Reflection by Practitioners: Worldview Conflicts about the Role of Women in Society: Dilemmas for Third Parties

What Dilemmas are There?

Goal: Women Empowerment Versus Bridging the Worldview Divide

There are different types of professions working on worldview conflicts about the role of women in society. Here, they are broadly put into two categories: people working in conflict resolution and people working on women’s rights and empowerment. The workshop deliberately brought together experts from both backgrounds, and the discussions quickly revealed that in practice, the ultimate goal of their work is similar or even the same: to work towards a peaceful and just society. Thus, there is no contradiction in long-term goals, but differences in focus.

Nevertheless, there is a potential dilemma that can, in the extreme, become difficult to navigate. For example, a conflict-resolution perspective might work with an extremist actor to convince that actor to transform from an armed actor to a political actor who pursues the same aims by peaceful means. In contrast, a women empowerment perspective would rather attempt to change the mind of the extremist actor in order to shift his/her position, or alternatively, to lobby to delegitimise the actor in order to prevent him/her from gaining access to power. This dilemma, presented here in the abstract, is very real in various contexts, as illustrated by the following two state­ments from the workshop.

“There is no need for such groups to become mainstream and to be included in the process. Not if they cannot respect the basics of the constitution. The more space they get, the more radical they become.”

“We build bridges to cross a divide in society. We give space to the parties, all of them, to talk. What they discuss is not our responsibility.”

These two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as one third party could establish a dialogue between all actors, while another third party could attempt to shift the position of a given party. Even so, each third party should be conscious of the goal of their intervention. While this decision has a normative dimension, it is also a strategic decision: not every third party is equally well positioned for both goals, and the choice of goal has implications for the design of the intervention.

How: Activist Versus Dialogue-Based Approaches

In addition to the tension discussed above between organisations working in conflict resolution and organisations working on women’s rights and empowerment, there is another line of tension regarding the approach. This concerns the question of how to work towards the realisation of one’s goal. The underlying question is whether a goal should be pursued by lobbying and activism (here called the activist approach), or by bringing opposing actors together to form a dialogue (here called the dialogue-based approach). This tension is reflected in the two following statements, both from the same participant.

“When one is a mediator one is not there to debate or to win an argument, but to understand and to make people understand. I often do that through asking the right questions.”

“Dialogue doesn’t bring you further in every case.”

This tension is always present when working on questions of social structure. When there are worldview differences, however, this tension is stronger and the implications more critical. This mainly results from the highly emotional nature of worldviews which are strongly linked to a group’s identity. Actors often react to perceived challenges to their worldview by reinforcing it or by distancing themselves from the challenger. Hence, an activist approach often further alienates the group one tries to convince. Not trying to win an argument but instead trying to understand, i.e. to give space and a sense of safety to the group can be more appropriate. However, the activist approach can be attempted less with the aim to convince a given group, but to convince a broader public and to isolate a given group.

In the following, these two approaches are illustrated further by examining typical methods used.

Safe Spaces

A typical dialogue-based method is to create a safe space⁴, i.e. a place or environment where parties do not have their worldview threatened or challenged. This allows participants to deal with the other side in a non-confrontational way. In light of the characteristics of worldview conflicts, this instrument has many advantages. However, the concept of safe spaces is straightforward in theory but often difficult in practice. A workshop participant raised one such practical challenge by recalling a discussion about a hijab. In this particular case, a participant of a safe space work­shop was wearing a hijab, which was perceived by another participant as a threat to her worldview. This situation was resolved through a discussion between the involved persons, but it shows both how delicate and how subjective the feeling of “being safe” can be.

A further challenge to safe spaces was raised by another workshop participant who stated that:

“A safe space can become an unsafe space if one is not allowed to challenge another worldview.”

By guaranteeing that participants do not have their worldviews challenged and threatened, one at the same time takes away the possibility to challenge someone’s worldview. Not being able to challenge a worldview one funda­mentally disagrees with can create a feeling of being defenceless and threatened, and hence turn the safe space into an unsafe space. Furthermore, there is a risk that safe spaces become too safe, thus limiting or hindering discussions. To avoid these problems, it is important to find good “red lines” tailored to each context and to clarify and negotiate the terms of the safe space with participants in advance.

Norms

A typical activist method is the setting and use of international norms and standards, a widely used method in women’s rights and gender equality work. Typically, key international actors such as the UN establish norms and push for them to be recognized and implemented. This is by no means new in the field of peace and conflict, and indeed some of the major achievements fall into this category (e.g. the Geneva Conventions which set norms of acceptable behaviour for armies and armed groups in times of war). In the field of women and peace, the key documents are the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and its related documents.

Such international norm-setting can have a significant impact. In Afghanistan, for example, the government’s wish to be in compliance with international norms was credited by workshop participants to have had a significant impact on improving the representation of Afghan women in parliament. Another example is the UN’s work on mediation and sexual violence, resulting in the 2012 “UN Guidance for Mediators on Addressing Conflict-Related Sexual Violence in Ceasefire and Peace Agreements”. This guidance was credited during the workshop for an increased inclusion of gender considerations in recent ceasefire agreements.

However, such focus on norms is also contested. Norms do not work in every context, especially in worldview con­flicts. When pressured with norms seen as contrary to their values, worldview actors are likely to reject them by pointing out that they are foreign and contend that their imposition constitutes an act of imperialism or colonialism. This may hinder the implementation of such norms and may stigmatize the sections of society who agree with them.

Here, it is important to note that norm building does not need to exclusively stem from outside. Norms can be built – and international norms re-formulated and contextualised – from within, in a bottom-up process involving dialogue and the participation of all actors. If done this way, norms and norm-building are no longer uniquely an activist method, but can be a dialogue-method. Reflecting on a project of working with police forces in Somalia, one partici­pant described a persistent question in her internal monologue:

“What in your culture or your customary laws provides for the norm we work on?”

Another successful example presented during the workshop involved a dialogue process in Morocco, which brought together actors with differing worldviews about the role of women. This process led to a realisation that both sides shared similar concerns regarding the role of women in society and that their norms of references were not far apart on substance.

Who

The previous sections discussed the goal of an intervention and how to intervene. This section looks at a third important aspect: Who? This question has two elements: Who is the third party, and who does that third party work with? In the following, those two elements are elaborated upon.

Local Versus External Third Party

In almost every process, there is a mix of local and external third parties. The mix can be either depending on the mediation tracks, or differentiated by strategic and operational level, or a mix of all these elements. The issue of the nature of the third party goes beyond the simple issue of the nationality of the people or organisation; it also relates to who the central actor driving the process is.

The first aspect to consider is the question of acceptability and impartiality. Domestic third parties have an advantage in that they are familiar with the setting and culture, whereas an external third party will not be as familiar with the context and often even lacks the ability to speak the local language. This is an important aspect, notably in worldview conflicts about the role of women in society, where references to culture and tradition play a significant role. Familiar­ity with the context, however, can also be a disadvantage. A local third party might be too grounded in the context. In such situations, a third party who is alien to the context may be able to add useful perspectives and ideas from other contexts. Furthermore, a local party is more likely to be (or to be perceived as) partial, either because of their previous actions, existing relationships, or simply by belonging to a certain religious or ethnic group. The external third party is often perceived to be more impartial. Obviously, this does not hold true for all third parties in all contexts, as the relationship with external actors is complicated and multifaceted. In addition, just because a party is external to the conflict does not automatically mean they will be impartial, just as local actors will not necessarily be partial.

The experience of the workshop participants showed that it is rare for an intervention to exclusively involve external third parties, or exclusively involve local third parties. In most cases, there is a mixed approach. This raises the ques­tion of how the cooperation between local and external third parties is structured. A wide variety of models exist; at one end of the spectrum, the local party primarily provides contextualised expertise, while the external partner takes the lead role. At the other end of the spectrum, the local partner takes the key role, while the external partner contributes with finances or provides specific thematic expertise. It is important to keep in mind that the mix be­tween local and external also has an impact on sustainability.

Another aspect is the choice of the partner. External partners need to carefully reflect on who to choose as a local partner. For example, an external partner may favour a local partner who is close to their own values and worldview, or a partner that is seen as impartial by the domestic audience. None of those choices are better or worse per se, but they will have an impact on the planned project. Of course, the same is true in reverse. Thus, the local partner should also reflect carefully before engaging with an external partner and consider whether the potential external partner could negatively affect the organisation’s work and image, and whether their working styles are compatible.

Cooperation with the local partner becomes even more important in contexts where foreigners have limited access. Many of the workshop participants are working, or have worked, in such contexts. Mutual trust and the issue of accountability and control are key. A specific case in point are situations where access to certain areas is limited not due to security, but due to state-imposed limitations. A tendency to try to please, or at least not to offend the govern­ment in such contexts is understandable, as access is dependent on the goodwill of the government. However, the content, reach and quality of the project might suffer in such scenarios, which will usually not go unnoticed by the local population. One workshop participant recounted her experience of such a situation:

“This creates a narrative of external actors failing to deliver and being more interested in defending their own interests”.

Inclusive Versus Exclusive Processes

The section above looked at who should intervene, i.e. the choice of third party. This section will look at which conflict actors should be included in the process. The question of inclusivity is a key topic in any process. However, there are particular challenges if the process takes place in a context of a worldview conflict about the role of women in society. Many tend to forget that while working on the role of women in society in any form, one has to not only work with women, but with the whole society, including men. One workshop participant recalled the following example:

“A women economic empowerment project in rural religious communities had to be stopped because the local men started to resist it. Not because they did not like the project, but because they felt neglected and ignored.”

In that case, the international organisation implementing the project had failed to sufficiently take the local men on board. By failing to include and consult them, a project that was otherwise uncontroversial had to be cancelled.

The same problem applies to other approaches which might exclude certain key actors. Typically, those are actors with whom the third party does have strong worldview differences and with whom they are hence reluctant – or, in certain cases even legally forbidden – to work with. Other often-neglected actors are those who are difficult to reach because they do not speak an international language, are based far from the capital, or do not usually work with outside actors and hence are not thought of when designing the program.

Where: Local versus National Level

Similarly to the question discussed above on who to include in the process, a third party intervening in a worldview conflict about the role of women has to choose on which level and in which region(s) to work. The underlying problem was nicely presented by one workshop participant referring to the issue of women’s political participation:

“In my country, there has been a lot of progress on women’s participation in the national parliament and the national government, and in the capital. But representation of women remains very poor on a local level outside the capital.”

Generally, the workshop participants agreed that the focus is too often on the national level and on the regions around the capital or other big cities, whereas rural and remote areas are often neglected. There are many reasons for this: working in or around big centres is often easier, more practical, safer, or the area may be simply better known.

When working on worldview conflicts about the role of women, the tendency to focus on the national level is deli­cate. Obviously, working at the national level is important. Ideally, it can reduce conflict between national actors, can influence the legislative process and can impact the implementation of law. However, third parties should keep in mind that social change can only happen in concert with society. Bearing in mind that in most countries rural areas are more conservative, the role of women in society is likely to be an important question in rural areas.

Our Own Worldview

So far, we have discussed who should include whom in what kind of approach, with what goal. There remains one aspects that is both important and often overlooked: the worldview of the third party. Third parties, particularly external third parties, often consider themselves to be impartial, or “above the context”. They focus on analysing the worldview differences between the parties, design strategies to overcome these differences, and implement programs to bring different actors together or to work on the question of women’s role in a divided society. While doing all of this, many forget or neglect that they too have an identity and a specific worldview. The worldview of the third party influences all aspects of their work, from how the situation is analysed to how a project is implemented and how its success is evaluated. Furthermore, particularly in contexts of worldview conflicts, the worldview and identity of the third party will also influence how they are perceived by other actors and if/how they will cooperate. Thus, the identity and worldview of the third party is highly relevant because it influences both the perspective of the third party and the perception of others about that third party. Consequently, working in setting of worldview conflicts also requires the ability to self-reflect. As one participant stated:

“It is not a one-way, but a two-way learning process, and I constantly remind myself that I need to reflect upon myself as well.”

Conclusion

The workshop was an opportunity for CARIM to bring together experts from different backgrounds who focus on worldview conflicts, conflict resolution, gender equality and women empowerment. Reflecting on the workshop, this report’s first conclusion is that the key concepts of worldview conflict and of role of women in society are used differ­ently by different actors.

By clarifying these concepts and combining them, the inherent dilemma of working in worldview conflicts about the role of women in society becomes clearer. Further, it becomes evident that there is little consolidated knowledge or expertise on this specific topic. There is significant knowledge on gender equality, the inclusion of women in peace processes, women’s empowerment, as well as conflict resolution. While lots of this work is done in settings of worldview conflicts, it is often not considered to be a distinct setting. One of the key activities of CARIM is to increase recognition and understanding of worldview conflicts and their particularities. Vice versa, many of those specialising on worldview conflicts have so far paid little attention both to gender considerations and to the specific question of the role of women in society. The workshop was a first attempt to do so more systematically.

This workshop has aimed to contribute to the emergence of a field which combines worldview conflicts and the issue of the role of women in society. The reflections presented in this report are not seen as the final conclusion, and more work is needed. In particular, there are three areas where increased efforts are called for. Firstly, applied research is necessary in order to develop the conceptual framework of the overlap of worldview conflicts and the role of women in society. Secondly, the combined topic should be integrated into training on religion and mediation. Thirdly, there is a need for greater collaboration between the different experts and practitioners involved in dealing with the combi­nation of worldview conflicts and the role of women in society, in order to develop better processes and improve practice.

For more informations on this workshop, please contact .

Notes

1 Adapted from Goodman, Nelson (1978), Ways of Worldmaking, Indianopolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

2 For a more detailed discussion on worldview conflicts and conflict resolution, see Baumann Jonas, Finnbogason Daniel and Svensson Isak (2018), Rethink­ing Mediation: Resolving Religious Conflicts, CSS Policy Perspectives 6:1, Center for Security Studies, Zurich, Switzerland, available at www.css.ethz.ch.

3 See, for example, UN Guidance on Gender and Inclusive Mediation Strategies, UN Department of Political Affairs, 2017.

4 For more information on safe spaces, see Bitter, Jean-Nicolas (2013), Mediation Space and Diapraxis, in Frazer, Owen and Ghettas, Lakhdar (eds.), Conflict Transformation in Practice, Cordoba Now Forum, 2013.

About the Author

Jonas Baumann Jonas Baumann is a program officer in the Mediation Support Team at the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at ETH Zurich. He works within the Mediation Support Project (MSP) and the Religion and Culture in Mediation (CARIM) program and further coordinates the Mediation Support Network (MSN).

For more information on issues and events that shape our world, please visit the CSS Blog Network or browse our Digital Library.