Introduction
What is feminism? What is development? What is feminist development? And who gets to decide? This paper will explore the shifting discourses of feminism, development, and academia from the 1980s to today through a case study of the working papers of the Center for Gender in Global Context (GenCen) at Michigan State University. I will first describe my methodology in this investigation, including an introduction of the GenCen program at MSU. A shift in discourse about issues of feminism, development, and ethics that took place during the move from Second Wave to Third Wave Feminism will be discussed, as will its impacts on GenCen’s Working Papers. The results of this change will be evaluated, concluding with a discussion about the extensiveness of the shift and what is still missing. I will argue that feminist ideology has experienced a gradual (rather than discrete) change and is continuing to face challenges as it seeks to become fully-encompassing of all forms of gender expressions and roles around the world.
Methodology
The Center for Gender in Global Context serves as the Women’s Studies department at Michigan State University. Its advisor oversees a variety of academic majors, minors, and specializations (interdisciplinary minors). In addition to academic advising, GenCen hosts the “Gender, Development, and Globalization” (GDG) program of International Studies and Programs at MSU. GDG focuses on development and global change as they effect women and gender relations. The program is run through Title VI funding (part of the United States Higher Education Act, awarded by the US Department of Education).
A major component of the Gender, Development, and Globalization Program is its “Gendered Perspectives on Development” (GPID) Working Papers Series. The working papers are manuscripts (article length, up to 9000 words) from many different disciplines that highlight research on economic, social, and political change and their impacts on gender relations. The program’s goals, as stated in GPID’s “Call for Papers,” are
1. to promote research that contributes to gendered analysis of social change;
2. to highlight the effects of international development policy and globalization on gender roles and gender relations; and
3. to encourage new approaches to international development policy and programming.
This research is based on a selection of papers from the GPID Series. Papers were selected based on discipline, geographic region, and research foci to obtain a diverse cross-sample in the study collection. The full list of titles, authors, and publication dates was also reviewed for an overall understanding of the shifting foci.
Papers focused on in this study are (listed in order of publication):
• “The Separation of Women’s Remunerated and Household Work: Theoretical Perspectives on ‘Women in Development’” by Susan Tiano (1981),
• “Sexual Division of Labor in Old World Agriculture” by Michael Burton, Douglas R. White, and Malcolm M. Dow (1982),
• “Greater Education Opportunities for Women Related to Population Growth” by Léa Melo da Silva (1982),
• “Women’s Politics and Capitalist Transformation in Subsaharan Africa” by Kathleen Staudt (1984),
• “Feminine or (Un)feminine: Struggles over the Meanings of Femininity in Chinese Women’s Literature” by Hong Jiang (2001),
• “Development, Democracy, and Women’s Legislative Representation: Re-Visiting Existing Explanations of Gender Variations in the World’s Parliaments” by Jocelyn Viterna, Kathleen M. Fallon, and Jason Beckfield (2007),
• “Promoting Gender Equality Through Development: Land Ownership and Domestic Violence in Nicaragua” by Shelly Grabe and Carlos Arenas (2009), and
• “Choosing Silence: Rethinking Voice, Agency, and Women’s Empowerment” by Jane Parpart (2010) with comments from Naila Kabeer.
What’s in a Name?
Feminism, broadly speaking, is a sociopolitical theory focused on the power relations leading to gender-based inequalities. Historians of feminism discuss three “waves” (periods) of feminism. The first wave, taking place in the late 19th century and early 20th, focused on women’s rights to vote, own property, and control her body. It was most obvious in the British and American women’s suffrage movements. The 1960s and 70s saw the rise of feminism’s second wave, which focused on legal and social equality for women. Feminists of this era argued that biological sexual differences should not yield gender inequality. The “social construction of gender” became prominent at this time, as feminist authors argued that gender roles were made distinct between boys and girls based more on how they were socialized than biological imperatives. The third wave of feminism, beginning in the 1990s and still present today, seeks to include post-colonial, post-modern, third world, and developing world feminisms. The first two waves were highly Euro-American-centric; the third wave can be viewed as a “democraticization” of feminism.
Along with this shift in focus from the third to second waves of feminism came a shift in academic discourse. Around the world (including Canada (Carlson 2010) and Australia (Korenman 2010)), “Women’s Studies” Departments became “Gender Studies,” “Women’s and Gender Studies,” “Gender and Social Justice,” or “Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies” Departments. For some, the name change signals a “progress” in feminism to address other issues; for others, it is a perversion of the struggle women had gone through to achieve the relative equality in developed countries today. The angst expressed in dropping the name “Women’s Studies” is demonstrated in the inclusion of “women” in most names that have added “gender” and the fact that this shift has been a long time coming; though feminism’s third wave began in the early 1990s, many names are just now being changed.
These name changes are often heavily debated and only partially implemented. At Michigan State University, the office has the name “Center for Gender in Global Context,” without women in the name anywhere, but the official administrative department name (according to the MSU Registrar) is “Women, Gender, and Social Justice.” A variety of academic programs are available to students. An undergraduate may major or minor in “Women’s and Gender Studies,” but students can also specialize in either “Women, Gender, and Social Justice” or “Gender and Global Change.” Graduate programs include “Gender, Justice, and Environmental Change” and (available in Spring 2011) “Women’s and Gender Studies” specializations. The majority of courses offered in these programs still hold the department code “Women’s Studies.”
The GenCen Working Papers also saw a name change. When the department began publishing in 1981, it published under the name “Women and International Development.” In 2008, the series became “Gendered Perspectives on International Development.”
A Shift by Any Other Name…
The fact that departments have changed their names is indicative of shifting frameworks. The change from second to third wave feminism can also be seen in the altered foci of the WID/GPID Working Papers, both administratively (in how papers are solicited and the stated objectives of the program) and on the ground (in how papers are written and on what feminist development research is focused).
The use of “gender” versus “sex” when referring to women is nuanced. “Gender” refers to the social construction of different roles given to individuals based on their sex, where “sex” refers to biological, physiological differences between male and female. Discourses around “third sex” and intersexed individuals point to the lack of a concrete dichotomy between the biological sexes as well, though, further complicating the distinction. Generally, though, today’s feminists prefer “gender” when referring to women; this is reflected by the fact that “sex” has not been used in one of the Working Papers’ titles since 1991 (other than to refer to sexual intercourse); while Burton, et. al’s 1982 paper focuses on “Sexual Division of Labor” (emphasis mine). The same topic explored by one of today’s feminists would likely be titled “Gendered Divisions of Labor.” The word “gender” is also more likely to be used in titles, as opposed to merely “women,” in the 2000s. Often, though, this naming is in title only; the article itself focuses solely on women (such as Grabe and Arenas’ “Promoting Gender Equality Through Development: Land Ownership and Domestic Violence in Nicaragua,” emphasis mine, which look only at women’s domestic abuse by men and women’s land ownership, not any of the reverse).
A shift in assumptions about gender roles in the home has occurred. The first four articles reviewed assumed “women” to have places in the home; what makes a “woman” is the role of wife, mother, houseworker. Later articles do not assume this as explicitly; though, again, there is some question as to whether this is merely a careful use of language rather than a true change in belief and research methodology.
Also altered is the way in which developing communities are portrayed by Western academics. Language of the “Third World” has shifted to “global South.” The word “developing” is used with some caution. More and more, comparative studies are comparing communities with the same community at a different time or neighboring communities, rather than assuming the “development” necessarily looks like the United States. Later working papers are more likely to involve interviews with local women. More and more working papers are written or co-written by authors currently living or born outside the United States.
Perhaps the most progress has been made in shifting from women as an instrument of development (focusing on women’s work helps to build economic capacity, educate children for better jobs, etc.) to women’s social and economic development intrinsically (we should help to improve women’s lives for their sakes rather than merely to help others). This can be seen by reading the papers at either temporal end of the series; it is also evident in how the name of the series was changed. Rather than merely switching “Women and International Development” to
“Gender and International Development,” the name was changed to “Gendered Perspectives on International Development” (emphasis mine), indicating the need to consider gender power relations as one of the issues of development rather than women as a tool in development. It is important to contextualize this change: Development itself has been critiqued as focused too much on overall economic progress as measured by capitalism rather than paying attention to the social and political advancement of individuals. The shift in women as instruments in development to women as benefitting from development is part of a greater focus in development on making the main goal the enhancement of individual lives.
Along with the shift from instrumental to intrinsic benefits of women and development have come greater value judgments by the authors of papers. In the more recent working papers, authors are more explicit about what they would like changed and on what they think is important to focus. The early papers almost exclusively focused on describing trends as they were rather than making any sort of value judgment or prescribing methods for changing situations.
…Would Smell as Sweet
This literature review has made it clear that the shift from second to third wave feminism was not a discrete change, but rather a nuanced and continuously shifting understanding. Name changes were completed as part of already-shifting foci; the changes of name did not instantly alter all components of various programs.
Great progress has been made in opening the definition of “feminism” to minorities around the world. Development’s priorities have shifted to focus more on individual lives and improvement.
But we are far from at the ideal. Changes in name alone are not enough. The assumptions and basic foci of feminist research must shift to more fully incorporate the interconnections of all forms of social injustice and inequality (race, nationality, religion, ability status, etc.) to live up to feminism’s full calling. There are those who raise the question of whether or not opening feminism up to other justice issues and focusing on other minority groups means it is no longer “feminism,” but I believe ignoring the intersections of all forms of privilege with gendered power relations does a great injustice to the overall goal of equality.
While the third wave of feminism has in many ways “democratized” feminism, drawing its attention to the various roles and statuses of women around the world, it still primarily exists as white, privileged women becoming aware of the inequalities existing for underprivileged women. A key component in democratizing feminism must be actively seeking and hearing the voices of all women. The GPID Working Papers have begun to do this, as authors are increasingly non-Caucasian and research subjects are increasingly interviewed rather than simply theorized about, but feminism must push further to properly include all voices.
This concept of “women’s voices” is explored in one of the most recent Working Papers, Jane Parpart’s “Choosing Silence: Rethinking Voice, Agency, and Women’s Empowerment.” This Working Paper helps to push the idea of women’s voices not only by being about voice, but also by welcoming a discussion between different feminist views. For the first time in the history of the Working Papers Series, Parpart’s Working Paper received criticism and comments from another academic and these comments were published in the Series. Naila Kabeer responded with another voice, attempting to raise women’s voices she felt Parpart did not include. Parpart responded back; these comments are also included. By including this discussion in an academic Working Paper, the GenCen is highlighting the multiplicity of voices found within feminism and providing a platform for these multiple voices to be heard.
Most obviously intersecting with equality for women is equality for individuals of all sexual identities and gender orientations. This is what, to me, is most strikingly missing in the shift from “Women and International Development” papers to “Gendered Perspectives on International Development” articles. “Gender” is too often merely a buzzword for “women,” and the gender binary of men-women is still much too strongly in place. Heterosexist norms are prevalent in both the early and recent working papers. Even when the word “partner” is used, a woman’s partner is explicitly assumed to be a man (Grabe and Arenas 2009).
The third wave of feminism has opened the movement to women around the world. Over time, the “new feminism” is being incorporated in other disciplines and issues. We are early yet, in the shift. The Working Papers of GenCen, the longest-standing program of its kind in the United States, were given a name change only in 2008. We can only hope that this name change, and similar shifts in administrative language around the world, signal and initiate true transformations in research and funding foci for issues of gender relations and gendered power in the world.
Works Cited
Burton, Michael, Douglas R. White, and Malcolm M. Dow. April 1982. “Sexual Division of Labor in Old World Agriculture.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #5.
Carlson, Kathryn Blaze. “Women’s Studies, R.I.P.” National Post 24 January 2010. Accessed 8 November 2010 at
Center for Gender in Global Context. “GPID Call for Papers.” Accessed 8 November 2010 at
Center for Gender in Global Context. “Working Papers.” Accessed 15 November 2010 at
Center for Gender in Global Context. “Archived Working Papers.” Accessed 15 November 2010 at
Grabe, Shelly and Carlos Arenas. April 2009. “Promoting Gender Equality Through Development: Land Ownership and Domestic Violence in Nicaragua.” Michigan State University Gender, Development, and Globalization: Working Paper #295.
Jiang, Hong. May 2001. “Struggles over the Meanings of Femininity in Chinese Women’s Literature.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #272.
Korenman, Joan. 2010. “Women’s Studies vs. Gender Studies.” Online Discussion Thread. Accessed 8 November 2010 at
Melo da Silva, Léa. September 1982. “Greater Education Opportunities for Women Related to Population Growth.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #11.
Parpart, Jane. July 2010. “Choosing Silence: Rethinking Voice, Agency, and Womens Empowerment.” with Kabeer, Naila “Voice, Agency and the Sounds of Silence: A Comment on Jane L. Parpart’s Paper.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #297.
Staudt, Kathleen. April 1984. “Women’s Politics and Capitalist Transformation in Subsaharan Africa.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #54.
Tiano, Susan. December 1981. “The Separation of Women’s Remunerated and Household Work: Theoretical Perspectives on ‘Women in Development.’” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #2.
Viterna, Jocelyn et al. April 2007. “Development, Democracy, and Women’s Legislative Representation: Re-Visiting Existing Explanations of Gender Variations in the World’s Parliaments.” Michigan State University Women and International Development: Working Paper #288.
No comments:
Post a Comment