“Just Push It Through”

IF 1.3 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Sophia Boutilier
{"title":"“Just Push It Through”","authors":"Sophia Boutilier","doi":"10.1525/sod.2021.0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In what ways, if any, do development workers practice solidarity? In-depth interviews with 42 current and former workers for the Canadian federal development agency reveal that emotions are important factors in how solidarity is enacted and where it breaks down. Almost all the interviewees described feelings of frustration and reward in their development work, but whether these emotions contribute solidarity is contingent on the extent to which these workers identify with their partners. The more they identify, the more they push for the development outcomes they believe will best serve their partners, often despite Canadian political priorities. However, the conflict between Canadian and development interests can lead to burnout, especially for women, who are more likely to challenge the organization—and to face professional hurdles as a result. In contrast, workers who see themselves as primarily accountable to Canadians experience less frustration and easier career paths. For this group, the reward of “doing good” becomes an additional source of privilege that further separates them from development partners. The case of Canadian development workers highlights the challenges of solidarity as an elusive yet important development ethic and sheds light on broader questions of how solidarity can challenge privilege to redress inequalities.","PeriodicalId":36869,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Development","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/sod.2021.0039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In what ways, if any, do development workers practice solidarity? In-depth interviews with 42 current and former workers for the Canadian federal development agency reveal that emotions are important factors in how solidarity is enacted and where it breaks down. Almost all the interviewees described feelings of frustration and reward in their development work, but whether these emotions contribute solidarity is contingent on the extent to which these workers identify with their partners. The more they identify, the more they push for the development outcomes they believe will best serve their partners, often despite Canadian political priorities. However, the conflict between Canadian and development interests can lead to burnout, especially for women, who are more likely to challenge the organization—and to face professional hurdles as a result. In contrast, workers who see themselves as primarily accountable to Canadians experience less frustration and easier career paths. For this group, the reward of “doing good” becomes an additional source of privilege that further separates them from development partners. The case of Canadian development workers highlights the challenges of solidarity as an elusive yet important development ethic and sheds light on broader questions of how solidarity can challenge privilege to redress inequalities.
“把它推过去”
发展工作者在哪些方面(如果有的话)践行团结?对42名加拿大联邦发展机构的现任和前任员工的深入采访显示,情绪是决定团结如何建立和在哪里破裂的重要因素。几乎所有的受访者都描述了他们在开发工作中的挫败感和回报感,但这些情绪是否有助于团结取决于这些工人对其合作伙伴的认同程度。他们越明确,就越会推动他们认为最有利于合作伙伴的发展成果,往往不顾加拿大的政治优先事项。然而,加拿大利益和发展利益之间的冲突可能会导致倦怠,尤其是对女性来说,她们更有可能挑战组织,并因此面临职业障碍。相比之下,那些认为自己主要对加拿大人负责的工人经历的挫折更少,职业道路也更容易。对于这一群体来说,“做好事”的奖励成为一种额外的特权来源,进一步将他们与发展伙伴分开。加拿大发展工作者的案例突出了团结作为一种难以捉摸但重要的发展伦理所面临的挑战,并揭示了团结如何挑战特权以纠正不平等的更广泛问题。
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
Sociology of Development
Sociology of Development Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
14
×
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