Retheorizing empowerment-through-participation as a performance in space: Beyond Tyranny to transformation
Retheorizing empowerment-through-participation as a performance in space: Beyond Tyranny to transformation
复制标题
作者：
Kesby, M
虽然参与性方法源于一系列政治观点和传统，并且本质上并不是女权主义，但它们可以为实际的女权主义政治提供一种手段。参与式方法旨在减少和规避研究和开发中通常涉及的权力关系，并通过促进边缘群体参与项目的设计、实施和结果，将其发言权提升到新的水平。大量文献表明，通过重新分配权力并在“内部人”和“外部人”之间建立更多互惠关系，参与式方法可以培养普通人分析和改变其生活的能力，从而提供一种促进赋权的实用手段（例如，参见Chambers 1994，1997）。在大量积极的报道中，《参与：新暴政》（Cooke and Kothari 2001b）脱颖而出，成为对既定解释的关键挑战。撰稿人强烈认为，“参与”一词被用来服务于各种各样的政治议程，其中许多议程并不是很激进；当作为技术官僚货物“交付”时，参与性方法可以强加而不是克服权力关系；从业者错误地将当地社区想象为离散且社会同质的；我谨将本文献给津巴布韦 Mhondoro 的男人、女人和青年，以及非政府组织 (NGO)、南部非洲艾滋病毒和艾滋病信息传播服务处 (SaFAIDS) 和 Tsungirirai 的同事，我感谢他们的持续支持和慷慨。我还要感谢苏格兰大学卡内基信托基金和英国科学院（小额研究补助金 SG-29725）的财政支持，感谢三名未透露姓名的审稿人富有洞察力的评论，《Signs》编辑人员出色的编辑工作，以及圣安德鲁斯大学的朋友们的同事支持。最后，感谢戴尔、丹和蒂姆每天给我带来的挑战、见解和爱。
While participatory approaches emanate from a range of political per-spectives and traditions and are not inherently feminist, they can offer one means to a practical feminist politics. Participatory approaches aspire to reduce and circumvent the power relations normally involved in research and development and to take the notion of giving the marginalized a voice to new levels by facilitating their involvement in the design, implementation, and outcomes of programs. A substantial literature suggests that by redistributing power and establishing more reciprocal relationships between “insiders” and “outsiders,” participatory approaches build ordinary people’s capacity to analyze and transform their lives and thus provide one practical means to facilitate empowerment (see, eg, Chambers 1994, 1997). Amid the plethora of largely positive accounts, Participation: The New Tyranny?(Cooke and Kothari 2001b) stands out as a critical challenge to established interpretations. Contributors argue forcefully that the term participation is being mobilized to serve a wide variety of political agendas, many of which are not very radical; that participatory approaches can impose, not overcome, power relations when “delivered” as a technocratic cargo; that practitioners have erroneously imagined local communities as discrete and socially homogeneous; that “local knowledge” has been romanticized, intracommunity divisions underemphasized, and the positive contribution of external agents under-I dedicate this article to the men, women, and youths of Mhondoro, Zimbabwe, and to colleagues at the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) Southern African HIV and AIDS Information Dissemination Service (SaFAIDS) and Tsungirirai, whom I thank for their continued support and generosity. I would also like to thank the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland and British Academy (small research grant SG-29725) for its financial support, three unnamed referees for their insightful comments, the Signs editorial staff for their brilliant editorial work, and friends at the University of St. Andrews for their collegial support. Finally, thank you Dale, Dan, and Tim for the challenges, insights, and love you give me every day.