Feminism and the Anthropology of ‘Development’: Dilemmas in Rural Mexico

Julia E. Murphy

ABSTRACT: Feminist promotion of gender equity in development began in the 1970s, challenging development policy and practice and producing a rich body of debate and scholarship. Feminist anthropologists, through scholarship and activism, made impor- tant contributions to the project of reforming development. A recent anthropological critique of development, however, referred to as the anthropology of ‘development’, has raised important questions about anthropology’s relationship to development, presenting new challenges to feminist anthropologists who would engage with de- velopment. This new approach, despite its a ention to power, has not had questions about gender at its centre. Drawing on fi eldwork in southeastern Campeche, Mexico, this paper explores challenges of a feminist anthropology of ‘development’, includ- ing pressures for engagement and disengagement, and the apparent contradiction between refl exive critiques of, and feminist engagements with, development.

KEYWORDS: anthropology of ‘development’, Calakmul, engaged anthropology, feminist anthropology, gender and development, Mexico

Anthropology, Feminism, of development theory and challenged de- and Development velopment practice. Feminist anthropologists working on development have thus bridged Introduction the fi elds of feminism, development and The engagement of feminists in the promo- anthropology. tion of gender equity in development policy A recent anthropological critique of de- and practice began in the 1970s. It has trans- velopment, however, referred to as the an- formed development practice and produced thropology of ‘development’,1 has raised new a rich body of interdisciplinary scholarship. questions about anthropology’s relationship to Anthropologists studying women have been, development. Despite its a ention to power, and continue to be, central to that project, both however, the emergent critique of ‘develop- as promoters of gender equity and critics of ment’ has not engaged adequately with femi- development. Development has also been an nist anthropology or feminism more generally. important theme in anthropological research This paper therefore considers the possibilities more generally, although anthropology’s re- for feminist perspectives in the anthropology of lationship to development has been charac- ‘development’. Drawing on fi eldwork in rural terized by ambivalence and passed through Mexico, it explores the challenges and contra- several distinct phases. Anthropologists, like dictions of such a project, including pressures feminists, have contributed to the elaboration for engagement and disengagement.

Anthropology in Action, 18, 1 (2011): 16–28 © Berghahn Books and the Association for Anthropology in Action doi:10.3167/aia.2011.180104 Feminism and the Anthropology of ‘Development’: Dilemmas in Rural Mexico | AiA

The discussion presented here refl ects the material poverty of some regions and coun- current moment, when many feel the momen- tries, leading to the creation of development tum of feminist activism and research around agencies and assistance programmes. development assistance has slackened. Al- By the early 1970s, as the limitations of a though gender equity remains a goal of many purely economic view of development became organizations and individuals, the means to evident and as decolonization proceeded, social advance feminist initiatives may not be as scientifi c disciplines turned their a ention to evident as they once were. And while almost the problems of the new nations. Development two decades ago di Leonardo concluded that theory became an important site of engage- ‘Feminist-inspired anthropological research ment for anthropologists, feminists and politi- and writing on gender relations … has come cal activists. Anthropologists began working of age’ (1991: 1), I have seen a jarring disjunc- as researchers and employees of development ture between the centrality of gender issues in agencies, drawing a ention to the cultural di- debates about ‘development’ in rural Mexico mensions of development policies and projects – indeed the vitality with which gender roles and contributed to theories of socio-economic and ideologies are lived and contested in ev- change. Similarly, feminist scholars, activists eryday life there – and the scepticism within and development workers drew a ention to some quarters of anthropology about research the implications of socio-economic change for that uses an explicitly feminist framework, women and challenged development organi- addresses development issues, and works to zations to make gender equity a priority in all communicate its results beyond disciplinary their work. This shi from an economic to a boundaries. Countering this, I argue that con- broader understanding of development, how- ducting feminist anthropological fi eldwork on ever, was not uniform and, as a result, led to a development in a ‘Third World’ se ing charac- multiplicity of competing understandings of terized by hierarchies not only of gender, but the term. also of class, ‘race’ and ethnicity, is a critically At present the term is used in two broad important and timely intellectual and political ways by scholars: the fi rst, to refer generally challenge, and that the issues it raises are cen- to socio-economic change; and the second, tral to the discipline. to refer to the policies, projects and practices Before presenting issues that arose in my of national governments, international bod- research project and addressing current chal- ies, multilateral or bi-lateral aid agencies and lenges, I will briefl y describe the histories of NGOs working towards, well, ‘development’. feminist and anthropological engagements with This paper focuses on this second meaning, development, beginning with a clarifi cation while recognizing that even within this fi eld about the term itself. the term’s meanings are multiple and shi ing.

Multiple Meanings of Development Feminist Engagements with Development Development, in the sense the term is now It was fi rst pointed out decades ago that men used, began a er the Second World War. Both and women almost always have very diff erent the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and the relationships to development. The beginnings post-war planning of colonial empires were of the feminist critique of development are models and impetus for the creation of a global usually traced to the publication of Boserup’s project of ‘development’ that drew primarily Women’s Role in Economic Development in 1970, on economic theory. The absence of develop- and its articulation of concern about wom- ment came to be the dominant explanation for en’s exclusion from development activities.

| 17 AiA | Julia E. Murphy

Coinciding with the emergence of second- WID and GAD have been. Cornwall, Harrison wave feminism in industrial countries, the text and Whitehead argue that although GAD helped make ‘foreign aid’ a site for feminist approaches ‘facilitated the dedication of re- engagement in donor countries (Snyder 2004; sources, the production of policy spaces, the Rathgeber 2005).2 creation of a cadre of professionals and a body Since the 1970s feminist engagement with of organizations of various kinds whose work development has become a wide, well-devel- is to deal with issues of gender’ (2007: 5), they oped interdisciplinary fi eld. Multiple actors reduced ‘the political project of gender and and actions have formed what some have development … to a “technical fi x”’ (ibid.: 9). referred to as a ‘women/gender and develop- In the late 1980s Sen and Grown (1987) pre- ment movement’ (Snyder 2004), while others sented perspectives of southern women, drew refer to international networks of diversely a ention to the intersections of race, class situated researchers and activists that have and nation with gender, and popularized the participated in struggles for ‘voice, represen- term empowerment. This work paralleled the tation, and resources’ within development recognition by feminist anthropologists that (Cornwall, Harrison and Whitehead 2007: 2–3). their analyses should more fully account for Feminist anthropologists, like other feminist the ways in which gender intersects with other scholars, have aimed to improve women’s lives forms of inequality in shaping women’s lives through the production and dissemination as well as power imbalances among feminists. of knowledge, in addition to their contribu- Another fi eld of action, the women’s hu- tions to activism, advocacy and development man rights movement, appeared a er the UN practice. Di Leonardo noted how ‘Feminist General Assembly adopted the Convention on anthropologists, especially those working in the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Latin America, joined with feminist historians against Women (CEDAW) in 1979. Rights-based and other social scientists to create a massive approaches have been particularly successful and contentious fi eld focused on “women and in drawing a ention to women as citizens and development”’ (1991: 21). in claiming public space for women, and have Early eff orts to transform development lead to positive legal reforms in some regions were fi rst framed in terms of what came to (Molyneux 2007: 235). They have also helped be known as women in development (WID) to transnationalize women’s movement activ- and focused on the integration of women into ism, facilitating links among international, development. This approach was later criti- national, regional and local initiatives. cized for its limited perspective, for not taking At the World Conference on Women in into account ‘the totality of women’s lives and Beij ing in 1995 the UN adopted gender main- work’ (Rathgeber 2005: 580). These concerns streaming as a strategy for promoting gender were supported by the results of ‘concentrated equality. This involves ‘assessing the impli- fi eldwork by anthropologists who had com- cations for women and men of any planned piled detailed profi les of the sexual division of action, including legislation, policies or pro- labour … in diff erent rural se ings’ (ibid.: 580). grammes, in all areas and at all levels’ (Offi ce Criticisms of WID led to the appearance of of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and gender and development (GAD) approaches. Advancement of Women 2002: v). Feminists These insisted that development policies and hoped that this would be an eff ective impetus practices be based on a consideration of gen- for addressing women’s interests into develop- der relations, rather than of women alone. ment policy and practice more broadly. But, There is, however, ongoing debate about as in the case of GAD, there is concern that how eff ective for advancing feminist concerns gender mainstreaming lends itself too well to 18 | Feminism and the Anthropology of ‘Development’: Dilemmas in Rural Mexico | AiA the technocratic workings of development or- troubling loss of vitality and direction of some ganizations and not well enough to promoting feminist movements’, despite the presence of social change. Current research is examining dynamic movements in Latin America and the ways gender mainstreaming has been parts of Africa and South Asia notwithstand- taken up by development institutions and its ing (ibid.). These circumstances call for the implications for women’s struggles (Phillips repoliticization of feminist engagement with 2005 and Glynis George’s paper in this issue). development. To this end, Cornwall, Harrison and Whitehead (2007: 15) propose that GAD approaches be separated from more challeng- Development’s Disengagement from Feminism? ing proposals and the diversity of feminist Although feminism’s contribution to develop- engagements with gender/women and devel- ment theory and practice is widely acknowl- opment be recognized. edged, some scholars have questioned the depth of transformation achieved (Snyder 2004; Phil- From Development Anthropology to lips 2005; Rathgeber 2005; Cornwall, Harrison the Anthropology of ‘Development’ and Whitehead 2007). Cornwall, Harrison and Whitehead describe how gender has ‘fallen These eff orts to address feminist concerns from favour and has a jaded, dated feel to it. Di- within development unfolded at the same time luted, denatured, depoliticized, [it is] included as a series of critiques of development in the everywhere as an a erthought’ (2007: 5–6). Ac- social sciences, including anthropology (Esco- cording to Molyneux, ‘[t]he evidence suggests bar 1991, 1995; Ferguson 1997). Mid-century a signifi cant gap between the gender equality structural functionalists had studied isolated guidelines [of large development institutions] non-Western peoples, applying a framework and the practice’ (2007: 228). She argues that within which social change threatened both the momentum towards feminist goals has social and theoretical disruption. But in the slackened in the current political climate and 1960s anti-colonial struggles led anthropolo- furthermore that ‘The view that gender aware- gists to direct their a ention to social change. ness has become part of the common sense of Dependency theory, along with neo-Marxist development policy is now so widespread that mode of production and world-systems theo- some NGOs report a growing ennui, a “gender ries, was applied to interpreting histories of fatigue” in metropolitan policy arenas with conquest, imperialism and exploitation. Neo- women’s programmes increasingly being seen Marxists argued that what was called devel- as passé’ (ibid.: 227). Rathgeber fi nds there opment was really the process of capitalist have been ‘important steps forward but they integration. Paradoxically, critiques of capital- fail to address the central feminist critique of ist development, together with development’s the continuing oppression of women within greater emphasis on social welfare beginning patriarchal systems’ (2005: 580). in the 1970s, mentioned above, created op- Molyneux has asked, ‘if, as I argue, the portunities for anthropologists to collaborate spread of gender awareness and the impact of with development organizations. This led to mainstreaming is exaggerated, how do we ex- the formation of a fi eld called development plain the current gender ennui when so much is anthropology. still at stake?’ (2007: 233). She suggests the an- Under this rubric, many anthropologists swer is a darker international political climate, began participating in development projects, and ‘more eff ective strategizing and alliance enlisted to ‘improve the effi ciency of planning, building among conservative forces – popu- to be technician[s], identifying the social and lar, governmental and faith-based’ – and … a cultural snags that might slow down develop-

| 19 AiA | Julia E. Murphy

ment’ (de Waal 2002: 253). But development nomic and political structures are reproduced. anthropology has an uneasy relationship with Escobar remarked, ‘How unanthropological … the discipline. In some quarters it is disparaged to accept an entire historically produced cul- as a form of applied anthropology, involving tural fi eld without probing its depths’ (1991: only the application of anthropological knowl- 161). Applying Foucauldian theory, they called edge to development problems and making no for critical explorations of the nexus of knowl- contribution to anthropological theory. In other edge, power and discourse in development quarters, university anthropologists have en- contexts. Ferguson argued that although the gaged with development arguing that doing Lesotho development project he studied, like so not only has a positive impact on develop- Foucault’s prison, failed on its own terms, ment, but also advances anthropological the- it nevertheless succeeded due to its regular ory.3 Quite remarkably, however, none of the but unrecognized eff ects ([1990] 1994: xiv). anthropologists who have examined the history They challenged anthropologists to explore of this fi eld have discussed – or even noted the power of ‘development’ to shape the lives – the appearance of women or feminist cri- of people in ‘developing countries’, to pro- tiques in debates about development (Hoben vide the dominant mode of representing and 1982; Escobar 1991; Ferguson 1997). understanding them, and to shape forms of The refl exive critiques of the 1990s gave rise resistance. Escobar argued that this was par- to a new approach to development, widely re- ticularly important for the discipline given the ferred to as the anthropology of ‘development’ clear parallel between development anthropol- (Ferguson [1990] 1994; Escobar 1991, 1995; Ho- ogy and anthropology’s historical implication bart 1993; Grillo 1997). Escobar (1991) argued in the exercise of colonial power (1991: 661). that development anthropology had become He quotes Asad in asking: ‘Does not develop- disengaged from theoretical debates in the dis- ment today, as colonialism did in a former cipline and subsumed into the bureaucratic epoch, make possible “the kind of human in- logic of development agencies. In eff ect, it timacy on which anthropological fi eldwork had ‘done no more than recycle, and dress in is based, but insure that intimacy should be more localized fabrics, the discourses of mod- one-sided and provisional’ (1973: 17), even if ernization and development’ (ibid.: 677). He contemporary subjects move and talk back?’ questioned the relationships among anthro- (Escobar 1995: 14). pology, development and knowledge, includ- With regard to women, Escobar argues that ing how anthropologists have worked within WID is not an emancipatory project. He pre- development paradigms and how these have sents a rather conventional critique of devel- shaped anthropological knowledge. These crit- opment’s eff ects on women, beginning with ics pointed to the need for anthropologists to the observation that modernist discourses fail broaden their focus from development’s im- to recognize the productive roles of women pacts on conventional anthropological subjects (1995: 171) but moving on to discuss women such as villages, cultures, indigenous peoples as ‘a client group of even larger proportions – and women – to encompass the practices, … brought into the space of visibility of de- institutions and discourses that constitute velopment’ (1995: 155). The ‘developmental- ‘development’.4 ization’ of women, peasants and nature, he Ferguson ([1990] 1994) and Escobar (1995), argues, took place in similar ways, revealing the most provocative contributors to this lit- ‘discursive regularities at work’ (ibid.). He erature, also argued that neo-Marxist critiques concludes that ‘we must resist the conclusion of development neglected to examine the social that what poor women need is development’ and discursive processes through which eco- (ibid.) because this ultimately strengthens the 20 | Feminism and the Anthropology of ‘Development’: Dilemmas in Rural Mexico | AiA development apparatus and its mediation of Fieldwork and Engagement in the relations between First-World feminists and Anthropology of ‘Development’ Third-World women (1995: 180). His counter- Calakmul and the Calakmul Model Forest proposal is to work ‘in and against develop- ment’,5 shi ing the ‘focus from Third-World My work in the Calakmul region of south- women and our need to “help” them to the eastern Campeche focused on an NGO, the ruling apparatus’ and to consider ‘the actions Calakmul Model Forest, created using a Ca- of Third World women – whether middle-class nadian model of multi-stakeholder planning feminists or grassroots activists or both – for (Murphy 2003a). It was intended to create ‘a cues about how power operates and is resisted model of sustainable development … [and] set by women in the Third World’ (1995: 182). … an example for other tropical areas’ (Min- Despite Escobar’s insights into WID ap- istry of Supply and Services Canada 1994). It proaches and substantive contributions to post- brought together Mexican rural development colonial theories (which, in turn, have sig- professionals and biologists, members of some nifi cant relevance to gender-based studies of 72 ejidos,6 and the campesino/a directors and development; see also Phillips 1996), neither members of the Regional Council of X-Pujil feminist concerns nor women have fi gured (Consejo Regional Agrosilvopecuario y de Servicios centrally in the anthropology of ‘development’. de X-Pujil). Relationships among these groups Such concerns have remained, as earlier femi- were fraught with confl ict and shaped by hier- nists so o en decried, at the margins of this archy, as relations between rural development perspective on development. As a result, the workers, campesino/a leaders, and campesino/as divide between engaged and purely theoreti- in Mexico have been historically. cal approaches to development is perpetuated Most of the 15,000–20,000 residents of Cal- and the anthropology of ‘development’ re- akmul arrived as internal migrants, a racted mains unenriched by insights from, and de- – despite the region’s poor soils and scarcity of bates about, feminism’s long history of engage- water – by the programme of agricultural colo- ment with development. nization that began there in the late 1960s and Nevertheless, one of Escobar’s most intrigu- resulted in an ethnically heterogeneous popu- ing proposals was for a reconceptualized eth- lation. The provision of millions of dollars of nography of development (1995: 47–52). But, primarily international funding for ‘integrated as I discovered when I undertook a study of conservation and development’ followed the a rural development project in Mexico, there creation of the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve in has been li le discussion of doing ethnography 1989. This marked a new era in Calakmul and of ‘development’ (cf. Mosse 2005). Studying made it an ideal site to examine the interplay development ‘outside’ its own logic while par- between global environmental politics and lo- ticipating in its social relationships presents cal notions and practices of development. challenges with which all anthropologists – My fi eldwork focused on the staff of the particularly feminist anthropologists – must Model Forest, campesino/a leaders, and one contend. group of intended benefi ciaries of develop- What follows is a discussion of method- ment, the members of the Yucatec Maya ejido ological and political issues that arose in my 20 de Noviembre. Between April 1996 and project, including the contradiction between January 1998 I a ended meetings of the Model the anthropology of ‘development’ as a critical Forest and Regional Council; interviewed project and the limited possibilities for engage- development workers and women political ment, including feminist engagement, with leaders; and, in 20 de Noviembre, did partici- development that it presented. pant observation among the members of the

| 21 AiA | Julia E. Murphy

three groups, and a ended ejidal and women’s of women’s family roles and reproductive la- meetings. bour fi t into ‘sustainable development’? Where The feminist dimensions of my project in- were these ideas for women’s projects coming cluded examining the development discourses from? Did international donors not have more and processes through which masculine and progressive gender policies than this? Was no feminine gender identities were constituted one talking about challenging dominant gen- and reproduced, how women were drawn der ideologies? I was somewhat at a loss how into – or in some cases rejected – political roles to locate myself, as a woman, as a researcher and development projects, and how, from vari- and as a feminist, in relation to these kinds of ous positions, they sometimes challenged and initiatives. If I were critical I might seem to be sometimes reproduced both sustainable devel- beli ling the women’s eff orts and undermin- opment discourses and dominant local gender ing the gains that had been made, but feigning ideologies, in public and domestic realms. In enthusiasm would have been patronising. the course of doing my research I advocated I also knew that both men and women in for women. I asked diffi cult questions when I Calakmul were curious whether or not this saw women being excluded, their views dis- educated Canadian gringa was a feminista. I counted or their labour uncompensated. understood I was entering a fi eld of highly contentious gender relations where notions of femininity, masculinity, women’s and men’s Fieldwork Challenges in the respective roles – and sexual relations – were Anthropology of ‘Development’ recognized to be subjects of gendered, inter- During my fi rst weeks in Calakmul, I presented ethnic, inter-class and inter-national contest. my research project to the three groups. To dis- Male development workers provoked me with tance myself from ‘development’ and to com- sexist jokes and warned me that if I was a municate my interest in a topic with cultural First-World feminist (feminista primer-mundista) resonance, I explained that my research was women would not want to talk to me because about work: the work people do in organiza- I did not share their values related to mother- tions and communities, the work campesino/as hood and the family. I was also concerned that do on and off their ejidos and the work women being categorized as someone ‘working with and men do. Indeed, campesino/a discussions women’ might result in my exclusion from the about development projects focused as much masculine spaces of development, especially on working conditions, requirements to con- those of the Model Forest, that were also im- tribute unpaid labour, and the authoritarian- portant to my study. But what were the im- ism of development workers, as on economic plications of my spatial transgressions, of my benefi ts of participating in projects. Although insistence on inclusion in events from which this tactic was helpful, it could not entirely local women were excluded? displace me from the position in development Reaction to my fi rst activities revealed local ascribed to me in response to my nationality, understandings of the role of social research- fair colouring and socio-economic status. ers in relation to development. Over and over When I fi rst arrived in Calakmul several again, I was asked in which community I was people were eager to tell me about the won- going to work. Hanging around with develop- derful things being done by and for women ment workers in the administrative town was there. I was disconcerted to learn that the seen as socializing, not work. In Calakmul, as biggest events had involved handicra s, food elsewhere, the correct objects of development preparation and a Mother’s Day celebration. are villages, and therefore villages are also the How, I asked myself, did such celebrations correct objects of development research. 22 | Feminism and the Anthropology of ‘Development’: Dilemmas in Rural Mexico | AiA

The controversy that accompanied my The directors of the Regional Council of X- choice of case study ejido clarifi ed expecta- Pujil were even more reluctant than the Model tions of reciprocity between researcher and Forest workers to talk with me. At fi rst I a rib- study community. The Yucatec Maya ejido 20 uted this to economic and cultural distance, de Noviembre had the reputation of being one but a er I learned that some of them were of the best organized in Calakmul and two ge- diverting Model Forest funds I realized that ography students had recently worked there. no eff ort at ‘building rapport’ was likely to I was told this ejido did not need any further succeed. In the end, two disaff ected former study to determine how it could be be er directors – both women – did talk to me. Their organized. There was also a concern among perspectives were very important in building Model Forest staff that researchers should my understanding of the Regional Council. be more evenly distributed among the ejidos Another diffi culty in the anthropology of where it was implementing projects. Some ‘development’ is to learn about the perspec- said this was so that the cultural heterogene- tives of people and groups divided by multi- ity of the region would be be er represented ple, constantly shi ing antagonisms, including in research, and especially that Yucatec Maya men and women. I could not appear to sup- communities not be overrepresented. Another port, or to be allied with, any group for fear of factor was that ‘having’ a researcher was seen not being able to talk to its critics. Only with as an advantage to an ejido because s/he could time and patience did I earn the confi dence of foster closer relations between its members members of opposing groups and the reputa- and development organizations and draw tion of someone who asked about disputes a ention – possibly even resources – to its without wanting to get involved and did not needs. repeat what I was told in confi dence. But Doing research on development organiza- maintaining neutrality was an imperfect art, tions raises many questions. How does the as friendships and ethnographic relationships researcher overcome organizations’ reluctance sometimes worked together and sometimes to come under the kind of scrutiny entailed in were at odds, and political alignments con- the anthropology of ‘development’ and their stantly shi ed. scepticism about the utility of such research? The need to practice reciprocity also chal- What kinds of ethical responsibilities does an lenged neutrality. Reciprocity is essential in ethnographer have to development workers an impoverished region like Calakmul, but and organizations? how does one fi nd forms of reciprocity that The staff of the Calakmul Model Forest alter- are culturally appropriate but do not under- nated between helpfulness and hostility. Work- mine neutrality or implicate one in the logic ers held divergent opinions of me, my activities of development? Some were convinced that I and my potential utility to the Model Forest had infl uence over project staff if not access to or to them personally. I tried to make clear resources of the Model Forest and pressured that my goal was to learn about the organiza- me to act on their behalves. I was particularly tion, but that I was willing to contribute to its concerned that this perception would encour- projects. Several possibilities for collaboration age campesino/as, in our conversations and in- were proposed but subsequently withdrawn. terviews, to present only positive views of the The degree of confl ict within the organization Model Forest and of themselves as ideal recipi- presented an ethnographic challenge, and the ents of development assistance. Model Forest, like many other development The pressure to justify my presence by be- organizations, carefully controlled the fl ow of having more like a development worker pro- information about its work. voked nagging doubts about the usefulness

| 23 AiA | Julia E. Murphy

of my project and theoretical perspective. roots groups present to dominant intervention’ But what would participating more directly (1995: 222). But he also signalled the impor- in development and its historically accrued tance of ethnographies as political projects: practices and meanings, its hierarchies and ‘The deconstruction of development, coupled patron-client relations – apparently so li le with … local ethnographies … can be impor- transformed by ‘integrated conservation and tant elements for a new type of visibility and development’– have contributed? audibility of forms of cultural diff erence and Foucauldian perspectives on rural devel- hybridization that researchers have generally opment, concerned with fi elds of power and glossed over until now’ (ibid.: 223). meaning and the constructedness of develop- Both authors propose involving the anthro- ment categories and identities, off er a bracing pologist as a political actor outside develop- rush of fresh air into academic debates. But ment. But what is one to do in a place like Cal- a er being asked for the umpteenth time what akmul where there is no group or movement my work would do to improve people’s lives, opposing development and where women, for trying to deconstruct development in a context example, use development discourses to de- of deprivation and insecurity and through scribe their family’s needs in terms of ‘projects, frameworks not part of local conversations assistance and things’? With similar concerns, felt like a self indulgent intellectual exercise. Phillips expressed ‘feminist cynicism about I grappled with the contradiction between the the alternative antidevelopment “spaces” that anthropology of ‘development’, whose politi- some claim are now being generated by peo- cal project is to expose the workings of power, ples in the South’ (1996: 28). If development and the few possibilities for engagement this discourses are as ubiquitous and pervasive as kind of research appears to open, at least in ru- Escobar himself argues, and if modernist dis- ral Mexico. Local expectations of development courses more generally supersaturate the life- research, together with my feminist concerns, worlds of Calakmul, as in so many areas of made this contradiction even more discon- Latin America, is there a danger that the search certing. Is the anthropology of ‘development’ for these ‘spaces of resistance’ responds to an purely a project to document and theoreti- ethnographic desire for development’s ‘other’? cally elaborate the workings of development And yet, to assume or conclude that develop- discourses, or does it have the potential to ment cannot be and is not resisted is to overlook contribute to emancipatory projects, including ethnographic evidence of the agency that peo- feminist ones? ple exercise in engaging with it and of the com- plexity of these engagements (Mosse 2005). The apparently limited potential of the an- Forms of Engagement thropology of ‘development’ to eff ect change Ferguson and Escobar both questioned how has concerned Grillo, among others. He notes anthropologists could challenge ‘development’. how ‘Ferguson, like Escobar, ends with an ap- Ferguson suggested that anthropologists seek peal for a rather feeble and restricted form of out ‘typically non-state forces and organiza- politically correct anthropology’ (1997: 19). He tions that challenge the existing dominant sees greater potential for change in the active, order and see if links can be found between but not naïve, involvement of anthropologists our expertise and their practical needs as they with the institutions of development, a view determine them ([1990] 1994: 286–287). Escobar echoed by Mosse (2005) and Mosse and Lewis suggested that ‘a fi rst approach … is to look (2006) and those feminists who have worked for alternative practices in the resistance grass- directly with development organizations.

24 | Feminism and the Anthropology of ‘Development’: Dilemmas in Rural Mexico | AiA

But in her discussion of postcolonial meth- Conclusion: Confronting odologies in gender and development, Phillips Disengagement (1996) cautions that the position of anthropolo- gists who are interested in development with Given the contentious debates about the rela- women, for example, is diffi cult. Basic analytical tionships among anthropology, feminism and categories such as ‘women’ and ‘development’ development, it is not surprising that there must be examined in order to face ‘the modern- are challenges to a feminist anthropology of ist foundation in which many feminist theories ‘development’ that a empts to confront disen- are rooted’ and the researcher must interrogate gagement on several fronts. While some who her role, methods of doing research, and po- work closely with development organizations litical intentions and practices’ (ibid.: 16). Fur- object to the anthropology of development’s thermore, ‘We must make our research goals apparent wholesale rejection of development, explicit (as contradictory as they may be) and I was surprised to learn that in other quar- analyze our role in reproducing and/or under- ters the anthropology of ‘development’ and mining representations of Third World women development anthropology are painted with in our research’ (ibid.: 28). This kind of femi- the same brush, similarly rejected as applied nist project is consistent with the anthropology research that makes no contribution to theory. of ‘development’ and its deconstructive aims, For example, in an eff ort to make my Calak- although it casts the project in diff erent terms. mul research useful to debates about gender Echoing Escobar’s comments on ethnog- and development, I presented relevant fi nd- raphy as a political project, Wa s identifi ed ings in an interdisciplinary feminist journal a specifi c contribution that ethnographic ap- (Murphy 2003b). An anthropological colleague proaches in the anthropology of ‘development’ later dismissed the article, commenting that can make: to ‘identify struggles and spaces in the journal it had appeared in ‘could not pos- which important changes can be and are made’ sibly be described as a mainstream scholarly (2001: 286). Thus examining women’s struggles publication (the journal characterizes itself ‘in and against development’, as I did, can be … as “actively working towards serving as a both an ethnographic and a feminist project. middle ground between the scholarly and the I documented the ways in which women popular, between theory and activism)”’. Is engaged with development, and how these it possible that anthropologists inclined to be created opportunities for women to challenge dismissive of development as a research topic dominant local gender ideologies (including are further aggravated when feminist perspec- the ones encoded in development discourse), tives are also involved? the obstacles they encountered, their successes But how could this be at a time when fund- and the ways in which their involvement ing agencies, in Canada at least, are calling for reproduced their marginality. Ethnographic research results to be communicated and ap- work on women’s engagements with devel- plied more broadly? Clearly the political and opment does reveal arenas of struggle and intellectual trends of the current moment are potential transformation and provide insights contradictory. Researchers are called upon to that can contribute to imagining new ways for ‘partner with the community to put knowledge feminists to engage with development, ways into action’, but the refl exive epistemologies less restricted that those proposed by gender that are central to engaged research are less mainstreaming and closer to the repoliticiza- highly valued than positivist social science. tion of feminism’s relationship to development Nevertheless, some have strongly argued that has been called for. that the anthropology of ‘development’ is cen-

| 25 AiA | Julia E. Murphy

tral to the discipline. Mosse and Lewis con- search Council of Canada, the R. F. Salisbury cluded that we are at ‘the end of a long period Award of the Canadian Anthropology Society, of mutual marginalization’ of anthropology the Department of Anthropology, York Uni- and development (2006: 1); and de Waal notes versity, and the Faculty of Social Sciences, Uni- how ‘the aid industry itself – its institutions, its versity of Calgary. My thanks to the editors of morality, its symbolism and logic, and its in- this special issue for inviting me to contribute teraction with those whom it calls “recipients” to it. or “benefi ciaries” … has become a rich and important subject for anthropological inquiry’ Julia Murphy is an anthropologist with research (2002: 261). Moreover, as Mosse and Lewis and teaching interests in feminist anthropology, note, ‘an anthropology of development is in- development, environment and Latin American extricably an anthropology of contemporary Studies. Email: [email protected] Africa, Latin America, and Asia’ (2006: 1), as elsewhere. But as interest in the anthropology of ‘de- Notes velopment’ grows, the question of engagement remains. We must correct the disconnection be- 1. In his seminal book, The Anti-politics Machine, tween the anthropological critique of ‘develop- Ferguson placed the word ‘development’ in quota- tion marks every time it appeared, ‘in the hope ment’ and feminist work in this area if we are that this will not prove tiresome, but will rather to respond to calls for equitable social change. serve as a reminder to the reader that the book The challenge is to explore forms of engage- aims to problematize this concept’ (1990: xi). ment off ered by a more radical perspective on I have followed this practice in my use of the development and to defend them in the cur- term anthropology of ‘development’ and in a few rent academic climate. In facing this challenge, cases where I too wanted to draw a ention to the problematic nature of the concept. the history and current dilemmas of feminist 2. Events in Canada in 2010, however, demon- engagements with development off er not only strated that development assistance continues important experiences for examination, but to be a site for feminist engagement. The revela- must also serve to remind all working ‘in and tion that a new international maternal and child against’ development of the continued need health initiative specifi cally avoided funding for to place gender issues at the centre, not the abortion, contrary to earlier policies as well as those of other G8 countries participating in the periphery. Disentangling the contradiction be- initiative, led to widespread outrage. Pro-choice tween refl exive critiques of, and feminist en- and feminist advocates repeatedly squared off gagements with, development will require us against defenders of the new policy over this is- to forge new academic paths and to challenge sue in Parliament and in the national media. established dogmas that obstruct the way. A 3. British anthropologists, in particular, have been feminist anthropology of ‘development’ could eff ective in combining anthropology and en- gaged development research, including feminist make important contributions to contemporary development research (e.g. Moser 1993; Mosse anthropology, feminism and development. 2005). Highly skilled anthropologists have worked in the World Bank, USAID and similar agencies elsewhere, including the Canadian In- Acknowledgements ternational Development Agency (CIDA). I am unaware, however, of contributions they have made to critical anthropological/ethnographic Research for this article was made possible by projects of the kind described by Escobar. the generosity of residents and development 4. I do not intend in this discussion of Escobar and workers of Calakmul, a Doctoral Fellowship Ferguson’s perspectives to dismiss all anthro- from the Social Sciences and Humanities Re- pological contributions to the study of develop- 26 | Feminism and the Anthropology of ‘Development’: Dilemmas in Rural Mexico | AiA

ment that do not respond to their theoretical ——— (1997), ‘Anthropology and Its Evil Twin: proposals. My focus, rather, is on raising ques- “Development” in the Constitution of a Dis- tions about the possibilities for feminist engage- cipline’, in International Development and the ment by anthropologists who do work with their Social Sciences: Essays on the History and Politics proposals. This article also refl ects the particular of Knowledge, (eds.) F. Cooper and R. Packard forms the relationships between development, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), anthropology and feminism have taken in Can- 150–175. ada – my personal and academic home – and in Grillo, R. (1997), ‘Discourses of Development: The Mexico – my research site and second academic View from Anthropology’, in Discourses of De- home. velopment: Anthropological Perspectives, (eds.) 5. Escobar (1995: 181) credits Adele Mueller for this R. Grillo and J. Stirrat (Oxford: Berg), 1–33. proposal. Hobart, M. (ed.) (1993), An Anthropological Critique 6, Ejidos are agrarian communities, established of Development: The Growth of Ignorance (London: according to Mexico’s 1917 post-revolutionary Routledge). Agrarian Law. Hoben, A. (1982), ‘Anthropologists and Devel- opment’, Annual Review of Anthropology 11: 349–375. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada (1994), References Calakmul Model Forest: Productive Ecology – Proposal (O awa, ON), 54 pp. Asad, T. (1973), Anthropology and the Colonial En- Molyneux, M. (2007), ‘The Chimera of Success: counter (London: Ithaca Press). Gender Ennui and the Changed International Boserup, E. (1970), Women’s Role in Economic Devel- Policy Environment’, in Feminisms in Develop- opment (London: Allen & Unwin). ment: Contradictions, Contestations and Challenges, Cornwall, A., Harrison, E. and Whitehead, A. (eds.) A. Cornwall, E. Harrison and A. White- (2007), ‘Introduction: Feminisms in Devel- head (London: Zed Books), 227–240. opment: Contradictions, Contestations and Moser, C. (1993), Gender Planning and Develop- Challenges’, in Feminisms in Development: Con- ment: Theory, Practice and Training (London: tradictions, Contestations and Challenges, (eds.) Routledge). A. Cornwall, E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead Mosse, D. (2005), Cultivating Development: An (London: Zed Books), 1–17. Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice (London: de Waal, A. (2002), ‘Anthropology and the Aid Pluto Press). Encounter’, in Exotic No More: Anthropology on Mosse, D. and Lewis, D. (2006), ‘Theoretical Ap- the Front Lines, (ed.) J. MacClancy (Chicago, IL: proaches to Brokerage and Translation in Devel- University of Chicago Press), 251–269. opment’, in Development Brokers and Translators: di Leonardo, M. (1991), ‘Introduction: Gender, Cul- The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies, (eds.) ture and Political Economy: Feminist Anthro- D. Lewis and D. Mosse (Bloomfi eld, CT: pology in Historical Perspective’, in Gender at Kumarian Press), 1–26. the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropol- Murphy, J. E. (2003a), ‘Ethnography and Sustain- ogy in the Postmodern Era, (ed.) M. di Leonardo able Development in the Calakmul Model (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), Forest, Campeche, Mexico’ (PhD diss., York 1–48. University, Toronto). Escobar, A. (1991), ‘Anthropology and the Devel- ——— (2003b), ‘Embroidery as Participation? opment Encounter: The Making and Marketing Women in the Calakmul Model Forest, Cam- of Development Anthropology’, American Eth- peche, Mexico’, Canadian Woman Studies 23, no. nologist 18, no. 4 (November): 658–682. 1 (Fall/Winter): 159–167. ——— (1995), Encountering Development: The Mak- Offi ce of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and ing and Unmaking of the Third World (Prince ton, Advancement of Women (2002), Gender Main- NJ: Princeton University Press). streaming: An Overview (New York, NY: United Ferguson, J. [1990] (1994), The Anti-politics Machine: Nations). ‘Development’, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Phillips, L. (1996), ‘Toward Postcolonial Method- Power in Lesotho (Minneapolis, MN: University ologies’, in Women, Work, and Gender Relations in of Minnesota Press). Developing Countries: A Global Perspective, (eds.)

| 27 AiA | Julia E. Murphy

P. Ghorayshi and C. Bélanger (Westport, CT: Sen, G. and Grown, C. (1987), Development, Crises, Greenwood Press), 15–29. and Alternative Visions: Third World Women’s Per- ——— (2005), ‘Gender Mainstreaming: The spectives (New York: Monthly Review Press). Global Governance of Women?’, Canadian Snyder, M. (2004), ‘Women Determine Develop- Journal of Development Studies 26, Special Issue: ment: The Unfi nished Revolution’, Signs: Journal 651–663. of Women in Culture and Society 29, no. 2 (Win- Rathgeber, E. (2005), ‘Gender and Development as ter): 619–632. a Fugitive Concept’, Canadian Journal of Develop- Wa s, M. (2001), ‘Development Ethnographies’, ment Studies 26, Special Issue: 579–591. Ethnography 2, no. 2 (June): 283–300.

28 |