Professional Documents
Culture Documents
B R SIWAL
DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
W D DIVISION , NIPCCD , NEW DELHI-16
E-MAIL:brsiwal@gmail.com
Different people use empowerment to mean different things. However there are
four aspects which seem to be generally accepted in the literature on women’s
empowerment. Firstly to be empowered one must have been disempowered. It is
relevant to speak of empowering women, for example, because, as a group, they are
disempowered relative to men.
While the reasons for any particular woman’s powerlessness (or power) are
many and varied, considering women per se necessarily involves questioning what
we/they have in common in this respect. The common factor is that, as women, they
are all constrained by “the norms, beliefs, customs and values through which
societies differentiate between women and men” (Kabeer 2000, 22). The specific
ways in which this operates vary culturally and over time. In one situation it might
reveal itself in women’s lower incomes relative to men, in another it might be seen in
the relative survival rates of girl and boy children and in a third by severe restrictions
on women’s mobility. Virtually everywhere it can be seen in domestic violence,
male-dominated decision fora and women’s inferior access to assets of many kinds.
Since gender relations vary both geographically and over time they always have
to be investigated in context. It also follows that they are not immutable. At the same
time particular manifestations of gender relations are often fiercely defended and
regarded as “natural” or God-given. While many development interventions involve
challenges to existing power relations it tends to be those which challenge power
relations between men and women which are most strongly contested.
Within the social sciences power was first typified as power over. As Robert
Dahl defined it “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something
that B would not otherwise do” (Dahl, 1957, 202-203). “In this approach, power is
understood as a product of conflicts between actors to determine who wins and who
loses on key, clearly recognised issues, in a relatively open system in which there are
established decision-making arenas”.
Stephen Lukes then suggested that perhaps “the most effective and insidious use
of power is to prevent such conflict arising in the first place” (Lukes 1974, 24). From
this perspective the powerful may win conflicts not only by doing so in open conflict
or by preventing opposing voices from being heard. They may also get their own
way by so manipulating the consciousnesses of the less powerful as to make them
incapable of seeing that a conflict exists. As Sen observes “There is much evidence
in history that acute inequalities often survive precisely by making allies out of the
deprived. The underdog comes to accept the legitimacy of the unequal order and
becomes an implicit accomplice” (Sen 1990, 26).
These three dimensions (or faces) of power over therefore consist of one party
getting their own way against the interests of another party either by winning in open
conflict, preventing their opponent being heard or preventing their potential
opponent from even realising that there is a conflict of interests. These are all
examples of a zero sum game i.e. by definition one person’s gain is another’s loss
(even if, as in the third dimension above, the loser may not even be aware of her
loss).
Other forms of power also appear in the literature where one person’s gain is not
necessarily another’s loss. These tend to be referred to as power within, power to and
power with.
Power within, for example, refers to assets such as self-esteem and self-
confidence. In a sense all power starts from here – such assets are necessary before
anything else can be achieved. “[A] woman who is subjected to violent abuse when
she expresses her own opinions may start to withhold her opinions and eventually
come to believe she has no opinions of her own. When control becomes internalised
in this way, overt use of power over is no longer necessary” (Rowlands 1998; 12).
The internalisation of such feelings of worthlessness is a well-recognised feature of
women’s oppression and therefore many development interventions seek to bring
about changes at this level.
Power with refers to collective action, recognising that more can be achieved by
a group acting together than by individuals alone. Many interventions aiming to
empower women note the importance of creating opportunities for women to spend
time with other women reflecting on their situation, recognising the strengths they do
posses and devising strategies to achieve positive change.
To develop critical minds women need a place where new ideas can be
discussed and new demands arise. For Sara Evans, the prerequisites for developing
an “insurgent collective identity” are:
• Social spaces where people can develop an independent sense of worth as
opposed to their usual status as second-class or inferior citizens
• Role models – seeing people breaking out of patterns of passivity
• An ideology that explains the sources of oppression, justifies revolt, and
imagines a qualitatively different future
• A threat to the newfound sense of self which forces the individual to confront
inherited cultural definitions
• A network through which a new interpretation can spread, activating a social
movement
UNIFEM (the United Nations Development Fund for Women) considers that
women’s economic empowerment is essential for any strategy of poverty alleviation
and defines this as “having access to and control over the means to make a living on
a sustainable and long term basis, and receiving the material benefits of this access
and control. Such a definition goes beyond short-term goals of increasing women’s
access to income and looks for longer term sustainable benefits, not only in terms of
changes to laws and policies that constrain women’s participation in and benefits
from development, but also in terms of power relationships at the household,
community and market levels.
Here empowerment is linked specifically to women and this too is now common
in development discourse. The Platform for Action and the Beijing Declaration
declares the United Nation’s determination to “intensify efforts to ensure equal
enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all women and girls
who face multiple barriers to their empowerment and advancement because of such
factors as their race, age, language, culture, religion or disability or because they are
indigenous people” (United Nations, 1985; para 32).
Empowerment is, first and foremost, about power; changing power relations in
favour of those who previously exercised little power over their own lives. Batliwala
(1993) defines power as having two central aspects -- control over resources
(physical, human, intellectual, financial, and the self), and control over ideology
(beliefs, values and attitudes). If power means control, then empowerment therefore
is the process of gaining control. An intrinsic feminist mistrust of and discomfort
with hierarchy has led to some discussion about the meaning of power itself, a
questioning of the ethics of power over others (people, Nature), and its substitution
by a notion of power as the ability to be, to express oneself. In the latter sense, the
concept of power is quite close to the notion of human capability.
One might argue that power in any one sense, extrinsic control or intrinsic
capability, can lead to the other. Control over the external world of resources also
gives one the capacity for self-expression in a variety of ways. On the other hand,
greater self-confidence and a process of inner transformation of one’s consciousness,
can enable one to overcome external barriers to accessing resources. In neither case
can there be a guarantee that power in one sense will inevitably lead to power in the
other sense, but the history of development practice on the ground has plenty of
examples of both. Many socialist transformations have started with major shifts in
control over material resources between classes in a society, and expanding there
from the capabilities and self-confidence of those who previously had been at the
bottom of the social ladder. On the other side, many development programmes which
did not attempt to challenge the larger status quo, have started by strengthening the
consciousness of people about the causes of their situation, and built on this to
transform their control over external resources.
. Empowerment is often about both groups and individuals. Because the poor
and powerless in today's world lead such fragmented and marginalized lives, group
solidarity can be a powerful fostering force. It can make people realize the wisdom
of the old fable about the bundle of sticks that is much harder to break than the single
stick. However, developing group processes through sharing visions and supporting
each other can sometimes be quite difficult especially where the pressures of intra-
group competition and rivalry are strong. Nonetheless, some of the best examples of
empowerment from many countries all have used group processes effectively to
break isolation and build strength. In some cases, such as that of the Grameen Bank,
group processes have also been used to ensure individual accountability. Individuals
tend to be more accountable to groups of their peers with whom they have to
continue to live and work, than to external agents with whom they do not have to
share their daily lives.
Empowerment as a process
The assumption that planners can identify women’s needs runs against
empowerment objectives which imply that women themselves formulate and decide
what these interests are. Planning suggests a top-down approach, and yet women
may define their interests differently from planners (Wierenga, 1994).
However, there are clearly limits on the extent to which such activities in and of
themselves can be said to be genuinely empowering. There is a tendency to assume
that increasing access to resources, or decision-making power in one area, will
necessarily carry through into other areas. It is not the delivery of credit per se, but
the context in which credit is delivered is which is vital in ensuring that women’s
control over resources and bargaining power is increased. Similarly, increased
decision-making power at individual level and greater access to economic resources
of women do not necessarily translate into greater representation or power of women
within political institutions, an area which has proved remarkably resistant to change.
Conversely, empowerment in one area cannot be sustained without attention to other
facets. Reproductive and sexual rights, for example, cannot be fully exercised where
women’s lack of independent economic resources undermines their freedom to make
choices and bargaining power.
The feminist notions of empowerment see women as acting agents and not as
beneficiaries, clients, participants, etc. and they deal with the question of power. In
analysing the literature on empowerment Jo Rowlands has made following
classifcations of power (1998):
• power over: controlling power over some one and something. Response to it
can be compliance, resistance or manipulation
• power to: generative or productive power that creates new possibilities and
actions without domination
• power with: power generating a feeling that the whole is greater than the sum
of individuals and action as a group is more effective
• power from within: a sense that there is strength that is in each and every
individual. The recognition of one´s own self-acceptance and self-respect enables the
acceptance of others as equals
Naila Kabeer (1994) subscribes not so much to „power over“ but to „power
within“ yourself that needs to be strengthened. She undertakes a deconstruction of
the notions of power and unfolds the theoretical and practical potential of
empowerment. „Power within“ needs recognition by experience and analysis of the
subordination of women. According to Kabeer, such power cannot be given, it has to
be self-generated and taken. Empowerment is a process where women are able to
change from a state of powerlessness („I cannot“) to a state of collective self-
confidence („we can“).
The political aspect involves the capacity to analyse a situation in a political and
social context. It includes the ability to organise and mobilise for social change. The
process of empowerment covers not only awareness at the individual level but also at
the collective level. This results in collective action which again is the precondition
for collective change.
Also, empowerment does not effect everyone in the same way. It is necessary to
study empowerment in relation to disempowerment. Empowerment of some can
mean disempowerment of others. Nira Yuval Davis has pointed out the problem of
conflicting interests that needs to be handled. Hence empowerment must be seen as a
relational category.
Empowerment is achieved if and when women set the agenda, organise mutual
selfhelp in the neighbourhood, group or network, demand accountability by the state
and society for change. It is the women´s needs and visions that are at the centre
point (Young 1993).
Since the beginning of the 90s with the World Conference on Environment and
Development the global perspective has become increasingly important in the
political arena. This found its reflection in the slogan „Think globally - act locally“
that initiated processes of environmental protection all over the world, but especially
in Northern countries. The accelerating process of globalisation has necessitated
local as well as global action. However, how global is „global“ though? And how
local is „local“? „Local“ could be associated with things happening in the
neighbourhood, municipality community, city or a region. But increasingly groups at
the grass-roots level in the South articulate issues that are primariliy global.
Enviromental action or activisim in free trade zones are examples of local action
with a global perspective.
On the other hand, there are groups and governments predominantly in the
North (but also in the South) that claim to have a global perspective but actually turn
out be very parochial. The Rio-Conference 1992 was supposed to be on global
environement aiming to save the planet and solve problems considered to be a
concern of the humankind as a whole. But at the same time the US President Bush
insisted that the American lifestyle is not at the disposition. In the name of global
thinking and action there was assertion of the resource consuming lifesyle affordable
to very few and at the cost of the majority of the people on earth.
Similar interpretations of the „local“ and „global“ can be found even in action of
the international women´s movement. At the Cairo-Conference, the major issue of
development was sidelined, abortion turned out to be the major issue which lead to
unholy coalitions of women from the North and the conservative forces. Women
from the South raised many issues from development, health, education to human
rights. It could be said that the Southern women were more global whereas the
Northern women were „monolithising abortion“ (Spivak 1996)
People's social movements, unlike NGO, are not constrained in this manner, and
many quite consciously set out to alter the social and political status quo. By the very
nature of their work, if successful, they tend to be large and may extend beyond
specific locales. Their strength is that they are able to go directly to the heart of the
causes of poor people's lack of power and work to transform them. But this can also
mean that they may face opposition (sometimes violent) from those who control
resources, a violence from which they may not be able to insulate their weakest and
most powerless members.
As early as 1981, Acharya and Bennett noted that status is a function of the
power attached to a given role, and because women fill a number of roles, it may be
misleading to speak of “the status of women” (p. 3). Another early writer on the
topic, Mason (1986), pointed out that the phenomenon of gender inequality is
inherently complex, that men and women are typically unequal in various ways, and
that the nature or extent of their inequality in different settings can vary across these
different dimensions (as well by social setting and stage in the life cycle). Since that
time, a number of studies have shown that women may be empowered in one area of
life while not in others (Malhotra and Mather 1997; Kishor 1995 and 2000b;
Hashemi et al. 1996; Beegle et al. 1998). Thus it should not be assumed that if a
development intervention promotes women’s empowerment along a particular
dimension that empowerment in other areas will necessarily follow. It may or may
not.
Most-Frequently-Used Indicators
Domestic decision-making
Finances, resource allocation, spending, expenditures
Social and domestic matters (e.g., cooking)
Child-related issues (e.g., well-being, schooling, health)
Mobility/freedom of movement
Less-Frequently-Used Indicators
Management/knowledge
Farm management
Accounting knowledge
Managerial control of loan
Public space
Political participation (e.g., public protests, political campaigning)
Confidence in community actions
Development of social and economic collective
Marriage/kin/social support
Traditional support networks
Social status of family of origin
Assets brought to marriage
Control over choosing a spouse
Couple interaction
Couple communication
Negotiation and discussion of sex
Appreciation in household
Dimensions of Empowerment
Proposed by Selected Authors
CIDA 1996 Legal empowerment
Political empowerment
Economic empowerment
Social empowerment
1. Welfare: this addresses only the basic needs of women, without recognising
or attempting to solve the underlying structural causes which necessitate provision of
welfare services. Women are merely passive beneficiaries of welfare benefits.
4. Participation: this is the point where women take decisions equally alongside
men. Mobilisation is necessary in order to reach this level. Women will be
empowered to gain increased representation, by organising themselves and working
collectively, which will lead to increased empowerment and ultimately greater
control.
• To what degree are women aware of local politics, and their legal rights?
Are women more or less aware than men? Does this differ by socio-economic
grouping, age or ethnicity? Is this changing over time?
• Do women and men perceive that they are becoming more empowered?
Why?
• Do women perceive that they now have greater economic autonomy?
Why?
• Are changes taking place in the way in which decisions are made in the
household, and what is the perceived impact of this?
• Do women make decisions independently of men in their household? What
sort of decisions are made independently?
References
Acharya, Meena, and Lynn Bennett. 1983. Women and the Subsistence Sector:
Economic Participation and Household Decision-making in Nepal. Working Paper
Number 526. Washington: World Bank.
Agarwal, Bina. 1997. “Bargaining and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond
the Household.” Food Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper No. 27.
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Bardham, Kalpana, and Stephan Klasen. 1999. “UNDP’s Gender-Related
Indices: A Critical Review.” World Development 27(6):985-986.
Basu, Alaka Malwade and Kaushik Basu. 1991. “Women’s Economic Roles and
Child Survival: the Case of India.” Health Transition Review 1(1): ???.
Bennett, Lynn. 2002. Using Empowerment and Social Inclusion for Pro-poor
Growth: A Theory of Social Change. Working Draft of Background Paper for the
Social Development Strategy Paper. Washington: World Bank.
Aithal, Vathsala (ed.) (1996): Vielfalt als Stärke: Beijing 1995 (Diversity seen
as strength), epd-Materialien, II / 1996
Athreya, V.B. and Chunkath, S.R. 1996 Literacy and Empowerment, New
Delhi, Sage Publications
Batliwala, S. 1993 “Empowerment of women in South Asia: concepts and
practices”, (second draft), Asian-South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1970) Power and Poverty: Theory and
Practice. New York: Oxford University Press
Sen, G. 1995 “National development and local environmental action: the case of
the river The North, the South and the Environment: Ecological Constraints and the
Global Economy (eds) V. Bhaskar and A. Glyn
Freire, A. and Macedo, D. (Eds) (1998) The Paulo Freire Reader. New York:
Continuum
Sen, Gita. 1993. Women’s Empowerment and Human Rights: The Challenge to
Policy. Paper presented at the Population Summit of the World’s Scientific
Academies.
Sen, Gita and Caren Grown. 1987. Development, Crises, and Alternative
Visions: Third World Women’s Perspectives. New York: Monthly Review Press.
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 1999. Human Rights for Children
and Women: How UNICEF Helps Make Them a Reality. Available on-line at
www.unicef.org/pubsgen/humanrights-children/index.html.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1995. Human Development
Report 1995: Gender and Development. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press.