Crisis of the Male "Development" Worker

This is a piece on fieldwork experience by a TISS alumnus who prefers to remain anonymous. 

Having worked for over a few years in the ever-so-booming “development” sector (believe me, I have been the heavy-hearted bearer of the following fact elucidated by one of my colleagues for too long now, I hereby lighten my heart by divulging it: “Man! The next most promising sector in India, after ofcourse the IT sector, is the DEVELOPMENT sector!”), I endeavor to present an array of oh-so-subtle phenomena occurring consciously/mostly subconsciously among the male entrants into the hallowed space:

i.                    The fear of one’s own silence: Needing to be party to one of those intellectual discussions/talks/debates – by choice or by circumstances – as part of our personal and professional development, i have often sensed this gnawing restlessness in some of my male colleagues to not be tagged by some invisible observer as the only one who didn't say a thing (and personally i don’t equate saying something with contributing something). This might lead to disastrous effects, for instance, queries that are so convoluted and seemingly never-ending that they lose their “question-effect”, statements that bear no association with the point being discussed – as if just to mark one’s presence in the forum OR sometimes (if you are really lucky, that is) even distasteful exhibition of one’s artistic pursuits such as couplets and shers.

ii.                  The corner-of-the-eye-glance syndrome: In really important meetings with the top-shots (the definition of which can itself be very subjective) of the field beaming their presence, there is this innocuous glance that is thrown by some of my male colleagues towards the chief personality present - out of the corner of the eye - after almost every sentence of one’s presentation/turn to speak – as if marking with one’s mental recorder each and every twitch in the muscle of the concerned authority, considering it as the reaction to one’s just expressed opinions.

iii.                The forced personal example phenomena: This is the most commonly and consistently observed occurring in most male colleagues – even seniors at times. “You see, when I(bold and italics added deliberately for the effect) did so-and-so. . . in so-and-so year. . .so-and-so happened” -  although enlightening is so out of place and needless at times that one starts wondering what was the point of so-and-so at such-and-such time.

iv.                The nebulousness of the unknowable “other”: The most amazing phenomena happens when a group of budding ‘developmentalists’ (yes, I coined that or so i believe) discussing passionately about PRA methods/such likes and the most effective/participative medium of getting a wholesome idea of the problems/issues of a village/urban slum – stare at each other in complete silence when they hit the roadblock of “women’s issues” – as if these issues are an unfathomable addendum to the main issue and not part of the main issue itself. This is either quietly and, in a miraculous way, sometimes unanimously brushed to the sidelines or delegated to lower field officials/specially summoned female colleagues – as an afterthought.

v.                  The burden of the last word: Sometimes meetings/discussions aimed at planning or pre-planning can extend beyond the thinkable limit, what with “to this I would like to add” and “one more addition to this is” as also “my experience in this field says”, as if the clash of titans for Medusa’s head - that is in this case the last word.

vi.                The sealing-with-a-handshake delusion: Most times I have noticed my male colleagues surreptitiously slipping out of post-meeting/conference discussions to steal a word or even better a handshake or sometimes just a glance of the “most influential” person according to them on the panel, mostly for some imaginary future prospects.                       

(This list, although inexhaustive, does sum up honest asides scribbled on my personal FIELDNOTES – therefore the inspiration to share it on this particular forum). I exclude some of the seasoned “man for a cause” activists from the purview of these observations. And ofcourse the writer’s privilege of overgeneralization cannot be shared by the reader who doesn't have a similar concession – since exceptions always exist. But a trend is certainly observable.   

Even at the risk of sounding too simplistic, one of the plausible explanations for the observed phenomena could be stereotypes. “Development” sector being considered less defined, managerial or scientific for most men’s comfort lead to it being touted as predominantly female dominated, thereby pressurizing the male development workers to justify somehow their rightful existence by culling out an “expert” stature for oneself or by associating with the “right kind of” people.      

This in my opinion is also a classic Sonderkommandos(SK) complex. Let me explain: since the German Nazi Party wanted to further the stereotype of Jews being so lowly a race that they could bow to any level of humiliation – even destroy themselves, they hatched the devilish plan to create a ‘special squad’ of Jews – namely the Sonderkommandos – who would be in-charge of running the various human crematoria hence leading their fellow Jews to death. Propagators of the myth of a “useful stereotype” – coined as the SK complex (by me ofcourse) – would  say that such an enrollment would atleast gain the ‘Special Squad’ Jews a few more extra days/months to live – disregarding how hollow and torturous those few extra days might actually have been.

Some argue – using the same SK complex – that the case of the “development” sector stereotype could be one of those few “useful stereotypes” benefiting the stereotyped – in this case the female development workers – again disregarding how short-lived and hollow such benefits might be. I argue that a useful stereotype is an oxymoron.

And if you point out that what i have just presented might also be an exercise in stereotyping, i would disagree and say that, instead, it is a value-neutral effort at describing a fairly regular sociological phenomena as also an attempt to understand the psychological root of it.   

I have chosen to keep my name anonymous so that it doesn't by default give away my gender identity, thereby making this post spiral into a verbal slugfest between “o you biased ranting feminist” and “o me – the unknowing victim of a patriarchal upbringing” – which would so often be the unfortunate fate of the Gender and Society classes of FC: Understanding Society. I would rather maintain this ambiguity about my gender (because hey guys can be feminists too!) to direct the discussions, if any, to the real point. Which is: that we “experts” who aim to objectively deal with the social conundrum are not divorced of the stereotypes and norms that we so passionately seek to dissolve. If we do not acknowledge and confront them upfront, at least at our own personal levels, we do injustice to ourselves and our erudition.