The Religion–Gender Nexus in Development

Policy and Practice Considerations

Nora Khalaf-Elledge

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367632328
• eBook ISBN: 9781000454758
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Sexuality & Gender in Religion

This book illuminates the intersection of religion and gender within the development sector, exposing challenges in both policy and practice and suggesting implementable solutions.

This book argues that a better understanding of the religion–gender nexus is needed by development sector practitioners, especially at a time when religious arguments are being used around the world to justify gender inequality and violence against women. The book draws on extensive qualitative research with senior gender personnel, religion advisors, and implementation partners from across the largest bilateral development agencies. The nexus is considered from the grassroots level up to donor country politics and across key themes, such as gender-based violence, reproductive rights, unpaid care and domestic work, and women's participation in leadership roles. The book concludes by offering implementable solutions for practitioners to address the religion-gender nexus in a more meaningful way.

Bridging the gap between academic theory and day-to-day development practice, this book is an important reference for development practitioners, and for researchers from across development studies, gender studies, and religious studies.

Part I Why the religion–gender nexus matters in development

1 Religion and gender at the crossroads Key concepts and theories

DOI: 10.4324/9781003112549-2

Religion and gender are deeply connected, and this chapter explores key concepts within their intersection. The discussion offers answers to the following questions: how are gender roles and relationships constructed in the context of religion, what drives the different treatment of men and women within religious traditions, and why are power and politics at the very centre of the religion–gender nexus? This chapter specifically focuses on the concepts of patriarchy, hegemonic masculinity, gender essentialism, and social constructionism. This chapter also covers the gender implications of rising religious fundamentalism and explores recent examples of religious feminism.

First and foremost, it is important to note how narrow existing literature on the religion–gender nexus is overall. Social sciences, including gender studies and religious studies, are yet to produce a dedicated research agenda on this intricate and dynamic interplay. The one area that has received ample interest, especially in Western discourses, is the gender differences in religiosity. Since the 1980s, social scientists in the West have been fascinated with the idea that women are more religious than men and have sought to explain this phenomenon (see Walter and Davie, 1998; Trzebiatowska and Bruce, 2012). However, the debate about who is more religious is at best inconclusive and at worst counterproductive:

The tendency for predominantly male sociologists to pursue the idea that women are universally and ahistorically more religious than men [may in itself be an effort] to cement the idea that women are natural producers of subordinate femininity.

(Day, 2017: 210)

In the absence of unbiased and empirically based research outside of Western Christian realms, a definitive global explanation of gender differences in religiosity remains elusive. Rather than debating the gender gap of religiosity, this book is interested in how religion and its institutions and practices have shaped, mirrored, or masked gender roles and inequalities.

What drives gender inequality in religious traditions?

Gender inequality in religious traditions is produced by the same structures that maintain it anywhere. The fallacy that religion is more prone to gender inequality than other social systems continues to be widespread in development practice. To avoid reproducing this myth, I will not focus on specific religious traditions but instead review concepts central to the intersection of religion and gender. A conceptual focus recognises the context dependency and historical situatedness of religions, rather than making universal and timeless claims about individual religious traditions.

Patriarchy

The boundaries between patriarchy and religion are blurred. In patriarchal systems, religion is often invoked to legitimise existing power structures and maintain gender norms (Sultana, 2011: 14). In other words, religion can both condone and conceal patriarchy. Patriarchy then comes to be seen as a characteristic of religion, when it should be an object of analysis in its own right (Wilson, 2017). A focus on patriarchal power structures can shed light on the interaction of religion and gender (Woodhead, 2007: 557). Patriarchies are the most common gendered systems of power. Therefore, they are a key focus in feminist theory. Patriarchy is commonly defined as ‘a system of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women’ (Walby, 1990: 214). A more detailed definition is given by French (1985: 239):

[Patriarchy consists in the] manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in general. It implies that men hold power in all the important institutions of society and women are deprived of access to such power.

In other words, patriarchies are systems in which men are more likely to hold positions of social, economic, and political power than women. Already in 1948, Marx and Engels observed that the domination of women enables men to control production and property. Much of feminist theory on patriarchy is influenced by Marx’s conceptualisation of social inequality. Feminist theory transferred Marxist ideas of class relations to male–female relations marking patriarchy as a key component of gender oppression (Wilson, 2000: 1493).

French’s conceptualisation of patriarchy (1985: 239) centres around the key issue of structural inequality but does not imply that ‘women are either totally powerless or totally deprived of rights, influences, and resources’. Women still have agency even in a system that is designed to deprioritise their interests. Moreover, women may also enact and benefit from patriarchal norms or support ideologies that are gender oppressive. Some patriarchal practices, such as female genital mutilation (FGM), are typically performed by women on women (Sultana, 2012; Monagan, 2010; Tomalin, 2007, also see Chapter 5). This understanding is important for development practitioners because there is still a widespread belief that increasing women’s participation alone or partnering with women will automatically generate more ‘women-friendly’ results. Likewise, there is currently little understanding of what differentiates a women’s organisation from a feminist one.

Hegemonic masculinity

Connell introduced the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinities’ to explain how men maintain dominance in societies (Connell, 1983¹). Based on a Gramscian understanding of hegemony, the adjective hegemonic refers to keeping one social group in a superior position to another. Hegemonic masculinity refers to the collective learnt patterns of behaviour that perpetuate men’s dominance over women. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005: 832) argue that while men feel compelled to live up to the ideal of hegemonic masculinity, they ‘ideologically legitimated the global subordination of women’. It equally subordinates men who do not conform with prevalent masculinity ideals. The concept of hegemonic masculinity has received significant attention over the past three decades and has served as a framework for much of the emerging research effort on men and masculinity, arguably replacing conventional ‘sex-role theory’ and categorical models of patriarchy. Because the concept has been applied to diverse practical issues and cultural contexts, it has also attracted considerable criticism. Petersen (1998), among others, argued that the very core of the concept is flawed because it establishes a false sense of unity of the character of men contrary to a fluid and diverse reality. Similarly, others have posited that it is built upon a heteronormative conception of gender that oversimplifies male–female differences and excludes women from the analysis (Paechter, 2006).

The concept of hegemonic masculinity in the context of religion remains unexplored. Nevertheless, sociologists have observed patriarchal structures within many religions (Seguino, 2011; Klingorova and Havlicek, 2015). Subsequently, these dynamics could also be explored through Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity, particularly since the features of male dominance identified by sociologists across religious traditions resemble the hegemonic traits highlighted in Connell’s theory. For example, monotheistic religions typically worship a God who is represented with male features (Klingorova and Havlicek, 2015). This does not mean that polytheistic religions and religions with goddesses are less patriarchal. Polytheism can be both empowering and oppressive for women depending on whether or not the patriarchal practices ‘fool girls into believing that they are not worthy of the same reverence bestowed on a goddess’ (Sarkar, 2014). The sacralising of male headship and female subordination in some religious interpretations may legitimise this hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity, applied to the study of gender and religion, could help explain why certain gender ideals are promoted over others and how this maintains the social hierarchy. Connell’s theory holds that these hierarchies are socially constructed and subject to change. The concept of hegemonic masculinity should therefore be of particular interest to feminist research in development as it allows for a ‘struggle for hegemony’. This struggle could result in the elimination of gender hierarchies or the replacement of older forms of masculinity by newer, perhaps less oppressive, ones (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005: 833).

Gender essentialism versus social constructionism

Gender essentialism refers to the idea that men and women are inherently different and that this difference is based on unique and natural attributes that qualify them as separate genders (Crompton and Lyonette, 2005: 601). Gender essentialism further stipulates that ‘those characteristics defined as women’s essence are shared in common by all women at all times’ and that it is ‘not possible for a subject to act in a manner contrary to her essence’ (Crompton and Lyonette, 2005: 601). In other words, essentialist theories present a binary understanding of gender that pits all women against all men, and vice versa. The idea of gender essentialism can appear across different scientific disciplines. For example, gender essentialism may be sustained in biological arguments, suggesting that maleness and femaleness are driven by different levels of sex hormones (Baron-Cohen, 2004). The debate on gender differences in religiosity mentioned at the beginning of this chapter is to a large extent based on gender essentialist assumptions, painting women as inherently more vulnerable, nurturing, and risk-averse than their male counterpa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• List of figures
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I Why the religion–gender nexus matters in development
• Part II How to engage with the religion–gender nexus in development policy and practice