We Are One But We Are Many

This 8-page Panos document explores the theoretical foundations for a project on HIV and social movements by presenting recent research about social movements, public debate, and communication. The intent is to make the case for analysing social movements within communication and social change frameworks and to explore how the processes of communication motivate people to act.


The document defines social movements as "interactive networks of people who have shared beliefs and a sense of solidarity, and who come together to take part in collective action to challenge the status quo". It describes the evolution of social movements from the organic and ad-hoc to the organisation that is representative, visible, and recognised as legitimate (e.g., applies for and receives grant funding). As processes of social change, "[i]n terms of development theory, social movements have enabled people at the periphery of economic and social decision-making processes to create new centres of power and challenge previously closed spaces of decision-making." According to the author, history and social context shape the relationship between governments and social movements, a relationship continually redefined through conflict and negotiation. As stated here, the identity of individuals can be strengthened by the solidarity found in the mutual support of marginalised people joining grassroots social movements. "It is also the intensity of this personal engagement and the collective identity it generates that can enhance the sustainability of the movement."


The document examines social change as a "process that can be as specific as changes in behaviour in one individual and his or her environment, or as all-encompassing as political reform or national policy." It gives examples of how the mobilisation of people for social change is not necessarily always positive and progressive, (e.g., the anti-immunisation campaigning mobilised on misinformation about the effects of immunisation). It then describes communication for social change as: 1) putting people at the centre of their own change, setting their own priorities, finding their own ways of communicating and organising.; and 2) a framework for understanding how dialogue between people can support them in making informed and relevant decisions about how to live their lives.


Because social movements, social change, and communication for social change are processes that, as stated here, provide "opportunities to generate positive change if the process is inclusive, legitimate and democratic; ...[they are] also at risk of abuse, corruption and compromise." Hence, according to the author, there arises a need for "spaces of public engagement as a means of understanding dimensions of decisionmaking, and the influence of individual citizens and civil society on these decisions." These spaces for debate may be closed, invited, or claimed spaces depending on the power relationships involved, and may be local, national, or global. They may be within state power structures or outside them, defined here as "claimed and autonomous spaces: claimed spaces are those in which people claim entry to institutions where they should be included (but haven’t been invited); autonomous spaces are those outside the structures of the state where people mobilise for themselves and develop their confidence, skills, solidarity and strength towards achieving their objectives." The author uses the context of the HIV social movement to analyse power dynamics within closed, invited, claimed, and autonomous spaces, including claims to representation and legitimacy, as well as the process by which a movement engages in public debate. Questions of accountability and legitimacy include:

• Who speaks on behalf of whom?
• Whose voices are the loudest?
• Whose perspectives are the most influential in shaping the agenda of the social movement as a whole?

It also examines questions of external communication including:

• How are the priorities of the social movement presented?
• If the social movement has worked with the media, on whose terms and how legitimately have the objectives
  been represented?
• How effectively have the messages been targeted to and influenced the intended audience?

Using some of these questions, the author examines the communication process of the HIV epidemic, initially framed in terms of information dissemination. As stated here, "[t]his vertical, top-down approach tended to focus on the individual without recognition of context and was based on the false assumption that behaviour is a product of rational decision-making processes. Moving on..., communication approaches shifted to include these information dissemination models as part of a more holistic response.... A more holistic communication response looks at horizontal communication between groups of people as well as the reverse vertical mode of communication – that is, from the bottom-up, one-way messaging from people most affected to policy-makers. One example of this type of communication approach is the LoveLife programme in South Africa that uses a mix of peer-based communication initiatives (youth clubs, radio call-ins and peer education groups) with top-down (billboards, advertisements and leaflets) and bottom-up (petitions and billboard design competitions) communication approaches."


The author examines how communication and media can best support social movements, calling upon "communication approaches that look beyond the individual to promote locally relevant, informed and inclusive interpersonal debates and sustained changes in attitudes and behaviour". According to this document, the media can be active and influential in shaping inclusive social change, if it is "independent, locally relevant, and taken seriously by audiences spanning from the most powerful government officials and policy-makers to citizens on the street....Beyond opportunity however is an accompanying responsibility to report in a way that promotes positive social change and inclusion rather than perpetuating ...stigmatisation and exclusion...." Engagement with the media can be an advocacy tool for social movements. Mass media, new (usually electronic) media, and alternative (produced outside the mainstream) media can include: posters, videos, slide-shows, word of mouth, theatre, emails, websites, email newsletters, text messages from mobile phones, magazines, or other publications. In addition to exacerbating inequalities of participation, including rural/urban technology access, gender and literacy divides, and leader/member access, the use of media raises the following questions:

• How do new and alternative media redefine or create new spaces for public debate?
• How do new and alternative media challenge concepts of social movements, if they allow people to find support and solidarity through virtual networks that may not necessarily include collective action?
• How do new technologies enhance or hinder processes of legitimate representation within the social movement?

According to the author, "[i]t is exactly because participatory communication and social movements are processes rather than outcomes or objectives that we need to look at ‘how’ as well as ‘what’ they are striving to achieve." The article concludes that through consideration of process, there is a need for communication to more effectively support people affected by HIV and AIDS to debate, act, and bring about change in the spread of the HIV epidemic. For that reason, Panos is involved in a process of working with social movements in Brazil, United Kingdom, South Africa, and Nepal to strengthen how social movements related to the epidemic contribute to social change by understanding how communication takes place within them, how effective communication can be replicated, how relationships with the media can be enhanced, and how social movements can share knowledge and learn from each other.