How Do Power and Gender Intersect?
Intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé W. Crenshaw, is a term often applied to work in the gender field and implies that gender does not occur in a vacuum outside of other social identifications and societal structures (such as a person’s race or economic status). It allows for and takes into consideration the existence of multiple and often equally important influences affecting a person’s experience.
The concept of intersectionality can be applied to gender and power as well. Gender norms are, by their nature, expressions of power dynamics within a society, and all forms of power are shaped by constructive or negative gender norms. Negative gender norms often serve to uphold those who have traditionally held power over others (in patriarchal societies, this group is men), and take away others’ (in patriarchal society, this group is women) sense of self-worth or feeling of agency (power within) and the ability to make decisions about their own lives (power to). Constructive gender norms advance gender equity and negative gender norms seek to uphold gender inequity. For example, a constructive gender norm would support women deciding who and when to marry, just as men are able to do in many contexts. However, a negative gender norm would support women not being able to decide who or when to marry, while this same choice is afforded to men. Therefore, power is inherently gendered and gender norms are inherently “powered.”
Why Does the Intersection of Gender and Power Matter to Family Planning Programs?
The relationship between gender and power helps to explain how in different contexts, agency develops—or doesn’t. For family planning programs, gender and power influence women’s contraceptive decision-making agency, or the ability to independently and freely make decisions regarding if and when to use contraception and which methods to use. This helps programs understand when and why women use contraception, and the people who influence that decision.
Power relations transpire during multiple aspects of decision-making. The decision itself (power to) is an example of the power to take action and use a particular contraceptive method, the power to affect change in her life. The control to make this decision is an example of power over—for example, the power a mother-in-law or sister-wife may or may not have over a woman’s decision to use a contraceptive method due to her position in the family.
Power dynamics are not limited to interactions between men and women: women can often exert power over other women, whether intentionally or inadvertently, thus re-enforcing patriarchial structures that serve to diminish all women’s capacity to make decisions. This is influenced by gender norms such as those that support a mother-in-law’s or sister-wife’s control not only over the decision itself, but also control of mobility, interactions with health care personnel, and/or household and personal finances. The belief that one can make this decision—for example, a woman’s sense of self-confidence and belief in her ability to use a contraceptive method—is an example of power within.
In addition, power also relates to the sense of engaging with others to create positive systemic change in contraceptive decision-making (power with). We can see this in the power of a woman to advocate for change to policies and community norms to better support other women and girls and their family planning needs.
In examining programs and projects through a gender and power lens, useful questions would therefore include:
- What gender group(s) have power in a given context?
- How does this power affect others around them (both within the dominant gender and outside of it)?
- What are the gender norms that impact power within a person?