The Politicization of Culture’ in Anthropology Today, Vol.14, No.1, pp.7-15