Advertisement

From “Superwomen” to “Prosperity Trash” - Women in Rural Development in the former GDR.

  • Bettina Iganski
Part of the Frauen · Gesellschaft · Kritik book series (FGK)

Abstract

Women in rural areas of the former GDR have had to cope with numerous changes since unification causing immediate or delayed impacts on everyday lives. The most renowned change has been widespread and long-term unemployment. However, the overall dismantling of the socialist regime introduced a set of new norms and values and, of course, a ‘social market economy’. At the local level, women have largely lost their role in agricultural society without being able to define themselves fully within the new framework. Women’s previous role has been described as ‘superwoman’ (Corrin 1992), largely due to women’s obligation and capability to manage multiple burdens. Today, many rural women face Stigmatisation at a private and public level. The most notable stigma is perhaps represented by the ‘unword’ of the year 1997 ‘prosperity trash’ (Spreemann 1998), which was assigned to the unemployed and social benefit recipients, most of whom are women (data from 1996 suggests at least 50% more women than men received those benefits).

Keywords

Cultural Capital Voluntary Work Rural Woman Social Market Economy Agricultural Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Corrin, C. (1992): Superwomen and the Double Burden. Women’s Experience of Change in Central and Eastern Europe and The Former Soviet Union. Scarlet Press.Google Scholar
  2. De Soto, H./Panzig, C. (1995): Women, Gender and Rural Development. In: Tagungsbericht 16. bis 18. Juni 1994 „Frauen in der ländlichen Entwicklung”, Landwirtschaftlich- Gärtnerische Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Doelling, I. (1991): Between Hope and Helplessness: Women in the GDR after the ‘Turning Point’. In: Feminist Review 39: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards, G.E. (1985): GDR Society and Social Institutions. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Glueck, A./Magel, H. (1990): Das Land hat Zukunft- Neue Perspektiven für ländliche Räume. München.Google Scholar
  6. Henkel, G. (1990): Der Lebens- und Selbstbestimmungsraum in Gemeinde und Dorf — Probleme und Chancen. In: Glueck, A./Magel, H. (1990) Das Land hat Zukunft-Neue Perspektiven für ländliche Räume. München.Google Scholar
  7. Herrenknecht, A. (Ed.) (1997): Das Dorf in den Neuen Bundesländern. Bände I und II. Boexberg-Woelchingen: Pro Provincia Materialien.Google Scholar
  8. Hornschuh, F. (1997): Modelle sozialer Nachhaltigkeit in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern mit dem Schwerpunkt der Beschäftigungspolitik. In: Workshop 19. November 1997 „Agenda 21 Gestalten. Maßstäbe für eine regionale Lebensqualität und Wirtschaftsweise in M-V”.Google Scholar
  9. Kibbel, H.U. (1997): ‘Nachhaltige Entwicklung In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — Erreichtes, Tendenzen, Aufgaben. In: Workshop 19. November 1997 „Agenda 21 Gestalten. Maßstäbe für eine regionale Lebensqualität und Wirtschaftsweise in M-V”.Google Scholar
  10. Kuhn, S. (1997): Die Rolle der Kommunen und lokalen Akteure bei der Umsetzung der Agenda 21. Überblick, Strategie, Vorbilder. In: Workshop 19. November 1997 „Agenda 21 Gestalten. Maßstäbe für eine regionale Lebensqualität und Wirtschaftsweise in M-V”.Google Scholar
  11. Kuzel, A.J. (1992): Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry. In: B.F. Crabtree/W.L. Miller (Eds.): Doing Qualitative Research. London.Google Scholar
  12. Letherby, G./Zdrodowsky, D. (1992): „Dear Researcher”. The Use of Correspondence as a Method within Feminist Qualitative Research. In: Gender and Society 9(5): 576–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nickel, H.M. (1992): Geschlechtererziehung und -sozialisation in der Wende. Modernisierungsschübe oder -brüche? In: Berliner Journal für Soziologie. 3 (4): 381–387.Google Scholar
  14. Parade, L. (1992): Das Dorf im Wandel. In: Agrarische Rundschau 3–4/92: 46–49.Google Scholar
  15. Permien, T. (1998): Lokale Agenda 21- Chance oder zusätzlicher Aufwand? In: Http:/Www.Schwerin.Netsurf.De/~Gn0001/La21perm.HtmGoogle Scholar
  16. Shaffer, H.G. (1981): Women in the Two Germanies. A Comparative Study of a Socialist and a Non-Socialist Society. Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Spreemann (1998): Unwort des Jahres: Wohlstandsmüll. In: Der Nordkurier vom 8.1.1998.Google Scholar
  18. Statistisches Landesamt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (1997): Frauen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern im Spiegel der Zahlen. 7. Jahrgang Heft 8.Google Scholar
  19. UN (1992): Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro. 3–14 June 1992. Volume 1. Resolutions Adopted by the Conference.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Centaurus Verlag & Media UG 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bettina Iganski
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations