DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION THEORY, PLANNING AND PRACTISE,REFLECTIONS WEEK 2,
The role of mass media in social change without a doubt is huge. It is certainly the one medium that can reach masses all at the same time and influence tremendous changes in any society. For example social media can focus attention and bring issues that were once unknown to light, it can confer status, it can broaden ones horizon. However according to Wilber Schram, there is not much evidence to show that social media has such a major impcat in changing attitude and believe systems.
This is true to some extent. A case for example like Turkana or Samburu in Kenya, or any of the cultures where practices of FGM are still practised, one cannot say that changes in these societies can be transferred through the media. Though yes to some extend it could, but it goes deeper.
According to an excerpt from What mass Communication can do, Wilber mentions that their are deeper connections that would either facilitate the process of change or lack of it. And especially in Africa where society or community is greater than an individual.
As he mentions the issue of culture and groups, whereby individual would not want to be separated from the rest of the group through defiance or disobedience of agreed practise. Even in some cultures people are identified for spouses and they comply without defiance. That is how strong culture influence individual choices.
This really makes media to some extent not a whole some way to infer changes in a society, though in most cases it still has. According to Ramiro, people acted based on their already existing understanding. This means some form of consciousness. The problem with Mass media, is it often takes a vertical, anti- dialogue approach. Where by it assumes a stand and tells it to the people.
In his work Frere states that quite often people are not exclusively ignorant, it is not possible to be, only that people had different understanding of their world. Sometimes critical, sometimes Naive, and other times magical where by the individual assumes the position of no power. Because of this, he suggests that it is only through dialogues that the above can be changed.
Dialogue made it possible for the other person to be ahead and create their own understanding, and thus act accordingly. True as mentioned by Wilber, the individual or the community would need to see the importance of change in order to change behaviour so as to achieve different result.
This approach of dialogue is certainly the best. It allows discussions to be done to create more understanding and allows the target community to create their own changes. By critical consciousness, they are able to create their own possibilities and understand the power in their hands to influence changes.
Though, how else can dialogue take place in the whole mass population other than through media? Sometimes it still does remain the only tool to reach masses faster. However, one must admit, not most populations have access to this form of media. Which means, it eliminates a section of the population.
In his article Communication: Forgotten tool for national development, Ramiro states the situation in Africa, as one with poor communication and with limited ways for the government to communicate change messages. This must have been the case at that time, however now, there are more and more avenues daily to communicate. Though the question as to whether these tools are used to influence change can be doubted.
For example the local stations, many would have content such as music videos, soap operas and movies most day. Naturally very few stations will have programs that include development. Thus, perhaps it would require the government to sponsor many such initiatives.
Though without a doubt media has transformed the world and even communities faster, though over longer periods of time, the effect of community work and dialogues certainly cannot be disputed in changes in attitude. Meaning both tools should go hand in hand for any social changes to occur.
This is true to some extent. A case for example like Turkana or Samburu in Kenya, or any of the cultures where practices of FGM are still practised, one cannot say that changes in these societies can be transferred through the media. Though yes to some extend it could, but it goes deeper.
According to an excerpt from What mass Communication can do, Wilber mentions that their are deeper connections that would either facilitate the process of change or lack of it. And especially in Africa where society or community is greater than an individual.
As he mentions the issue of culture and groups, whereby individual would not want to be separated from the rest of the group through defiance or disobedience of agreed practise. Even in some cultures people are identified for spouses and they comply without defiance. That is how strong culture influence individual choices.
This really makes media to some extent not a whole some way to infer changes in a society, though in most cases it still has. According to Ramiro, people acted based on their already existing understanding. This means some form of consciousness. The problem with Mass media, is it often takes a vertical, anti- dialogue approach. Where by it assumes a stand and tells it to the people.
In his work Frere states that quite often people are not exclusively ignorant, it is not possible to be, only that people had different understanding of their world. Sometimes critical, sometimes Naive, and other times magical where by the individual assumes the position of no power. Because of this, he suggests that it is only through dialogues that the above can be changed.
Dialogue made it possible for the other person to be ahead and create their own understanding, and thus act accordingly. True as mentioned by Wilber, the individual or the community would need to see the importance of change in order to change behaviour so as to achieve different result.
This approach of dialogue is certainly the best. It allows discussions to be done to create more understanding and allows the target community to create their own changes. By critical consciousness, they are able to create their own possibilities and understand the power in their hands to influence changes.
Though, how else can dialogue take place in the whole mass population other than through media? Sometimes it still does remain the only tool to reach masses faster. However, one must admit, not most populations have access to this form of media. Which means, it eliminates a section of the population.
In his article Communication: Forgotten tool for national development, Ramiro states the situation in Africa, as one with poor communication and with limited ways for the government to communicate change messages. This must have been the case at that time, however now, there are more and more avenues daily to communicate. Though the question as to whether these tools are used to influence change can be doubted.
For example the local stations, many would have content such as music videos, soap operas and movies most day. Naturally very few stations will have programs that include development. Thus, perhaps it would require the government to sponsor many such initiatives.
Though without a doubt media has transformed the world and even communities faster, though over longer periods of time, the effect of community work and dialogues certainly cannot be disputed in changes in attitude. Meaning both tools should go hand in hand for any social changes to occur.
Comments
Post a Comment