Dominant Development Indexes’ Construction of Gender and Challenges for Recognizing Everyday Activism for Peace and Security

IF 1.7 4区 社会学 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Mikaela Luttrell-Rowland, Sophia Rhee, Whitney Okujagu
{"title":"Dominant Development Indexes’ Construction of Gender and Challenges for Recognizing Everyday Activism for Peace and Security","authors":"Mikaela Luttrell-Rowland, Sophia Rhee, Whitney Okujagu","doi":"10.1177/14649934231152089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Developed organizations have increasingly garnered numerous indicators to measure gender and development outcomes. Yet, measurements themselves reflect a logic of the arenas where development occurs and can be captured, and therefore reflect where women are imagined to predominantly exist. Based on the analysis of 1,298 indicators across 15 major development databases covering African countries, this article argues that mainstream development organizations predominantly understand gender in terms of institutional sites. Sometimes these were sites for intervention, or a place for institutional ‘betterment’ (a hospital, a work place, and a school). Other times, these sites were conceptualized as natural places where women would be (the family and the nation state). We identify the spatial logics underpinning these development indicators, and link them to larger historical gendered and racialized colonial logics organizing diverse social, economic, and cultural lives, where economic and institutional sites are promoted, a more nuanced and relational one is displaced. Ultimately, these spatial imaginings extend to the larger context of where debates about peace and security are situated—namely in largely individual, state-driven, and institutional-centric ways.","PeriodicalId":47042,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Development Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":"152 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Development Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14649934231152089","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Developed organizations have increasingly garnered numerous indicators to measure gender and development outcomes. Yet, measurements themselves reflect a logic of the arenas where development occurs and can be captured, and therefore reflect where women are imagined to predominantly exist. Based on the analysis of 1,298 indicators across 15 major development databases covering African countries, this article argues that mainstream development organizations predominantly understand gender in terms of institutional sites. Sometimes these were sites for intervention, or a place for institutional ‘betterment’ (a hospital, a work place, and a school). Other times, these sites were conceptualized as natural places where women would be (the family and the nation state). We identify the spatial logics underpinning these development indicators, and link them to larger historical gendered and racialized colonial logics organizing diverse social, economic, and cultural lives, where economic and institutional sites are promoted, a more nuanced and relational one is displaced. Ultimately, these spatial imaginings extend to the larger context of where debates about peace and security are situated—namely in largely individual, state-driven, and institutional-centric ways.
主导发展指数对性别的构建与认识日常和平与安全活动的挑战
发达组织越来越多地获得了衡量性别和发展成果的众多指标。然而,衡量标准本身反映了发展发生和可以捕捉的领域的逻辑,因此反映了女性被认为主要存在的地方。基于对覆盖非洲国家的15个主要发展数据库中的1298项指标的分析,本文认为,主流发展组织主要从机构位置来理解性别。有时,这些地方是干预的场所,或者是机构“改善”的地方(医院、工作场所和学校)。其他时候,这些场所被概念化为女性所在的自然场所(家庭和民族国家)。我们确定了支撑这些发展指标的空间逻辑,并将其与更大的历史性别化和种族化殖民逻辑联系起来,这些逻辑组织了不同的社会、经济和文化生活,在这些生活中,经济和制度场所得到了促进,一个更微妙和更相关的场所被取代。最终,这些空间想象延伸到了关于和平与安全的辩论所处的更大背景下,即在很大程度上以个人、国家和机构为中心的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Progress in Development Studies
Progress in Development Studies DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Progress in Development Studies is an exciting new forum for the discussion of development issues, ranging from: · Poverty alleviation and international aid · The international debt crisis · Economic development and industrialization · Environmental degradation and sustainable development · Political governance and civil society · Gender relations · The rights of the child
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信