Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in _menu_load_objects() (line 579 of /home3/afdbnetc/public_html/gip/includes/menu.inc).
I would like to make a few remarks about the statement by Kristy Langerman:
“Studies confirm that failure to consider the different needs of women and men can limit the effectiveness of energy programmes and policies, as well as other development activities that involve energy use”.
This statement draws our attention to the interaction between social, technical and political processes.
Our experience is that the “different needs of women and men” and the prevailing technology interact within the economic and political conditions and combine in different ways in different contexts, to produce different domestic practices or usage patterns. The agency of women and men play a role in the eventual practice that emerges, and this practice, in turn, impacts on both women and men.
A few case studies are presented below.
In the 1990’s Nova did research on coal use in townships. The picture that emerged emphasised the importance of the coal stove. One woman said: “Even if there is no food, but there is fire, I am still happy, because the stove brings the family together”.
This coming together of the family was of huge importance in the process of urbanisation where it was feared that the traditional family was disintegrating. Coming together around the stove in the evening, where the mother is providing food and family members can talk about the events of the day, helped family members to restore their own sense of wellbeing and their mutual relationships. In such a process value transfer to children takes place. If however, the design of the house separates the kitchen from the dining room, it may happen that the elderly sit around the stove in the kitchen and the children watch TV in the dining room – resulting in a completely different process of socialising and value transfer.
The image that emerges from our present research, about 20 years later, is that the stove has become less prominent, while TV has become very prominent. In some families the children watch TV without their parents, while in some families the whole family watches TV together. The impact that this will have on family relations, values, and ways of thinking still has to be seen.
In 1996 Leslie Bank, B Mlomo and P Lujabe did research on energy use in low income households in metropolitan areas Eastern Cape.
In one area fire caused by paraffin was so common that the saying ’We live in paraffin and burn in it' had become a motto of despair for those who lived here. However, electrification projects did not bring the end of parafin use. Only 3% of the approximately 20% of households with electricity in their sample claimed to use electricity only. This means that 17% of the 20% were backswitching to other fuels.
Women backswitched to paraffin because lending and borrowing paraffin creates a social network that provides moral support and it allows them to mystify the household budget. That gave them power. Men were interested in the domestic electrical appliances and so tended or attempted to assert greater power in the inner domestic workings of their households in an arena of decision-making that was conventionally the domain of women. Men, on their part, welcomed paraffin because it is labour intensive and keeps women at home more than electricty did.
The researchers concluded: electrification unsettled the balance of interests and power which reinforced the social dominance of parafin
Conclusion: In a context where a number of diverse factors interact, introducing new energy technology may lead to a rearrangement of “the different needs of women and men” as well as the power they have. For long term success it is important to consider the whole picture and not only the technical performance of energy technology. Not only tecnical innovation is needed, the technolgy must function in a life-giving way in the household. Finding such domestic practices can only be done with households.
I would like to make a few
Submitted by Attie van Niekerk on Fri, 25/11/2016 - 15:06 Permalink
I would like to make a few remarks about the statement by Kristy Langerman:
“Studies confirm that failure to consider the different needs of women and men can limit the effectiveness of energy programmes and policies, as well as other development activities that involve energy use”.
This statement draws our attention to the interaction between social, technical and political processes.
Our experience is that the “different needs of women and men” and the prevailing technology interact within the economic and political conditions and combine in different ways in different contexts, to produce different domestic practices or usage patterns. The agency of women and men play a role in the eventual practice that emerges, and this practice, in turn, impacts on both women and men.
A few case studies are presented below.
In the 1990’s Nova did research on coal use in townships. The picture that emerged emphasised the importance of the coal stove. One woman said: “Even if there is no food, but there is fire, I am still happy, because the stove brings the family together”.
This coming together of the family was of huge importance in the process of urbanisation where it was feared that the traditional family was disintegrating. Coming together around the stove in the evening, where the mother is providing food and family members can talk about the events of the day, helped family members to restore their own sense of wellbeing and their mutual relationships. In such a process value transfer to children takes place. If however, the design of the house separates the kitchen from the dining room, it may happen that the elderly sit around the stove in the kitchen and the children watch TV in the dining room – resulting in a completely different process of socialising and value transfer.
The image that emerges from our present research, about 20 years later, is that the stove has become less prominent, while TV has become very prominent. In some families the children watch TV without their parents, while in some families the whole family watches TV together. The impact that this will have on family relations, values, and ways of thinking still has to be seen.
In 1996 Leslie Bank, B Mlomo and P Lujabe did research on energy use in low income households in metropolitan areas Eastern Cape.
In one area fire caused by paraffin was so common that the saying ’We live in paraffin and burn in it' had become a motto of despair for those who lived here. However, electrification projects did not bring the end of parafin use. Only 3% of the approximately 20% of households with electricity in their sample claimed to use electricity only. This means that 17% of the 20% were backswitching to other fuels.
Women backswitched to paraffin because lending and borrowing paraffin creates a social network that provides moral support and it allows them to mystify the household budget. That gave them power. Men were interested in the domestic electrical appliances and so tended or attempted to assert greater power in the inner domestic workings of their households in an arena of decision-making that was conventionally the domain of women. Men, on their part, welcomed paraffin because it is labour intensive and keeps women at home more than electricty did.
The researchers concluded: electrification unsettled the balance of interests and power which reinforced the social dominance of parafin
Conclusion: In a context where a number of diverse factors interact, introducing new energy technology may lead to a rearrangement of “the different needs of women and men” as well as the power they have. For long term success it is important to consider the whole picture and not only the technical performance of energy technology. Not only tecnical innovation is needed, the technolgy must function in a life-giving way in the household. Finding such domestic practices can only be done with households.