The word ‘empower’ literally means to attain power. In academic discourse, the concept of empowerment has come to indicate unequal distribution of power especially when it comes to marginalised communities and minority groups, while acknowledging that there are other individuals and groups experiencing some form of disempowerment in their everyday life. The concept of empowerment has also been seen as a process of change from an initial state of disempowerment to a state where one is able to effectively encounter power deficiencies, develop strategies and attain empowerment (Solomon 1976; Kabeer 1999), as indicated in one of the testimonies in the previous section. However, Kabeer (1999) rightly points out that there is ‘fuzziness’ in the way empowerment has been defined and this fuzziness increases when we move from the broader concepts of empowerment to narrowing it down in terms of measuring it. Some have advocated for the retention of this fuzziness, so as to ensure its diversity and ability to represent several situations:
In some ways, the concept has continued to be interpreted differently by many and has come to mean different things to different stakeholders (Prah 2013). Originally, the term ‘empowerment’ appeared in Barbara Solomon’s book Black Empowerment: Social Work in Oppressed Communities in 1976. Solomon (1976) defined empowerment as “a process whereby the social worker engages in a set of activities with the client or client system that aim to reduce the powerlessness that has been created by negative valuation based on membership in a stigmatized group” (19: ibid.). Since this particular use of the term largely applied with respect to minority racial and ethnic populations2, it to gain/gaining popularity in contexts of other marginalised groups as well primarily because of its central engagement with the concepts of power.
1.2.1 Conversations of power
Earlier, women would call her if they had difficulty in solving their own problems. But now, women are able to solve their problems themselves. They are more confident and can work on resolving their own problems. (Interview, 1 September 2016)
There are multiple ways in which power manifests itself and it can often be the hardest to define. One of the accepted definitions in Sociology has been that of Weber’s: ‘the ability of an individual or group to achieve their own goals or aims when others are trying to prevent them from realising them’. In this context, power is seen as authoritative where subjugation has been internalised and the power legitimised. This kind of power is distinct from coercive power where the subjugation is by force. Another framework that has been accepted widely categorises power relations into four types – power over (ability to influence and coerce), power to (organise and change existing hierarchies), power with (power from collective action) and power within (power from individual consciousness) (Luttrell 2009). These concepts have been heavily debated upon, especially given the way in which power is dynamic and re-created anew in some relationships, but can also be stable and entrenched in social institutions in terms of the way in which power shifts depending on the relationship (Pantazidou 2012; Singh 2007). All conversations of power also engage with the concept of agency, which can be defined as an individual’s ability to act independently and the capability to make choices, even if they are limited by operative social structures (Santos 2011). Because power is not always visible or obvious and can be hidden behind social norms and practices, it is often harder to engage with it in lived experience (Gaventa 2006). Often, this means that engagement is often done with visible power holders, instead of those that are created within entrenched relationships (Pantazidou 2012). The social systems in which individuals and groups operate abounds with values, principles and norms envisaged by the dominant groups that aid in discriminatory practices, which over time, can become systematic, rigid and pervasive in nature. As for the individual, the process of social conditioning and internalisation of these constructs permeates into one’s consciousness and forms a world view, judgements, social actions and self-esteem.
One of the foremost experts in engaging with the ways in which the social discourse of power results in the practice of oppression and discrimination was Paul Freire. Freire (1968)3 theorised that typically, the one who held power often could manipulate those without into creating an incomplete and fragmented view of the issues afflicting the. This instilling of the belief of inferiority was often accomplished with a permeating social discourse that influences not just individuals but also social institutions. He also contended that the ways to break these cultural and social norms was to critically examine the social narratives that form the basis of these norms. He called this radical approach, ‘creating critical consciousness’. The idea of the ‘critical consciousness’ was simple: it was merely a tool that allowed those without power to critically examine the social discourses, practices, and norms that bound them to their social norms.
The principle idea was to allow those who are oppressed to reflect on their experiences of powerlessness and to gain insight that their disempowerment is the result of a complexity of social forces that results in their own devaluation (Fischer 1987). A critical consciousness involves continuous examination of one’s own knowledge and values, not only to counter forms of oppression but more importantly, to revise one’s position in the social system. This results in a state of raised consciousness which then aids in the identification and development of strategies to counter structural forms of power. This central concept of examining social discourse as the foundational process of addressing oppression was also appealing to many social movements, including the feminist movement, precisely because it laid emphasis on engaging with the most marginalised and oppressed of populations.
Given any kind of feminist politics has engaged fundamentally with the notion of power, this idea was particularly appealing. Although the translation of the theoretical understanding of power into the lived realities of programmatic practice can sometimes lead to essentialising the ‘subject’, and obfuscating the power inherent in representation, the engagement with power has been a constant theme within feminist politics (Akerkar 1995). For example, when we talked to women about the kinds of attitudinal changes that they experienced, one of them told us:
It should not happen that you are working and your husband is taking decisions for you. If a woman is the head of the village, then she should understand her rights and duties both. She should have equal rights at home also. We should take decisions on family matters. And further we should not follow our male folks at home. They can also be wrong. (Interview, 25 January 2017)
Empowerment, for many feminists, was not just about pushing back on the practices of patriarchy, but to provide the space to examine the notion that their husbands could be wrong, in a patriarchal framework that never questions the authority of the husband. For feminists, the idea of the critical consciousness was very useful because it allowed them tools and ways to fight the traditional hegemonic boundaries of patriarchy without alienating the women themselves. So, these conversations of power that Freire (1968) brought to bear allowed feminists movements in many countries, including India, to engage with the systems of oppression, instead of the objects of oppression.
1.2.2 Influence of the feminist movement
My work is done whenever I go out to solve my problem and it proves that I am strong. I go to block and district offices and to courts without my husband. I don’t have anyone with me; still, my work gets done and that shows that lam an empowered woman. (Focus Group Discussion, 23 April 2017)
One of the central tenets of the feminist movement is to ensure that there are organisational as well as discursive use of resources that can ensure that women of seemingly diverse interests and identities are imagined into a particular constituency and can use that engagement with the imagined community to restructure the current status quo (Marx Ferree and McClurg Mueller 2004). So, while women’s movements themselves might have targeted other constituents apart from women, the various feminist movements all over the world have often used the figure of the ‘woman’ as the imaginary onto which any discursive action is hooked upon. Even with this singular imagination, the different feminism and the ideologies underpinning the differences have led to certain forms of inclusion and exclusion over the years (Akerkar 1995). This has meant that certain kinds of conversations about the feminist subject have been legitimised over the years.
In fact, some feminists claim that the ideological conversations between feminists, for example, between liberal, radical or socialist feminists, have not necessarily been used to create a dialogue but to draw sharp boundaries of exclusion and condemnation (Akerkar 1995). But these conversations have illustrated a fundamental understanding of women’s empowerment and emancipation and it is that women are a diverse group and creating a uniform understanding or engagement with women is bound to fail. Instead, women’s issues should also be seen as social constructions that are propagated by oppressive social and discursive structures that influence and mitigate the stating of the needs and requirements of the subject (Marx Ferree and McClur...
