I realize that this was not the main focus of her piece, but as she provided a nuanced explanation as to why early marriage cannot always be simply chalked up to female oppression, I do wish Archambault had expanded more on how/why it is nonetheless always the daughters who leave the home to be married off for economic prospects, and not the sons. She mentions it is a “product of colonial intervention” (p. 640), but I would be interested to read more on this. - Mahali


Response by Priyanka

I completely agree and support the argument Mahali has covered above. It infact ties in well with the concept of cultural liberty (capability and right of people to live and be what they are) as covered by Cowan . Currently it seems that including human rights and culture as basis to design developmental policy take a libertarian paternalistic approach, similar to behavioural economic and nudging. However, ethics of hierarchy  and dehumanization then become concerns. For who is superior to decide and why? or is it just about who holds the power to decide what is the human right? A possible bottom up approach and giving the dignity of choice to the beneficiary could possibly be a more humane and cultural libertarian approach instead. This is where anthropologist could possibly help bridge the gap.

Response by Ali Butler

I completely agree with the above. the common narrative appears to reinforce the saviour story of NGO's. With money flowing in from foreign donors there is the whiff of colonialism and the imposing of supposedly modernised views. Although well intentioned it is clear that the pre determined agenda's of NGO's stifle a more nuanced discourse when it comes to development in the area. It is interesting to note that the age at which circumcision is taking place is falling in the area casting doubt on the idea that its practice is based on an outdated patriarchal tradition as supposed to early marriage being a result of economic and environmental strains that shift the needs of families.

Response to Mahali by Rebecca

It is interesting that you questioned  why it is always the daughters who leave the home to be married off instead of sons. The "trade" of women is not simply an economic transaction (for bride wealth) but is historically and deeply rooted in cultural practice. The idea of gift exchange suggested by Marcel Mauss suggest that exchange has formed the basis for social interaction and Levi-Strauss noted that the exchange of women is an essential principle in kinship systems. These ideas of exchange present women as "the gift" and men as "the giver", such distinction is suggested to keep the woman in her place and suggest the oppression of women is seen as consequence of the relations by which gender and sex are ordered and constructed.
To draw on your point further, gender Maasai relations could be seen as a product of "colonial intervention" as early British rule consolidated the emergence of patriarchy amongst the Maasai. The administrators presumed the Maasai authority figures were the elder men so gave them new rights and responsibilities (gathering tax, imposing livestock judgements) to control junior Maasai men and women. As you are interested to read more I would suggest to read Hodgson (1999) Pastoralism, Patriarchy and History: Changing Gender Relations among Maasai in Tanganyika - I too found it really interesting.

Laura Torres

I too was very glad to see how Uvin points out the hypocrisy within NGOs as the human rights they have deemed universal are implemented in the “Third World” without “requiring a critical look at oneself” (p. 602). Speaking from personal experience, I have witnessed how the neoliberal, hierarchical symptoms of larger actors have unfortunately begin to also seep into grassroots organizations — power struggles among colleagues and unfair or unrealistic expectations, to name a couple. There is also, within some grassroots efforts, little questioning if the work they do is actually necessary, and little if any conversation with the aid-receivers about what kind of aid they actually want to receive.

Response by Shabazz
First off all the insights above are really well articulated. I loved the way Riwa compared western development practice as a game of monopoly, which just sums up the capitalist nature of the world powers. In that light you could even argue that Article 17 (the right to own property) of the UDHR is one that is capitalist in nature.

Much like how you guys put it, the most prominent thought in my head reading this was the who's who debate. The adoption of "the right to development" was seen as a victory. But a victory for who? was it really a win for those living in conditions that were not good, or was it a win for those in power so they can justify exercising their power, from their moral high horse?

In my opinion, even if you were to take a legalistic view, this is nothing more than a political victory. So the right to development is protected? so what is development? how can you protect something for which you cannot have a bona-fide legal universal definition. Even within the declaration there is no definition to what they mean by development (https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/righttodevelopment.aspx). It is ridiculously vague and clearly, a political tool to exercise power.

 

After reading Chambers last week, I made a mental note to use “Who’s Voices” as a heuristic for unpacking the power structures that constitute development discourses. But then, reading Montgomery’s article where she, like Chambers, asked for the voices of the children to be at the center of the human rights and child prostitution debate, got me thinking in a different direction. As Montgomery has described, the children and the women of Baan Nua have, through a complex interplay and cultural norms and economic reasons have internalized prostitution, and throughout the text, I heard only this one voice. I couldn’t really separate the voice of the child, from the parent or the grandparent, or the community. In the context of who’s voices, this becomes problematic for me – what if this voice is really an echo that is bouncing off another voice? What if through generations of conditioning, the children are really only echoing what they have seen, heard or learnt. When we know that social conditioning and cultural norms play a significant role in legitimizing power hierarchies, how do we know that this conditioning is not playing out in the “voices” we hear? By legitimizing voices, are we also legitimizing the very power hierarchies we want to dismantle? How can we as anthropologists separate the echo from the voice? It this possible? Is this necessary?

-Anu- 

 
Response by Mahali
You raise some really difficult and important questions, some of which also crossed my mind  in this reading, as well as when reading about female genital mutilation or early marriage. One of the most important lessons anthropologists are taught is to not generalize, and to be critical of statements declared to be universal truths. In this specific context, we could take that to mean that for every individual that does not wish to take part in cultural norms the West sees as exploitative or oppressive, there is an individual that is eager to. As you mentioned, of course, the discourse around “whose voices” becomes extremely more complex when children are involved, as children are widely perceived to lack the capability to act in their own best interests. 

I don’t feel qualified to answer the questions you have posed but I think it would certainly require an intersection of critical theory, cultural analysis and extensive, truly inclusive ethnographic fieldwork to get there. As we can see from our readings, there is still much improvement needed in all of these areas, particularly with the "bottom-up" approach that would be necessary for this kind research.

In addition, one of the things I though was interesting about Uvin’s article, was the emphasis on the importance of empowering marginalised groups, challenging oppression and changing power relations. By empowering marginalised groups, we are giving a voice to local actors and those who would typically be ignored by institutions, further ignoring their rights and not take into consideration their cultural background. If development is serious about making effective change, it needs to go beyond projects and more about extending support to local voices and actors who challenge and speak out against violations. Also, through collaborating with local actors, we learn about their culture by listening, which is more effective as you can adapt Human rights to their culture and understanding (Archambault discusses vernacularisation which is contextualising human rights violations by exploring their local interpretations and understandings). This is important because people’s voices can be heard and understood, giving marginalised groups dignity, which has been ignored or forgotten in the past 

+Phoebe 

I agree, and I think this relates to something from Merry's article, where marginalised groups used the language/discourse of the West to their own advantage, with the Aboriginal using the phrases of African-Americans fighting racism. So they used transnational discourse and appropriated these sentiments, but applied them to a local context to make their voices heard.
Izzi

As culture is fluid and not bound to tradition, the practices and beliefs as well as the political, economic and social structures of all countries need to be examined and challenged rather than simply using culture as a way of “othering”. 

Susie Brand

- Sarah M.

I was particularly intrigued by the idea of “rights as culture”, where the law itself creates a social space. Human rights and written laws presume a subjectivity, an element of choice, or the ability to exit a culture (with culture being static). Whereas, identities and subjectivities cannot be easily regulated or confined within discourse, with laws trying to make identities “sites for regulation”. 

I was intrigued by Strathern’s point that human rights should take into account the way that people “visualise themselves as carried by other persons… by their relations to others”, rather than as identifiable individuals, who can make simple choices.
Izzi B