30

Development and Communication in Sri Lanka

A Buddhist Approach

Wimal Dissanayake

In this chapter, Wimal Dissanyake underscores the moral dimension of development communication through his case analysis of the Sarvodaya movement in Sri Lanka. He locates communication and development in the particular historical context of Sri Lanka. He ruminates on Buddhism as the philosophical root of the Sarvodaya movement, which was initiated by Dr. Ahangamage Tudor Ariyaratne. According to Dissanayake, the Sarvodaya movement encompasses the ideal of the harmonious social order and the principle of self-reliance and self-transformation as envisioned and encouraged by Buddhist teaching. The Sarvodaya movement also duly asserts that the idea of development should include not merely materialistic and economic advancement but also moral growth and social fulfillment. Dissanayake outlines four main approaches to communication and development and succinctly states that it is the notion of self-reliance that distinguishes the Sarvodaya movement from the dominant paradigm of development communication.

Over the past three decades or so, a band of enterprising communication scholars have been expending their energies boldly in exploring Asian theories of communication that offer clear contrasts to the generality of Western theories. If this effort is to prove fruitful, we need to adopt a multi-pronged approach. While examining classical concepts and texts and cultural practices, as some have appropriately done (e.g., Chen, 2009; Chen & Miike, 2003; Dissanayake, 1988, 2007, 2008, 2009a; Miike, 2009; Miike & Chen, 2007), we also need to focus on current issues and experiences. One such area is development and communication. This is a conjunction that has received substantial attention of Western communication scholars. Therefore, as we continue with our effort to pursue the project of exploring Asian theories of communication, it is only right that we focus our attention on this very important theme. In this article, I wish to focus on an actual effort related to development and communication that has a clear Buddhist under-structure and tease out its implications for communication theory. More specifically, I shed light on a Buddhist effort at promoting development and communication in Sri Lanka focusing on ethical and moral issues. The project I have in mind is the Sarvodaya movement of Sri Lanka (Dissanayake, 1984, 1991).

The Sri Lankan Context of Development and Communication

Sri Lanka is a small island, 25,332 square miles in area, which lies at the southern tip of India. The population of the island is over 21 million, the Sinhala being the majority race, followed by Tamils and Muslims. The majority of the Sinhalese are Buddhists while the majority of the Tamils are Hindus. One need hardly underline the fact that religious factors play a dominant role in the social and political lives of peoples. The Sinhalese are descendants of Aryan-speaking people who arrived in Sri Lanka in the 5th century B.C. The Sinhalese language belongs to the Indo-European family of languages and is derived from Sanskrit. The Tamils are descendants of early Dravidian immigrants from south India. They too have made Sri Lanka their home from very early times.

The Western domination of the island began in 1505, when the Portuguese became the masters of the maritime provinces. They left their indelible impression on the social, cultural, and religious life of the inhabitants of the island. The Dutch, in 1658, ousted the Portuguese and went on to make a lasting impact of the life ways of the people. In 1815, the British were able to defeat the Dutch and take full control of the country. The abiding influence of the British is clearly evident: the English language, which until recent times was the language of administration and higher learning, lifestyles of the elite, spots, and entertainment.

Sri Lanka succeeded in attaining independence from British rule in 1948. Modern Sri Lanka can best be described as a society on the move, seeking desperately to cast aside its colonial legacy and fashion a new modern identity for itself as an independent and evolving nation. Since independence, several far-reaching social, political, economic, and cultural changes have been introduced by respective governments. These changes have resulted in high rate of literacy and educational attainments, a transition from subsistence agriculture to wage labor, active involvement of citizens in their political destiny, and rising expectations.

The economy of Sri Lanka, at the time of independence, displayed the features of a dual economy. A good portion of the export income was derived from tea rubber and coconut, while the country depended heavily on the importation of basic food items and consumer goods. Subsequent to independence, policy makers in Sri Lanka seriously addressed the question of diversifying the export economy. In the early 1950s, it was evident that the government was aiming to develop domestic agriculture vigorously. This attempt was followed by a deep interest in the development of the industrial sector. As the country began to confront increasingly balance of payment problems, import substitute policies began to attract greater attention. Despite these declared interests, very little was done to bring about these needed changes. In the 1960s, one began to witness certain activities launched toward the realization of these goals.

In the 1970s, the government in power launched a radical program of land reform, which was intended to help the growth of the agricultural sector. The land reform law consisted of two phases. In the first, a ceiling on private ownership of land was to be out in place. In the second, laws were to be enacted that would nationalize all state lands owned by public companies which were exempt from the land ceiling legislation associated with the first phase. The ceiling legislation and the nationalization of estates had the effect of transferring large amounts of land held in private ownership to public management. Despite the fact that this land reform movement was initiated with noble intentions, corruption and poor management led to the undermining of its benefits.

The exponential increase in population was seen as a formidable challenge to economic development in the country. The rise in unemployment and the state increasingly intruding into the private sector were also factors that had the effect of undermining development. In 1977, a new government came into power; it was one that advocated more open-door policy and free market economy. Tourism was given a boost; free trade zones were opened; the private sector was granted a greater measure of freedom. These policies were in operation for about a decade. In the meantime, the ethnic tensions between the Sinhalese and Tamils had precipitously deteriorated since 1983. This, too, had a profound negative impact on the attempts to bring about economic development in the country. Since then there have been many changes of government through parliamentary elections, and the military defeat of the Tamil Tigers in 2009 marked an important stage in the evolution of the country.

Sri Lanka obtained independence in 1948, and since then the government has changed hands several times. As a consequence, there have been back and forth changes in economic policy. However, policies regarding communication had remained fairly stable. It was one that was disseminated by Western scholars in the 1950s and sought to emphasize rapid economic growth through industrialization and making use of a plurality of channels of communication to meet this end. The central conviction that powered this approach was that it is only by following the models adopted by industrially advanced Western countries that developing societies could prosper.

The Sarvodaya Movement, Buddhist Ethics, and Development

It is against this backdrop of thinking that we need to investigate into the philosophy and activities of the Sarvodaya movement of Sri Lanka, which constitutes the central concern of this article. As policymakers and academics were grappling with the issue of economic development in Sri Lanka, a number of troubling questions presented themselves. How can the economy be stimulated? How can one ensure popular participation in the formulation and execution of policy? Is it feasible to press into service traditional cultural practices in the effort at social development? Can one fashion newer models of communication that are more in tune with the culture and belief systems of the people? Is it possible to introduce questions of ethics and morality into discussions of social and economic development? The Sarvodaya movement, although perhaps not always successfully, sought to answer some of these questions.

It is clear that one of the declared objectives of the Sarvodaya movement is to launch a program of developmental action that draws on the vibrancy of local cultural practices and addresses issues of ethics. I use the term ethics here in a rather broad sense to include the moral imagination, the capacity to differentiate between good and evil, and to clarify and sort out complex relationships between the individual and collectivity, and willingness to abide by our rights and duties. By development, I index the process of social transformation that has, as its goal, the improvement of the quality of life of the citizens living in a given state without doing harm and violence to the natural and cultural environments that sustain them. I employ the term communication to signify the process through which meanings are made or unmade and exchanged by people living in a specific social space. It is interesting to observe that questions of ethics did not enter into discussions of development and communication until recent times (Dissanayake, 1991). However, what is distinctive about the declared aims of the Sarvodaya movement of Sri Lanka is that it has forced ethics into the center of the discourse on development and communication.

The Sarvodaya movement is inspired by the teachings and outlook of Buddhism, and the ethical imagination constitutes a central facet of Buddhist thought. Implicit in all religions in the world is an image of an ideal social order toward the realization of which citizens should strive. The architects of the Sarvodaya movement sought to commingle ethics, development, and communication from a distinctively Buddhist angle of vision. Hence, it is important that we begin by teasing out those dimensions of Buddhist thinking which have a direct bearing on this attempt. There are five important axioms in this regard that deserve closer study:

1. The human being is supreme, not some divine power.
2. Reason and compassionate understanding, rather than blind dogma and uncritical faith, should guide human conduct.
3. Human beings have to be pragmatic in their thinking and actions.
4. Violence of all forms and shapes should be eliminated from social life.
5. Peace, kindness, and social harmony need to be privileged as supreme ideals that inform or live.

Let us explore each of these axioms a little more carefully. Historically speaking, Buddhism was in large measure a reaction to orthodox Hinduism, which tended to focus on the role of divine and supernatural powers in the affairs of human beings. Buddhism, on the contrary, sought to emphasize the fact that human beings are supreme and masters of their own destiny. One of the most memorably vivid statements by the Buddha is that “one is one’s own refuge.” Walpola Rahula (1974) makes the observation that the Buddha was the only teacher who did not claim to be either god or his incarnations. The Buddha was a human being like anyone of us. He did not claim any inspiration from divine powers. He attributed all his accomplishments to the power of human perseverance and human intelligence. That the human being is supreme is unambiguously articulated in the canonical texts belonging to the Theravada school. This emphasis on human effort and self-reliance marks the efforts of the activities of the Sarvodaya movement.

Reason and compassionate understanding were deemed values of the highest importance in the Buddhist social order. This mode of thinking was enunciated at a period during which the voice of authority and the weight of inherited tradition were held in higher esteem than reason and critical thinking. The importance accorded to the conduct of human affairs by the Buddha is clearly inscribed in the advice he gave to the Kālāmas. Once, the Buddha paid a visit to a town inhabited by the Kālāmas. They were troubled by misgivings and self-doubts regarding who, among the current religious teachers, were articulating the truth. They were keen to find out the Buddha’s views on this matter. The Buddha said:

The Buddha was making the point that the Kālāmas should exercise their critical faculties and think for themselves. This attitude forms a corner stone of Buddhist thinking.

The Buddha also made the point that human beings should be pragmatic in their thoughts and actions. I am employing the term pragmatic in a slightly different sense from the standard philosophical parlance, for example, when we refer to the pragmatic thinking of John Dewey or William James. When I maintain that Buddhism is a pragmatic religion, what I am suggesting is that the Buddha was concerned only with those issues that were directly relevant to the efforts of human beings to liberate themselves from suffering and which contributed to human welfare. It is apparent that he evinced very little interest in getting involved in metaphysical speculations pertaining to the origins of the world and so on. He was of the firm conviction that the human world is full of suffering, and what was of paramount importance was a pathway that would deliver us from that suffering. This desideratum is admirably illustrated in a number of parables. The parable of the arrow is one such example. In essence, it points out that a man struck with a poisoned arrow should be concerned with removing the arrow and getting well rather than getting involved in speculative inquiries regarding the origin of the arrow, the nature of it, etc. What the Buddha sought to stress was the fact that, rather than being dogmatic and doctrinaire, one needs to adopt a flexible attitude towards social existence, keeping in mind that the fundamental objective was to gain individual salvation from suffering.

Similarly, the notion of non-violence figures prominently in Buddhist thinking. Buddhism proposes a way of life that would eliminate human suffering and the securing of human welfare. These objectives, the Buddha asserted, could be attained only through a process of non-violence. Here, the concept of non-violence applies to four areas in particular: (1) interpersonal interactions; (2) group entities; (3) intrapersonal thinking; and (4) interactions with the physical environment. These have deep implications for the understanding of Buddhist approaches to communication. The focus on non-violence as a calculated strategy is an integral part of the Buddhist worldview.

Finally, the idea of social harmony deserves consideration. The Buddha espoused a way of life and mode of thinking that was firmly anchored to the goal of social harmony. This desideratum is vitally connected to the ideas of understanding and compassion that I alluded to earlier. When we examine the code of ethics prescribed by the Buddha for both laypersons and monks, it becomes evident that the idea of social harmony figured in his thinking. The four basic social emotions highlighted by the Buddha, loving kindness (metta), compassion (karuna), sympathetic joy (muditha), and equanimity (upekkha), have a direct bearing on the idea of social harmony (Dissanayake, 1983). Interestingly, these four social emotions constitute the moral building blocks of the Sarvodaya movement.

The Buddhist Vision of Social Order and Self-Transformation

It is often contended that Buddhism is a religion that is primarily concerned with other worldly issues and one that is not sufficiently invested in everyday life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Thinkers such as Max Weber played a central role in disseminating such views in the West. Clearly, the charge that Buddhism is an other worldly religion—a charge directed more against Theravada Buddhism than Mahayana Buddhism—arises from a limited understanding of Buddhism. The Buddha was deeply and unflinchingly concerned with social issues. As reverend Rahula (1974) has pointed out, it is indeed a great mistake to think that Buddhism is interested only in lofty ideals, deep moral inquiry, and philosophical speculation to the exclusion of economic and social questions. For example, in the Cakkavatti Sutta, the Sihanada Sutta, and Kutadanta Sutta, it is clearly delineated how a state can degenerate into corruption and misery as a consequence of mismanaging social issues. These texts assert that it is not through the instrumentalities of harsh legal and punitive measures that peace and harmony can be maintained in a society but rather by providing suitable employment opportunities and social amenities for the people. One can cite numerous examples from the scriptures to enforce the point that just and fair administration of society almost always arises from a deep social consciousness.

The ideal social order envisaged by Buddhism is an incontrovertibly a peaceful and harmonious one in which ideas of mutuality and compassion take precedence over hatred, rivalry, competition, and the dynamics of power play. It is, to be sure, not an easy social order to construct and maintain. Great powers of restraint, self-discipline, caring for others, and dedication are called for. This is why the Buddha repeatedly reiterates the need for self-discipline. The Buddhist ideal of social order is premised on the concepts of peace and harmony (Dissanayake, 1983). As Jayatilleke (1962) pointed out, peace constitutes a central notion in the Buddhist ethos, and the Buddha came to be looked upon as the Prince of Peace (santi-raja). The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the realization of the supreme peace afforded by nirvana. On a more mundane level, the practice of the good life, which is vital to the ideal social order, is referred to as living in peace and harmony with one’s fellow being (sama-cariya).

Another concept that is vital for a proper understanding of the Buddhist way of life is that of self-transformation. According to the Buddha, it is through the transformations taking place in the human mind that an enduring and harmonious social transformation can be initiated. Buddhism underlines the fact that any meaningful change in society must have its origins in the mind of the individual. From there, it can radiate outward to the complex of institutions that we refer to as society. There are, basically, two ways in which a transformation in society can be brought about. The first is by means of large-scale structural transformations of society. The second is through self-transformation that would ultimately pave the way for a social transformation. It needs to be said that Buddhism, very largely, though not solely, advocates the second approach. In the popular Buddhist text, the Dhammapada, this is emphatically stated:

This approach advocated by Buddhism regarding individual and social transformation is vital to understand the rationale of the Sarvodaya movement. The literal meaning of Sarvodaya is the well-being of all. The Sri Lanka Sarvodaya movement began in 1958 and was clearly influenced by a similar movement in India. However, in order to achieve its declared goal of making the lives of individuals and society better, it drew significantly on the teaching and ethos of Buddhism. Sarvodaya can best be described as a self-help organization that has developmental programs in over 3,000 villages in the island. It conducts work camps frequently that are attended by hundreds, if not thousands, annually. This movement has as its privileged objective moral awakening of the people, and this is where Buddhism comes in. Along with this moral awakening, the architects of this movement have sought to design and execute developmental programs that draw on the vitality of indigenous cultural practices. Instead of blindly following the developmental agendas and scenarios fashioned in the West, they are desirous of creating developmental programs that are rooted in native culture.

When we discuss the term indigenous culture in relation to Sri Lanka, the question of Buddhism becomes of paramount importance. The Sri Lankan culture has been influenced deeply by Buddhism. Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka in the third century B.C., and ever since it has been a dominant force shaping the attitudes, belief systems, and values of the people. Hence, it comes as no surprise that the leaders of the Sarvodaya movement decided to draw on Buddhism in designing their plans for development and communication. Sri Lanka is a multi-religious society. Buddhism is the religion of the majority. Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam are also practiced by sections of the community. Therefore, the Sarvodaya movement aimed to stress those human values that Buddhism shares with other religions in their efforts.

During the three decades since its inception, the Sarvodaya movement of Sri Lanka has contributed significantly to the improvement of the social life of people. In 1958, there were only 3 camps, and after three decades the number had increased to 500. The camps constitute the nucleus of the movement; here, we observe, theory and practice are coming together in productive ways. The aim of the Sarvodaya movement, when examined from a practical perspective, can be summarized as follows: (1) to create an awareness of the problems faced by peasants and to devise ways of resolving them; (2) to sharpen community development skills; (3) to inculcate economically profitable skills and organizational aptitudes; (4) to encourage the planning and development programs and explore means of generating resources for undertaking them. At the village level, the Sarvodaya movement is responsible for putting into practice a number of activities that are vitally connected to these aims. These activities include the following: agricultural training; training in batik making; painting, carpentry, masonry, mat weaving, and blacksmithing; the training of Buddhist monks in community development by equipping them with practical knowledge related to village improvement; the training of health workers and preschool teachers; assisting villagers to set up schools where none existed. It is evident, therefore, that the Sarvodaya movement has sought to work in a number of fronts.

The philosophy of the Sarvodaya movement is the total development of the human being with particular reference to the moral dimension. The leads of this movement seek to conceptualize development, not solely in terms of per capita income and gross national product, but rather in relation to the growth and fulfillment of the potentialities of the human being. A. T. Ariyaratne, the founder of the movement and its inspiration, is of the opinion that development goals need to point to a balanced growth that consists of material and spiritual dimensions. He sees the intersecting units of the individual, family, and village as the basic units of communication and development. While recognizing the importance of technology for communication, he expresses the view that it should be introduced and function in ways that minimize the harm it can do to the units mentioned above. Furthermore, he has remarked that mechanisms that guide political life should be constructed in a manner that enhances participation of the people in the democratic process and underplays bureaucratic powers. In addition, he believes that a concerted effort needs to be made to reduce the influence of institutionalized economies and promote small-scale business enterprises (Dissanayake, 1984). These ideas draw on Buddhist thinking, and they are expressed in a vocabulary that is heavily influenced by Buddhism.

Self-Reliance as an Approach to Development and Communication

During the last three decades or so, an approach to development and communication has been gaining momentum—an approach that stresses the idea of self-reliance. This is indeed an approach that is competing for attention among several others (Dissanayake, 1985). Those development planners who endorse this approach focus on integrated village development, popular participation in the decision making processes, grass-roots development, productive deployment of local resources, the fulfillment of basic needs, the recognition of indigenous culture as a shaping force, the maintenance of an ecological balance, and the desire to measure development in terms of the quality of human life.

This approach accords perfectly with the aims and goals of Buddhism. The philosophy of the Sarvodaya movement of Sri Lanka is consistent with this pathway to development. The view of development disseminated by this movement hinges upon the concept of the individual acting with a sense of responsibility and social consciousness. The individual should ponder the best ways in which she or he could alleviate both individual and social suffering, which is perfectly congruent with Buddhist teaching. The Buddha constantly pointed out the need to purify one’s mind of defilements and care for others in the group.

The work of the Sarvodaya movement proceeds at three levels: (1) educational, (2) developmental, and (3) participatory. As a result of the voluntary donation of labor (shramadana), which is heavily emphasized by the government, and the mutually enriching experience of working together, a novel process of educational reawakening is put into play. This reawakening has the salutary effect of giving rise to various developmental programs that demand the participation of people in the decision-making process. This popular participation is a concept that the Buddha valued deeply.

The development of the human personality constitutes a very significant part of the program of action of the Sarvodaya movement. In this regard, four principles are regarded with utmost reverence. They are kindness (metta), compassion (karuna), sympathetic joy (muditha), and equanimity (upekkha). The proper development of these principles is pivotal for harmonious and productive living. Kindness is generally regarded as the frame of mind that encourages one to work cooperatively with others in a spirit of understanding. Compassion is the attitude of mind that promotes the well-being of others and facilitates their overcoming of suffering. Sympathetic joy is the pleasurable feeling one experiences when one is inclined to work harmoniously with others and make them happy. Equanimity is the sense of composure and mental balance, born out of a well-integrated personality, that enables people to encounter joys and sorrows with a sense of proportion. These principles, which are taken directly from Buddhist scriptures, have deep implications for interpersonal communication as well as group living.

The work of the Sarvodaya movement is carried out not only at the level of the individual but also that of the group. Indeed, there exists a close and intimate relation between these two levels. Once again, four important principles drawn from Buddhism are highlighted as signposts guiding group action. They are sharing (dana), pleasant speech (priyavachana), meaningful activity (arha charya), and non-partisanship (samanathmatha). All of these principles contribute to fruitful and socially oriented behavior.

At this point, it might be useful to raise the following question: How do these very noble principles work in day-to-day living? One way of exploring this question is by focusing on the operations of the labor-donating camps (shramadana). These camps are involved in a gamut of rural welfare activities such as clearing roads, opening up agricultural land, constructing schools, building bridges, repairing irrigation waterways, putting up community centers, promoting rural housing, and so on. These camps, the participants maintain, enable them to acquire an educational experience that is practically oriented and of great value.

According to the responses of the participants, three important benefits have been accrued to them. First, these camps afford a wonderful opportunity for people from urban and rural areas to interact with one another in a spirit of reciprocity. Second, these work camps have the effect of underlining a new sense of purpose and direction and emphasizing the importance of self-growth and self-reliance. For people who have, for generations, led a life of abject and unrelieved servility and bondage to feudal overlords, this is indeed a liberating experience. Third, these shramadana work camps have the potential to create new village leaderships that can rise above barriers of religion, political alignments, and caste and address their minds to common problems. Hence, it can be asserted that these camps have the possibility of doing immense good to their respective communities.

A Buddhist Paradigm of Development and Communication

As we examine the declared goals and the plans of action of the Sarvodaya movement, it is evident that those who are behind it are working towards a new social order based on Buddhist values. The intention is to tap the complex energies of the past to stimulate the present. In other words, theirs is an attempt to rediscover the value of Buddhist ideals for modern times and create a space in which the imperatives of the past and the demands of the present can enter into a productive dialogue.

It is evident that the Sarvodaya movement is promoting a new paradigm of development, and in order to understand its true significance, we have to focus on the dominant developmental models operative at the present. They are characterized by the following traits: (1) lack of emphasis on self-reliance; (2) inordinate respect for accumulation of wealth and power; (3) greed and competition heavily stressed; (4) capitalist economy and bureaucracies unleash newer forces; (5) encouraged fragmentation of society along different fault lines; (6) promotion of an export-import economy based on production of commodities; (7) capital-intensive technologies; (8) sprawling organizations; (9) wastage of human labor; (10) environmental pollution; and (11) urban congestion. As opposed to this, the Sarvodaya movement promotes a paradigm that is marked by the following features: (1) emphasis on self-reliance; (2) moral dimensions of development; (3) participation of people; (4) social trusteeship economy; (5) balanced rural-urban growth; (6) minimizing environmental pollution; and (7) emphasis on labor-intensive technologies.

Clearly, this new paradigm of social development bears the traits of idealism and an optimism that might not always be warranted. However, what needs to be emphasized is that this new paradigm captures, in a rather vivid way, the sense of moral purpose, respect for culture and the environment, and the idea of a mutually nurturing community that are actively urged by the Sarvodaya movement.

So far, we have explored the concept of social development and the ideal social order envisaged by the Sarvodaya movement. The concepts of development and communication are intimately linked, and it is important to point out that the concept of development promoted by this movement is very close to the concept of communication embedded in Buddhism. The Buddhist model of communication is very different from Western models. One way of demonstrating this difference is by comparing it with the Aristotelian model. In The Rhetoric, Aristotle suggested a model of communication, which focused on the ideas of influence and manipulation and on the power of the sender to exercise dominion over the receiver (Cooper, 1932). In contrast to this Aristotelian model, the ideas of sharing, mutuality, and listening are central to the Buddhist model. The perceived differences between the two models can be schematically represented as follows:

Aristotelian Model	Buddhist Model
Emphasis on the sender	Emphasis on the receiver
Influence a central notion	Understanding a central notion
Focus on control	Focus on choice
Outward processes	Inward processes
Relationship between the sender and the receiver asymmetrical	Relationship between the sender and the receiver symmetrical
Intellect	Empathy
Manipulation	Dialogue

The vision of society and the idea of the good life enunciated by the Sarvodaya movement are not only intimately related to, but in many ways an extension of, the Buddhist model of communication.

To my mind, the Sarvodaya movement of Sri Lanka illustrates, in concrete terms, the viability and desirability of alternate pathways to development and communication and the importance of a moral imagination guiding the development process. Despite the considerable progress made by this movement, the path forward had not always been easy. For nearly 25 years since 1983, the country was engulfed in a brutal civil war. This, understandably, had an adverse effect on the program. The increasing velocity of globalization and the transnational economy also had a discouraging impact in that these processes went against some of the cherished ideals of the movement. In addition, at times, internal management problems too impeded progress. In addition, as the movement became more successful and gained in visibility, it began to attract the attention of foreign funding agencies. This tended to undermine the idea of self-reliance, which was a central pillar of the Sarvodaya movement. The movement needs to take a good look at the past and the present as it seeks to consolidate the gains and avoid the numerous pitfalls on its way. However, despite its shortcomings and possible challenges ahead, its strengths and weaknesses, achievements and short falls, should be studied carefully as a way of understanding a possible Buddhist approach to development and communication.

Four Approaches to Development and Communication

The goals and desired ends of the Sarvodaya movement of Sri Lanka can be usefully understood in terms of the various conceptualizations of communication and development available to us today. For purposes of easy analysis, we can identify four main approaches (Dissanayake, 1981). The first, which began to gather momentum somewhere in the 1950s, is still the most influential approach among policy makers and scholars. It emphasizes the importance of rapid economic growth through industrialization and therefore the heavy accent on capital-intensive technologies and centralized planning. Those who favor this approach say that the Western experience is worthy of emulation. Scholars such as Walt Whitman Rostow (1953) exemplified the essence of this line of thinking. In the field of communication, scholars like Daniel Lerner (1958), Wilbur Schramm (1964), Lucien Pye (1963), and Ithiel de Sola Pool (1966), through their various writings, sought to propagate this model. They called attention to the importance of communication in disseminating new knowledge, imparting new skills, ushering in new values, raising the aspirations of people, fashioning a sense of nationhood—in a word, communication was to be a supremely important force that was to create the proper space for development (Dissanayake, 2000).

Despite the fact that this approach stirred a great measure of interest and generated much optimism, by the 1970s it was evident to most discriminating scholars that this approach had failed to live up to the billing in most Third World societies. As a result, communication scholars and development planners began to explore alternative pathways. It was as a way of rectifying some of the deficiencies associated with the first approach that the second approach began to take hold of the public imagination. Everett Rogers (1976a, 1976b, 1978) became closely linked with the second approach, which sought to underline income distribution, social justice, labor-intensive technologies, decentralized planning as a recognition of cultural factors in the developmental process. This new emphases went hand in hand with a desire to enhance the quality of life, combine modern and traditional media of communication in a unified communication strategy (Dissanayake, 1977), and the deployment of what was referred to as appropriate technology. It is interesting to observe that the strategy of communication inscribed in this approach was clearly a two-way flow of ideas and information; it was a process-oriented model in contradiction to the mechanistic, linear, one-way traffic advocated by the first approach.

During the last three decades or so, we have seen the rise of a third approach to communication and development, drawing on the formulations of such scholars as André Gunder Frank (1966), Immanuel Wallerstein (1974), and Herbert Schiller (1976). These scholars from their diverse vantage points have articulated the view that the factors which are responsible for the development of industrially advanced societies are causal factors in holding down development in the poorer countries of the world. It is indeed their considered judgment that development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin, and that they are constitutive of each other. Hence, the one cannot be understood without reference to the other.

The third approach to development and communication displays certain differences from the first two. Those who advocate this approach emphasize the vital interconnections between communication and education. The vast millions of people living in the poorer countries of the world have to be educated into a newer awareness of their predicament. The viciousness of the world system, the asymmetrical relations, and cruelly dependent relationship of the developing countries on the developed nations have to be explained in clear terms. Those who favor this third approach call for a fundamental structural rearrangement of the global society as a necessary precondition for growth and development throughout the world.

The fourth approach to development and communication that has been gaining recognition in recent times is one that is marked by its unambiguous emphasis on integrated and sustainable development and self-reliance. This model incorporates several ideas related to human development: integrated village development, sustainable development, grass-roots development, meeting of basic needs, productive utilization of local resources, the deployment of appropriate technology, culture as mediating factor in development, and the maintenance of a sound ecological balance. This fourth model of social development comes very close to the ideals and cherished goals of Buddhism. The paradigm of development and communication endorsed by the Sarvodaya movement conforms to this fourth approach.

The idea of self-reliance is pivotal to this approach, and it is an ideal privileged by the Sarvodaya movement. The term self-reliance suggests the dependence on natural and human resources available in a given country, the ability to define developmental problems, set goals, devise strategies, and make decisions independent of outside powers and in accordance with one’s social and cultural potentialities. Self-reliance is one way of minimizing, if not totally eliminating, the external political and economic pressures that are routinely brought to bear on the poorer countries, and that are linked to modes of exploitation. It is important to make the distinction between self-reliance and autarchy. Even under the fourth approach, there will have to be in view of the fact that we live in an interconnected world, international cooperation, and international traffic. However, these will operate within a framework of self-reliance and sustainable development. The domination of the asymmetrical relationships that exist between the richer and the poorer countries is a declared objective of this approach.

What is clear is that a self-reliant approach to development can succeed only if there is direct and active participation of the people. In the developing countries, as has been repeatedly stated, the greatest resource for development is the people themselves. In many ways, it is the highly centralized nature of the development projects, which have a way of distancing the people, that has impeded the much-needed social transformations in the less developed countries. The weight of experience of the peasants, their rationalities and cumulative wisdoms, the cultural ethos, and their perception of problems and priorities rarely enter into the calculus of development formulated by elitist policy makers. It is indeed as a way of eliminating these deficiencies that the newer bred of development thinkers are committed to paying increasing attention to the idea of self-reliance and sustainable development. It is evident that the Sarvodaya movement of Sri Lanka endorses this fourth approach, and it is one that is wholly consistent with the Buddhist way of life and thinking.

Conclusions

In this article, I have sought to focus on the Sarvodaya movement of Sri Lanka as a way of highlighting an important aspect of our quest for formulating Asian theories of communication. So far, much of our energies have been expended in uncovering and interpreting various concepts extracted from Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Korean texts and cultural practices (see Chen, 2002; Chung, 2008; Kincaid, 1987; Miike & Chen, 2006). These efforts are extremely important. However, if our quest is to be more productive, we need to focus on contemporary phenomena and experiences and see how they are informed by traditional Asian understandings of communication (Dissanayake, 2009b). The Sarvodaya movement of Sri Lanka is clearly modeled on Buddhist ideals, practices, and vocabularies of interpretation. Beneath the activities of this movement, one can observe a model of communication that has been shaped largely by the understandings and presuppositions of communication enunciated by Buddhism.

Author’s Note

I am deeply grateful to Dr. Yoshitaka Miike for encouraging me to work on this article.

References

Chen, G.-M. (Ed.). (2002). Culture and communication: An East Asian perspective [Special issue]. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11(1), 1–171.

Chen, G.-M. (Ed.). (2009). I Ching and human communication [Special section]. China Media Research, 5(3), 72–118.

Chen, G.-M., & Miike, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Asian approaches to human communication [Special issue]. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 1–218.

Chung, J. (Ed.). (2008). Qi and communication [Special section]. China Media Research, 4(3), 81–109.

Cooper, L. (1932). The rhetoric of Aristotle: An expanded translation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Dissanayake, W. (1977). New wine in old bottles: Can folk media convey modern messages? Journal of Communication, 27(2), 122–124.

Dissanayake, W. (1981). Development and communication: Four approaches. Media Asia, 8(4), 217–227.

Dissanayake, W. (1983). Peace and communication: A Buddhist point of view. Media Development, 30(2), 7–9.

Dissanayake, W. (1984). A Buddhist approach to development: A Sri Lankan endeavor. In G. Wang & W. Dissanayake (Eds.), Continuity and change in communication systems: An Asian perspective (pp. 39–51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dissanayake, W. (1985). From a piecemeal approach to an integrated strategy for development. Media Development, 32(4), 20–22.

Dissanayake, W. (Ed.). (1988). Communication theory: The Asian perspective. Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.

Dissanayake, W. (1991). Ethics, development, and communication: A Buddhist approach. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Communication in development (pp. 319–337). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dissanayake, W. (2000). Development communication: The interplay of knowledge, culture, and power. In A. A. Moemeka (Ed.), Development communication in action: Building understanding and creating participation (pp. 39–52). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Dissanayake, W. (2007). Nagarjuna and modern communication theory. China Media Research, 3(4), 34–41.

Dissanayake, W. (2008). The idea of verbal communication in early Buddhism. China Media Research, 4(2), 69–76.

Dissanayake, W. (2009a). The desire to excavate Asian theories of communication: One strand of the history. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 7–27.

Dissanayake, W. (2009b). The production of Asian theories of communication: Contexts and challenges. Asian Journal of Communication, 19(4), 453–468.

Frank, A. G. (1966). The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 18(4), 17–31.

Jayatilleke, K. N. (1962). Buddhism and peace (The Wheel publication, No. 41). Kandy, Ceylon: Buddhist Publication Society.

Kincaid, D. L. (Ed.). (1987). Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lerner, D. (1958). The passing of traditional society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York: Free Press.

Miike, Y. (Ed.). (2009). New frontiers in Asian communication theory [Special issue]. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 1–88.

Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (2006). Perspectives on Asian cultures and communication: An updated bibliography. China Media Research, 2(1), 98–106.

Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (Eds.). (2007). Asian contributions to communication theory [Special issue]. China Media Research, 3(4), 1–109.

Muller, F. M. (1881). The Dhammapada: A collection of verses—Being one of the canonical books of the Buddhists. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Pool, I. de S. (1966). Communications and development. In M. Weiner (Ed.), Modernization: The dynamics of growth (pp. 105–118). New York: Basic Books.

Pye, L. W. (Ed.). (1963). Communications and political development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rahula, W. (1974). What the Buddha taught (Rev. ed.). New York: Grove Press.

Rogers, E. M. (Ed.). (1976a). Communication and development: Critical perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rogers, E. M. (1976b). Communication and development: The passing of the dominant paradigm. Communication Research, 3(2), 213–240.

Rogers, E. M. (1978). The rise and fall of the dominant paradigm. Journal of Communication, 28(1), 64–69.

Rostow, W. W. (1953). The process of economic growth. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Schiller, H. I. (1976). Communication and cultural domination. New York: International Arts and Sciences Press.

Schramm, W. (1964). Mass media and national development: The role of information in the developing countries. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system. New York: Academic Press.