Household and Gender Dynamics in Pastoral Mongolia

A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the

University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

In the Department of Anthropology in the College

of Arts and Sciences

Alexander Golubski

B.A. Anthropology The Ohio State University

A.A. Liberal Arts Cuyahoga Community College

Committee Chair: Daniel Murphy, Ph.D.

Committee Member: Leila Rodriguez, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

After 1991 when Mongolia’s socialist era ended, the state implemented neoliberal and free market reforms, which shifted from a centrally planned economy, to a capitalistic system containing free markets and state financial deregulation. Land, resources, and other monetary and fiscal assets were privatized for nomadic herder families, which no longer had to produce for the negdel (state controlled herding collectives). The state granted herders ownership of their resources and allowed them to pursue their own interests. Presently, herding families are experiencing a loss of physical labor and social support within their households. This is attributed to state policy interests, which are focused on the development of urban cities, neglecting the needs of rural communities. This thesis research is focused on the changing household and gender dynamics of nomadic Mongolian families, and how their livelihoods are negatively impacted by the divorce of state social and financial support. I examined why nomadic families are choosing to separate their households as such: men will remain at their primary household, while women leave the primary household and migrate to a secondary household located in larger urban centers with their children for the duration of the school year

(September to June), for the benefit of their children’s educational opportunities that promise a diversity of career opportunities. However, this causes financial strain for families because families assume the burden of paying for a secondary household and cannot equally distribute household labor among all members. Families experience emotional anxiety while living separated, which attributes to domestic violence, divorce, alcohol abuse, and adultery. I also examined how nomadic households perceive the current state of herding customs and practices, and the outlook that they have for the next generation of herders.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Daniel Murphy and Dr. Leila Rodriguez for their support during the crafting of this thesis. I want to thank Dr. Murphy for providing the opportunity to travel to Mongolia to conduct my research, and Byamba, Batdavaa, and Gan-

Ochir, my Mongolian colleagues and friends who provided valuable insight and assistance during my research. I also want to thank all of the professors in the Department of Anthropology, and fellow graduate students, who were always supportive of my research and career endeavors and pushed me to succeed in my classes. This research would have not been possible without the generous support of the Summer Fellowship from the Charles Phelps Taft Research Center, at the University of Cincinnati. Lastly, I want to thank my family and friends who have always supported me throughout my life, they are the true reason for my success.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv INTRODUCTION...... 1 BACKGROUND ...... 3 METHODS ...... 6 RESULTS ...... 9 Interview Responses and Analysis ...... 10 Household and Gender Dynamics...... 10 Split-Households ...... 16 CONCLUSION ...... 27 REFERENCES ...... 29

INTRODUCTION

This research concerns the livelihoods of Mongolian pastoralists and focuses specifically on shifts in household and gender practices, and the social dynamics of dual residence households (i.e. split households). Yet, little has been noted in the literature how household and gender practices are shifting, why nomadic families are choosing to separate their households

(see Plueckhahn and Bumochir 2018 for an exception), and how this will affect the future of pastoralism in Mongolia. To better understand changing gender and household practices and the social and economic dynamics of dual residence householding, I conducted interviews with male and female household heads in a remote pastoral region of western Mongolia.

In 1924, the MPRP (Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party) established the Mongolian

People’s Republic, a satellite state of the Soviet Union. By the late 1950s, under socialist rule, pastoralists were organized in collectives (negdel) operated by the state. With land and livestock owned by the state’s collectives, herders were subsidized for their labor rather than competing against each other as independent agents to obtain wealth (Bold 1996). During this period, families and their immediate kin lived in household groups known as khot ail, which is still practiced today (Bold 1996). After 1991, communist rule was dissolved, democratic and free-market reforms were implemented by the state, and collectives were disbanded (Janes and

Chuluundorj 2016).

As neoliberal state policies continued to be implemented after 1991, dependence on collectives shifted toward independent households, who continue to struggle to secure their livelihood needs in the face of social and economic insecurities (Murphy 2015; Bold 1996).

Much of this has been due to a major shift from a formal state support system, mainly through the collectives (negdel), to an informal support system dependent largely on kin and non-kin

relationships (Murphy 2015; Bold 1996). As precarities continue to grow and widen, households must change to meet changing household needs (Ellis 2000); however, in

Mongolia, many nomadic families are struggling to adapt to these shifts. As feminist studies of household economies and gender practices have demonstrated, male and female heads of households may not only perform different labor tasks but also may have different goals and aims as household members (Hodgson 2000; Wilk 1997; Yuval-Davis 1997). Consequently, as households in Mongolia continue to adapt and respond to the increasing neoliberalization of the pastoral economy, intrahousehold gender dynamics are also likely to be changing. As such, this study explores ways in which rural, pastoral households are changing, specifically the growing practice of dual residence households or split households and the implications of this practice for gender dynamics.

BACKGROUND

During the pre-collective era in Mongolia, land and resources were controlled through a feudal administrative system that was controlled by ruling dynasties (Bruun and Odgaard 1996). The

Qing dynasty was the last dynasty to rule until it dissolved in 1911, removing Outer Mongolia from Chinese influence and control. In 1921, Outer Mongolia experienced a social revolution, finalizing in 1924. This revolution modeled and restructured the nation into socialist practices based off of the Soviet Union, who greatly influenced and maintained a partnership with Outer

Mongolia until its collapse in 1991. Land and resources were controlled by the state, which organized herders into collectives referred to as negdel (Ressel 2005). In the negdel, livestock was owned by the state, and herders worked to produce for the state, providing the resources and assets that were needed. After 1991, the socialist collectives were dissolved and livestock were privatized. Through free market reforms, herders were now able to own livestock assets but they also were now exposed to the risks of herding in a harsh environment (Bruun and Odgaard

1996). Inspired by neoliberal thought, the state shifted from a centrally planned economy to a capital system with free markets and financial deregulation. Yet, this has continued to cause problems for the livelihoods of the nomadic herders. The lack of distribution of state funds to rural populations, coupled with conflict over land management and resources among herders have increased rural insecurity.

These changes have also greatly impacted household economies and the dynamics within and between them. It is important, then, to note how Mongolian kinship is organized, as that provides the basis for the cultural perceptions and practices discussed in subsequent sections.

Mongolian kinship is organized bilaterally, and is categorized in groups of patrilateral, matrilateral, and affinal kin (Sneath 2000; Bulag 1998) with a strong focus on patrilineal descent.

Generally, kin, and in some circumstances including pre-collective era non-kin, lived in groups of ger (nomadic houses) together, known as a khot-ail (Sneath 2000). The khot-ail is important in

Mongolian nomadic society because kin and non-kin members work together and rely upon each other for social and financial support. The current neoliberal practices of livestock ownership and community land management parallels in many ways the pre-collective feudal state where formal avenues of state support have now been replaced with informal kin and non-kin support structures (Park 2003; Sneath 2000; Bruun and Odgaard 1996). However, many households now find themselves highly atomized and isolated despite these kin networks and having to make critical decisions independently.

Each household consists of a ger (nomadic household), with a stove in the center of the structure that includes a chimney venting outside. The stove is fueled with dried cow or yak dung that is collected by both male and female household members and stored outside the ger for future use. The stove is not only used for cooking purposes, but to also bring warmth inside the ger during the winter months. Each ger also consists of two or more beds, two or more cupboards for cooking utensils and storage, dressers and chests for storage, several tables and chairs, and a television with a satellite dish outside the ger, powered by an automobile battery that is recharged with a solar panel that is placed on top of the ger roof.

Within households, men and women both participate in herding, however, there are various labor tasks within the household that are divided by gender. Men are responsible for herding, and disseminating that knowledge to their children, which includes horseback riding, animal husbandry (animal breeding and care), campsite selection, making financial household decisions jointly with their wives, and providing gifts and hospitality for guests and ceremonial events. Men are also responsible for the slaughter and butchering of their livestock for personal

and consumer use (Sneath 2000; Bold 1996). Women prepare and cook food for their household, shear the livestock for wool during the summer season, and milk the livestock for various dairy products for personal and consumer use. Men also assist in shearing, a task where all household members participate in. Women perform the majority of childcare tasks though some share with their husbands, as well as provide gifts and hospitality for guests and assist their husbands in ceremonial events. Children also assist with tasks of food preparation, cooking, shearing, slaughtering, herding, and ceremonial events. These household labor tasks are vital for stability in a nomadic family’s livelihood. Without every household member’s contributions and physical presence within the household, this causes social and economic strain. In the results discussed below I explore how the decision to split households leads to substantial social and economic strain and poses considerable risks to the future of pastoralism.

METHODS

Figure 1. Map of Zavkhan province, note Otgon county at bottom right.

I gathered the data examined here by conducting interviews with a sample of household heads from rural Mongolian herding families living in Buyant district, part of Otgon county, in

Zavkhan province (22 households). The province is located in the remote central western region of Mongolia on the southwest side of the Khangai mountain range. The area of Otgon consists of dry desert steppe and alpine valley and is famous within Mongolia as the location of Mongolia’s second most spiritually significant mountain, Otgon Uul, an area administered as a national park.

Despite its significance it is remote – approximately 978 km from Ulaanbaatar by a 24-hour bus ride and 6-8-hour jeep ride from Uliastai, the provincial capital of Zavkhan. The county of Otgon has a registered population of 3,478 and has a primary school, a bank, shops, a gas station, and government offices. Most registered residents do not live in the county, however, as many work and live in Uliastai, the provincial capital and Ulaanbaatar. Buyant district is the most northerly

district and stretches into the Tarvagatai Mountains. Aside from a small bag center consisting of a couple buildings, district residents are all mobile pastoralists.

I conducted the interviews between June 25, 2018, and July 11, 2018, along with four additional research team members consisting of my thesis advisor Dr. Daniel Murphy,

Byambabaatar Ichinkhorloo, a professor of anthropology at the National University of Mongolia, and two of his graduate students. The data included in this thesis came from interviews I conducted with the translation assistance of two National University of Mongolia anthropology graduate students. It also includes observations of interactions within households and natural conversations through field notes. Additionally, from documenting our interactions within the households that we surveyed, I recorded the material possessions and layout of the households, documenting where material possessions were placed and arranged, and any labor tasks that were being practiced while the questionnaire and interviews were being conducted. When the research was concluded, I compared my data results from my field observations and interviews, with

Mongolian pastoralist literature to discuss shifts in gender and household dynamics, and split- households.

For this research, I conducted a total of 22 semi-structured interviews with male and female household heads that discussed their perceptions of how they believed pastoral households and gender roles were changing in Mongolia. Interview questions and responses were translated in vivo by the research assistants and each interview lasted approximately 20-40 minutes. The digitally recorded interviews were transcribed and translated from Mongolian to

English with the assistance of my Mongolian colleagues and Dr. Murphy. I then coded and analyzed the translated English transcriptions using Dedoose software.

The interview questions covered topics including their experience with motherhood and fatherhood, the characteristics of ideal fathers and mothers, and how they believed those roles have shifted through time. Herders were also asked if they split their households or resources seasonally, and why they made this decision. This included discussion of the factors that drive household separation and migration, and any assistance they receive during their separation, from kin and non-kin community members. Herders also discussed their perspectives concerning the future state of nomadic customs and practices. Participants were also asked if they had any suggestions that could mitigate the impacts of the social and financial issues surrounding split- households, and potential avenues that would allow herding to be a successful future practice, which are discussed in the results section. The household heads that were interviewed varied in ages, ranging from their early 20’s to over 70 years old. Interview selections were chosen to include a diversity of age ranges to compare differing perspectives and life experiences.

As discussed in the results section, participants’ responses gave valuable insight about the social issues their community experiences, including an interview from the Buyant district governor, where she shared her perspectives about split-households and gender and household dynamics.

For each interview that was conducted, a different research team member would assist with the translation of the interviews. A household list was obtained with permission from the Otgon deputy county governor containing a list of residents living in Buyant district, which is under the jurisdiction of Otgon county, where the research was conducted. The names of the research participants are withheld to ensure anonymity for their protection.

RESULTS

From the 22 semi-structured interviews that were conducted, male and female household heads were asked questions about the importance of motherhood and fatherhood, and how those practices have changed over time. Male and female household heads were asked about their perceptions of split-households, including why families choose to split their households, what are factors that cause families to split their households, and what were potential solutions they believed could help mitigate the socio-economic impacts of split-households on family members, and the future of herding in Mongolia. Selecting participants from diverse age backgrounds grants diverse perspectives from different life experiences. Interviews were coded into themes using Dedoose software as such: parent-child relationships, comparisons of social and financial support during socialist and neo-liberal eras, intra-household gender dynamics, issues surrounding split households, and social cooperation with both kin and non-kin. During the interviews, husbands and wives were generally both present in their ger (nomadic household) and were asked the same questions from the interview excerpt listed below. Household male and female heads were asked to share their perspectives by answering the following interview questions:

1. What does a good father and husband do? How have these roles changed over time?

2. What does a good mother and wife do? How have these roles changed over time?

3. What have you noticed in your life when living apart? Living together?

4. What factors made you decide to live separately?

5. How often do you interact with each other when living separated; in-person and not

in-person interactions?

6. Who do you rely upon when living separately for support?

7. How do you feel about the increase in women’s leadership in the home and

community?

8. What are the factors that you believe contribute to this increase?

Interview Responses and Analysis

Listed below are main socio-cultural themes created from the sub-themes that I coded with using Dedoose. The sub-themes that I created as codes (parent-child relationships, governmental comparisons of social and financial support during socialist and neo-liberal eras, household and gender dynamics, the issues surrounding split households, and social cooperation between kin and non-kin members) in my analysis translated to two major themes which are discussed in further detail below: 1) household and gender dynamics and 2) split households.

These themes explored the current practices of pastoral Mongolian households and families, shifting perceptions of gender and household practices, broader social concerns, and reasons for and causes of split-household decision making.

Household and Gender Dynamics

When household heads were asked about their perceptions of motherhood, fatherhood, and the importance of what a good husband and wife do, and how they believed those roles have changed over time, responses were highly diverse. Male household heads stated that they believed fathers should be a beacon of support for their family and have a responsibility of passing down the herding skills that they learned to their children, where knowledge is transferred through observation and practice, rather than verbally. Fathers believed to be responsible for teaching children strong ‘Mongol’ morals and values that would benefit

Mongolian society more broadly, echoing support for an ideal ethno-nationalist conscience that supports the concept of a undifferentiated and essentialized Mongolian citizenry (see Bille 2015

and Upton 2008). The father is expected to set moral and ethical standards including his actions where he is the example for his family to emulate from. Men described the importance of herding knowledge and cultural values that were passed on to them from their parents, and teaching them to their children. A father is expected to instill herding practices and values to their family, the stability and anchor figure of the household.

However, some male household heads believe that because of the current practices of

Mongolia’s economic and political structures, that fathers are unable to provide the care that is expected of them, for their herd and their families. They believe capitalism negatively affects the practices of Mongolian fatherhood because people pursue their own interests to benefit their own livelihoods, rather than caring for other community and family members (Karplus and Meir

2013; Carney and Watts 1990). This was believed to be different during Mongolia’s socialist era, emphasizing a collective rather than individualistic mindset, as stated by this male herder:

“In my time a father’s role was to raise children and instruct them how to work and

become a person who is helpful to society, that’s all. We instructed children deeply to

have a highly social mindset. Now this consciousness is undergoing social change and if

one wants, they can just think about themselves, but before, we united together.”

Further, older male household heads explained that during Mongolia’s socialist era, the social and financial hardships that families experience today did not exist, due to state government employment and subsidies, including herding for the negdel (government sanctioned herding collectives). As an older male herder explained:

“In the past people really loved animals. Now many people just want to live in a city,

they are lazy (zalxuu) and want to live easy. In the past people followed animals now it’s

different, there are fewer people who really want to become a herder. Maybe it is because

the government is not supporting them with things, including not enough effort teaching

them about herding like in the past. If they gave that kind of support, we would have

many young people here.”

With the lack of government support for herder livelihoods and a growing sense of individualism across Mongolia migration trends have increased from rural to urban areas with promises of better employment and livelihood opportunities (IOM 2018). It is not surprising then that rural men perceive these links to the role of men within families.

Female household head responses varied across the age spectrum concerning what they believed was an ideal mother and wife, and how they felt those ideals have changed. Younger women believed that being a good mother means loving and supporting your family and ensuring that your children will grow to have much strength, prosperity, and good character. Younger and older female household heads believe that good mothers and wives need to be assertive with their household decision making and labor practices. They also discussed importance of managing domestic labor, including childcare, milking, shearing animal wool, and preparing dairy products, tasks perceived to be within the domestic sphere (see also Jones 2006, and Naess

2012). More interestingly, as I observed while administering the survey questionnaire, and conducting interviews, women from all age ranges stated that it is important to assist their husbands with financial decision making, also having an equal if not final authority over fiscal management decisions. Sounder forms of fiscal management were believed to have been practiced when families are able to live together, not only due to the cost of a second household, but because when families are together all year round, female household heads stated their difficulties about not being able to monitor their husband’s financial actions due to physical absence. Female household heads mentioned that husbands will increase their consumption of

alcohol and tobacco, allocating their fiscal assets to what was believed to be less useful consumable commodities.

Female household heads emphasized the importance of a unified family and described how household separation can cause the husband to become depressed, turn to alcohol, and, even in some instances, possibly commit domestic violence or adultery. Female household heads believed that it’s difficult to be a good mother and wife when you are not around your husband all year, and that it can be very difficult to raise the children without the assistance of the husband. In both the socialist era and in the current neoliberal era women were seen as caregivers and nurturers, similar to what feminist scholars refer to as ‘universal cultural perceptions of women’ (Yuval-Davis 2010; Collier and Yanagisako 1987). Yet, domestic economic functions were much more highly valued in socialism with greater rates of pay, recognition, and broad societal recognition and women had greater access to education and political representation and power. Conversely, women stated that in the neoliberal era (zax zeelin uye or ‘age of the market’) they are currently devalued by Mongolia’s political and economic practices. Women stated that the practice of motherhood is at risk and the social structures of Mongolian families are at risk of being dissolved because of capitalism and rampant individualism, as this female herder stated:

“In the past women were really hard working for her husband and children. It seems now

that you can’t really tend to your home, your kids, and family because of all these

information technologies (i.e. distractions) and your housework is always unfinished. We

have to get that mentality back. We don’t have the family management programs to help

us with that, but I would like to do something like that.”

As she explains, development and technological changes, manifestations of global capital, have altered people’s perceptions of motherhood and fatherhood practices, and cultural beliefs, which herders attribute to having negative societal impacts as people are believed to be motivated to benefit their own well-being and desires, rather than benefiting fellow community members (see also Bumochir and Plueckhahn 2018). This excerpt suggests that mothers and fathers become detached from their households and families for pursuit of their individualistic interests, encouraged by current the absence of governmental support. Another excerpt from a female herder that describes people’s changing attitudes and practices states:

“In socialist times everyone was pushed to work hard and consequently everyone learned

how to live correctly with livestock. We knew with what to do with wool or water, etc.;

the state gave us these norms but now this is gone. Now you milk cows when you like or

quit when you don’t feel like combing goats. Now, there is no work ethic, as people

aren’t capable of doing the labor. In my opinion its dehumanizing.”

This excerpt describes people’s attitudes and beliefs during the socialist era to consist of a collective conscience, where people assisted each other not for the benefit of themselves, but their community. Herding requires all household members to contribute labor and social support and assets for livelihood sustainability. It was believed that during the socialist era, that the state was the lifeline of support for pastoralists and promoted work ethic and virtues that aligned with nomadic customs and practices. This herder is also stating that in the current context of

Mongolia’s neoliberal governmental practices, people display a lack of work ethic and interest for nomadic customs and culture. Without governmental interest and support in pastoralism, this herder believes that there is a loss of interest in the continuation of herding customs and practices, possibly leading to the collapse of pastoralism. The herder referred to the current

practices as being ‘dehumanizing’ because the state does not support nomadic families socially and financially, leading to their suffering.

An excerpt from an interview with the female Buyant district governor shows how family structure and nomadic cultural practices are at risk due to neoliberal government policies that abandon financial and social support to nomadic households. This is coupled with herder’s perceptions of the loss of women with the support they provide in nomadic households, leading to future household disintegration. Split-households, described in the subsequent section, removes women from their households attributing to social and financial losses that nomadic families experience, as stated by the Buyant district governor:

“There is no next generation of herders. As soon as they graduate from school, they go

directly to Ulaanbaatar. In winter times there are only 45-54 household in the

countryside, and the youngest herders are about 30 years old. Yesterday you saw, it’s all

men out there and women are always thinking about how they will get out of the

countryside. In order to have people living and working on this beautiful healthy

Mongolian steppe of ours we need to see these people return, there has to be a new

generation. What is most concerning to young herders is inheriting wisdom from our

fathers, from our ancestors, those who have been successful herders. There is so much

worry among the youth. But there is also this problem with young people who are

unmarried. Without a wife or women, men start drinking, commit crimes, and it leads

them to bad things. We have to find a way to bring women back.”

This belief challenges the very practice and continuity of Mongolian pastoralism, suggesting that because of an increase in migration from rural to urban areas, herding will become obsolete. If families are separating their households and shifting their career interests, the practice of herding

could potentially cease. A family is believed to lose its morality when it is separated and cannot disseminate herding practices and customs to younger family members to replicate for future generations, attributed to the loss of women in nomadic households.

Split-Households

Separated households, referred to as split-households, occur when female household heads leave their pastoral campsites (nutag) in the countryside (xuduu) and take their children to a larger populated center (usually county or provincial centers) typically for schooling opportunities. The male household head remains alone at his family’s campsites in the countryside for the duration of the school year, from September until June. This poses a number of considerable problems both for the countryside and town resident household members. For instance, in the countryside, pastoral migrations including long-distance movements during disasters called dzud subject herders to hazardous conditions during the winter months, as temperatures can drop to -45 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. In the town, separation can produce anxiety and tension. An example of a male herder stating the difficulties of mobility said:

“Our daughter will enter 5th grade soon. It is hard to split between the county center and

country side so, we’re planning to stay in the countryside and our daughter will stay in

the county center with another family. It’s hard to leave your daughter to another family

but there is no better way.”

Here the herder describes the length they would go to ensure future success for their children including entrusting the care of their daughter to another a non-kin family in a different geographical location. Though the husband and wife are able to live with each other, neither the father nor mother will be living with their daughter while she attends school. The distance is further challenged by the difficulty of traveling to visit their daughter, as weather conditions,

household responsibilities, and monetary possessions hinder the ability of traveling (Field Notes

2018). Nevertheless, this herder sees household separation as the only viable option for the benefit of his child’s future, as education is believed to ensure future livelihood sustainability, offering diverse pathways for economic and social success away from the countryside.

Both male and female household heads criticized current state policies for not providing housing assistance for children and families, situating the financial burden on families to absorb the costs of paying for a secondary household. For example, as one female herder stated when asked about the burdens of paying for two households:

“Of course, it causes a particular degree of risk and frustration in the life of herders. For

example, divided families will eat meal in 2 different places that simply doubles the

expense of family. However, it might be not a big thing for rich people.”

Wealthier families did not report a financial burden for maintaining the cost of two households likely because many elect to move to a county or provincial center and hire a herder to supervise their livestock in their absence, a viable option because of their assets (Field Notes 2018).

During the socialist era, in areas without mobile kindergartens and schools the state government provided dormitory housing for children to stay, allowing the husband and wife to live together for uninterrupted periods, as dormitories provided by the state assumed the role of parenthood for the duration of the school year (Dyer 2012). As one male herder stated:

“When I was a kid there were this sort of split thing. Parents put their children with their

relatives or at the dorm. And we just visit our kids once a month or something like that.

But now it is different, parents must live apart because of their kid’s school. If the

government would build a school in countryside it might change, I think.”

Evidently, household separation did occur during the socialist era, however, only children would leave their family, migrating to a county or provincial center for schooling.

Children began school at the age of 7 or 8 during the socialist era (Dyer 2012). At those ages, families believed that children would be able to independently take care of themselves without continuous support and supervision from their parents. Including state government support, this eased the tensions and burdens of childcare, including social and financial costs.

Presently, children begin school at the age of 6 (UNESCO 2018), and herders believe that children are unable to care of themselves without the supervision and guidance of their parents.

Dormitories that once resided in the various governmental level centers during the socialist era were no longer maintained after socialism ended in 1991 and mobile kindergartens and schools were shut down (Dorjdagva et al. 2015; Dyer 2012). Household heads stated that if dormitories were still provided in the county or provincial level centers, or if families received subsidies to pay for the cost of a second household, this would reduce the socio-economic burdens that families experienced. Older male household heads stated that because young husbands are by themselves during the winter months supervising their herds (unless families have decided to hire a herder) problems of alcoholism, domestic violence, and adultery have become increasing likely (Ahearn and Bumochir 2016; Demaio et al. 2013). Male and female household heads stated that because families struggle to live together continuously, the separation creates a dynamic where husbands and wives become emotionally distant from each other, as noted in this excerpt from this male herder:

“Young families are splitting just after 6 year when their kids have to start school. Wives

are in the center and husbands are in the countryside with many animals, which really

increases the risk of death. Because of living separate there are tons of cases of diverse

and conflict between them.”

As another female herder stated: “No one likes to live separately and that leads to arguments, jealousy, suspicion, and so on.” This male herder refers to risk of death from dzud, natural disasters that devastate livestock populations from extreme drought during the summer or cold during the winter, which this male herder is referring to the difficulties of one person supervising an entire herd in the frigid winter conditions. One person is unable to adequately care for a herd as they are by themselves, this usually requires participation from all members of a household, but because families are separated during the winter months, this is unachievable.

Male and female household heads also linked this phenomenon to the broader fracturing brought by the decreasing state support of the education system and pastoral economy more broadly. As one male herder argued:

“I think about it a lot. Kids are starting school too soon, even some of them are still breastfeeding, so kids have to stay with their mothers.1 For the herders their most valuable thing is their animals, so they split. After socialism, in the free market economy, people started to think about only money. It doesn’t matter if you’re in the countryside or city. For example, even in cities people are going overseas and families are splitting. Our education system has become really bad.”

This excerpt refers to Mongolian education, state support, and split-households during the socialist era. With the lack of social and financial support for nomadic families because of current neoliberal practices, it is a current driver for migration. Migratory practices are common, with the belief that mobility will increase their financial assets, as this herder believes that people

1 It is not uncommon for Mongolian mothers to continue breastfeeding until the age of 5 or 6.

are very individualistic, and do not care about the well-being of fellow community members

(Mearns 2004). Migration to urban areas is believed to offer a stable and prosperous livelihood through education, and this herder believes that people are willing to abandon their nomadic lifestyle to pursue these interests (see also Dorjdagva et al. 2015).

An issue that household members discussed was the lack of care and interest from government officials, referring to state policies, that are divorced from the Mongolian countryside as in this example from a female herder:

“I think that government should focus more on the country side that could build schools

which are close and easy for the children of herders. In the past schools were in the

countryside. I was a teacher at district or countryside school for 13 years and there were

80 households, but teenagers went to the province…I think small, good quality schools at

the bag would be really good solution of this problem. And the timing of school vacation

should be different in the city and countryside because in the countryside, kids can go

back to their parents to help in the springtime, I think. And in the state parliament there

are no herders compared to the past, which means there is no one to represent us at a state

level.”

From the excerpt stated above, it is believed that policy makers do not entirely provide any beneficial insight for pastoralist policymaking because their personal backgrounds are not from herding backgrounds, therefore lacking experience. Male and female household heads stated that this is detrimental to the livelihoods of pastoralists, and a contributing factor of why pastoral families continue to suffer, as stated in the above quote. This quote is also referring to the divorce of state power from the pastoral economy, which was supported during the socialist era (Upton 2008; Humphrey and Sneath 1999). Mongolian state power is focused on policy-

making for the development of urban areas, forcing an increasing trend in migration from rural to urban areas (IOM 2018).

Along with the stressors of household separation that contribute to household disintegration, male and female household heads repeatedly stated the importance of education for their children’s future livelihoods, viewing it as a major contributor for their success.

Families appear willing to sacrifice the well-being of their own livelihoods to ensure their children have a successful future; for example, by incurring expenses for a second household in a larger district center for their children’s schooling or by hiring herders so that the husband is able to be with his family or relying on kin and non-kin members for social and financial support.

Establishing a second residence also comes with its own anxieties as a older herder explained:

“Usually they are not coming for advice, but I am always giving advice to them.

Something simple to do when you go to county center, I’ll say “Stay with this type of

family because even in county center neighboring families should be good.” Of course, I

tell them it is bad if they drink alcohol all the time.”

Each nomadic household consists of several items including a ger, two beds, two or more cupboards to store cooking and eating utensils, and other household items, storage dressers, wooden tables and chairs, and a stove in the center of the ger. Some wealthier families had two gers, one for where the family resides, and a smaller one for food preparation and cooking. Most residents that I observed in the Buyant district had only one ger present, as they stressed how costly it was to maintain a second household from afar for when families would separate. For wealthier families, the cost of a second household was not a viewed as a concern or burden but rather a gainful opportunity (Murphy 2015). Wealthier families that owned secondary property used it not only for personal use but financial gain. By renting or selling property to other

families in need, they profit from the transactions, while poorer families suffer and are often in a perpetual cycle of money loan debt (Murphy 2018). All of the 22 households that I interviewed stated that they possess active loans from banks to pay for the cost of a secondary household, and livestock purchases.

In some cases all family members move but if a family moves to a county center, or other district center, they will have to rely on hired herders to supervise their livestock in their absence, which is an expensive labor cost that can greatly diminished their financial assets, or a very risky option as its difficult to supervise the herder. As this male herder explained:

“Those families are always going back and forth, so it’s almost like not actually staying

in country side but also not in the county center. Even though they might not move it is a

trouble to families at the center. So, it is better to leave their animals to good hired

herders. Or a husband might want to see his wife and kids, so they ask their neighboring

households to look after their animals for a week, but then he [herder] doesn’t return in

time. It causes a lot of trouble to neighboring herders because they cannot look after a

huge number of animals. Herders with fewer animals can usually leave their animals

because of small number. But then they go to the center and drink. On the other hand,

herders with lot of animals are too busy so there is no time to drink. So, they must leave

their animals to a trustworthy man.”

Clearly there are risks associated with hired herding beyond the direct labor costs, including trustworthiness, knowledge, and punctuality (Murphy 2015). Herders are concerned for the well-being of their livestock as that is their means of income generation, and regardless of monetary promises made between herders, livestock are at risk of being neglected due to carelessness, inattention, or inexperience. The herders in the excerpt below emphasize that

household livelihoods are most sustainable when all members are present, without the separation of women from the household (see also Jones 2006). The benefits of living together were emphasized by this male herder as such:

“There are many advantages of living together. At a minimum you can get a full night of

sleep, and without worry, she is there for you. When my wife goes, I can’t get out of the

house [because of work]. Together, the work will be divided and that is a good sign of

course. She will make food, sew, milk cows while I am herding animals.”

Both excerpts emphasize that labor allocation is divided and balanced among family members when living together, as the wife and children are present with the husband in the household. In this case a single household member does not bear the burden of all of the household labor tasks when families are able to live together. When separated, more work is required to be performed by each household member as the economies of scale are reduced. With less household members present, time is allocated inefficiently to care for household needs, leading to the neglect of important productive and reproductive household tasks.

Split-householding is perceived by families as a strategic choice for quality educational access, promising greater opportunities for the current generation than what previous generations may have had access to, with some responses stating that they would prefer their children to leave herding entirely. However, household members stated that unemployment rates are still high for people that receive college degrees (IOM 2018), as unemployed college graduates will return to their nomadic communities and aid their family households with herding, household and income generation labor. As one male herder argued:

“If they are not working then they should come back to country side to their parents to

herd animals and should start a family. My daughter came back after her graduation and

started herding which is good. Right now, there are many elders herding their animals all

four seasons, but youngsters should do this work if they are not working in the center.”

This excerpt also alludes to the expectation of the continuity of Mongolian nomadic customs and culture, as family members are expected to return to herding as a career if no other viable alternative is obtained through their educational background. This herder is also describing the difficulties placed upon the community when younger members are absent, as older community members who lack other viable options are still required to herd to maintain their livelihoods, which can pose a threat to their physical health.

Though education does not guarantee a path to employment, it is still viewed as a positive aspect for people’s livelihoods, a potential for livelihood diversification if a person chooses to herd or not as stated in this excerpt by a female herder:

“It is like a plan B. If scary things happen, they can just go to UB (Ulaanbaatar) to work

because they have professional skills. But for us herders we are like, ‘what will we do!’.

For them, there is no worry after they graduate. That is what we teach the kids when they

come back on vacation.”

This herder perceives education as more than a livelihood diversification strategy but also as a risk management one, allowing people to flexibly adapt in the face of adversity. They believe that herding is a much more vulnerable livelihood as livestock are the only asset for their livelihood (see also Borgerhoff et al. 2010). So even though herders still stated that education attainment did not guarantee employment in sectors outside of herding (and noted that people still remain unemployed or return to their families to herd), the flexibility and adaptability provided by education is viewed positively as a worthwhile and necessary investment.

Nevertheless, there is still a broad undercurrent of discontent among families surrounding educational attainment because of the uncertainties for their children’s futures, and how it conflicts with herding lifestyles, for example this male herder stated:

“In the past everything was so much better living the real, genuine herding life under one

roof. Now in this ‘modern’ age, we live on two sides and for men, we spend all day

herding and come home but there is no food, the ger is cold, and life is difficult. This

truly is the biggest challenge in pastoralism today.”

Although the herder in the excerpt above may have a somewhat idealistic view of pastoralism in the past and though children did separate from their parents during the socialist era for schooling, herders in Otgon, both men and women, young and old, expressed substantial social distress with the current challenges they face in maintaining split-households. Moreover, they also clearly articulate these challenges as distinct from the challenges of the past and their linkage to both the economic impacts of the neoliberal transition and broader governmental policy (Benwell 2013; Fratkin and Mearns 2009). In sum, current modes of rural governance and administration (and its lack) are clearly seen as a hindrance and potentially a threat to the future reproduction of pastoral customs and practices. The lack of social and financial support from the government in turn alters potential of herding as a viable lifeway forcing rural citizens to seek and invest in alternative livelihoods with the possibility of abandoning herding completely

(Benwell 2013). In this case, education, as a double-edged sword, is perceived culturally as a means to diversify and improve individual livelihoods while it also presents extreme financial and social hardships that strike at the core of households and families that could, in the end, be detrimental to the future of herding in Mongolia.

Gender practices and perceptions of women are shifting in households, as people support the empowerment of women, and emphasize the importance that they provide for household stability and the benefit of society. However, educational attainment has presented a paradoxical problem: empowerment through education also fosters increased detachment from rural households and livelihoods (Ulambayar and Fernández-Giménez 2013). It is evident that the people that I interviewed convey anxiety concerning these issues because of how negatively impactful split-households might be for a family’s future, and the future of herding practices.

Consequently, it is crucial to raise a discussion about the future role of women in the pastoral economy and how to empower them.

CONCLUSION

The current hardships that Mongolian nomadic families are facing do not display any signs of retracting. Household disintegration will continue because of the state’s divorce of social and financial support to nomadic families, challenging the future of nomadic customs and practices (Plueckhahn and Bumochir 2018; Sabloff 2010). Nomadic families are faced with a choice to continue their current livelihoods or migrate to urban areas that continue to provide false promises for the benefit of a more stable livelihood. The numerous adverse effects that herders are experiencing are also attributed to the removal of women and children from nomadic society, as the herders I had interviewed discussed. Household disintegration also continues because the burden of maintaining a family’s livelihood cannot be equally distributed among all of the household members. Women and children are absent from their primary household for most of the year, leaving the husband to bear the entire burden of supervision and care for the family’s herd, instead of being equally distributed among all household members. Women on the other hand are then set to bear all responsibility for the care of their children. The people that I interviewed were wary of the future nomadic pastoralism in Mongolia, as they believed that the state does not provide the necessary support system needed to sustain their livelihoods (Stolpe

2016; Steiner-Khamsi and Stolpe 2005).

It is crucial to note the paradox that occurs with education, and how a benefit to one household member affects the entire structure of the household. If the state allocated more social and financial support, as it did during the socialist era to county and provincial governments, nomadic families would have a more stable and sustainable livelihood because they would not have to expend all of their social and economic resources only for the benefit of select household members. Since that support is not present, people must choose if they want to educate their

children, leading to the removal of women and children from households, or to continue the practice of herding (Galvin 2009). Lower levels of administrative government including county and district levels would be able to provide dormitory housing, schooling, and other social services for herder families, if the state was not divorced from social and financial support of its citizens. The degradation of nomadic households will continue if mothers and children are removed from their households, which continues to produce a less financially and socially stable household environment. Nomadic families will continue to be devalued and degraded if they do not align with the state’s interest of urbanization, ultimately questioning if herding will continue to exist in Mongolia.

REFERENCES

Ahearn, Ariell. 2018. “Herders and Hazards: Covariate Dzud Risk and the Cost of Risk Management Strategies in a Mongolian Subdistrict.” Natural Hazards 92 (S1): 165–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3128-4.

Ahearn, Ariell, and D. Bumochir. 2016. “Contradictions in Schooling Children among Mongolian Pastoralists.” Human Organization 75 (1): 87–96. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259-75.1.87.

Benwell, Ann Fenger. 2013. “Making Migration Meaningful: Achievements through Separation in Mongolia.” Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography 67 (4): 239–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2013.836722.

Borgerhoff Mulder, Monique, Ila Fazzio, William Irons, Richard L. McElreath, Samuel Bowles, Adrian Bell, Tom Hertz, and Leela Hazzah. 2010. “Pastoralism and Wealth Inequality: Revisiting an Old Question.” Current Anthropology 51 (1): 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1086/648561.

Bruun, Ole, and Odgaard, Ole. 1996. Mongolia in Transition. Vol. 22. Curzon Press Ltd.

Bulag, Uradyn E. 1998. Nationalism and Hybridity in Mongolia. Oxford University Press.

Carney, Judith, and Michael Watts. 1990. “Manufacturing Dissent: Work, Gender and the Politics of Meaning in a Peasant Society.” Africa 60 (02): 207–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1160333.

Collier, Jane Fishburne, Sylvia Junko Yanagisako, and Maurice Bloch, eds. 1987. Gender and Kinship: Essays toward a Unified Analysis. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.

Demaio, Alessandro R, Otgontuya Dugee, Maximillian de Courten, Ib C Bygbjerg, Palam Enkhtuya, and Dan W Meyrowitsch. 2013. “Exploring Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Related to Alcohol in Mongolia: A National Population-Based Survey.” BMC Public Health 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-178.

Dorjdagva, Javkhlanbayar, Enkhjargal Batbaatar, Bayarsaikhan Dorjsuren, and Jussi Kauhanen. 2015. “Explaining Differences in Education-Related Inequalities in Health between Urban and Rural Areas in Mongolia.” International Journal for Equity in Health 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-015-0281-9.

Ellis, Frank. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ensminger, Jean, and Andrew Rutten. 1991. “The Political Economy of Changing Property Rights: Dismantling a Pastoral Commons.” American Ethnologist 18 (4): 683–99. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1991.18.4.02a00030.

Fairbrother, Richard, and United Nations. “Mongolia: Internal Migration Study.” Rep. Mongolia: Internal Migration Study. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: International Organization for Migration, 2018.

Fratkin, Elliot, and Robin Mearns. 2003. “Sustainability and Pastoral Livelihoods: Lessons from East African Maasai and Mongolia.” Human Organization 62 (2): 112–22. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.62.2.am1qpp36eqgxh3h1.

Galvin, Kathleen A. 2009. “Transitions: Pastoralists Living with Change.” Annual Review of Anthropology 38 (1): 185–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164442.

Hodgson, Dorothy Louise, ed. 2000. Rethinking Pastoralism in Africa: Gender, Culture & the Myth of the Patriarchal Pastoralist. Oxford: Kampala [Uganda]: Nairobi: James Curry; Fountain Publishers ; EAEP ; Athens, Ohio : Ohio University Press.

Humphrey, Caroline, and David Sneath. 1999. The End of Nomadism? Society, State, and the Environment in Inner Asia. Durham: Duke University Press. “Illiad.Pdf.” n.d. Accessed December 12, 2018a. http://illiad.uc.edu/illiad/CIN/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=478863.

Jones, Helen. 2006. “Working Together: Local and Global Imperatives for Women in Mongolia.” Asia Europe Journal 4 (3): 417–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-006-0068-0.

Karplus, Yuval, and Avinoam Meir. 2013. “The Production of Space: A Neglected Perspective in Pastoral Research.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 31 (1): 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1068/d13111.

Mearns, Robin. 2004. “Sustaining Livelihoods on Mongolia’s Pastoral Commons: Insights from a Participatory Poverty Assessment.” Development and Change 35 (1): 107–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2004.00345.x.

Mongolia Zavkhan Sum Map. 2007. Mongolia Zavkhan Sum Map. By English Wikipedia user Bogomolov.PL, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5119409.

Murphy, Daniel J. 2014. “Ecology of Rule: Territorial Assemblages and Environmental Governance in Rural Mongolia.” Anthropological Quarterly 87 (3): 759–92. https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2014.0051. ———. 2015. “From Kin to Contract: Labor, Work and the Production of Authority in Rural Mongolia.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (2): 397–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.974569. ———. 2018. “We’re Living from Loan-to-Loan”: Pastoral Vulnerability and the Cashmere-Debt Cycle in Mongolia.” Individual and Social Adaptations to Human Vulnerability (Research in Economic Anthropology 38: 7-30 https://doi.org/10.1108/S0190-128120180000038002

Naess, Marius Warg. 2012. “Cooperative Pastoral Production: Reconceptualizing the Relationship between Pastoral Labor and Production.” American Anthropologist 114 (2): 309–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01427.x.

Park, Hwan-Young. 2003. “Metaphorical and Ideological Concepts of Post-Socialist Mongolian Kinship.” Inner Asia 5 (2): 139–62. https://doi.org/10.1163/146481703793647325.

Plueckhahn, Rebekah, and Dulam Bumochir. 2018. “Capitalism in Mongolia – Ideology, Practice and Ambiguity.” Central Asian Survey 37 (3): 341–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2018.1510600.

Ressel, Christian. 2005. “Cooperation Strategies in Mongolian Pastoralism During the Socialist Collective Economy.” Inner Asia 7 (2): 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1163/146481705793646946.

Rossabi, Morris. Modern Mongolia: From Khans to Commissars to Capitalists. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 2005. http://www.jstor.org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1ppngd.

Sabloff, Paula. 2010. “Capitalist Democracy Among Mongolian Herders: Discourse or Ideology?” Human Organization 69 (1): 86–96. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.69.1.jw5t45316v51x5kq.

Sneath, David. 2000. Changing Inner Mongolia: Pastoral Mongolian Society and the Chinese State. Oxford University Press.

Steiner-Khamsi, Gita, and Ines Stolpe. 2005. “Non-Traveling ‘Best Practices’’ for a Traveling Population: The Case of Nomadic Education in Mongolia.’” European Educational Research Journal 4 (1): 22–35. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2005.4.1.2.

Stolpe, Ines. 2016. “Social versus Spatial Mobility? Mongolia’s Pastoralists in the Educational Development Discourse.” Social Inclusion 4 (1): 19. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v4i1.379.

Ulambayar, Tungalag, and María E. Fernández-Giménez. 2013. “Following the Footsteps of the Mongol Queens: Why Mongolian Pastoral Women Should Be Empowered.” Rangelands 35 (6): 29–35. https://doi.org/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00035.1.

Upton, Caroline. 2008. “Social Capital, Collective Action and Group Formation: Developmental Trajectories in Post-Socialist Mongolia.” Human Ecology 36 (2): 175–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007-9158-x. ———. 2014. “The New Politics of Pastoralism: Identity, Justice and Global Activism.” Geoforum 54 (July): 207–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.11.011.

Wolf, Diane Lauren. 1992. Factory Daughters: Gender, Household Dynamics, and Rural Industrialization in Java. University of California Press.

Wilk, Richard R. 1997. Household Ecology: Economic Change and Domestic Life among the Kekchi Maya in Belize. DeKalb, Ill: Northern Illinois University Press.

Yuval-Davis, Nira. 1997. Gender & Nation. Politics and Culture. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. ———. 2015. “Situated Intersectionality and Social Inequality.” Raisons politiques N° 58 (2): 91– 100.

Zavkhan in Mongolia. 2011. Zavkhan in Mongolia. By TUBS - Own workThis W3C-unspecified vector image was created with Adobe Illustrator.This file was uploaded with Commonist.This vector image includes elements that have been taken or adapted from this: Mongolia location map.svg (by NordNordWest)., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16386229.