A thought on hortizontal inequality, gender and conflict

Shared responsibility - inland waters, Trincomalee

Here’s a brief, somewhat  academic blog – inspired by listening to Frances Stewart at a webinar organised by ODI, in the context of doing a Gender Synthesis  of the first round of panel data for the Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium.  Most of my readers  may want to escape from this rather unexpected theoretical musing on my part!

My problem is that I am not sure that gender falls into how Frances Stewart conceptualises  Horizontal Inequality, even though in some of her writing she thinks it does (1);  and even though, from an external analytical perspective there are visible structural inequalities between women and men.  So as  Stewart et al point out, gender as a group affiliation matters, because it is tightly bounded and members can’t move from one gender to another and because being a member of the group, results in levels of discrimination (ibid).  What I am not sure about is whether  “members of the group feel that being part of the group constitutes a significant aspect of their identity, and thereby group achievements contribute directly to members' well-being.”  (ibid, page 4)

Speaking for women (and I think this could also be true for men), I  am not sure how much  they have a ‘common identity’ that transcends their other identities, how much they see themselves as a  ‘group’  that is in an unequal relationship (with men) and  how much they think this is a relationship that requires changing, or indeed can be changed.  Most women probably recognise their individual experiences to be different to that of men and maybe also see themselves as socially, economically and politically disadvantaged in relation to men,  but they don’t  necessarily question the legitimacy of it. This is no doubt a consequence of how women are socialised.  So for  the most part, they would work individually at achieving some level of individual social mobility for themselves or their family, rather than mount a collective, group challenge to the status quo (which is why we need feminists and women’s organisations to ‘mobilise women’). 

Maybe this is why  horizontal inequalities of gender have not by and large  lead to social instability or conflict, or to women demanding more resource and/or political power in the same way that Frances Stewart  and others  suggest could be a consequence of other horizontal inequalities, such as ethnicity(2). 

Wonder whether this lack of a threat from women as a group is also why gender inequality so often goes unaddressed?

References
(1)    Frances Stewart, Graham Brown & Luca Mancini (2005) Why horizontal inequalities matter: some implications for measurement. CRISE working Paper no 19.
(2)    Luca Mancini (2005) Horizontal Inequalities and Communal Violence: Evidence from Indonesian Districts. CRISE Working Paper no 22.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Some thoughts on the White Saviour Complex of development consultancies

Image
photo taken from  https://e11e99.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/identity-in-a-post-colonial-world/ I am sharing some thoughts that I picked  randomly from a relatively progressive Christian facebook page (Sojourners)that I follow, mainly to help me counter the rather misinformed opinions of my true believer Christian friends (brown not white).  The article is called , 6 HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF THE WHITE SAVIOR COMPLEX, BY RYAN KUJA  and is so relevant to the northern development consultancy space that many of my (white) friends and colleagues occupy (and that I too sometimes venture into) that I thought to use it to write a blog post that I can share with that community.   R yan Kuja confesses that he was "never a missionary in the standard sense of the word, never proselytized or attempted to save souls"  but admits that "the engine driving [him] was the white saviour complex..... The other Westerners [he] worked with believed [they] had it all pretty much figur
Read more

Disturbing vignettes (a series) - Sept 26: the brutalising effect of war

Check this out if you haven't already. http://tinyurl.com/kw526a It is a video of the Sri Lankan army executing Tamils early this year and was shown on Channel 4 recently and did the rounds of emails, facebook etc. Naturally it sparked a huge row. GOSL denied it of course. Experts tried to prove it was a fake. Last heard, GOSL was going to sue Channel 4. The footage is udoubtedly quite horrific and irrespective of whether this video is a fake or not, I think it is quite possible that such incidents could have taken place. What I find disturbing is that responsible journalists, and responsible citizens are happy to accept 'evidence' that has so obviously not been triangulated, that is openly admitted to being 'unverified'. Is it not also an indictment of our times that no one is seeing the video as depicting the brutalising effect of war . Armed conflict creates monsters on both sides - and this for me is the most important message that this video needs to bri
Read more

Year 2014: Buddhist era 2557-2558

Image
There was an interesting debate among colleagues that was triggered by the simple fact that I shared the official government calendar for 2014.  The Calendar has, as it has had in the previous year, and possibly many years prior to that,  the sub title -  Buddhist Era 2557-2558. This triggered a discussion on whether it was appropriate to have that on the calendar or not.  The argument against seemed to be based on it being seen as an imposition by the State of Buddhism, into areas that are perceived as secular and non-religious. [Though of course, as was pointed out,  the Gregorian Calendar is not really secular at all, based on the fact that it counts the years from the birth of Christ!] What was interesting was that we were having this debate at all.  Obviously, the current context has made us all ultra sensitive to certain issues, and the whole question of a state religion led some of us to be uncomfortable, others to be resentful (not overtly manifest in this conversation)
Read more