Critically annotated bibliography of Andrea Cornwall’s work on sexuality and development
Student: 13122805
Gender and Development
Autumn 2017
Cornwall, A. (2006). Marginalisation by sexuality: report of an IDS workshop. Gender & Development, 14(2), pp.273-289.
Cornwall presents an empirical report of the discussions of an Institute of Development Studies (IDS) workshop on involving sexuality as a feature of development. Cornwall begins by rationalising the inclusion of positive representations of sexuality in development, stating that whilst sexuality can negatively affect many features of development, it can have a positive impact. She offers a criticism of the typically medicalised perspectives that surround sexual discourses in development, as well as highlighting that sexuality is not inherently problematic. Cornwall challenges views of sexuality as a hindrance to development, particularly in reference to HIV and population growth, whilst highlighting contradictions between state focused approaches and grassroots work on sexuality. Cornwall argues that there is a space within development to discuss emotion and that the emotional nuances of subjects of development cannot be disregarded. This qualitative piece argues that sexual well-being should be presented as an intractable part of development, but that there are several difficulties in implementation.
Cornwall’s initial discussion of the role of external actors in how sexuality and sexual rights are repressed is a nuanced and positive element of this piece. This analysis from Cornwall is echoed by Bedford who highlighted how external actors (such as the World Bank) construct and reproduce heteronormative and gendered perspectives, (Bedford, 2009:162). Despite this promising start, Cornwall’s work evades many of the implications of her own analysis. Whilst she discusses the marginalisation of sexuality as a metric within development work, Cornwall operationalises marginalised sexuality as the inability to act upon a sexual orientation rather than exist as someone with a non-heterosexual orientation. This may be seen as a pragmatic decision; as heterosexual people are in the majority. However, as non-heterosexual orientations are frequently delineated as western concepts, (Obendorf, 1999), Cornwall’s lack of attention to the nuanced existence of LGBT+ people in development is a noticeable gap. The piece is well intentioned and it is important to note that Cornwall is reflecting upon the contributions of many people in this piece, however the work conflates external discussion about the erotic with sexual liberation and bodily autonomy. The emphasis on promoting explicit sexual discussion as a metric for autonomy rather than on discussing the implications of sexuality (particularly non-heterosexual orientations) is misplaced. The openness with which people discuss the erotic is not a valid measure of autonomy or sexual liberation- as discussed by Foucault in relation to the proliferation of sexual discourses in the Victorian era, despite vocal discussion being severely restricted, (Foucault, 1976). A more suitable metric may be contraceptive use, as used by Al Riyami et al. in their study of women’s empowerment in Oman, (Al Riyami, Afifi and Mabry, 2004). Furthermore, whilst Cornwall makes an adequate critique about the widening of sexual discourses and their inclusion of heterosexual men, it highlights an internal inconsistency with this work. By limiting the discussion of the role of sexuality to the roles of action and discussion, as opposed to non-heterosexual implications of development, Cornwall has continued to remain focused on the privileged, the very thing she critiques in the piece.
Cornwall, A. and Jolly, S. (2006). Introduction: Sexuality Matters. IDS Bulletin, 37(5), pp.1-11.
Cornwall and Jolly introduce an edited bulletin on international development with an introductory overview of how sexuality is featured within development through “policy, programming and power relations” (Cornwall and Jolly, 2006:1). The authors explore the potential for shifting the discourse on development and sexuality away from a focus on HIV/AIDS and onto the wider implications of sexuality in the global south. In this theoretical piece Cornwall and Jolly determine that sexuality deserves policy attention for a number of reasons. First, they determine why sexuality matters on a personal level and that sexuality has a more nuanced face than just the health implications. The authors then discuss the role of poverty in sexuality, opening up a conversation on how sexuality has frequently been positioned as a luxury that development has no role in addressing and the role of funding bodies within sexual programmes. Cornwall and Jolly then move onto a rights based discussion of sexuality and development before finally arguing the ‘power of pleasure’ in development practice, highlighting the feminist theoretical perspective the work takes.
A principal flaw in this piece is the omission of further discussion of the impacts of funding policy upon moralised issues of sex and sexuality. Cornwall and Jolly’s brief mention of funding and US conditionalities upon HIV/AIDs funding could be explored further in lieu of another exploration of the importance of emotions within development. Funding is a significant (albeit awkward) conversation to have in regards to sexuality in development as abortion and sexual liberation will not be part of a development agenda when much of the funding for development work comes from institutions with a conservative bias, (Jolly, et al. 2013). Although development requires institutions for policy and practice, these institutions hold significant power as to the image of the intended (sexually normative) subject of development. Development policy shapes identity by delineating some individuals and structures as normative and therefore risks excluding other individuals, (Lind, 2009). Although previously discussed, there are issues with framing sexuality as a human rights topic. Simply, a rights based approach justifies the inclusion of sexuality in development policy but does little to practically change attitudes or behaviours related to sexuality in development practice. Rights based approaches can prove inaccessible (Offenheiser and Holcombe, 2003) and also rely upon imposed identity categories that may not reflect the identity of the person in question. A key example of this is the category of ‘MSM’ in policy surrounding HIV transmission. However, Cornwall and Molyneux would argue that rights based approaches can be used as a site of feminist praxis when used sensitively, (Cornwall and Molyneux, 2007). Cornwall and Jolly’s mention of the role of legislation in development work is an interesting one that could be explored further. When mentioning the gaps in protective legislation for LGBT+ people, Cornwall and Jolly touch upon an intractable legal debate; whether society shapes legal frameworks or whether legal frameworks shape societal attitudes. This debate could prove to be a far more interesting and useful discussion in regards to development and sexuality, particularly in reference to neo-colonialism and the global North’s role in exporting conservative ideology and homophobia to the global South, (Anderson, 2011.)
Cornwall, A., Correa, S. and Jolly, S. (2008). Development with a Body: making the connections between Sexuality, Human Rights and Development. In: A. Cornwall, S. Correa and S. Jolly, ed., Development with a Body: Sexuality, Human Rights and Development
This first chapter of the edited collection explores the multiple contradictions and arguments that have emerged in the locus of sexuality, rights based approaches and development. Titled the ‘sex wars’ Cornwall et al discuss the multiple sites of conflict between sex rights activists and conservative reactionary stakeholders. The authors highlight the similarities between historical and contemporary arguments surrounding the repression of sexuality and critique theorists for solely blaming arguments of sexual rights on concepts of colonialism and late capitalism. The authors are clear that increased global connectivity has played a role in sexual dynamics in the global south and mention the impact the resurgence of religion (particularly conservative Christianity) has had in the global south. The piece is largely empirical and covers many other arguments that Cornwall has previously discussed, particularly the ways in which sexuality is problematized within development and the positioning of sexuality as a fundamental human right. A new element to this piece is the explicit discussion of sex and gender orders and the presumption of marriage. Drawing on the work of Sardá, Cornwall et al. bring their previous discussion of heteronormativity into an analysis of gender norms, heterosexism and the ways that transgender and gender non-conforming individuals are particularly victimised within battles for human and sexual rights.
With this chapter, Cornwall et al present one of the most nuanced analyses of sexuality within development. The historical comparisons lend significant credence to the arguments in the chapter. Cornwall has made several of these arguments in other work, however this piece features as the strongest argument within her work on the field of sexuality. This strength is found in two specific elements, the impact of colonialism upon gender and sexuality, and the explicit inclusion of non-cisgender people. As the work of Sardá et al. highlights, colonialism intersects significantly with gender and sexuality in the global south, as colonialists often prohibited wider discussions and identities surrounding gender in favour of the binary system of the global north. (Sardá, et al. 2006). This is still seen in development work, particularly where conservative stakeholders implement and fund policies that retain cisgendered and heterosexual perspectives. The application of identity markers based on sexual actions is also relevant here, particularly in cultures that have more established patterns of homosociality than observed or accepted in the global north, (Ward, 2015). This presents a discursive issue with development, which often has a far more limited (and binary) vocabulary to discuss gender and sexual identities. As promising as the incorporation of sexual minorities is within development, this piece does lack a discussion of the ontological implications of including queer theory and identities in development work. Queer sexual politics are inherently radical and frequently anti-capitalist, (Sears, 2005), and as development in the global south often includes increasing access to capitalism, even to the detriment of the subjects of development, there would be a worry regarding co-optation of the identities of sexual minorities in order to reach targets or obtain funding. Although these issues are mostly theoretical, I do believe they are important to note.
Cornwall, A. and Jolly, S. (2009) ‘Sexuality and the Development Industry’, Development, 52(1), (5–12)
This guest editorial by Cornwall and Jolly focuses on connecting sexuality to development, primarily through challenging the role of heteronormativity in development policy and practice. Heteronormativity is heavily criticised within the feminist theory based piece which examines how heteronormativity within development is typically expressed through the unconscious exclusion of sexual minorities from many of the benefits of development. The theoretical piece calls for inclusion of sexual minorities within development policy and literature but recognises the difficulties in doing so, particularly in reference to the lack of simple categorisation of sexual identities that policy making depends on. Cornwall and Jolly reject a ‘Women in Development’ approach of ‘add LGBT and stir’ in favour of a more macro approach that examines the power relations inherent in development issues and the policies aimed to combat them. Cornwall and Jolly’s work highlights a need to re-focus development narratives of sexuality away from a problematized view of sex as either a heteronormative outlet of men’s aggression or as a vector of HIV transmission to a feature of women’s empowerment. Cornwall and Jolly call for a paradigmatic shift in development as to include sexual minorities and to include the emotional elements involved with sexuality, including love and pleasure.
Cornwall and Jolly have taken several positive steps with this piece, as acknowledging the role of heteronormativity in development is a rare occurrence. Whilst the analysis of heteronormativity is far beyond the rest of development literature, the piece could be improved with an analysis of the discursive implications of heteronormativity, that is, heteronormativity as a violent entity, (Lloyd, 2013). Whilst their analysis of heteronormativity is lacking, the largest flaw in Cornwall and Jolly’s approach comes with the citation of Aken’Ova and the pleasure-based approach of the latter half of the piece. Whilst discussing the role of sexual pleasure and women’s empowerment, Cornwall and Jolly reference a project where women learning of sexual pleasure lead to them leaving their inadequate husbands. Without an immediate discussion of the material mechanisms that allowed these women to leave their husbands (independent wealth or tolerant social attitudes towards divorce, for example) this reference damages Cornwall and Jolly’s argument by overstating the ability of sexual pleasure to empower women. However, there are positive elements to the inclusion of emotional nuance in development policy. First, the dehumanisation of those in the global south is a prevalent feature of the attitudes of many in the global north (most recently seen in the press response to the Syrian refugee crisis) and is a feature sometimes exacerbated by development policy and international aid. “While in the North people need sex and love, in the South they just need to eat” (Jolly, 2000: 81). Ultimately, feelings cannot be quantified. Whilst it is an admirable goal, the happiness and life satisfaction of those in the global south is only as useful as the increases in productivity it produces. The feelings of those in the global south do not feature in any measurable development goals, whereas tangible outcomes, such as the 90:90:90 goals for HIV transmission and treatment, produce results for funding bodies. With this in mind, sexual pleasure and emotions cannot be a significant feature of development policy.
Jolly, S., Cornwall, A. and Hawkins, K. (2013). Introduction: Women, Sexuality and the Political Power of Pleasure. In: S. Jolly, A. Cornwall and K. Hawkins, ed., Women, Sexuality and the Political Power of Pleasure
The introduction of this edited collection discusses multiple development perspectives in regards to women’s sexuality. It begins with a discussion of women’s perceived victimhood and how it translates into sexuality. As previously discussed, sexuality is maligned from mainstream development work as it is often seen as a non-essential part of human existence, subjugated by material needs. Women in particular are seen as the main victims of issues affecting the global south and therefore main recipients of development. Under this logic, women are then seen as desexualised. The piece highlights the contrasting narratives between the global south being too ‘dangerous’ for sexual activity and the contemporary globalised attitudes of women as inherently sexual. Cornwall et al then go on to discuss narratives of those who are socially permitted to have sex and those who are not and therefore are desexualised in mainstream society and development. This argument primarily focuses on HIV positive women and disabled women. Cornwall et al once again discuss pleasure, particularly in regards to where and how to discuss pleasure in development, with the inclusion of a discussion of the intersections between development, pleasure and disability. The piece features a larger discussion on funding and the ways in which sexuality in the global south has been intensely moralised by funding providers, particularly in reference to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
The influence of queer theory is clear in his introductory chapter, particularly the work of Rubin and ‘Thinking Sex’ (Rubin, 1984), in regards to the moralised nature of sexuality in development. Whilst the discussion of whom is allowed to be sexual and sexualised is the strength of this introductory piece, the work does remain highly heteronormative as well as not highlighting the nuanced existence of transgender and non-binary people who simultaneously experience desexualisation for challenging sexual norms, but also significant rates of sexualisation and involuntary fetishisation in addition to disproportionally high rates of working in the sex trade. Mainstream development frequently takes a similar approach to the psychiatrist Manslow, famed for his hierarchy of needs. This hierarchy stipulates that one must meet a set of needs before progressing onto a less vital set, i.e.: basic material needs must be met before psychological needs can be met, (Manslow and Lewis, 1987). However, as critics of both Manslow and of the exclusion of sexuality and pleasure in development argue, humans are far more nuanced than this and the measure of an individual’s quality of life must include psychological and sexual needs as well as material ones. The brief inclusion of sexual rights as the ability to not be sexual is an interesting argument and one that has not been covered as extensively within development literature. There is an argument to be made about the focus on women’s sexuality and the exclusion of men. However, as the majority of discourses on sexuality are retained from Victorian notions of position women as passive beings who experience sexuality as something done to them, rather than with them, (Cott, 1978), it is important to feature the existence women’s sexuality. In this vein, a flaw of this piece is a limited discussion of consent. Although cultural norms about discussion of sex and the preamble leading up to a sexual act may differ, the inherent act of consenting to sexuality has limited difference across geographies and cultures. One could argue that a separate discussion of consent in the context of pleasure in development, particularly when using a rights-based approach, would strengthen the piece.
Conclusion
Andrea Cornwall remains one of the most accomplished development theorists in regards to the intersection of sexuality within gender and development. These five articles were specifically chosen due to their chronological span, particularly to examine the impact upon a shift in development policy from GaD to neoliberal perspectives of ‘smart economics.’ This impact proved smaller than expected, however Cornwall’s assessment of sexuality and development does become noticeably more refined in time. The failure to widely examine or incorporate issues of sexuality into work of gender and development is potentially one of the largest theoretical failures within development studies. Sexuality and gender are intrinsically linked, as concepts of one require the other by definition, and it is a large discursive gap in development studies that less attention is given to sexuality than gender. Cornwall’s work features a number of overarching themes, particularly in regards to pleasure, rights based approaches, the role of funding and the subject of development as a desexualised woman, indicating that the priorities within sexuality and development are both practical and theoretical. Cornwall’s work over the last decade consistently retains a feminist perspective that distinguishes women from their reproductive capabilities. The influence of queer theory upon the author’s work becomes significantly clearer towards the end of the bibliography, with explicit mentions of queer theorists occurring in her latest work. Whilst this specific inclusion bodes well on a practical level for the sexual minorities in receipt of development work, this poses a wider theoretical question. Queer is an inherently radical and subversive act, as seen through queer subcultures, queer theory’s general opposition to traditionally functionalist streams of thought in academic sociology and to queer anti-capitalist activism. Therefore, is it possible to ‘queer’ development, as many theorists, including Kleitz and Jolly have attempted to do? As Cornwall has stated, development frequently features conservative agendas and stakeholders, in addition to capitalist acts and principles featuring heavily within development work. Many would therefore argue that development and the concept of ‘queer’ are diametrically opposed. The implications upon gender and development remain to be seen over the next decade as part of a change in gender norms and the so called ‘transgender tipping point.’ This will prove to be a significant issue for development theorists, and Andrea Cornwall may prove to be a forerunner in that debate.
Bibliography
Al Riyami, A., Afifi, M. and Mabry, R.M., (2004). Women's autonomy, education and employment in Oman and their influence on contraceptive use. Reproductive health matters, 12(23), pp.144-154.
Anderson, J. (2011). Conservative Christianity, the Global South and the Battle over Sexual Orientation. Third World Quarterly, 32(9), pp.1589-1605.
Bedford, K., (2009). Developing partnerships: Gender, sexuality, and the reformed World Bank. U of Minnesota Press.
Cornwall, A., (2006). Marginalisation by sexuality: report of an IDS workshop. Gender & Development, 14(2), pp.273-289.
Cornwall, A and Molyneux, M, (2006). The politics of rights – Dilemmas for feminist praxis: An introduction. Third World Quarterly, 27 (7), pp 1175-1191.
Cornwall, A. and Jolly, S., (2006). Introduction: Sexuality Matters. ids Bulletin, 37(5), pp.1-11.
Cornwall, A. and Jolly, S., (2009). Guest Editorial: Sexuality and the Development Industry. Development, 52(1), pp.5-12.
Cornwall, A. and Jolly, S. (2016) ‘Sexuality and the Development Industry’, Development, 52(1), (5–12)
Cott, N.F., (1978). Passionlessness: An interpretation of Victorian sexual ideology, 1790-1850. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 4(2), pp.219-236.
Foucault, M., (1978). The History of Sexuality, volume I. New York: Vintage.
Jolly, S., (2000). 'Queering' development: Exploring the links between same-sex sexualities, gender, and development. Gender & Development, 8(1), pp.78-88.
Jolly, S., (2011). Why is development work so straight? Heteronormativity in the international development industry. Development in Practice, 21(1), pp.18-28.
Jolly, S., Cornwall, A. and Hawkins, K. (2013). Introduction: Women, Sexuality and the Political Power of Pleasure. In: S. Jolly, A. Cornwall and K. Hawkins, ed., Women, Sexuality and the Political Power of Pleasure, 1st ed. New York: Zen Books Ltd.
Kleitz, G. (2000). ‘Why is Development Work so Straight?’, Discussion Paper for Queering Development Seminar Series, Brighton: Institute for Development Studies. Available at http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/events/- queering-development-seminar-series-2000-2001 (retrieved 17 November 2017).
Lind, A., (2009). Governing Intimacy, Struggling for Sexual Rights: Challenging heteronormativity in the global development industry. Development, 52(1), pp.34-42.
Lloyd, M., (2013). Heteronormativity and/as violence: The “sexing” of Gwen Araujo. Hypatia, 28(4), pp.818-834.
Maslow, A. and Lewis, K.J., (1987). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Salenger Incorporated, 14.
Obendorf, S., (1999). Homosexual Rights and the Non-Western World: A Postcolonial Reading of Homosexual Rights in International Human Rights Law, World Legal Studies, 15(7), pp.179-204.
Offenheiser, R.C. and Holcombe, S.H., (2003). Challenges and opportunities in implementing a rights-based approach to development: An Oxfam America perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(2), pp.268-301.
Posa, R.M., Sardá, A. and Villalba, V., (2006). Lesbianas en América Latina: de la inexistencia a la visibilidad. Mujeres en Red, El periodico feminista.
Rubin, G., (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies; A Reader, pp.100-133.
Sears, A., (2005). Queer anti-capitalism: What's left of lesbian and gay liberation?. Science & Society, 69(1: Special issue), pp.92-112.