As I have learned several development approaches, I found that while development theorists and practitioners now are concerned with the problems women face, it is on efficient roles of women in development that has been always focused. The subordination of women is problematized when it is recognized as an obstacle to development or when the political/social/economic participation of women is found to contribute to development processes. When GAD was introduced in the 70s and 80s, problems and struggles that women in the global South have been facing began to be treated as human rights issues. However, as Marchand (2009) points out, since the mainstream development agendas adopted the GAD approach and gender was mainstreamed in development practices and policies in the 90s and 00s, the GAD approach shifted its focus to on women’s efficient economic roles, being operated by neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism. Analyzing recent trends in development industries, Chant (2016) also demonstrates how the capacity of women and girls is harnessed for the economic growth.
This tendency of development practices and policies to focus on the sufficiency of women reminded me of a recent controversy on LGBTQ in Japan. The controversy arose when Mio Sugita, a Lower House member of the ruling party, LDP, published a homophobic essay in July where she provides several discussions in order to demonstrate that the recent social and political acceptance/inclusion of LGBT in Japan is “too much.” After this article was published, it gained a lot of national and international attention and criticism. I participated in a demonstration to call for her resignation.
Here are some English news articles on this controversy;
The Independent: Japanese politician under fire for claiming LGBT couples are 'unproductive'
CNN: Japanese politician under fire for calling LGBT community 'unproductive'
The Guardian: Japanese MP calls LGBT community 'unproductive'
In the essay, Sugita (2018) argues that although liberals claim that LGBT people struggle a lot because of discriminative social systems and the systems need to be transformed, it is personal responsibilities to overcome their struggles. Yes, this is a good (or bad?) example of neo-liberal “privatization.” It is mentioned in the essay that she acknowledges the necessity for the government to sometimes provide welfare supports to its citizens. She claims, nonetheless, that it can be justified only to support heterosexual cisgender couples and parents because they reproduce, and questions whether it can be justified to support LGBT individuals and couples with tax money because they do not have “productivity.” (In the essay, she refers the term of productivity to "reproductivity.") By dividing people into heterosexual cisgender couples and LGBT couples based on their "(re)productivity" and by questioning the governmental support to the latter on the ground of their lack of "(re)productivity," even though she does not give a clear statement that the government must not provide welfare supports to them, she maintains that the government should concern itself only with those who contribute to the state and attempt to exclude others from its agendas and policies.
Although this argument of hers consist a lot of problematic points, it is difficult to discuss each of them here. Thus, I want to conclude this blog entry by pointing out the commonality between her homophobic essay and development approaches. Both development approaches and Sugita (2018) are (implicitly or explicitly) concerned with efficient roles that people can play. While Sugita (2018) exclusively focuses on reproduction, development approaches tend to focus on women’s efficient economic roles. I have no idea if there are any development theorists or practitioners today who would argue that they should exclude "insufficient" women from political/practical agendas, but I think that highlighting women’s efficiency may bring this exclusive argument once they find some groups of "insufficient" women as Sugita (2018) attempts to exclude LGBT people from political agendas. I do not know if there are some who point out that the economic or political participation of women would harm development processes. But if the point is proved, they could start the exclusive argument as Sugita (2018) attempts to exclude LGBT people from policies.
We need to solve the problems that women in the South have been facing not because we want to earn more money or bring more benefits to the economy. We have to transform the uneven society in which women (in the South) are located in subordinate positions and experience physical and non-physical violence because it is unjust. The uneven relations between women and men and between the South and the North are problems because they are not fair.
Bibliography;
Chant, S. 2016. Galvanizing girls for development? Critiquing the shift from ‘smart’ to ‘smarter economics’. Progress In Development Studies 16(4): 314-328.
Marchand, Marianne H. 2009. The Future of Gender and Development after 9/11: insights from postcolonial feminism and transnationalism. Third World Quarterly 30(5): 921-935.
Sugita, Mio. 2018. 「LGBT」支援の度が過ぎる. 新潮45 8月号
This tendency of development practices and policies to focus on the sufficiency of women reminded me of a recent controversy on LGBTQ in Japan. The controversy arose when Mio Sugita, a Lower House member of the ruling party, LDP, published a homophobic essay in July where she provides several discussions in order to demonstrate that the recent social and political acceptance/inclusion of LGBT in Japan is “too much.” After this article was published, it gained a lot of national and international attention and criticism. I participated in a demonstration to call for her resignation.
Here are some English news articles on this controversy;
The Independent: Japanese politician under fire for claiming LGBT couples are 'unproductive'
CNN: Japanese politician under fire for calling LGBT community 'unproductive'
The Guardian: Japanese MP calls LGBT community 'unproductive'
In the essay, Sugita (2018) argues that although liberals claim that LGBT people struggle a lot because of discriminative social systems and the systems need to be transformed, it is personal responsibilities to overcome their struggles. Yes, this is a good (or bad?) example of neo-liberal “privatization.” It is mentioned in the essay that she acknowledges the necessity for the government to sometimes provide welfare supports to its citizens. She claims, nonetheless, that it can be justified only to support heterosexual cisgender couples and parents because they reproduce, and questions whether it can be justified to support LGBT individuals and couples with tax money because they do not have “productivity.” (In the essay, she refers the term of productivity to "reproductivity.") By dividing people into heterosexual cisgender couples and LGBT couples based on their "(re)productivity" and by questioning the governmental support to the latter on the ground of their lack of "(re)productivity," even though she does not give a clear statement that the government must not provide welfare supports to them, she maintains that the government should concern itself only with those who contribute to the state and attempt to exclude others from its agendas and policies.
Although this argument of hers consist a lot of problematic points, it is difficult to discuss each of them here. Thus, I want to conclude this blog entry by pointing out the commonality between her homophobic essay and development approaches. Both development approaches and Sugita (2018) are (implicitly or explicitly) concerned with efficient roles that people can play. While Sugita (2018) exclusively focuses on reproduction, development approaches tend to focus on women’s efficient economic roles. I have no idea if there are any development theorists or practitioners today who would argue that they should exclude "insufficient" women from political/practical agendas, but I think that highlighting women’s efficiency may bring this exclusive argument once they find some groups of "insufficient" women as Sugita (2018) attempts to exclude LGBT people from political agendas. I do not know if there are some who point out that the economic or political participation of women would harm development processes. But if the point is proved, they could start the exclusive argument as Sugita (2018) attempts to exclude LGBT people from policies.
We need to solve the problems that women in the South have been facing not because we want to earn more money or bring more benefits to the economy. We have to transform the uneven society in which women (in the South) are located in subordinate positions and experience physical and non-physical violence because it is unjust. The uneven relations between women and men and between the South and the North are problems because they are not fair.
Bibliography;
Chant, S. 2016. Galvanizing girls for development? Critiquing the shift from ‘smart’ to ‘smarter economics’. Progress In Development Studies 16(4): 314-328.
Marchand, Marianne H. 2009. The Future of Gender and Development after 9/11: insights from postcolonial feminism and transnationalism. Third World Quarterly 30(5): 921-935.
Sugita, Mio. 2018. 「LGBT」支援の度が過ぎる. 新潮45 8月号
No comments:
Post a Comment