Here’s a quick reminding summary of each of the readings and the way I think they all fit together-
Sen:
Believes that freedom is not only a result of development but also a tool to promote other freedoms. I like how the open market was compared to a conversation- it seems silly to say that people could not communicate with one another- the same with people not being able to play a factor in the market economy. It is economically favorable for each person to specialize in something and trade their skills rather than each person attempting to provide everything for themselves. People need the freedom of exchange to promote economic growth, and economic growth opens up access to other forms of freedom that were previously unavailable like health care and education. It is an interesting and dynamic relationship between freedom and development- nice that this was brought to our attention. It seems to be another great feministic lens to view the world with.
Wright:
Talks about environmental protection is in correlation with poverty levels and standard of living. Discrimination is prevalent in the industry settlements. Political corruption and ties to chemical companies are the beginnings of this downward slope that the state of Louisiana has been going through for many of years. It should be a human security to live in a place with clean air and without the threat of increased risks of cancer and other detrimental diseases. The organization of community groups create great change in the right direction.
Enloe:
Talks about how economic growth (such as the shoe companies) isn’t always for the best of the people that are laboring and can inhibit their freedoms. Organization of the women in the work force created monumental change in changing women’s labor rights and requirements. There is a dynamic relationship between women rising up and losing their jobs because of that rise; however, they overcame that “fear” of insecurity and chose to pursue their rights.
Kevane and Gray:
The agricultural outcome of the country is highly dependent on gender situations. Production is differentiated between men and women mainly because of the maternal obligations at home. Women are slowly but surely becoming able to own land, but many still work off of their husbands land. Patriarchal societies and culture affect the economy greatly.
Young:
Talks about the new age of technology changing our world from a geospacial one to a sociospacial one; however, it could possible further marginalize the poor from the rich in access to information as a human right. On a positive note, it unites women around the world to come together and further their consciousness-raising activism.
In all of the readings this week I have noticed the common theme of social interactions being crucial to the dynamic relationship of socioeconomics and freedom. These interactions can and will lead to a monumental change in the right directions if applied. In all of the readings we have had this week there has been a group of people uniting on a certain cause and receiving change. For instance the communities wanting to be bought out or to stop a certain company from building in Wright, and the women of the labor force fighting for better working conditions in Enloe, the women in Kevane and Gray fighting to own their own crops rather than working them for others, and the feminists and other marginalized groups using the Internet as a tool to unite for their causes in Youngs.
I would like to add my own synthesis of the 5 articles. Sen binds all of the other articles together by stating that the usually narrowly defined term of development should be expanded to include freedoms to prosper, freedom from despondency and other deprivations. Then Wright chimes in by stating how groups can be marginalized by having companies target their communities for building dangerous chemical plants, because they are often less influential, minority communities. Enloe describes how globalized economies unfairly target the bodies and labor of Asian women who work long hours in factories (obeying the tradition of subservience towards their husbands) in order to provide for their families. Young explains how communication technologies, which are crucial in order to function in our globalized societies, are gendered and feminists need to be alert towards women’s access to technology and use the internet well for their purposes, fighting marginalization. Finally, Kevane & Gray detail how land rights are gendered in Burkina Faso and women have the right to cultivate, but men have all of the rights when it comes to buying/selling land, which deprives women of their ability to participate in the economy as much as men. All of these articles together illustrate the path that the world’s women’s rights movements should be walking on: promoting freedoms of access to the market place, technology, a safe place to live, and to have their labor be fair and respectful of their bodies. All of these freedoms are crucial in the integrating of nations’ economies that we call globalization.
These readings once again show us that there can be no half measures in the realization of our freedom and rights. Throughout these readings we see how people’s unfulfilled economic rights, whether to free and fair trade (or sale of their labor) (Enloe), the right to own and dispose of property (Kevane and Gray), to access tools of communication (Youngs), or to be free from exploitation by corporations that strangle the political process through economic clout (Wright) hinder their freedom.
If it is at all possible to talk of degrees of unfreedom, then I would think that it is inversely proportional to equality. I seems that as economic inequality grows, so does people’s unfreedom. Free trade is no longer fair when there is a lopsided relationship between giant corporations and lobbies that push the interests of a minority capitalist class at the expense of millions of people.
This is why I think that Adam Smith was right when he cautioned against collusion, and perhaps saw a place for state regulation of the economy. With MNCs I am sure he would advocate some regulation through IFIs.
Sen is clear that the relationship between individual freedom and achieving social development is not a purely constitutive relationship, but rather that social development is the driving force of freedom; what people can achieve depends on how many of, and to what extent, their rights are fulfilled.
I was somewhat irritated by the title of Kevane and Gray’s paper, because it was misleading. The title seemed to suggest that women in Burkina Faso had to sleep their way to gain some access to land, and that was clearly not the case in all instances, and women’s access to land in general was in fact changing.