02 eerdewijk (jk/d) 16/10/01 3:03 pm Page 421 How Sexual and Reproductive Rights Can Divide and Unite Anouka van Eerdewijk CENTRE FOR GENDER STUDIES AND CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES NIJMEGEN ABSTRACT This article explores how cross-cultural research on sexual and repro- ductive rights can be vulnerable to ethnocentrism, and in what way ethnocen- trism can be reduced in such research. Against the background of feminist debate on equality and difference, it discusses how the concepts of sexual and reproduc- tive rights, within the parameters of development discourse, can reinforce hierar- chical dichotomies of North–South, modern–traditional and actor–structure, and undervalue southern women’s agency. An analytical framework that combines the entitlement approach and the three-dimensional model of gender is proposed to diminish ethnocentrism and counter homogenization and generalization. This framework aims at balancing agency, actor and structure, and allowing for differ- ences, heterogeneity and contradictions. KEY WORDS development N difference N entitlement N equality N ethnocentrism N feminism N gender N politics N power N sexual and reproductive rights Sexual and reproductive rights1 have been high on the agenda of the international women’s movement in recent years. They gained inter- national2 significance during the International Conference on Population and Development of the United Nations in Cairo in 1994. Sexual and reproductive rights define the right of women, and men, to make decisions on and control their own sexuality, procreation and bodies. In the context of my research project on the sexual and reproductive rights of young, unmarried women and men (age 17–22) in Dakar, Senegal, I have been struggling with the question about whether sexual and repro- ductive rights are ethnocentric concepts. Very few people in Senegal talk in terms of sexual and reproductive rights, or are familiar with the meanings given to sexual and reproductive rights at the international level. Feminist theoretical debates on equality and difference and on the The European Journal of Women’s Studies Copyright © 2001 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi), Vol. 8(4): 421–439 [1350-5068(200111)8:4;421–439;019561] 02 eerdewijk (jk/d) 16/10/01 3:03 pm Page 422 422 The European Journal of Women’s Studies 8(4) relationship between feminist politics and feminist theory have further strengthened my doubts about the use of sexual and reproductive rights as concepts in cross-cultural research. In this article I explore these doubts with the aim of coming to a framework that can reduce ethnocentrism in research on sexual and reproductive rights in specific settings. The argu- ments I pose here are largely the product of the theoretical preparation of my fieldwork, which is ongoing. In that sense, this article is a sort of ‘theoretical exercise’: it does not provide answers, but searches a theoreti- cal framework that guides fieldwork by pointing to the questions that need to be asked. Two questions are central in this article. In what ways does ethnocen- trism play a role in relation to the concepts of sexual and reproductive rights? In what ways can ethnocentrism in cross-cultural sexual and reproductive rights research be reduced to a minimum? This article starts with a brief background on sexual and reproductive rights as they have evolved at the international level. I then place sexual and reproductive rights within the debates in feminist theory on equality and difference. This shows how feminism has been faced with questions on universalism and ethnocentrism. In that second paragraph I also bring forward a framework to analyse ethnocentrism. The next step is to consider ethno- centrism in relation to the concept of development. This analysis focuses on two processes that are closely linked to each other: on the one hand, thinking in dichotomous and hierarchical categories and on the other, homogenization and generalization. I will discuss how these two play a role in the discursive construction of the notion of development and what the implications of this are for sexual and reproductive rights. In the fourth paragraph I propose a framework of analysis that can reduce eth- nocentrism. The entitlement approach in combination with the three- dimensional model of gender are the central elements in that framework. I discuss to what extent these can counter dichotomous thinking, hom- ogenization and generalization. My intention in exploring these questions is not to say that the sexual and reproductive rights strategy is bad feminist politics. I have personally been strongly involved in the recognition and promotion of these rights at the international level during meetings of the United Nations from 1998 onwards. This advocacy experience also inspired me to start research on sexual and reproductive rights. I think it is of great importance to reflect upon my own position and background. I am particularly interested in finding ways to avoid the marginalization and exclusion of women who are not part of the hegemonic, western feminist discourse. In that sense I am convinced that it is necessary to critically question feminist politics in order to further advance its goals and to improve its strategies. 02 eerdewijk (jk/d) 16/10/01 3:03 pm Page 423 van Eerdewijk: Sexual and Reproductive Rights 423 THE STRUGGLE AND GAINS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL In order to understand the meaning and value of sexual and reproductive rights it is necessary to briefly go into the (international) debate on popu- lation policies and reproductive health. This debate evolved around the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo 1994. Population control and reproductive health are two distinctly different approaches touching upon procreation and sexuality. They are based on different problem definitions and consequently aim at different goals. Population policies are formulated in relationship to demographic problems, in most cases ‘overpopulation’: there are too many people and that is the cause of economic and environmental problems. The solution is lowering population growth: i.e. lowering fertility rates by increased use of modern contraceptives (Bandarage, 1997; Gupta, 1996). This approach to what are called population and development issues was and is heavily criticized by women’s health organizations and femin- ists from different parts of the world (Bandarage, 1997; Gupta, 1996; Keysers, 1994; Richter, 1994; Watkins, 1993). The women’s movement argues that the way the population control perspective defines the problem and the solution makes women fertility ‘factors’ instead of actors. And with their high fertility rates, women are portrayed as a barrier to development. Adding to that, the biomedical and top-down demographic approach pays little attention to social relations of power affecting procreation and fertility. This reductionism leads to the pro- motion of mainly technical interventions with an emphasis on provider- dependent, long-acting methods over which the women who are supposed to use them have little control. Such family planning methods have often been promoted by the use of incentives and disincentives that put pressure on women to use certain methods. The reproductive health perspective emerges in this critique on con- ventional population politics. Advocates argue that it is not demographic objectives but women’s health and bodily autonomy that should be the concern. They raise such issues as maternal mortality and morbidity, unsafe abortions, as well as gender and sexual violence including rape and incest. Reproductive health is not aimed at demographic objectives but at: A condition in which the reproductive process is accomplished in a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and is not merely the absence of disease or disorders of the reproductive process. Reproductive health, therefore, implies that people have the ‘ability’ to reproduce, to regulate their fertility and to practise and enjoy sexual relationships. It further implies that reproduction is carried to a ‘successful outcome’ through infant and child survival, growth and healthy development. It 02 eerdewijk (jk/d) 16/10/01 3:03 pm Page 424 424 The European Journal of Women’s Studies 8(4) finally implies that women can go safely through pregnancy and childbirth, that fertility regulation can be achieved without health hazards and that people are safe in having sex. (Fathall, cited in Cook and Plata, 1994: 30) Reproductive health also requires sexual health. Because reproduction is closely linked to sexuality, it is necessary to make the ‘sexuality connec- tion’ (Dixon-Mueller, 1993a). When one talks about procreation and fertil- ity, one also needs to consider sexuality. Sexual health encompasses all aspects related to sexuality, and not merely reproduction. This reproductive and sexual health perspective is then linked to a rights approach that calls for the recognition, promotion and protection of sexual and reproductive rights (Dixon-Mueller, 1993a: 269). Women’s reproductive and sexual health, it is argued, is suffering from their lack of control over their own fertility, sexuality and bodies (Appelman and Reysoo, 1994; Dixon-Mueller, 1993b; Gupta, 1996;). Sexual and reproduc- tive rights claim women’s rights to make decisions concerning procre- ation and sexuality. They encompass, inter alia, the right to the highest attainable standard of sexual and reproductive health; the freedom to decide when, if, with