Lievesley, Geraldine. “Stages of Growth? – Women Dealing with the State and EachOther in Peru,” in Women and the State. Rai, Shirin M. and Geraldine Lievesley, eds.
This article contains a brief examination of the differences and conflicts between feminist and popular women’s movements. Although its focus is not strictly the community efforts in Villa el Salvador, it does examine the nature and needs of women’s mobilization efforts.
Lievesly claims that the feminist movement, instead of rejecting the strategies of popular women’s movements, must address class, race and survival issues that most Peruvian women face in order to effectively negotiate with the state. Her explanation of the state as something that is not static, but instead responds to pressure and allows openings for women to influence policies is helpful in terms of looking at how women’s movements, such as those in VES must approach and understand the state. She claims that the conflicting views of the state as either liberal democratic (state is neutral and lacks a gender identity) or structuralist (state is a invested in reinforcing class-based, patriarchal structures) must be compromised, as the state seems to contain elements of both. In addition to political theory, Lievesly provides a useful examination of Peruvian political history, including the military rule (1968-1980), the various reform programs introduced by Velasco (1968-1975), the role of Sendero Luminoso and the military and the economic crisis of the 1980s that lead to devastating structural adjustment programs. While my research is not explicitly focused on the political history of Peru, these events are extremely helpful in terms of understanding the socio-political context as well as the nature of women’s relationships with the state.
While the explanation of the political women’s movement, their relationship with political parties and their various attempts at autonomous organization are helpful in terms of contrasting the variations between women’s mobilization efforts, I would like to focus on Lievesley’s analysis of the popular women’s movement. She claims that the system of clientelismo is particularly relevant to popular women. This is a particularly interesting contextualization of the women’s movement, as she claims that poor women are typically subjects of subordination as they receive provisions from the state, Church and other donors; in exchange for these provisions, they must in turn accept “prevailing structures” of inequality. While Lievesley’s interpretation of all philanthropy as self-serving is interesting and valid, I would like to examine the possibility that some degree of genuine altruism does provide at least part of the motivation to become involved.
Much like Cecilia Blondet, Lievesley asserts the impact that practical needs have on pushing women to becoming mobilized and involved in community projects. With the “feminzation of poverty” in the 1970s and the state’s diminishing role as a welfare provider in the 1980s, popular Peruvian women were essentially forced to collectively organize. Much like her interpretation of philanthropic activities, the author claims that President Alan Garcia’s “interventionist populist methods” were aimed primarily at breaking up independent women’s organizations in shanty towns.
In terms of my research, Lievesley’s analysis of women’s work and the difficulties of mobilization is perhaps the most helpful aspect of the reading. Building on Caroline Moser, she asserts that women must balance reproductive (family), productive (income) and community (infrastructure) work. In general, unfamiliarity with “male” institutions, “vulnerability to manipulation” and domestic pressures make it difficult to “break out” of their primary roles and become politically active. This view is particularly helpful in understanding the difficulties and roles that women must balance, however the language used (such as the assumption that all institutions are masculine and women are vulnerable) seems to be a bit problematic, if not exaggerated.
However, in addition to the constraints on women, the author does assert the positive consequences of mobilization to be increased confidence, less passivism and contacts with the public sector. She also claims that the feminist and popular women’s movements should each recognize the need for “multiple forms of struggle.” This speaks to the need for feminists to include the needs of popular women and the need for popular women to take advantage of the long-term strategies employed by feminists. Additionally, as with all women’s activism, she cautions against the Catch 22 of political and institutional involvement: women who interact with institutions must be wary of being “subsumed,” however, if they altogether reject involvement, they risk being distanced from the “socio-political process” that affects the lives of most women. These perspectives are not only important when looking at the activities of women in VES, but it also lends itself to examining the political options, obstacles and relationships that women in the colonias of the U.S.-Mexico border must also face.
