Video for Empowerment and Social Change - CiteSeerX

ten

local issues

Video for Empowerment and Social Change A Case Study with Rural Women in Fiji

Usha Sundar Harris

T

his chapter discusses the role of community-based media, such as participatory video (PV), towards building cohesive communities based on an ethnographic case study with rural women in Fiji. Employing participatory action research, the author facilitated a video workshop to train women in the use of video technology and to observe how communities engage with processes of production for empowerment, and the implications for dialogue, community building and representation within the context of Fiji’s fragmented multicultural society. As such, the study locates participatory video (PV) within concepts of empowerment and transformation drawing on local knowledge, norms and practices. The findings are discussed within the larger theoretical framework of social capital and the concept of “Citizens’ media” as a “lived experience” for alternative media producers (Rodriguez, 2001). Social capital, participation and empowerment are interlinked in projects of community building and social cohesion. According to the World Bank (2004), “social capital refers to the norms and networks that enable collective action”. By recodifying the established norms and networks, producers create new opportunities for dialogue and revitalise traditional relationships within and between communities. When communities actively participate in communicative processes, they learn to engage with each other, thus improving their understanding of the other and the underlying concerns which drive their action. Thus the process of production becomes a dynamic site for community building and reconciliation. The chapter begins with a review of PV’s role in community development over three decades in different parts of the world, provides an overview of the research context including community media development in Fiji, and concludes with a discussion of the video workshop in which about 20 women participated to produce video stories featuring their communities and most significantly their own work in small income generation schemes which enabled them to supplement their family income. 186

local issues • Video for Empowerment and Social Change

Video for social change

Since the invention of portable video cameras in 1975, there has been a steady growth in the use of video as a tool for social change. Participatory video projects around the world have put video technology in the hands of the most marginalised in society for self-representation and social reform. In the area of communication for development, video has been used for empowerment by non-government organisations, development workers and indeed communities themselves to foster dialogue and to instigate change. From the Kayapo Indians in the Amazonian rainforest (Turner, 2002) to the Australian Aborigines in the Northern Territory (Michaels, 1986; Buchtmann, 2000) or from the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) [1] in India (Stuart, 1989) to the incredible success of video distribution websites such as YouTube, “video power” is now well recognised. Participatory video projects have allowed marginalised groups “to assert their own political agency and cultural values” (Turner, 2002: 230). Video has given voice to non-literate indigenous communities by bridging “the oral with the technical”, thus allowing their voices to be heard in global forums (Guidi, 2003: 253). Shirley White recognises the deeper implications of video as a catalyst for change when she states: Participatory video as a process is a tool for individual, group and community development. It can serve as a powerful force for people to see themselves in relation to the community and become conscientized about personal and community needs. It brings about a critical awareness that forms the foundation for creativity and communication. Thus it has the potential to bring about personal, social, political and cultural change. That’s what video power is all about (2003: 64).

Video can also be used for starting dialogue between communities which have experienced a history of conflict, thus assisting in reconciliation (Rodriguez, 2000). It is this potential of video as a tool for dialogue and community building that may prove beneficial in post-conflict Pacific societies which have faced internal strife. PV has not been used to any great extent by NGOs or community groups in the Pacific region. FemLINK Pacific, a women’s media NGO based in Fiji, has been an exception here. Since its inception in September 2000 it has used various forms of media—print, video and radio—to initiate grassroots participation of women. Although it does not produce PV projects in the true sense of the term where participants make their own videos, FemLINK producers actively incorporate the participants’ ideas and reflect their views in the production process. Sharon Bhagwan Rolls explains their work: Our strategy was to use the community videos as a way to bring women together…the idea was to distribute the videos to women since most women can access a video deck. It was also an opportunity to bring them together to dialogue on the issues that would be raised by women like themselves (2005, personal communication, 22 April).

In industrialised societies, video has become a powerful weapon in the hands of the citizenry to campaign on local issues and to expose injustices (Harding, 1997). The best example of this occurred in 1992 when an amateur video maker captured 187

South Pacific Islands Communication • chapter ten

police violence on black motorist, Rodney King, and gave it to the television networks for broadcast worldwide (Wintonick and Cizek, 2002). This spontaneous act by an onlooker transformed video use from a benevolent recorder of happy family events into a powerful tool through which individuals could express themselves as active citizens. Online video blog sites proliferate as more people gain access to low-cost digital cameras, increased Internet capacity and online distribution sites for user-generated content [2]. It must be noted that video has also been enlisted by negative forces in society such as dictators, terrorists and neo-Nazi groups to build up support for their own cause. Terms such as participatory video, community video, alternative video, process video or direct video are interchangeably used by practitioners and scholars when discussing this field. My definition of participatory video draws on discussion of various scholars and practitioners such as Shirley White, Clemencia Rodriguez and Lars Johansson. Theories that inform the discussion of PV are derived from Brazilian educator Paulo Freire’s (1970) critical pedagogy of teaching and learning with impoverished peasants in South America [3], and the theoretical discourse in participatory communication (Servaes et al., 1996; White et al., 1994). Participatory methodology is people-centred, process-oriented and contextualised in a local setting utilising local knowledge. Participation of communities in message-making is essential. It is important to point out that within this concept the process of production (rather than the finished product) is central to the empowerment of individuals. PV practitioners provide a definition which integrates many of the principles above: We define PV as a scriptless video production process, directed by a group of grassroots people, moving forward in iterative cycles of shooting-reviewing. This process aims at creating video narratives that communicate what those who participate in the process really want to communicate, in a way they think is appropriate. This definition emphasises PV as a means for people to reach out and make themselves heard (Johansson et al., 1999: webpage).

Participatory media enable people to produce and distribute content according to their own needs instead of being reliant on professional producers. When a video professional goes into a community and makes a video about issues facing that community, it is not deemed to be a participatory video. If a video maker goes into a community and actively engages people in identifying issues facing their community and trains them in the process of content development and production, it is deemed to be a participatory video. Rodriguez (2001) emphasises the Freirian concept of conscientisation (raising conciousness) and the feminist theory of radical democracy to theorise “citizens’ media” as a process of personal empowerment for the human subject as follows: That is, citizens’ media is a concept that accounts for the processes of empowerment, conscientization, and fragmentation of power that result when men, women, and youth gain access to and re-claim their own media. As they use media to reconstitute their own cultural codes to name the world in their own terms, citizens’ media participants disrupt power relationships, exercise their own agency, and reconstitute their own lives, futures, and cultures (Rodriguez, 2004: 2)

188


Here, tools of communication such as radio and video help individuals to become active and engaged citizens. In a recent study of the community broadcasting sector in Australia, Meadows et al. observed: There is mounting evidence that community media empowers disempowered, disenfranchised and disadvantaged groups in Australian society, enabling representations of their way of life, priorities and agendas… [it] enables citizens, regardless of social demographics, to interrupt the established dominance of mainstream media and society, by inserting their own content, style and cultural perspectives into community public spheres (2007: 13,14).

Various authors have explored the functions and implications of participatory video projects in developing countries and found that PV had been used for numerous purposes around the world with little cross germination of ideas and models (Huber, 1998; Dagron, 2001, Tacchi et al., 2003; White, 2003). Huber indicates that “there is a poor specification of what PV can achieve, what dangers and pitfalls it involves, and for what purposes it has proved appropriate” (1998: 9). This view concurs with White’s assertion that an informed link needs to be developed between theory and the practice of PV (White, 2003). The shortcoming in theory is exacerbated by the fact that most PV projects are short term and facilitated by people who are focused on a community outcome rather than on scholarship. Huber (1998: 19) delineates three types of participatory video approaches which are summarised below. • Therapy Video is used to develop participants’ confidence and self-esteem. By recording their own stories and seeing them played back, participants use video as a mirror to help them understand how they are perceived by others. Thus, options for social change are not directly addressed in therapy-type video projects, although the reflexive experience can be empowering. • Activism Video is used as a tactical tool to bring about social justice and environmental protection. The Rodney King video is seen as a master example of this in the West. However, the Kayapo Indians in Brazil adopted it for political use as early as the 1980s to record their protest against the development of Amazonian rainforest. The video became a channel through which they informed the outside world about their struggle thus “controlling news about their situation” (Ogan, 1989: 4). • Empowerment Empowerment is located somewhere in the middle between “therapy” and “activism”. It integrates the two approaches by using the full potential of both, the people and the development communicator. The boundaries between subject, producer and viewer collapse with this approach. Everybody is involved in the three key activities: filming, performing (being filmed) and watching the film. In addition, the development communicator plays an active role as a facilitator, but is also involved in the communication and learning process. People have a double responsibility: their active engagement is 189


required in the production of the video and also in the distribution of it. If a participatory video project of this kind succeeds, it can be expected that people have been truly empowered.

The Fogo process

The first project where video was used within a participatory approach took place under the aegis of The National Film Board of Canada’s Challenge for Change programme involving Fogo Islanders in Newfoundland. In the late 1960s, community development worker Donald Snowden invited filmmaker Colin Low to make a series of films on poverty involving the isolated fishing communities of Fogo Island. Low shot the footage on video, then showed the raw footage to the participants and invited their feedback throughout the production process allowing for community involvement and empowerment. Thus, the process of consultation and participation began. Snowden and Low produced 28 short films which they described as “vertical” films. Each was 10 minutes in length and consisted of a single interview or event and was representative of the wider community view (Crocker, 2003). The production process created several precedents: • The immediacy of video created a feedback loop • The process of production invited community participation and ownership • The vertical and horizontal dialogue aspects of video connected communities to decision makers and with other communities • The central role of the field worker replaced the producer during the production process The popularity of video cameras subsided after the initial enthusiasm with Umatic portapacks, as the cost of production and especially post-production became untenable when working with remote and under-privileged communities. Study of community media also became unfashionable as community media projects floundered due to lack of funding and the seeming lack of “professionalism” in production and the end products. However, the 1990s saw a revival in the use of video as newer, smaller and cheaper handycams became available. Video has become a favourite medium in the field for many reasons. The digitisation of the technology has led to smaller and lighter models of video cameras which, when used with an external microphone, has given the single video producer an ability to gather high quality images and sound in the field. A handycam, coupled with a laptop and appropriate editing software, offers the possibility of not only shooting, but editing, publishing and distributing in the field [4]. This ease of production has assisted video’s revival as a tool for activism. Video also accords the producers and participants an ability to review their work instantly, which has made it ideal for empowerment and therapy work. There have been innumerable uses of participatory video in projects of empowerment and emancipation around the world. Case studies of best practices have been documented by various authors (WACC, 1989; Riano, 1994; Braden and Huong, 1998; Huber, 1998; Johansson, 1999; Dagron, 2001; Rodriguez, 2001; Turner, 2002; White, 2003). There are also hundreds of PV projects that have gone undocumented. 190


The research context

As a developing nation, Fiji presents a challenge to most forms of media with its multiracial population and recent history of civil strife. Fiji’s social, political and economic foundation has been deeply scarred by four coups in 19 years. It is politically volatile and multi-lingual with widely divergent audiences in terms of culture, age, rural-urban divide, social observance and languages (see Table 1. below). Table 10.1

Fiji – A demographic profile Population

840,000 (2002 est.)

Ethnic groups

51% Fijians 44% Indians 5% Europeans, Rotumans and others.

Women

49%

Median age

23.7 years

Literacy

94% (15 years and over, who can read and write)

Languages

English (official), Fijian and Hindi

Urbanisation

49%

Source: Fiji Islands Statistics Bureau

Unfortunately, the ruling political elite has encouraged a nation of disparate identities through the political process. This has created two levels of discourse in Fiji—the dominant political discourse of identity politics prevalent in urban areas, and the day-to-day relationships based on interdependence and goodwill, especially among rural communities. Unfortunately, mainstream media coverage lends credence to the hegemonic discourses, thus reinforcing the fissures instead of the linkages. Women make up almost half of Fiji’s population and have the highest literacy rate in the Pacific. However, this does not guarantee them equal access to employment or spare them from the many social ills such as domestic violence, discrimination and poverty. Women’s civic participation is assisted by their membership and engagement in social and religious clubs which form a rich web of social networks in both urban and rural areas. The majority of Fijian and Indian women belong to some form of club which meets weekly in their local area. Unfortunately, as is the case in most other social institutions in Fiji, there is very limited intercultural participation and membership is racially polarised. Fijian women generally belong to the Soqosoqo Vakamarama formed in the villages to encourage communal activities such as the making of traditional and contemporary handicraft and fundraising for village or church projects. Indian women generally belong to social clubs known as Mahila Mandal in local settlements. Their activities include the study of scriptures, sewing, folk singing and fundraising for local temples or community halls. Fiji has an active and outspoken group of women’s NGOs. One of the most 191


inspiring acts of unity during the 2000 political crisis came from women activists who organised daily peace vigils despite threats of violence by Speight supporters. An initiative of the National Council of Women, the peace vigil contested the racist discourse by presenting a multi-ethnic face of unity (Sharon Bhagwan Rolls, personal communication, 22 April 2005). Women activists have campaigned for better reporting of issues concerning women in the local media.

Fiji media environment

Fiji enjoys a vibrant media environment. There are three English language dailies, several weekly newspapers in Hindi and Fijian, two business magazines, numerous commercial FM radio stations along with the public stations, one commercial freeto-air television and a pay television service offering 15 Channels including Hindi language programming. Fiji’s media is structured to serve specific language groups who speak Fijian and Hindi and a burgeoning youth market who speak English. Radio is the most popular medium of communication in the islands. Radio provides up-to-date news, weather and community information, as well as lively talk-back programmes on Fijian, Hindi and English language stations. This means that Fijians and Indians engage with their own cultural groups through their narrowly targeted programming content and have very little opportunity to engage in cross-cultural dialogue in the public sphere. As Geraghty (2001) argues, a good place to begin would be to encourage the major races to learn each other’s language instead of communicating through a third language—English. Commercial radio stations broadcasting in English and targeting young urban audiences provide a media space for crossover of ideas. But programme formats are highly Westernised and as such, interaction is on a superficial level encouraging the consumption of global popular culture (Seward, 1999). Television is a relative newcomer to the islands having been introduced in 1995. Fiji’s eminent leader, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, who ruled Fiji as Prime Minister for 30 years, gave TV a low priority in the nation’s development plan. However, through the 1980s, video recorders became surrogate television as pirated video tapes carrying the seasons’ top serials found their way into island homes and on TV screens (Sundar Harris, 1994). The flow of foreign programming could no longer be controlled. In 1991, a temporary TV licence was granted to allow the broadcast of the World Rugby Cup and in 1995 the official nod was given by the Rabuka government to set up Fiji’s first television station. It was granted a 10-year monopoly which was removed in 2001 (Robie, 2004). The Internet has a held a low profile in this communication milieu due to unequal access and limited infrastructure, especially in rural areas, existence of monopolies, and lack of awareness and knowledge of the Internet for development use (ITU, 2005; Sundar Harris, 2006).

Community media development

The Pacific region is just waking up to the potential of community media. It is surprising that growth of the community media sector has been slow given that an 192


earlier proposal to introduce television in Fiji included the concept of community production in 1973. Attempts were also made by the government from mid 1984 to early 1990s to bring development messages and locally produced entertainment to the people using the resources of the Fiji National Video Centre (FNVC), but its success was limited (Molnar and Meadows, 2001). Unfortunately, ideas of community-led productions have remained just that, ideas on paper, while commercial television with mainly Western programming has come to dominate the media landscape in Fiji. Over the past decade there has been a steady growth in community media with the emergence of a number of promising initiatives, but without the necessary legislative support for the sector. Sundar Harris (2007) has reviewed community media development, which is summarised below.

CTV Fiji

The removal of television monopoly to Fiji TV, the only free-to-air service, in 2001 paved the way for the establishment of a community television station in Fiji. CTV was started by a retired expatriate couple, John and Regina Yates, in response to the high percentage of “inappropriate” foreign programming on Fiji One (J. Yates, 2003, personal communication, 18 December). CTV has produced many hours of informational and educational programming with local volunteers. During the 2000 putsch, CTV became an important channel of communication for local people as they called the station’s talk-back programme to express their opinions about the coup. Unfortunately, CTV closed down due to John’s failing health and lack of a strong community presence in the station’s management.

FemLINKPACIFIC

The arrival of femLINKPACIFIC: Media Initiative for Women, an NGO based in Fiji, has led to the production of important community videos. femLINK was born out of the Blue Ribbon Peace Vigil initiative during the 2000 coup. “We found that women’s peace initiatives as well as the women’s voice were very much marginalised out of the mainstream debate on the reconstruction of Fiji,” says femLINK founder and co-ordinator, Sharon Bhagwan Rolls (2005, personal communication 22 April). femLINK has produced a series of videos on a range of topics such as women with disabilities, women’s viewpoint about Fiji’s post-conflict reconstruction and their experiences during the political crisis. These are distributed to women’s groups to provide information and initiate discussion and dialogue as Rolls explains: We weren’t just producing documentaries for broadcast in the mainstream, but our strategy was to then use the community videos as a way to bring women together also. Because women do come together in times of conflict to work for peace, but are never given that opportunity after the height of the conflict, as we have experienced here in Fiji, to then re group and caucus… So it was serving a purpose of not just creating a space for women to talk and discuss issues, but to also continue the bridge building that is so vitally needed given that the politicians continue to play the race cards. (2005, personal communication, 22 April).

femLINK also operates a mobile radio-in-a-suitcase project giving airtime to 193


women with disability and rural dwellers by “visiting the women in their own rural communities and giving them an opportunity just to talk” (ibid.). The broadcast takes place on the last Sunday of every month on femTALK 89.2fm. Rolls discovered that the mainstream radio was not giving these women vital information that could assist them: For women outside of the capital city and the other islands including Vanua Levu the information is all one way. So they don’t see a reflection of themselves in the media nor do they hear themselves because they can’t afford telephone so they can’t participate in talkback sessions. (2005, personal communication, 22 April).

FemLINK’s media production is supported by funding from a range of international aid donors.

Radio Pasifik

The first community radio licence was given to Radio Pasifik (FM88.8), the campus radio for students and staff of the University of the South Pacific. It began broadcasting in 1996. In October 2004, the station went online using audio streaming and expanded its Pacific language programming. The station places a high priority on giving airtime to a cross section of island music. This commitment has helped to increase the popularity of Pacific Island bands and the cross promotion of island music in the region (V. Nadaku, 2005, personal communication, 21 April). In 2006, the station underwent a restructure and was relaunched as Radio Pasifik Triple 8 FM. The station plays an essential role in the training of journalism students and has started joint broadcasts with Radio Australia (News @ USP, 2005). The community media sector continues to grow with radio licences being offered to Christian stations operating in Suva as well as in other centres of Fiji. Unfortunately, local content on these stations is limited as they are largely dependent on taped programming from evangelical preachers in the United States.

The case study: Participatory video with rural women in Navua Project summary

The following section provides an overview of the research and discusses some aspects of the findings. In 2005, I facilitated a participatory video project with rural women in Fiji as an ethnographic case study of the production process and its implications for community building and dialogue within the context of Fiji’s fractured multicultural society. Three themes emerged from the study: 1. How participants’ social networks affect participants’ involvement in the message-making and consequently their ability to represent their lives and aspirations. 2. How the production process encourages dialogue including information and knowledge sharing within and between communities (horizontal) and with policy makers (vertical). 3. How rural women challenge urban hegemonic discourses on race relations, gender and place in their content production. 194


The workshop participants included women between the ages of 20 and 60 years who belonged to the Navua Rural Women Telecentre Group (NRWTG), a multiethnic organisation. NRWTG was established in May 2004 as a pilot scheme by the government’s Information Technology and Communications (ITC) Department with support from the Ministry of Women, Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation. It was part of a larger e-government plan to encourage rural economic development by opening telecentres in regional areas. The objective was to train rural women in the use of the Internet and encourage them to then sell these products via e-mail to customers, mainly civil servants in Suva as described in this report: The women were given basic training in word processing, spreadsheets, and e-mail, so that they could collect and collate orders and send high-impact HTML-format e-mails. To facilitate the finding of customers, the ITC Department provided its own e-mail list of some 4,000 government civil servants working in Suva. The marketing strategy is linked to the Fiji government’s payroll schedule, whereby civil servants are paid every two weeks. The women send e-mails for three days in the week before payday, collect orders, and then drive their van the 50 Km to Suva to make deliveries on payday (Mould, 2006).

Navua was chosen because women in the area had already had “a commercial track record in producing and selling on a local market” (ibid.). As one participant put it, they wanted to sell their products on the Internet “instead of selling them by the roadside” (Video Participant, 2005, personal communication, 3 August). Initially called the E-chutney project because of the emphasis on chutney production, over the course of the year the women had diversified their products to include pillowcases, sasa brooms, dalo chips, root crops and a variety of food products (Das, 2005). After a few successful deliveries the group had lost their Internet connection as a result of an internal dispute. When I approached the women about the workshop and my desire to base my research project within their group, they quickly recognised its benefits to them. The women wanted to use their newly acquired video production skills to create a promotional video to help them market their products to a variety of clients in Fiji such as civil servants, hotels and tour company operators. The study could have been based in any number of communities. However, I chose to work with a group which was ready and enthusiastic for such intervention. In the Telecentre, I found a group which exhibited a readiness to adopt video technology for their own needs and a desire to represent themselves and their work to a specific audience whom they had identified. Within its multiethnic structure NRWTG also offered to me an opportunity to examine the dialogic possibilities of video in building relationships in a culturally diverse setting. Norris states that “rich and dense associational networks facilitate the underlying conditions for interpersonal trust, tolerance and cooperation” (2002: 3). In Fiji, women belong to these networks through membership in clubs which have been strong in the bonding dimension, but weak in forging bridging networks, especially across ethnic lines, which is essential in trust building and social cohesion. The women’s groups in Fiji have generally participated in the bonding (inward looking and exclusive) dimension of social capital in what Putnam describes as “ethnic fraternal 195


organisations” (2000: 22). The clubs are ethno-specific, formed along gender lines, and exclusive to local villages and settlements. With the formation of the NRWTG, membership was extended to cross-cultural groups bringing these exclusively local and ethnic groups together, thus creating a bridging dimension by inviting women from diverse backgrounds. The women met at a central location for their activities and established closer bonds with their colleagues. This expanded network became a fertile ground for the exchange of new skills and cross-cultural knowledge between individual members, thus contributing to capacity building and enriching the whole community.

Methodology

The methodology included participatory action research for the video workshop to invite active involvement of the subjects and ethnography for data collection. A variety of ethnographic methods was used, including visual ethnography in the form of video documentation to record the production process, participant observation, and informal interviews with participants at different stages of the production. Indepth interviews were conducted with social workers and policy makers. This was supplemented by further observation and a self-reflective journal, which I kept on a daily basis. As the workshop facilitator and researcher, I had to be constantly aware of how I was impacting on the group. Thus, introspection and self-reflection were important aspects of my involvement within the cycle of planning, action, reflection and evaluation phases of the action research methodology. Constant dialogue with members of the group was also important in order to interpret their needs and motivations. Participatory video is an “open process” within the bounds of each production. Towards this end the workshop was open to a range of participants who wanted to become involved, without excluding those lacking in skills or talent; open to the ideas, voices and needs of the community so they had ownership over the product; was not bound to a scripted format and observed a style that reflected the cultural norms of the community. Some PV practitioners see the production process as an end in itself without the need for a completed video product. However, the product can become a valuable resource for other communities and individuals who can model their own initiatives by watching the video or it can be used to initiate dialogue between groups or with policy makers. By studying process one begins to understand what elements of people’s involvement in media production are empowering, what influences their content production and how they reflect their worlds through mediated communication. Participation of communities is an essential element of the production process. White and Patel remind us that outside experts cannot “develop” grassroots people, but that people must be in a position to develop themselves, becoming conscious of their own potential and bringing about changes which they themselves feel are important (1994: 363). They state that a community’s involvement is required in the entire messagemaking process from the choice of topics and issues to the planning and production of media content (ibid: 361). This active engagement or agency of individuals is the key to awakening one’s self-awareness and developing a critical conscience about 196


one’s circumstance in what Paulo Freire identified as conscientisation. The action of producing the message becomes empowering in itself as participants develop a range of media competencies such as technical and creative production skills, analytical skills in reading mass media texts, and a deeper understanding of their own communicative potential (Riano, 1994: 125). In the case of this research, the group had already agreed upon a self-defined purpose for the workshop, which was to produce a promotional video for the Telecentre group. As a participatory project, women actively voiced their ideas on content development and used the equipment to shoot in different locations. Since they did not have strong keyboard skills and knowledge of computers, I edited the segments as the producers of the segment sat beside me making editing choices.

Discussion

During the course of the project, I discovered a powerful use of video by the women within a dynamic environment of social relationships and community engagement by accessing the rich web of rural women’s clubs in Fiji. The social capital concept emerged as a possible framework for analysis during fieldwork within the studyaction-reflection cycle and in my observation of the women as they participated in these networks and the way in which this engagement impacted on the PV workshop. According to the World Bank (2004), “social capital refers to the norms and networks that enable collective action”. The key elements or mechanisms associated with social capital include networks, reciprocity, trust, shared norms and social agency (Leonard and Onyx, 2004: 3). In Fiji, the sense of community, collectives and the practice of give and take (reciprocity) are values embedded in local cultural practices (see Qalo, 1998; Huffer and Qalo, 2004). Both Fijian and Indian cultures enjoy a strong sense of belonging with community, especially in rural areas, through kinship and engagement with ethno-specific socio-cultural clubs. Putnam also discusses two important dimensions of social capital—bonding and bridging. While bonding tends towards exclusive identities and homogeneity such as ethnic or gender specific groups, bridging social capital tends to be outward looking and includes people across diverse social backgrounds and thus leans towards inclusiveness (2000: 22, 23). According to Matthews, social capital is not a concept but a praxis (2005). In participatory production, social capital results from collaborative work of producing within the community of producers as well as with the larger community. As such, social capital praxis occurs in the “doing” of participatory production. Communities’ active involvement or agency is essential in the process of production as opposed to the product driven video in which communities may feature but not participate. The framework I propose is premised on the idea that participatory media practice not only functions well in communities with strong social networks (i.e. high social capital) but also enriches social capital. In other words, it not only accesses local networks—the bonding dimension—but also extends it by enhancing the bridging dimension of social capital where communities can link with other communities across ethnic, gender, social, or geographic divide, thus contributing to community 197


building and dialogue. The NRWTG was able to create bridging dimension by inviting women from a cross-section of ethnic and geographic locations within the organisation. The women met at a central location for their activities and established closer bonds with their colleagues who came from diverse backgrounds. What the video production allowed was for the women to then actually extend the bridging ties by visiting each other’s clubs and homes. The women were able to easily tap in to their social networks to produce video stories which were important to them and their communities. The act of producing the videos meant that women visited each other’s clubs, homes and villages, leading to greater dialogue and understanding. The visit created a greater transference of knowledge and cross-cultural understanding. One participant of Indo-Fijian background noted: “Living in Navua, I’ve never been to a koro (Fijian village) before, but the camera allowed me to experience this opportunity” (Priya, 2005, personal communication, 3 August). Establishing trust with the community is vital to the success of participatory projects. Finding a community leader who has the trust of all sections of the community and the authority to engage with them is essential. In my case, this person was the Senior Women’s Interest Officer, Nanise Gasara. Nanise (Nancy or Nani for short) became the intermediary between me and the women. She had a close and personal relationship with the women and had their respect. Even men in the community trusted her well enough to allow their wives to go for the club meeting in town. Nani also became an important interlocutor in my understanding of the community, their norms and values. Women from three different communities in Navua participated in the workshop—Indigenous Fijian women who lived in the village and those who lived independently, Indian women who were long-term residents of Navua, and the re-settled displaced farmers from Vakabalea. It was interesting to observe the interplay between these three groups of women. The indigenous women and the long-term residents seemed to have an easy-going relationship with each other and were enthusiastic about becoming involved. They had a sense of ownership about the area in which they lived. The Fijian women were the most enthusiastic participants. The new settlers were reluctant and needed much encouragement to join the group. Their participation was a direct result of their trust in Nanise and they came to the workshop “because Nani had called us”. Leonard and Onyx (2004) argue that isolated communities, (such as the resettled farmers) do not need to “shift” from bonding to bridging in order to “get ahead” but may find other ways to forge links with other communities such as seeking the assistance of a “trusted professional” who may become a valuable ambassador in this process. In my study, Nanise played this key role ensuring community representation, facilitating a central training location, becoming an information conduit between the participants and me as the researcher/facilitator. A link between empowerment and social capital became apparent when one observed the level of engagement of each group in the production process. The Vakabalea group was not as functional as the other two, who demonstrated greater trust and consequently stronger relationship with strangers and the government. This community exhibited a high level of particularised (thick) trust of friends and 198


family, lower level of generalised (thin) trust of strangers and minimal level of trust of government as per Uslaner and Conley’s (2003) three-factor structure, which distinguishes between various types of trust. The group’s strongest link was within their own unit which was comprised of the extended family structure. However, during the production process, the group became more engaged with other members of the NRWTG who came to visit their settlement. Producing within their local context also allowed the women to integrate the social and cultural norms of their own society and develop their own production culture instead of using foreign production values. This was an excellent example of how technology can be made to conform to people’s way of life. If these women had been brought into the studio to talk, they would be awed by the technology and the urban environment. Instead, the camera came into their life space. The interviews took place in their homes, community halls—familiar places in their lives. The cameras rolled as they sat on the floor where they felt most comfortable instead of on chairs. Location then became an important aspect of their representation. The subject of discussion was their lives, their skills and their communities at which they were experts and spoke about these things with great ease and delight in their own language. It validated their lives and the importance that the camera gave to it. Empowering message creation must have the critical elements of participation and inclusion of the community. The one thing that impressed me most was the organisational skill of the participants. At every village and settlement which we visited, the producers used their strong links with their community to co-ordinate impressive displays of craft, participation of their club members and even lunch for the visiting crew. There was an amazing display of social cohesion. The success of each shoot was dependent on the networks each participant could access in her community. The club for these women represented a social lifeline, but in order to maintain their level of social capital they not only accessed its rich resources but also constantly supplemented that resource by giving something back to the network e.g. during a death in the family or a wedding celebration. The resources available through the enabling environment of the club guaranteed the success of our shoots. The production process both enhanced and accessed social networks. The producers of the segment used their support network to create a dynamic scene for our shoots and in so doing gave to the community and other women a sense of importance by allowing them to talk and display their work and talents on camera. Sue Braden has argued that the camcorder has “offered another reading and writing and removes dependence on the mechanics of alphabetisation in order to record and transmit voices, images and ideas” (Braden, 1999: 118). “The tapes can provide a conduit between under-represented, non- or less literate groups and those they would not normally be able to address” (ibid: 119). In the case of the NRWTG, the videotapes helped the bureaucrats to reassess their own views of the group. The recorded images created a vital shift in the imagination of the bureaucracy. Suddenly the women’s activities, as represented on video, gained in status and importance in the mind of the bureaucrats. People who sit in their offices making important policy decisions could now be included into this world of the women’s everyday lives and aspirations. The video images legitimised women’s work and became the catalyst for 199


rural women to be re-imagined by the bureaucrats. The fact that video is seen in the hands of a woman itself subverts the stereotype. By their skilful use of technology and their confident appearance in front of the camera (something the bureaucrats themselves struggled with), the women represented themselves as active citizens capable of negotiating their own futures instead of state dependents who waited for top-down mechanism to intervene. After viewing the completed video segments produced by the women, the visiting Divisional Head from the Ministry of Women observed how participatory video projects like this can be integrated into the Ministry’s policy and practice: We’ve been reading the reports, (rather) than looking at the actual output of what they’ve done… it tells a lot. This is a very good educational tool even for us, a very beneficial tool that we can use for other projects or issues such as violence against women. This could be a very good tool for mainstreaming women into the development process of the whole community (2005, personal communication, 3 August).

The Director of the Ministry of Women, Maria Matavewa, also recognised the “knowledge sharing and knowledge dissemination” potential of video which could document successful community initiatives and be shared with other groups, thus acting as a catalyst to spur them into action (2006, personal communication, 20 January). The women’s knowledge of video production has opened both new ways of recording their voices and new channels of communication. The video production allowed the women to actually extend both horizontal and vertical bridging ties. By visiting each other’s clubs and homes and widening their social networks, they increased their understanding of the wider community in which they reside. While the women wanted to use video to open up new markets for their products, video also became an important way of representing themselves to policy makers leading to significant impact of these images on bureaucrats. The knowledge they gained has also quietly made them confident about the Information Age. As one of the participants said to me, “This is the era of technology and we have been invited to become part of it.”

Conclusion

For a society to prosper within a culture of peace and goodwill, it needs to encourage a dialogic and participatory environment to create effective links between diverse and disparate sections of its citizenry. Community media can play an important role in nation building by reflecting the spirit of goodwill and the voices and aspirations of rural Fiji. As discussed by the community media practitioners, there is scope for dialogue and bridge building between communities within the reconciliation agenda. Unfortunately, the political structure in Fiji has encouraged segregation of ethnic communities, initially under the colonial policies and, after independence, as a result of communal voting and the inevitable identity politics that emerged from it. The concept of community has never sufficiently been articulated in a way that is inclusive of all races. Rather, it has been disconnected. As Norton (2000: 87) observes, “There has been little attempt to create a narrative of shared history and 200


citizenship, and images of Fijian culture predominate in the public domain.” In her discussion of tradition versus democracy in Fiji, Lawson has been able to distil the essence of this dichotomy surrounding community and communalism: And in the absence of an inclusive political system which brings together the entire community, little has been done to develop a common perspective on pressing issues concerning the economy, education, industrial and infrastructure policy, and general social well-being. Instead, there is a widespread perception that security lies only within the bounds of communalism, and that people’s interests “are better served by inter-communal competition rather than inter-communal cooperation” [119]. This is the legacy of cultural politics and the deployment of traditionalism as a means to a political end. (1996: 75,76)

This culture of segregation has become entrenched in community-based clubs and associations, thus closing off a valuable social and cultural space within which cross-cultural dialogue could occur. Inviting cultural diversity of membership, as seen in the example of NRWTG, allows women not only to dialogue, but also to share skills and resources. This exchange lays down the foundation on which communities can build trust as well as form enriching economic partnerships. Community media such as PV can provide the essential channel for communication. Community-centred media can play a vital role in the reconciliation process in this post-conflict society by encouraging disengaged groups to share airtime or participate in open discussions on issues that affect the whole nation. Participation thus becomes “a developed form of self-management” and a “force towards a more participative society” (White and Patel, 1994: 361). According to White (2003: 79), in reconciling differences, subjects need to identify what these differences actually are, then “own” the differences and be willing to resolve them through constructive dialogue. They should also recognise that it is expected and normal to have differences within a group and respecting each other’s differences is a part of the process of transformation. The key is to cooperate despite these differences to achieve the task at hand. Rodriguez (2000: 147) asserts that “communication is the raw material for peace” and community media can play a central role in peace-building efforts and conflict resolution. Through their engagement in message development, individuals become empowered to find ways of solving problems in their own communities. Increased dialogue, collaboration and respect for other’s ideas become elements in community building and social cohesion. When communities actively participate in the communication processes, they learn to engage with each other, thus improving their understanding of the other and the underlying concerns which drive their action. Latin American educator, Luis Peirano (2006), has an important lesson for all communicators working in the area of communication for development: We call on communicators to “make” a different kind of communication, one not focused on giving the news or media-based creations, but rather on improving the communicative capabilities of communities, transforming people and, thereby, their lives. It is not about informing, but about forming; we wager on proposals that can be maintained over time and space and that may have an effect on cultural, economic and political development. 201


So in the case of Fiji, community media such as radio and participatory video can assist in forming alliances, forming united communities, forming a vision for a nation which can accommodate everyone regardless of race or gender.

Notes 1. SEWA is the largest member-based organisation of poor, self-employed women workers in India. SEWA has been using video for dialogue, advocacy and emancipatory work for more than 20 years. More information about their work is available on www. sewa.org. 2. YouTube is the best-known video-sharing site. Websites dedicated to participatory video projects have also increased with OneWorldTV, WITNESS and Insight as good examples of these. Content can differ from personal messages to well-organised social change campaigns. 3. Dialogue, participation, praxis and the subject are central to Freire’s pedagogy of teaching and learning. The underlying assumption in Freire’s work is that the very nature of every human being is to be a “subject who acts upon and transforms his world, and, in so doing, moves towards ever new possibilities of fuller and richer life, individually and collectively” (Freire, 1984: 12). 4. For the case study, the author used a consumer model handycam with an external microphone, a tripod and an Apple Powerbook laptop with the entry level editing software, iMovie.

Reference Braden, S. (1999). Using Video for Research and Representation: basic human needs and critical pedagogy, Journal of Education media, 24(2): pp. 117–129. Braden, S. and Huong T. (1998). Video for Development: A Casebook from Vietnam. UK and Ireland: Oxfam. Buchtmann, L. (2000). Digital Songlines: the Use of Modern Communication Technology by an Aboriginal Community in Remote Australia. Prometheus 18(1): pp. 59–74. Crocker, S. (2003). The Fogo Process: Participatory Communication in a Globalizing World. In S. A. White (Ed.), Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 122–141. Dagron, A. G. (2001). Making waves: stories of participatory communication for social change. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation. Das, N. (2005). Brief Assessment On Functionings Of Navua Rural Women’s Telecentre Group, Ministry of Women, Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation, Suva. Freire, P. (1984). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Herder and Herder. Galbraith, M. (1991). The Adult Learning Transactional Process. IN M. Galbraith (Ed.) Facilitating adult Learning: A transactional process. Malabar, Fla: Krieger Publishing Co., pp. 1–32. Geraghty, P. (2001). Talking the wrong talk? Pacific Journalism Review 7(1): pp. 164–167. Guidi, P. (2003). Guatemalan Mayan Women and Participatory Visual Media. In S. A. White (Ed.), Participatory Video Images that Transform and Empower. New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 252–270. 202


Harding, T. (1997). The Video Activist Handbook. London: Pluto Press. Huber, B. (1998). Communicative aspects of participatory video projects. An exploratory study. MA Thesis, Department of Rural Development Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Huffer, E. and Qalo, R. (2004). Have We Been Thinking Upside-Down? The Contemporary Emergence of Pacific Theoretical Thought. The Contemporary Pacific 16(1): pp. 87–116. International Telecommunication Union (2005). Fiji Case Study. Retrieved January 1, 2008 from: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/fiji/index.html Johansson, L. (1999). Participatory Video and PRA in development planning. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from: www.zanzibar.org/maneno/pvideo/PV_PRA.html Johansson, L., et al. (1999). Questions and Answers about participatory video. Retrieved November 3, 2005 from: www.zanzibar.org/maneno/pvideo/pvcont.html Lawson, S. (1996). Tradition versus democracy in the South Pacific: Fiji, Tonga, and Western Samoa, Cambridge; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Leonard, R. & Onyx, J. (2004). Social Capital and Community Building: Spinning Straw into Gold. London: Janus Publishing Company. Matthews, R. (2005). Social Capital concepts and Indicators – Research Studies and Conceptual Considerations. Work in Progress Seminar Series. Centre for Research on Social Inclusion, Macquarie University, Sydney. Meadows, M., Forde, S., Ewart, J., Foxwell, K., (2007). Community Media Matters: An audience study of the Australian community broadcasting sector. QLD: Griffith University. Michaels, E. (1986). The Aboriginal invention of television in Central Australia 1982–1986 / Eric Michaels. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Molnar, H. & Meadows, M. (2001). Songlines to Satellites: indigenous communication in Australia, the South Pacific and Canada. Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press. Mould, D. (2006). ‘E-Chutney Project – Fiji’, The Communication Initiative, Retrieved October 12, 2006, from: http://www.comminit.com/experiences/pds2006/experiences3670.htm News @ USP (2005). USP signs MOU with Radio Australia. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from: http://www.usp.ac.fj/news/story.php?id=37 Norris, P. (2002). Social Capital and the News Media. The Harvard International Journal of Press/politics, 7(1), pp. 3–8. Retrieved January 20, 2007 from: ksghome.harvard.edu/ ~pnorris/Acrobat/Social%20capital%20&%20the%20news%20media.pdf Norton, R. (2000), Reconciling Ethnicity and Nation: Contending Discourses in Fiji’s Constitutional Reform, The Contemporary Pacific, Vol. 12(1) pp. 83–122. Ogan, C. (1989). Video’s great advantage – decentralised control of technology. Media Development, 36(4): pp. 2–5. Peirano, L. (2006). CFSC Analysis and Opinion: Developing a Unique Proposal for Communication for Development in Latin America. MAZI. Retrieved February 22, 2006 from www.communicationforsocialchange.org/maziarticles.php?id=298 Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster. Qalo, R. (1998). Vaka-viti: If it is Social Capital, Then We May Be More Advanced than we Think. Paper presented at the Oceania Centre for Arts and Culture Seminar Series at the University of the South Pacific, Suva, 14 October. 203


Riano, P. (Ed.) (1994) Women in Grassroots Communication. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications. Robie, D. (2004). Mekim News. Suva: USP Book Centre. Rodriguez, C. (2000). Civil Society and Citizen’s media: Peace architects for the New Millenium. In K. G. Wilkins (Ed.), Redeveloping Communication for Social Change: Theory, Practice, and Power, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., pp. 147– 160. Rodriguez, C. (2001). Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizens’ Media. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press. Rodriguez, C. (2004). The renaissance of citizens’ media. Media Development: Citizenship, Identity, Media, (2). Retrieved February 16, 2006 from: www.wacc.org.uk/wacc/content/ pdf/416 Servaes, J., White, S. A. & Jacobson, T. (Eds.) (1996). Participatory communication for social change. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Seward, R. (1999). Radio Happy Isles: Media and Politics at Play in the Pacific. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Stuart, S. (1989). Access to media: placing video in the hands of the people. Media Development 36(4): pp. 8–11. Sundar Harris, U. (1994). Television in Fiji: In whose Interest? MA Thesis, International Communication Programme, Macquarie University, Sydney. Sundar Harris, U. (2006). ICT for Social and Cultural Capital in the Pacific. In Marshall, S., Taylor, W. & Yu., X. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Developing Regional Communities with Information and Communication Technology, Hershey, PA, Idea Group Inc. pp. 377–381. Sundar Harris, U. (2007), Community informatics and the power of participation, Pacific Journalism Review, 13 (2): pp. 20–45. Tacchi, J., Slater, D. & Lewis, P. (2003), Evaluating Community Based Media and Intitiatives: An Ethnographic Action Research Approach, OURMedia III Conference, Barranquilla, Colombia, 19–21 May. from http://cirac.qut.edu.au/ictpr/downloads/TacchiOM3.pdf. Turner, T. (2002). Representation, Polyphony, and the Construction of Power in a Kayapo Video. In K. B. Warren and J. E. Jackson (Eds.), Indigenous Movements, SelfRepresentation, and the State in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 229–250 Uslaner, E. M. & Conley, R. S. (2003). Civic Engagement And Particularized Trust The Ties That Bind People to Their Ethnic Communities, American Politics Research, 31(4), pp. 331–360. Retrieved January 19, 2007 from: www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/uslaner/ uslanerconleyapr.pdf. White, S. A., (Ed.) (2003). Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower. New Delhi: Sage Publications. White, S. A., Nair, S. K. & Ascroft, J. (1994). Participatory Communication: Working for Change and Development, New Delhi: Sage Publications. White, S. A. & Patel, P. K. (1994). Participatory Message Making with Video: Revelations from Studies in India and the USA. In S. A., White, S. K. Nair, & J. Ascroft, (Eds.), Participatory Communication: Working for Change and Development. New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 359–386 Wintonick, P. & Cizek, K. (2002). Seeing is believing: Introduction. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from: www.seeingisbelieving.ca/handicam/introduction/ 204


World Association for Christian Communication (WACC), (1989). Video for the People. Media Development 36(4). World Bank (2004). Social Capital for Development, Retrieved August 22, 2006, from: www1.worldbank.org/prem/poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm World Bank (2004). Social Capital, Retrieved September 28, 2006 from: www1.worldbank. org/prem/poverty/scapital/home.htm

205