Guest post by: Brenda Bartelink Centre for Religion, Conflict and Globalisation, University of Groningen and Elisabet Le Roux, Unit for Religion and Development Research, University of Stellenbosch
Researchers from the University of Groningen and the University of Stellenbosch recently concluded a one-year study on the role of faith leaders in challenging gender-based violence and gender inequality [i]. The study, which was funded by the UK Department for International Development [ii] and and carried out by the Gender-Based Violence Hub of the Joint Learning Initiative on Local Faith Communities, was entitled “Working effectively with faith leaders to challenge harmful traditional practices.” The study explored faith leaders’ roles in challenging gender-based violence and made recommendations for how the faith dimensions in development work can be taken seriously (rather than merely instrumentalised). Building on a recent post on CIHA Blog, the problematics around the framing of “harmful traditional practices” are explored in the context of their consequences for development practice.
“… we really had a pushback from the traditional leaders from that community when they heard us talking to the number of ‘harmful traditional practices’. And you know, they basically made an argument that there is no such thing as a harmful traditional practice: ‘What it is, is first of all you people from the outside, you are non-Tsonga people. You come in and you vilify our traditional practices because you don’t understand them. So don’t talk to us about harmful traditional practice.’ … (W)e stopped using that terminology because we realised it was shutting doors for us instead of opening doors” (June 23, 2017).
Sandra, a senior programme officer based in Zimbabwe, was one of many interlocutors who pointed at particular problematics in using the terminology of “harmful traditional practices” in their work within local communities. At community level, the term was used rarely, if at all. This is because it creates resistance and hinders the process of engaging people in local communities to challenge injustice and violence, particularly against women and girls. Rather, an integrated approach is preferred, which addresses all of the varied factors – such as gender constructs, poverty, and patriarchy – that lead to practices that harm women and girls. When directly and exclusively addressing a specific issue, it is preferred to name the specific practice, rather than use the general term “HTP”. While phrased somewhat more pragmatically, these findings resonate with the academic debate on the problematic nature of the term, highlighting how it enforces colonialist discourse and has certain biases around religion (cf. a previous post via The Religion Factor and an earlier post by Jackie Ogega via CIHA Blog).
Emerging out of a growing interest amongst European development agencies over the past two decades in the role of religion in development, our 2017 research project investigated the role of faith leaders in challenging these “harmful traditional practices” (the term was chosen by the UK’s Department for International Development, which commissioned the research). This research was led by the Unit for Religion and Development Research at Stellenbosch University, in collaboration with the Centre for Religion, Conflict and Globalization (CRCG) at the University of Groningen. The study focused on five organizations (Tearfund, World Vision International, Islamic Relief Worldwide, Christian Aid and ABAAD) that work with “faith leaders” to challenge “harmful traditional practices.”
In the following section, we will outline some problematics in the focus on faith leaders and then return to problematics raised about the term “harmful traditional practices” and its uses in the international development sector.
The role of faith, faith communities and faith leaders
In the international development sector, religion and culture have often been seen as hampering women’s and girls’ human rights. Yet, Engela, a project officer, based in Sierra Leone, is convinced that faith leaders can contribute to addressing practices such as female circumcision.
“Faith leaders are sleep(ing) giants. They are not doing much [about female circumcision] now, but if they wake up, they can change it totally. Look what happened with Ebola here. With Ebola we had a game change when faith leaders came on board, it really changed things, it started reducing. So that is why I think we have to have faith leaders on board. It will be key.” (Engela, interview June 27, 2017)
Echoing Engela’s sentiments, many interlocutors stated that involving faith leaders is not just a matter of engaging their influence for the good, but also countering practices that the international health community considers to be harmful. The five organisations have all developed methodologies and approaches to engage with faith leaders, two of which stood out as critically important and effective if combined– a public health approach and a theological approach.
A focus on women’s health has been for its emphasis on the health needs of women and girls rather than on empowering them to exercise their rights. Yet, our interlocutors emphasized that it is important to share public health information because some faith leaders may not be trained in sexual and reproductive health knowledge. Mabad, an advocacy and policy specialist based in the UK, emphasized how faith leaders change their perceptions when learning about the health consequences of female circumcision:
“So particularly in countries like Egypt, you know, it’s like a no brainer, ‘Oh, it’s harmful, it shouldn’t be done then’. Because [in] Islam, fundamentally, protection of health and life is primary” (June 22, 2017).
Raising awareness of the health consequences of such practices creates a shared concern with the health and well-being of women and girls and opens up space for conversation and reflection. It takes the focus away from vilifying religion or culture, and places women’s health and well-being at the heart of the conversation.
In addition, the four faith-based organisations included in this study always combine public health information with a scriptural/theological approach. This allows these organisations to engage faith leaders in a discourse and framework which they understand and respect as authoritative. A female survey participant, working for a Faith-Based Organisation (FBO) in Africa and the Middle East, stated:
“I’ve found that backing into the rights from a faith perspective is more transformational, less confrontational, and more sustainable. The way I describe it is that we ask: What does God say about you/women/men/violence/protection value of children? [versus] What does the UN say in these areas?”
In the process of theological engagement, sacred scriptures are used to rethink and re-envision certain practices in terms of the equality of God’s creation. In this way, sacred scripture can be a powerful and even indispensable tool in challenging and transforming unequal and unjust structures and practices.
Policy
The forms of engagement with faith leaders and faith communities discussed in this post also presses researchers and policymakers to consider faith in the context of development beyond the instrumental and narrow roles in which it is often only considered in a predominantly secular field.[iii] Furthermore, as illustrated with the vignette on Sandra, our interlocutors in the five organisations reported tension between the critique of the term emerging from grass-roots experience, and the frequent usage of the term in policy discussion in the international development sector. The usage of these terms therefore need to be reconsidered for two reasons. First of all, because these terms create resistance and division in local communities. Our interlocutors did not only point out the resistance within local communities to forms cultural imperialism that come with development programming, but some of them shared concerns about empowering certain leaders (i.e. Christian and Muslim leaders that want to work with an FBO) while excluding other leaders in local communities.[iv] This could potentially lead to perpetuating “good religion”- “bad religion” (and “good religion” – “bad culture”) frames.[v] Secondly, the grassroots critique on the term “harmful traditional practice” raises an important question regarding who determines the terminologies used in international humanitarianism and development and once again who determines the most pressing problems regarding health and gender to be addressed (c.f. Saida Hodzic’s 2016 work on African activism related to FGC). As several feminist scholars have argued (Hodzic 2015; Gruenbaum 2015), anti-circumcision rhetoric is also perceived as throwing up as a “smokescreen” to block view of the fundamental injustices of colonial and post-colonial exploitative economic situations – the “harmful global practices” – that drive so much human suffering.
This blog post first appeared on Religion Factor, the blog for reflection on religion as an element in public life, coordinated by the Centre for Religion, Conflict and Globalisation, University of Groningen. Featured image source: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/thousands-of-women-in-ireland-subjected-to-female-genital-mutilation-1.3316927
About the Authors
Brenda Bartelink, Centre for Religion, Conflict and Globalisation, University of Groningen. Brenda is specialized in religion and development, health and well being and gender and sexuality. As a former advisor and coordinator of the Knowledge Centre Religion and Development and a convener of the research cluster Religion and Development at the Centre for Religion, Conflict and Globalisation, she cross-cuts the worlds of civil society, policy and research.
Elisabet Le Roux, Unit for Religion and Development Research, University of Stellenbosch. Lisa Le Roux is the Research Director at the Unit for Religion and Development Research (URDR), an interdisciplinary research unit at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. She is a faith and development expert, with a particular focus on sexual and gender-based violence. Having conducted research in countries across the world, her work includes the study of faith community responses to developmental issues in conflict-affected settings, patriarchy within faith communities, and interfaith peace and conflict.
[i] The study produced three policy briefs, a synthesis report, five case studies and a webinar recording that can be found on the website of the Joint Learning Initiative on Local Faith Communities.
[ii] This study was funded by UK aid from the UK government. However, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.
[iii] Ben Jones & Marie Juul Petersen (2011) Instrumental, Narrow, Normative? Reviewing recent work on religion and development, Third World Quarterly, 32:7, 1291-1306, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2011.596747
[iv] See also Marit Østebø and Terje Østebø.2014. “Are Religious Leaders a Magic Bullet for Social/Societal Change? A critical look at anti-FGM interventions in Ethiopia” in Africa Today, 60, 3.
[v] Orsi, Robert A. 2005. Between Heaven and Earth : The Religious Worlds People Make and the Scholars Who Study Them. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
This research work I do regard as very fundamental work in understanding the essence of spirituality, faith and development in how we approach our historical black communities. Further, what would also be useful is to learn how do women from white communities or eurocentric based communities in South Africa and in eg in Germany understand the link between gender, faith, development, spirituality and religion. Is there also something we can learn from their understanding noting that often it is the women who are involved in the practical implementation of spirituality and religious issues while it is the men who are the pastors who do the preaching and teaching. It is also these white women who have black women in their employment as home helps but I guess rarely transcend the working relationships to the level of a discussion between these women on religion and spirituality. I do believe that women from the previous advantaged communities be they South African or foreigners should take time out to better understand how their home helps see the world of spirituality and religion., eg you would often find a black home help sing hymns or hum hymns as she cleans the home or does the washing or the ironing. What is its significance? What can white privileged women learn from such singing, of hymns? This research work holds in great promise and should be supported. My further view from a spirituality perspective is that it is because in the South African context that the issue of religion and spirituality is often overlooked often by government, private sector and largely by middle class or even persons from the rural areas or townships that has undergone the economic transition from townships to suburbs, leaving behind their traditional and cultural practices making an argument that it is out of date or more significant as an embarrassment when they interface with previous historically advantaged communities and that is where I think we have lost the “plot”.
the research presented above is of enormous significance not only for traditional leaders or religious leaders but also for the larger society at large. however i would like to point out that at times in traditional African religion is quite difficult if not impossible to separate culture and religion. with this regards i would suggest that one of the possible way that we can use to implement this research is to prepare and lead African people towards a renunciation of some of traditional cultural and religious assumptions which are against women and integral development.