Mohan Dutta: Culture-Centered Approach

Broadly, this week’s readings centre on how corporations and the elite influence policies. The readings remind me of some important scenerios in Nigeria that exemplify some of the issues raised. Of particular significance is the Freedom of Information Bill, an important policy that will enhance accountability and meaningfully impact the lives of several Nigerians.Interestingly, the bill has been characterised by intriques. To put issues into proper perspective, and to illustrate how the Nigerian scenerio fits into the rhetoric in policy making revealed in the readings, I begin with a quotation from Conrad and Jodlowski. The authors poignantly capture the rhetoric used by the elite class and corporations to shield the public from effectively participating in open decisions that shape policies that significantly impact the lives of the public in the following expression: “The simplest means of privatizing public policy making is to press for the creation of structures that allow c

In examining how issues of security and economy are linked with health, Dutta brings to light how global policies can come to impact local actions, particularly in light of determining the availability and distribution of resources. By continually framing health intervention as an opportunity for scientific and technological advancement, coupled with the interests of commercial organizations, health is deeply connected with economic questions at the global level, bringing forth the role of structures in influencing health. Wasteful bureaucratic overhead, high prices, high levels of uninsured, malpractice...it goes without stating that the American healthcare system is in crisis. As a communication scholar, I was intrigued by Dutta’s posing of the question, “How are particular communication strategies used by key political actors to background, discursively, the problems of healthcare?” I began to consider this in light of a side-interest of my own related to the communicative practices

Growing up as a child, I remember the stories my father taught me...stories of the First International, American Federation of Labor (AFL), and of May Day. These were stories of the American working classes, their struggles, and their organizing to secure eight hour workdays for workers. The stories of 1877, the mass action of the American working classes, the Chicago strikes, and the Haymarket Affair were stories of inspiration. The stories of Joe Hill and worker organizing were stories that were uniquely American in the seeds of hope, solidarity, and global organizing they sowed. The stories of labor however were hidden from much of the mainstream discourses when I came to the US in the 1990s. The images of malls, shopping, advertising, abundance were images that made these stories of workers seem redudant and irrelevant. In fact, I found it difficult to relate any of the stories I had grown up listening to with the images of the US in the 1990s, surrounded by songs of nationalist

Today, the first half of the day, Agaptus and I spent at the mobile food pantry in Monticello. Most of our work was broken down into two tasks: unloading boxes and setting up food on the tables, and serving as personal shoppers for the clients of the pantry. These tasks in some ways were the other side of the "specific tasks" we have been doing at the organization, such as sorting food, packing them into boxes etc. The experience of serving as a shopper was overwhelming in many ways. That individual shoppers needed to be guided through the process also meant that we had to tell them how many packages of meat, how many packages of ketchup, how many packages of canned corn/beans etc. they could pick up depending upon their family size. The family size was already figured out at the check-in desk by the volunteer who did the registering. This part of telling how many items to pick up felt difficult to do, particularly as one could tell the discomfort and the pain in the moment

The second chapter in the book has an excellent explanation of CCA and its principles. The section on values and context reminded me, some of my personal research experiences which I thought could fit into it very well. When I was working among the "Chenchu" people in Andhra Pradesh on my Masters dissertation project I noticed that the huts in the hamlets had small rooms next to them which were either empty or filled with old things. I asked the people around, about the utility of these rooms and they said that they were "latrines" built by the state health and hygiene department. I was surprised to know that latrines were provided by the government officials in such a remote "tribal" area. I probed further as to why they are not using them and they said that they are not used to defecating in these closed room for a various reasons. First was that they treat the hamlet land as sacred and hence would not be doing such a polluting act. They believe in defec

I find these two key words “Engagement and Dialogue” in chapter two of the Culture Centered Approach to Health (Dutta, 2008) particularly striking, because the words reminded me about a conversation I had with five of my colleagues in my Cross-cultural communication class over listening to the “other” person. In our conversation about the co construction of cultures, we agreed that through listening to the “other” we could get a better understanding of their values that inform their actions and inactions. From our conversation, it became glaring that listening to the “other” is profound because it enhances communication considerably. To arrive at this position, we looked at several contexts. For this brief illustration,I use the example of offering food to a visitor, and how our cultural norms shape our reaction in such an encounter. In some cultures, it is a norm to offer food to a visitor. In such cultures, it is offensive for a visitor not to eat your food before talking to the

There are three things I want to share regarding this week’s reading and fieldwork. I apologize for the length, but since I can't be in class, I figured I just speak my mind here.. . ONE: “… a dominant paradigm is located within a meaning community – the community of scholars and practitioners who have come to define what it means to theorize and practice within the discipline” (Dutta, p. 46). What struck me with this statement, and with those that followed it, was the whole idea of meaning, tools, and the universal criteria used by the dominant paradigm in health communication. In many ways, they represent a conditioned approach, one that is well practiced. It is the norm; it is the most logical; it makes sense; it works; and it is dependable. What made me begin to mull this over and think about this so carefully was because, as I sat at home reading this, my five-year-old daughter sat next to me, playing a matching game on the computer. As she uncovered the hidden animals, a v

After volunteering at the mobile food pantry earlier today, I’ve come to realize that spending time in a classroom discussing health experiences for the marginalized does little in comparison to actually witnessing the effects of marginalization on vulnerable populations firsthand. For the first time in this project, I saw how the meanings of those experiencing health disadvantages were overshadowed and neglected by the structural interests of those in privileged positions. Consequentially, I also recognized how traditional approaches to health communication could blatantly neglect these perspectives, leaving the problem of food insecurity far from resolved. As Dutta suggests, “The silencing of voices of community members is achieved through the circulation of discourse that continues to construct the community as passive and voiceless, and advances policies and programs without the participation of the community...which constructs the community as incapable of participation.” My co-vo

Of late, I have been increasingly amazed at the number of folks publishing in our journals making blanket statements about "doing" science and then using that pulpit to outright put down what they consider to be lay public opinion. In these instances, the language of science is being used to silence opinions that are contradictory to the status quo that our so-called communication scientists serve. The scientific terminology becomes a mechanism to silence and erase, a way to fundamentally ask people to "believe" without questioning because that happens to be the recommendations of these "high priests and priestesses" who have dominated knowledge for centuries. Much like the Church, they want us to take them at face value, and don't really care to offer backing and warrants in their arguments. Many of the arguments go like this, "anyone questioning a behavior (say immunization) must be unscientific because the behavior (say immunization) is scienti

This is a posting that celebrates the news about one of my former advisees winning a Young Scholar Award...it is a moment of pride and a moment of joy! It is one of those wonderous moments when one sits back in awe and looks at the trajectories of meaningful work that has been created by a student, a mentee, and a friend. It is also a moment of reflection about what makes some teaching and mentoring relationships so very special, so very personal, and so very influential. Some of these very special relationships grow into friendships of a lifetime, relationships of solidarity, and partnerships in a lifelong journey of learning, living, and loving. When I think back to this one friend of mine, I remember that sense I had from the first time that I received an email from him expressing interest in my work. It was a conviction that this was someone with a purpose, a purpose that intrinsically connected to the politics of social change. In the years that we grew together, I learnt as

Understanding the magnetization of sex workers, there is two stigma attached to them that put them to the edge of the society: first one is can be seen in the UNAIDS definition, sex workers are“ female, male, and transgender adults and young people who receive money or goods in exchange for sexual services.”; second, sex workers are the populations that have the higher prevalence of STD, they are assumed as the disease carrier and spreader. Mohan J. Dutta(2009):Sex workers and HIV/AIDs tried to describe two organization Kolkata area of India, SHIP and New light’s HIV/AID project. It is very surprise to me that the stakeholders of these two organizations are mainly prostitutes. There is one word said by Lakshmi: “ You have to live here to really know what’s going on, You can’t just come in , ask questions and tell us what to do”. I totally understand that as a outsider researcher or government member, it is hard for them to build the communication with the sex workers, maybe that’

Young’s piece on Culture, illness got me thinking about three concepts he touched on.These include desocialization, biomedical reduction, and the dismissal of the other’s view as unscientific in our articulation of illness and disease. The three key words have one thing in common, the acclaimed supremacy of biomedical paradigm in our interpretation of illness, or better still the design of health interventions along the stipulations of biomedical paradigm. I use the term paradigm to mean the strongly held world views and beliefs that undergird scholarship or our beliefs that guide our interpretation of reality. Desocialization is the displacement of historical, political, and economic determinants of sickness, while biomedical reduction entails using medical and empirical standard as a normative referent for evaluating what constitutes illness or disease (Young,1982). As I reflect upon the arguments, two profound questions that resonate in my mind are: Is it right to incorrectly quest

Grounded theory is the premiere choice in culture-centered approach research. I write this as a statement because this is how I understand it, but I desperately want to end it with a question mark. If it is true, then I desire a confirmation as to why this may be the case. My assumption is because the existing theories that incorporate culture (such as theory of reasoned action and the health belief model, which are both referenced in Mohan’s article) were created under the auspices of institutions holding power and access. Therefore, to build a theoretical framework using these existing theories would be like instantly giving the upper hand to the hegemonic powers that be, rather than those who are the primary concern for the research: the marginalized communities. But, such pondering leads me to the next statement/question… How do you effectively use a grounded theory approach and still maintain a strong sense of credibility and buy-in from institutional peers? It is one thing to