|
Gender and Participatory Video in
Agriculture and Development |
29.11.2006
|
|
Maria Protz |
How can women in
particular benefit from participatory video? Participatory video (PV) is
particularly useful in helping to protect women’s indigenous knowledge. In one
project I was working on, in St Ann, Jamaica, PV helped to unearth and document
a lot of indigenous women’s knowledge of techniques for improving soil
fertility. One of the women in the project had found that the leaves of a
particular bush were rich in nitrogen and she regularly used them as mulch. A
scientific investigation confirmed her claims, and her ‘discovery’ was
documented on video.
When women farmers see other women farmers
promoting a particular technique, they can benefit from this peer-to-peer
knowledge sharing. For example, we worked with a woman farmer in one part of
Jamaica where women elsewhere on the island would rarely have an opportunity to
go, even though it’s not far away. So by allowing that woman farmer to talk on
camera about how she’s improved production on her farm, it was possible for
woman-to-woman peer influence and exchange of information.
Finally,
video helps to make women a little more visible, and to raise their status
within their community. When you’re using video, initially you often have to
work with some male leaders, and often male youth to garner their support. They
often lose interest subsequently. But as long as they are involved from the
beginning, then they are less likely to sabotage the process later on. As the
process becomes more involved, they don’t have a problem allowing women to lead,
to take over more of the technology and the production process. The community,
including the men, will then come to watch the video out of curiosity to see
what they’ve produced, but then they tend to listen more to the points the women
are making. Participatory video can help women tell their story, or raise an
issue and give it a little more visibility in their own community.
What are some of the problems you’ve encountered with the use of
PV? In my first experience with PV, in St Lucia, the process of making a
video actually ended up creating a lot of local tension. One local leader was a
sort of star spokesperson whenever donors or anyone else came to visit the
community. However, she had been away during the video project. When she came
back, she was really disruptive and tried to prevent the video being shown.
Every time we set a date, she would always find some reason why we couldn’t show
it. Sometimes PV can actually reveal more social tensions than it resolves. In
India, there have been reports of cases where men have beaten their wives
because they were part of a video production. In these cases, it is the process
that is important, and not the video, so it may be necessary to halt the
production until these other issues are resolved.
There is some
debate over the question of ‘who holds the camera’. What is your view on
this? Some people feel that it’s critical for grassroots communities or
individuals to be behind the camera at all stages. I think it is indeed
essential when people are telling personal stories, or are involved in making a
video for advocacy purposes. But when the subject of the film is technical, such
as an agricultural process, exactly who is holding the camera is less important.
If you’re trying to produce a video that has to communicate not just from the
point of view of the people who are producing it, but also to other farmers
elsewhere, then you need to make sure that it’s really clear. In that case,
‘professionals’ may need to be more involved in the process.
|
Involving people in video can be a
really powerful, but also time-consuming . There may be one or two women who are
really keen to be behind the camera, and to be fully involved, but that could
also mean taking time away from other responsibilities, so it’s a trade off.
Involving women may require additional types of support - such as day care, flex
hours, and other assistance. In some cases, I think it's fine to let other
people take on the task of completing the video. The main thing is that they
have the final say in decision making, and that they are the ones who decide.
That’s where the control is – not necessarily with who holds the camera and or
is at the keyboard during editing.
What is important is that the final
product gives an accurate account of what they want to say.
Maria Protz is a communications for development
practitioner specializing in participatory techniques for extension, natural
resource management and community development. A director of Mekweseh
Communications, she lives and works in Jamaica, and has a PhD from the
International and Rural Development Department, School of Agriculture, Policy
and Development at the University of Reading, UK.