Social Change - Progress?
Not so long ago the phrase "social change" and associated language such as "social norms" were rarely heard in the local, national and international Development lexicon. It is now 17 years since a Rockefeller Foundation convened group of development practitioners, researchers, policy makers and funders outlined the way forward for more effective development based on social change principles. Below is a reminder of what was developed. Lebo Ramafoko, Executive Director of Soul City, recalled these in her speech to the SBCC Conference: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Reflections on 20 years of proving what we do matters. There were strong elements of these principles in Kumi Naidoo, Director Africans Rising' address to the same event: The Role of Communications in a World in Crisis.
Please review below. These are the original principles for a social change approach as developed all those years ago in the Rockefeller convened process. Two questions for your response:
1. Social change is now very common in the Development lexicon - but how do you assess what is now classified as "social change" strategies and action when held up to the principles below?
2. Almost 20 years on from when these were developed, how would you amend or change the principles below?
Thanks for engaging:
FROM THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION CONVENED PROCESS - 1998-2001
MOVE DEVELOPMENT:
- Away from people as the objects for change...and on to people and communities as the agents of their own change;
- Away from designing, testing, and delivering messages...and on to supporting dialogue and debate on the key issues of concern;
- Away from the conveying of information from technical experts...and on to sensitively placing that information into the dialogue and debate
- Away from a focus on individual behaviours...and on to social norms, policies, culture, and a supportive environment; and
- Away from persuading people to do something...and on to negotiating the best way forward in a partnership process.
How are we doing? Related to these principles what needs improvement? Nearly 20 years on how would you change the principles above?
Comments
Social Change - Progress?
Ivan G. Somlai comments on Social Change - Progress?
It would be very difficult to disagree with any of the principles per se. Perplexities and conundrums, however, arise when semantics enter the fray and interpretations of simple terms vary from culture to culture. Differences arise not only from definitions by individuals from their respective personal understanding of meaning, but also from one’s metacontext, i.e. the influence of their respective socio-cultural and political economic environments. To understand this simply, just reflect upon the number of lawyers and consultants in any country occupied with resolving intractable conflicts because of misinterpretation within one’s own culture and identical or similar language—let alone related to interactions with another culture abroad!
If the above seems rational, I then suggest that the parameters of permitted and acceptable “dialogue and debate” vary amongst different societies, whether openly encouraged or not. I have partaken in such discussions in North Korea, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Nicaragua, Mongolia and elsewhere, with sometimes subtle other times quite discrete differences in the process and its effectiveness vis à vis ability to express and to counter opinions.
This, then, leads me to emphasize that the process we engage is as—if not more—important as the actual change striven for. “Process” inherently requires deeper understanding of, and empathy with local customary communication and decision-making modalities. Accepting this requires considerably more upfront interaction and synchronicity with local culture than most project timeframes allow for; consequentially, projects plod along, many artificially propped up to reflect a successful end, and then quietly collapsing. Assiduous upfront effort inevitably results in otherwise unsustainable social change.
One sentence angst. Quo vadis communication?
Satyajit Sarkar comments on: Social Change - Progress?
Wandering and meandering through the haze and the occassional "shock and awe" of communication interventions and debates for over many decades, the single personal conclusion I have come to, is that sole purpose of any communication should be the Freirian concept of "conscientization"; the rest, quite frankly, is all rubbish and a waste of time and resources.
Structural change such as gender power relations
Comment on: Social Change - Progress?
Soul City Institute’s position on international body for social change and development communication.
SCI has been in the social change arena for 20 years and although the field has moved through the health education, behavior change, social change continuum it seems in the past few years to have moved backwards to “demand creation”. This has spurred on by a renewed focus on biomedical interventions and a move away from structural and developmental interventions. Social and behavior change organisations have been reduced to instruments that create demand for biomedical interventions. There is no acknowledgement that development is a process and needs structural change such as change in gender power relations, (tackling the issues that keep women disempowered) , social justice and policies such as alcohol policy and access to services.
At the same time there has been an influx of international agencies and NGO’s into Southern Africa and elbowing out locally based interventions. “Evidence based” interventions is used as an excuse not to support locally grown interventions when funding to build the evidence of locally based interventions is shrinking.
SCI would welcome an international body which addresses these issues and collects the gaps in the evidence that show the difference the structural interventions can make. The encouragement of locally implemented and long term strategies with long term funded studies to produce the evidence is a key issue to be address.
Soul City Institute for Social Justice
Thanks
tnx Sue
Sincerely, Philipos Petros (Lecturer in Management Studies, Policy, & Health Services ),
Social Change Progress?
Sue, I read this comment from you several months ago, while doing some interview work on civil society space. Unfortunately Southern Africa was not part of the 'selection', but your observations have continued to churn in my thinking.
Having worked for SAfAIDS in the mid-90s I too witnessed the influx of Northern NGOs, often intermediary organisations that were keen to establish themselves and the elbowing out happens at individual level by offering 'greener pastures' to people and through silent hierarchy of knowledge (aka we in the North or West know better, because we have the evidence, even though the context is vastly different....
Unfortunately the current discussion on shrinking civil society space is too generic to take in the line you proposed, but until we get our 'heads' around these dynamics I am not sure we will make much progress. see this link for a more thorough analysis of intermediary organisations or on the use of feedback, ground truths approach and work would need to be transferred to the Health setting, but I suspect it could be insightful.
Regards, Russell Kerkhoven
- Inicie sesión para enviar comentarios