Communicating For Change Concepts To Think With 1St Ed Edition Jo Tacchi Full Chapter

Communicating for Change: Concepts
to Think With 1st ed. Edition Jo Tacchi

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/communicating-for-change-concepts-to-think-with-1st
-ed-edition-jo-tacchi/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN COMMUNICATION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE
Communicating
for Change
Concepts to Think With
Edited by
Jo Tacchi · Thomas Tufte
Palgrave Studies in Communication
for Social Change
Series Editors
Pradip Thomas
University of Queensland
Brisbane, Australia
Elske van de Fliert

University of Queensland
Australia
Communication for Social Change (CSC) is a defined field of academic
enquiry that is explicitly transdisciplinary and that has been shaped by a
variety of theoretical inputs from a variety of traditions, from sociology
and development to social movement studies. The leveraging of commu-
nication, information and the media in social change is the basis for a
global industry that is supported by governments, development aid agen-
cies, foundations, and international and local NGOs. It is also the basis for
multiple interventions at grassroots levels, with participatory communica-
tion processes and community media making a difference through raising
awareness, mobilising communities, strengthening empowerment and
contributing to local change. This series on Communication for Social
Change intentionally provides the space for critical writings in CSC the-
ory, practice, policy, strategy and methods. It fills a gap in the field by
exploring new thinking, institutional critiques and innovative methods. It
offers the opportunity for scholars and practitioners to engage with CSC
as both an industry and as a local practice, shaped by political economy as
much as by local cultural needs. The series explicitly intends to highlight,
critique and explore the gaps between ideological promise, institutional
performance and realities of practice.
More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14642
Jo Tacchi • Thomas Tufte
Editors
Communicating for
Change
Editors
Jo Tacchi Thomas Tufte
Loughborough University Loughborough University
London, UK London, UK
University of Johannesburg
Johannesburg, South Africa
Palgrave Studies in Communication for Social Change

ISBN 978-3-030-42512-8 ISBN 978-3-030-42513-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42513-5
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Gary Waters / Alamy Stock Photo

Cover design: eStudioCalamar
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
This book is the outcome of an event held at Loughborough University’s

London Campus in September 2017. That was made possible by funding
from a range of sources: the Institute for Advanced Studies at
Loughborough University; the School of Media, Communication and
Sociology at the University of Leicester; and, an Australian Research
Council project grant, Evaluating Communication for Development
(LP130100176). This generous funding made it possible for the con-
tributors to gather for three days, first for a public symposium kicked off
by a keynote from John Downey, followed by a two-day conceptual hack-
athon. We are grateful to the funders, to John for setting the scene, and to
all the participants in the hackathon who generously gave their time and
engaged intellectually both during and following our time together in
London. We thank the anonymous reviewers of the book for their thought-
ful comments and suggestions, and the book series editors, Elske van de
Fliert and Pradip Thomas, for seeing value in this enterprise. We thank
Bryony Burns, Lucy Batrouney and Mala Sanghere-Warren from Palgrave
for their patience, persistence and assistance. Finally, we thank Mabel
Machado-Lopez, who provided excellent assistance to us in the final stages
of pulling the collection together.
v
Praise for Communicating for Change
“This is a much-needed, state-of-the-art book about key concepts in communica-

tion for social change. With contributions from a diverse, global group of scholars,
the book makes a compelling case for why matters of voice and social justice need
to be central to the way we approach the intersection between communication and
social change.”
—Silvio Waisbord, Professor of Media and Public Affairs,
The George Washington University
“This book is precisely what the field of C4D needs. A wide-ranging set of novel
‘concepts to think with’ to enable students, practitioners and scholars to better
understand the rapidly changing role of communication within social change.”
—Martin Scott, Senior Lecturer in Media and International Development,
University of East Anglia, UK
Contents
Communicating for Change 1

Thomas Tufte and Jo Tacchi
Outrage(ous) Citizenship 17
Teke Ngomba

Institutional Listening: An Essential Principle for
Democracy in Digital Times 29
Anita Gurumurthy and Nandini Chami
Communicative Development 39
Jessica Noske-Turner

Advocating with Accountability for Social Justice 53
Karin Gwinn Wilkins

Intangible Outcomes (of Communication for Social Change) 63
Vinod Pavarala

The Power of Weak Communication 75
Maria Touri
ix
x CONTENTS
Context-Responsiveness 85
Amalia G. Sabiescu
Meaningful Mobilities 99
Jo Tacchi

Dramaturgy of Social Change109
Thomas Tufte

Communicating Cosmopolitanism, Conviviality and
Creolisation123
Oscar Hemer
Artistic Conviviality135
Maria Rovisco
Dissonance145
Ana Cristina Suzina

Pain in Communication for Social Change155
Colin Chasi
Disappearance167
Florencia Enghel
Index181
Notes on Contributors
Nandini Chami is deputy director at IT for Change (ITfC). She explores

the intersections of digital policy, development justice and gender equality
in her research, and contributes to the organisation’s policy advocacy
efforts on digital rights and governance of the data economy.
Colin Chasi is Professor and Academic Head of Communication Science
at the University of the Free State. He writes on the decolonisation of the
discipline. With grounding in quintessential African thought, he is pursu-
ing what he terms Participation Studies.
Florencia Enghel is Associate Professor of Media and Communication at
Jönköping University and Malmö University in Sweden. Her academic
work has been published in Communication Theory, Global Media Journal,
Nordicom Review and Media, Culture & Society. She is the co-editor
(with Jessica Noske-Turner) of the anthology Communication in
International Development: Doing Good, or Looking Good? published by
Routledge in 2018. Since 2015, she is a member of the Clearinghouse
on Public Statements of the International Association for Media and
Communication Research (IAMCR).
Anita Gurumurthy is a founding member and executive director of IT
for Change. She leads research on emerging issues in the digital context,
with a focus on themes such as political economy, data governance,
democracy and gender justice. She also directs IT for Change’s field
resource centre that works with grassroots rural communities on ‘technol-
ogy for social change’ models. She actively engages in national and
xi
xii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
international advocacy on digital rights, representing southern perspec-

tives, and contributes regularly to academic and media spaces.
Oscar Hemer is Professor of Journalistic and Literary Creation at Malmö
University. He was the coordinator of the MA programme in
Communication for Development, 2000–2015, and co-director (with
Thomas Tufte) of the binational Ørecomm Centre for Communication and
Glocal Change, 2008–2016. His current research is in the crossroads of
Literature and Anthropology. Among his recent publications are In
the Aftermath of Gezi (ed. with Hans-Åke Persson, 2017) and the
monograph Contaminations & Ethnographic Fictions: Southern Crossings
(forthcoming).
Teke Ngomba is an associate professor at the Department of Media and
Journalism Studies at Aarhus University, Denmark. His research in the
fields of political communication, communication for/and social change
and journalism and media studies has been published in several peer-
reviewed journals.
Jessica Noske-Turner is a lecturer in the Institute for Media and Creative
Industries at Loughborough University London, with research expertise
in media and communication for development and social change. She is
the author of Rethinking Media Development through Evaluation: Beyond
Freedom, published by Palgrave Macmillan. She has conducted
research across Asia, Africa and the Pacific. She has worked on large
research partnerships including with UNICEF Communication for
Development and ABC International Development.
Vinod Pavarala is Senior Professor of Communication and UNESCO
Chair on Community Media at University of Hyderabad, India. Through
research, policy advocacy, and capacity-building, his team at UoH has
been in the forefront of enabling marginalised voices in South Asia
and elsewhere to be heard on the airwaves and be recognised by those
in authority. He has been a part of international collaborative proj-
ects on communication for development in the Global South and has to
his name a number of notable academic publications on the subject.
Maria Rovisco is Associate Professor of Sociology at the School of
Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Leeds, UK. She has
research interests in cosmopolitanism, new activisms, citizenship, migrant
and refugee arts, and visual culture. Among her recent publications are the
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xiii
co-edited books Cosmopolitanism, Religion and the Public Sphere (2014)

and Taking the Square: Mediated Dissent and Occupations of Public
Space (2016).
Amalia G. Sabiescu is a media and communications scholar specialising
in the study of information technology adoption and influences in cultural
and creative practice, international and community development. A lec-
turer in Media and Creative Industries at Loughborough University
London, her research examines the adoption, use and impacts of
information and communication technology in society, with applica-
tions in the areas of cultural and museum studies, community and
international development. In the field of communication for devel-
opment, she researches the intersections between communication,
global inequalities, and information access, focusing on low-income
and minority communities and young people at risk of social exclusion.
Ana Cristina Suzina is a Doctoral Prize Fellow in the Institute for Media
and Creative Industries at Loughborough University London. Her
research focuses on the relationship between communication, social move-
ments and democracy, with special interest on Latin American societ-
ies. She got her degree in Journalism at Universidade Estadual de
Ponta Grossa (Brazil), a Master in Political Sciences and a PhD in
Political and Social Sciences at Université catholique de Louvain
(Belgium). For around 15 years, she has worked in projects related to
communication for social change in the fields of children rights and nature
conservation in Latin America.
Jo Tacchi is a professor in the Institute for Media and Creative Industries
at Loughborough University in London, and Associate Dean Research for
the multidisciplinary Loughborough London School. She is a media
anthropologist researching media, communication, development and
social change, with an interest in the senses and emotions, and everyday
digital life. Her research is underpinned by ethnographic principles and
sensibilities. She is an author of Digital Ethnography: Principles and
Practices (2016) and developed a framework for understanding communi-
cation and social change, Evaluating Communication for Development: A
Framework for Social Change (2013).
Maria Touri is a lecturer in the School of Media, Communication and
Sociology, University of Leicester. Her research has focused on alternative
media and participatory communication practices. Her more recent work
xiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
concerns the impact of online tools on journalism practices and the

bottom-up development of news frames, in ways that challenge dom-
inant paradigms. Her research is focusing on sustainable develop-
ment and social change, where she is exploring the power of
communication in the human development of farming communities in the
Global South, in the context of Alternative Food Networks.
Thomas Tufte is Professor at and Director of the Institute for Media and
Creative Industries at Loughborough University London. He is a Member
of Academia Europaea and Senior Research Associate to University of
Johannesburg, South Africa (2013–). For the past 25 years he has
worked extensively on the role of communication in articulating citi-
zen engagement and social change, mainly as a researcher, but also as
a consultant to international development agencies such as UNICEF,
World Bank, USAID and Danida. He has previously worked full time
as a development practitioner, for Danchurchaid (Denmark), and for
UNDP in Paraguay. His most recent books are Comunicacion para el
cambio social. La participacion y el empoderamiento como base para el
Desarrollo mundial (Icaria, 2015), Voice & Matter – Communication,
Development and The Cultural Return, co-edited with Oscar Hemer
(2016), and Communication and Social Change – a Citizen
Perspective (2017).
Karin Gwinn Wilkins serves as Dean of the School of Communication
with the University of Miami. Previously she was Associate Dean for
Faculty Advancement and Strategic Initiatives with the Moody College of
Communication at the University of Texas at Austin, where she also held
the John T. Jones Jr. Centenniel Professorship in Communication. Wilkins
is also the Editor-in-Chief of Communication Theory. Wilkins has won
numerous awards for her research, service and teaching, and chaired
the Intercultural/Development Division of the International
Communication Association. Her work addresses scholarship in the
fields of development communication, global communication and politi-
cal engagement.
Communicating for Change
Thomas Tufte and Jo Tacchi
Communicative practices are at the centre of all processes of social change.

We see it today in the proliferation of citizen engagements and social
movements, demanding voice, participation, inclusion and influence in all
aspects of life. This book explores the dynamics of communication in pro-
cesses of change, providing a set of ideas to help us conceptualise what is
happening. Perhaps because of the proliferation of social media, and the
rise of social movements, the study of communication and social change is
increasingly taking place outside of what we might earlier have called a
reasonably defined field: ‘communication for development’ or ‘communi-
cation for social change’. This book draws upon the legacy of this field,
confronting contemporary realities of continued and growing
T. Tufte (*)
Loughborough University, London, UK
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
e-mail: t.tufte@lboro.ac.uk
J. Tacchi
Loughborough University, London, UK
e-mail: j.a.tacchi@lboro.ac.uk
© The Author(s) 2020 1

J. Tacchi, T. Tufte (eds.), Communicating for Change, Palgrave
Studies in Communication for Social Change,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42513-5_1
2 T. TUFTE AND J. TACCHI
socio-economic injustice. It also seeks to transcend efforts to redefine the

field, seeking rather to open it up to wider concerns and approaches.
Understanding the role of communication in processes of development
and social change is a complex undertaking. Communication for develop-
ment and social change has always been multidisciplinary in its scholarly
endeavours, drawing as it does on a range of approaches and theories from
the social sciences and humanities including media and communication
studies, information sciences, cultural geography, development and area
studies, political science, anthropology and sociology. In this introduction
we tend to refer to ‘communication, development and social change’ in an
attempt to be inclusive, but the names used elsewhere, and also in this
volume, vary and include, for example, ‘communication for development’,
‘communication for/and social change’ and ‘development communica-
tion’. All carry intellectual and/or institutional baggage; different names
can indicate differences in ontologies and epistemologies. Here we
embrace the amorphousness of the field to focus rather on identifying
underlying priorities and concerns that run through work concerned with
communication and social change today.
The authors in this volume variously focus on communication, interna-
tional development and social change. Unsurprisingly, development is a
persistent object of study given how studies of communication and social
change have evolved over the past five decades, initially in parallel with
international development cooperation (Gumucio-Dagron and Tufte,
2006). In the past 10–15 years it has developed some areas of focus that
analyse the relations between communication and media structures and
practices, community development and participation, human- and rights-
based development, and processes of social change (Wilkins and Mody
2001; Hemer and Tufte 2005; Dutta 2011; Lennie and Tacchi 2013;
Wilkins et al. 2014; Thomas and Fliert 2015; Manyozo 2017; Tufte 2017).
A series of distinct lines of thinking can be identified as of relevance to
communication and social change. They include one line of thinking sol-
idly embedded in the institutional discourse which understands communi-
cation as a key tool for enhancing international development cooperation.
This line of thinking needs critical attention and scholarly reflection.
Another line of thinking in the field is closely associated with community
development and to participatory and bottom-up approaches to develop-
ment and social change. This line has evolved substantially in recent years.
A third line of thinking is embedded in social movements and their com-
municative practice to enhance citizen engagement and political and social
COMMUNICATING FOR CHANGE 3
change. This is a new line of research not traditionally associated with

communication for development and social change, but important now to
consider, as the empirical reality demands (see Tufte 2017).
With regard to this last line of thinking, we have seen many examples.
In December 2010, Mohamed Boazizi set fire to himself in protest over
impossible living conditions in Tunisia. This was the beginning of a vast
uprising which spread across Arab countries. Many followed across the
world—Indignados, Occupy and FeesMustFall to mention just a few. By
late 2019 yet another wave of uproar sees vast mobilisations and protest,
against systems that make living decent lives impossible for so many peo-
ple. We hear repeated and severe critiques of decision-makers, democratic
and authoritarian alike, accused of not tackling fundamental social or
political inequalities, be it in Chile, Lebanon, Ecuador, Colombia, Hong
Kong, the UK and, less visible to the West, for example, in Zimbabwe.
Although we cannot generalise, at the core of these recurrent uprisings
is a common denominator in the critique of power, with those holding
power not acting to improve livelihoods and not tackling vast social
inequalities, despite having the resources to do so. Add to that the global
movement and its demands around addressing climate change, and the
migration crisis triggered both by conflict and austerity.
It is in the context of such realities that we explore research and practice
into communication for development and social change. It requires pay-
ing attention not only to outcries for justice but also to the yet unheard
demands of those who do not have a voice. The current seemingly fast
pace of socio-economic, political and technological change gives another
strong impetus to revisit research on the role of communication, not in
order to contain it as a field but to allow entry points that help us to criti-
cally think about communication, development and social change in ways
that expand our thinking and enrich scholarly and practical work in and
beyond such a field. This book developed out of this impetus.
This book is the result of bringing together fourteen scholars in London
in September 2017 for what we called a conceptual hackathon. Calling the
event a conceptual hackathon indicated our goal to create a space for col-
laborative and intensive conceptual work. Hackathons typically last
between a day and a week. They have a specific focus, which in our case
was the need for useful and useable concepts to think with and through in
relation to communication for development and social change. All invited
participants were asked to write and share short concept notes in advance
of the event, which formed the basis for further expansion and discussion
during the hackathon. The structure of the hackathon provided us with

the luxury of spending extended time (two whole days and an evening)
talking, discussing, playing with and debating our concepts with like-
minded and respected peers. Designing this event as a conceptual hack-
athon—understanding this to mean an extended and intensive session
(marathon) where we play with and (re)create (hack) concepts—also
meant a focus on producing concrete conceptual outcomes.
The conceptual hackathon provided rare space and time to intensively
introduce, think about and debate original and critical concepts in com-
munication, development and social change, from across disciplinary
boundaries and from research in diverse geographical, social and cultural
settings. While discussion of where the concepts came from were impor-
tant (their theoretical and empirical foundations), their description (their
form and substance) and other potential applications emerged as impor-
tant. It was exciting to be able to focus on concepts, play with them, chal-
lenge them and respond to critique by strengthening and clarifying them.
For the participants, it exposed a gap in opportunities to exchange con-
ceptual thinking and pointed to an opportunity to publish and share these
concepts more widely with a view to provoking discussion beyond the
fourteen conceptual hackathon participants.1
This collection of concepts gives us an insight into some of the con-
cerns of scholars studying communication, development and social
change—as well as demonstrating how broad the area of study is and how
hard to capture with an agreed or preferred name. We call this book
Communicating for Change as a way of recognising the breadth of the
research, keeping it open, not wishing to stifle that breadth and diversity
of approaches by naming it more specifically or prescriptively. What we
find through this exercise is a rich, diverse and rewarding exploration. We
notice a strong focus on issues of justice (social and cognitive) and citizen-
ship, strong critiques of development and its processes/project, and
appreciation of the need to rethink our work, through and for the margins.
The subtitle of this book, Concepts to Think With, indicates the inten-
tion to present thought-provoking concepts, stripped of much of the jus-
tifications and qualifications required in other academic publishing
formats, to get straight to the nub of the ideas. The ambition is that these
concepts will serve to overcome silo-thinking, allowing us to think across
approaches and contexts, offering a set of interdisciplinary conceptual
reflections that scholars and students from across the humanities and social
sciences can pick up and explore, be inspired by or adapt, discuss and learn
from, in a way that suits the shifting dynamics and often hard to grasp
complexities of communicating for change. It was never our intention to
be exhaustive in our conceptual coverage. This collection of concepts is
not intended to be an end in itself, but rather to present just some of the
most exciting conceptual work in the field in order to expand and enrich
it, and to provoke further thinking.

Claude Lévi-Strauss used the term ‘good to think with’ to describe the
role of animals in totemism (1964). He saw these animals not merely as
symbolic but as part of a complex conceptual structure of thinking. Sherry
Turkle (2011) draws on this idea in relation to evocative objects as things
we think with. She was also inspired by Lévi-Strauss’ idea of bricolage—
making something new out of whatever is available, involving the creation
of something new and meaningful, sometimes subverting otherwise estab-
lished thinking. Turkle sees objects as things to think with, as a companion
to emotion, as evocative and passionate, and as a provocation to thought.
Here, we present a set of concepts as a provocation to thought and, as
Oscar Hemer in this volume says, to renew thought. As with Turkle’s
objects, these concepts are passionate provocations and they capture
renewal of thought as it is happening.
The resulting volume contributes to developing a new conceptual rep-
ertoire and focus which not only articulates a timely critique of, for exam-
ple, dominant development paradigms but also offers critical and
conceptual ways of thinking that respect the dynamic relation between
communication and social change today. This exercise was not intended to
deliver an exhaustive or fixed set of concepts. The concepts presented are
intended to be taken, critiqued, challenged, applied and adapted. Each is
presented in less than 3500 words, to provide a concentrated and at the
same time accessible set of topical and important thinking in the broad
field that can be picked up and played with, added to and discarded. In the
spirit of bricolage, we encourage readers to reuse and reconceive, to mix
and match as desired, to make something new and meaningful—make
something good to think with. To this end, and with reapplication in
mind, the focus in the chapters of this book is on the essence of the con-
cepts themselves rather than the wider research projects and layers of jus-
tifications they emerged from, or research findings and conclusions they
helped to produce.
While we group them below, and in the ordering of the chapters, under
the three broad headings of citizenship and justice, critiquing development
and renewing thought, they could easily have been presented in alternative
groupings, and indeed, each concept has something to say in relation to
each heading. There are similarities and differences, connections and con-
testations that could be highlighted across the concepts. It was never the
intention to develop a consensus of thought, rather to represent some of
the most interesting insights to aid thinking—to present, as it were, a
toolbox of concepts—and to then stand back and see what it looks like.
The thematic red thread lies, it turns out, in identifying and analysing the
most recent disruptions and innovations in communication and social
change thinking. The conceptual tools and analytical perspectives are an
invitation to engage in empirical inquiry through novel, critical and inter-
disciplinary perspectives.
Citizenship and Justice

The first two concepts offer us critical reflections about the condition of
citizenship and knowledge production in our contemporary societies.
Teke Ngomba’s concept of outrage(ous) citizenship (chapter “Outrage(ous)
Citizenship”) draws attention to the ways in which digital social media has
led to outrage becoming a central factor in media coverage. While exam-
ples of public outrage are not new, social media have increased the speed
and ability of outrage as a reactive form of citizenship to become wide-
spread. Outrage(ous) citizenship can be both progressive and regressive,
and Ngomba’s concept aims to expand and enrich communication for
social change research by drawing direct attention on its less progressive
forms. If communication for social change as a field intends to shift our
attention towards dialogue and collective action, as an approach that con-
siders people to be at the centre of communication processes, outrage(ous)
citizenship as spontaneous and reactive forms of citizenship enactments
needs to be encompassed within its remit. Digital disruption can be seen,
as in this concept, through new digital media, to have expanded opportu-
nities for the ‘outraged’ engagement of citizens. In other ways, however,
digitisation has resulted in the entrenching of power and control and a
‘crisis’ of citizenship.
Anita Gurumurthy and Nandini Chami’s concept of institutional listen-
ing (chapter “Institutional Listening: An Essential Principle for Democracy
in Digital Times”) is a call to restore citizenship rights, recognising that a
democratic deficit has emerged through neoliberal globalisation and the

digital revolution—it is presented as an essential principle for democracy in
digital times. Gurumurthy and Chami make powerful arguments for insti-
tutional listening as a mechanism to restrain state overreach and intrusion,
to strengthen people’s civic right to contest epistemic validity and hidden
assumptions contained within the datafication of democracy. They chart
the rise of what they call citizenship-as-ordering, replacing citizenship-as-
performance, and reassert the need for listening institutions as a precondi-
tion of democracy and path to cognitive justice. This concept, along with
others in this book, points to a tension between state and citizens, between
cognitive ordering by powerful agencies and cognitive justice (including
advocating with accountability, intangible outcomes, weak communication,
meaningful mobilities, dissonance and disappearance). Indeed, Gurumurthy
and Chami emphasise the dissonance between, on the one hand, the epis-
temic control of discourse, supported through datafication and immutable
algorithmic knowledge creating official registers, and on the other hand,
ontological and embodied experience. Because of the co-option of com-
munication for neoliberal ends, including digital governmentality or digi-
tal authoritarianism, the ability to challenge dominant ways of thinking is
removed.
In a different but related way, Jessica Noske-Turner’s concept commu-
nicative development (chapter “Communicative Development”) signals an
‘optimistic ambition’ to reposition the development sector to one that
truly serves citizens in the Global South. Here the targets for rethinking
change are development agencies and the development sector. Noske-
Turner recognises and revisits some of the debates around the naming of
the field and uses the concept of communicative development to rethink
it in four ways. First, this form of naming emphasises the importance of
development that is open and centred on dialogue, mainstreaming com-
munication in all aspects of development. Second, following Freire, com-
munication is a social process and not a product. Third, echoing Amartya
Sen’s emphasis on the ends of development rather than the means, Noske-
Turner draws on the foundational work of Nora Quebral to focus on
development as the goal, with the adjective ‘communicative’ describing
the type of development required to achieve it. Finally, this is a concept
that sits firmly within development as a directed and planned set of activi-
ties undertaken by development agencies. Here we can return to the pur-
pose of the concept: its ambition to improve development by rethinking
the role of communication as process, essential to its success, rather than

as a discrete set of bespoke activities.
Also pursuing an ambition to reposition the directed and planned activ-
ities of development agencies, actors and departments, Karin Wilkins pres-
ents her concept of advocating with accountability for social justice (chapter
“Advocating with Accountability for Social Justice”). Accountability
appears in many of the concepts (including communicative development,
intangible outcomes and meaningful mobilities), in all cases challenging
who is accountable to whom and within what frames of reference and
modes of representation. Here social justice is provided as a framework for
promoting accountability that advocates for public benefit, and as such is
another concept that is promoting social and political change for the ben-
efit of citizens. There is a strong emphasis in this concept on the impor-
tance of political economy. Wilkins imagines a type of development that
privileges social justice, which serves to highlight the currently dominant
neoliberal framing of development interventions that privilege individual
consumption. This foregrounds the political contexts that structure
resources, access and allocation. The concept, like many others in this
book, stresses listening and learning. Wilkins proposes an institute for
critical engagement, a network of independent agencies committed to
social justice, as the mechanism to promote the politics of advocacy
through strategic communication, to strengthen the value of accountabil-
ity for more equal societies.
Critiquing Development
Continuing the already apparent critique of the dominant discourses
within development and institutionalised communication for social
change, the chapters “Intangible Outcomes (of Communication for Social
Change)”, “The Power of Weak Communication”, “Context-
Responsiveness”, “Meaningful Mobilities” and “Dramaturgy of Social
Change” offer further reflections on some epistemological, theoretical
and methodological dimensions of this critique. From these chapters
emerges a critique and at the same time a proposition to recognise broader
aspects of social change processes, calling for a change in perspective, rec-
ognising complex and bottom-up approaches to development. By propos-
ing intangible outcomes, Vinod Pavarala (chapter “Intangible Outcomes
(of Communication for Social Change)”) discusses the methodological
shortcomings in the hegemonic evaluation matrix that has emerged over
the years from the institutionalised field of communication for develop-

ment where focus has been upon observable, concrete, simple and hence
measurable outcomes. He then makes a strong argument for the necessity
to capture the more complex, emergent, processual and thus intangible
outcomes in social change processes. At the heart of Pavarala’s argument
lies a fundamental questioning of the hegemonic epistemologies that have
dominated the field for so long.
With her concept the power of weak communication, Maria Touri (chap-
ter “The Power of Weak Communication”) follows a similar line of critical
thinking, although she is not, like Pavarala, enquiring into the nuts and
bolts of how to evaluate communication for social change processes.
Rather, from a critique of the dominant paradigm, she unveils the often
silent and less visible relations and communicative practices that support
larger-scale aspects of social structure and social change. Like Noske-
Turner in her chapter “Communicative Development”, Touri argues for
the need to move beyond the institutionalised, scalable and quantifiable
approaches to the role of communication in articulating social change.
Weak communication, she argues, encapsulates the need to uplift the sig-
nificance of organic and sometimes marginal communicative practices.
Unlike most scholars in this field, Touri draws on economic geographers
in her re-reading of communication in development and social change.
She also argues for a performative approach amongst scholars in resisting
and responding to the dominance of strong theoretical approaches, and in
experimenting with assembling communication for development in
new ways.
In her chapter “Context-Responsiveness” Amalia Sabiescu delivers a
grounded argument for why context-responsiveness is important when ana-
lysing social change. By theorising about both context and responsiveness
she integrates them into one concept and brings forward a series of
vignettes that help open up a perspective whereby looking at change nec-
essarily will require a grounding in the locale and employing an ecological
framing. Two key lines of inquiry emerge from this chapter. The first refers
to the intellectual challenge of defining context in a way whereby it can
help us shed light on processes of social change in relation to evolving
contexts where they are not seen as objective landscapes but are subjec-
tively perceived and enacted. As such, it weaves together with Pavarala’s
call for the complex, processual, emergent and intangible dimensions of
social change. Sabiescu’s second line of inquiry is about using
concept-responsiveness to open up perspectives for looking at change that

are considerate of people’s agency, power and choice.
Jo Tacchi’s concept of meaningful mobilities (chapter “Meaningful
Mobilities”) also points to the central importance of context, to the need
for understanding what kind of social change is meaningful in specific
places, for specific people. Context and meanings, however, are regularly
obliterated in development planning and implementation because, Tacchi
argues, technocrats determine what is important and how it is measured.
The concept speaks, primarily, to international development which she
considers as an exercise of power. She discusses three ways in which the
concept can help understand important aspects of communication for
development. Firstly, how meaningful mobilities can help us think through
the conundrum communication scholars working with development
organisations face in relation to having to continuously point to the differ-
ence between communication and information delivery. Secondly, how it
can help us to think about why arguing for contextualised meaningfulness
is a worthwhile argument to pursue. Thirdly, how it can be used as a lens
for critically examining the dominant logics and rationalities that frame
development.
People’s agency, power and ability to articulate and influence processes
of change is a cross-cutting line of inquiry in this book. Hence, Thomas
Tufte’s focus on the dramaturgy of social change (chapter “Dramaturgy of
Social Change”) places people’s agency in the intersection between the
short-lived uprising or protest and the long-term and ongoing (hi)stories
of contestation and protest. He unpacks how narratives of social change
constitute a dynamic relation between, on one side, the long durée of
social movements where legacies and struggles for human rights are his-
torical and never-ending, while on the other side, outpourings of anger,
protest and social mobilisation emerge as peak moments where struggles
become visible. The analytical framework of a dramaturgy of social change
allows us to disentangle the long-term and short-term processes of social
change. By analysing the distribution and enactment of roles, the power
plays, the socio-emotional dynamics and the communicative practices of
the various stakeholders involved, the dramaturgy of social change enables
a better understanding of the dynamics of change. Thereby we can better
understand how the long-lasting narratives of development are challenged
through contemporary acts of citizenship.
Renewing Thought (From and For the Margins)

The next two concepts (chapters “Communicating Cosmopolitanism,
Conviviality and Creolisation” and “Artistic Conviviality”) propose forms
of conviviality and sociability that each, in their own way, inspire new ways
of reflection and action involving and including otherwise marginal groups
in society. One argues for creolisation as transversal conviviality and the
other focuses on the performative aspects of artistic conviviality. In
his chapter “Communicating Cosmopolitanism, Conviviality and
Creolisation” Oscar Hemer unpacks the relations between the three con-
cepts of cosmopolitanism, conviviality and creolisation, explaining some of
their intellectual trajectories, and connecting these with questions of
development, post-development, globalisation, modernity and slavery. As
Hemer rightly points out, the impulses of global self-reflection and radical
rethinking of the world have mainly, although not exclusively, been pro-
vided by scholars and writers in or from the Global South. Informed by
Dipesh Chakrabarty’s (2000) seminal book Provincializing Europe,
Hemer draws our attention to how Western (European) thought may now
be renewed from and for the margins. Hemer and Tufte (2016) drew
attention to this process, indicating how ‘the margins’ is not only a symbol
of the grassroots but, more fundamentally, also speaks to the symbolic and
physical distance to power. They further argued that when (if) participa-
tory communication, empowerment and social justice become buzzwords
in hegemonic development speak, there is reason for caution (ibid, p. 18).
In Hemer’s concept, he connects cosmopolitanism, conviviality and cre-
olisation with discussions about communication for development flagging
how conviviality can, and should, be based on a conception of society
based on human cooperation and mutual respect for maximum diversity.
In her chapter “Artistic Conviviality”, Maria Rovisco explores the con-
cept of artistic conviviality as an analytical lens to explore and create modes
of togetherness, but also as a mode of intervention with and around mar-
ginalised groups in society. The aim is to heal, create empathy and articu-
late reflexivity, but also to open up to the possibilities for social and political
change in moments of crisis. While conviviality has often been critiqued
for being depoliticised and doing little to challenge the structural power
relations that for example sustain experiences of racism and segregation,
Rovisco proposes artistic conviviality as a concept that can foster processes
of empowerment and agency. It can potentially enable participants to gain
a sense of themselves as acting subjects in the world. Such actions have the
capacity to challenge the unequal distribution of social power that silences

the voices of marginalised people. Art becomes a tool for challenging
power relations and social conflict. As such, this aligns well with a critical
and bottom-up approach to communication for social change. It focuses
on the inclusion of groups who suffer from marginality and misrecogni-
tion. An illustrative example in Rovisco’s chapter is that of Augusto Boal’s
theatre of the oppressed which over the years has been used to build
bridges between polarised groups, for example, for peace-building initia-
tives. Artistic conviviality becomes a way not only to reflect reality but also
to shift focus away from what art represents to what art does.
The final three concepts are provocatively named and assertively pre-
sented as dissonance, pain and disappearance. Ana Cristina Suzina’s con-
cept of dissonance (chapter “Dissonance”) explores how Brazilian popular
media can create new ways of thinking about the world. She presents two
types of dissonance: critical dissonance creates ruptures in rational think-
ing, with controversy contributing to struggles around meanings, interfer-
ing and upsetting shared interpretations of the world and of society;
solidarity dissonance builds coexistence through communication, demand-
ing equality and the ability for all to ‘see themselves’ in popular media
while highlighting the diversity of experiences. It is the disturbing nature
of dissonance that differentiates it from alternative media and links it
directly to change, inserting disturbance into the media landscape.
Dissonance through communicative action is presented as having a clear
purpose, to disturb consistency, and thereby make way for change. It is
about pushing for justice and equality expressed as dissonance in the way
that Brazilian popular communicators argue for a statutory symmetry for
all citizens. Recognising and registering difference is important for this
concept, promoting solidarity and coexistence over consensus. Diversity is
seen as a source of wisdom and a route to cognitive justice.
Colin Chasi’s concept of pain (chapter “Pain in Communication for
Social Change”) draws our attention to how communication for social
change is about the prevention and amelioration of pain. Pain should be,
according to Chasi, a serious scholarly concern and the central concern of
development. However, work has been focused on its determinants and
symptoms, such as poverty and inequality, rather than on how pain directs
and misdirects communication efforts. Pain is under-theorised in commu-
nication for social change, yet key to motivating humanitarian concern.
Critical of the dominant modernisation paradigm of development, Chasi
connects its ineffective approaches to pain to colonisation and
bureaucratic apparatus. He sees ironic and paradoxical interconnections

between communication and pain, including how pain is difficult to share,
and resistant to language. Nevertheless, given its remit to prevent pain,
communication for social change must research and acknowledge under-
lying issues of pain that both shape and shroud it. Not all cultures under-
stand and experience pain in the same way. We need to improve our
conceptualisations of pain in different contexts, to avoid inadvertently
doing harm through well-meaning initiatives.
The final concept from Florencia Enghel is, perhaps fittingly, named
disappearance (chapter “Disappearance”). This concept alerts us to the
need, as scholars, to consciously redefine and reposition communication
for development/social change to democratise its future. It is about the
disappearance of communication for development/social change as a
practice and institutional project, a disappearance that scholars have failed
to engage with. While it once existed as a clear institutional approach, or
project, it no longer does. Enghel explores disappearance as observable
fact, conceptual lens and path dependence. It was an observable fact when
organisational spaces and supportive infrastructures for communication
for development/social change suddenly and/or quietly disappeared with
repercussions for a host of communication organisations. It is a conceptual
lens on the shrinking institutional spaces and resources and the resulting
invisibility of communication for development, that so far has lacked ade-
quate scholarly attention. Disappearance as path dependence points to the
possibility that justice-driven and ethical communication for develop-
ment/social change as an institutionalised project and approach may have
been disappearing for years.
In Conclusion
The contributors to this collection of concepts cross many boundaries
both in disciplinary and in socio-cultural background. The discussions and
debates held during the conceptual hackathon and thereafter have helped
us to recognise our differences and, we hope, to overcome potential pit-
falls of ethnocentrism and Anglo-Saxon dominance in our scientific dis-
course. Many of the concepts challenge dominant epistemologies and
Northern perspectives. Our contributors come from Cameroon, South
Africa, India (3), Argentina, Brazil, the USA, Australia, Romania, Portugal,
Greece, Sweden, Denmark and the UK. In disciplinary terms, they span
the social sciences, from anthropologists to philosophers, from
sociologists to media and communication researchers, from cultural soci-

ology and literature studies to community and social movement studies.
The relative shortness of the chapters forces the contributors to be
sharp and synthesis oriented. This volume is not intended to provide
lengthy literature reviews which exist elsewhere, but to prioritise powerful
arguments around the relevance and novelty of each concept and to tran-
scend conventional disciplinary boundaries. We acknowledge its breadth
and multidisciplinary, without trying to constrain its diversity of thought
by prescriptively charting the broad field’s shape or future path.
Nevertheless, this collection of concepts does tell us something very clearly
about the shape and the future of this amorphous field.
It tells us that at the centre of our concern sits issues of equity and jus-
tice, the need to allow for and insist upon recognition of different ways of
being and knowing, the need to challenge dominant paradigms at every
chance we get. Therefore, we believe the concepts and perspectives here
presented, from emerging and experienced researchers, will help carve out
key questions to pose for next-generation research into what we have cho-
sen to call communicating for change. The goal of the conceptual hack-
athon was to create, share, test, hack and extend useable concepts around
communicating for change. This edited collection is the vehicle for shar-
ing them more widely, with a view to generating discussion about and
within research on communication, development and social change, and
potentially their adaptation and (re)use. This is the intention behind this
collection.
Note
1. The fourteen original conceptual hackathon participants are joined in the
book by a fifteenth author, Nandini Chami, who coauthored Anita
Gurumurthy’s chapter.
References
Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and
Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dutta, M. (2011). Communicating Social Change: Structure, Culture, and Agency,
Routledge Communication Series. New York/London: Routledge.
Gumucio-Dagron, A., & Tufte, T. (Eds.). (2006). Communication for Social

Change Anthology: Historical and Contemporary Readings. South Orange:
Communication for Social Change Consortium.
Hemer, O., & Tufte, T. (Eds.). (2005). Media and Glocal Change – Rethinking
Communication for Development. Nordicom: University of Gothenburg.
Hemer, O., & Tufte, T. (2016). Introduction. Why Voice and Matter Matter. In
O. Hemer & T. Tufte (Eds.), Voice & Matter. Communication, Development
and the Cultural Return (pp. 11–21). Nordicom: University of Gothenburg.
Lennie, J., & Tacchi, J. (2013). Evaluating Communication for Development: A
Framework for Social Change. Abingdon: Routledge.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1964). Totemism. London: The Merlin Press Ltd.
Manyozo, L. (2017). Communicating Development with Communities. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Thomas, P., & van de Fliert, E. (2015). Interrogating the Theory and Practice of
Communication for Social Change: The Basis for a Renewal. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Tufte, T. (2017). Communication and Social Change: A Citizen Perspective.
Cambridge/Malden: Polity Press.
Turkle, S. (Ed.). (2011). Evocative Objects: Things We Think With. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Wilkins, K., & Mody, B. (2001). Reshaping Development Communication:
Developing Communication and Communicating Development.
Communication Theory, 11(4), 385–396.
Wilkins, K., Tufte, T., & Obregon, R. (Eds.). (2014). The Handbook of Development
Communication and Social Change (Global Handbooks in Media and
Communication Research). Chichester, West Sussex/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Outrage(ous) Citizenship
Teke Ngomba
Introduction
Locally, nationally and transnationally, we are currently witnessing a sig-
nificant turning point in the manner in which public articulations of soci-
etal concerns and reactions to particular events are anchored on outrage
from different sectors of the society. Three cases, unpacked briefly below,
encapsulate these dynamics.
Firstly, in July 2015, as President Barack Obama prepared to visit
Kenya, CNN’s Barbara Starr, in a report headlined ‘Obama’s trip raises
security concerns’, indicated that President Obama ‘is not just heading to
his father’s homeland, but to a region that’s a hotbed of terror’ (Starr
2015). As The Guardian reported, ‘many Kenyans were outraged by the
report’, and they subsequently posted on Twitter to make this outrage
known, using the hashtag #SomeoneTellCNN (“CNN Executive Flies to
Kenya” 2015). Faced with this outrage, Tony Maddox, CNN’s Executive
Vice-President and Managing Director, flew to Kenya and apologised to
Kenyans for the problematic report, stating among other things that ‘we
acknowledge there is a widespread feeling that the report annoyed many
which is why we pulled down the report as soon as we noticed it. It wasn’t
T. Ngomba (*)
Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
e-mail: imvjnt@cc.au.dk

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42513-5_2
18 T. NGOMBA
a deliberate attempt to portray Kenya negatively, it is regrettable and we

shouldn’t have done it’ (“CNN Executive Flies to Kenya” 2015).
Secondly, in April 2017, David Dao, a 69-year-old Vietnamese American
doctor, became well known after aviation police officials forcefully removed
him from a United Airlines plane in Chicago. Seated in an overbooked
flight, David Dao had refused to voluntarily give up his seat to a member
of the crew despite requests from the airline. He was subsequently forcibly
removed from the plane and in the process, Dr. Dao ‘lost two front teeth,
suffered a broken nose and a “significant” concussion’ (“Officer who
dragged man from plane” 2018). Videos of the incident ‘taken by other
passengers and showing Dao being dragged up the plane aisle and with a
bloodied mouth circulated rapidly, causing public outrage’ (“United
Airlines Passenger Dragged Off Plane” 2017). Several protests—both
online and offline—followed this outrage leading United Airlines to apol-
ogise to Dr. Dao as well as change its ‘policy on giving staff last-minute
seats on full flights’ adding that henceforth, ‘crew members would be
allocated seats at least an hour before departure’ (“United Airlines
Passenger Dragged Off Plane” 2017).
Thirdly, on 16 April 2018, the BBC published a story with the head-
line: ‘China’s Sina Weibo backtracks from gay content ban after outrage’.
In its report, the BBC noted that on Friday, 13 April 2018, Sina Weibo,
‘often described as China’s answer to Twitter’, announced that ‘posts
related to homosexuality would be taken down’. This ‘prompted a deluge
of posts from outraged netizens protesting against the decision’. A few
days after this deluge of outrage, Sina Weibo announced that it would
reverse the ban, thanking ‘everyone for their discussion and suggestions’
(“China’s Sina Weibo backtracks from gay content” 2018).
These three different incidents have some interesting commonalities.
For instance, they concern, in varying degrees, issues of individual and
group rights (e.g. of flight passengers; sexual minorities in China) and the
dignity of peoples and countries. They also demonstrate the central role of
digital media technologies, in particular social media, in articulating indi-
vidual and collective outrage. Connected to the role of social media in
these, they also show, especially in the case of the CNN report on Kenya
and the Dr. Dao incident, how expressions of outrage can easily take sig-
nificant transnational proportions beyond the ‘immediate locales’ of con-
cern. These three examples also show how the different media reporting
of these incidents highlighted people’s ‘outrage’ as a central factor in the
stories.
OUTRAGE(OUS) CITIZENSHIP 19
These three incidents are piecemeal vignettes of a rising, more visible

trend of public manifestations of outrage within and across countries.
Zachary Rothschild and Lucas Keefer (2017) have noted that ‘displays of
public anger or moral outrage are more visible than ever’ and in an apt
encapsulation of the spirit of the times, the British political and cultural
magazine The New Statesman declared in a front page in December 2016
that we are now in the ‘Age of Outrage’.
What is the meaning or implication of all these manifestations of out-
rage, their interconnections with media and communication technologies
and their representation in the news media, for communication for/and
social change (CFSC) research? Through the concept of Outrage(ous)
Citizenship, I argue that CFSC research needs to pay more attention to
these sorts of incidents. Approaching them through the concept of
Outrage(ous) Citizenship provides a useful entry point for CFSC research
to make sense of incidents like the ones highlighted above. In the next
sections of this chapter, I will unpack this argument beginning with a con-
ceptual definition of ‘Outrage(ous) Citizenship’. Thereafter, I will high-
light the fit and potential of this notion within CFSC research and end by
outlining some of the central academic discussions upon which research
on Outrage(ous) Citizenship practices within CFSC can be anchored.
Outrage(ous) Citizenship: Definition and Variants

In definitional terms, the concept of Outrage(ous) Citizenship refers to a
principally reactive form of citizenship manifested both online and/or
offline in reaction to perceived norms-breaking or injurious discourses,
acts or events within and at times beyond a specific polity. Often but not
always digitally enabled/facilitated, this form of citizenship, with varying
degrees, can be both progressive and regressive on matters pertaining to
human rights, social justice and democracy.
While its heuristic echoes are aligned with discussions on multidimen-
sional citizenship (see Cogan et al. 2000), with respect to its immediate
terminological point of reference, the concept of Outrage(ous) Citizenship
derives from the noun ‘outrage’. Thesaurus defines ‘outrage’ as ‘a power-
ful feeling of resentment or anger aroused by something perceived as an
injury, insult, or injustice’,1 and the adjective, outrageous, is defined as
‘grossly offensive to the sense of right or decency; passing reasonable
bounds; intolerable or shocking’.2
20 T. NGOMBA
In terms of variants of the concept, the following three orthographi-

cally different and normatively informed variations of the concept can be
outlined:
1) Outrage(ous) Citizenship: Differentiated orthographically by the

bracketed and italicised ‘ous’, this is the specific term designating
explicitly progressive versions of this form of citizenship but recog-
nising that some anti-progressive elements (e.g. violence, intimida-
tions, harassments etc.) can be within and manifested in this. Such
anti-progressive elements are recognised as being present but not
very central in the articulations/manifestations of this form of citi-
zenship. An example of this is some of the outrage and protests that
have characterised killings of African-Americans by the police in the
US. The Black Lives Matter movement—itself born out of the out-
rage that followed the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2012—has
championed these protests. Following the killing of Philando
Castile, an African-American, by the police in July 2016 in St Paul,
Minnesota, there was further outrage and protests both online and
offline and as CNN reported:
Protesters marched again Saturday in cities nationwide to decry police

brutality after the killing of two African-American men by police this
week. While many were peaceful, events turned ugly in St. Paul, Minnesota,
where protesters clashed with police on Interstate 94. At least two officers
were injured by protesters – one hit with a glass bottle and the other by
fireworks, according to St. Paul police. (“Black Lives Matter Protesters”
2016, emphases added)
In this example, while the outrage and protests centred on advo-

cating for justice for the deceased and the end of racism within the
police force in the US (all progressive issues, normatively speaking),
in the process of advocating for these progressive issues, less progres-
sive acts (violence, threats etc.) also featured. Nevertheless, these less
progressive acts did not prevail to such an extent that they could
‘douse’ the overall progressive tenor of the initial outrage and pro-
tests. In this respect, we can conceptually approach the outrage and
protests in St Paul, Minnesota as manifestations of Outrage(ous)
Citizenship.
2) Outraged Citizenship: This is the specific term designating explicitly

progressive online and/or offline forms of citizenship enacted with
no recourse to violence, intimidation, and so on. An example of this
variant can be for instance the CNN report on Kenya and the Dr.
Dao incidents and their fallouts indicated in the beginning of
this chapter.
3) Outrageous Citizenship: The specific term designating explicitly
anti-progressive versions of this form of citizenship. An example of
these can be for instance the outrage and protests in Germany
championed by the anti-immigrant movement Pegida, following
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s announcement of an ‘open door policy’
regarding refugees (see Schulze 2015). Another example is the out-
rage and protests from white supremacist groups in the US. The
announced removal of the statue of Confederate General Robert
Lee from Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park in the US in August
2017 for instance left white supremacists outraged. Led by Jason
Kessler, a ‘prominent voice in the white nationalist movement’, the
white nationalists organised a rally to protest the removal of the
statue during which, in addition to physical violence, there were
‘unabashed expressions of racism and anti-LGBTQ hate speech
from a range of white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist
groups’ (Variety 2017).
In epochal terms, it is important to acknowledge that the dynamics of

the different variants of the concept of Outrage(ous) Citizenship discussed
above are not quintessentially new. Historically pertinent international
examples will be for instance the protests against the Vietnam war and the
transnational anti-apartheid protests prior to the official end of the apart-
heid regime in 1994 in South Africa. This historical fact notwithstanding,
the point worth emphasising remains that currently the manifestations
and mediated representations of popular reactions to perceived norms-
breaking or injurious discourses, acts or events within or beyond a specific
polity are, in many respects, vastly different from earlier epochs. One of
the decisive factors differentiating this current era from historical prece-
dents is the decisive role that social media in particular plays in the foment-
ing, shaping and enactment of variants of Outrage(ous) Citizenship. As
Zorbach and Carley (2014, p. 117) aptly noted, currently, ‘in reaction to
any questionable statement or activity, social media users can create huge
waves of outrage within just a few hours’. Aspects related to social media’s
22 T. NGOMBA
role will be unpacked further below, but for now, in the next section, I will
highlight some of the central ways in which a more focussed examination
of Outrage(ous) Citizenship can relate to and/or challenge some of the
central dynamics of CFSC research.
Outrage(ous) Citizenship and the Dynamics

of CFSC Research
What will the application of the concept of Outrage(ous) Citizenship

mean for CFSC research? There are potential implications regarding the
definition and scope of research within CFSC following an application of
the concept of Outrage(ous) Citizenship. These issues are unpacked below
in four key points.
Firstly, definitional issues. In their 2006 anthology, Gumucio-Dragon
and Tufte (2006, p. xix) define CFSC as follows:
A way of thinking and practice that puts people in control of the means and
content of communication processes. Based on dialogue and collective
action, CFSC is a process of public and private dialogue through which
people determine who they are, what they need and what they want in order
to improve their lives.
While the views regarding collective action and people being at the
centre of the communication process in this definition speak to the dynam-
ics of Outrage(ous) Citizenship discussed above, it is clear that the defini-
tion offered by Gumucio-Dragon and Tufte, one of the most popular and
comprehensive in the field, does not fully capture the dynamics of
Outrage(ous) Citizenship. In many instances, as seen, for example, with
the Kenya and China examples given in the introduction of this chapter,
people did not engage in procedural dialogue to determine what they
need or want from CNN and Weibo respectively. The spontaneity that
tends to characterise reactive forms of citizenship enactments, especially in
their initial stages as discussed above, constitute key characteristic of these
forms of citizenships that ought to be reflected in definitions of what
CFSC is, if this notion of Outrage(ous) Citizenship is to be useable in
CFSC scholarship.
Secondly, and connected to the first point above, the conceptualisation
of CFSC has an impact on and is reflected in the types of research that
tend to characterise the field. In a recent overview of the status of the field,
Tufte (2017, p. 14–15) noted that CFSC ‘emphasises using communica-

tion strategically to address and often challenge the structural conditions
that inform social change processes’. A lot of recent CFSC scholarship has
tended to focus on examining major social movements or processes such
as the Occupy Wall Street Movements, the ‘Arab Spring’ or other related
movements in Southern Europe and Latin America, and the ways in which
these movements have strategically appropriated media and communica-
tion to challenge structural conditions of social injustice.
Often sidelined are ‘little ripples’ such as pushbacks from netizens in
China regarding Weibo’s decision on homosexuality as seen in the intro-
duction (for a related discussion on disparity in scholarly focus in CFSC
research between what he calls the ‘noisy’ activist social movements and
the ‘silent’ community work of civil society organisations, see Tufte 2017,
p. 10–11). As a result, several ‘minor’ social change-relevant initiatives,
processes or actions anchored on outrage and triggered by reactions to
particular events, policies or discourses are not currently encompassed in
conventional, mainstream CFSC research. In fact even Manuel Castell’s
(2015) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet
Age, which comes very close to clearly articulating the notion of outrage
in the context of recent socio-political events worldwide, focusses analyti-
cally on the ‘big movements’ mentioned earlier. An adoption of
Outrage(ous) Citizenship in the context of CFSC scholarship will there-
fore hopefully diversify the analytical and empirical scope of research in
the field.
Thirdly, and connected to the issue of analytical scope discussed above,
normatively speaking, CFSC as a field and in research orientation is decid-
edly progressive. As Gumucio-Dragon and Tufte (2006, p. xx) noted in
relation to this point, the ‘principles underlying’ CFSC’s ‘ways of working
include voice and participation, unleashing unheard or marginalised
voices, equity and justice’. Given this progressive orientation, a lot of
research in the field has ‘naturally’ focussed on progressive movements/
initiatives. Less progressive forces are sidelined, notwithstanding the fact
that like their progressive counterparts, less progressive forces have also
creatively utilised media and communication technologies to react to par-
ticular events (as we saw in the Pegida and Charlottesville examples above)
or to strategically and more procedurally engage in long-term social
change ‘combats’ (for instance far right political parties or movements).
The concept of Outrage(ous) Citizenship recognises the progressive and
less progressive elements in reactionary forms of citizenship enactments
24 T. NGOMBA
and the specific variant: outrageous citizenship puts direct attention on

these less progressive manifestations of this form of citizenship.
Fourthly, a re-confirmation and deepening of the multidisciplinary
characteristic of CFSC research. As a field of research, CFSC is signifi-
cantly multidisciplinary. While in and of itself a virtue, this multidiscipli-
narity has at times cast a shadow over the disciplinary identity and
boundaries of the field (see Ngomba 2013). As a conceptual lens, a proper
unpacking of the notion of Outrage(ous) Citizenship in an analytical sense
within CFSC-inspired research is hinged on a sensible, systematic coalesc-
ing of a range of related disciplinary discussions. Already above, reference
was made to one such field: citizenship studies, with an acknowledgment
of the heuristic value of multidimensional citizenship in furthering the
understanding of Outrage(ous) Citizenship practices.
Beyond citizenship studies, these key perspectives from the following
fields of research can be relevant in analytical attempts to unpack the
dynamics of Outrage(ous) Citizenship:
a. social psychological discussions on moral outrage and its manifesta-

tions in the context of digital media (e.g. Rothschild and Keefer
2017; Crockett 2017);
b. the political economy of mainstream and digital media in particular
discussions on the ways and extent to which the financial sustain-
ability of these media now tend to depend on the scale of referrals/
sharing of their content (e.g. Nechushtai 2017) and the role of
emotions, especially anger, as it relates to the patterns of these refer-
rals/sharing (e.g. Berger and Milkman 2012) and the overall audi-
ence share of mainstream media (e.g. Sobieraj and Berry 2011);
c. the sociology and politics of emotions as it relates to the role of
emotions especially anger in political mobilisation and in social
movements in particular (Jasper 2014) and
d. the mobilisational and political capacities of digital media (Bennett
and Segerberg 2012).
Conclusion
During the white supremacist protests in Charlottesville a car drove into a
group of anti-fascist protesters who were also at the scene, killing 32-year-
old Heather Heyer. After her death, several media picked on her last
Facebook message, which was a re-telling of the old quote stating that: ‘If
you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention’ (“If you are not out-
raged” 2017).
That quote and the events that led to Heyer’s premature death under-
score both the enormity of outrage currently being expressed offline and
online and the ways in which policies, events or discourses can easily spark
expressions of outrage across and beyond a polity. A search for the word
‘outrage’ in some mainstream news media goes a long way to confirm the
ubiquity of expressions of and media reports about outrage contemporar-
ily. A search for ‘outrage’ in the website of The Washington Post for instance
on 15 April 2018 yielded 24,353 results with headlines such as ‘Public
outrage forces Interior to scrap massive increase in park entry fees’;
‘Mother arrested after viral video of her baby smoking sparks outrage on
social media’ and ‘Food association gives top cookbook award to its CEO,
prompting outrage—and a new policy’.
The central focus of this chapter has been to suggest that CFSC as a
field of research should not let all these manifestations of outrage and their
mediation pass it by. At its core, this chapter has suggested that the con-
cept of Outrage(ous) Citizenship and its variants have potential to encap-
sulate the different dynamics regarding these manifestations and mediations
of outrage in ways that can expand and enrich CFSC research.
Notes
1. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/outrage
2. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/outrageous?s=t
References
Bennett, L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital
Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Information,
Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. (2012). What Makes Online Content Viral? Journal of
Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205.
Black Lives Matter Protesters Return to the Streets. (2016, July 9). CNN. Retrieved
from https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/09/us/black-lives-matter-pro-
tests/index.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
Castells, M. (2015). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the
Internet Age (2nd ed.). Polity: Cambridge.
26 T. NGOMBA
China’s Sina Weibo Backtracks From Gay Content Ban After Outrage. (2018,
April 16). BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
china-43779650. Accessed 16 Apr 2018.
CNN Executive Flies to Kenya to Apologise for ‘Hotbed of Terror’ Claim. (2015,
August 14). The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/
world/2015/aug/14/cnn-kenya-apologise-obama. Accessed 10 Mar 2018.
Cogan, J., Grossman, D., & Liu, M. (2000). Citizenship: The Democratic
Imagination in a Global/Local Context. Social Education, 64(1), 48–52.
Crockett, M. (2017). Moral Outrage in the Digital Age. Nature Human Behavior,
1, 769–771.
Gumucio-Dragon, A., & Tufte, T. (2006). Roots and Relevance: Introduction to
the CFSC Anthology. In A. Gumucio-Dragon & T. Tufte (Eds.), Communication
for Social Change: Anthology: Historical and Contemporary Readings (pp. xiv–
xxxvi). New Jersey: The Communication for Social Change Consortium.
‘If You’re Not Outraged, You’re Not Paying Attention’: Virginia Murder Victim’s
Last Facebook Post. (2017, August 13). Independent. Retrieved from https://
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/virginia-charlottesville-
white-supremacist-heather-heyer-a7891531.html. Accessed 10 Apr 2018.
Jasper, J. (2014). Constructing Indignation: Anger Dynamics in Protest
Movements. Emotion Review, 6(3), 208–213.
Nechushtai, E. (2017). Could Digital Platforms Capture the Media Through
Infrastructure? Journalism, 19, 1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1464884917725163.
Ngomba, T. (2013). Comprehending Social Change in an Era of Austerity:
Reflection from a Communication Perspective. Glocal Times, 19, 1–17.
Officer Who Dragged Man From Plane Sues United Airlines. (2018, April 12).
BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-can-
ada-43734466. Accessed 16 Apr 2018.
Rothschild, Z., & Keefer, L. (2017). A Cleansing Fire: Moral Outrage Alleviates
Guilt and Buffers Threats to One’s Moral Identity. Motivation and Emotion,
41, 209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9601-2.
Schulze, I. (2015, February 1). Pegida: Germany’s Useful Idiots. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/01/pegida-
germanys-useful-idiots. Accessed 23 Mar 2018.
Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. (2011). From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in
Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41.
Starr, B. (2015, July 23). Obama’s Trip Raises Security Concerns. CNN. Retrieved
from https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/politics/obama-kenya-visit-al-
shabaab-threat/index.html. Accessed 12 Mar 2018.
Tufte, T. (2017). Communication and Social Change: A Citizen Perspective.
Cambridge: Polity.
United Airlines Passenger Dragged Off Plane Likely to Sue Airline, Attorney Says.
(2017, April 11). The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.
com/world/2017/apr/13/united-airlines-passenger-lawsuit-david-dao.
Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
Variety (2017). Lady Gaga, Ava DuVernay, More in Hollywood React to
Charlottesville: ‘There Is Only One Side’. Available online at: http://variety.
com/2017/biz/news/charlottesville-virginia-unite-the-right-protest-vio-
lence-1202525726/ Accessed 10 April 2018.
Zorbach, P., & Carley, K. (2014). Understanding Online Firestorms: Negative
Word-of-Mouth Dynamics in Social Media Networks. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 20(1–2), 117–128.
Institutional Listening: An Essential Principle
for Democracy in Digital Times
Anita Gurumurthy and Nandini Chami
The Citizenship Crisis

In post-colonial contexts, a wide gulf has always existed between
Westphalian ideals of formal citizenship and the ontologies of citizen iden-
tity—the terrain that marginal subjects of the state navigate to realise their
political claims. An authoritative body of work bears testimony to the fact
that the ability to assert the array of civic-political, socio-economic and
cultural rights emanating from one’s citizenship status is not equally dis-
tributed (Samaddar 2009; Chatterjee 2004; Jayal 2013; Roy 2005). The
marginal subject must constantly seek legitimacy for her ways of being and
knowing, drawing attention to the damning disjuncture between the de
jure form of institutional guarantees and the de facto substance of her
lived experience (Holston and Appadurai 2019). Struggles to get the
nation-state to acknowledge and recognise claims not yet legitimated by
formal repertoires of social, political and cultural belonging have held
deep significance to the very project of democracy.
A. Gurumurthy (*) • N. Chami

IT for Change, Bengaluru, India
e-mail: anita@itforchange.net; nandini@itforchange.net

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42513-5_3
30 A. GURUMURTHY AND N. CHAMI
The communicative dimension thus performs a key role in expanding

the given boundaries of citizenship, whereby political voice involves not
just “the right to freedom of opinion and speech”, but equally, “the right
to be heard” (Livio 2017). A corollary of this is that ‘listening institutions’
become the necessary complement to citizenship rights and a precondi-
tion for democracy to make way for what may be described as cognitive
justice,1 where the plurality and diversity of life-worlds and world-views
that marginal citizen-subjects bring to public-political engagement is nur-
tured and valued, rather than just being tolerated or accommodated
through half-measures for inclusion.
The digital moment we inhabit presents a huge challenge to cognitive
justice. As neo-liberal globalisation and the digital revolution feed off each
other, opportunities for connecting across space and time accompany the
worst possible crises affecting the sustainability of the planet and well-
being of its peoples. With elite capture of policies and the whittling away
of public institutions, the social contract is under strain. In this emerging
context, Fraser argues how Keynesian-Westphalian approaches to justice
“gerrymanders political space at the expense of the poor and despised”
(Fraser 2013). In a seamless world that is technologically connected, the
shifting axes of power render those in the periphery even more vulnerable.
The elite not only control the material means of power but also the discur-
sive realms in which narratives are framed and legitimated. Despite all the
talk about the digital public sphere and its democratising potential, con-
temporary public discourse, as a construct of the virality and velocity of
digital communications, does little to privilege marginal voices. On the
one hand, political routes to claims-making are caught in the winds of
hyper-politicisation of identity, virulent propaganda and right-wing popu-
lism, a recipe that subverts completely the essence of democratic politics.
On the other hand, the substance of citizenship, as the outcome of insti-
tutional guarantees to equality, is hugely vitiated. As the technique par
excellence of today’s institutional knowledge, the data and digital revolu-
tion seems to be at a crossroads. Rather than eliminate the vectors of his-
torical inequality, it presents a troubling challenge to global
democracy—obscuring voice, undermining democratic institutions and
annihilating aspirational citizenship. How can democracies be rebuilt in
this state of democratic flux? How can citizenship rights, as work-in-
progress for those at the peripheries of the social order, be secured?
INSTITUTIONAL LISTENING: AN ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE FOR DEMOCRACY… 31
This chapter explores a rebooted idea of ‘institutional listening’—one

that can respond to the challenges confronting political voice in digital age
publics—as a vehicle towards cognitive justice.
Misframings in Digitally Mediated Democracy

The datafication of nature, human activity and physical artefacts for creat-
ing interconnected intelligence on a planetary scale has given rise to an
“algorithmic culture” that is fast replacing political deliberation as the
ordering principle of democratic sociality (Striphas 2015). Inscrutable,
privately owned algorithms have become the “de-facto principle of author-
ity”, where social relationships are “the positive remainder resulting from
specific information processing tasks”. The social consequences of this are
evident in a data fetishism that has overtaken governance processes in state
institutions.
While big data and AI-based technologies are the newest tools in the
arsenal of the modern state, a long series of informational technologies
have always been deployed to enumerate, classify, sort and categorise citi-
zens (Monish 2018). Across time, these practices have had deleterious
outcomes for the poor and marginalised, with representational biases
inherent to databases resulting in discrimination and exclusion (Eubanks
2018). The current wave of technologies is however extremely pernicious.
A digital rewiring of decision-making in government undermines the very
“right to have rights”,2 taking away citizen claims to contest and challenge
unfair and unjust denial of rights.
An ever-expanding integration of citizen data across public-political
and private-commercial realms has meant an insidious and pervasive
depoliticisation of the performative aspects of citizenship (Barassi 2019).
Personal data trails abstracted into databases replace embodiment as the
key to authenticity, and as data stand-ins for the citizen, become the sole
determinant of the public self. The citizen is now the public subject who
can have no invulnerable, private interiority. ‘Consent’ becomes the device
of choice for state legitimacy to seek more data to create new meanings
about citizenship. The enactment of citizenship struggles is rendered
meaningless and citizenship-as-performance is replaced with
citizenship-as-ordering.
Assumptions about algorithmic infallibility and the absence of policies
for public scrutiny and audit of AI programmes leave citizens without any
recourse in the event of false/misleading assessments. In 2016, Australia’s
welfare agency, Centrelink, introduced an algorithmic system to mine the

financial records of citizens to detect fraudulent welfare claims and recover
welfare debt from defrauding citizens. Thousands of debt notices were
sent erroneously to parents, people with disabilities, carers, students and
employment seekers, directing them to return within 21 days the funds
that they had purportedly illegally claimed. Citizens found themselves in a
Kafkaesque predicament, confronted by an inscrutable algorithm and no
avenue to seek explanations or frame an appeal. Though this programme
is being challenged now in the courts in the wake of a huge public outcry,
the damage it has done seems irrevocable (Henriques-Gomes 2019).
Media outlets have reported that between July 2016 and October 2018,
over 2000 vulnerable individuals may have died from stress, anxiety and
depression-related medical conditions after being served with erroneous
welfare debt notices (Medorah 2019) that, as opined by the members of a
senate inquiry into the programme, were “frankly incomprehensible”
(Hutchens 2017). Considering that in many instances, states have out-
sourced the development of such data and AI systems to private firms, the
lack of public oversight and accountability mechanisms becomes even
more worrisome (Lappin 2019).
Also, in datafied welfare systems, government representatives/last-mile
service providers tend to displace accountability onto the technological
black box. Take the case of India’s Aadhaar project, the national digital
identification architecture through which every resident has been assigned
a 12-digit unique identification number linked to his/her basic biometric
and demographic information (Unique Identification Authority of India
2019). One of the main objectives of this initiative is to provide a scaffold-
ing for fool-proof identity authentication and digitalised payments to ben-
eficiaries in welfare systems, minimising the scope for human discretion at
the last mile that so often leads to unaccountable allocations of benefits.
Ironically, Aadhaar has ended up exacerbating the very problems that it
sought to correct. Millions of vulnerable Indians have been denied their
rightful entitlements (including food rations, social pensions, maternal
health entitlements and wages earned through the employment guarantee
programme) because of errors in seeding the unique identification num-
ber into databases held by government departments, misspelling of names
in linking legacy databases with the unique identification database and
failure of biometric authentication at the last mile (Khera 2019). Some of
the most impoverished individuals have died after such denial of food
grains and health care services (The Wire 2018). The centralised
INSTITUTIONAL LISTENING: AN ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE FOR DEMOCRACY… 33
architecture of Aadhaar has emboldened intervening administrative links

(such as district officials and last-mile service providers) to shirk responsi-
bility to address complaints about non-delivery of services by claiming
ignorance about the workings of the new digital system. Grassroots move-
ments such as the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan have highlighted how
in the wake of these developments, the traditional grammar of claims-
making—where citizens collectively demand accountability for faulty last-
mile service delivery in the local public sphere—starts losing efficacy.
As granular profiling through algorithmic technologies becomes the
primary tool for governance decisions, claims-making is displaced from
the realm of institutional politics and recast as individualised encounters.
An emerging ‘governance by scoring’ culture misrecognises systemic
social issues such as homelessness and child abuse by treating them as
individual-specific problems of a few deviant, at-risk subjects (Peters 2018;
Dencik et al. 2018). Further, the tendency of big data and AI-based mod-
els to bring ‘precision’ to planning exercises through an analysis of past
trends obfuscates the importance of normative decision-making, under-
mining individual and collective rights. Sorting of students in the public
education system using AI tools, for instance, can reinforce the status quo.
An AI system for new academic opportunities, based on trends analysis
alone, will end up eliminating students from poor and marginal social
groups who have lower educational attainments (Kasinathan 2020).
Equality of opportunity depends on what a society believes is politically
necessary for justice, a point that is often lost in the hyper-enthusiasm for
the precision in decision-making sought to be achieved through data-
based tools.
The disciplining state is also able to extend its authoritarian control
today in unprecedented ways through a capture of the means of public
propaganda. Gaming social media spaces with half-truths and even disin-
formation, right-wing establishments the world over are destabilising
democracy (Waterson 2018). Unqualified data power implies the power to
control both the means of governance and the means of discourse. Under
the circumstances, citizen engagement is reduced to a strategy for legiti-
mating data-based disciplining (Kitchin et al. 2019). It ceases to be the
political exercise it needs to be for a healthy democracy. Instantiations
from across the world show how public engagement in ‘smart city’ proj-
ects is but a smokescreen to bring on board a class of elite, ‘smart’ citizens
who can legitimise digitally enabled, privately managed, mass-scale urban
surveillance systems to police low-income neighbourhoods and the infor-

mal workforce (Datta 2018).
Democracy in the digital order exemplifies the essential dissonances
between a nationally bounded political community and the supranational
class of persons expunged by techno-political decisions made under condi-
tions of neo-liberal authoritarianism—typically, a state apparatus captured
by the class of global capitalist elite. What results is “misframing” (Fraser
2009)—whereby the frame for the most consequential of political deci-
sions effects an absolute fracture in the political community, separating
members and non-members and excluding the latter from being in the
reckoning for entitlements in matters of distribution, recognition and
representation.
With the hollowing out of the lived reality of embodied citizenship, the
‘knowing’ citizen and her truth claims are displaced and eventually, dele-
gitimised and derecognised. The violence of digital governmentality and
its definitive rendering of datafied identities can push those at the political
margins into an otherness that totally alienates them from democracy’s
body politic. As non-persons undeserving of justice, the othered face an
ontological struggle. The consequence of this is a kind of “meta-injustice”:
an obliteration of access to some or all aspects of justice—most signifi-
cantly, the possibility of pressing first-order claims (Connolly et al. 2007).
Countering Datafied Governmentality

Under a surveillance apparatus tied to the technical reification of member-
ship, we noted how the basis for recognition of claims becomes techni-
calised and decoupled from ‘voicing’, pivoted instead on algorithmic
truths. As the data proposes and the algorithm disposes, performative and
concrete aspects of citizenship are enfeebled. Data-based strategies
deployed for rhetorical control polarise democratic discourse, reconstruct-
ing public narratives. In the reshaping of common sense ideas about insid-
ers and outsiders, members and non-members, good and bad citizens,
cognitive justice is effaced.
The tyranny of data governmentality can be countered only through a
political praxis that reclaims citizenship as a communicative endeavour.
This calls for dismantling the data discourse of the powerful while retain-
ing the positive and beneficial semantics and aesthetics of data for episte-
mological and ontological diversity in the public sphere. The task here is
daunting given that today’s digitally mediated publics are built on the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
seated at four o’clock of that perfect Wednesday, leaving space in
the center for the bridal party, of which there was as yet no visible
sign.
Promptly at four one heard, far below, echoing poetically from the
lake, the first notes of a bugle sounding a wedding march. It was the
signal that the bridal party was approaching, and the guests began
to tingle with excitement. Nearer and nearer, came the bugle, and at
last through the green birch and alder and hemlock came the gleam
of white—a living ribbon winding among the trees. As the procession
approached, zigzagging up the steep path, it was very effective,
suggesting an old Greek chorus, or a festival group from some
poetic page, as why should it not, the bride being herself an ancient
Greek in spirit, with her translations of the classics and her
profession as stage manager of Hellenic dramas? The bridal party, a
score and eight in number, was all in white, with touches of red,
camp colors. First came the bugler, blowing manfully. After him two
white flower girls, scattering daisies along the path. Then followed
the two head ushers, white from top to toe, with daisy chains
wreathing their shoulders in Samoan fashion. Next, with flowing
black academic robes, a striking contrast of color, climbed the two
ministers—one the bride’s father, the other a local clergyman, whose
word, since this was a “foreign country,” was necessary to legalize
the bond. Two more ushers preceded the groom and his best man in
white attire; and bridesmaids, two and two, with a maid of honor,
escorted the bride, who walked with her mother.
As for the bride herself, surely no other ever wore garb so quaint and
pretty. Her dress was of beautiful white silk, simply shirred and
hemstitched, the web woven by hand in Greece and brought thence
by Miss Barrows herself during a trip in search of material and
antiquarian data for her Greek plays. The gown was short, giving a
glimpse of white shoes and open-work stockings—part of her
mother’s bridal wear on her own wedding day, of which this was an
anniversary. The bridal veil was a scarf of filmy white liberty, with an
exquisite hand-painted border of pale pink roses. It was worn Greek
fashion, bound about the head with a fillet, garland of red partridge
berries and the twisted vine. In one hand she carried a bouquet of
forget-me-nots and maidenhair; in the other an alpenstock of cedar,
peeled white, as did the rest of the party. As they wound slowly up
through the beautiful wild grove, with the lake gleaming through the
green behind them and the bugle blowing softly, it was hard to
realize that this was Canada in the year 1905, and not Greece in
some poetic ante-Christian age, or Fairyland itself in an Endymion
dream.
So with sweet solemnity they wound up to the crest of the hill,
passed through the cabin, and came out into the sunlit space on the
balcony, the flower girls strewing daisies as a carpet for the bridal
pair, who advanced and stood before the minister, the other white-
robed figures forming a picturesque semi-circle about them.
The ceremony was brief and simple; the exchange of vows and
rings; a prayer by each of the clergymen and a benediction; the
hymn “O Perfect Love” sung by the bridal party. Then Mr. and Mrs.
Mussey stood ready to receive their friends in quite the orthodox
way. But surely no other bride and groom ever stood with such
glorious background of tree and lake, ineffable blue sky and distant
purple mountains, while the air was sweet with the odor of Canadian
flowers, which seem to be richer in perfume than ours, and
melodious with the song of countless birds, which seemed especially
sympathetic, as birds in Fairyland and in ancient Greece were fabled
to be.
After a gay half hour of congratulations, general chatter and
refreshments, came word that the wedding party was to move once
more, this time to escort the bride and groom down to the lake,
where waited the bridal canoe.
Again the white procession passed the green slope, but this time
merrily, in careless order, escorted by the guests, who were eager to
see the wedded couple start upon their brief journey. For the
honeymoon was to be spent at Birchbay, another camp hidden like a
nest among the trees a mile farther down the lake. The bridal canoe,
painted white and lined with crimson, wreathed with green and flying
the British flag astern, waited at the slip. Amid cheers and good
wishes the lovers embarked and paddled away down the lake,
disappearing at last around a green point to the south. A second
canoe, containing the bride’s father and mother, and a bride and
groom-elect, soon to be elsewhere wed, escorted the couple to their
new home, where they are to be left in happy seclusion for so long
as they may elect. And so ended the most romantic wedding which
Lake Memphremagog ever witnessed; a wedding which will never be
forgotten by any present—save, perhaps, the youngest guest, aged
two months.
On the following morning the little company of friends gathered in
that far-off corner of America—a most interesting company of all
nationalities and religions, professions and interests—began to
scatter again to the four quarters of the globe—to California,
Chicago, Boston, Europe, Florida and New York, and in a few days
only the camps and their permanent summer colony will tarry to
enjoy the beauties of that wonderful spot. But whether visible or
invisible to the other less blissful wights, the bride and groom still
remain in their bower, among though not of them. And Romance and
June linger along the lake, like a spell.
A. F. B.
July 8.—The Cedar Lodge bird concert aroused us betimes, and
after breakfast in the Blue China room, we were driven to
Georgeville. The morning sail was even finer than that of the
afternoon before. The car ride of forty-five miles from Newport
brought us to St. Johnsbury in season for a drive of ten miles to
Waterford, for our last night in Vermont.
July 10.—Camped two hours on the top of Sugar Hill, with a glorious
view of the mountain ranges and surrounding country, then drove
down to Franconia for the night, near the Notch.
July 11.—Everything perfect! Cooler after the successive days of
heat, the fine roads through the woods freshened as from recent
showers. Echo Lake, the Profile House and cottages, Profile Lake
and the Old Man, whose stony face is grand as ever, the
Pemigewassett, clear as crystal, tumbling over the whitened rocks,
the Basin, Pool and Flume—all these attractions of the Franconia
Notch drive were never more beautiful. We left our horse at the
Flume House stables and walked the mile to the end of the Flume,
along the board walks, through the narrow gorge where the boulder
once hung, and climbed higher yet the rocks above the cascade.
The afternoon drive of seventeen miles through North Woodstock
and Thornton brought us to Campton for the night.
July 12.—Drove from Campton to the Weirs. We well remember the
zigzag roads from Plymouth up and down the steepest hills, and
today they seemed steeper and longer than ever, for thunder
showers were all about us. We stopped an hour at a farmhouse,
thinking they were surely coming near, and from this high point
watched the scattering of the showers, by the lake and high hills. We
then drove into one, concealed by a hill, and got our first and only
wetting on the journey. Two beautiful rainbows compensated.
We were cordially welcomed at the Lakeside House at Weirs, where
we have been so many times and always feel at home. Here we
found our second mail, and sent greeting to many friends associated
with Lake Winnipiseogee.
July 14.—Spent the night at Sunapee Lake, where we were
refreshed by cool breezes. A year ago this date we were at Sebago
Lake, Me.
July 15.—A brisk shower just after breakfast made our morning drive
one of the pleasantest, the first five miles through lovely woods, with
glimpses of the lake. We spent an hour at a blacksmith shop before
going to the hotel at Antrim for the night, and had to ask to have the
buggy left in the sun it was so cool! While there we read of the
disastrous thunder showers everywhere, except on our route, which
had broken the spell of excessive heat.
July 16.—A perfect Sunday morning and a glorious drive—lonely, we
were told, and perhaps so on a cold, dark day, but no way could be
lonely on such a day. The roads were narrow, sometimes grass-
grown, with the trees over-reaching, and a profusion of white
blossoms bordered the roadside.
Exclamations of surprise greeted us as we drove to the cottage by
the lake, where we spent the rainy Sunday two weeks ago. We took
snap shots of our friends and left messages for those soon to join
them for the summer. We do not tell you where this restful spot is, for
somehow we feel more in sympathy with our friends who like the
seclusion, than with the man who would like to “boom” the place, and
asked us to mention he had land to sell.
July 17.—Another bright day! What wonderful weather! And how
lovely the drive over Dublin hills overlooking the lake, with beautiful
summer homes all along the way and varying views of Monadnock!
July 18.—Took a parting snap shot of Monadnock, for the sun shone
on this last day of our journey, as it has done on every other—except
that first rainy Sunday, when stopping over for the rain brought us at
just the right time at every point on the trip.
According to record of distances in Wheeling Notes, we have
journeyed five hundred and forty miles, over four hundred by
carriage, and the time record is two weeks and five days. If
odometers and carriage clocks had been in vogue from the
beginning of our journeying, the sum total recorded would be about
14000 MILES, and nearly two years in time. A journey now would
seem incomplete without a note-book tucked behind the cushion, for
remarks along the way.
POSTSCRIPT.
BUGGY JOTTINGS OF A SEVEN HUNDRED MILES DRIVE.
CIRCUIT OF THE NEW ENGLAND STATES.
Postscripts in general are not considered good form, but this one is
exceptional, and may be pardoned by virtue of its length. This book
did not exist to “material sense,” until after this journey, but it existed
in mind, and even more tangibly in the manuscript, which we took
along with us for the final reading before placing it in the printer’s
hands. We had guarded the precious pages for some weeks, many
times having tied it up with the diary, ready to be snatched at an
earthquake’s notice.
Book-reading had been a lifetime pleasure, but book-making was
entirely new to us, and we were greatly interested in the work of
detail—the preparation of manuscript, form of type, Gothic or old
French style, paper, modern and antique, leaves cut or uncut,
“reproduction of Ruskin,” everything in fact from cover to copyright.
The notes of more than 14000 miles in addition to the seven hundred
miles driving made this journey one of unusual interest.
As usual we had no plan beyond going north for a month’s drive, a
longer time than we have taken for several years. At the last
moment, as it invariably happens when we have had some particular
direction in mind, we decided to go south, spend Sunday with friends
in Rhode Island, and take a turn in Connecticut before facing north.
We left home on the afternoon of June 22, Friday being a day of
good omen to us, surprised friends in Chapinville with a carriage call,
spent the night at Westboro, telephoned our coming from
Woonsocket, and were with our friends in Pawtucket before six
o’clock Saturday night. Our horse rested Sunday, but our cousins
gave us a long and very enjoyable drive, showing the places of
interest about the city suburbs, giving us a glimpse of Narragansett
Bay, a fine view of Providence, and a general idea of their drives, so
different from our home drives with the many hills.
We were advised to go to Providence, four miles south of Pawtucket,
to get the best roads westward, for our turn in Connecticut. Had we
been really wise we would have followed this advice, but being wise
in our own conceit only, we followed our map, and took a course
directly west, aiming for the Connecticut River. We started early
Monday morning. As we drove on, we were directed one way and
another to strike better roads, until after a day’s drive we brought up
at a hotel in North Scituate, just ten miles from Providence! Then we
realized our folly in not going to Providence in the morning,
wondered why we were so opposed to going there, and after
discussing the problem as we sat in the buggy in the stable yard, for
it was too late to go to the next hotel, we concluded our journey
would not be complete unless it included Providence. A happy
thought then struck us. We recalled the landlord, who had left us
when we seemed so undecided, secured rooms for the night,
deposited our baggage, and took the next car, which passed the
hotel, and in an hour left us at Shepherd’s rear door in Providence.
We went about the wonderful store, got the glass we wanted so
much, and took the return car, being extremely fortunate in standing
all the way in the vestibule with only twelve, the inside being much
more crowded, owing to a circus. We faced the open window, and
thoroughly enjoyed the ride in the bracing breeze, which restored our
much disturbed mental equilibrium and made us declare that things
come out right, if you let them alone.
We fully appreciated the late supper served by our obliging hostess,
passed a very comfortable night, and again with the same dogged
persistency faced westward. We crossed the state line, which was
as definitely marked by the instant change in the general character
of the roads, as by the pink line which divides Rhode Island from
Connecticut on our map. We were thinking of going straight west
until we reached the Connecticut River, then driving northwest to
Norfolk, the second Lenox we discovered three years ago, and from
there to Great Barrington and up through Stockbridge, Lenox, and all
those lovely Berkshire towns.
After several miles of cross-roads we began to consider and
wondered if we were not foolish to go so far west just to go through
the Berkshires, which we knew by heart already. We decided to
compromise, and turn north earlier, going to Springfield and up the
Westfield River to the northern Berkshire region. A few miles more of
criss-cross roads and we experienced full conversion, and said,
“Why go further westward, when by turning north now we will see
some towns we do not know?”
We were delighted with this new plan, especially when we came to
Pomfret street, which seemed to us a second Norfolk, and when
after being sent from one place to another for the night, we found
ourselves at Mrs. Mathewson’s “Lakeside” in South Woodstock, with
Mrs. Mott as present hostess. We now fully believed what we have
often suspected, that we do not always do our own planning. You will
not find this place on the advertised lists, but those who have been
there for twenty summers, and those who are drawn there as we
were, keep the house more than full.
For the first time we had the pleasure of meeting with one who had
passed the century mark. He said he should like to apply as our
driver! They were interested in our wanderings, and Mrs. Mathewson
exclaimed, “Why don’t you make a book?” How could we help
confessing that was just what we were going to do on our return?
“Oh, I want to subscribe,” she said. We were much gratified, and told
her she would be number three, and represent Connecticut. Before
we left home a Michigan cousin, who was east for the Christian
Science church dedication in Boston, had begged to head the list,
and a mutual cousin in Pawtucket asked to represent Rhode Island.
We sat on the piazza with the other Lakeside guests until a late hour,
and all the ophies and isms, sciences, Christian and otherwise, were
touched upon.
The turn in Connecticut ended most satisfactorily, and the next
morning’s drive took us over another State line, but just when we
entered our native state we do not know, for we missed the boundary
stone. We were aiming for Keene, New Hampshire, eager for our
first mail, and as we passed within a half day’s drive of our starting
point, in crossing Massachusetts, we felt as if the loop of one
hundred and sixty miles was a sort of prologue to our journey. We
had a wayside camp with a stone wall for a table, and we washed
our spoons at the farm house where we got milk.
At the hotel where we spent our first night last year, we were
remembered and most cordially received. After breakfast the next
morning our hostess showed us their rare collection of antiques.
Showers threatened and we took dinner and wrote letters at the
Monadnock House, in Troy, New Hampshire, having crossed another
State line, then hurried on to Keene, where we found a large mail,
full of good news.
Among the letters was one from a nephew, adding four subscriptions
to our book for the privilege of being number four, and so you see
our list was started and growing as our plans are made, not
altogether by ourselves.
While reading our letters we noticed our horse rested one foot, and
as we drove away from the post office, she was a little lame. We had
eleven miles of hilly driving before us, and as the lameness
increased in the first half mile, we returned to a blacksmith,
remembering Charlie and the sand under his shoe, which came near
spoiling one journey. Again sand was the trouble, which was
remedied by the blacksmith, and once more we started for
Munsonville and Granite Lake, for a glimpse of friends from New
York, Canada and Texas.
The welcome at Mrs. Guillow’s cottage in the village was cordial, as
was promised last year, when we were there at both the beginning
and end of our journey. Again we brought a rainy day, and wrote all
the morning, as there was not time between showers to drive to our
friend’s new studio and cottage, but after dinner we decided to walk
the mile and a half round the lake, through the woods, and risk the
rain. We surprised our friends as much as we can surprise any one
who knows of our wanderings.
After we had enjoyed the lake views from the broad piazza, a fire
was built on the hearth for good cheer, in the huge room which was
reception-room, dining-room and library, all in one, with couches
here and there, bookcases galore, and altogether such a room as we
never before saw, but a fulfilment of Thoreau’s description of an ideal
living-room in one of his poems. A broad stairway led from this room
to the floor above, where every room was airy and delightful, and the
floor above this has no end of possibilities. The studio is a small,
attractive building by itself.
We started to walk back the other way, making a circuit of the lake,
but had not gone far, when a driver with an empty carriage asked us
to ride. In the evening two young friends, who were away at a ball
game in the afternoon, rowed across to see us.
Never lovelier morning dawned than that first Sunday in July. We
should have enjoyed hearing another good Fourth of July sermon by
Mr. Radoslavoff as we did last year, but we had already stayed over
a day, and must improve this rare morning for the “awful hills”
everybody told us were on our way north. So with more promises of
hospitality from Mrs. Guillow, an invitation to leave our horse with her
neighbor opposite any time, and pleasant words from friends of the
students who are attracted to this growing Summer School of Music,
we retraced three miles of the lovely Keene road, then up we went,
and up some more, then down and up again. We walked the
steepest pitches, and the day ended at Bellows Falls as beautiful as
it began. We were now in Vermont. Fifth state in ten days!
From Bellows Falls to Rutland by rail is not to be spurned, but by the
hilly highways, it is a joy forever. We always anticipate that superb bit
of driving through Cavendish Gorge before we reach Ludlow, where
once more we enjoyed the comforts of the old Ludlow House, spick
and span this time. Then came another perfect day for crossing Mt.
Holly of the Green Mountain range, and we chose the rough short
cut over the mountain, ignoring the smooth roundabout way for
automobiles. Miles of wayside, and whole fields, were radiant with
yellow buttercups, white daisies, orange tassel-flower, red and white
clover, and ferns. The views are beyond description. We stopped on
the summit to give our horse water, and never can resist pumping
even if the tub is full. A woman seeing us came from the house
bringing a glass, and we made a new wayside acquaintance; and
still another when we camped by a brook at the foot, and got milk for
our lunch.
We reached Rutland at four o’clock, just as demonstrations for the
Fourth were beginning, and once in our room at The Berwick, with
three large windows front, we could have fancied we were at
Newport, New Hampshire, where we were last year the night before
the Fourth. The program of entertainment was fully equal; nothing
was missing but the bonfire of barrels. We watched the street
panorama until ten o’clock, then examined the fire rope, but
concluded a fire was necessary to make one know how to use it,
packed our things ready for quick action, and slept serenely.
We waited until the early morning firing was over before we ordered
our horse, and then found by some mistake she had had an extra
feed of oats, which was quite unnecessary, for the crackers,
common and cannon, furnished sufficient stimulus. Clouds were
heavy, the wind strong, air cool, and we thought the list of
prophecies for that week might be at hand all at once. Singularly,
none of them came to pass on the dates given!
When at Bellows Falls, something prompted us to write our Fair
Haven friends we were on the way, which we rarely do. Had we not,
we would have been disappointed, for we found the house closed. A
note pinned on the door, however, we were sure was for us. They
were at the Country Club, Bomoseen Lake, for a few days, and
asked us to join them there. We first called on the cousin from New
York State, whose address was given, and whom we had not seen in
many years. She gave us direction for the four miles’ beautiful drive
to the lake, and as we followed its lovely shores to the Country Club,
we recalled how many times we had read on the trolley posts from
Rutland, “Go to Bomoseen.” We say to all who have the chance, “Go
to Bomoseen.”
All the Fair Haven cousins were there, the “Michigan Subscriber” too,
and for another surprise, our cousin, the story-writer, who had just
finished a book. After a row on the lake, we returned to the Country
Club piazza over the bluff, to enjoy the exquisite views of the hills on
the opposite shore—mountains, we called them—until we were
called to the tempting supper served by the caretaker and presiding
genius of the culinary department. He was unceasing in his attention,
even to the lemonade served at a late hour, after the fireworks were
over, and the literary works compared, as we watched the lake by
moonlight from the piazza, or sat by the open fire. Vermont was now
represented on our list.
The sun rose gloriously across the lake, just opposite our window.
Another perfect day! No wonder all regretted it was their last at the
Country Club. While some were packing, and others down by the
lake, or out with the camera, two of us walked through the woods to
the top of the hill, but at noon we all met at the pleasant home in Fair
Haven for dinner.
Benson was our next destination, and our visit there had been
arranged by telephone. The nine miles’ drive over the hills in the
afternoon of that glorious day was a joy and we gathered wild-
flowers on the way for our ever young cousin who always welcomes
us at the homestead. The “first subscriber” and the “authoress”
followed by stage, and a tableful of cousins met at supper in the
heart of the hills, as on the border of Lake Bomoseen the night
before. After supper we all went to “Cousin Charlie’s” store, and he
made us happy with taffy-on-a-stick. Our special artist “took” us, taffy
in evidence, being careful to have our ever-young chaperone in the
foreground. By this same leading spirit we are always beguiled to the
cream of conversation, and the morning visit amid the flowers on her
corner piazza is so well described by the “story-writer,” who asked
for three minutes just as we were ready to resume our journey after
dinner, that we will share it.
Lines on Departure:
The Fannies have come and the Fannies are going
Of mirth, metaphysics, we’ve had a fair showing.
We’ve all aired our fancies, our pet point of view,
If we only could run things the world would be new.
We all know we’re right, and the others mistaken,
But we’ve charity each for the other relation.
So we join hearts and hands in the fraternal song:—
The right, the eternal, will triumph o’er wrong.
Whatever is true, friends, will live, yes, forever,
So now we will stop—and discuss the weather.
We had written in the guest book, “Every day is the best day of the
year,” adding “This is surely true of July 6, 1906.” The parting lines
were read to us as we sat in the carriage, and we had driven out of
sight of the corner piazza when we heard a good-by call from the
cousin who came in late the night before from his round of
professional visits, feeling quite ill. He looked so much better we
wondered if the “Michigan subscriber” had been sending wireless
messages to her “materia medica” cousin.
The visiting part of our journey was now over, and we started anew,
with no more reason for going to one place than another. We had
spent so much time on the preliminary “loop” in Rhode Island and
Connecticut that we could not go as far north in the Adirondacks as
we want to some time, but a drive home through the White
Mountains is always interesting. How to get there was the problem,
when the Green Mountains were between. You can drive up and
down New Hampshire and Vermont at will, but when you want to go
across, the difficulties exceed those of the roads east and west in
Rhode Island and Connecticut. We knew the lovely way from
Benson to Bread Loaf Inn in Ripton, then over the mountains, and
along the gulf roads to Montpelier, but we inclined to try a new route.
You drive through the White Mountains but over the Green
Mountains.
With a new route in mind, from Benson we drove over more and
higher hills to Brandon Inn for the night. The Inn is very attractive,
but remembering the warm welcome from our many friends, the
inscription over the dining-room fire-place hardly appealed to us:
“Whoe’er has traveled this dull world’s round,
Where’er his stages may have been,
May sigh to think he yet has found
His warmest welcome at an inn.”
The next day we crossed the mountain, hoping to take a fairly direct
course to the Connecticut River, but on first inquiry, were told we
must follow down White River forty miles before we could strike
anything but “going over mountains” to get north.
It matters not whether you drive north, south, east or west, among
the Green Mountains. It is all beautiful. Even the “level” roads are
hilly, with a continuous panorama of exquisite views. Crossing the
mountains we are in and out of the buggy, walking the steepest
pitches to the music of the lively brooks and myriad cascades, letting
our horse have a nibble of grass at every “rest,” which makes her
ambitious for the next one. We do not care how many automobiles
we meet, but on these roads they are conspicuous by their absence
days at a time.
As we revel in these mountain drives and walks, we think of our
friends who say we must be “tired to death,” who would not be
“hired” to go, and again of the one who likes to have a horse and
“amble along,” not forgetting the one who wrote she had just come in
from an automobile ride, and that “to shoot through miles of beautiful
country, eyes squinted together, and holding on tightly was a
punishment,” and still another automobilist who said it did seem
rather nice to go with a horse, and stop to “pick things.”
The forty miles down White River in order to get north was truly
following a river, and a charming drive as well as restful change,
after the mountain climbing. As we journeyed we found genuine
hospitality at the hotels in Stockbridge and West Hartford, small
country towns in Vermont, and everywhere the phonograph, the R. F.
D. and telephone, bringing the most remote farm house in touch with
the outer world.
We left White River with real regret, but after cutting a corner by
driving over a high hill, we started north along the Connecticut, and
at first should hardly have known the difference. In the course of
twenty-five miles we realized we had faced about, as the hills gave
place to mountains. We found very pleasant accommodation at the
hotel in Fairlee, which was being renovated for summer guests. We
remember the bevy of young people we saw there last year, as we
passed.
The river fog was heavy in the early morning, but cleared later, and
all day long we reviewed the views we have reveled in so many
times; the river with us, and the New Hampshire mountains in the
distance. For two or three miles we were on the lookout for a parting
“camp” in Vermont. We almost stopped several times, and once
began to unharness, then concluded to go a little further. When we
reached the highest point on the hill, a large tree by the roadside,
and a magnificent view of the river, hills, and mountains, assured us
this was the spot we were being led to. Nan usually takes her oats
from the ground, after she has made a “table” by eating the grass,
but here they were served from a bank. We had taken our lunch,
added a few lines to the journey report, which we write as we go,
harnessed, and were ready to drive on, when a man came to the
fence, from the field where he had been at work, and resting on his
hoe said, “Well, ladies, you are enjoying yourselves, but you might
just as well have put your horse in the barn, and given her some
hay.” We thanked him, saying she seemed to enjoy the camping as
much as we do, and was always eager for the grass. He then told us
we had chosen historic ground. Our camp was on the road spotted
by Gen. Bailey and Gen. Johnson to Quebec for the militia. He gave
several interesting anecdotes. At one time in Quebec he was shown
a small cannon, which they were very proud of, taken from “your
folks” at Bunker Hill. His wife replied, “Yes, you have the gun, and we
have the hill.”
We shall have to take back some things we have said about river
roads, for that day’s drive completed more than one hundred miles of
superb river driving, in turn close by White River, the Connecticut,
Wells River, and the Ammonoosuc, which roared like Niagara, as it
rushed wildly over the rocks under our window at the hotel in Lisbon,
New Hampshire.
It rained heavily during the night, but the sun was out bright in the
morning. We surprised friends with a very early call, and then went
on, taking our river along with us. At Littleton we found a generous
mail, and all was well, so still on we went, camping at noon by our
Ammonoosuc but parting with it at Wing Road, for it was bound
Bethlehem-ward, and we were going to Whitefield, where we found a
new proprietor at the hotel, who at one time lived in Leominster.
Jefferson was our next objective point, and there are two ways to go.
We wanted that lovely way marked out for us once by a Mt.
Washington summit friend, who knew all the ways. We took a way
that we wish to forget. We called it the ridgepole road between the
White Mountains and the mountains farther north. There were
mountains on all sides, but some of them were dimly discerned
through the haze, which threatened to hide them all. We went up
until we were so high we had to go down in order to go up more hills.
The road was full of mudholes, and swamps or burnt forests on
either side, instead of the fine road and exquisite views we
remembered that other way. We had not been so annoyed with
ourselves since we did not go to Providence to start westward. That
came out all right, however, and we went to Providence after all. We
had to trust to providence to pacify us this time, for we could not go
back as we did then.
For immediate diversion we considered our homeward route. The
“ridgepole” must be our northern limit for this journey. From Lake
Memphremagog last year we drove home through Franconia Notch,
and from the Sebago Lake trip two years ago through Crawford
Notch. It was Pinkham’s turn. Yes, and that would give us that
unsurpassed drive from Jefferson to Gorham. How easy it was to
decide, with the thought of that drive so close to the mountains which
are never twice alike, and North Conway would be a good mail point.
Before we got to Jefferson Highlands, we suddenly recognized a
pleasant place where we camped several years ago, in a large open
yard, facing the mountains. Once more we asked permission, which
was cordially granted, with assurance we were remembered. In the
hour and a half we were there, we kept watch of the clouds as we
were writing in the buggy. They had threatened all the morning, and
now we could distinctly follow the showers, as they passed along,
hiding one mountain after another. They passed so rapidly, however,
that by the time we were on our way again, the first ominous clouds
had given way to blue sky, and before long the showers were out of
sight, and the most distant peak of the Presidential range was sun-
glinted. The bluish haze, which so marred the distant views,
entranced the beauty of the outlines and varying shades, when so
close to this wonderful range. Later in the afternoon the sun came
out bright, and the “ridgepole” and clouds were forgotten, as once
more we reveled in the beauty and grandeur of Mts. Washington,
Adams, Jefferson and Madison, with the Randolph hills in the
foreground. We know of no drive to compare with this drive from
Jefferson to Gorham.
As we came into Gorham, we saw the first trolley since we left Fair
Haven, Vermont, and had a glimpse of the Androscoggin River. The
old Alpine House where we have always been was closed, but The
Willis House proved a pleasant substitute.
Twenty miles from Gorham to Jackson, through Pinkham Notch, and
we had forgotten the drive was so beautiful! Everything was
freshened by the showers we watched the day before, and the
mountains seemed nearer than ever. A river ran along with us over
its rocky bed, the road was in fine condition, and we could only look,
lacking words to express our enthusiasm. The little house in the
Notch by the A. M. C. path to Mt. Washington summit, where the
woman gave us milk and cookies, and the strange little girl had a
“library,” was gone, not a vestige of anything left. We took our lunch
there, however, as evidently many others had done. We had barely
unharnessed, when a large touring car shot by, and we were glad
the road was clear, for in many places it is too narrow to pass. We
followed on later, and gathered wild strawberries, as we walked
down the steep hills towards Jackson.
The showers evidently did not make the turn we made at Jackson for
Glen Station, for here it was very dusty. We have stayed so many
times in North Conway, that we proposed trying some one of those
pleasant places we have often spoken of on the way. We drove by
several, but when we came to Pequawket Inn, Intervale, we stopped
with one accord. Somehow we know the right place when we come
to it. This was another of those we note, and remember to make
come in our “way” again. When we left in the morning our friendly
hostess assured us that the lovely room facing Mt. Washington
should always be “reserved” for us.
She gave us directions for Fryeburg, for having been by turn in
Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Vermont and New Hampshire again, we wanted to complete the
circuit of the New England States by driving into Maine. We left New
Hampshire at Conway, and thought we took our mid-day rest in
Maine, and remembering the hospitality of some years ago, were not
surprised when a miss came from the house near by, and asked if
we would not like a cup of tea. When we went later for a glass of
water, we learned we were still in New Hampshire, and concluded
hospitality was universal, and not affected by State lines.
We had not time to explore the “wilds” of Maine, but it was
sufficiently wild and uninhabited where we did go. Many of the
houses were deserted, and hotels were scarce. One night we had to
ask to stay at a small country house. We knew they did not really
want us, but when we told them how far we had driven, they quickly
consented. Thinking we would appreciate it supper was served on
china one hundred and twenty-five years old, after which a whole
saw-mill was set in operation for our entertainment. Buried in the hills
as we were, we could have “called-up” our friends in Boston, New
York or elsewhere.
We were getting away from the mountains, but there were so many
high hills, and one a mile long, that we did not miss them very much.
We were in Maine; that was enough. The wooded roads were very
pretty, too. We would walk up a steep hill, then get in the buggy, write
a sentence or two, and out again for a walk down a pitch. In number,
steepness and length of hills, Franconia, Crawford and Pinkham
Notches do not compare with these drives. The roads being grass-
grown for miles indicates that all tourists do not take our route. As we
came into Springvale, we saw automobiles for the first time since we
left North Conway.
As we drove on towards the coast, we were delighted to find it would
come just right to spend a night at Green-Acre-on-the-Piscataqua,
where we found so much of interest to us two years ago, and were
greatly disappointed when we arrived at the inn, to find there was no
possible way of caring for our horse, as the stable near the inn was
closed. We did not want to go on to Portsmouth, and the manager of
the inn assured us of good care for ourselves and horse, if we would
go back to Mrs. Adlington’s cottage, which he pointed out to us on a
hill up from the river. Before the evening ended we could have
fancied ourselves on the piazzas of the inn, for the subjects that
came up and were discussed by summer guests from New York,
Philadelphia, Boston and Saco would have furnished a program for
the entire season at the Eirenion. We were shown an ideal study in
the cottage connected, where a book is to be written. Indeed, we
seemed to be in an atmosphere of book-making, and again we were
questioned until we confessed, and the “representative list” was
materially increased.
Regrets for the inn were quite forgotten, and we felt we were leaving
the Green Acre “Annex” when we said good morning to all the
guests and went first to find Miss Ford in her summer study to
secure a copy of her book, “Interwoven,” sure to interest us, after the
enthusiastic comments.
We got our mail as we passed through Portsmouth, made a call at
The Farragut, Rye Beach, and were invited to spend the night, but
we had planned to go to Salisbury Beach, and thought best to go on.
We took the boulevard, and were full of anticipation for the drive
along the shore to Salisbury, via Boar’s Head and Hampton. Here we
drove on the beach for a time, then returned to the boulevard, the
beach flies becoming more and more troublesome, until our horse
was nearly frantic. Our fine road changed to a hard sandy pull, and
we were glad to get on the Hampton River Bridge. All went smoothly
until we were nearly across the longest wooden bridge in the world,
a mile, when obstructions loomed up, the trolley track being the only
passable part. Workmen came forward, and said, rather than send
us so many miles round, they would try to take us across. They
unharnessed Nan, and led her along planks in the track, and put
down extra planks for the buggy. We followed on over the loose
boards. This difficulty surmounted, another soon presented itself.
The boulevard ended, and the remaining two miles’ beach road to
Salisbury was nothing but a rough track in the sand. We were
advised to go round, though double the distance.
When we made the turn from the beach, we faced thunder clouds,
which we had not seen before. We do not like to be on the road in
such a shower as threatened, and there was no hotel within four or
five miles. There were only small houses dotted along, but when the
thunder began, we resolved to seek shelter in the first house that
had a stable for Nan. We asked at the first two-story house, if there
was any place near where transients were taken. No one offered to
take us, but directed us to a house a little farther up the road, but
there the old lady said, “Oh no, I couldn’t!” As an apology for asking
her, we told her we understood she did sometimes take people. The
thunder was increasing, the clouds now getting blacker, and we
urged her a little, but she told us to go to the “store” a little way up,
and they would take us. Reluctantly we went and asked another old
lady who looked aghast. “I never take anybody, but you go to the
house opposite the church; she takes folks.” By this time the
lightning was flashing in all directions, and we felt drops of rain.
Imagine our dismay to find the house was the one we had just left.
(Ought we to have stayed at the Farragut?) We explained and
begged her to keep us, promising to be as little trouble as possible.
She said she was old and sick, and had nothing “cooked-up,” but
she would not turn us out in such a storm, she would give us a room,
and we could get something to eat at the store.
We tumbled our baggage into the kitchen, hurried Nan to the barn,
and escaped the deluge. We were hardly inside when a terrific bolt
came, and we left the kitchen with the open door, and stole into the
front room, where windows were closed and shades down. The
grand-daughter came in from the “other part,” with several children,
and we all sat there, until a cry came, “Something has happened
down the road!” We all rushed to the open door and word came back

Communicating For Change Concepts To Think With 1St Ed Edition Jo Tacchi Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communicating For Change Concepts To Think With 1St Ed Edition Jo Tacchi Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communicating for Change: Concepts

to Think With 1st ed. Edition Jo Tacchi

Elske van de Fliert

More information about this series at

Palgrave Studies in Communication for Social Change

Cover illustration: Gary Waters / Alamy Stock Photo

This book is the outcome of an event held at Loughborough University’s

“This is a much-needed, state-of-the-art book about key concepts in communica-

Communicating for Change 1

Nandini Chami is deputy director at IT for Change (ITfC). She explores

i­nternational advocacy on digital rights, representing southern perspec-

co-edited books Cosmopolitanism, Religion and the Public Sphere (2014)

concerns the impact of online tools on journalism practices and the

Thomas Tufte and Jo Tacchi

Communicative practices are at the centre of all processes of social change.

© The Author(s) 2020 1

socio-economic injustice. It also seeks to transcend efforts to redefine the

change. This is a new line of research not traditionally associated with

during the hackathon. The structure of the hackathon provided us with

Concepts to Think With

Citizenship and Justice

democratic deficit has emerged through neoliberal globalisation and the

the role of communication as process, essential to its success, rather than

the years from the institutionalised field of communication for develop-

concept-responsiveness to open up perspectives for looking at change that

Renewing Thought (From and For the Margins)

capacity to challenge the unequal distribution of social power that silences

bureaucratic apparatus. He sees ironic and paradoxical interconnections

sociologists to media and communication researchers, from cultural soci-

Gumucio-Dagron, A., & Tufte, T. (Eds.). (2006). Communication for Social

© The Author(s) 2020 17

a deliberate attempt to portray Kenya negatively, it is regrettable and we

These three incidents are piecemeal vignettes of a rising, more visible

Outrage(ous) Citizenship: Definition and Variants

In terms of variants of the concept, the following three orthographi-

1) Outrage(ous) Citizenship: Differentiated orthographically by the

Protesters marched again Saturday in cities nationwide to decry police

In this example, while the outrage and protests centred on advo-

2) Outraged Citizenship: This is the specific term designating explicitly

In epochal terms, it is important to acknowledge that the dynamics of

Outrage(ous) Citizenship and the Dynamics

What will the application of the concept of Outrage(ous) Citizenship

Tufte (2017, p. 14–15) noted that CFSC ‘emphasises using communica-

and the specific variant: outrageous citizenship puts direct attention on

a. social psychological discussions on moral outrage and its manifesta-

Anita Gurumurthy and Nandini Chami

The Citizenship Crisis

A. Gurumurthy (*) • N. Chami

© The Author(s) 2020 29

The communicative dimension thus performs a key role in expanding

This chapter explores a rebooted idea of ‘institutional listening’—one

Misframings in Digitally Mediated Democracy

welfare agency, Centrelink, introduced an algorithmic system to mine the

architecture of Aadhaar has emboldened intervening administrative links

surveillance systems to police low-income neighbourhoods and the infor-

Countering Datafied Governmentality

You might also like

Communicating for Change 1

international advocacy on digital rights, representing southern perspec-