Advertisement

How Intersectionality-Based Approaches to International Development Illuminate the Plight of Palestine Refugees

  • Charla M. BurnettEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The Politics of Intersectionality book series (POLI)

Abstract

Intersectionality is both an analytic framework and a complicated set of social practices that can, if implemented correctly, lead to collective solidarity and action. In practice, intersectionality has the potential to illuminate invisible and complex social relationships that bring to light hidden injustices, socially, politically, and economically. This chapter explores foreign development by drawing from scholarly and practitioner-based intersectional feminist literature, such as the work of Fenella Portman and Caroline Sweetman, to analyse contemporary trends in development practice, particularly around gender-based programming. Contemporarily, gender mainstreaming has been integral in maintaining and distributing gender politics to the Global South. Drawing on the case of Palestine, the author provides framework that merges current discourses laid out by Olena Hankivsky et al.’s intersectionality-based policy framework to create a new theoretical-based framework for international development professionals. In the coming sections, gender development will be adequately defined and framed from within both development/policy and feminist paradigms.

References

  1. Adwan, S., Bar-On, D., & Naveh, E. (Eds.). (2012). Side by Side: Parallel Histories of Israel-Palestine. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  2. Akram, S., & al-Azza, N. (2015). Handbook on Protection of Palestinian Refugees in States Signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights. BADIL.Google Scholar
  3. al-Husseini, J., & Bocco, R. (2009). The Status of Palestinian Refugees in the Near East: The Right of Return and UNRWA in Perspective. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 28(2), 260–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AMAN. (2012). The Annual Corruption Report. Ramallah: Coalition for Accountability and Integrity.Google Scholar
  5. Angathangelou, A. M., & Ling, L. (2003). Desire Industries: Sex Trafficking, UN Peacekeeping, and the Neo-Liberal World Order. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10(1), 133–148.Google Scholar
  6. Arat, Z. K. (2016). Feminisms, Women’s Rights, and the UN: Would Achieving Gender Equality Empower Women? American Political Science Review, 109, 674–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer, M. S. (2007). Social Integration, System Integration, and Global Governance. In Frontiers of Globalization Research. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Baines, D. (2010). Gender Mainstreaming in a Development Project: Intersectionality in a Post-Colonial Un-Doing? Gender, Work & Organization, 17(2), 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barghouti, M. (2015, June 15). Caught Between Stigma and Pity, Amaari Refugee Camp Refuses to Succumb. Jerusalem. Retrieved from http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/refugee-refuses-succumb/#sthash.iFN4EMfG.dpuf.
  10. Bocco, R. (2009). UNRWA and the Palestinian Refugees: A History Within a History. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 28(2–3), 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Canetti, D., Galea, S., Hall, B. J., Johnson, R. J., Palmieri, P. A., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2010). Exposure to Prolonged Socio-Political Conflict and the Risk of PTSD and Depression Among Palestinians. Psychiatry, 73(3), 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cervenak, C. M. (1994). Promoting Inequality: Gender-Based Discrimination in UNRWA’s Approach to Palestine Refugee Status. Human Rights Quarterly, 16(2), 300–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman, L. (2007). The Gendered Violence of Development: Imaginative Geographies of Exclusion in the Imposition of Neo-Liberal Capitalism. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 9(2), 204–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8), 138–167.Google Scholar
  15. DeMars, W. E. (2005). NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wild Cards in World Politics. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  16. Duffield, M. (2002). Social Reconstruction and the Radicalization of Development: Aid as a Relation of Global Liberal Governance. Development and Change, 33(5), 1049–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy, M. (2005). Reproducing Labor Inequalities Challenges for Feminist Conceptualizing Care at the Intersections of Gender, Race, and Class. Gender & Society, 19(1), 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grünenfelder, J., & Schurr, C. (2015). Intersectionality – A Challenge for Development Research and Practice? Development in Practice, 25(6), 771–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hancock, A.-M. (2015). Intersectionality: An Intellectual History. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hankivsky, O., Grace, D., Hunting, G., Ferlatte, O., Clarke, N., Fridkin, A., et al. (2012). An Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Framework. Vancouver: Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  22. Hankivsky, O., Grace, D., Hunting, G., Giesbrecht, M., Fridkin, A., Rudrum, S., et al. (2014). An Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Framework: Critical Reflections on a Methodology for Advancing Equity. International Journal for Equity Health, 13(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris, D. (2009). Black Feminist Politics from Kennedy to Clinton. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hasso, F. (2005). Promise and Problems in the Middle East and North Africa Gender Research. Journal of Feminist Studies, 44(2), 41–50.Google Scholar
  25. Høigilt, J. (2015). Nonviolent Mobilization Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Popular Resistance and Double Repression in the West Bank. Journal of Peace Research, 52(5), 636–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoogte, L. V., & Kingma, K. (2004). Promoting Cultural Diversity and the Rights of Women: The Dilemmas of ‘Intersectionality’ for Development Organizations. Gender & Development, 12(1), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelly, R. E. (2005). A Lot More Than the NGOs Seem to Think’: The Impact of Non-Governmental Organizations on the Bretton Woods Institutions. Dissertation.Google Scholar
  28. Lederach, J. (2015). Little Black Book of Conflict Resolution: Clear Articulation the Guiding Principles by a Pioneer in the Field. London: Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior, and Conflict Resolution Techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OSAGI. (2001). Mainstreaming Gender Perspectives in National Budgets. Retrieved December 2016, from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/gmtoolsnatlbudgets.htm.
  31. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS). (2016). Ramallah, Palestine, and Bitunia Localities.Google Scholar
  32. Parpart, J. (1993). Who Is the ‘Other’?: A Postmodern Feminist Critique of Women and Development Theory and Practice. Development and Change, 24, 439–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Porter, F., & Sweetman, C. (2005). Mainstreaming Gender in Development: A Critical Review. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raj, S. (2001). The Gender Element in International Refugee Law: Its Impact on Agency Programming and the North-South Debate. Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law, 1, 164–182.Google Scholar
  35. Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  36. Slater, D. (1995). Challenging Western Visions of Global: The Geopolitics of Theory and North–South Relations. The European Journal of Development Research, 2, 366–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Symington, A. (2004). Intersectionality: A Tool for Gender and Economic Justice. Women’s Rights and Economic Change.Google Scholar
  38. UN Women. (2016). UN Women Annual Report 2015–2016. New York: UN Women.Google Scholar
  39. United Nations. (2016, November 5). Global Humanitarian Appeal for 2017 Requires Record $22.2 Billion in Funding – UN. Retrieved September 3, 2017, from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55714#.Wavjf0p96Kt.
  40. UNRWA. (2006, May 24). Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions. Retrieved June 30, 2016, from UNRWA Web site: http://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/ceri_24_may_2006_final.pdf.
  41. Woetzel, J., Madgavkar, A., Ellingrud, K., Labaye, E., Devillard, S., Kutcher, E., et al. (2015). The Power of Parity: How Advancing Women’s Equality Can Add $12 Trillion to the Global Economy. New York: McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Peace, Democracy, and DevelopmentUniversity of MassachusettsBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations