An approach that acknowledges difference but which is based on the respect for the people that one is studying and listening to would come up with very different analysis. The oral tradition, the processes of daily life, and the interaction between women and among all people within the various African communities show the exact opposite of the depiction that we get from Professor Coquery-Vidrovitch’s book. In artistic expression, the use of language, couture and dress, African women and men name the things that they do in language that is rich and indicative of a fuller understanding of the self and one’s connection to the community and nature. Again, among the Yoruba, there are names for hairstyles, àdìre ?lêko and onîko (batik and tie-dye patterns), aÕo òkè (Yoruba cloth that is woven on a loom). Yorubas have enough greetings to cover almost every human activity. The individuality of both women and men is not sacrificed to the corporal whole of the community. This is seen in the philosophical and ideological deployment of concepts such as the orí (head, meaning inner essence) which is understood as an indication of the workings of fate in human life. A person, male or female is absolved of conformity when their actions are explained as being driven by their orí. The owó (hand) indicates that which we do with the labour of our hands, the sweat of our brow. So, although the orí is described as such: orí l’a fi ½mú ?ran l’âwo, tí a kì fi ½mú egugun; orí ?ni l’àwûre; (good and bad luck, and destiny are determined by the head/fate); the Yoruba also allow that àtélewó ?ni l’a fi ½tún àyànmó ?ni Õe (it is with one’s hands/work, that one transforms fate). These statements are not deployed selectively to apply solely to men or women. They apply to all. It is about time that global statements on what African women are or are not are informed by explorations in listening, understanding and interpreting that recognize the errors of the past and correct them.
Western Feminist Hegemony in Development Theory and Practice
An impressive number of studies have emerged in recent times to argue for the inclusion of African women in the development process. The UN Decade for Women is an important watershed for the advent of these studies. However, the hegemonic project that undergirded development theorizing and praxis became clear during the conferences that commemorated the decade. It was obvious that the ideals and norms of Western feminism were the new standards by which feminists from other parts of the world would be judged. The resistance of Third World feminist delegates to these conferences underlined the inappropriateness of the assumption that identical development standards can be fashioned for all women at all times in all parts of the world. Given this increased attention to development issues and problems by multilateral organizations, it is surprising that the empowerment of women as construed by development experts is so elusive. Since development administration is so top heavy, one wonders if it were not possible that the focus of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have emerged to champion the cause of women is not to maintain a steady pool of victims in order that they can justify their existence.
One of the most significant consequences of the UN Decade is the focus of the Women in Development effort of the international governmental and non-governmental organizations on "the integration of African women in the development process." Beginning in the 1970s, many studies have recommended that development efforts should be directed toward rural women who are disadvantaged vis a vis rural men and urban women. Are we to assume that all rural women are marginalized, and all urban women, powerful? Are we to understand that women under the oppressive weight of patriarchy are all victims thereof? As one who is an African woman who comes from a long line of powerful women, I cast my mind back to my formative and contemporary experiences. Having listened, understood, and now, commencing to interpret, I observe that majority of the development efforts that are directed at women suffer from the fatal flaw of manufacturing victims where there exist powerful, vibrant, active human beings. When women's activism, power, and control over their lives is not acknowledged, these efforts create victims. Awa Thiam's critique of mainstream feminist thought as applied to black women is instructive in this regard. Looking back into the decade of the 1970s for variables which imperil the equality of women, she argues:
Four aspects seem to be particularly striking in their implications for women. The first is the frequently misguided nature of attempts to integrate women into development; the second, the straitjacket which global capitalism has placed on African development via the IMF and its structural adjustment policies; the third, the potential but unfulfilled role of the state in contributing to the transformation of gender relations; and the fourth, the deepening class (and other) divisions emergent amongst women themselves.
The drive to integrate women into development was revealed to be totally misdirected when it became obvious that women had always been integrated in a multiplicity of occupations and had never been precluded from gainful employment. For Baylies and Bujra, the efficacy of many of the measures supposedly introduced to ameliorate the condition of African women such as "income-generating" schemes and agricultural innovation were also questionable (4-10).
Secondly, when women's economic independence is acknowledged, it is often taken as a negative factor which indicates the shiftlessness of African men. Whereas women are essentially portrayed as beasts of burden, the men are portrayed as lazy and underemployed. The theoretical frameworks that emerge from this kind of analysis as characterized by Steady fosters "dichotomy, individualism, competition and opposition"(1979, 8). If these negative interpretations are all that we get out of the listening, understanding and interpreting project of Africanist, particularly by the Western feminist contingent, there is a need to rethink what constitutes good research, scholarship and activism. As we stand at the threshold of the 21st century, there is a need to focus seriously on identifying the beneficiaries of these research projects, scholarship, and activism. Were it the “marginalized" African woman, she would be better off than she presently is.
Colonialism and the African State
Another example of the inability to listen, understand, and interpret is to be found in the Africanist discourse on colonialism and the state. For example, in the introduction to their edited volume on women and class in Africa, Berger and Robertson contend that "Colonialism not only exacerbated inequality, but ultimately turned over mechanisms for extracting wealth to new African [male] ruling classes" (1986, 6). However, Berger and Robertson state that the essays they collected hesitate to blame.
African women's deprivation solely on colonialism and capitalism and support the Western feminist argument that the household as well as the international economy is a prime locus of women's oppression. ... household here must be more broadly defined to include household relations of production, which may be manifested in productive work done outside the home, thus blurring the public-private distinction (12).
This statement reveals curious reasoning on two counts. First and most troubling, Berger and Robertson assume that the household mode of production is separable from the capitalist system within which it operates and also that the household mode of production as it exists today represents pre-colonial African socioeconomic systems held constant over time. Both assumptions are problematic, as indicated in Kettel's study in the same volume.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Ojedi
Africa Knowledge Project
