1
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
Transforming participatory video via Internet practice
Dr. David Montero (Universidad de Sevilla)
------
Abstract
The process of filming, editing, distributing and screening analogical video implies in itself a certain degree of productive cooperation among a number of agents. Within the field of participatory methodologies (participatory action research, in particular), such collaborative potential has been harnessed in order to promote local development through so-called participatory video (PV) experiences since the late 1960s. These practices have basically meant empowering specific communities to work via consensus in order to elaborate a creative discourse which targets community needs and aspirations. In the words of Shirley White, PV acts as “a powerful force for people to see themselves in relation to the community (…). It brings about a critical awareness that forms the foundation for creativity and communication. Thus, it has the potential to bring about personal, social, political, and cultural change” (White, 2003: 64).
However, the stress here has clearly been placed on the collaboration process facilitated by analogical working routines. Over the last decade, digital video has brought a profound transformation in the ways video is made and distributed. The popularity of extremely portable audiovisual equipment (digital cameras and mobile phones), plus the availability of video editing software and the reach of on-line distribution platforms such as YouTube or Vimeo seem to have shifted the focus from the collective production process to the articulation of on-line communities of individual viewers/producers which gather around particular interests. The political implications of such phenomenon are already present in terms such as “cultural citizenship” (Burgess and Green, 2009: 77) or “participatory culture” (Jenkins, Puroshotma, Clinton, Wiegel y Robinson, 2006); nonetheless, the complex ways in which digital video is changing political participation on the Internet and, more specifically, how it has transformed the patterns established by PV remain in need of further scholarly discussion.
In the light of such changes, this paper foregrounds the need to rethink PV as a methodology for academia to engage fruitfully with collective dynamics of production, reception and sharing of digital video present in today's activism. The potential of on-line video is discussed considering its limitations in detail and with a view to assess whether current practice truly works towards establishing an on-line public sphere or whether, on the contrary, participatory patterns within on-line video practice put forward a different idea of participation.
Introduction
There are two insights which have motivated me to write this paper. The first is the general idea behind Henry Jenkinˈs (2009) article "What Happened Before YouTube". Four years after it was launched, Jenkins defines YouTube not as something new and unprecedented, but as a site made possible by the emergence of very different participatory cultures and practices over previous decades. As Jenkins explains, "corporations rarely create communities; (they) court pre-existing communities with their own traditions, their own values and norms, their own hierarchies, their own practices, and their own leadership" (Jenkins, 2009: 110). Jenkins himself goes on to examine the ways in which several of these communities, including activists working on video, have adopted, rejected, resisted or negotiated the arrival of YouTube. However, crucial issues remain beyond the scope of Jenkinˈs article; most notably, how the concept of participation itself is being redefined within digital environments.
The second insight (by Armand Mattelart) points out that "each new generation of technology revived the discourse of salvation, the promise of universal concord, decentralized democracy, social justice and prosperity" (Mattelart, 2003: 23). Indeed technologies of information and communication in general, and the Internet in particular, have very often beenportrayed under an overtly utopian light (see Bell (1981), Davis, Elin and Reeher (2002), Lévy(2002), Negroponte (1998) and Rheingold (2002). Social networking sites have not escaped their share of utopianism. Terms such as “prosumer”, “produser” or“co-creation” tend to unproblematically emphasize the liberating effects of technological developments for users (Potts, 2008; Arvidsson, 2008; Zwass, 2010), while conveniently ignoring profound inequalities in the relation between the latter and service providers, not to mention the question of user-generated labor. Furthermore, cybertarianismusually ignores truly transformative uses and hence hinders any attempt to gauge their true participatory value.
In different ways, Jenkins and Mattelartˈs insights invite an analytic approach which places technological developments in relation to deeper participatory dynamics that develop culturally over time and that might express themselves in a number of ways depending of the tools communities have at their disposal. Analyzing then both participatory dynamics and participation tools in their own historical context becomes paramount if we want to understand how a new technological development might enhance, curtail, transform or undermine participation.
In line with this, this paper will focus on participatory dynamics articulated around video technology with a view to establish how the emergence of on-line practice has been negotiated by the PV community. It is the intersection between established routines, modulated by concrete aims and by years of practice, and the cutting edge claims that usually accompany technological innovations which provides an opportunity to critically evaluate the latter, revealing to what extent and how they respond to the needs of a particular group.Following this, I will first approach PV as a methodological tool within participatory action/research approaches, highlighting how participation is articulated and the role played by different routines. Then I will study briefly how actors working with PV are using digital technology and YouTube in particular, before moving on to
sketch changes in participatory patterns and question critically several discourses associated with video and participation in digital environments.
Participatory video as a methodology
According to practitioners Nick and Chris lunch participatory video is “a set of techniques –and a process - to involve a group or community in shaping and creating their own film. (...) This process can be very empowering, enabling people to take action to solve their own problems and also to communicate their needs and ideas to decision-makers and/or other groups and communities” (Lunch and Lunch, 2006).As a methodological tool PVhas been mostly used in the context of communication for development projects, whether as a tool for disseminating popular knowledge (Lunch, 2004), influence policymakers (Ferreira, 2000) or give a voice to marginalized collectivities (Dudley, 2003).
Practices under the label of participatory video have thereforespecific production dynamics which revolve around the collective involvement of a community (or at least a representative section of it) in the tasks of planning, producing, editing and distributing a film. Community building and agreed decision-makingplay a central role as the films themselves usually revolve around community issues.A key figure is the so-called “facilitator” whose task is to assist participants not only in relation to technical elements, but also in identifying and analyzing what participants want to talk about. These dynamicsalso establish the members of a particular community as the primary audience for a participatory film (Odutola, 2003), although specific goals might encourage making these films available to wider audiences, from political authorities and international institutions to YouTube users, in order to influence policy decisions or mobilize international support.
Several authors have pointed out the socially transformative potential of participatory video. Shirley White, for instance, defines PV as:
a tool for individual, group and community development. It can serve as a powerful force for people to see themselves in relation to the community and become conscientized about personal and community needs. It brings about a critical awareness that forms the foundation for creativity and communication. Thus, it has the potential to bring about personal, social, political, and cultural change” (White, 2003: 64).
The Freirian term "empowerment" and, in general, metaphors involving power are very often mentioned in relation to the aims of PV. Empowerment can be conceived of merely in terms of involvement in socially and politically relevant actions (Friedmann, 1992) or underline the fact that empowerment increases the political capabilities of the poor (Williams, 2004).
More power-conscious academics have pointed out that empowerment is an essential precondition for social change and hence necessarily involves a challenge to the status quo, emphasizing that “empowerment promoted by those who are already in power ends necessarily in perpetuating the existent power relations” (Nelson and Wright, 1995: 11).This has been a contentious issue within development projects which incorporate PV as most of them rely on political administrations or corporate donors as significant stakeholders. Interests often clash, revealing the tensions which sometimes structure PV experiences (see, for instance, Enghel, 2006. 9).
Many of these key conflicts are washed out by the depoliticizing effect of the words such as "participation" and “community” might have in certain contexts. Used in a void, detached from specific aims or lacking a clear direction, participation might hide hierarchical, top-down approaches (Molony, Zonie and Goodsmith, 2007, Odutola, 2003), which mask a complex web of interests. Equally, the term community rarely evokes the sort of conflict which is very often present within many of the groups taking part in PV initiatives (Tomaselli, 1989). On the contrary, it suggests all sorts of positive, idealistic meanings generally associated with the term, in particular in the context of development studies (see Cleaver, 2001: 44; Nelson and Wright, 1995)
It is worth bearing in mind that power conflicts within PV revolve directly around the question of technology: who owns the equipment? Which uses of technology are expected from the community? Which are the interests of stakeholders? How is knowledge shared? Which technological resources would allow participants to use their knowledge once the intervention is over? Undoubtedly, difference within PV interventions is located at the centre of the process sharing the technical knowledge and ability. Hence, technological developments (and, in general, any issue which determines which technology is available to a particular community have a direct effect on PV practices.
Digital networks
As the production and distribution of video is transformed by digital technology, it becomes paramount to assess the waysin which these changes are influencing PV practice. Do they offer new possibilities for cooperation? Has the Internet made capacity building and participatory training more readily available to a wider number of communities and individuals? Have digital environments contributed to the definition of more sustainable PV projects?Have on-line video platforms enabled contacts between communities of practice separated geographically?
An assessment of recent PV work at grassroots level reveals that digital environments and work dynamics have hadlimited impact among practitioners.[i] Oxford based NGO Insightshare, for instance, has used PV as a methodology for almost 15 years. Projects coordinator Soledad Muñiz explains that digital video websites have barely affected Insightshare´s production routines on the ground, although they have favored "a more robust informed consent process when a project has the goal to share the videos outside the community via internet (hence, creating a YouTube channel or in the website/channel of a project stakeholder)" (Muñiz, 2013). Things are different when advocacy is involved, as on-line video platforms then provide the means to reach bigger audiences and mobilize support for a cause. Insightshare projects do therefore include training in on-line video, but only in the cases when this is a requirement of the project itself.
In general, we can argue that, as the importance of participatory patterns of production recedes, the possibilities made available by digital technology seem to gain relevance. Community building, for instance, is less central for video for change NGO Witness whichfocuses on denouncing human rights violations through the use of video equipment. Here individual patterns of action, or profoundly hierarchical ones, are not a problem and hence the use of production routines and training which make use of digital dynamics has become more widespread and entrenched within the organization. Witness does offer on-line video tutorials on how to record human rights violations, for instance; and encourage people to wear cameras with them, film andsharethrough social networking sites.
It is relevant to note that Witness approach to on-line video platforms such as YouTube or Vimeo changed in 2010. Witness had up until that point favored what we might term a selective approach, choosing which human rights videos where appropriate for wider distribution through social networking sites and which ones needed to be placed in a more defined human rights context. This materialized in The Hub, a digital space developed by Witness where human rights videos where uploaded, accessed and shared among activists while still available to the general public. Their new strategic vision, however, privileges virality over context. Witness has also launched campaigns in order to lobby on-line video sharing sites into incorporating a more human right conscious approach when it comes to privacy control, the preservation of anonymity and, in general, the safety the users whichdenounce human rights violations through video.
An exception to the generallack of participatory approaches based on the use of digital video resources is the case of ZaLab, a non-profit organization which hosts PVworkshops in different countries within the Meditarranean basin. ZaLab conceives PV as an "open space to exchange narrations and audiovisual technical knowledge (…) with the aim to define a collective, non-conventional point of view over contemporary reality". Its activities differ from more traditional approaches to PV in at least two important aspects: on the one hand, a more comprehensive use of digital dynamics and, in line with this, a more porous relation between individual and collectiveundertakings.
Between 2005 and 2008, for instance, ZaLab developed ZaLabTv, a Euro-Mediterranean network of PV workshops funded by the Anna Lindh Foundation, the Catalonian Agency for Cooperation and Development and the Catalonian regional government.ZaLab TV was designed mainly as a virtual space fostering exchange among participants in thePVworkshops which took place in Palestine, Tunisia (El Jem and Kerchau), Barcelona (Poble Sec and Barcelona) and Rome. The web of the project, for instance, featured a forum where participants could upload video drafts in order to receive suggestions and ask for advice.Each of the hubs which emerged from the workshops run its own blog which contained a diary detailing activities and referred to audiovisual material hosted in YouTube. Finished films were also distributed on-line. Apart from that, workshops followed in general the basic hallmarks of PV methodology: a facilitator and a group of participants (in this case marginal youngsters, mostly) who get together in the process of making a film about themselves and their situation.
To YouTube or not to YouTube?
The experience of ZaLab TV illustrates some of the paths participatory work using on-line video might follow in the near future. However, even in this case, the use of digital networks remains limited to the tasks of making the videos available to anyone, anywhere;sharing information about the workshops and basic interaction between participants in different countries. Recent technological developments already suggest more radically transformative uses of on-line video technology in the context of PV experiences. Editing on the cloud, video webinars or collaborative video production are only some of the options which might enhance PV methodology in a number of ways.[ii]
The uneasiness of PV practitioners and their general lack of enthusiasm in adopting digital dynamics of use might be motivated for a number of reasons. The perceived validity of the method might induce resistance to change. Participatory video requires a controlled environment. The role played by the facilitator is crucial and his/her decisions on the ground might determine whether the process succeeds in promoting social change or simply reproduces dynamics of power already present in the community. Technological conditions might also determine whether using digital and on-line resources is an option at all, for instance in rural or isolated communities.
Nonetheless, I think it is also worth examining in more detail whether on-line patterns of participation and civic engagement are actually in line with the aims of PV, as this can help us in gauging the distance between different conceptions of what constitutes a participatory effort. Our analysis will focus on two specific aspects which are central to PV experiences and which current digital tools might not particularly favor: contribution towards common good and participation devoid of economic interest.
The first of these issues connects with the long debated issue of the Internet as a democratizing force. The central question here has been whether the Internet can constitute itself as a public sphere and revitalize democratic practice in contemporary society. Arguments in favor point out that the Internet increases the quality of information available, promotes tighter control over politicians (transparency), allows information to be disseminated by people other than powerful media conglomerates, improves opportunities to engage with the estate and in general fosters a deliberative model of democracy.
On a more skeptic note, other voices have remarked that such benefits do not in themselves constitute a public sphere or have an effect on the quality of democratic systems. For instance we can mention here readings of the Net as an agonistic space by Chantal Mouffe or the argument which mentions that the Internet seems in fact to be fragmenting the public sphere and replacing it with an infinity of rhizomatic audience members (See Cunha 2004). This is in fact Habermas position with regard to on-line discussion and the public sphere. He discards the idea of the Internet as an instance of the public sphere, arguing that commercialization has actually compromised public discourse on the Net (Habermas 2009, 157-58).
All in all, on-line video platforms such as YouTube remain complex nodes where participatory potential and artistic creativity coexist with increasing commercialization and clear top-down structures of power. Mayo Fuster Morel proposes the term On-line Creative Communities (OCC) to study "networks of individuals that communicate, interact and collaborate; in several forms and degrees of participation which are eco-sistemically integrated; mainly via a platform of participation on the Internet, on which they depend; and aiming at knowledge making and sharing" (Fuster, 2012: 229). In her text, Fuster Morel explores the conditions which are necessary for OCCs to contribute to the creation of a digital commons and she comes up with a number of elements which should be considered: openness, integration, decentralization, publicity, autonomy, action and governance. While the rest of categories are seen as a precondition for meaningful participation on a number of levels, it is governance where Fuster focuses in order to determine whether OCCs contribute to the communicative wealth of a particular community or whether, on the contrary, it co-opts participation for private gain. The main criteria is whether participants have a meaningful say on the mechanisms which regulate interaction, as well as over the resources generated by collective involvement.