A Theory of Development Communication

By Genaro V. Ong, Jr.

Managing Director of CFA, 1973-78
(From the book From the Village to the Medium, published by the
Communication Foundation for Asia: Manila, 1976)
THE IDEA BEHIND IT

D evelopment communication is founded on an idea. The idea is, to put the

modern media of social communication at the service of development. That

sounds simple enough, but it needs some explaining.
ABOUT DEVELOPMENT
Development is the big thing these days. Everybodys talking about it. Big
chunks of money are spent in its name. But what is it?
Discussions of development are usually couched in economic terms. The
economic goal is often described in terms of an increase in the Gross National
Product or GNP, the sum total of goods and services produced by the country
annually.

The goal has already been criticized as inadequate. One of the big problems of
underdeveloped countries is the maldistribution of available goods and services.

It doesnt help much to increase the size of the economic pie if 90 per cent of
it still goes to only 10 per cent of the people while the remaining 90 per cent of
the people whose total number increases more rapidly, continue to share in only
10 per cent of the wealth produced. Their condition will not improve, but can
only grow worse.

Responsible economists point out that the development goal should be not only
to increase the production of wealth but also to improve its distribution. In other
words, an increase in GNP, plus social justice, GNP alone wont do it.

Seen in this light, the problem immediately goes beyond mere economics. And
the point we want to make here is precisely that development means more than
economic development.

Even plain economic development involves more than economics. It requires an

improved social organization. You need better social structures, relative peace
and order, disciplined (and highly motivated) people, a skilled labor force, a
dedicated civil service, a minimum of graft and corruption, a sensible tax
structure, a wise government, etc.

Actually, for real economic development, you also need social justice, because
this is what will provide people with their motivation. If people can have a
decent share of what they produce, they will work harder.

When you talk about justice, however, youre talking about moral values, not
just economics. In other words, just to achieve economic development, you also
need moral development.

To achieve economic development with social justice without which

development wont make sense to the common people you need to change a
lot of attitudes. People have to add a moral dimension to the way they operate
their business, for instance. And workers may need a new attitude towards
work, since social justice also requires that workers do justice to their
employers, not only the other way around.

A TOTAL APPROACH
In short, development really means developing people. Then the people will
change their environment, including their social and economic environment.
We need a total human development approach, even if our immediate goal
might be economic development. The latter, of course, is not the end in itself,
but only a means to enable human beings to live more humanly. For a man may
be rich and still live like a pig. Economic development doesnt help him.

SOCIAL VERSUS MASS

Now, lets talk about social communication. First, the word social. We say social
communication advisedly. The more commonly accepted term is mass
communication. In this book, the terms are used almost interchangeably. But
there is really a difference in connotation.
The Social Communicator is interested in mass communication not for its own
sake, but as a means of serving the development of people.

Mass communication is a technique of reaching a large number of people with a

message, all at once. Like many other techniques, it can be used for a-social,
even anti-social, purposes. We are for its social use.

One of the banes of modern mass production techniques despite their

obvious benefits is that they tend to dehumanize people and turn them into
masses.
Mass communication, as commonly understood, tends to treat people in same
way. Thus it is often used as a tool for manipulating public opinion as if people
were things to be manipulated. There is also a certain cynicism about the
masses in the entertainment media industry.

People, however, do not develop by being manipulated. They develop by

becoming conscious of what they can be and what they can do and by being
helped to be and do what they ought.

With people, the impetus for development must come from within themselves.
But the stimulus must come from without. Mass communication can, but does
not necessarily, provide stimulus for development. It must be programmed to
do so.

DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION
Mass communication at the service of development or development
communication should seek to elicit a human, and ultimately a social
response in the people whom it seeks to serve. Serve, not mold or
manipulate, as if people were putty in the hands of the communicator
A human response is one that is conscious and voluntary, not merely a
conditioned reflex to the controlled and sophisticated use of media. A
communication that cultivates rather than smothers this free human response is
what were talking about.

Propaganda is a form of mass communication. Not all propaganda is

reprehensible, but it is not or at least not yet development communication.

Development communication is an educational process. It aims at developing

social consciousness, personal responsibility towards ones fellowmen, ones
community and country. In other words, a social conscience. Hence, the term
conscientization, a sensitizing of the conscience.

Development communication implies respect for the human person, respect for
his intelligence and his right to self-determination.

The role of mass communication is to help, not to take over or substitute for,
his thinking. It serves him by providing the facts on which to base a sound
judgment, and the inspiration to carry out his resolve.
Thus, development communication is a social process. Social because it seeks
the human response of people in society, not exactly to be compared with the
reaction to stimulus of a mass of ants in an anthill.

The term social communication, therefore, suggests the primacy of human

values and human dignity over mere technique, better than mass
communication. It is the mark of human beings to be social, whereas the
concept of mass is derived from an obvious quality of brute matter.

ABOUT COMMUNICATION
Communication is an art. But not all practitioners of art, alas, are good
communicators. Young writers especially the creative literary types often
equate expression with communication. It is one thing to have something to
say; another thing to express it. But it is still another thing to express it in a
way that will be accepted and understood by the specific audience to whom the
message is addressed.
Too much preoccupation with style and technique can be a hindrance to
communication, not to call attention to itself.

The task of communicator is to be like a clear glass window through which

people can see (we do not really create anything, we help people to see that is
there); not a stained glass window that invites attention to itself but blocks the
view. This holds whether we communicate by writing, photography, design or
artwork, etc.

LISTENING TO THE AUDIENCE

The first concern of a communicator assuming he has something worthwhile
to communicate (which does not necessarily follow from knowing the techniques
of communication) is to know his audience.
You talk one way to a grade school child, another way to a university professor.
You talk differently to an adult who has not gone beyond grade school, than you
would be one who has been to college ( although, considering the quality of
instruction in some colleges, the difference might be very subtle).

You write one way for reading, another way for talking. Even for reading, there
is a way of writing for readability. Some writing is easy to read; others cause
wrinkled brows, not necessarily because the subject is difficult but because the
language is abstruse. The language of the man in the street is not the language
of the academe.
As mass communicators, we are usually talking to the man on the street or in
his home. We must visualize him in his camiseta, watching TV after a hard days
work, or his wife, listening to the radio. The more intimately we know our
audience, the better we can communicate. (In the editorial offices of some
popular magazines in Europe, they have pictures on the wall of the type of
people theyre writing for. They know the ages, range of income, educational
attainment, their vocabulary, the way they live, etc.)

Communication is not a one-way street. The first thing a communicator must do

is listen to his audience with a sharp ear; then there is chance that his
audience might listen to him. All this is elementary, but easily forgotten.

COMPETING FOR ATTENTION

The point is that in mass communication, nobody has to read what we write, or
listen to our radio programs, or watch our TV shows, or go to see our movie.
Its a highly competitive field. Our audience has a dozen other magazines or
papers to choose from, many other programs and shows competing for their
attention. This is especially true in the cities.

Unless we catch and hold our audience from the start, were lost. Restless
hands reach for something else to read, or turn dials to another station or
channel. In other words, we dont necessarily communicate because were in
print or on the air. We must go on in there to win.

People dont have to read or listen to, or watch, development-oriented mass

communications. They generally turn to media for entertainment, not for
lectures. Our problem is how to make that entertainment more meaningful.

Entertainment can be escapist; it can be inane. Our task is to make

entertainment contribute to human improvement.

We have two ways of approaching our task. We can make entertainment

educational. Or, if we must use a more direct approach, we can make education
entertaining. But we cant educate without being interesting in one way or
another. This is true even of classroom instruction.

FORMAL AND INFORMAL EDUCATION

Development communication is an educational process. It is a type of informal
education, as distinguished from the formal education of the classroom. In the
long run, the reform of society depends a great deal on what goes on in the
classroom.
But for more immediate development needs, it is necessary to reach the
decision-makers of today. These are mostly out of school. They are out of
school because they have finished schooling, or have interrupted their
schooling, or have never been to school. But it is they not the children in the
classrooms who make todays decisions. They decide whether there will be
another baby in the family. They decide whether to use fertilizer in their fields
or not. They decide what kind of food will be on the family table. They form the
character of children more than any school can do. Their tastes, their habits of
saving and consumption can make or break the economy.

A lot of preparation goes into the subjects taught in the classroom. A lot of
preparation must go into teaching informally through mass media.

As much as classroom teaching must be organized and programmed, informal

teaching through media must be organized and programmed.

"DevCom An Integral Element in Any Development

Model"

By Atty. Ramon A. Tagle, Jr.

General Manager of CFA, 1980-84
(Abridged from the book Communication and Development, published by the
Communication Foundation for Asia: Manila, 1978)

D evelopment Communication or DevCom cannot be regarded as a model

for development. Development communication, for all its nobility and potency,
cannot develop a country and its people. It cannot communicate to people how
to develop the way commercials get people to buy a bottle of coke or to use
a particular brand of soap. All that it can really do is to help lay the foundations
or to help create the mental or psychological environment wherein people can
develop themselves.
Someone once said that a government cannot be a government of the people
and for the people, unless it is also a government by the people themselves.
Another remarked that all development, if it is truly development, has to
ultimately be self-development. In the same way, development communication
cannot be what it is, i.e., communication in support of development, unless it
ultimately becomes a process which, in the words of the late Mr. Genaro V. Ong
(CFAs first managing director and a pioneer of development communication in
the Philippines), must elicit a human and, ultimately, a social response in the
people whom it seeks to serve. Development communication must serve
people, not manipulate or mould or build them. But it can inspire them to mould
or build themselves.

WHAT IS DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION?

Briefly, development communication seeks to place all media of social
communications in the service of development. Simple as the statement may
be, it, however, needs some elaboration, if not clarification.
First of all, what is development? Development is not an objective word. It is
indeed a very subjective word. It is much very value-laden. It is therefore
only as good as the reality it is used to represent.

Some people say: development is economic development, period. I would not

disagree with the first four words of their statement. But I will disagree with the
fifth. I would perhaps insert the word also before the period. Or I may even
say that development is, first of all, economic development since economic
needs are indeed the first layers of a human beings hierarchy of needs, as the
psychologist Maslow puts it.

To illustrate what I mean, let me cite an example: There was a group of

development workers who wanted to uplift the economic conditions of people in
a certain village. So they taught them income-generating activities. Further,
they taught them the skills of managing their new-found small-scale businesses
and even lent them the seed money to begin them. What happened was the
villagers concerned became economically prosperous as their small-scale
businesses prospered. But then, this noveau riche of the village started to lend
money to their less fortunate neighbors, which would have been very good
indeed, except that they did so at the so-called five-six usurious rate. Now, is
this development? Development does not seek to economically uplift people so
they can, in turn, economically exploit other people.
This is why development cannot be equated merely with economic
development. Development, aside from being economic, has to be social
development as well. People should indeed be developed to have more of
material goods, but they should be so developed that they become more
human. This means that people must become what some philosophers term as
beings-for-others and not only beings-for-themselves. In other words,
people who are shown concern must, in turn, develop a concern for others.
EDUCATION, NOT MERE TRAINING, IS NEEDED
On a macro dimension, social development also means that the economic
benefits that economic development brings about must be more equitably
shared by all people in a given society. A village society is one such society.
Aside from being economic and social, development must also be structural,
meaning, it must be accompanied by the development of social relationships
brought about by changing, among others, the legal and political environment
so that people become liberated from inequitable relationships and from internal
attitudes of values which have been acquired through the years and which
presently bind them and prevent them from becoming truly economically and
socially developed.

Only when all these four elements would have been achieved could one really
say that development in the sense of becoming more human is truly
approximated.

What about the word communication? What does it mean? Some people
equate communication with expression. Worse, some people even equate it with
mere techniques of expression. It is one thing to have something to say,
wrote the late Gen. Ong, but it is still another thing to express it in a way that
will be accepted and understood by the specific audience for whom it is
intended. Too much preoccupation with style or technique can be a hindrance to
communication. The purpose of a technique is to facilitate communication, not
to call attention to itself.

People who equate communication with expression forget one thing: namely,
that before human beings learn to communicate orally, they first have to learn
to communicate audibly. A baby listens to people around him. Because of this,
he learns to say things. It is not the other way around!

Unfortunately, the orientation of the child is often already gone in the adult
communicator. Now brimming in confidence in the knowledge he has acquired
and the skills in expressions that he has mastered, he talks to and at people,
but seldom, if ever, really talks with them, much less, listens to them.

He becomes like the man who sought advice from a wise Buddhist monk. When
he went to see him, he kept on talking and talking. Then the monk took a cup
and began to pour tea into it until the tea spilled over into the saucer. Asked
why he did that, the monk said, I wanted to show you the state of mind you
are in. Your mind is like a cup that is already full. It cannot take in more tea
unless you empty it first. If you want advice from me, you must first empty
your mind of all your biases and prejudices. Only then can I be of service to
you.

Communication is never a one-way street. True communication occurs when

two people (or more people) are simultaneously senders and receivers of a
certain message or messages via a certain media channel or channels. In its
broadest meaning, communication is what holds human society together. Where
communication breaks down, society begins to disintegrate.

Most communicators think that the purpose of communication is to effect

change. Dr. Paul Hartmann of Leicester University, England, says that this is not
so. Some communication, he maintains, seeks to maintain the status quo, not
change it. The first batch of communicators advocated the so-called
transportation model of communication. Dr. Hartmann speaks of the ritualistic
model of communications. Both are important for us to consider.

A research undertaken at Papua New Guinea illustrates both models. Since

gaining independence, government workers in PNG have been trying to
communicate to the villagers the importance of certain development projects,
but without much success.

A certain professor and his students at PNG University tried to find out the
reasons for their failure. Among others, they found out that there were two
flows of information going on in the village: (a) the first was the formal flow
which contained the governments appeal for change and development; (b) the
second was the informal flow of information maintained by the villagers
themselves and which was often incompatible with the first.

A news item from Auckland, New Zealand (CCA News, December 15, 1978)
spells out the above phenomenon more eloquently. At the first Asian
Conference on Race and Minorities, the word development itself was both
advocated and debunked. The representatives of different governments and the
different churches advocated development for the minorities since it was, they
maintained, for their (the minorities) welfare. Strangely enough (but perhaps
understandably so), the representatives of the minority groups said otherwise.
Development has no meaning, said the final report of the conference. It is
not our word it is an imposed understanding of society and should be
ignored! They claimed that it was an elitist concept which saw from the top
down. The plenary session later upheld their view.
This is why development communication must first be a process of listening to
the village peoples feelings and aspirations before it can be a process of talking
to them. The process of development communication should first be one that
begins from the village to the medium and continue from thereon to be, in turn,
a process from the medium to the village.

DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF

DEVELOPMENT
It should by now be clear that communication must be supportive of
development. Otherwise, communication becomes escapist or inane and
development becomes difficult, if not impossible to achieve.
But let me end with just one model to show this. I owe this model to an original
insight of Dr. F. Landa Jocano of U.P.

The physical environment where people live gives (through experience with
such environment) ideas on how they can best cope with it. The best of these
ideas are put into practice and, after repeated practice, they become part of the
values or what people consider as things-worth-striving-for, considering their
physical environment. A cluster of these values soon begin to hang together and
soon enough become (what sociologists call) social institutions.

For example, in the rural areas where (and when) machines are not available to
till and subdue the earth, people naturally develop the idea that more hands
will mean more harvest. So the idea of a big family being beneficial dawns
upon such people. In the process, they begin to regard children as assets
economic as well as social, and even for defense against enemies or wild
animals!
As this central idea is accepted and practiced and children become valued as
economic assets and insurance for a villages survival, other values begin to
cluster with this value. For example, the value of pagkalalaki (masculinity)
and pagkababae (femininity) as a means to procreate children begins to
reinforce the value for children, for a man is regarded as a man and a woman is
regarded as a woman, depending on the number of children they have.
This social institution together with other social institutions reinforces the
physical environment in turn. The result is that the status quo is simply
maintained. In rural villages, this is certainly true! This is the reason why
villagers remain unchanging throughout the years.

While it is true that a change in the physical environment should eventually

result in new ideas on how to cope with the change, this does not always
happen or at least, it does take time for the new ideas to seep into the minds of
people. Sociologists speak of a cultural lag between the material elements and
spiritual elements of any culture. Changes in the material element (technology)
usually precede and outpace changes in the spiritual element such as the values
and habits of people.

Looking back at our model, we can now try to understand why this is so. Using
the ritualistic model of communication, the prevailing idea, value and social
institutional environments involve a communication process that is often
contrary to, or at least, incompatible with the intended or planned changes.
Examples of this abound. When fertilizers were first introduced, village people
reasoned out in the following manner: Hindi dapat ambagan ang lupa. (The
land should not contribute). When sanitary toilets were built for villagers, many
refused to use them at first or used them the same old way they used their
one-hectare or a toilet in the fields. When nutritious nutri-buns were given to
people, they remained faithful to their nutritionally unbalanced meals. When
industrialization and urbanization began to seep into a particular village, it took
time for people to adjust their life system to new ones more suitable to the
changes that occurred.

This is where development communication comes in. First of all, development

communication must make the planners and developers of the physical
environment realize that the people for whom the development change is
intended may not see the change as valuable at all. This is, in fact, what has
happened in many development projects undertaken by government, civic and
church institutions.
Secondly, an over-all planned communication strategy must be made to
accompany the corresponding physical infrastructure development project.

Thirdly, if at all possible, the people affected should be involved in the very
planning and implementing of the development project and of its
communication support.

Fourthly, different media of communication should be used to pave the way for
the acceptance of people or the development change itself. Mass media, which
is usually stressed, is not enough; while it is good for creating knowledge and
awareness, it has been found deficient in fostering acceptance or practice. KAP
(knowledge, attitude, practice) surveys show that it is the group and
interpersonal media which finally convince people to accept a given change.

By inserting the attitude of development communication in the

planners/implementors of development projects and by using all forms of media
to inform the people of the beneficial effects of such projects and the changes
they bring about, the process of their acceptance by the beneficiaries
themselves thereby becomes a lot easier.

Therefore, we find that development communication becomes essential in two

areas: (a) in the area of developing the physical or material environment; and
(b) in the area of developing the spiritual environment i.e., the ideas, the
values and the social institutions of a given people.

Note, however, that I said that the process of acceptance by people becomes
easier. Although easier, it will still involve a lot of patience and efforts on the
part of the development worker and development communicator. After all, we
did say that development, to be true development, must ultimately become
self-development, and that communication, to be developmental, must also
begin and end with people themselves. Since people are not computers, they
can only be persuaded, not programmed, to accept development. This is the
reason why development communication is an essential element of a genuine
development program.

The founder of the institution I represent, the Rev. Cornelio Lagerwey, MSC,
sums up the difficult process of development communication in what he calls
the five Is of communication. First of all, he said, we must inform people about
the planned change its benefits as well as its defects. Secondly we
must instruct people on the ways and means of making it work for them.
Thirdly, in order to make people start doing something, we must inspire them to
act. Then we must insist (through persuasive means) that they go on with the
intended change, before we can truly involve them.
In conclusion, let me reiterate that true development means getting people
involved in the very subject matter of development. The only way to do this is
to make people subjects and not mere objects of the development effort itself.
Development communication, both in theory and in practice, seeks such a
social response from the people themselves. This is why development
communication cannot but be an essential element of any development process.

Development Communication in an Urban Setting

By Clodualdo del Mundo, Jr.
CFA Consultant
(From the book Philippine Mass Media: A Book of Readings, edited by Clodualdo
del Mundo, Jr., published by the Communication Foundation for Asia: Manila,
1986)
Development communication is mentioned so often in the media and in
countless seminars that it seems that communicators understand what it
means. We are exposed to the term so often that we get a feel of its meaning
at least, we feel that we know what we are talking about. In the process, the
term acquires various shades of meaning; until finally, each user adds his or her
contribution to the circle of confusion or communication.

For some people, development communication or devcom refers to the

communication projects of the government. Devcom means developmental
messages family planning, nutrition, tree-planting, cooperatives, and so on.
To others, devcom is what our media are not all about. That is a perceptive
definition of what devcom is by what it is not.

Dr. Nora Quebral of the University of the Philippines at Los Baos, in her article
aptly titled Development Communication, defines the concept as the art and
science of human communication applied to the speedy transformation of a
country and the mass of its people from poverty to a dynamic state of economic
growth that makes possible greater social equality and the larger fulfillment of
the human potential. Dr. Quebral elucidates further that It is basically an
approach or a point of view that sizes up a problem in the light of people to be
reached, and of overcoming and side-stepping the barriers in the way of
reaching them.
What comes across quite clearly in this definition is the goal-orientedness of
development communication. As Dr. Juan Jamias, also a professor in
communication at UP Los Baos, notes: Development communication is
purposive with development as the purpose, goal, or objective.

Dr. Gloria Feliciano, former head of the Institute of Mass Communication at UP

Diliman, delineates the goals of development communication into several levels
of development: One of these is technological development, which has to do
with the acquisition of new occupational skills in the farms and homes. Another
is economic development, or the application of new agricultural practices to
increase food production; it also includes provision for a nationwide program of
agrarian reform and cooperatives development. A third is social and cultural
development, which refers to the change from old values to new ones and, in
general, change in modes of living which results in human well-being.

From these preceding ideas, we can see the following elements of development
communication: (1) It is an approach to human communication; (2) It is
purposive connoting planned, result-oriented communication; (3) The goal is
development technological, economic, social, and cultural.

Having defined development communication through the ideas of other people,

I would like to underscore some personal observations: I like to think that
development communication is not merely an impersonal art or science, or an
approach that can be made-to-order to fit a particular communication program.
To my mind, development communication is essentially an orientation an
orientation towards people. This demands much of the communicator, for an
orientation implies a personal belief, a personal stand, a personal commitment.

Development communication started in the area of agriculture, chiefly at Los

Baos. Up to this date, it focuses on the rural farm folks for its target audience
almost two-thirds of the population (4,434,000 rural families against
1,913,000 urban families). This does not mean that development
communication is out of place in an urban setting. In fact, our situation compels
us to support development communication in the modern areas.

Media Performance in Urban Areas

Before presenting my proposal for development communication in an urban
setting, I would like to make some observations about the performance of
media, particularly television, in urban areas.
It can be generalized that Philippine television is urban-oriented. Most, if not all,
programs are designed for the urban viewers ranging from noontime variety
programs for the so-called bakya (low class), to society talk shows for the so-
called klas (high class). In summary, most programs are geared towards the
urban consumer.

Philippine television is entertainment-oriented entertainment for the sake of

entertainment. Various content analyses of television programming show this as
fact. Since Philippine television is designed basically for the entertainment of
urban viewers, it is not used as a tool for development, but as a tool for the
status quo. This status quo is characterized by three factors urban rich, urban
poor, and the masses of rural people. And television does not participate in
bridging the gap between the haves and the have-nots. In fact, Philippine
television, supported by commercial advertising, serves to widen this chasm
which divides our society.

This is a situation that is difficult to undo. But change is never easy.

Development communication provides a concept that can reorient our media.

The masses are the basic concern of development communication. Who are the
masses? Of course, the greatest number of people the urban poor and rural
masses 90% of the Filipino families who share 62.9% of the nations total
family income. Philippine television, and other media as well, even as they are
directed towards the urban viewers, should exist for the masses. As George
Verghese, Ramon Magsaysay Awardee for Journalism in 1975, says in his article
Media as Development: Although newspapers may not reach the distant and
illiterate villager, the rural masses like the urban poor are their real
constituents. The statement applies to all media.

Surely, there are many problems in the urban areas which should concern
media responsible parenthood, health, nutrition, pollution, traffic, housing,
etc. But more than all this, media in an urban setting should aim at the
development of a collective consciousness of the masses, an awareness of the
situation of the greater number of Filipinos, and ideally, a collective effort
towards social equality. These are nice words. The big question is How?

I mentioned that development communication is essentially an orientation; this

implies a personal belief, a personal stand, a personal commitment. This is the
reason why development communication demands a lot from the communicator.
Development communication is a personal involvement with the people. If a
communicator believes in development communication, then he orients himself
with this commitment. In short, he makes a stand for the people.

Let us look at television. Development communication should not be merely a

program among many un-developmental programs. Unfortunately, this is what
happens in our networks today. Development communication is paid lip service.
Since there are public service programs on weekdays, the network is free to
swing on Sundays.

The problem is that networks do not have a definite stand. If they stand for
anything at all, it is for the entertainment business. However, if a network
stands for development communication, then this orientation must permeate its
entire programming. The choice of programs is guided by this orientation.
Therefore, musical programs are conceived not merely to follow a trend, but to
create a tool for a particular objective. A foreign movie is not imported for its
commercial appeal only, but for the insight which it may impart to our people. A
drama is not conceived for the star, but for the viewers.

Furthermore, development communication, to be effective, demands that the

communicator establish common ground with the people. This is the most
difficult part of it all. Our communicators, particularly broadcasters, have been
so influenced by Western models that they appear and act like their Western
counterparts. Let me explain my point through questions: Why does a Filipino
newscaster appear in coat-and-tie? Why does an emcee for a musical program
appear in tuxedo? Why do lady emcees appear in evening gowns? Why are
programs for the bakya in Pilipino, and those for the so-called klas in English?
There is only one answer to these questions: Our communicators refuse to
establish common ground with the people. And they cannot, because of their
Western orientation.

Neville Jayaweera, a Sri Lankan communicator, thinks that the communicators

of the Third World cannot establish this common ground The communicator is
of necessity on an inaccessibly different level of life style, education, and
economics than his listeners Lack of sensibility and perception are the result
of class isolation. The sad fact is that those who once belonged to the lowly
class, but have succeeded in climbing the social ladder through media, now
wallow in a newfound life style.

Bucking the System

Another big factor that poses a problem to development communication is the
system. Can development communication exist in a commercial system? To do
this, a development communicator must solve two problems: (1) financing and
(2) ratings.

Financing may be difficult, but it is not entirely impossible. In the United States,
the Public Broadcasting Service, the American educational network, exists side
by side with the three entrenched commercial networks. Foundations and other
private groups (even commercial ones) support the PBS, with matching grants
from the Federal government. In this country, with proper support and
manpower, the Maharlika Broadcasting System is a potential network which can
serve as an alternative to the commercial networks. Of course, a complete
overhaul is necessary to realize this potential of the MBS.

Private financing organizations could be tapped. At present, a few radio stations

are supported by religious groups. These stations survive without compromising
with commerce (e.g. Far East Broadcasting Company).

One thing is definite: Development communication has to find sustenance from

sources other than commercial advertising. The present commercial system has
so developed a monstrosity and with it a public taste for the inane that it
would be difficult to fight commercial media on their own ground.

Development communicators must contend with ratings. In the first place,

development communication is result-oriented. To achieve its goal, a
developmental program must first reach its audience. Therefore, a development
communicator must be concerned with ratings too. He or she must find answers
to questions like: How does one create a developmental drama that rates? A
developmental musical show? A developmental game show? A developmental
childrens show?

A few so-called developmental programs exist, but they are synonymous with
boredom. Media people misread this failure of the communicator as the
ineffectiveness of development communication. Development programs must
compete for audience share. How this is done depends on the creativity and
ingenuity of the communicator. A failure of the communicator does not mean a
failure of the concept of development communication.

This whole idea of development communication in an urban setting may sound

too idealistic. It is. But, to my mind, it is an ideal which is not impossible to
achieve. As long as there are communicators who will stand for the people,
there will be this chance for communication that is relevant, meaningful and
developmental. Of course, the question is Are there communicators who will
stand for the people?

Introduction to Development Communication: Its Philosophy and

Approach
By Fr. Cornelio Lagerwey, MSC
Founder of the CFA Media Group
(From the book, Monographs on Development Communication, published by the
Communication Foundation for Asia: Manila, 1990)

T he rationale behind development communication is to place

communication and media technology in the service of development.

What is development? What is behind this concept? Development is usually
expressed in economic terms such as employment rates, per capita income and
gross national product. However, experience tells us that economic growth
statistics alone do not constitute development.

Development is a total approach. It does not only involve economic programs.

The development of people is the main focus of this total approach.

In any strategy or program of development, people are the target. The needs of
the people predicate the delivery of development, whether it be in the form of
values education, skills development, livelihood assistance, human settlements,
just to name a few.

The heightened awareness of the government, church authority and social

development agencies of the many problems that plague contemporary society
has brought into focus the ineffectiveness of many well-intentioned
development projects. The success of a large majority of planned development
programs depends on the preparation of the target group of such programs.

For any real development to happen, there must be an inner change of people
to be willing to participate and be involved in matters that affect their very
lives. People cannot be manipulated or coerced to develop themselves. The
impetus and desire for development must come from within themselves.
But how do we get people into action? Education is the key, communication the
tool.

The purpose of communication, as a tool, is getting peoples involvement

through education. Both formal and non-formal education involves processes of
communication. This systematic process occurs over a certain period of time in
which the people are informed, instructed and inspired to participate and be
involved.

As a tool, communication should be used for service. In the Philippines,

however, the amount set aside for this information service is usually just
enough to do some image-building which hardly reaches the people for whom
the services are intended. It may enhance the image of the Department of
Health, Agriculture or Land Reform, but it does not educate or benefit the
millions these Departments are supposed to serve.

Example: Id like to tell a simple story back in the 60s when the miracle rice
was discovered. That time, Secretary Rafael Salas and I went to Los Ba?os to
find out what this miracle rice was all about. We went from a doctor in biology,
to a doctor in physiology, to so many other learned people sitting around the
table, all rice experts from different nations, to find out about miracle rice, etc. I
got a few mimeographed papers with some data on miracle rice. Then I said:
Yeah, but what is miracle rice? I stayed to interview the staff members for a
couple of days.

Then I began to ask myself, if miracle rice is intended for farmers, what will
happen between the knowledge of the IRRI (International Rice Research
Institute) and the farmer in the field; between the knowledge on one side and
the ignorance on the other side, and how to bridge this; how to transform this
knowledge and make communication a tool to help the farmer develop himself?
This was the birth of the Ang Tao magazine. Without it, miracle rice would
have remained an item in the daily papers or an image on the television screen.

I have nothing against image-building on television. I, for one, understand

Secretary Bengzon when I hear him on television talking about generics. But
when I think about the common tao, for whose benefit the generics law is
intended, then we have the same gap today between the generics law and the
tao as we had between the miracle rice and the tao. There is an enormous gap
between the aim which is good, and the people for whom it is intended.
What government wants and what non-government organizations want is for
people to be involved. If people get involved, it means they understand. When
they do, we reach the goal of our service. Many people want instant
involvement which is never possible. That is where the process of
communication comes in.

Communication is not only advertisements, propaganda, entertainment, public

relations and image building. It is an instrument of servicing the needs of the
people to attain development.

The science which uses communication to change and motivate people through
education and inspiration towards development is development communication
or simply, DEVCOM.

DEVCOM brings about a planned growth intended to promote human

development, reducing, if not eradicating poverty, unemployment and other
social inequalities. It is engaged not only in mere reporting of facts or opinions,
but also in teaching the people and leading them to action. It imparts and
shares ideas to nurture and cultivate the proper attitudes, skills and values that
are needed to develop. In short, DEVCOM is a communication science that
assists developmental goals.

DEVCOM was born out of the need of people to be informed and educated.
Social inequalities, such as landlords oppressing tenants and poverty, became
the focus of political campaign platforms. After the elections, the people were
left ignorant of the developments affecting them. Most of them were not
informed of the issues that concern them. The result was severe poverty for
most and affluence for the few. To counteract the inequality, many resorted to
force. Such was the cycle of events that never benefited the people. DEVCOM is
meant to break the wall of ignorance, thus, breaking the bonds of poverty and
oppression.

Often, we in CFA are asked why we are in the communication service. Many say
that providing livelihood to eradicate poverty or community organizing to build
self-reliance among the depressed communities are better ways of serving the
needs of these groups.

Our answer: for any true development to happen, there must be an inner
change of people, for example from stagnation or opposition, to one of
involvement and support. People cannot be manipulated or coerced to grow and
develop. The impetus and desire for development must come from within
themselves.

But how can this happen? Or putting it in another way: Why does this not
happen? Is it because the process through which these programs have been
developed and implemented is not democratic, not participatory in nature?

A failure to understand this process and its concomitant instrument of

development communication can be very costly, like in India at the end of the
sixties. The government, in its efforts to control the population growth, received
substantial assistance from AID and the World Bank. A team of consultants and
technicians was sent to study the situation. Millions were spent. A program was
recommended. The recommendations were reviewed, the project was set up
and implemented. Health and family planning clinics were established
throughout the country. More millions were spent. Just one problem: the
women for whom the clinics were intended did not come in. The government
had to entice them with, for example, transistorized radios. The program failed.
Human rights were violated. Indira Gandhi lost the next elections. What was
wrong? The failure to get the involvement of the women through the process of
development communication. The government wanted instant involvement.
People, however, are not coffee!

And so what happens? From the point of view of the government or the NGO,
an ineffective program is tantamount to budgetary loss. On the side of the low-
level income groups to whom these programs are targeted, it means lost self-
worth, dehumanization. Anyone who is keen enough can sense this feeling of
the poor being displaced, of being at the mercy of political and economic forces.
They perceive that they do not have a handle on what is happening to them.
They do not feel that they are the subjects of the development programs. With
their characteristic meekness in front of the affluent and the influential, it is not
hasty to conclude that they paradoxically see themselves as objects of the
programs geared towards their development.

The science which uses communication to educate, change and motivate

peoples attitudes and values leading to developmental goals is development
communication or DEVCOM. This, however, costs money.

In the Philippines, as in other developing countries like India, the budget set
aside for communication is usually just enough to do some public relations or
image-building for the government or the agency concerned. The practice
hardly reaches the people for whom the information services are intended. It is
cheaper to have a picture and an article in the papers or a spot on radio or
television than to make the common people understand fully the issues that
affect their way of life. This superficial use of media is more often a deterrent to
development than its instrument since it excludes participation from the target
audience, the people.

And so DEVCOM was born. The CFA Media Group among others saw the dire
need to supply the people with adequate background knowledge for them to
make the proper decisions on matters affecting their lives. DEVCOM was meant
to tear down the wall of ignorance and so break the bonds of poverty and
oppression. In contrast with those who wanted to counteract the inequality with
force.

To understand the issues that affect their way of life, there was a need to
provide a communication tool. A tool that would do more than image building,
more than saying how good a government department performs! A tool that will
get the people involved in their own life and destiny. A revolutionary use of
communication: the use of communication for development, for people power.

Many institutions, including non-government agencies, have begun to recognize

DEVCOMs importance, values and usefulness. Many have adapted it in their
school services.

In our history we have developed the CFAs methodology of the 5 Is. The first I
is INFORM.

Experience tells us that to inform people through research and study is needed
to understand a subject well enough that one can express and communicate it
in the level of peoples understanding, aware of their socio-cultural background,
and the language they use. This way, the people become part of initiating the
program since they are the subject of development, not the object.

To get the people involved, it is not enough that they are informed about the
issue and understand what it is about. They also have to know how it works and
this is instruction. For this to be understood, illustrations, pictures, drawings
and other graphic aids are needed. We call these Is: INFORM and INSTRUCT.

The main objective of communication is peoples involvement and participation.

To achieve this, people are not only in need to be informed about the issue and
instructed on how it works but they also have to be motivated to do it. This is
the third I or INSPIRATION. This is the heart and core of all good
communication. This is why dramas and inspiring stories are used in comics,
radio and television While the first two Is appeal more to the mind, the third I
stimulates the heart and the will.

To inspire and motivate people towards involvement is not done only once. It
needs to be repeated, for motivation can only come when a continuous sending
of persuasive impulses is made. This is the fourth I or INSIST. INSISTENCE
removes all the remaining reservations and doubtful feelings to make way for
the fifth I, which is INVOLVEMENT. The objective of all communication is to get
people involved.

As believers in development communication, we must achieve a consensus in

order to improve DEVCOMs service to the developmental needs of the people.
By informing people, DEVCOM tells them where they are and what they are and
where they are going. By instructing, DEVCOM provides people the means to go
where they want to go. By inspiring, DEVCOM motivates people to move and
act. By insisting, DEVCOM reminds people to sustain their actions. By involving,
DEVCOM gives back self confidence and human dignity in order that the total
liberation of people can be achieved.

How can organizations generate and maximize peoples participation in

development? How can government and non-government organizations work
together in educating the grassroots about their needs to improve their lives?
We could apply the 5 Is: inform each other of our concerns and priorities;
instruct each other on how we can achieve collaboration and cooperation to
compliment and synchronize our development programs; inspire each other by
mutually sharing our expertise and talents; insist that all development
programs must serve the people and so get involved with each other.

DEVCOM comes to a full circle when it begins to serve not only the recipients of
development but also us who sought to help by giving us a deeper
understanding and appreciation of the plight of the less privileged majority.

Involvement will be the effect on the many marginalized Filipinos when we

employ a participatory tool such as DEVCOM, in the total making of
development projects, from conceptualization to implementation, even
evaluation.

My dear friends, DEVCOM, as a science, is a science of HOPE, expressing belief

in the silent majority.
People are made to the image of GOD and redeemed by Christ. So let us
continue to work for their liberation through DEVCOM, because DEVCOM is
people-communication, DEVCOM is people power.