Yasmine also reports success from the street exhibition her project organised in the camp. However, the exhibition they held outside did not generate as much enthusiasm amongst the participants, and raises the question of how small photo exhibitions can reach a wide enough audience to challenge existing perceptions? I asked her specifically about this, and whether PP can help people represent their lives better?

“I honestly don’t really believe in this idea that participatory photography allows the subjects to represent their own lives. Because I don’t think it is only the act of taking your own photographs that would allow someone to really represent their life. In this sense I think that it depends on every single project and the used methodology as to whether it was useful in changing peoples perceptions.”

Yasmine brings us back to a central point – the success or failures of PP can only be judged through individual projects. This also goes for the photos. Its ability to go up against main stream photojournalism in regard to a mass audience may be severely limited but that does not mean it cannot be used to change the views of a small target audience. On a project by project basis this may work – i.e. challenging the Minister of Education to provide better school facilities for migrant children. Whether the photos present a truly different perspective is unlikely to matter – the context in which they are presented will be their strength e.g. the participating children opening an exhibition of their work with the relevant government officials and members of civil society present.

In this regard, whether PP images actually present an alternative viewpoint may matter less than the fact that the images were produced by the rights claimants themselves. The images may or may not reveal anything significantly new, rather it is the ‘voice’ of the participants where the strength lies. This is particularly important as there is little evidence that PP images offer something pictorially different than professional work. Those who support this view point to the training of participants as one factor in limiting their unique viewpoint. Through presenting ‘what makes a good photo’, using ‘Western’ examples, focus on one particular style of photography (usually photo-journalism / documentary), and emphasizing certain issues the trainer may already be influencing the type of photos the participants take before they push the shutter release.

On top of this there is the issue of editing and placement, which may take on the trainer’s preferences and NGOs needs (or those of the donor). DJ Clark speculates that given these potential problems you are unlikely to get anything close to an ‘indigenous style’, and that less training may go some way to preserving individuals creativity. Others, including Tiffany, disagree. For her it comes down to the approach to training, something that she says PhotoVoice is very aware of and incorporate into all their projects to counter undue influence. This equally goes for editing and presentation, something that Yasmine also believes is vital.

“I don’t like the idea of “participation”, as it refers most of the time to a participation in the picture taking, but not in editing, conceiving and presentation processes. I found this participation dangerous from several reasons. It often is practiced in a context in which pictures are produced for a Western public, the “participants” don’t keep track of what happens with their pictures, they rarely edit, and present their photographs as they want.”

Tiffany also points out that there should be less focus on the actual picture taking.

“There is an over emphasis on who takes the picture, who actually presses the button – the ‘decisive moment’ – but photography is a longer process, involving editing and presentation to an audience. The international audience tends to focus on who takes the photo. What is important is that participants are involved in whole photographic process – this brings people to a ‘place of expression’ and that they remain in control of their images.”

This is very relevant as it is the whole photographic process that will contribute to how the image is read by an audience – what we know about the photographer, the authority given to the image in how it is presented, as well as what the viewer already knows – all will determine the reading. But put side by side with professional photos of an equivalent strength can people tell the difference? Or more importantly, do they come away with a different view of the issues? Based on work with his MA students in China DJ Clark thinks not, but more research is needed to really explore this issue adequately.

As with the debate on how the work of ‘Indigenous vs. Western’ photographers differ, issues of diversity and equality of representation may turn out to be better supporting arguments than one claiming to offer a substantially different viewpoint. With the risk of stretching the ‘diet’ metaphor to breaking point – does the PP ‘diet’ produce images that are less likely to stereo-type than the photo-journalist ‘diet’? Roland Bleiker of Queensland University and Amy Kay of UNDP in Cairo suggest in their paper ‘Representing HIV/AIDS in Africa: Pluralist Photography and Local Empowerment’ that PP does.

The paper makes a comparative study between photos taken by 12 year old Tenanesh Kifyalew (who was HIV+ and later died due to the disease) during a PP project run by Eric Gottesman in Ethiopia between 2003/04 and a single image taken by photojournalist Ed Hopper in 1986. In the paper Bleiker and Kay conclude that PP (or what they term ‘pluralist photography’) offers a viable alternative to naturalist and humanist photography (pursued by photojournalists) because it is less likely to ‘universalize suffering’ and so produce stereotypical representations. Despite the paper asking interesting questions about the role PP/pluralist photography can play in representation, it disappoints. The research is of questionable use as it is based on their interpretations alone, which fails to answer the important question of how images impact on audience responses to HIV/AIDS in the social political world? Are we not primarily interested in how they are read by these audiences? There are already plenty of academic papers claiming interpretations of images, but almost nothing that investigates audience responses.* This paper is no different, and it would have been much more useful to actually test people’s responses to the images. This is something they acknowledge is needed to backup their claims – and rightly point out the difficulties in doing this.

[* Birgitta Hoijer’s paper, ‘The Discourse of Global Compassion: The Audience and Media Reporting of Human Suffering’ is a notable exception].

However, the interpretation they make is also questionable. The images they compare were taken in significantly different periods of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and for different purposes and audiences. They compare a single image taken by Hopper – taken for a newspaper – against a series of images taken by Kifyalew – for herself. There is no doubt that Kifyalew’s images are interesting, thought provoking and aesthetically different to Hopper’s. There is much to be said about how these different types of images could complement and interact – how bringing together multiple representations may bring a more balanced set of information. But a comparison of images from very different periods aimed at different audiences cannot tell us much that is useful. Equally, despite their differences it is hard to see how evidence can be presented that supports the notion that one working method is responsible for one set of images rather than the other. They could equally have come from two stylistically different pros or two PP participants. And this is key.

If we are after a better understanding of issues using visual media, rather than look at one type of photographic practice vs. another, on who takes the picture and who is the subject, it may be more useful to focus on how the present single image model used in the media can be changed to build more complex representations rather than iconic / universal images. The use of multi-media presentations on news media websites (and NGOs for that matter) needs to be explored to see how, through this type of story telling, changes can be made to address practices of the past that contributed to developing and reinforcing stereotypes. And how PP images can be combined with those of pros to present multiple viewpoints.

The heart of the debate and the future

I started by making the rather general and slightly flippant statement that the debate over the pros and cons of PP is a ‘proxy war’ that concerns participatory approaches and visual representation in development more broadly. This is summed up well by Bleiker and Kay in their paper;

‘These [participatory] approaches are part of a larger set of development communication methods designed to promote multidimensional and dialogic ways of representing and engaging communities. They are meant to replace centralized, professionalized, and consumer-oriented communication practices, which tend to silence many people, particularly those who live at the margins of society. Pluralist photography is part of an alternative, more democratizing means of representation that seeks to create space for diverse and localized ways of communicating meaning.’

Participatory practice in development goes beyond just communications, and discussions on PP form a microcosm of the larger debate on a shift in development practice. Over the last two decades development studies (and other forms of social activism), plus the work of NGOs, has markedly shifted to employing a ‘participatory’ approach. Briefly, this has been an attempt to equalise the power relationship within development work by including those who are supposed to benefit from projects (the so-called ‘beneficaries’) by including them in decisions that affect their own lives. This is an attitudinal as well as practical change that attempts to divest itself of the historically baggage of the European colonial period that tended to ignore the beneficiaries views altogether.

This means ditching the superior attitude of ‘knowing what is best’ and imposition, and practically recognising the benefits that participation means for the success and sustainability of projects where the beneficiaries have ownership and can better realise their agency. However, for some this attempt to address issues of attitude and practice does not solve the fundamental issue of power relations between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ countries, mainly centred on inequalities in trade and debilitating debt. Fundamentally, the development model remains flawed because even with participation it is unable to change the broader political and economic inequalities that drive poverty. The participatory approach may attempt to amplify the voice of the communities, but just as with PP images, although the practice has benefits, it is unlikely to challenge the fundamental power relations any more successfully than the professionals. Development ministries may pump money into project proposals filled with ‘participatory’ intentions, but they do little to change the status quo which their governments defend. Participation may even disguise these broader issues by focussing on micro change on the ground rather than the bigger international reality.

This is not to say a participatory approach is not good – it is how things should be done – but we should not expect it to be any better at addressing the fundamentals. Visually it would be a mistake to replace professionalized communication practices with participatory ones. Instead we should focus on developing more complex representation through diversity. That means using PP appropriately, using its strengths in facilitating dialogue within communities, as well as to contribute to the ‘visual toolbox’ at the disposal of activists. At the same time we should look to reform professional media and NGO practices and style. These two approaches should then be combined using new technology, as well as innovative off-line approaches, that facilitate better story telling, and so better understanding of the complexities before us. It is important that the emphasis on participation and power relations does not neglect practical issues of mobilization, advocacy and fund raising. We must be aware of the implications of addressing issues of representation at the detriment of impacting on the issues we wish to resolve. This is a delicate balance between being able to connect with what your audience knows and taking them to a more informed understanding. And acknowledging that professional sensibilities and attitudes to representation may not be shared by audiences and subjects / beneficiaries. It is also worth noting that PP is not intrinsically democratic or representative – projects involve small numbers of people who are just as susceptible to bias and stereotyping, and cannot be said to speak for their community.

This is not a case of supporting bad ‘visual’ practice but that we recognize the strengths of different approaches and accept some individual imperfections for greater overall impact. Controversy has a habit of fuelling debate in a way that more ‘correct’ practice rarely does – so let’s not dispose altogether of the images that occasionally kick up a storm. This also means not ignoring the views of your target audience and the subjects of photos, and acknowledging their intelligence and diversity – the deficit of studies of both these groups’ reactions to images is a real handicap in informing NGOs, academics and photographers of how to improve things. The critique of an image is practically incomplete without this. DJ Clark’s interview with Bezunesh Abraham in his paper, ‘The Production of a Contemporary Famine Image: The Image Economy, Indigenous Photographers and the Case of Mekanic Philipos’ raises important questions about the subjects opinion of such photos, their level of awareness regarding end use, and their evaluation of cost benefit.

Rather than just look at how PP can represent and engage ‘beneficary’ communities, we should be looking at how ‘digital democratisation’ can facilitate a direct conversation locally and internationally, between individuals in the economically ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ communities (both between countries but also within).

One of the selling points of PP is its first-person viewpoint, indicating that people wish to have a closer connection to those people’s lived experiences in order to increase their understanding. We should be pursuing multiple styles and approaches to photography and video (from photojournalism to constructed or art-based creations) to see how they can be best used as part of awareness raising, advocacy and fund raising campaigns, owned and driven by multiple communities in different circumstances and locations. Where the image moves from linear ‘witnessing’ to matrix ‘conversations’. Where ‘witnessing’ includes presenting these ‘conversations’ as a demonstration of support for change, not just as evidence of the problem. PP should not be used to chase the elusive ‘truth’, a more ‘authentic’ image (particularly through its work with children) – recognising it offers a different viewpoint, not necessarily a more accurate one – but as an important part of a diverse communications toolbox of visual media that can be actioned in the cause of change.

Rob Godden

[This article was first published on The Rights Exposure Project blog on 5 August 2009.]