3 Ways New Media Contributes to the Decolonising Development Discourse

By Cara-Marie Findlay

A blogcast. Listen and read along as Cara-Marie Findlay reads her third and final individual blog post. 

Introduction

In my first blog post, I briefly touched on how new media— like social media —is helping to facilitate overdue discussions on racism and decolonisation within Development. As an example of how new digital media can help to facilitate discussions in general, I engaged my fellow practitioners by posing a question about motivation in different online practitioner groups. For my second post, I shared the answers of colleagues from around the world, and linked them to the Time to Decolonise Aid report published earlier this year. 

 

In this post, I discuss three ways new media contributes to the discussion around decolonising development: circulation of pertinent information through blogs and websites; community building through “writing back” on social media; and encouraging on-going dialogue about Development news and updates. In the following paragraphs, I share specific examples of each of the three contributions. I include a brief look at some of the limitations of new media in the decolonising development discourse. Finally, I conclude with my own reflections on my experience writing this blog series. 

 

Key Assertions 

In the context of this post, new media, refers to the “decentralization of channels for the distribution of messages…an increase in the options for audience members to become involved in the communication process, often entailing an interactive form of communication; and an increase in the degree of flexibility for determining the form and content through the digitization of messages” (McQuail, 1994 as referenced in Lievrouw & Livingstone 2002, p. 3). While decolonising development speaks to “the process of deconstructing colonial ideologies regarding the superiority and privilege of Western [or Eurocentric] thought and approaches” (Peace Direct, 2021, p. 13).  

 

Before going any further, it is important to note that as practitioners we are “doing development in an increasingly digitalised context,” or to state it another way, we are engaged in “Development in a Digital World” (Roberts, 2019). What does that mean? It means, in our current setting, many aspects of social and economic life have become datafied—from social interaction to shopping habits—and it would be remiss of us to ignore the consequences this has for international development. 

 

Three Contributions

Circulation of Pertinent Information 

One of the consequences of doing Development in a Digital World is an added digital layer to humanitarian work. Mark Duffield refers to this digital layer as “cyber-humanitarianism” or “the increasing reliance [on] remote and smart [inter]Net-based technologies” (Duffield, 2013, p. 4) for the delivery of, and access to, Development aid. Technologies such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality are rapidly reshaping the humanitarian space. Thus, Development agencies and practitioners need to understand the trends, emerging issues, and potential harm we are buying into. 

 

Fortunately, new media, such as blogs and websites, can offer a way to circulate pertinent information that looks critically at these emerging issues. Including, how cyber-humanitarian technology can, and has, helped to re-entrench neocolonial ideas in Development (e.g. modernisation). Blogs and websites also offer the possibility for significantly increasing the reach of the writer and/or publisher, thus attracting a wider audience. 

 

For example, U.S. media watch group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) has been around since 1986. FAIR’s weekly radio show CounterSpin has addressed topics such as racism and technology. ‘Black Communities Are Already Living in a Tech Dystopia’ is a Counterspin episode that featured an interview with Ruha Benjamin, the author of Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. In the interview, Benjamin articulates that technology “is not, in fact, objective in the way we are being socialized to believe” (Jackson, 2019). A view that challenges the prevailing Western ideology that technology is neutral, and an important fact for us to consider as practitioners engaged in cyber-humanitarian work. 

 

FAIR’s website makes it easy to find and listen to previous episodes, including the one aforementioned; and for those who would rather read than listen, FAIR includes a typed transcript of the interview on the episode’s webpage. The FAIR website makes it convenient to share an episode’s page on social media or to email it. It is safe to assume that without a website, an email list, and shares on social media, FAIR would not be able to reach “an international network of over 50,000 activists” (FAIR, n.d.). New media has made it possible to amplify and circulate serious points, such as “how the implicit biases of the larger society can affect technological outputs” (Findlay, 2021). In turn, amplifying and circulating questions around the effectiveness of cyber-humanitarianism; and the need to decolonise our understanding and use of ICT4D (information communication technology for development). New media also made it possible for a U.S. organisation to reach an international audience. 

 

Community Building on Social Media

New Media (particularly, social media) also presents an opportunity for virtual communities to be formed around the postcolonial concept of “writing back;” that is “responding to colonial legacies [or] challenging colonial cultural attitudes” (McEwan, 2019, p. 31). New media allows people situated in the Global South, who are often “rendered voiceless” to “write back back from the margins” (McEwan, 2019, pp. 22, 57) and contest the ‘lingering and debilitating modes of thought and action’ in Development (Myers, 2006 as quoted in McEwan, 2019, p. 33). Modes that would silence or ignore the experiences of those who were previously colonised, and who are now receiving Development assistance from primarily Western humanitarian agencies.

 

These virtual communities may come in different forms. For example, there is the Black Women in Development Facebook group, which allows Black women from around the world to share their Development experiences (the good, the bad, and the ugly) while also enabling them to be a resource to one another (e.g. sharing job opportunities, offering advice, etc.). 

Another example of a virtual community centered around writing back is the No White Saviors (NWS) instagram page. NWS is an advocacy campaign, led by four women (three are native Ugandans, the other is described as a “white savior in recovery”), dedicated to directing the Development and Aid sectors towards an anti-racist future. NWS uses their instagram platform in particular to: highlight problematic examples of Development and aid practice; issue calls to take online and offline action; and to spotlight and support those they believe are doing Development right. Their instagram posts often feature long captions explaining the significance of the corresponding image and a call to action urging their community of 877K followers to respond to the post in some way. As in real life, people who are a part of, or who visit, this virtual NWS community “use words on screens [i.e. their comments on a NWS post] to exchange pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual discourse…exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm” etc. (Rheingold, 1993 as quoted in Lievrouw & Livingstone 2002, p. 7). The NWS instagram community has united people who are physically separated (many situated in the Global South and many in the Global North as well) around the common belief that the Development sector needs to be decolonised and reformed to ensure a better, more equitable, Development. 

 

Encouraging On-going Dialogue

Another way new media contributes to the discourse of decolonising development is through its ability to generate dialogue and offer audience members an opportunity to react and respond in their own time. Sometimes these responses are close to real-time (for example, replying to breaking news on Twitter); and other times these responses may come weeks, months, or even years laters (for example, leaving a comment on an older blog post or online news article).  

New media has made it easier for anyone with access to the internet to collect, disseminate, and react to news; in this case, news regarding racism in the Development sector. For example, in September 2020, The New Humanitarian published an article, “Readers React | Racism in the Aid Sector and the Way Forward” composed almost entirely of reader comments to a series of different New Humanitarian articles on “how the Black Lives Matter movement is reverberating through the aid sector.” The Readers React article shared aid worker/Development practitioner experiences of racism in their humanitarian work, in their own words. The article also includes a link to a Google form where readers can continue to add and share their own experiences with racism within the sector, even today, more than a year later. It is important to note that the series of #BlackLivesMatter articles launched by The New Humanitarian in June was in direct response to the murder of George Floyd in the U.S. which sparked racial justice protests around the world. 

 

Limitations of New Media 

While new media has, and can, contribute to the decolonising Development discourse it also has its limitations. These limitations include the circulation of fake news or other inaccurate information, and the censorship (or “shadowbanning” – blocking a social media account’s content so that it is less prominent or visible to others) of voices that diverge from dominant Development discourses. 

 

Additionally, the ease of which a user can choose to engage (or not engage) in a virtual community is also a reason virtual communities must be considered more unstable than “‘real-life’ or offline communities;” since “individuals [and organisations and campaigns like NWS] can become active and prominent quickly, and just as quickly disappear altogether” (Lievrouw & Livingstone 2002, p. 7)

 

Furthermore, it is still unclear how much influence new media has (if any) on the existing levers of power in Development—policy, practice, and scholarship. 

 

To quote one of my professors, Tobias Denskus, and his esteemed colleague Andrea Papan: 

 

“There is little evidence that blogging and its learning processes influence macro-policy making [in Development]. Organisational rituals and artefacts such as global summits, policy papers, and the powerful role of international organisations in research, policy, and practice still shape the [dominant] discourse[s]. Blogs can help to expose these rituals and continue to work towards an alternative virtual learning space that reflects new and diverse voices…and can help introduce reflexive writing to more people.” (Denskus & Papan, 2013, p. 466). 

 

Though this quote is in reference to blogging, the sentiment can be applied to all forms of new media. 

 

Another clear limitation is the lack of access to new media for peoples in the Global South. Many individuals situated in the Global South still do not have access to an affordable or stable internet connection that would allow them to engage and participate in these forums, which limits their important and needed contributions to the discourse on decolonising development. 

 

Conclusion

This blog series has allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of how useful a tool new media can be in adding to the discourse around decolonising development. Interestingly enough, new media is a term that has been used since the 1960s and 1970s by researchers investigating the implications of information and communication technologies (Lievrouw & Livingstone 2002, p. 2). And the Eurocentric thought and approaches that have led to, and invisibilised, racism within the sector is as old as Development itself. Thus, for me, questions still remain. Is new media capable of influencing transformative change within the sector? If yes, then how? Especially, when one of the key features of new media is the decentralisation of channels. The levers of power within development remain very much centralised and entrenched within the Global North. Since this is the case, as practitioners we must seriously question whether those who are currently at the helm of these levers of power even desire to see decolonial transformation within the sector. More than that, as practitioners, we must ask ourselves if we truly desire a decolonised Development which may in turn oust us from being positioned as “experts”. 

 

As previously mentioned in an earlier post, I started a consulting company to help ensure that more underrepresented and impacted peoples would be able to participate in the Development dialogue and process taking place. Thus, although this academic exercise is coming to an end, I (along with my colleagues at my consulting firm) will continue to explore these critical questions and engage the broader public on topics in Development through the company blog. 

 

My hope is that as practitioners we will continue to engage in reflexive practice and create space for, and embrace, difference within this field. Only when we take into account and value our different experiences and ways of knowing, will we be able to truly come together and discover the best and most effective ways to solve the world’s biggest challenges. 

 

References

Denskus, T. & Papan, A. (2013): Reflexive engagements: the international development blogging evolution and its challenges, Development in Practice 23:4, 435-447.

Duffield, M. (2013). Disaster-resilience in the network age: Access-denial and the rise of cyber-humanitarianism (DIIS Working Paper 2013:23). Copenhagen: Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS). Retrieved from: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/122292/1/782863604.pdf

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). (n.d.). What’s FAIR? Retrieved from: https://fair.org/about-fair/

Findlay, C. (2021). On C.L.Ai.R.A. and Tech Bias in the United States. Findlay House Global, 14 September, retrieved from: https://peoplecentreddevelopment.com/pubs/2021/on-claira-and-tech-bias-in-the-us

Jackson, J. (2019): Black Communities Are Already Living in a Tech Dystopia (Links to an external site.), Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, 15 August.

Lievrouw, L., & Livingstone, S. (2002). Handbook of new media. SAGE Publications, Ltd, https://www-doi-org.proxy.mau.se/10.4135/9781848608245

McEwan, C. (2019). Postcolonialism, decoloniality and development. Routledge.

Peace Direct (2021): Time to Decolonize Aid-Insights and Lessons from a global consultation. London: Peace Direct.

Readers React | Racism in the Aid Sector and the Way Forward. (2020). The New Humanitarian. Retrieved from: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2020/09/11/racism-in-humanitarian-aid-sector-Black-lives-matter 

Roberts, T. (2019). Digital Development: What’s In a Name. Appropriating Technology. http://www.appropriatingtechnology.org/?q=node/302

Podcast Episode: Interview with a Development Professional on the Impact of ICTs

By Katharina Hribernigg

For my second blog post I wanted to interview a development professional on how ICT has impacted their work.

I would also be interested to hear how ICT has impacted your work as a development professional, so please take a listen and then leave a comment.

“We must take this moment to ensure Africa can prosper”

On October 12, it was announced that Matt Hancock, former UK health secretary, had been appointed UN special envoy to help Covid recovery in Africa. First reading about this in an article accompanied by a photo where Matt Hancock gives his thumbs up with a big smile on his face, my first reaction was that this surely had to be some type of The Onion article; a satiric take. But it wasn’t. The role of United Nations envoy for financial innovation and climate change for its Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) was assigned to the former UK health secretary due to his success in managing the UK’s pandemic response, more specifically his “economic policy expertise, experience operating financial markets at the Bank of England and in-depth understanding of government and multilateral through his various ministerial cabinet roles“, according to the Guardian.

The debates after this announcement have been many, with critics examining the history and actions of this specific person at length. However, the point of departure for this blog post is not whether this person is fit for the role due to his public and political history. Instead, I am interested in the structures allowing yet another Western/European man/person leading “Africa to prosper”, consequently assuming that this person is the best fit for the job, overlooking African leaders and experts for this position.

Adding a postcolonial lens; Whose expertise do we really listen to in international development initiatives? Says Sardar (1999) in McEwan (2018): “For some, the real power of the North lies not in its massive economic development and technical advances, but in its power to name, represent and theorise”. I come back to Meera Sabaratnam mentioned in my first post, and her core statement that international actors’ interventions in low- and middle-income countries keep failing because they are constituted through structural relations of colonial differences; underlying colonial dynamics consisting of constitutive assumptions regarding who is entitled to what in the world (and who is to blame for failure), rooted in forms of common sense that naturalise such inequalities of wealth and power (Sabaratnam, 2017:4). Flipping these structures upside down, shifting the discourse of international development is what is needed; feeding into old colonial structures of agency and discursive power is not. African voices, such as Dr Ayoade Alakija, co-chair of the African Union’s Africa Vaccine Delivery Alliance for Covid-19 and Sagal Bihi, a Somali MP, reacted similarly, with quotes such as: “-The definition of a colonial hangover. Decolonise aid – no, here’s Matty!” and “-Africa is seen by the west as [the] dumping ground for their locally unemployable shady characters”, according to The Telegraph.

And more than neo-colonialism and the UN’s complex donor relations and diplomacy, this is fundamentally also a question about underlying racism. Says Hugo Slim, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, in a blog post:

“I wonder if racism is at the root of why we can’t ‘let go’ of our international power (…) and genuinely enable people and power in local organisations and national governments. I suspect it is. (…) But we are clearly still not trying hard enough, and this suggests a deeper reason. We can’t quite bear to share the system with ‘them’. We don’t really trust ‘them’ to get it right. Our colonial ancestors had misgivings about political independence, and so do we. And we like what we do and the rewards and reputation that it brings. Quite simply, we don’t want to give all this away.”

While Hugo Slim writes more directly about humanitarian practices and local operations, this could also be applied at the higher level. Again – whose expertise do we (and in this case, the UN) accept and trust to do the best job to help Covid recovery in Africa, leading “Africa to prosper”? Clearly not a person from Africa.

However, on Saturday, October 16, the UN withdrew the job offer to the former UK health secretary, allegedly due to campaigners objecting to the appointment “because of his record in government during the coronavirus crisis”, according to the Guardian. In other words, it was a question of a personal track record more than the structures surrounding the appointment, that led to this withdrawal. Let us see who the next candidate for the job will be.

 

Sources:

McEwan, Cheryl (2018, 2nd ed) Postcolonialism, Decoloniality and Development. London: Routledge

Sabaratnam, Meera (2019) Decolonising Intervention: International Statebuilding in Mozambique. London/New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Slim, Hugo/The Humanitarian Practice Network (2020) Is racism part of our reluctance to localise humanitarian action? Retrieved from: https://odihpn.org/blog/is-racism-part-of-our-reluctance-to-localise-humanitarian-action/ (October 16, 2021)

The Guardian (2021) Matt Hancock appointed UN special envoy to help Covid recovery in Africa. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/12/matt-hancock-appointed-un-special-envoy-to-help-covid-recovery-in-africa (October 16, 2021)

The Guardian (2021) United Nations withdraws Matt Hancock job offer. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/16/united-nations-withdraws-matt-hancock-job-offer (October 16, 2021)

The Telegraph (2021) ‘Jaw-dropping colonial hangover’: fury greets Matt Hancock’s UN Africa role. Retrieved from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/jaw-dropping-colonial-hangover-fury-greets-matt-hancocks-un/ (October 16, 2021)

Digital Humanitarianism: potentialities and risks

We indeed live in a globalized and hyper-connected world. The digitalization we are experiencing, fastened by the Covid Pandemic, is endemic, inevitable and is speeding like never before.

It touches us in many ways, some may not be perceptible nor foreseeable at the present moment, but it involves everybody and our common future, as individuals, communities and global reality.

In aid work, digital technologies are fundamental tools: they allow humanitarians to map, predict and respond to humanitarian crises and serve affected people more efficiently. Increased connectivity and digital access empower affected people to connect, to find information and to express their needs more easily.

On the other side of the coin, numerous other problems arise.

Zuboff describes a “surveillance capitalism”, which is “data from humans used to turn into profit, at the expense of the people themselves”. For example, humanitarian organizations collect, store, share, and analyze data that is attractive to parties in an armed conflict. As a result, a growing wave of digital attacks and cyber espionage target humanitarian organizations.

In addition, AI is being used to shoot targets and it’s getting increasingly out of human’s control. We also assist to phenomena of disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and the incapability of accessing digital technologies contributes to increasing the digital divide.

While digital technologies offer unparalleled opportunities for granting humanitarian relief, they must be used ethically and responsibly to minimize the risks.

In this thread, I want to discuss the possible solutions to the dark sides of Digital Humanitarianism, and how we can foster a more participatory approach towards the communities involved. I am also interested in Dignified Storytelling and Digital Rights.
My main areas of research are South America and the Middle East, which also represent a kind of emotional geography for me.

➡️ I hope you will enjoy my contributions! In the meanwhile, what are your thoughts about the possibilities and risks of digital hyperconnection?

Sources:

Zuboff, S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future, PublicAffairs, New York.

Collins A., (2019) Forged Authenticity: Governing Deepfake Risks, EPFL International Risk Governance Center. https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/273296?ln=en.

Rejali S., Heiniger Y. (2021), The role of digital technologies in humanitarian law, policy and action: Charting a path forward. IRRC No. 913. https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/digital-technologies-humanitarian-law-policy-action-913

Implementing truly participatory development processes: Can we or can’t we?

Participatory development and local participation are core concepts gaining much ground during the last few years within international development cooperation and its studies. This is, without a doubt, a positive progression and a needed lens on the policies and practices of and within the sector. However, it is easy to theorise about participatory development and decolonial methods and approaches but harder to implement in practice. The layers are many and all in need of close analysis; the power relations, social hierarchies, opportunities for participation; the structures and productions of knowledge we operate within.

ICT4D is often assumed to support this progression, democratising opportunities for participation with equitable access to online spaces, information, and technology. However, while new initiatives emerge from our big multilateral development organisations in line with this thinking, we can argue that the traditional policy of “efficiency and effectiveness” and seeking “measurable indicators imposed by donor demands and international standards” undoubtedly remain (see for example Tufte, 2017). Meera Sabaratnam writes that international actors’ interventions in low- and middle-income countries fail and keep failing “because they are constituted through structural relations of colonial differences that intimately shape their conception, operation and effects.” (Sabaratnam, 2017:4).

In this blog series, I aim to reflect on these concepts, including my own role as a practitioner within the field. Questions I hope to guide me through my writing are:

  • How can we improve participatory development practices given the deep structures of colonial differences of our world, as expressed by Sabaratnam?
  • How can ICT4D be a tool for implementing more participatory development and social change processes in low- and middle-income countries (or rather, can it)?
  • How can a gender perspective help in establishing more participatory development processes (or help us understand the limitations to reach there)?

I hope to develop my thoughts, or maybe keep asking questions, in future blog posts. Do you reflect on your role in the international development cooperation sector in relation to these questions?

 

Sources:

Sabaratnam, Meera (2019) Decolonising Intervention: International Statebuilding in Mozambique. London/New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Tufte, Thomas (2017) Communication and Social Change: A Citizen Perspective. Cambridge: Polity.