Her Way Forward
Carrying fertilizer in an UPFORD garden
Albert Einstein once said, “To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance.” It is with this understanding that I approach my research on the process of community driven development and the UPFORD program in Nnindye. Arriving at the realization that I cannot necessarily provide all the solutions to the development challenges I witnessed in Uganda has been a difficult one to stomach. However, in raising new questions, I hope to stimulate new ways of looking at these problems. With regards to the more marginalized people living Nnindye, especially women, the very act of acknowledging and specifying the problems that exist marks a way forward.
As I begin to finalize the theoretical and analytical aspects of my research, a few key questions remain. What are the consequences of a participatory development approach for women? How does this approach affect gender relations in the household and at the community level? Do women play a significant role in the decision-making processes of participatory development? Do women benefit from the this approach? Why and/or why not? How should we incorporate women into the development process? Are targeted investments in women enough? Would these investments require a shift away from community driven development? How might men perceive this shift? When local knowledge reflects local (gender biased) power, can we justify moving away from this type of development?[1]
As I begin to finalize the theoretical and analytical aspects of my research, a few key questions remain. What are the consequences of a participatory development approach for women? How does this approach affect gender relations in the household and at the community level? Do women play a significant role in the decision-making processes of participatory development? Do women benefit from the this approach? Why and/or why not? How should we incorporate women into the development process? Are targeted investments in women enough? Would these investments require a shift away from community driven development? How might men perceive this shift? When local knowledge reflects local (gender biased) power, can we justify moving away from this type of development?[1]
History of Development: The Female Experience
In grappling with these questions, I have found it helpful to trace the history of how and why women became involved in the development process.[2] From the 1950s to the 1970s, development consisted of a welfare approach, in which women were targeted in family planning initiatives, as well as in programs that combated childhood malnutrition. During this period, “their bodies became the focus of social control of fertility, while their thoughts, experiences, and sexual and reproductive health needs were ignored and marginalized.”[3] In reducing the woman to her biological functions in society, this social welfare approach did little to improve her daily life, much less her sense of self-worth.
In the context of the liberal feminist movement, we witness a transition in the 1970s to the women in development (WID) approach. Under this paradigm, women are seen as oppressed victims and targeted for education and skills training, as well as for increased access to credit and advanced agricultural techniques. However, feminists from the South claim that this WID approach fails to understand the true nature of the exploitation of women: “by emphasizing the integration of women into the public sphere and not considering the inherent inequalities between men and women in the private sphere… the approach neglected the real needs of the women it sought to help.”[4] On top of their daily duties in the private sphere, women became burdened with extra work outside the home. Perhaps it is this failure to understand the psychological, social, and cultural roles of women at the household and community level that still plagues development initiatives like those in Nnindye today.
Amartya Sen provides some theoretical understanding of these issues as he differentiates between the opportunity and process aspects of freedom. According to Sen, having access to the “real opportunities of achievement” only accounts for half of an individual’s freedom.[5] With regards to the UPFORD program, I believe the women of Nninyde have equal opportunity as men to participate in the various development initiatives provided. Theoretically, they also have the same opportunity as men to assume leadership roles in the UPFORD program. If I were to end my analysis here, it might appear that the women and men of Nnindye have equal freedom to pursue development within their communities. However, Amartya Sen would emphasize the partiality of this analysis. He argues there is another aspect of freedom involved in the process itself, “for example, whether the person was free to choose herself, whether others intruded or obstructed, and so on.”[6] With this understanding, it becomes quite clear that the men and women of Nnindye are not equally free. Although women are the primary caretakers in the household, men are the primary decision-makers. During the course of my conversations in Nnindye, women told many stories about men in the village controlling how and when their wives joined the UPFORD program. For instance, one woman wanted to join work on the UPFORD garden; however, her husband refused her participation, because other men were involved on the garden, any of whom might “con” her or trick her into becoming his wife. Even if women were allowed to join UPFORD’s efforts, her responsibilities in the home would almost always prevent her from participating in a leadership position. Various social and cultural realities prevent these women from engaging in what Amartya Sen calls the process aspects of their freedom.
In the context of the liberal feminist movement, we witness a transition in the 1970s to the women in development (WID) approach. Under this paradigm, women are seen as oppressed victims and targeted for education and skills training, as well as for increased access to credit and advanced agricultural techniques. However, feminists from the South claim that this WID approach fails to understand the true nature of the exploitation of women: “by emphasizing the integration of women into the public sphere and not considering the inherent inequalities between men and women in the private sphere… the approach neglected the real needs of the women it sought to help.”[4] On top of their daily duties in the private sphere, women became burdened with extra work outside the home. Perhaps it is this failure to understand the psychological, social, and cultural roles of women at the household and community level that still plagues development initiatives like those in Nnindye today.
Amartya Sen provides some theoretical understanding of these issues as he differentiates between the opportunity and process aspects of freedom. According to Sen, having access to the “real opportunities of achievement” only accounts for half of an individual’s freedom.[5] With regards to the UPFORD program, I believe the women of Nninyde have equal opportunity as men to participate in the various development initiatives provided. Theoretically, they also have the same opportunity as men to assume leadership roles in the UPFORD program. If I were to end my analysis here, it might appear that the women and men of Nnindye have equal freedom to pursue development within their communities. However, Amartya Sen would emphasize the partiality of this analysis. He argues there is another aspect of freedom involved in the process itself, “for example, whether the person was free to choose herself, whether others intruded or obstructed, and so on.”[6] With this understanding, it becomes quite clear that the men and women of Nnindye are not equally free. Although women are the primary caretakers in the household, men are the primary decision-makers. During the course of my conversations in Nnindye, women told many stories about men in the village controlling how and when their wives joined the UPFORD program. For instance, one woman wanted to join work on the UPFORD garden; however, her husband refused her participation, because other men were involved on the garden, any of whom might “con” her or trick her into becoming his wife. Even if women were allowed to join UPFORD’s efforts, her responsibilities in the home would almost always prevent her from participating in a leadership position. Various social and cultural realities prevent these women from engaging in what Amartya Sen calls the process aspects of their freedom.
Mainstreaming Gender Equality (MGE)
It was not until the second half of the 1990s when a new approach called mainstreaming gender equality (MGE) began to surface that initiatives began to pay significant attention to the social and cultural implications of development for women. This shift marked a turning point in the way women were viewed: “approaching women as a target group isolated from other development issues was abandoned in favor of a comprehensive and transversal approach to gender.”[7] MGE projects integrate both men and women into their strategies and operate under the belief that since social roles are assigned, they can also be modified. By ensuring that women are involved in decision-making processes, both in the home and for the community, the MGE approach aims for the sustainable empowerment of both men and women in a society. Through initiatives, such as trainings (agricultural or otherwise) that include discussions on relations in the household, the division of labor and access to resources, women gain confidence and self-worth, while men become more open to the idea of helping women in the household and allowing them to partake in decision-making processes.[8] Though they do not provide all of the solutions, these processes associated with gender mainstreaming in development offer a number of insights into my lingering research questions. Though the specifics must be tweaked for local context, I believe the MGE approach provides an important direction for answering the question of where and how to move forward.
[1] Many of these questions were inspired by a study on “Decentralization and Community-Driven Development” in the Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook, Washington, D.C.: World Bank, FAO, and IFAD, 2009. Print, p. 61.
[2] The following historical overview draws from the information provided by Martinez, Andrea. “Gender and Development: Issues and Struggles of Third Wolrd Women.” Introduction to International Development: Approaches, Actors, and Issues. Ed. Paul Haslam, Jessica Schafer, and Pierre Beaudet. Ontario: Oxford UP, 2009. 83-101. Print.
[3] Ibid, p. 88.
[4] Ibid. p. 91.
[5] Sen, Amartya. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge: First Harvard University Press, 2004. Print, p. 10.
[6] Ibid.
[7] “Gender and Development: Issues and Struggles of Third Wolrd Women.” Introduction to International Development: Approaches, Actors, and Issues. Ed. Paul Haslam, Jessica Schafer, and Pierre Beaudet. Ontario: Oxford UP, 2009. 83-101. Print, p. 97.
[8] Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook, Washington, D.C.: World Bank, FAO, and IFAD, 2009. Print, p. 118.
[1] Many of these questions were inspired by a study on “Decentralization and Community-Driven Development” in the Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook, Washington, D.C.: World Bank, FAO, and IFAD, 2009. Print, p. 61.
[2] The following historical overview draws from the information provided by Martinez, Andrea. “Gender and Development: Issues and Struggles of Third Wolrd Women.” Introduction to International Development: Approaches, Actors, and Issues. Ed. Paul Haslam, Jessica Schafer, and Pierre Beaudet. Ontario: Oxford UP, 2009. 83-101. Print.
[3] Ibid, p. 88.
[4] Ibid. p. 91.
[5] Sen, Amartya. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge: First Harvard University Press, 2004. Print, p. 10.
[6] Ibid.
[7] “Gender and Development: Issues and Struggles of Third Wolrd Women.” Introduction to International Development: Approaches, Actors, and Issues. Ed. Paul Haslam, Jessica Schafer, and Pierre Beaudet. Ontario: Oxford UP, 2009. 83-101. Print, p. 97.
[8] Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook, Washington, D.C.: World Bank, FAO, and IFAD, 2009. Print, p. 118.