In this last week’s readings I found Mohan Dutta’s, “Theoretical Approaches to Entertainment Education Campaigns: A Subaltern Critique”, the most interesting. He explains how the entertainment education (E-E) programs ideally contribute to the social change in developing countries by directing it in a way. Entertainment education is when educational content is incorporated to entertainment programs through radio, television, records, video and theatre. Dutta mentions that many E-E campaigns have been used for healthcare purposes, to promote family planning, HIV/AIDS prevention and control, and gender equity.
Dutta’s main point is that these programs are not successful because they are not implemented to help the marginalized population of developing countries, in the end they contribute to maintaining the status quo and the power of the elites. For example, agencies like the USAID that has funded many E-E programs, have ulterior motives in doing so and do not have a clear transparent reason to actually help these countries. The way these programs are developed and implemented it only reaches the elite population of underdeveloped countries and not the people that actually have the need. This is why Dutta proposes a subaltern view to E-E programs, for as to let the grassroots population have an active participation and say in the programs that should be implemented and what needs it should fulfill.
Most of the current entertainment education campaigns do not meet the needs and basic necessities needed by the marginalized populations, the agencies who fund the programs just have their own goal in mind. This situation is sad, because they are not helping the development of these countries. The peripheral countries continue to be in the periphery while the core countries continue to exert their control.
Nikole,
ReplyDeleteI, too, agree that if what Dutta articulates about the effectiveness of entertainment education campaigns is true, that the mere thought is depressing. I certainly believe that Westerners have good intentions for helping people in other countries, however, the way in which they go about creating social change should incorporate the subaltern voice to ensure effective change. Basically, to take a hint from Levinson's class, for these kinds of programs to work, there needs to be less multiplexity and greater horizontal communication between the creators and the watchers.
While I agree that programs could be more successful, I wonder how USAID (or any agency for that matter) can come out from under a web of bureaucracy to be more effective. Also, I agree that for E-E campaigns to be more effective it needs to start at the grassroots level. But, how is a marginalized population with dwindling resources going to have the ability (or the education) necessary to start such a program?
ReplyDeleteIt seems, like all things regarding politics and money, a twisted cycle.
I felt torn about this article. Dutta seemed to paint the USAID and similar agencies in an extremely negative light - implying that by attempting to promote such issues as population control they were secretly trying to maintain power over other countries. Of course we have different approaches to family and culture, and yes we need more transparency to clarify these goals, but I have to believe that (for the most part), the intent of these organizations is positive. As Leanne mentioned, these are topics that marginalized populations may not be equipped to initiate on their own.
ReplyDelete