In this article I will
first present briefly the idea of the receptor approach to human rights and the
important role that dialogue as part of an effective communication strategy
plays within it. I will then consider Theatre for Development as practiced in
East Africa with a view to highlighting aspects in its process that I believe
could be useful in strengthening of effective dialogue within the Receptor
Approach to human rights.
The Receptor Approach
to human rights is a practical and functional approach for the promotion of
international human rights obligations in local contexts, according to which
international human rights norms and local cultural practices could and should
mutually reinforce each other. The Receptor approach borrows its name from the
field of biomedicine, where receptor molecules residing on the cell surface or
nucleus receive and transmit external chemical signals. These signals are
usually loaded with specific instructions for the cell, controlling such vital
functions as cell division, extinction, as well as entry and exit of substances
to the cell membrane. For the communication to be effective, the signaling
molecules (carried for examples in hormones, drugs and neurotransmitters) have
to lock onto specific receptor molecules which then translate the signals into
the desired actions.
The Receptor Approach
analogously makes use of human rights receptors within cultural societies that
provide a path through which both cultural and social institutions and treaty
obligations can be received, analyzed, understood, translated and delivered for
enjoyment by right holders. This approach therefore considers that
international human rights will be most effective if they are able to lock onto
social and cultural receptors. As such, it is a two way communication process
to which effective dialogue is crucial.
The Receptor Approach
is a two-step process that involves matching and amplification. Using
established approaches from ethnography, it identifies the core elements of the
international human rights regime and looks for analogous phenomena in the
societies of the state party concerned. Consequently, the duty to implement a
particular right may be matched by social institutions other than law, such as
kinship, religion, custom, customary law, pledge societies, social support
networks or group-help. If there is a full match, the state is living up to its
international human rights obligations despite not relying solely on
legislation. If there is no match or only a partial one, then amplification is
required and the state has to extend existing social arrangements to bring it
in line with its obligations.
Such amplification may
involve reforms, and the Receptor Approach promotes the idea that reforms
should be indigenous and add to but not replace existing social arrangements.
It opposes the introduction of foreign notions into local contexts if local
remedies can be found which, while undoing the violation, remain loyal to the
social structure existing in that particular society. This position is informed
by the belief that changes that add to the existing arrangements stand a far
better chance of being supported and carried out by the community than those
enforced top-down. For this process to be effective, it is imperative that honest,
genuine and mutually respectful dialogue that results in a transfer of
knowledge to both parties be at its heart, and this is where the experience of
Theatre for Development TfD provides valuable lessons.
It is recognized from
the outset that no unified methodology or ethical standard in TfD exists at the
moment. Joseph describes TfD as operating in an extremely discursive
and eclectic context, and finds the lack of a guiding ethical standard as
seriously hampering the effective practice of TfD. The attraction of TfD to the
Receptor Approach, however, lies in its stated intentions, founding ideas and
ethos, rather than as a robust model of unqualified success.
Most, if not all
thespians and promoters of TfD subscribe to the philosophical and theoretical
underpinnings of Augusto Boal (theatre of the oppressed) and Paolo Freire
(pedagogy of the oppressed) ,into which I shall not attempt to enter here due
to the limited scope of this article. Suffice it to say that primary to both of
them is the centrality and independence of the community as main the driver in
its own development process. This has informed the status of TfD as we know it
today: a powerful tool for the conscientisation of society whose main objective
is the empowerment and transformation of society through interactive and
participatory education using its own artistic forms. Such popular media
include but are not limited to: dance, song, poetry, story-telling,
recitations, mime and drama .
Given the above
credentials of TfD, it comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Receptor
Approach, which champions the use of local solutions for local problems, finds
a natural affinity to TfD. Where TfD developed from the failure of
paternalistic and interventionist Northern strategies of development which
considered the receiving African societies as passive beneficiaries, the
Receptor Approach is a response to ineffective Northern strategies of
empowerment through punitive legislation that overlook the agency of the local.
They both speak to the Illegitimacy and inappropriateness of external top-down
imposition of societal change.
What specific lessons,
then, can the Receptor Approach to human rights learn from TfD? Personally, I
hold a deep conviction that unless human rights, especially those linked to good
health and sanitation, are predicated upon economic and social well-being, they
risk becoming an unattainable luxury. If due to a low economic status our focus
is concentrated on the struggle for daily subsistence, there is little room for
human rights. The link, therefore, between economic development and human
rights is fundamental. In this connection, any efforts at economic development
must be culturally legitimate, appropriate and effective. To achieve this, the
entire process must be ceded to the target beneficiaries.
This leads us to the
first useful lesson from TfD. This is the effective communication between the
expert and the learner, the donor and the receiver, the state and the citizen. How
does one impart knowledge or provide aid without alienating the recipient,
given the imbalance of power between the two? In the case of HIV/AIDS, this is
complicated even further by the sensitivity of matters relating to sexuality. In
a sense, every idea that is not indigenous to a particular community is foreign
and external. This does not reduce the potential benefit of innovation, but its
internalization must be carefully managed. How then does one create a sense of
ownership of innovation? Essentially, this boils down to a question of reducing
the gap between the two actors, so that the learner is able to appropriate for
themselves the external tools of change that the expert (facilitator,
animateur) avails. Joseph (personal communication), refers to this process as
the collapsing of insider/outsider dichotomies. Through the use of local and
therefore familiar forms of communication in an interactive and participatory
manner, self-analysis of one’s social conditions can lead to critical
self-assessment, which can lead to the conscious appropriation of an external
prescription leading to self-reform (conscietisation).
To offer a brief look
at how TfD actually works, I consider in the following section a description
from Tanzania provided by Mlama. The practice of TfD captured in
this case study proceeds in seven stages. It is designed to maximize the
participation of local communities in the identification, analysis and solution
of their most pressing problems. This is done through discussions stimulated by
theatrical performances.
The first two stages
involve research. Firstly, the experts (animateurs trained in the art of
theatre) go to the village to inform themselves of its structure, organisation,
and outlook (discovery). In stage two they identify resource persons within the
community with whom they collect specific information relevant to the
particular village.
In the third stage an
analysis of the information gathered during the first two stages is done with
the participation of the community. The community is divided into different
groups, each led by an animateur who guides the discussions, focusing them on
identifying problems, their possible causes and solutions.
In the fourth stage,
the discussion groups present their findings through an artistic medium of
their choice. The animateurs help with the technical aspects and ensure
fidelity of the performance to the identified problem. They also help to
stimulate and direct dialogue about the problems during the course of the
performance, involving the audience in the performance as much as possible.
The fifth stage brings
together all the different groups who now perform in front of the whole village
who are encouraged to participate both as audience and performers.
In stage six a
post-performance discussion takes place. It is here that strategies and visions
for the resolution of the identified problems are tabled.
The last stage
involves following up with the relevant authorities the progress in the
implementation of the solutions to the problems prioritized by the villagers.
In practice, this
process is fraught with many challenges, the most serious of which I refer to
as the institutional trap. This manifests in three important ways.
The first is
structural. Existing governmental institutional structures were not meant for
the implementation of bottom up policies such as those emanating from TfD. As a
result, any resolutions arrived at during the TfD process is still subject to
the administration of bureaucratic institutions. This has the impact of
creating only an illusion of empowerment as the villagers lack real power to
effect any of their desired projects. Willingness by the governing institutions
to transform their structures accordingly is therefore an absolute necessity if
TfD is to have any meaningful impact.
Secondly, because the
power relationship between the parties concerned is inherently uneven, the
funders, donors and government agents often find it difficult to cede decision
making power to the communities. This has seen attempts to manipulate the TfD
process by using it only as a vehicle to promote the acceptance of
predetermined prescriptions. As such, many donors still retain boardroom
authority as far as development projects are concerned, raising questions of
legitimacy and appropriateness of the process.
Thirdly and perhaps
most importantly, is the amenability of the process of TfD to hijack by all
sorts of actors. At the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Kenya for example,
there was an explosion of NGOs claiming to operate under the banner of TfD but
whose individual agendas could not be ascertained.
The history and
experience of TfD in Africa has without doubt had its share of negative outcomes.
It has, nevertheless, regardless of the degree of adherence to its theoretical
groundings, matured into an applied form of development paradigm, and its
relative success in the field of public health education in general and
HIV/AIDS in particular has been remarkable. Examples exist in Kenya, Uganda,
Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, to name a few.
Its success can mainly
be attributed to its consideration of effective communication and community
participation as central to its practice. According to Kalipeni and Kamlongera , the most important element in health care strategy is community
participation. As opposed to usual top down tendencies, TfD in Malawi was used
to ‘probe, stimulate and draw out ideas, and build on and learn from existing
knowledge and expertise’. The success of TfD as an effective communication tool
has thus been attributed to the fact that popular theatre is based on didactic
function, audience participation, and anonymity and makes use of familiar forms
of communication and is therefore less manipulative.
Like TfD, the Receptor
Approach champions the use of local and accessible means to tackle local
problems and could benefit a great deal by incorporating some of the salient
aspects of TfD into its practice and methodology. It is hoped that this article
has provided useful insights into the challenges that will face the Receptor
Approach to human rights on issues of cultural importance.
Posted by Michael Odhiambo (Michael is a post-doctoral researcher on the Receptor Approach at the School of Human Rights Research, Utrecht)
No comments:
Post a Comment