Soul Beat Africa
African development action with informed and engaged societies
Soul Beat Africa
After nearly 28 years, The Communication Initiative (The CI) Global is entering a new chapter. Following a period of transition, the global website has been transferred to the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in South Africa, where it will be administered by the Social and Behaviour Change Communication Division. Wits' commitment to social change and justice makes it a trusted steward for The CI's legacy and future.
 
Co-founder Victoria Martin is pleased to see this work continue under Wits' leadership. Victoria knows that co-founder Warren Feek (1953–2024) would have felt deep pride in The CI Global's Africa-led direction.
 
We honour the team and partners who sustained The CI for decades. Meanwhile, La Iniciativa de Comunicación (CILA) continues independently at cila.comminitcila.com and is linked with The CI Global site.
Time to read
3 minutes
Print
a- a+
Read so far

Social Change - Progress?

4 comments

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:

  1. Away from people as the objects for change...and on to people and communities as the agents of their own change;
  2. Away from designing, testing, and delivering messages...and on to supporting dialogue and debate on the key issues of concern;
  3. Away from the conveying of information from technical experts...and on to sensitively placing that information into the dialogue and debate
  4. Away from a focus on individual behaviours...and on to social norms, policies, culture, and a supportive environment; and
  5. 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

User Image
Submitted by isomlai (not verified) on Tue, 12/06/2016 - 14:47 Permalink

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.

User Image
Submitted by Satyajit Sarkar (not verified) on Wed, 12/07/2016 - 03:51 Permalink

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.

Submitted by Anele Mvelase on Thu, 12/08/2016 - 22:34 Permalink

Comment on: Social Change - Progress?

The principles speak to the Frerian ideologes which should be the basis for communication as rightfully pointed out by Sarkar. There is need to revisit the location of the people (communities) in the development process in relation to communication for example here in Zimbabwe where they (people) have been relegated to the peripheries. Cvil society need to be redefined!