El Diagnóstico cultural su esencia e importancia

This chapter reviews literature on and outlines equality approaches and their evolvement. Policy interventions (including in South Africa) have adopted gender equality approaches, which have generally evolved from equal treatment to special treatment or positive action; gender mainstreaming and, most recently, diversity and intersectionality. The last one appears to be the most suitable analytical tool for the South African context given the complexity of the inequalities. South African legislation acknowledges diversity and intersectionality has been integrated into its most recent legislative documents, which are „soft laws‟.

Equality Policies

In 1994 the first democratic elections replaced the apartheid regime (which operated under unjust and repressive laws) with a constitutional democratic government. With its commitment to gender equality, the new democratic government focused its attention on replacing the discriminatory laws with new ones in line with the new constitution as well as International Human Rights agreements. It also included women‟s representation in parliament with the number of women escalating from 8 to 111 in 1994, and 119 in 1999; this resulted in South Africa having the second highest population of female representation in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region (Myakayaka-Manzini, 1998). Fundamental to the new order is the achievement of a non-racial and non-sexist society. The South African context is complex. This is due to several factors related to its colonial and apartheid history and relates to the composition of its population. The current

147

classification of racial groups in South Africa is problematic. It is important to note that, unlike many other countries such as the United States, where racially oppressed groups are a minority, South Africa was ruled by the white minority (who only constituted 13% of the population). First there is clear demarcation between black and white. However, the black population is subdivided into Africans, Coloureds and Indians with Africans being further divided into nine ethnic groups. Amongst the blacks the Africans are by far the majority (+80%) of the population, and they have suffered different forms of oppression. Furthermore, within each group are women who are further discriminated against on the basis of gender, which makes them the most marginalized among all disadvantaged groups and therefore the most targeted for affirmative action.

Approaches to Gender Equality

Below I begin with a discussion of four gender equality approaches and thereafter analyze how gender equality is conceptualized in the South African context.

Equal versus Difference

The first and second equality approaches that I look at are equal and special treatment approaches. I discuss the two in relation to each other mainly because of the conflicting views of feminists on the two approaches, which were understood to be antagonistic to each other, as will be seen in what follows.

The struggle for equality commenced in the 19th century as early feminists advocated equal opportunities, treatment and rights (Cockburn, 1991: 19). Equal treatment refers to “actions that guarantee women equal rights and the same opportunities as men in the public sphere” (Booth and Bennet, 2002: 434) which implies that men and women are treated on the basis of sameness. Later, in the 1970s the struggle for gender equality took a different form, which

148

encompassed the notion of difference or special treatment (special measures taken on behalf of those who are disadvantaged, for instance, women, to level the playing field, intended to bring about equality of outcome). The implication of this second approach is that equality for women does not necessarily mean living the same as men and therefore all workers should be protected on the basis of their special needs, thereby advocating for a “different but equal approach” (Walby, 2005: 326).

The notion of „difference‟ has been a contentious issue in the history of feminism. For instance, there have been fierce debates among feminists on how „pregnancy‟ should be treated in legislation and workplace policies (Bacchi, 1990; Walby, 2005). Consequently special actions, such as „paid maternity leave‟, have been put in place “discriminating in favour of women as a sex in order to make progress towards equality of outcome” (Cockburn, 1991: 31). Linked to this is the idea that legislation on pregnancy can be transformatory if it is implemented in a way that challenges the „status quo‟, for instance, by promoting equal involvement of mothers and fathers in childcare (Walby, 2005). This happens in countries like Sweden and Norway where men and women are given (almost) equal time off for childcare after birth. Yet, pregnancy legislation can also perpetuate women‟s roles as primary carers. Moreover, many feminist theorists, such as Crompton (2007) argue the unlikelihood of policies alone leading to the transformation of gender relations. The notion of difference has, also been used in defense of the recognition of, and respect for cultural differences rather than their erosion. Lastly, the notion of difference is also seen in arguments about diversity and intersectionality, and in black against white feminist debates in the 1980s, which emerged especially out of black feminists‟ dissatisfaction “that white feminism in proclaiming all women as sisters and all different from men, ignored black women‟s experience of oppression by white women” (Cockburn, 1991: 27). They argued for

149

the acknowledgement of differences on the basis of an intersection of, among others, sex and race/ethnicity.

At the time those who were advocates of equal treatment were against special treatment because they feared that if employers had to make special provisions for maternity they might refuse to employ women to avoid the need for such provisions. However, equal treatment is widely criticized on the basis of its implications, that women would be expected to perform to the standards set by men (Walby, 2005) and that men are the standard against which women are measured (Beveridge, Nott and Stephen, 2000: 387). Cockburn (1991) most importantly warns that if past history and present circumstances prevent women from taking up the opportunities offered or competing on equal terms, equality will never be achieved.

Another form of special treatment is „positive action‟ which refers to the adoption of specific measures on behalf of women, to remedy past discrimination, and as a way of leveling the playing field. According to Pollack and Hafner-Burton (2000), one form of positive action is affirmative action aimed at rectifying women‟s previous disadvantages in comparison to men. This has been translated into legislation and work-place policies. However, as Cockburn (1991) suggests, equal and special treatment or positive action take a short-cut or integrationist route to equality (Jahan, 1995) which is insufficient to bring about real gender transformation as will be seen in the discussion below. For example, these approaches seem to address the problem of women‟s representation and equal rights rather than unequal gender relations. Hence, a different approach which would address unequal gender relations was sought: gender mainstreaming.

150

Gender Mainstreaming

The third equality approach that I look at is Gender Mainstreaming. According to Unterhalter and North (2010) this approach emerged in the 1980s and gained prominence when it was adopted by the UN Beijing Platform for Action (BPA), in the Fourth World Conference for Women (FWCW) in 1995, as the policy approach to address gender inequality across nations. The BPA requires the establishment of institutional mechanisms to carry out the implementation of gender mainstreaming across nations. For instance, strategic objective 8 in the BPA requires each member state to: first, establish or strengthen national machineries for the advancement of women, which should include various structures within and outside government; second, to incorporate gender concerns into legislation and national policies, programmes and projects; third, to generate and disseminate gender-disaggregated data. The BPA was widely accepted and adopted by most member states, of which South Africa is one.

It is important to point out that most of the countries that are signatories to the BPA, including South Africa, are also signatories to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979 and came into force in 1981. In this convention state parties are required to take all measures to bring about the advancement of women. Among others: article 10-11 requires state parties to eliminate discrimination in areas such as education and employment and article 16 advocates for equality in marriage and for women and men to have the same rights and responsibilities as parents.

Gender mainstreaming shifts the focus from women to gender. Some authors suggest that it addresses men‟s feelings of resentment brought about by the use of positive action approach,

151

in that such approaches “targeted funding and reserved opportunities for women which often places women in opposition to men and sometimes in opposition to other women” (Booth and Bennet, 2002: 438). However, gender mainstreaming had equally been met with opposition and resistance, mainly from men, as gender equality norms are introduced into institutional thinking and compete with traditional norms (Walby, 2005).

There are several ways in which gender mainstreaming is conceptualized, using different theoretical vocabularies and ranges from a unitary, to a dual and a trilogy approaches to mainstreaming gender in organizations. Among the early conceptualizations is Cockburn‟s (1991) distinction between the „long‟ and the „short agenda‟, where the „long agenda‟ implies taking a root and branch approach to gender inequality. This entails addressing unequal gender relations, the structures and systems that lie at the root of subordination and which perpetuate gender discrimination (Cockburn, 1991). This does not only focus on the workplace, but also emphasizes the need to address patriarchal domination in other domains such as the household as well as in society at large. In contrast, the „short agenda‟ implies adopting the „narrow‟ approach to addressing gender inequality, by focusing on issues such as gender representation in high positions at the work-place. This leaves gender and power relations which means that the root of the problem is not being addressed.

In a similar vein, Jahan (1995) distinguishes between „integrationist‟ and „agenda-setting‟ approaches to gender mainstreaming. Here integrationist is synonymous with Cockburn‟s (1991) short and agenda-setting with her long agenda. For instance, similar to the short agenda, the integrationist approach seeks to address women‟s issues without challenging existing policy paradigms (Walby, 2005). This means that just like the short agenda approach, it focuses on addressing women‟s representation without interrogating unequal gender relations, and precisely because of its narrow conception of gender inequality, it is

152

most likely to be adopted. However, this is not likely to lead to any substantial change. On the other hand, agenda-setting seems to be very closely related with the idea of the long- agenda which entails the reorientation of the existing policy paradigm to prioritize gender equality in an organization‟s objectives. This entails “changing decision-making, structures and processes, rearticulating policy-ends and means from a gender perspective” (Squires, 2005: 372). The integrationist and the „short agenda‟ approach are criticized on the basis that, as Unterhalter and North (2010) rightly say, gender is conceived as an add-on to already existing policies, projects and/or programmes. Neither approach aspires to destabilize or challenge the status quo, but to achieve mainly a gender balance in high positions in politics and the workplace; this implies that it leaves other areas and domains intact. On the other hand, agenda-setting is criticized on the basis of its limitation in not moving beyond women‟s inclusion in decision-making.

Other gender mainstreaming proponents, like Booth and Bennet (2002) propose a three-fold framework which they named a „three-legged-stool‟ as the most suitable approach to gender mainstreaming. This draws from three perspectives: „equal treatment‟, „the women perspective‟ and the „gender perspective‟. They point out that, first, the gender perspective aims to transform men‟s and women‟s lives through reorganizing society and achieving a fairer gender redistribution of responsibilities, while also drawing on the other two perspectives: equal (opportunities) or sameness and special treatment (difference) [see last section]. This three legged stool appears to be a complete package required for the advancement to gender equality. The authors emphasize that for an effective outcome, the three should work complementarily rather than in isolation from each other. Moreover, Booth and Bennet (2002: 435) give insightful advice that gender mainstreaming should be

153

context specific “to address the peculiarities of its own equality history including legislative base [...]”.

Similarly, Squires (2005) also uses a trilogy of concepts in relation to gender mainstreaming. She places mainstreaming within a typology of inclusion, reversal, and displacement, which she says have emerged incrementally, each improving on the earlier approach. Inclusion, like the integrationist approach, encompasses ensuring gender representation and equal opportunities and therefore takes the short agenda approach; reversal encapsulates positive action and is based on difference; displacement encompasses mainstreaming diversity and importantly, deliberative mechanisms, in the form of women‟s forums, to counter the technocratic approach, which is in line with South African feminists Hassim (2003), Gouws (2005) and Karlsson (2010), as discussed in the next subsection. She proposes that these have to coexist in order to mainstream gender and should work complementarily. Furthermore, she sees this combination as a transformative approach to gendered power structures. However, in recognition of the diverse nature of inequalities, as Squires (2005) rightly says, there is a need to replace gender with diversity mainstreaming. I am in agreement with the combination of all the above but suggest the replacement of gender and diversity with intersectionality. For this reason this discussion moves to a discussion of mainstreaming diversity and intersectionality.

It is important to note that proponents of gender mainstreaming, such as Booth and Bennet (2002), Walby (2005), Woodward (2009) and Unterhalter and North (2010), recognize intersectionality or diversity which can be seen as an intersection of diverse forms of inequalities including class, age, ethnicity, religion disability, sexual orientation. These are elaborated in the next section. However, some have raised concerns about gender being

154

swallowed up within intersectionality and becoming invisible (Woodward 2009); these concerns are addressed in the next section.

Many countries, such as the European Union countries and South Africa, have adopted gender mainstreaming, taking the long agenda approach seeking to transform gender relations but legislating it as a „soft law‟. This way it is not legally binding, in that, there is “no allocation economic and human resources […] no time-table for action, no specific measures for implementing gender mainstreaming, monitoring its application, and sanctioning non- compliant actors” (Lombardo and Meier, 2008: 104). For instance, the EU sets targets but the implementation of policies is left to member states and monitoring is done only through annual reports on progress made by each member state. Similarly, South Africa, like other signatories of CEDAW, is required to address inequality, as articulated by article 18 of the CEDAW and to write a progress report to be presented at the Women‟s International conferences that would follow, approximately after every ten years; beyond this there is no accountability (Walker, 2003).

Gender mainstreaming has become watered down as an approach to challenging the status quo and is thus criticized on many grounds. Some authors decry the lack of clarity in its conceptualization and objectives which results in difficulties in its implementation (Gouws, 2005; Lombardo and Meier, 2008; Hassim, 2009; Karlsson, 2010) and because of this lack of clarity its transformative potential is lost (Lombardo and Meier, 2008). There are also concerns that the focus on gender mainstreaming could result in the abandonment of policies and positive actions on behalf of women, in which case three-fold approach is preferred. Pollack and Hafner-Burton (2000) and Eveline, Bacchi and Binns (2009: 201) highlight the tendency of gender mainstreaming to “portray gender as fixed oppositional categories of men and women, a theoretical stance that they see as denying the complex ways in which power

155

and privilege circulate in specific social contexts”. In line with this is the concern that gender inequality should not only be addressed in public and workplace policies while leaving other domains untouched. In this case, as Unterhalter and North (2010: 391) argue, “this might mean achieving equality in one domain, but leaving in place grave injustices in another”. These authors propose “confronting the marginalization or trivialization of matters concerning gender or women‟s interests mean organizations may need to look beneath processes that assure a surface equality, but in fact maintain deeply entrenched misogynist ideas” (Unterhalter and North, 2010: 391).

Mainstreaming Gender in South Africa

In this section I look at gender mainstreaming in the South African context. In South Africa gender mainstreaming, as in other countries, has been introduced in compliance with International, Regional Instruments, among others the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Fourth World Conference for Women Beijing Platform for Action (1995), and the Southern African Development Co-operation of State Declaration on Gender and development (1997).

Here I review the debates on gender mainstreaming in South Africa. These debates bring to the fore a myriad of challenges with regards to its implementation, which has resulted in a high level of despondence, to a point where South African feminists question its capacity to bring about substantial institutional changes. I start by outlining the theoretical framework which most South African feminists use to assess the impact of gender mainstreaming. Many South African feminist authors have employed the Women in Development (WID) and Gender and Development (GAD) approaches to explain the impact of the implementation of gender mainstreaming in South Africa. They also use Molyneux‟s (1985) concepts of

156

„Practical Needs‟ and „Strategic Gender Interests‟ (Klugman, 1999; Walker, 2003, Karlsson, 2010). WID is defined in similar terms to Squires‟s (2005) „inclusion‟ and „reversal‟ approaches, in that it addresses women‟s „practical needs‟, which are immediate and welfare needs, such as improving women‟s living conditions in relation to the family, thereby ensuring that they are supported in their existing gender roles, especially within the family (Molyneux, 1985); this leaves gendered power relations untouched. On the other hand, the GAD approach is in line with the „Agenda-setting‟ and „displacement‟ approaches and entails the overhaul of structures that perpetuate gender inequality, thus addressing the root cause of gender inequality in both public and private domains. Klugman (1999) and Karlsson (2010) concur that South Africa has taken the WID approach to address gender inequality, which suggests that it has addressed mainly women‟s representation and „practical needs‟ and this implies having used „inclusion‟ and „reversal‟ approaches. For instance, Klugman, (1999) demonstrates that gender mainstreaming in the Department of Health has resulted in an increased number of health care centres, free healthcare for pregnant women and children and so on (Klugman, 1999). As can be seen, the WID approach poses a very limited challenge to the status quo. According to Karlsson (2010), the GAD approach emerged after the failure of the WID approach to address the root-cause of gender inequality. To this effect the GAD approach emerged to bring about substantive change towards gender equality. Walker (2003)