I did want to talk about one topic that came up in a class on participatory design - citizen participation. Throughout the development world, participation is thrown around as a buzzword for every stage of a project. But what do we really mean when we use the term? What IS participation? Well for this class we had to read an awesome article written in 1969 but still relevant today: A Ladder of Citizen Participation I highly recommend reading it all, but here a few excerpts:
My answer to the critical what question is simply that citizen participation is a categorical term for citizen power. It is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. It is the strategy by which the have-nots join in determining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, tax resources are allocated, programs are operated, and benefits like contracts and patronage are parceled out. In short, it is the means by which they can induce significant social reform which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society.
French student poster. In English,
"I participate, you participate, he participates,
we participate, you participate...they profit."
There is a critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process. This difference is brilliantly capsulized in a poster painted last spring [1968] by the French students to explain the student-worker rebellion.
The article goes on to describe the ladder of participation, and I think it is on this ladder that development, in particular, rarely rises to the top rungs (see image at the side). We can hope that the Manipulation rung is reserved for the worst type of projects, yet one of the examples author Sherry Arnstein references here is the Community Action Agency network (which, coincidentally, is a former employer of mine).This illusory form of "participation" initially came into vogue with urban renewal when the socially elite were invited by city housing officials to serve on Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs). Another target of manipulation were the CAC subcommittees on minority groups, which in theory were to protect the rights of Negroes in the renewal program. In practice, these sub-committees, like their parent CACs, functioned mostly as letterheads, trotted forward at appropriate times to promote urban renewal plans (in recent years known as Negro removal plans).Still, I think we have mostly moved beyond the "Nonparticipation" rungs in most projects. It is the "Tokenism" rungs where development initiatives tend to get stuck. For example, Consultation of citizens can be empowering, but only if it is tied to an assurance that their opinions will matter.
When powerholders restrict the input of citizens' ideas solely to this level, participation remains just a window-dressing ritual. People are primarily perceived as statistical abstractions, and participation is measured by how many come to meetings, take brochures home, or answer a questionnaire. What citizens achieve in all this activity is that they have "participated in participation." And what powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the required motions of involving "those people."To achieve real change, we must endeavor to reach the highest rungs, where the people themselves have the power. Partnership is good, but Citizen Control should be the goal. By this, Arnstein means:
Though no one in the nation has absolute control, it is very important that the rhetoric not be confused with intent. People are simply demanding that degree of power (or control) which guarantees that participants or residents can govern a program or an institution, be in full charge of policy and managerial aspects, and be able to negotiate the conditions under which "outsiders" may change them.Recently, the "idea" of people choosing their own destiny has been all the rage in development circles, yet in practice how much say do the people have? Are development projects working "for" the "beneficiaries," or are they working "with" partners, or are the citizens deciding their own needs and engaging outsiders as needed? And how much participation can really be attempted without a real revolution and redistribution of power?
Of course, on that last one, I tend to think that revolutions do not really change much for the poorest of the poor (see Madagascar, post-2009). The word "revolve" means to go around, after all, not to change (maybe "evolution" would be better?). Either way, I am reminded of a scene in a favorite movie of mine, Duck, You Sucker (aka A Fistful of Dynamite). Rod Steiger's character is a bandit-turned-reluctant-revolutionary-hero. Here are his thoughts on revolution:
I know what I am talking about when I am talking about the revolutions. The people who read the books go to the people who can't read the books, the poor people, and say, "We have to have a change." So, the poor people make the change, ah? And then, the people who read the books, they all sit around the big polished tables, and they talk and talk and talk and eat and eat and eat, eh? But what has happened to the poor people? They're dead! That's your revolution. Shhh... So, please, don't tell me about revolutions! And what happens afterwards? The same f***ing thing starts all over again!Whoa! Found the video of the scene!
So I have rambled on quite a bit, but there is some truth in the article. And in that scene, no? [Unrelated: That James Coburn had a GREAT mustache. Wish mine was that nice!]
