Does anyone else notice the irony in the Peace Corps' insistence that all cultures are legitimate and should be respected, while at the same time endeavoring to change fundamental cultural aspects of the countries in which they operate? Of course, Peace Corps is a program under the jurisdiction of the US government, which makes no pretense at valuing other cultures while trying to replace them. A hundred years ago, for example, Americans used to comment on the "barbaric" practices of Arabs, but were content to coexist with a live-and-let-live policy. Nowadays, while we go on and on about respecting the human rights and sovereignty of certain occupied territories, we are also trying to force American-style democracy and capitalism on regions where they have not developed naturally. It's like trying to wedge a square-shaped puzzle piece into a circular hole; with enough force it might stick for a time, but it will never properly fit. How hard can it be to take a step back to learn how the current culture came to be, respecting (or at least understanding) the differences?
Take my assignment here in Burkina Faso: as an agent of Girls' Education and Empowerment, I am supposed to spread a Western concept of female liberation in an area where a traditional division of gender roles has been practiced for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. If I come barreling in now, loudly declaiming that the genders are equal, polygamy is demeaning to women, men should fetch water and cook for their wives, and girls should have career options beyond motherhood, I'm going to get nowhere. I might provoke a few arguments, but most of my neighbors will smile and agree with me—because civility to strangers is another tradition here—and then continue going about their daily business. As a large part of why I signed up for the Peace Corps was my desire to learn about another culture, I try to start each project by doing just that: I listen and watch, interjecting now and then how we do something differently in America, but striving to do so without implying judgment. The only way I am going to convince a Burkinabé to change his ways is by demonstrating the benefits of another option. With respect to gender equity, I don't start with the argument that men and women are equal; that needs to be the end result. Ideally, my neighbors will eventually come to that conclusion on their own, after seeing that they are capable of the same accomplishments and that breaking down gender barriers will help the community. As any historian back in the US can tell you, Women's Lib wasn't built in a day... or even a century.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that not every instance of the subjugation of women in Burkina is perpetrated by The Man. Let's examine Africa's most abhorred (by the West) action against women, female genital cutting (FGC), the partial or complete removal of the clitoris: in Burkina Faso it is an honored tradition, performed on nearly every girl. And it is carried out by women, old matriarchs cutting their granddaughters. Now, because of Western pressure, the government has officially condemned FGC, but making it illegal has merely forced its practitioners underground, inducting girls of younger and younger ages, in even less sanitary conditions. There you have it: not only is this mutilation of women a treasured cultural ritual, but it is carried out by its own assumed victims. Before my feminist readers come at me with accusations of indifference or complicity, let me ask: how do you prevent women from oppressing themselves? You can tell them it's wrong, but that's subjective, just one society judging another. You can tell them it's unhealthy, but is that enough to counter the prevailing belief that it is an important rite to womanhood?* They could easily ask us why many white people intentionally tan themselves on the beach, courting a future with skin cancer. Is it possible that a large part of why we believe FGC to be wrong is because we were brought up to believe it, molded by our culture in the same way Burkinabé are molded by theirs?
But what gives us the right to impose our ideals and rules on another society? (Aside from military and economic clout, I mean. Or is that all that is required?) Are we trying to change the world to make it better, or just better for us? The Peace Corps will be celebrating its 47th anniversary in the coming year; personally, I don't think you should be too proud of the fact that you went into a country to help raise its standard of living, and now, over four decades later, you're still there! Not only that, but in many cases the living standards are now lower than it was when you first got there. In my book, this would be something to be embarrassed about. Not that I am suggesting Peace Corps is a useless institution; it is invaluable in exposing Americans to alternate sets of values and styles of life. I think if more people went through this kind of in-depth international experience, we would suffer less conflict with the rest of the world, because we would be better equipped to deal with cultural differences. In fact, it is this intercultural perspective Peace Corps has afforded me that now enables me to criticize the development industry as a whole.
So, what is the reason for our continued presence in countries like Burkina Faso? You could blame all sorts of factors: corruption, terrorism, lack of infrastructure, lack of education, etc. I would like to suggest another one: lack of compatibility with Western social mores. We need a new approach to development; the current model promotes as its goal a Euro-American style of life which will simply not work in a society that emphasizes the community over the individual, upholds polygamy, contains over 60 languages, and maintains strong ties with its Animist roots. Either the model fails, or we systematically destroy that which makes the target country unique, effectively turning it into a mini-America (complete with a Starbucks hut in each and every village), its proud heritage reduced to a stop on "Africa!" the politically correct Disney theme park ride. It all depends on where our priorities lie, what kind of a global community we are trying to build. Sometimes it seems like our efforts are going into creating a fast food democracy: yes, it will have all the seasonings of a tasty society, but God help you if you find out what the meat's made of.
_____________________________________________
* I should add, to be fair, that FGC is considered an important rite to womanhood at least in part because it is widely believed in many African cultures that a woman who has been "cut" will make a more obedient and faithful wife. This nautrally predisposes men to support the practice, putting pressure on women to continue it.
