Back in the mid-1970s, a soap opera did what no one thought possible--it convinced Mexicans to have fewer babies. Within a few months of the daily airing of Acompáñame (Come Along With Me), Mexicans began to use contraceptives with gusto. Within five years, the rate of population growth slowed down by a full percentage point--a screeching halt by demographic standards. Of course, radio and television shows had been associated with changes in social behavior before (think of Britain's The Archers). But this was the first occasion that a telenovela was specifically designed to achieve a development objective and make money at the same time. "Entertainment education" was born. And an avalanche of replication followed--in India, in Kenya, in Tanzania, and in many other countries around the world.
Fast-forward to 2011. Entertainment education has become a science. What was once a collection of experiments in public communication has become a powerful tool in public policy. What was meant to foster family planning has been scaled up to tackle some of the toughest problems in development--like gender biases, corruption, climate change, global diseases and financial illiteracy. You can now target the attitudes that make us indifferent toward--or culprit of--abused women, crooked politicians, polluting factories, malaria victims, or loan sharks. Call it "Entertainment Education 2.0". How did it happen? What changed?
First, technology has allowed for two-way communication. The good old radio and TV have been complemented--more than substituted--by computers, cell-phones, and the internet. Your audience can tell you in real time what impact--if any--you are having. Text-messages, wall-posts and tweets provide instantaneous feedback --the "Like" or "Don't Like"--that you need to refine your message. Long, long gone are hand-written letters mailed in by viewers through the local post office. [A guess: if you have ever sent one of those letters, you are probably over 50.]
Second, we have a better understanding of how societies learn. They do so in steps: awareness ("A sex virus is going around") is followed by knowledge ("It's called HIV and you catch it through unprotected sex"), then by a new attitude ("I'm worried about AIDS"), and finally by a new behavior ("We use condoms"). Attach those steps to a person that audiences can identify with (a "role model"), and you have a lesson in social conduct--and, possibly, a new cultural norm.
Third, competition in media has become much tougher. The market for entertainment is saturated. Viewers and listeners have hundreds of choices, even in poor countries. Screen-writers are constantly looking for an edge over their competitors. This has opened the doors of Hollywood, Bollywood and Nollywood to NGOs and academics that can volunteer solid and ready-to-use information, rich in dramatic value. Who do you think provides the research when your favorite detective show tackles a "serious" issue?
Finally, the spread of democracy has turned development policy into a collective exercise. In the past, advocacy was mostly about convincing autocrats to do the right thing--to invest more in education, to avoid graft, or to respect minorities. Today, leaders--or most leaders--do what voters want. People have to be convinced. This has placed a premium on, and has raised enormous interest in, the levers to influence social values. And that's precisely what the new education entertainment offers.
Of course, there are risks. Who decides which values should be promoted? And how do we keep the techniques of entertainment education from being used for evil--like ethnic cleansing? Clearly, you need a framework of moral reference. Is it the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights? Is it a country's constitution? Religion? Tradition? These are important questions which may have no universally-accepted answer. But, well before you get to these more difficult issues, there are plenty of practical problems that anyone, in any society, would agree to fix. Example: Holland recently used TV shows to alert youngsters to the damage that loud music can cause to their hearing--ironically, they listened. Who can be against that?
Anyhow, we are far from having habit-breaking, sure-shot instruments to alter social behavior. We are far from "designer" cultures. And remember, this type of education only works if it entertains--meaning that it can turn a profit. But even if we can make some values change somewhat, it is still worth trying. Imagine if we felt half as passionately about our children's ability to read as we feel about our favorite football team's ability to win. Or if we knew about women rights half of what we know about women celebrities. Or if we cared about our government's budget half as much as we care about our family's budget. You get the point? We always knew that societal preferences evolve--through the sudden emergence of an inspiring leader, a devastating crisis, or a transformative technology. But we couldn't quite influence the process. Now we can.