COMPETENCIAS GENERALES (CG) Y ESPECÍFICAS (CE) SI NO

There have been two major influencing currents that have contributed to and influenced the integration and direction of approaches to women’s development. These were the modernisation paradigm and Western feminism (Saunders 2002:1). These two influences will now be discussed consecutively.

The beginnings

Modernisation and development

In 1949, United States’ President Truman qualified a need to address Third World poverty through a programme of development13_{. This was especially significant, as} many Third World countries were becoming self-governing nations:

we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas. More than half of the world is living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat to both them and to more prosperous areas. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of these people… It is pertinent that we implement a democratic approach that supports fair dealing (Point Four, from Truman’s address in 1949 cited in Rist 1997:71).

Having learnt from the Great Depression, Truman and his agents professed the need for a “planned, managerial and interventionist approach to growth and development” as opposed to a market place that was considered self-regulating or laissez-faire (Saunders 2002:2)14. Drawing on the successful reconstruction of post- war Europe, the same planned, managerial and interventionists approach to growth and development was proposed (Brohman 1996:10, Saunders 2002:2)15_{. Rather than} any real altruistic motive, Truman’s desire to pull the Third World out of its so- called misery was undoubtedly about ensuing allegiance from the Third World to the West or the United States, instead of the Second or Communist World (Black 1991:48, Rist 1997:249-50, Saunders 2002:1).

13 _{It is often assumed that development, or the development project commenced in 1944 (McMichael} 1996, Rist 1997). This is owing to the establishment of the World Bank and other Bretton Woods institutions at this time. In presenting development history, accounts also usually occur chronologically commencing with economic growth and modernisation theories, shifting to underdevelopment theories, neo-liberalism and the Washington Consensus, with a focus on mapping particular events and processes (Kothari 2005a:1). While this chapter commences and follows in a similar chronological style, support for Blaikie (2000:1035) and Kothari (2005a:2) is given, in that this chapter also acknowledges that “bounded classifications and epochal historicizations not only obscure a longer genealogy of development but also undermines attempts to demonstrate historical continuities and divergences in the theory and practice of development, compounding the concealment of on-going critiques” (Kothari 2005a:2).

14 _{While more than Keynesianism economics or growth theory was argued for, modernisation theory} was really just a “deepening and extension of the basic conceptual apparatus of growth theory” (Brohman 1996:15).

15 _{During 1945-1950 Truman’s ‘Marshall Plan’ had handed out $19 million (USD) (American dollars)} for reconstruction in post-war Europe (Craig and Porter 2006:47).

A large number of development-related agencies soon emerged, for example, the IMF, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, now known as the World Bank, and various other United Nations agencies and programmes (Saunders 2002:2). This period became known as the ‘first development decade’ (1961-1970), and it must be noted that any real reference to women was seriously lacking. The poor were seen as composed entirely of men or else women’s needs and interests were assumed to be identical to, and hence subsumable under, those of male household heads (Kabeer 1997:1). If women were mentioned they were generally represented as tradition bound and culturally static and therefore an obstacle to progress (Braidotti et al. 1994, Jacquette 1982, Kabeer 1994:1, Scott 1996:25).

The approach to development was twofold. Firstly, modernisation theorists put forward a framework for the ending of Third World underdevelopment and secondly, a liberal humanitarian approach was promoted. These two points will now be elaborated on successively.

Underpinned by neo-classical economic thinking and classical sociology, and embedded with anti-communist, patriarchal, Western ideology, modernisation theorists condemned Third World populations and called for an economic, social, cultural and political mindset shift, believing that all societies had to pass along a progressive, linear staged process to become developed, with the pinnacle being the modern capitalist society (Rostow 1956; also see Koczberski 1998). Modernisation thought was embedded in enlightenment thinking, where man (not woman), was considered able to “apply rationale scientific analysis to the problems of life”16 (Parpart 1995a:222; also see Brohman 1995:122, Reddock 2000:2-4, Willis 2005:3).

Rostow (1956), and those who were like-minded, advocated heavily for the taking on board of modern cultural traits by developing nations and a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to fixing the so-called problems of the Third World. This came in the guise of Westernisation and industrialisation; in other words, they argued the Third World which was ‘under-developed’ needed to lose its ‘traditional’ ways to become

16 _{Enlightenment thinking rose out of the 17th century scientific revolution. A central tenet of} enlightenment thought is that “all aspects of nature, including human nature and society, are regulated by universal natural laws that can be uncovered through the application of scientific methods of observation and deduction” (Cheek 2000:15). The individual person is seen to be rational and self- interested.

part of a ‘modern’ society (Brohman 1996:15, Radcliffe and Laurie 2006:233, Willis 2005:128). It was argued that these changes would bring economic fulfilment for all by trickling down, and this end state was labelled developed and the process to get there was labelled development. Men and women would be affected by development in the same ways (Momsen 1991:3).

However, to continue to subscribe to traditional ways or cultural characteristics such as kinship systems, Third World people would remain under-developed. Traditional ways were seen to hinder progress. Development was therefore the means for removing what were perceived as cultural barriers to progress (Radcliffe and Laurie 2006:233). Thus, there was a very clear modern/traditional dichotomy with modern meaning Western, industrialised, dynamic, progressive and democratic and therefore superior, and traditional meaning non-Western, subsistence based, static, backward, communal and family based, all of which was considered inferior.

Even in the case of Samoa there were clear examples where culture was seriously seen to be a constraint to development. As far back as 1884, Reverend Doctor George Alexander Turner, a medical missionary in Samoa from 1868 to 1879, had argued that fa’asamoa (Samoan culture)was:

A sad hindrance to the industrious, and eats like a canker-worm at the roots of individual and national progress. No matter how hard a young man be disposed to work, he can not keep his earnings: all soon passes out of his hands into the common circulating currency of the clan to which all have latent right (Turner cited in Maiava 2001:57).

In 1907, the German Governor Wilheim Soff proclaimed:

The customs, usages and legal institutions of the Samoans will have to be further studied in more detail. Whatever is good, will be retained and gradually transferred and amalgamated into our forms and concepts. Whatever is bad, barbaric and stupid will be stamped out… the natives are ignorant… they have to be instructed; they are lazy and have to learn to work… (Meleisea 1987:3). Further descriptions reported Samoans as being conservative, resistant to change, unable or unwilling to recognise skill and diligence on the land, or too caught up in time-consuming communal activities (Farrell and Ward 1962). Samoans were also described as ‘not progressive’, ‘not able to plan for the future’, and as having ‘no aspirations’. Overall, the Samoans it was suggested, had little interest in development (Lockwood 1971, Pirie and Barrett 1962).

Modernisation theorists seemed incapable of understanding that under-development was not a pre-condition to development, and nor was it a fixed state. Under- development and development could not be separated from historical and cultural meaning (Todaro 1997:70). It was wrongly believed that once the initial difficult phase of development occurred, the rest would follow suit and benefits would flow to all. Lewis’s (1950) famous quote epitomises this:

Once the snowball starts to move downhill, it will move of its own momentum, and will get bigger and bigger as it goes along…You have, as it were, to begin by rolling your snowball up the mountain. Once you get there, the rest is easy, but you cannot get there without first making an initial effort (p.36).

Targeting women’s welfare

The second approach to development that was promoted was a liberal humanitarian philosophy. Similarly, but to a far lesser degree than what had been offered to post- war Europe, advocates campaigned for the provision of food aid and disaster relief. Particular attention was also paid to women. There was concern about meeting the practical needs of women especially in relation to their reproductive roles (Moser 1989:1808). Thus, the 1960s saw the introduction of basic health education programmes for women and nutritional supplements, explicitly targeting pregnant women. The 1960s also saw the rise of the mother-child health care mandate, with a direct focus on family planning and population control (Jackson 1977:10)17_{. In} essence, the approach was resolute on improving “women’s primary role as mothers” (Porter 1999:10; also see Moser 1989, 1993).

Welfarism focused on and reinforced women’s reproductive role, placing them in the private sphere (Bulbeck 1998:174, Chowdhry 1995). The underlining assumption was that Third World women were too ignorant to manage their own fertility, or care for the overall wellbeing of their children. Little consideration was given to the overarching structures and systems that placed women and their families in this position to begin with, or the fact that women had been managing their own wellbeing and that of their families for centuries. Parpart (1995b) argues that ideas of representation trapped deep within colonial discourse had followed effortlessly into post-World War II development discourse. “Where women were

17 _{This saw the handing out and administration of contraceptives and accompanying education, and} failed to see that these would have little impact on women’s fertility if the reasons for requiring a large family remained unchanged (Kabeer 1994, Mamdani 1972).

‘seen’ at all, they were simply one more obstacle to modernization and progress” (Parpart 1995b:257).

Subsequently, this welfare phase and approach to Third World women received much criticism (Buvinic 1983:23-24, Moser 1989:1808)18_{. It was argued that} welfarism perpetuated paternalism and existing gender roles. Anti-welfare advocates also discredited the approach as fostering dependency on the state and the family, rather than seeking to develop individual autonomy (Buvinic 1983, Moser 1989, Saunders 2002:4, Townsend 1993:171). While critics argued welfarism represented Third World women as ‘victims’ and ‘passive beneficiaries’ (Kabeer 1994:6, Moser 1989:1807-09, Rathgeber 1990:492, Tinker 1997:38), they also failed to understand their argument for the development of individual autonomy was also misguided. They had just assumed individual autonomy to be a universally applicable concept. However, because the welfare approach was non-threatening it was widely accepted by governments and by traditional non-government organisations (NGOs) (Moser 1989), and it did achieve some benefits. Some welfare organisations have been credited with performing valuable functions in the areas of education and health, as well as providing a means for women to come together collectively, forge solidarity, share information and develop networks (Sen and Grown 1987:90).

Western feminism and Development Studies

Any focus on gender issues in development was initially alleged to be a feminist distraction from the “real issue of poverty and modernisation which preoccupied development thinking and planning” (Pearson 2005:157). The 1970s and early 1980s was an era of political unrest and awakening for many marginalised groups. Amongst the debates about the Vietnam War and the black civil rights movement, feminism found an atmosphere to challenge male domination and oppression and to challenge patriarchy. French philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir heavily influenced the feminist movement. Her seminal work ‘The Second Sex’ (1949) became the foundation for feminism in the West (Thornham 2000:34-36). de Beauvoir argued that men had created and defined women as ‘other’ (Parpart and Marchand 1995:6). Feminism focused on this notion of ‘otherness’, meaning lesser, and claimed that society, which was divided along the lines of gender, was significant for women because it

18 _{The welfare approach while very prevalent between the 1950s and 1970s was noted as being widely} utilised in the 1980s (Moser 1989:1808) and the same can still be said today.

generally meant inequality and discrimination (Doyal 1995, Moore 1988, Papanek 1990). de Beauvoir called for women to “define themselves outside of this male/female dyad. Women, she urged, must be the subject rather than the object (other) of analysis” (Parpart and Marchand 1995:6).

Over time, a number of differing feminist opinions and frameworks were offered including liberal feminism and Marxist feminism. Liberal feminism as an approach to women’s liberation argued primarily for social reform and legislative change, believing that sexual inequality could be overcome if women were incorporated into the public realm as equals to men. Liberal feminists tended to draw attention to gender stereotypes, how girls and women were not considered equal or given equal opportunity in the workplace, the education system or society. Liberal feminism was very interested in gender divisions of labour and the devaluation of women’s work, the lack of progressive opportunity for women in the workforce, and the lack of systems, processes or services available to support women whilst they were working, such as paid maternity leave or affordable childcare. Equity with men was seen to be the answer to freeing women from oppression, that is, they argued for the redistribution of power within the current system. Liberal feminists also paid particular attention to women’s rights to make decisions surrounding their own bodies, such as the right to abortion, choices in relation to birth control, or the decriminalisation of prostitution. Overall, men as a group was not challenged or brought into question (Kabeer 1994:Chapter 2).

In contrast, Marxist feminists did not position gender over class; rather they argued that gender oppression (and other forms of oppression such as racial oppression) were the consequence of class oppression. They argued that working class men also suffered oppression. Patriarchy was seen to be a division of capitalism, because male privilege over women was embedded in a capitalist system. Therefore, women’s subjugation had to be understood in terms of modes of production and women’s role in the family. Hence, Marxist feminism argued that capitalism was the cause of women’s oppression and that gender equity would only be achieved through dismantling and replacing the capitalist system (Humm 1995).

While having notable differences, liberal and Marxist feminism are similar as they are both embedded in enlightenment thinking. Their frameworks claim universal validity and therefore attempted to explain global realities in a wide range of situations and

contexts (Parpart et al. 2000:206). Their overriding concern was about ‘woman’ as ‘other’ meaning they tended to ignore the fact that ‘woman’ is not a homogenous category. Concepts such as reproduction, the family, divisions of labour, women’s rights, the household and patriarchy were utilised without being located in their specific cultural and historical contexts. Feminism tended to utilise these concepts to explain women’s subordination worldwide (Mohanty 1988:75-76, Parpart and Marchand 1995:7). Concern with female ‘otherness’ left little room for the recognition of difference amongst women (Bulbeck 1993, Chowdhry 1995, Gilligan 1982, Mohanty 1988, Parpart and Marchand 1995, Spelman 1990), least of all the acknowledgement that “beyond sisterhood there was still racism, colonialism and imperialism” (Mohanty 1988:77).

Western feminists claimed women in the Third World were even more disadvantaged than women elsewhere because of gender divisions. Western feminism created a picture of Third World women that depicted them as benign, helpless and overburdened (Crush 1995a:21). While liberal feminists spoke of policy formulation and the need to improve women’s status through inclusion which can be seen in the WID approach to development, and Marxists feminists focused on international capital and class structures19, neither school of thought ever questioned whether development really was synonymous with modernity (Parpart and Marchand 1995:11).

In 1970, Ester Boserup published her influential study on the situation and position of women in the Third World (Kabeer 1994:2, Rathgeber 1990:490). Using the case situation of Africa, Boserup (1970) reported women were heavily involved in agricultural production noting that many of the subsistence activities women were engaged in were not acknowledged. Women, Boserup argued, had been misrepresented as not working because of stereotypical ideas surrounding gender roles. This severely undermined the value and importance of women’s work. In using gender in her analysis, Boserup (1970) not only identified gender divisions of labour, but she placed scholarly attention on the “differential impact by gender of

development” (Rathgeber 1990:490)20_{. In keeping with liberal feminism, it was} believed that this inequality could be overcome if women were incorporated into the development realm as equals to men. Therefore Boserup’s (1970) work was readily received in the hope that Third World women would be brought up to the same level of development that their Western sisters presumably enjoyed (Parpart and Marchand 1995:4).