I would like to support Petra's view and Plan's response on to bounce on the word "responsibility".
From what I understand the whistling is the result of a sensibilisation campaign which empowered the youth and of a project which fostered and gave the opportunity to the families to build their own toilets. Whistling does not come out of the blue from the begining of the project to shame people but is the result of a participative process.

I do understand it as a monitoring and I would rather say a kind reminder to stop practicing open defecation. It shows the youth feel responsible for their health and their communities.
Many times children are sensitised and then denied empowerement ...
Whistling is also perceived differently according to cultures.
What would be interesting to know if the impact of youth activism on behavioral change. Does this effectively trigger the construction of toilets ?

I have just participated in a community demand and capacity building component of a sanitation project in Egypt. In community meetings participants suggested to display publically the names of the families who do not wish to participate in the project (participate in buying the land for a DEWATS system + pay for O&M, small amount calculated on affordability) on a board in the village but at the same time they came in with proposals to pay for families who could not afford it.
This could be seen as a shameful tactic but at the same time without participation of most of the families, the O&M of the system will not be sustainable and will not be implemented. We could see this as a shameful tactics but the future beneficiaries of the project know better how to put pressure on their peers.

Cecile

Response from Plan India:

‘It is to reinforce that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and both need to compliment each other. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. We are also bound with rights as well as responsibilities. The attempt here taken by children by blowing whistle to stop open defecation is protect everyone’s right to clean and healthy environment, safety of children, girls and women leading to ensuring everyone’s right and dignity including the defaulters.'

Petra wrote: In my view and experience, CLTS is not about shaming and stigmatising at all but of course this is something that may happen as an unintended consequence if badly facilitated.

On this, first paragraph of Kamal Kar's CLTS Handbook:

A new style of facilitation has evolved. In its classic form, this uses the crude local word for “shit” and encourages local communities to visit the dirtiest and filthiest areas in the neighbourhood. Appraising and analysing their practices shocks, disgusts and shames people. This style is provocative and fun, and is hands-off in leaving decisions and action to the community.

How is that not about shame?

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Since when is the whistling a monitoring tool? Which studies would support this contention?

F H Mughal

1) I was not referring to F H Mughal with my comment about those in the developed world.

2) The whistling is a deterrent and a monitoring tool.

3) I will wait to hear from Plan India to give them a chance to explain and respond.

Two things:

Petra wrote:
And no, not all community sanctions are to be condoned. However, what I was getting at is the double standard we (in the development community) employ in instances like this. The communities make their own rules, decide on sanctions, laws, social norms etc all the time in all sorts of ways and circumstances. What I am questioning is when and how outsiders judge and intervene what decisions are being taken in a community. How would we feel if someone intervened in this way in the rules and social norms that we have in our own communities in the 'developed' world? I wonder.

F H Mughal, who made the comment above about whistling is not in the 'developed' world but is in Pakistan, from what I understand.

In this particular instance, for me, the whistling is not shaming.

I don't understand this comment. If it is not shaming, what is the purpose of the whistling?

Thanks Joe, I should have anticipated this interpretation which is not what I mean at all. I was referring specifically to the instance of whistling.

In my view and experience, CLTS is not about shaming and stigmatising at all but of course this is something that may happen as an unintended consequence if badly facilitated. But does that make the approach wrong or does it call for more efforts to improve training, implementation and follow up, and more nuanced ways of engaging with issues of inclusion? For me it's the latter. And this is something we are interested in and working on and constantly discussing with those who are on the ground, working with communities in real time. Interestingly enough, a lot of criticisms are being thrown into the mix by academics and others who have never even attended a triggering.

And no, not all community sanctions are to be condoned. However, what I was getting at is the double standard we (in the development community) employ in instances like this. The communities make their own rules, decide on sanctions, laws, social norms etc all the time in all sorts of ways and circumstances. What I am questioning is when and how outsiders judge and intervene what decisions are being taken in a community. How would we feel if someone intervened in this way in the rules and social norms that we have in our own communities in the 'developed' world? I wonder.

In this particular instance, for me, the whistling is not shaming.

Regarding the division of communities along pre-existing lines of conflict- yes, that is a real risk in any intervention. The intention of pre-triggering and rapport building between facilitators and communities is to find out about such existing conflicts and different groups within communities. Even in the early days of CLTS in Bangladesh, there was recoginition that it was important to do a thorough mapping or analysis of the community's social fabric. Care Bangladesh for example, actively combined conflict mapping and analysis with CLTS. And now, with government involvement in many countries, in many cases, the HEW or other health workers involved in CLTS in communities have been working in the community on an ongoing basis, so are familiar with their make up and hopefully aware of social issues. And if they have been well trained (which, as we acknowlede, can be an issue in the case of government workers, particular with regard to professional mindsets) good facilitators will be sensitive to the needs and experiences of different community members. And yes, there will always be instances of less than good facilitation and practice- with any approach?!

As a participatory methodology, CLTS has followed a pattern similar to that of PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) from which it sprang. In the 1990s, PRA behaviours, approaches and methods spread with astonishing speed, and were innovated, adopted, adapted and renamed. The methods of group visual analysis proved amazingly versatile (there have now been millions of participatory maps, for instance). There was a great deal of bad practice as PRA was adopted by donors and Governments and taken precipitately to scale. All of this has happened too with CLTS. There has been a lot of bad practice, often in good faith. CLTS triggering and follow up require rather special aptitudes, behaviours and attitudes. Many second and third generation challenges have arisen and alongside continuing efforts to refine overall quality, we now turn towards these new and emerging challenges that the new landscape of CLTS at scale, and in many cases led by national governments, brings with it: Equity, inclusion, what happens to the poorest and most vulnerable, disability, gender issues to name only some of them. Many questions remain unanswered and much needs to be found out and analysed, and many insights and innovations shared.

As I said, much of this kind of debate is the focus of the forthcoming Frontiers.I am sorry that it is not out yet, as it will respond to the questions about shame you are posing in a more elaborate way than I have time for.

I also just remembered something that Rose George said in a discussion about this on a different thread. Again, let me say that I do not say the end justifies all means, but I find it an interesting and powerful perspective.

"[...]CLTS is an organic movement. It has to be continually fixed and perfected. That said, there is no one perfect solution to the question of why there are 2.6 billion people without a toilet, and why some of those 2.6 billion see nothing wrong with that. Every solution has its downsides. Every single one. But they should all be tried, and worked on, and improved. I don't really see the problem in relying on community-led emotional coercion. If it cuts down on soaring diarrhoea rates that kill more children than HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria put together, what does it matter if it is considered a "utopian democratic upsurge" or not?’"

That's a very interesting comment, Petra. It deserves a thread of its own, but for now:

Do I read that to mean that anything that a community choose to employ to shame those who defecate in the open should not be 'admonished' by outside agencies? Is there no moral line at all (either of behaviours which should be discouraged or encouraged in CLTS handbooks and photo competitions)?

How does one prevent a community from dividing along pre-existing lines of conflict and from simply blaming open defecation on 'undesirable' neighbours?

Thanks Joe for clarifying this for F H Mughal.

I will ask Plan India to respond. In the meantime, let me explain how we here at the CLTS Knowledge Hub see the issue.

The story behind the whistling is that children and youth take on the role of monitoring agents in their communities- not because anyone tells them so, but because after triggering they decided that their health and that of their families is being threatened by open defecators. So their presence, with the whistles, acts as a deterrent to any potential community members who may still consider shitting in the open.

CLTS is 'community-led' so in my mind we should be careful about judging the tactics that communities decide on as wrong. We can't say we want to empower communities to take their own collective decisions and then admonish them for choosing something that we are personally 'not in favour of'?

Provided everyone has access to /is able to build a toilet why should whistles not be used? It only becomes a problem when those without access or ability, especially if they are the poorest and most vulnerable, are not helped and then stigmatised.

I also wonder whether there is more harm being done to human dignity by using whistles to keep people from shitting in the open, or by practices ie open defecation that harm everyone's and especially children's health and lead to death, disease and stunting? CLTS is precisely about human dignity and communities reclaiming the dignity that is lost when people are shitting in the open. In many cultures women in particular bear the brunt of loss of dignity: they are forced to go in the open where other community members might come across them, boys might spy on them deliberately, they have to refrain from eating and drinking in order to avoid having to defecate during the day they face the threat of rape or sexual violence

To me, all these implications of open defecation compromise human dignity.

You might be interested in a forthcoming issue of our Frontiers publication series which will be on CLTS and human rights and include the whole debate on shame, dignity, etc. It should be available in the next month or two and I will then post it here as well as on the CLTS website . All issues of Frontiers are available here

Dear F H Mughal,

I think your criticisms should be addressed to Plan India (who it seems took the photo) and the CLTS Knowledge Base, who ran the competition.

Elisabeth, who is a moderator of this board and posted images here to keep colleagues informed, is not responsible for either, as far as I know.

Dear Elisabeth,

I'm sorry, but your last photo, with the title: Mohd Shefar, Plan India Youth Monitoring Group- to stop people defecting in open; with boys whistling, is not in order. I do not favour such tactics - whistling. The photo seems to make fun of human dignity. You should not have posted this photo.

F H Mughal

Thanks - just to add a visual impression, I have used the image link tool below - these are the winning photos on the website link that Petra provided above:

First place: Emily Bamford, UNICEF “Our toilet is our pride”: CLTS latrine in Kenema District, Sierra Leone


Second Place: Plan Pakistan Little girls enjoying handwashing facilities at school


Third Place: We have two joint winners in 3rd place


Mohd Shefar, Plan India Youth Monitoring Group- to stop people defecting in open