Saving the Second Sex or How Aid Fails Women: A Conversation with William Easterly
Share this Article
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
RedditAuthor:
Jessica MackTags:
Abortion aid watch bad aid Badvocacy cash transfers courage development economics dignity double standard equal rights foreign assistance gender gender and development global gag rule Greg Mortenson individual rights microcredit microloan Nicholas Kristof respect USAID William EasterlyWilliam Easterly is Professor of Economics at New York University. He is Co-Director of the Development Research Institute and editor of the Aid Watch blog. He is author of The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Yes, this is long, but it’s an abridged version of an interview I conducted in NYC on 3 May 2011.
Photo by Ramon Peco
You talk about the concept of paternalism in global development. I’m curious what the concept of feminism means to you, and what relevance it has for understanding global development.
I think it has tremendous relevance in two dimensions: paternalism and equal rights. Both of these are extremely important in understanding what’s going on in development right now. Both what’s wrong with it, and what needs to be made right. Most of the time, I talk about the paternalism of rich people toward poor people. I don’t think there’s much explicit racism in aid and development, but there is still a condescending or superior attitude toward poor people, that we can fix their problems. I think there is a gender dimension as well, though I haven’t really talked about it much in my work. I think I could talk about it a lot more.
It’s not an accident that the word paternalistic is the notion of father taking care of and supporting. A lot of discourse in aid is often about helping women and children. Aid agencies offer this appealing image of innocent women and children that are helpless and need our help. But who is the “we” that is implied by that? Our help. Who is at the other end? If you go through a bunch of aid brochures online, I bet that in the vast majority of them you will not see any adult males. You will only see women and children. Even just in the sheer visual imagery we use in aid, it’s really about rich, white males indulging their own paternalistic fantasies for rescuing non-white women and children.
It seems to me that some of the most insidious examples of bad aid have to do with women and children.
There’s a very powerful incentive to use that imagery for campaigns. They’re about the victims being women and children, but we’re covering over a lot of stuff. We rich white males – speaking as a rich, white male – are trying to alleviate our own guilty conscience not only toward the poor of the world, but also toward women in our own society. There’s still a lot of sexism and discrimination in our own society. We move the gaze away from that inequality and toward another remote part of the world to indulge our paternalistic fantasies.
Yet in crises like Darfur, women really are exponentially more vulnerable. How do you portray this reality so that women aren’t tokenized?
Of course women are vulnerable to violence and rape in a way that men are not. But we should not go all the way to the stereotypes that aid and development people want to sell. Women in poor countries – and this is a big generalization – are incredibly resourceful. They’re achieving an awful lot. So, to peddle this stereotype of the helpless , pathetic woman that can’t do anything on her own – that’s really destructive and will definitely result in bad aid. Whereas if we find ways to let women tell aid givers what they need so that they can help themselves, that’s going to be much more successful.
I think there’s a sense that if you portray women in the developing world as resourceful, then people will think “they don’t need our help.”
I agree, it’s a very difficult balance. Obviously you have to reach the indifferent rich people with something that will motivate them to be involved in solutions to poverty and violence. Yet you want to motivate them in a way that doesn’t lead to a bad solution. If you portray a woman as a faceless victim, that’s incredibly demeaning and that really robs her of dignity. Are you serving your own organization’s purpose when you put out a stereotype of a faceless woman who’s a victim, and are you disrespecting the fundamental human being that’s behind that image? What’s really at the heart of development is recognizing that everyone has equal rights. I think the most fundamental thing that needs to happen in development is the recognition of equality in rights: poor, rich, male, female, every ethnic group and every religion.
What do think of some of the stories that [NYT columnist] Nicholas Kristof portrays? He’s gotten flack for “exploiting” stories of women and girls in order to evoke responses.
I respect Kristof. He’s done a lot of good with his awareness raising – much better than some of the others who raise awareness, like rock stars and movie stars. He crosses the line sometimes, but he’s on the right side of the line a lot of the time. It’s impossible for anyone, including me, to be pure in this business. It’s just so difficult and complicated.
What do you mean by “pure?”
I mean to get things exactly right in terms of motivating people to get involved, not discourage giving, and yet at the same time respect the dignity of poor people.
Right, I think it has to be an ongoing process, but a self conscious one, a very self aware one.
Self awareness is very important. One thing I’ve learned from other people is the idea of reciprocity. Any time you’re portraying a victimized woman in the Congo a certain way, turn the tables and try to think how you would feel if you were that woman and someone in a rich country far away was portraying your story. If you don’t pass that test – if you say, ‘no I would hate that,’ then you shouldn’t do it. Reciprocity is really at the heart of equality. It’s incredibly important for us to hang on to that.
Let’s go back to that concept of equal rights, and how you see the concept of feminism reflecting that in global development.
Equal rights is this long, never-ending struggle that’s basically about trying to fight double standards. Rights have always been characterized by some double standard, and progress tries to erode. The battle in American history, which is also a story of development – development is not just about Africa – has been the battle to correct the double standard. Men are not superior to women; white people don’t have one set of rights, and black people another. We white males would prefer to forget that this was very recent in our own society, and this is why we’re so happy to transfer our gaze to some far away society that has some more extreme problem.
Confronting that history honestly makes us realize that this is the fight: to keep eroding, eroding, and eroding that double standard. We’re still a long way from equal rights for women in the US. Recognition of that also helps us appreciate that when we talk about women’s rights in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, we come in with our own skeletons in the closet. That should make should make us more aware of how hard these problems are to make progress on and we should not paper them over with all these development buzzwords, which is unfortunately what’s happening. There’s this horrible lexicon we use to signify some awareness of women being oppressed in poor countries, but it stops a long way short of confronting the full injustice of who is responsible, and the power relationships that lie behind it. They talk as if correcting oppression against women is just a matter of awareness raising and education. If you just write lots of report with words like “mainstreaming gender” and “empowerment” the problem will go away. Create a new UN agency for women, and that will solve the problem. But rights are about power.
I think one of the most poignant examples of this lack of power – for women in this country and around the world – is in reproductive health and rights. I’m thinking about the global gag rule, for instance.
Yes – the worst kind of paternalism is the notion that you have superior morals, and you impose them on someone else. Especially when that’s based on a religion that’s different from the people you’re helping, it’s just incredibly arrogant. If we’re going to be serious about respecting the rights of women in poor countries, we have to let them play by their rules. That’s why these conditions on aid are incredibly patronizing and coercive. Everyone should have the right to make their own choices, not have someone else make choices for them, like we don’t allow you to use condoms because we’re hung up about birth control, or we don’t allow you to access abortion because we’re hung up on our own religious views.
Have you seen the issue of abortion increasingly become a global development issue? It seems like the elephant in the room that no one wants to touch.
It’s one of these really divisive issues that aid and development people are really afraid of. One thing that’s in very short supply in aid and development is courage. Nobody has the courage to step up and deal with controversial issues. If you want to give them a little bit of credit, you could say they’re scared of offending their funders. But in the end, and I’ll try to be as generous as possible, depending on your funders is not a good excuse to do something so fundamentally disrespectful and unequal.
What’s an example of a great aid project you’ve seen that benefits women?
Cash transfers is the first thing that comes to mind. The best women-centered programs are not necessarily women-centered programs. Cash transfers are for families, and in practice it often works out that they strengthen the power of women within the family. I also do not embrace some of the stereotypes of men in poor countries – that they’ll automatically spend the money on alcohol. It’s such an insulting stereotype. Yes there’s some truth to it, in poor and rich countries, but if we demonize men that’s not helping. Let’s just be practical about that. It’s about a power relationship that foreigners can’t to do much about, but we can try to find programs that relatively strengthen the power of women within the family. Cash transfers do seem like they do that, certainly more than microcredit.
Microcredit is the really fashionable flavor du jour, although it’s gotten a bit tarnished now. We’re imprisoned in these stereotypes. We want this heroic image of the female entrepreneur boosted out of poverty by a microloan, going from making $1 a day to owning her own factory. That just doesn’t happen, and it was completely unrealistic from the beginning.
Right, it’s telling a story that we want to hear but doesn’t really have any bearing on the lives of poor people. I think we saw this with the Greg Mortenson “Three Cups of Tea” situation.
The way the Mortenson story fell apart just showed how much he was trying to fulfill peoples’ expectations about heroic stereotypes. It’s a very paternalistic story: this rich white man stumbles accidentally onto a village, and then rescues all the girls in the village.
How many disillusionments do we need before we stop trying to create that false story?
Can’t we just be honest with ourselves, that life does not conform to Hollywood storylines, in any area? Aid is no different. Aid is just as messy and complicated as any other area of our lives. Once you accept that, then you don’t get so discouraged. There are lots of good things that can be done: medicines, education, cash grants. In the end, there is a lot of historical and contemporary evidence that development helps women. Development helps women gain greater power over their lives, to make their own choices and to stand up to male oppressors.
Is there a need for more women in global development, or perhaps more feminists?
What’s really needed is a lot more straight talk in our conversations about what’s going on, that there’s still is a lot of oppression of women going on in poor and rich countries. We need to acknowledge that fact and not hide it behind buzzwords. Honesty makes it easier to find the things that will change power relationships. We have to also recognize the unintended power of development to strengthen women’s positions. Economists talk about development increasing the demand for brains relative to brawn. As economies get richer, the demand for brains goes up and that strengthens the position of women because they have the brains, and now a lot more bargaining power.
It’s funny to me that honesty turns one into a dissident in global development.
I know, it’s strange.
That’s where I see the role of feminism, and in global development too: continually questioning the institution, an appreciation for the process, and a whole lot of self-awareness. The more dissidents the better.
I agree!
Like Gender Across Borders on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter and Tumblr. Subscribe to our monthly newsletter. UPDATE: to take part in our survey regarding international feminism, click here.
11:52 am
I think this is a good interview, a lot of good insights. 95% of it I like, a lot.
However
“We move the gaze away from that inequality and toward another remote part of the world to indulge our paternalistic fantasies.”
That has got to be one of the most offensive things I’ve read in quite a while about my intentions as a white male. Not only do I think this is generalizing a minority of people as most of us, I think that generalizing in this fashion in the SAME article as discussing feminist issues is very hypocritical. It’s not ok to generalize women, but it’s ok to generalize white guys?
By the way, most white guys are not trying to “indulge our paternalistic fantasies.” Women and children in “poverty-porn” garner more extreme emotional responses from both men AND women. That’s the issue, emotion spurs action, not that men walk around all day unsatisfied because we want the women and children to bow before us and thank us for all that we bestow upon them in our chivalrous natures.
As a side note, I see this type of language come from my fellow white guys occasionally. It seems like they do it in order to get “cred” with the female feminists or something. I don’t entirely understand it. But it’s offensive, especially coming from someone who is part of the group they’re talking about and should know better. We shouldn’t talk about women like this, and we shouldn’t talk about men like that either.
7:59 pm
Having learned my lesson from a previous experience, I would just like to point out again that I liked 95% of this interview. The points are exactly right in most regards. I was expecting more conversation, so I only touched on a criticism. I liked what @howmatters said about it:
“paternalistic fantasies” definitely not restricted to white guys -all #aidworkers must confront the “I know better” attitude”
9:02 pm
Matt, I think you’re right to point out the broad brush strokes. This was a conversation, but an edited one so I’d love for more discussion on this point to come out in the comments. Agreed that all aid workers need consciousness of the “I know better” attitude. But I think Bill is right to point the finger at the hegemony of “rich, white males” who have dominated for so long. Of course it’s a generalization, but in a way that hegemony is so deeply entrenched I think it takes a harsher criticism to shock people out of it.
9:34 pm
Jessica,
I definitely agree that the hegemony of rich, white males needs some serious attention. Absolutely no doubt, it’s a huge issue and a very large problem.
What bothers me is shown in a simple example.
Had I been interviewed and said, “The field of international development finds itself with more and more young women joining the fight. As their opportunities for education have expanded, they have found themselves drifting toward the fields they are best suited: non-math based and language heavy disciplines requiring a great ability for empathy.”
I would have been skewered and hung for that statement. Yet, all I’ve seen today is praise for this interview. We are aiming for equality I thought, and it feels at times like we trivialize attacks and generalities on white males because we feel like they can handle it or like they should even “see how it feels.” That’s not equality. It may feel like it doesn’t matter, but it does matter. Credibility is lost with people like myself when we want so badly to be partners in the fight, yet we’re not treated as equals. I speak from experience when I say that many of us become very bitter because of it.
7:31 am
I don’t think we need to get into an endless volley on this, but the example you provide is in absolutely no way analogous to what Bill said about rich, white males, sorry. The difference is that you’re suggesting something about the aptitude of women, a group that has and continues to be systematically oppressed. He was suggesting something almost archetypal about the powerful majority. I think he said it best when he said, “relax.” Equality for all is critical – yes, totally – but if one is part of a privileged majority (which I am as well, since I’m white) that has propagated, whether deliberately or not, ills against others for eons, better just to stop defending and start accepting a little bit. That’s where change will start to happen for everyone. Also, I think it’s important to remind you that this interview is more than just about what Bill says about rich, white males. A tad solipsistic of you, if I might say. This is about feminism and women in development writ large! I hope you can just relish the new and changing conversation – it’s one long overdue in aid.
12:19 pm
First, I am deeply grateful to Professor William Easterly courage, confidence and his heart being in the right place to speak the truth. He is a hero to me and many for pushing the aid establishment in to the right direction more than he knows it. Talk about one person can make a difference.
That said, I think, women, the last pillar to hold societies together, particularly in poorer countries are threatened by the poverty industry (foreign aid, as it is referred).
If the objective of aid is to solve the problem of poverty, underdevelopment and the many buzzwords on the brochure of aid agencies it failed. Then it is important to first recognize it is a poverty industry and make it accountable like any other industry. That alone will solve most of the problem of poverty and underdevelopment.
About why aid fails women, for that matter everybody else; as an industry, aid agencies found women an easy to help client confined in one place to protect their family from all kinds of natural and exclusively man-made disaster. In doing so, the industry aligned with the same regimes that caused the problem in the first place to ‘help’ them.
We know the result when any industry aligned with tyrannical regimes. But when the aid industry does it, people shy away from speak up. The PC kicks in and exploited by the industry not to face up to its collective responsibility.
Professor Easterly brings on the table the most challenge to aid agencies ever, not even the moral leaders dare to tackle in the modern history. I guess there are no enough brave people out there to follow him; which proves how entrenched the industry became.
Dividing the population by gender, ethnicity, color, region etc. serves the aid industry agenda more than it solve the problem and had an intended side effect. The fact everybody have one thing in common-to live freely in democratic society equally protected by the rule of laws should be the focus. And the fact remains, Aid agency consistently prolonging that, universal dream by aiding tyrannical regimes from dying a natural death is the bigger issue.
I think, paternalism in the West developed by a continuous misinformation of those in power that control the mass media and its output. It has a historical social, political, and economic dimension as noted. Though, it would not continue for long, as information barrier broken and the truth began to emerge. Aid Watch blog alone shaking down the foundation of the aid establishment as we speak.
The most important thing that often overlooked is the complete control of information and the Mass Media by the regimes of poor countries that needs the help. The regimes’ determination not to allow independent journalists to report firsthand information made the aid agencies de facto reporters of their own work. It further kept the Western audience as ignorant as ever on the poor they asked to help.
If there is a single bullet that would solve the problem of the poor and underdevelopment, having uncontaminated information from the source. In that regard, Aid agency are in bed with the regimes of poor countries to make sure we would not get any.
One needs to look at the source of information coming out of the poor countries for decades. The government and Aid agencies have a monopoly on it. Talk about protecting their interest.
12:42 pm
Great post — any chance we can see the unabridged version?
9:00 pm
I run an NGO that raises funds for girls’ education in East Africa.
I like the politics of the article, which in many ways I share; but something does get lost in Easterly’s argument.
Even if there is inevitably an exercise of privilege involved in routing funds from the West to the global South and orienting them towards girls, it is still an excellent use of people’s funds, and a better use than almost any one can name. If you get the fees that enable you to attend school, and you would not otherwise have been able to go, and going to school is what you genuinely want to do, then attending school improves your life greatly, irrespective of the spirit in which the donor gave the money that enabled the fees to be paid.
Organizationally, we strive to be as led as possible by the desires and aspirations of our girls, and to be guided by the wisdom of our local on-the-ground coordinators. The fact remains that we do provide aid, and we do not fail the girls we help, even though we do so from a privileged position.
Most people in the West do not give to this kind of cause, and it would be better if more people of any color and gender did. This kind of article could easily discourage people from feeling good about giving to support girls’ education, something which they certainly should feel good about.
American people are often on the lookout for the heroic story. Easterly suggests that it’s a fool’s errand. We have a duty to represent faithfully to our donors the real stories, as best as we can know them, of the girls we sponsor. Not all of those stories are heroic ones, but many of them are quietly and deeply inspiring. There is nothing wrong with sharing those stories, especially if they are as far as possible in the girl’s own voice.
Finally, on social issues like abortion, public attitudes towards abortion in many parts of the world do not conform easily to the views of pro-choice Americans. We are not there to force these societies to conform to our particular views of what a just society looks like. We are there to help girls fulfill their aspirations for themselves. If, in the process of becoming educated, their views change on this or any other matter, that is their affair, not ours. What we think constitutes true empowerment is irrelevant. It’s what the girls themselves think would constitute empowerment for them that matters.
10:20 am
@Chris, agree that Professor Easterly is a courageous thinker and human being for questioning the institution. But, selfishly, I want to give Gender Across Borders some credit for nudging him on the gender issue. If you read his post over on Aid Watch, he says this interview spurred him to discuss things he’s never discussed before — including issues like abortion, and women’s rights in aid… so even those who are already courageous can always use more courage. I think it’s great to commend him – obviously I’m a huge fan. But lionizing any one person for bringing forth the silver bullet is a mistake. It’s a process…
@Alex, I think your program model sounds great and sensible. I don’t think Bill was suggesting that giving from a spot of privilege is necessarily a fool’s errand. Rather, the point is that giving from a spot of privilege, with no consciousness of that privilege and no connection to the real wants, needs, and experiences of the receivers is not only a fool’s errand, but an oppressor’s errand. Every NGO and aid agency is sensitive about this critique and jumps quickly to say, ‘well our programs really DO work.’ Instead of defensiveness, I think it’s just worthwhile to take in the point, and see where it fits/doesn’t fit in one’s work. School fees for girls is a plausible model, but perhaps there’s room for more data and research to validate this? But do keep up the good work, I don’t see Bill’s comments as discouraging of this in any way. Self awareness is the operative there… Re. abortion – in fact, it’s not “the views of pro-choice Americans” which are being foisted on the rest of the world, but the contrary — religiously-driven views of anti-choice activists. You’d be surprised, nay shocked, at the level of oppression of choice — not just about abortion, but family planning as well, that’s happening in all parts of the world on account of ideological US policies. So, while I agree with the point about not foisting views, it’s someone else who’s doing the foisting, unfortunately.
1:28 pm
@Jessica:
You can only “foist” views on people who don’t already share them.
I am well aware of the activities of groups like The Family in East Africa, but it is also true that many, perhaps most, East Africans hold views on abortion that genuinely have more in common with American Bible-belt religious conservatives than with American liberals. It would be inappropriate, for all the reasons that Easterly suggests, for American white liberals to attempt to impose on the people we work with a set of views and practices that are acceptable to American white liberals but that seem immoral to them. I do not believe that absent the activities of present-day American fundamentalists, people in East Africa would have liberal attitudes on social issues.
I don’t see Bill’s comments as discouraging to practitioners. We know where he’s coming from. They are, however, potentially discouraging to donors who are understandably looking for something that makes them feel good about themselves.
3:22 pm
Alex, we’re not saying different things. I think we are in agreement about foisting, etc. I was simply pointing out that in my on the ground experience, the most oppressive policies are those driven by anti-choice ideology. That’s it. Donors can feel great about themselves by donating to programs that are based on evidence, and actually work for the people who need them. Those programs exist, so there shouldn’t be a problem.
9:58 pm
Jessica, I agree wholeheartedly with you; yes, it is a process…but to where? The ultimate destination must be individual sovereignty.
I am not ‘lionizing’ Easterly but, considering the conventional wisdom that sustained for too long his moral clarity is unmatched by any, not even by the moral authorities of modern times. He speaks a universal language everyone can understand except the interest groups for the obvious reason.
Yes, I do read his blog religiously, and if I understood him correctly Professor Easterly is not dictating anything but advocating for universal suffrage that should not be negotiable. But, political and economic interest and the greed, racism, sexism… that followed and the fear and violence perpetuated for too long brought us where we are today.
The silver bullet is arming everyone with factual information with the end goal of universal suffrage. Gender Across Borders should in its own creative way inform us all to reach the end goal. Otherwise, the institutionalization wrongs done on humans (women, poor…short, blond, sick, refugees, immigrant, natives, single mother) is endless and has side effects. It can be reduced to right and wrong and Professor Easterly simplified as such.
You see, if the end goal is not agreed then interest groups take over and everyone is on their own and only the interest group benefit. If the end goal is sovereignty we will all be feminist, poor advocates…etc
2:09 am
I have to disagree with Prof. Easterly’s comments about the reluctance to fund abortion as a problem with paternalistic, superior moralizing. First, if one believes that abortion is the taking of innocent life, then it is a matter of social justice to decrease abortion, just as it is a matter of social justice to work against gender-selective infanticide (or infanticide of any sort).
Second, we all hold beliefs about right and wrong – that is why we work together against the oppressive structures of the world, because we believe that everyone should get a fair chance at having a fulfilling life. We believe that slavery is wrong – but no one calls that paternalistic moralizing. Sure, many pro-life supporters are people of faith, but that doesn’t mean their expression of belief and their working towards justice is any less valid. Our beliefs all come from somewhere. Just because your belief that abortion is morally defensible does not spring from faith in organized religion doesn’t mean that it is somehow more valid.
Third, pro-life supporters are not “imposing” their beliefs that abortion is akin to murder any more than we are all trying to “impose” our beliefs that forced sex slavery is wrong when we work against sex trafficking. The dialogue surrounding abortion has been so skewed, on both sides of the debate, and it would be heartening to see the frame shifted so that both sides can work together without completely misrepresenting the opposite side. It makes me just as angry to hear pro-life supporters accuse pro-choice supporters of being heartless murderers, but in spaces like this one, the demonizing is usually the other way around.
8:15 am
@Chris,
If the end goal is sovereignty we will all be feminist, poor advocates…etc
That’s not how sovereignty works, Chris. Sovereignty means that everyone is free to come to their own decisions about themselves and their lives. We encourage the girls we sponsor to think about how they can give back to others, but our aid is not contingent on the girl agreeing to do anything of the kind. If a girl we sponsor wants to have a career that conflicts with our own values, she is free to do so. If she comes to opinions later in life that are different from ours, she is free to do so. Sovereignty will not result in everyone thinking alike!
8:59 pm
female scientist in kenya, I really appreciate some of the points you make. However, I have to disagree that being against sex slavery is analogous to refusing to fund abortion. I grant that both have some moral bases, but the reason the latter is so problematic — and yes, even oppressive — because it is a matter of wealthy donors withholding funds for crucial services, i.e. safe abortion services. This is against a backdrop where abortion is safe and legal (as it is or theoretically should be in many countries in Africa), and where straight up statistics show that whether women can access “safe and legal” services, they will seek to terminate their pregnancies no matter what, usually via unsafe and often fatal means. So to me, it’s the oppression of the hegemony withholding a service that is clearly needed and wanted, according to evidence. I have spent a lot of time researching this issue, and what I hear women and NGOs alike say re. donors is “thank you for the funding, we appreciate it, but do not tell us what we should spend our money on… we know best the problems on the ground.” In too much of Africa and Asia, unsafe abortion is THE major reproductive health problem on the ground. It is a fact.