Analysis of Reconstructing Gender Empowerment Article by Jawad Syed - Essay Example

Globalization Summary In his publication d, “Reconstructing Gender Empowerment”, Jawad Syed calls into question the world’s current conceptualization of gender empowerment citing concerns of scholars across the globe, including those affiliated with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (Syed 283). Syed infers that a Eurocentric perspective on gender empowerment dominates individuals’ understanding of the issue, despite this perspective failing to consider the complex, diverse nature of gender relations in a variety of socio-political contexts (Syed 283). He analyses underlying suppositions of the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) with the aim of validating its relevance in diverse socio-political contexts. In his description of gender empowerment, Syed describes UNDP’s use of GEM as an index of measuring gender inequality, which according to him is central to the conceptualization of the former (Syed 284). However, factors such as capitalist, elite, secular and similarity biases undermine the effectiveness of GEM as a composite index that measures gender inequality. According to Syed, the capitalist bias results in the non-consideration of women not employed in the formal sector, which results in inconclusive results about whether or not economic power and decision-making plays an integral role in GEM’s assessment of gender inequality. He compares rich and poor countries concluding that the derivative index of the GEM fails to reflect with accuracy the income levels, as a disparity exists between relative and absolute income analyzed (Syed 285-286). Syed also examines the role of the elite bias in undermining the effectiveness of the GEM. He infers that the sample analyzed is not a true representative of the female populations, as the focus is only on women from upper class socioeconomic status with access to education and political opportunities (Syed 286). In such a case, the GEM value is high as it excludes women from impoverished backgrounds with access to leadership levels at the grassroots. Contrastingly, the secular bias results from the inability of the GEM to consider the impact of religious commitments and choices on individuals’ perception of gender related issues. Syed cites the example of faith-based traditions, which he infers place more value on the traditional family set-up characterized by the man, playing the role of the breadwinner while the women playing the role of a nurturing caretaker (Syed 287). Finally, the similarity bias focuses on the assumption that both genders are similar in every way, which in turn leads to the expectation of similar outcomes during analysis using the GEM. It is impossible to view both sexes as equals especially without considering physiological differences that might render one sex more adaptable to specific jobs (Syed 288). Syed proposes a more holistic way of reviewing gender empowerment with limited focus on economic factors. Instead, he advocates for the use of a multi-level approach that will increase GEM’s usefulness in diverse socio-political contexts. Syed (289) cites the work of Bourdieu, which emphasizes on objective relations of power, and subjective experience. Personal outlook on gender empowerment The current conceptualization of gender is based on an ideal model, which fails to account for the differences in perspectives of gender related issues. A Eurocentric approach to gender related issues has and continues to have aversive effects in non-westernized cultural contexts. Firstly, non-westernized cultures are unable to relate to such an approach because it contrasts with fundamental aspects of their societies. It is difficult to change ingrained attitudes and beliefs systems ingrained through socialization and conditioning. Therefore, imposing a Eurocentric perspective on non-westerners is likely to fail, as majority view this imposition as blatant disrespect of their values, traditions and norms. Syed (284) infers that colonization devalued women’s labor, which in turn led to downgrading of domestic labor. GEM predominantly focuses on the economic power and decision-making dimension when searching for the gender inequality index. In a capitalist environment, researchers only assess the formal sector of employment opting to leave out the informal sector that constitutes work such as domestic labor (Syed 284). Failure to consider all types of employment leads to an inconclusive analysis of gender empowerment. For example, women employed in the formal sector in lower-level jobs that have meager remunerations often remain as a “ social minority”, as they experience rigid gender role stereotypes and slow career progression (Syed 285). Despite changes witnessed across the globe concerning gender related issues due to pressure exerted by the feminist movement, the capitalist structure continues to undermine the gender empowerment of women. In the past, companies rarely recruited women for positions they believed were more suitable for men. By the time employers agreed to let women fill such vacancies, they used money to impede women’s progress whereby they paid their male counterparts in similar positions more. This has been the trend even in contemporary society; for example, an “equal-pay” debate is raging on in the US. It is easier to assume that gender inequality and empowerment is best understood from an economic perspective. This is far from the case, as different facets or functions of society are interdependent on each other. An imbalance in the society results from the destabilization of a single function. For example, factors such as religion play a vital role in influencing individuals’ perception of gender related roles. Syed uses the secular bias to explain the seriousness of religion in influencing the lifestyles of those who profess the faith. Islam outlines clearly roles that are specific to each gender; for example, men are breadwinner while women are nurturing, domestic caretakers. In light of this, women rarely seek formal employment, as they are able to rely on their husbands to provide for them (Syed 287). An analysis focusing on gender inequality in such a region would indicate high levels of inequality, which those external to the situation might perceive to be unjust whereas those who profess believe it is their way of life. Only be developing competence in socio-political diversity can one hope to better understand gender empowerment. Syed proposes its reconstruction through a relational context. He proposes beginning at the macro-level where researchers focus on issues legal, social and political empowerment. In such a case, one will consider women in both high and low statuses while simultaneously addressing stereotypes (Syed 290). Contrastingly, at the meso-level Syed proposed analysis of affirmative action, legal compliance, diversity policies, and flexibility (Syed 290). At this level, issues are further magnified, as the focus is on a smaller area. Finally, at the micro-level the focus is more individualized with the aim of analyzing autonomy, literacy, inter-sectionality, and identity (Syed 290). Pros and cons of GEM For the longest time, organizations such as the UNDP have and continue to use GEM to measure gender inequality by focusing on the three dimensions (economic and political power and decision-making, and power over resources) (Syed 284). There are benefits to using a single composite index to assess gender empowerment. The first entails the creation of a standardized measure for those interested in conducting researches that seek to investigate various gender related issues. As it is, women exist in a world defined by diversity resulting from cultural, political, socioeconomic, and religious differences among others. Diversity accounts for the differences in perspectives between women. Through different agents of socialization, women become cognizant of their preset gender roles that in turn govern their behavior when engaging in different social issues. In a world currently defined by technological advancements that make it possible for people to communicate, therefore, share ideologies despite physical limitations it is pivotal to embrace standardized measures of analysis. Due to forces such as globalization, people from diverse backgrounds have been able to interact further complicating individuals’ outlook on gender related issues. Having a standardized measure helps scholars to assess for elements common to the unique and integrated cultures. The biases mentioned by Syed represent the major constraint undermining the effectiveness of GEM. The capitalist bias prevents researchers from focusing on women in informal sectors of employment whereas the elite bias prevents them from focusing on women in impoverished backgrounds. In addition, the secular bias prevents researchers from considering the role of religion in influencing individuals’ perspectives on gender empowerment whereas the similarity bias prompts researchers to view both sexes as similar regardless of obvious differences that are likely to sideline a specific gender. Conclusion In conclusion, the GEM is a useful tool used to analyze gender empowerment by assessing gender inequality along three dimensions. Results gathered are often conclusive save from when biases such as elite, similarity, secular, and capitalist taint them. GEM provides a standardized measure for scholars amidst the diverse contexts present around the globe. However, it is prudent for researchers to be cautious of the dimension chosen for analysis, as different aspects such as religion and socio-economic status are likely to interfere with the index level. The author concludes by stating that the use of multi-level approach proves to be the only way individuals can hope to understand gender empowerment within a socio-political diverse world. Work Cited Syed, Jawad. "Reconstructing Gender Empowerment." Womens Studies international Forum 33.3 (2010): 283-294. Read More