In this blog I offer thirty-one critical responses to the
current fashion for participatory projects and methodologies. While my main focus is grounded in
playing devil’s advocate to the evangelical exponents of participatory video, I am
very open to being shot down - or at least engaged - in counter-dialogues. (Either
through the comments section below, or privately by email). Please attribute all quotations from this unpaid work. It is my life.
Please also excuse the rhetorical tendency to exaggerate;
I’m not using this blog to craft a highly nuanced critical essay.In other work I have addressed problems with, and potential solutions to collaborative models of work.
Also, I’m still working through a projection of what comes after
the promise of participation...
- The participatory
field is admittedly quite fuzzy, since arts projects in the community may be quite vague about their intended modes
or levels of participation; engagement evidence is notoriously difficult to measure in
terms of impacts and evaluation, and/or the empowerment achieved.
- There
is a tendency to exclude those models or practices that are partially, or
not primarily participatory. This may have the effect of potentially
distorting the positive impact ratio of those projects that qualify as
whole-heartedly in the fold.
- In
reflective reports on participation, there is often the foggy sense of a
contribution to social capital and community capital, without any sense of
the methodological challenges to, or controversy around, these highly
fashionable policy approaches and agendas. [See the note at the end of this
blog]
- Another
weakness is that an assumption of inequality is often built into the participatory
model, or into the terms of project reference. Typically, this takes the
form of ‘giving a voice to the voiceless’, ‘reaching to the hard to reach’,
or ‘including the excluded.’ Patronising and bourgeois. I've seldom met an angry youth who lacked voice.
- Following
from the previous point, is there not a residual romantic ideology of
inspiration and failure at work in participatory discourses? Conversely, is there a lack of personalised, romantic intensity at work?
- Claims
to the effectiveness of projects are frequently or symptomatically inflated because negative outcomes
adversely affect future funding;
- To
interrogate claims on the level of value also risks offending the romantic
foundations of creative worthiness of individuals in need of encouragement and support and their utopian community life that is just waiting to emerge after the intervention.
- How
far are active and effective forms of participation specific to a time and
place (Western, enlightened, or romantic) ?
- The
coherence, fixity, or stability of the methodology is at odds with the
variety, mobility and complexity of social practices.
- Claims
to success are often anecdotal and ephemeral. This feature of the evaluation is then defended as a
quality-led approach, or falls back on romantic notions designed to resist
critical analysis.
- It is just as
difficult to measure a variety of micro-impacts several years in the
future, as it is to value the impact on one individual where the work had
a major transformative dimension to his or her life’s work and direction. Participatory
outcomes, like the medium term impact of the work of an inspiring teacher,
are fundamentally difficult to qualify or quantify.
- Effectiveness
is often expressed in terms of soft targets achieved such as ‘finding a
voice’ rather than material improvement in people’s lived experience.
- There
is a danger that participants become ambassadors for the local government’s
unelected officers.
- The
promise of participation is vaguely geared to future possibility or
potentiality sleekly framed so as to remain forever unaccountable. Often there is a narrative turn that measures story rather than material impact.
- The
clarity of the message delivered by participants is confused by the need
to report positive or constructive changes taking place (alienated
facilitator or funder agendas creeping in.)
- Sometimes it is clear that participants
feel they have not expressed what the funder wanted, or that they have
fallen short of a perceived goal. Such are 'compromised' projects. Is there not a conspiracy of silence about the frequency of these?
- Participants
sense that they have not met the facilitators’ ideals which may be more
ideologically coherent than the collective experience expressed by the
participants. Has political correctness silenced certained voices?
- Funders
are perceived to be the enemy, they are on the other side, whereas the
reality is that they are tasked with (1) being responsible and accountable
purseholders (2) having to respond to the priorities of their bosses, who
are in turn, people elected by the
people.
- Participatory
discourses are stuck in a 1970s crafty-utopianism and fail to adequately
take account of major cultural shifts expressed in postmodernity (Lyotard,
Baudrillard), high modernity (Giddens), liquid modernity (Baumann),
performativity (Butler), Enlightenment and communicative action
(Habermas), Mass communications and culture (Adorno), convergence theory
(Jenkins), ideology and psychoanalysis (Zizek), rhizomatic and intensive
differences (Deleuze), singularities and complexities (teratology and
chaos theory ...) ...
- In fact,
the promise of the participatory is insulated from most of the major
currents in contemporary cultural theory and tends to confine itself to
narrower sociological, psychology or community work based analytical
frames.
- Disciplinary
boundaries are also strictly enforced as a consequence of the need for
specialization and professionalization (Ivan Illich), or in line with
academic career paths and associated research citations and outputs.
- In
more general terms, where in one sense the participatory dimension lacks
specificity and evidence, in another, it fails to engage with broader
movements at work in society and in intellectual thought.
- Despite
its proclaimed emphasis on communicative actions and contexts,
participatory video practice becomes too rooted in its technology and
IT-related skills rather than ontological awareness.
- Often
the issue just mentioned is emphatic because funding has been awarded
based on IT skills-development and employablity issues, narrowly defined.
Instrumentality rules in a materialist-capitalist society (Marx). Taking this one step further leads into a Heideggerian perspective on a failure to think being.
- The
participation is confined to an already ghettoized social sub-section,
rather than promoting critical dialogues and creative disseminations between sections of society.
- As fashions and policies shift, specific
groups are excessively favoured compared to others (e.g. youth)
- And
may groups or localities may suffer new initiative fatigue, or become
disenchanted by yet another innovatory intervention in which the
participants are the ever-ready-made-laboratory-for-life.
- Because
aims and objectives are narrowly project-specific, bounded by a specific
time and locality, products of participation are quickly dated and
disposed of. This represents poor value compared to other forms of
intervention that may grow from within, rather than being professionally
facilitated from above / without.
- Participation
is seldom framed in terms of a wider architecture of a global politics of
the silenced and the disenfranchised. What starts local stays local. Developmental means safely apolitical.
- Because
participatory projects depend on trained facilitators there will in turn
be a dependence on training programmes for facilitators and a reliance on
specialist professionals who need to be paid for their work. As the public funding of social projects at all levels diminishes the viablity of this
model has to be questioned.
- The
participatory project seldom matches (or respects) the existing forms of
organic participation in, and critical distance from, the already
‘present’ forms of popular culture or lived experiences. Looked at another way, there is
a vaguely embarrassing effort on the part of facilitators to co-opt
current themes such as gangs, guns, mobiles and hip-hop, in order to ‘come
closer’ to the ‘life’ of the people. Again this may simply valorize the
ephemeral in a process of collective top-down indulgence, rather than addressing
the critical challenge of the ‘other.’
© Dr Ian McCormick
Notes
Problems with
Conceptualisation of Social Capital
As identified above, the conceptualization of social capital
is the biggest challenge facing proponents of the theory. At present there is a
lack of rigorous conceptualization of social capital (Krishna
and Uphoff 2002). Lin, Cook et al (2001, p. 58) identified that there is a
'danger that we may reach a point where the term might be used in whatever way
it suits the purpose at hand, and thus be rendered meaningless as a scientific
concept that must meet the rigorous demands of theoretical and research
validity and reliability'. Fine (1999) pointed out that social capital is
taking over explanations of economic development, growth, and prosperity, he
also suggest that social capital had other possibilities before being turned
against the other social sciences by economics (Fevre 2000). Hean, Cowley et al (2003) made the
observation that the accumulation of literature on social capital has begun to
obscure the understanding of the concept. The inappropriate measurement
techniques that have been implemented have caused problems for understanding
social capital at the conceptual level and led to debate over whether the
concept is relevant or appropriate (Stone 2001). Or as McHugh and Prasetyo
(2002, p. 1) put it, 'the proliferation of competing definitions, analytical
methods and applications associated with the term is perhaps only dwarfed in
volume by the literature critical of its theoretical ambiguity, ambitious
conceptual scope, and practical over-versatility'.
© Dr Ian McCormick. But please do contact me if you want to
use this article as a guest post on your blog. With attribution offered I seldom refuse!
Further Reading
Arnstein, S. R. (1969) "A Ladder of Citizen
Participation" JAIP 35 (4)
216-24
Bandura, A. (1995) “Exercise of personal and collective
efficacy in changing societies” in Self-efficacy
in changing societies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1-
45
Barnado’s Report (2001). “Do community-based arts projects
result in social gains? A review of literature.” By Authors: Tony Newman,
Katherine Curtis and Jo Stephens. Available here
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/commarts.pdf
Bauman Z. (2006) Liquid
Times: living in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge;
Polity Press.
Bery, R. (2003) “Participatory Video that empowers” Participatory Video: images that Transform
and Empower, S. A. White (eds.) New Delhi,
Sage publications: 102-
21.
Blond, P. (2010) Red
Tory: How Left and Right have broken Britain and how we can fix it. London,
Faber and Faber.
Boog, B. W. M. (2003) "The emancipatory character of
action research, its history and the present state of the art" Journal of
Community and Applied Social
Psychology 13(6) pp. 426-438.
Braden, S. (2004)
Participation: A promise unfulfilled? Building alliances between
government and people.
Research Report. Dept For International Development, UK.
Braden, S. and M. Mayo (1999) "Culture, community
development and representation" Community
Development Journal 34(3)
Buckingham, D., M. Pini and R. Willett (2007) “‘Take back
the tube!’: The discursive
construction of amateur film and video making” Journal of Media Practice
8(2) pp. 183-201
Carpentier, N., R. Lie and J. Servaes (2003) “Community
Media: muting the democratic media discourse?” Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 17(1)
Castells, M. (2009) Communication
Power. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Chvasta, M. (2006) “Anger, Irony and Protest: confronting
the issue of efficacy, Again” Text and
Performance Quarterly 26(1) pp. 5-16
Cohen, M.B. and Mullender, A. (2006) “The Personal in the
Political: Exploring the
Group Work Continuum from Individual to Social Change Goals”
Social Work
With Groups 28
(3/4) 187-204
Cooke, B. (2001) “The Social Psychological limits of
participation?” B. Cooke and U.
Kothari (eds.) Participation:
the New Tyranny? London, Zed
Books: 102-21.
Craig,
G. and Mayo, M. (eds.) (1995) Community
empowerment: a reader in
participation and
development. London,
Zed Books.
Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia. (trans.)
B. Massumi London, New York,
Continuum International.
Dinham, A. (2005) “Empowered or over-powered? The real
experiences of local
participation in the UK's
New Deal for Communities” Community
Development
Journal, Oxford
University Press
Ellsworth, E. (1989) "Why doesn't this feel
empowering?" Harvard Educational
Review, (59): 297-324.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy
of the Oppressed. London, Penguin
Freire, P. (1972) Cultural
action for freedom.
Freire, P. (1974) Education
for Critical Consciousness. London,
Continuum
Freire, P. and D. P. Macedo (1987) Literacy: reading the word and the world. London,
Routledge and Kegan Paul
Freire, P. (1994) Pedagogy
of Hope: re-living Pedagogy of the oppressed. New
York,
Continuum
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and
Society in the Late Modern
Age Cambridge,
Polity Press / Basil Blackwell.
Giddens, A. (1991) The
consequences of modernity. California,
Stanford University
Press.
Giddens, A (2000) The
third way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge,
Polity Press / Basil Blackwell.
Goffman, E. (1990) The
presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth, Penguin
Habermas, J. (1984) The
theory of communicative action: life world and system, a
critique of
functionalist reason. London,
Heinemann Education.
Habermas, J. (1989) The
Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a Category of
Bourgeois Society. Cambridge,
Polity Press.
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence
Culture: Where old and new media collide. London,
New York, New
York University Press.
Jovchelovitch, S. (2007)
Knowledge in context: Representations, Community and
Culture. London
and New York, Routledge.
Loxley, J. (2007) Performativity:
The New Critical Idiom. Routledge.
Lyotard,
J. (1984) The post modern condition: a
report on knowledge. Manchester,
Manchester University
Press.
Matarasso, F. (2007) “Common ground: cultural action as a
route to community
development” Community
Development Journal 42 (4) 449-458
Reason, P. and H. Bradbury (2001) Handbook of Action Research: participative Inquiry and Practice. London,
Sage publications.
Shaw, J. and C. Robertson (1997) Participatory video: a practical approach to using
video creatively in
group development work. London,
Routledge.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities
of practice: Learning, meaning and identity Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
White, S. A. (2003) Participatory
Video: images that Transform and Empower. New Delhi
and London, Sage Publications.