It
is suggested that women in farming households are separately impacted by the
adoption of genetically modified cotton in India, and not just by a
trickle-down effect caused by increase in family income. Subramanian, Kirwan,
Pink and Qaim (2010) have said that Bt cotton technology contributes to higher
income of female laborers because harvesting of cotton is primarily female
activity in India. Higher the yield gained by Bt cotton, higher is the
employment for female laborers and therefore higher income for them. The
additional income acquired due to Bt cotton leads to withdrawal of in-house
females from farming activities and raises their quality of life. These
arguments obviously side with the argument that genetically modified crops
yield economic benefits for he agriculture.
A
different argument comes from a separate faction. Pionetti (2005) for example
has suggested that women farmers’ practices of saving seeds contributes to
self-reliance in seed, crop, nutrition, and diversity. Their paper argues for
radical re-orientation in public policies to support autonomous seed production
in dryland South India. This group does not readily embrace the narrative of
biotech as good for agricultural yield and economy.
Another
voice adding to the issue of gender in the debate over Genetically Modified
crops comes from Shiva (1992). She posits monocultures as against diversity,
and therefore against the farming practices of women. Because women’s farm and
agriculture related practices are diverse, for them rice is not only food, but
it is also fodder for cattle and straw for thatch. She argues that women’s
indigenous knowledge should be the basis of crop improvement strategies.
A similar note resonates in P. Sainath’s
reportage where he points out that women in agriculture are not considered
‘farmers’. The clue here then is that it is necessary to hear what women
farmers have to say about the changing ways of agriculture.
All
of these views, including the first study mentioned in this blog that speaks
about higher income for women in agricultural households suggest that women,
their income, their knowledge all together becomes an important and a separate factor
in evaluating the impact of new agricultural technology. The theoretical
impulse underlying this contention is that the particular as important in
relation to the universal, as Mohanty (2003) says. In “‘Under Western Eyes’
Revisited” she mentions that her analytical framework is the one that is
attentive to the micropolitics of everyday life and macropolitics of global
economic and political processes. ‘Under Western Eyes’ sought to draw
attention to what was left out of feminist theorizing, the material complexity,
reality, and agency of Third World women’s lives. In her rewriting of it, in
the twenty first century, she suggests that using the same strategy, now
theory, critique, and activism around antiglobalization has to be the key focus
for feminists.
I
want to end this blog by deriving some possible insights from the
above-mentioned works. The literature cited above along with Mohanty’s essay on
the new agenda for ‘Under Western Eyes’ suggests that gender needs to be
treated as a separate category in studying poor women in marginalized settings
in the new economic and global processes. Their concerns need to be addressed
with new theoretical insights. And one way to do draw new theoretical insights
is by being attentive to the particular, the local, the everyday. I believe it
is a crucial point to note that this theoretical gap has been identified and
new theorizing is considered necessary.
References:
Subramanian,
A., Kirwan, K., Pink, D., & Qaim, M. (2010). GM crops and gender issues. Nature
Biotechnology, 28(5), 404-406.
Pionetti,
C. (2005). Sowing autonomy: gender and seed politics in semi-arid India.
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
Shiva,
V. (1992). Women's indigenous knowledge and biodiversity conservation. India
International Centre Quarterly, 205-214.
Mohanty,
C. T. (2003). “Under Western Eyes” Revisited: Feminist Solidarity through
Anticapitalist Struggles. Signs, 28(2), 499-535.