Skip to main content

Radio programs and "masturbation" as national development

What is a culturally appropriate intervention? What is a "culturally appropriate" AIDS intervention? What is a "culturally appropriate" safe motherhood intervention? How do we deal with the critique of "medicalization of sexuality" vs the "sexualization of consumption"? How do find the right path, the balance between a development - commercial - government - multilateral - private sector collaboration? Is the territory of health and sex still uncharted? 

Are all local values and meanings "cultural" and should we consider all services, methods, models to be "appropriate"? What "can" be done and what "should" be done? Assessments of "can" and "should" are bound up with views of the "culture" in question, assessments of its boundaries, its integrity, its authenticity, its very location "in" some places, some practices and some knowledges but not in others. If this is true how can "outsiders" design and implement a "culturally appropriate" intervention? Is there one way, a defined path for health interventions? Which is political and which is not? Are alternative paths the best ways? Isn't the alternative medical system/ ways to curing and healing also a product of the struggles over colonialism, nationalism, modernization and globalization? Aren't many noted votaries of "Ayurveda", "oriental medicine", "chinese medicine" etc..also politically savvy players whose articulation was more for their advancement and understanding of "science"? Why are errors of repudiation important? Do they not occur both when alternative medicines are assesseed by orthodox biomedicine and also when orthodox biomedicine is assessed by alternative medicines? 

I have had the fortune of being associated with many health campaigns and radio programs. In 2006-7, we launched a radio program on "safe motherhood" and "sexual health" targetted at adolescent and young women of Orissa. It was a hugely popular program but when examined under the critical lens, it left a lot to be desired. It used donor language, it was not participatory, the language used in many pieces were paternalistic and condescending, it created controversies, it was accused as not being "culturally sensitive", it carried advertisements of condoms, family planning messages. We offended parents, we offended government functionaries, we offended women, and we always managed to tread the thin line with the All India Radio as we were giving them the much needed revenue. The program also elicited numerous letters and queries from young women from all corners of Orissa and we tried to answer most using reputed, gynaecologists and obstretricians who were known for their erudition and "a good hand". For me reading the letters was a humbling and frustrating experience. The letters and their texts, inscribed experiences, questions told me how ineffective all our work was in relation to what all had to be done. It told me how comfortable we were in our own coccoons of knowledge and the existence of valuable lives around us whom we did not in the least impact.  Did we do the right thing by broadcasting the program, what could we have done to get the "right balance"? Should we have not entertained the questions on "masturbation" in a public program? 

What are those alternative ways of healing and knowing? When does the familiar becomes unfamiliar and the mainstream becomes alternative?

Popular posts from this blog

Zionist hate mongering, the race/terror trope, and the Free Speech Union: Part 1

March 15, 2019. It was a day of terror. Unleashed by a white supremacist far-right terrorist. Driven by hate for brown people. Driven by Islamophobic hate. Earlier in the day, I had come across a hate-based hit piece targeting me, alongside other academics, the University of Auckland academic Professor Nicholas Rowe , Professor Richard Jackson at Otago University, Professor Kevin P Clements at Otago University, Dr. Rose Martin from University of Auckland and Dr. Nigel Parsons at Massey University.  Titled, "More extremists in New Zealand Universities," the article threw in the labels "terror sympathisers" and "extremist views." Written by one David Cumin and hosted on the website of the Israel Institute of New Zealand, the article sought to create outrage that academics critical of Israeli settler colonialism and apartheid are actually employed by universities in New Zealand. Figure 1: The web post written by David Cumin on the site of Israel Institute

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems wit

Tova O’Brien and pedagogy of whiteness

So Tova O’Brien was looking for a click-bait opportunity to draw in listeners to her podcast and she found the migrant activist and Green Party politician Dr. Sapna Samant to pick on. In a gotcha moment, Tova shared with the Green Party co-leader James Shaw a series of posts made by Dr. Samant on whiteness, Hindutva, and multiculturalism, asking him if the tweets were OK. We don’t understand from listening to O’Brien’s podcast if her research team actively researched Dr. Sapna Samant’s social media posts, or whether these selective screen captures of Dr. Samant’s tweets were sent to her by someone wanting to target Samant. The thoroughly unresearched piece is poor journalism, reflective of the mediocrity that is perpetuated by whiteness , the hegemonic values of the dominant white culture in settler colonies. If indeed her research team had discovered the tweets, it’s worth interrogating why the social media posts of a migrant woman activist on whiteness are of interest to O’Brien’s po