Mohan Dutta: Culture-Centered Approach

In Chapter 1 of Communicating Social Change Dutta (2011) unpacks the different approaches to social change, pointing out specifically how conventional approaches that are often top down in nature perpetuate injustice in social structures especially in Third World. Alternatively, Dutta’s 2011 canvass a new approach, the culture-centered approach which seeks to change the social structures that perpetuate injustice. One key point in this week’s reading is the importance of resistance in bringing about social change that the CCA promotes. According to Dutta 2011, collective resistance to social injustice is an effective strategy to bring about change in social structures. My question is: 1.Given that resistive actions that are geared towards disrupting systems of production are usually violent in nature often leading to the death of marginalized population, so I am wondering if there are specific communicative strategies to minimize the wanton death of the subaltern mass? 2.Having wi

1) In the chapter 1 of Communicating Social Change , Dutta (2011) cites Ganesh et al. as emphasizing “the relevance of working with resistance movements in challenging the dominant discourses of neoliberalism, engaging with the discursive processes through which organizing gets constituted, developing new forms of organizing globalization from below that offer new ways of challenging the neoliberal structures” (p. 52-53). My question is, through what practical communication strategies can the dominant discourse of something as globally-pervasive as neoliberalism be effectively challenged? More importantly, how does one ensure that the success of a certain resistive movement is not simply local, but that it is has brought about a major structural change that will have positive effects elsewhere as well? 2) H ow does an activist or a researcher – as an outsider and someone who’s a product of the dominant structures – gain entry into and win the confidence of members of a marginalized com

1.)   How does the culture-centered approach make sense of the material and symbolic worlds in which we live? Given this, can social change be envisioned and effected through only one domain, either material or symbolic means? Or must both be utilized, and if so, what is their relationship to one another? 2.)   What are the epistemological underpinnings White’s and Bierstedt’s concepts of culture? In what ways do these concepts reflect the colonial knowledges and imperialist imperatives discussed in Chapter 2?

1) In "A Brief History of Neoliberalism," Harvey ends hoping for "an open democracy dedicated to the achievement of social equality coupled with economic, political and cultural justice." But looking at how in the practical world money and power corrupts politics, I wonder whether such "an open democracy" is possible in the real world. Your thoughts? 2) With its existence tied to the logic of the neoliberal market, is there a way the mass media -- particularly mainstream journalism -- can critique and expose the negative outcomes of neoliberalism?

Questions 1 From this week’s reading, we saw the critical role of the mass media in aiding and promoting the “hidden transcripts” of the ruling elite in the society. My question is given the business interest of media organizations, how can civil society groups get the media to unpack the hidden agendas of the ruling elite without compromising its own standards? 2.Given the level of violence and loss of lives that often result from overt resistance to neoliberal agendas, especially the use of military force by government to further marginalize the public, what are some of the strategies for resisting unfavorable policies? 3.Beyond theorizing about concepts such as “hidden transcripts”, how can the academe translate such theories to practical that help to address marginalization of the subaltern population? Where does one draw the line between academe and activism?

1.) Given Greenhouse’s discussion of James’ hidden transcripts and critique of hegemony, is it ever possible for hegemony to be total? How and why do hidden transcripts differ between the powerful and the powerless? What sets hidden transcripts apart from other discursive or communicative acts and practices? 2.)  How do understandings of the workings and modes of power help our understanding of neoliberalism and the movements challenging it? How might a view of power as ongoing practice, “as potential rather than property, something to be exercised rather than held,” as well as rejecting “dualistic divisions between individual and society, structure and agency” resituate or reconceptualize definitions of change and acts of resistance?

1) Given that neoliberalism dominates U.S. policy on issues such as IP and Piracy, can the push for "freedom" against the IP Act by Wikipedia and other sites be seen as minority cultural discourses? Or a cry for change of the dominant view? 2) Harvey's book on neoliberalism seems to present the idea of this discourse as being orchestrated by intention and purposeful minds.  Do you agree or disagree and why? Should Neoliberalism be viewed this way? What other kinds of "free" state might Iraq/Iran accomplish without the influence of the U.S.?