Advertisement

Engaging and Contesting Hegemonic Discourses Through Feminist Participatory Action Research in Peru: Towards a Feminist Decolonial Praxis

  • Gabriela TávaraEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Community Psychology book series (COMPSY)

Abstract

For centuries Andean women from rural areas of Peru have lived in ongoing conditions of gender and racial marginalisation. Seeking to address these conditions and promote their wellbeing and development, professionals have been working with Andean women through social and economic projects. However, often these professionals privilege ideas and practices informed by their disciplinary training, which is largely rooted in western knowledge. This chapter explores how, through a feminist participatory action research (PAR) project, a group of Andean women engaged and contested ideas they perceive as being introduced in to their community from outside by professionals, particularly ideas regarding organising-as-women, development, and violence against women. It analyses how women decide to incorporate some ideas transforming and adapting them to their local context, and how they choose to reject others given that they are not in line with their ways of being in the world as Andean women. Furthermore, this chapter explores feminist PAR’s potential as a method for decolonizing feminist community psychology. It illustrates how this feminist PAR project served as a space for a group of Andean women to actively reflect and discuss about their processes of knowledge construction, processes that occur in relation to their local knowledge and in constant confrontation with dominant discourses that enter their communities from further afield. The chapter concludes with reflections and recommendations for community psychologists who work with indigenous women and who are interested in developing a feminist decolonial praxis.

Keywords

Indigenous women Participatory action research Gender and development Women’s organisations Violence against women 

References

  1. Ames, P. (2002). Para ser iguales, para ser distintos: Educación, escritura y poder en el Perú [To be similar and to be different: Education, writing and power in Peru]. Lima, Peru: IEP.Google Scholar
  2. Babb, F. E. (2017). Desigualdades entrelazadas: Repensando la raza, el género y las identidades indígenas en el Perú andino [Intertwined inequality: Rethinking race, gender and indigenous identities in Andean Peru]. In V. Zavala & M. Back (Eds.), Racismo y lenguaje (pp. 229–268). Lima: Peru: Fondo Editorial PUCP.Google Scholar
  3. Boal, A. (2013). The rainbow of desire: The Boal method of theatre and therapy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Boesten, J. (2010). Intersecting inequalities: Women and social policy in Peru, 1990–2000. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bueno-Hansen, P. (2015). Feminist and human rights struggles in Peru. Decolonizing transitional justice. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. CVR, Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación - Perú [Truth and Reconciliation Commission -Peru]. (2003). Informe final [Final Report]. Lima, Peru: CVR.Google Scholar
  8. De la Cadena, M. (2001). Reconstructing race: Racism, culture and mestizaje in Latin America. NACLA Report on the Americas, 34(6), 16–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2001.11722585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Esteva, G. (1985). Development: Metaphor, myth, threat. Development: Seeds of Change, 3, 78–79.Google Scholar
  10. Fals Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and challenges. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 27–37). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Ferree, M. M., & Tripp, A. M. (Eds.). (2006). Global feminism: Transnational women’s activism, organizing, and human rights. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  12. García, M. E. (2003). The politics of community. Education, indigenous rights, and ethnic mobilization in Peru. Latin American Perspectives, 30(1), 70–95. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3184966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática – INEI. (2018). Resultados de la pobreza monetaria 2017. Informe técnico [Monetary poverty results 2017. Technical report]. Retrieved from https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/cifras_de_pobreza/presentacion_evolucion-de-pobreza-monetaria-2017.pdf
  14. Kalungu-Banda, A. (2004). Post-conflict programs for women: Lessons from the Kosovo women’s initiative. Gender and Development, 12(3), 31–40.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070412331332290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. León, M. (2011). La desigualdad de género en la propiedad de la tierra en América Latina [Gender inequality and land property in Latin America]. In C. Verschuur (Ed.), Du grain à moudre: Genre, Développement Rural et Alimentation (pp. 189–207). Geneva: Graduate Institute Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lugones, M. (2008). Coloniality and gender. Tabula Rasa, (9), 73–102. Retrieved from http://ref.scielo.org/4dtqf8.
  17. Lugones, M. (2010). Toward a decolonial feminism. Hypathia, 25(4), 742–759.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01137.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lykes, M. B., & Crosby, A. (2015). Creative methodologies as a resource for Mayan women’s protagonism. In B. Hamber & E. Gallagher (Eds.), Psychosocial perspectives on peacebuilding (Peace psychology book series) (pp. 147–186). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lykes, M. B., Terre Blanche, M., & Hamber, B. (2003). Narrating survival and change in Guatemala and South Africa: The politics of representation and a liberatory community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1/2), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst: Center for International Education.Google Scholar
  21. Mohanty, C. (1988). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review, (30), 61–88.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1395054.
  22. Mohanty, C. (1991). Introduction. Cartographies of struggle. Third world women and the politics of feminism. In C. Mohanty, A. Russo, & L. Torres (Eds.), Third world women and the politics of feminism (pp. 1–50). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Montero, C. (2006). La exclusión educativa de las niñas del campo: ¿pasado o presente? [The educational exclusion of girls in the countryside: past or present?]. In P. Ames (Ed.). Las brechas invisibles. Desafíos para una equidad de género en la educación (pp. 203–232). Lima, Peru: IEP and Universidad Cayetano Heredia.Google Scholar
  24. Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power, eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South, 1(3), 533–580. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/23906/summary.Google Scholar
  25. Radcliffe, S. (2015). Dilemmas of difference: Indigenous women and the limits of postcolonial development policy. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Radcliffe, S., & Laurie, N. (2006). Indigenous groups, culturally appropriate development, and socio-spatial fix of Andean development. In S. Radcliffe (Ed.), Culture and development in a globalizing world (pp. 83–106). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Radcliffe, S. A., Laurie, N., & Andolina, R. (2003). The transnationalization of gender and reimagining Andean indigenous development. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29(2), 387–416.  https://doi.org/10.1086/378108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruiz Bravo, P. (2005). El desarrollo visto desde las mujeres campesinas: Discursos y resistencias [Development seen from campesina women: Discourses and resistances]. In D. Mato (Ed.), Políticas de economía, ambiente y sociedad en tiempos de globalización (pp. 71–88). Caracas: Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Universidad Central de Venezuela.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies. Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  30. St. Louis, K., & Barton, A. C. (2002). Tales from the science education crypt: A critical reflection of positionality. Subjectivity, and reflexivity in research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3), 19.  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.3.832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Távara, G. (2018). Reclaiming our hands: Feminist participatory action research with Andean women of Peru (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:108124Google Scholar
  32. Thorp, R., & Paredes, M. (2011). La etnicidad y la persistencia de la desigualdad. El caso Peruano [Ethnicity and the persistence of inequality. The Peruvian Case]. Lima, Peru: IEP.Google Scholar
  33. Velázquez, T. (2007). Reconociendo y reconstruyendo subjetividades. El encuentro con Manta [Acknowledging and reconstructing subjectivities. The encounter with Manta]. En M. Barrig (Ed.), Fronteras interiores: Identidad, diferencia y protagonismo de las mujeres (pp. 121–140). Lima, Peru: IEP.Google Scholar
  34. Venturoli, S. (2009). Huir de la violencia y construir. Mujeres y desplazamientos por violencia política en Perú. Deportate, Esulo, Profughe, 11, 46–63. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2318/1508193
  35. Walsh, M. (2000). Aftermath: The impact of conflict on women in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Report No 302). Washington, DC: Center for Development Information and Evaluation: USAID. Retrieved from http://www.peacewomen.org/assets/file/Resources/Academic/wps_aftermaththeimpactofconflictonwomeninbandh_cdie_2000.pdf
  36. World Bank. (2007). Toward high-quality education in Peru: Standards, accountability, and capacity building. In World Bank country study. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/6745.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pontificia Universidad Católica del PerúLimaPeru

Personalised recommendations