--- Peter Limb wrote (while I was away):
In a new book by Catherine V. Scott, _Gender and development_ (L. Rienner, 1995) there is a discussion of gender, labour and dependency theory. Chapter 6 discusses Mozambique and Angola, and argues that despite official govt commitments to involve women in the public sector, revolutionary parties neglected male dominance in households. The household became contested terrain, with MNR and UNITA appealing to "traditional" masculine conceptions of "utopian 'tribal' life" p. 119. The realm of women/nature/precapitalism in govt policies became the realm that had to be transcended by revolutionary politics - hence the analogy to dependency theory.--- end of quoted material ---What do people think?
Peter, the last sentence is too telegraphic for me. Does dependency theory present the realm of women/ nature/ precapitalism as one that has to be transcended? How so? Before this post, had you asked I might have been inclined to say something close to the opposite: that one of the difficulties with dependency theory was was that it called _any_ engagement in market relations which connected to a capitalist world market a dependency relationship (by assuming that inequality is a synonym for dependency, which it isn't). An implication often seemed to be that the only forms of social existence which would have genuine autonomy were pre-capitalist, kin-based domestic/ natural ones.
OK, maybe now I'm getting the connection. There was a critique of "family labor" analyses for not looking at relations of production, distribution & power within households. Is that what you meant?
Possibly the "transcendence" model relates to the Hegelian heritage of Marxism, and also to the unilinear social evolutionism in much of the Marxist tradition.
More concretely, a friend who works on local rural history in Zimbabwe told me that in the 1980s local ZANU-PF officials were explicitly telling men in the area he worked that socialism did not mean equality for women in the home. On the other hand, a colleague at the U. of Swaziland SSRU in the late 80s who ran workshops on incorporating women into development planning for the UNDP told me that Zimbabwe was the only country which sent female development officers to the workshops.
But I am a bit confused by just what Scott is saying. If the revolutionary parties "neglected male dominance in households," why would UNITA/ MNR appeals to masculist traditionalism have appeal? Such appeals typically refer to male anxiety over *loss* of power, often displaced from other relationships onto household & gender ones. (Segregation-era government backed traditionalism in SA & Swaziland worked very much this way, as Shula Marks has written about). My impression has been that UNITA/ MNR made their appeal on the basis that the revolutionary parties were going to destroy respect for maleness, age, and ascribed status (three dimensions of patriarchy).
Does Scott discuss at all the stake which some women may have either in ascribed status, or the gaining of status with age, or both? One of the problems of criticisms of patriarchy is that often they don't examine closely enough the resources which women have managed to secure for themselves within a given moral economy of inequality, and thus don't see the risks which women would run in changing affairs, which may lead them to support traditionalist politics. Over the long run, to the extent that capitalism destroys local moral economies, it renders such concerns moot. But meanwhile feminists and socialists face some real dilemmas if they are really committed to democratic principles and to the idea that their actions and ideas should benefit rather than harming people.
Lastly, masculist politics aren't restricted to conservative or traditionalist parties, as a look at the history of debates over gender equality in COSATU (say) will show. An interesting point here is the conjunction of masculism with nationalism, and the labelling of feminism as "western" or "foreign". Colonialists have used attacks on African gender relations as excuses to regulate African men for other ends often enough to lend credence to such charges. To defuse such charges and possibilities, feminists who are based in "the west" in some sense need to choose their allies carefully, be engaged in extensive discussions with African women, be willing to give the lead to African women, and be aware of the wide variety of social positions and interests African women have, which may conflict (and conflict with those of "western" women). All of the foregoing is drawn from feminist thinkers, so I hope it's clear that I'm not trashing feminism; but not all feminist thinkers have moved away from things approaching blanket condemnations of African gender relations. Where does Scott come down?
Chris
From: Peter Limb <plimb@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
Reply-To: AFRLABOR@acuvax.acu.edu
Message-ID: <199506280252.KAA21254@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Labour, Women and Depedency Theory
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 10:52:02 +0800 (WST)
Good points Chris.
I was really just paraphrasing. Scott argues that revolutionary parties in Angola and Mozambique "neglected the persistence of male dominance in the household or depicted women as victims of abstract "feudal practices." This neglect has trhe effect of juxtaposing the distant past of precolonial tradition within which women labored, with the modernisiing present and profgressive government." p. 119 A large part of the book deals with rereading modernization and dependency theory and issues such as the World Bank and gender and "Marxism, Masculinity and Dependenct Theory." One of her major assertions is that revy. projects have been deficient in recognizing the household as a site of change and conflict and emphasized production over reproduction, thus making them vulnerable to opposition movement criticisms. (p.104) UNITA and MNR have explotied "male anxiety over changes in gender relations. The inherently contradictory way in which these govts. approached gender relations has made it easier for opposition movements to base their appeal upon "traditional," rural and patriarchal ways of life."
Possibly the "transcendence" model relates to the Hegelian heritage of Marxism, and also to the unilinear social evolutionism in much of the Marxist tradition.
More concretely, a friend who works on local rural history in Zimbabwe told me that in the 1980s local ZANU-PF officials were explicitly telling men in the area he worked that socialism did not mean equality for women in the home. On the other hand, a colleague at the U. of Swaziland SSRU in the late 80s who ran workshops on incorporating women into development planning for the UNDP told me that Zimbabwe was the only country which sent female development officers to the workshops.
I lived for a month in a "female headed household in Ardbennie, Harare, and met some ZANU women. There is quite a bit of literature on women in Zimbabwe. One of the most curious is the inevitable troupe of ZANU women, replete with Mugabe busts (emblazoned on their busts) who presage his arrival at major functions. And perhaps a major key to electoral successes?
But I am a bit confused by just what Scott is saying. If the revolutionary parties "neglected male dominance in households," why would UNITA/ MNR appeals to masculist traditionalism have appeal? Such appeals typically refer to male anxiety over *loss* of power, often displaced from other relationships onto household & gender ones. (Segregation-era government backed traditionalism in SA & Swaziland worked very much this way, as Shula Marks has written about). My impression has been that UNITA/ MNR made their appeal on the basis that the revolutionary parties were going to destroy respect for maleness, age, and ascribed status (three dimensions of patriarchy).Yes - I think she is referring to MNR appeal to males [and perhaps also women with a stake in not changing].
Does Scott discuss at all the stake which some women may have either in ascribed status, or the gaining of status with age, or both? One of the problems of criticisms of patriarchy is that often they don't examine closely enough the resources which women have managed to secure for themselves within a given moral economy of inequality, and thus don't see the risks which women would run in changing affairs, which may lead them to support traditionalist politics. Over the long run, to the extent that capitalism destroys local moral economies, it renders such concerns moot. But meanwhile feminists and socialists face some real dilemmas if they are really committed to democratic principles and to the idea that their actions and ideas should benefit rather than harming people.I'll have to read the entire book to answer that!
Lastly, masculist politics aren't restricted to conservative or traditionalist parties, as a look at the history of debates over gender equality in COSATU (say) will show. An interesting point here is the conjunction of masculism with nationalism, and the labelling of feminism as "western" or "foreign". Colonialists have used attacks on African gender relations as excuses to regulate African men for other ends often enough to lend credence to such charges. To defuse such charges and possibilities, feminists who are based in "the west" in some sense need to choose their allies carefully, be engaged in extensive discussions with African women, be willing to give the lead to African women, and be aware of the wide variety of social positions and interests African women have, which may conflict (and conflict with those of "western" women). All of the foregoing is drawn from feminist thinkers, so I hope it's clear that I'm not trashing feminism; but not all feminist thinkers have moved away from things approaching blanket condemnations of African gender relations. Where does Scott come down?Indeed, there are some complex gender relations in the ANC and COSATU. But the fact that western style feminism often was criticised by ANC and COSATU women as too insenstive to strategic/ethnic/national priorities did not, of course, mean that these women did not engage in the widest ranging criticism of sexism within these bodies - e.g. the COSATU conferences on gender.Chris
Peter Limb, University of Western Australia
email: plimb@uniwa.uwa.edu.au