Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Motivation .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Problem Area ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Research Question...................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Sub-questions and Elaboration................................................................................................... 4
2. Research Strategy............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Research Design ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Research Method........................................................................................................................ 6
3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Choices of Theory ...................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Choices of Empirics ................................................................................................................. 10
3.3 Analytical Approach ................................................................................................................ 11
3.4 Final Discussions ..................................................................................................................... 13
4. Delimitation ................................................................................................................................... 13
5. Theory ............................................................................................................................................ 14
5.1 Doing Gender ........................................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Stereotyping of Femininity and Masculinity ........................................................................... 17
5.3 Masculinity in Crisis ................................................................................................................ 20
5.4 Practical and Strategic Gender Interests .................................................................................. 22
5.5 Phenomenology of the Social World ....................................................................................... 23
5.6 Principal – Agent Problem ....................................................................................................... 24
6. Empirics ......................................................................................................................................... 26
6.1 UNHCR Policy on Gender ....................................................................................................... 26
1
6.2 Kakuma .................................................................................................................................... 28
6.3 Lukole ...................................................................................................................................... 30
7. Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 31
7.1 Gender and the Refugees in Kakuma and Lukole.................................................................... 32
7.2 Gender and the UNHCR in Lukole and Kakuma .................................................................... 37
7.3 Discrepancies between the Refugees and the UNHCR ........................................................... 42
7.3.1 Work.................................................................................................................................. 43
7.3.2 Family ............................................................................................................................... 44
7.3.3 Representation ................................................................................................................... 46
7.4 Why the Discrepancies Exist ................................................................................................... 47
7.4.1 The Social Construction of Knowledge ............................................................................ 47
7.4.2 The Framework of the Principal-Agent Problem Applied to the Camps .......................... 49
8. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 52
9. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 54
10. Bibliography................................................................................................................................. 56
2
1. Introduction
The focus of this project will be on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
and their relations to the refugees in the refugee camps Kakuma and Lukole. The project will be
centred around the concept of gender, with the UNHCR policy on gender on one hand, and the
gendered behaviour of the refugees on the other. It will be examined what happens when these two
dissimilar mind-sets meet.
The intention behind this project is to provide the reader with an insight of the gendered dynamics
of the UNHCR’s presence among the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole. We find it interesting to
explore how the refugees interpret the gender policies implemented by the UNHCR and how this is
reflected in the gendered behaviour of the refugees.
1.1 Motivation
Our motivation for writing this project arose during the course “Globalization, forced migration and
refugees seen in a historical, developmental and political perspective” where Kathrine Starup from
the Danish Refugee Council presented gender in humanitarian action. After this, our curiosity about
approaches to gender in relation to humanitarian work increased, and led to investigations on how
organisations approach gender in their work with refugees. Another inspiration for the topic of this
project is the work of Simon Turner on Burundian refugees in Tanzania. He particularly writes
about how the UNHCR’s approach to gender equality in the Lukole refugee camp was professed
differently by the refugees than intended by the UNHCR. Instead, the role of the UNHCR in the
camp was expressed by the refugees with the phrase: “UNHCR is a better husband” (Turner 2010:
66). All these instances inspired us to further investigate the gap between the implementation by the
UNHCR and the reaction of the refugees, as reflected in their behaviours and expressions.
As students of the department of Development and International Relations – Global Refugee
Studies, it is relevant for us to understand how the focus on gender can be seen as an instrument
among the international community when dealing with development, aid and refugees.
3
1.2 Problem Area
The UNHCR is managing the East African refugee camps Kakuma and Lukole (Grabska 2011,
Turner 2010). The primary responsibility of the UNHCR is to protect the rights and wellbeing of
refugees and facilitating them in attaining a durable solution (UNHCR 1990: 4).
By implementing their policies on gender, the UNHCR wishes among other things to support the
refugees in moving towards gender equality. In other words, gender equality is an important
component in the UNHCR development projects and initiatives in camps. The UNHCR believes
that women and men should have equal rights and access to goods provided by the organisation and
its partners (UNHCR 1990). The UNHCR approach to gender has moved from a focus solely on
women to one also concerning men, widening the approach to a gender based policy (UNHCR
1990).
Seeing that the UNHCR plays an important role in the everyday life of the refugees in both Kakuma
and Lukole, it follows that the agency also affects the gendered behaviour of these refugees.
Through projects and everyday interactions, the UNHCR’s perception of gender would be expected
to affect the gendered behaviour of the refugees. However, it seems that the perception of gender
among the refugees differ from that of the UNHCR, which leads us to the following research
question and sub-questions.
1.3 Research Question
Given the UNHCR’s extensive presence in Kakuma and Lukole, then why is the change in the
gendered behaviour of the refugees not more in line with the explicit gender policy of the agency?
1.4 Sub-questions and Elaboration
In order to investigate the research question we would like to explore the following sub-questions:
1. How is gender perceived among the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole?
2. How does the UNHCR approach gender in Kakuma and Lukole?
4
3. How much of a discrepancy exists between the notion of gender among the refugees and the
UNHCR’s approach to gender in the camps?
4. Why do these discrepancies exist?
The aim of asking the research question is to investigate in what sense the UNHCR approach to
gender is reflected in the gendered behaviour of the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole. The process of
the UNHCR implementing its gender policies does affect the refugees, however, the outcome of the
process might not be what the agency intended it to be. The paradox presented in the research
question is indicative of an undesirable situation where little progress in terms of gender equality is
achieved at considerable detriment to the gendered interactions of the refugees. Any attempts to
remedy the situation must be based on an understanding of it, our project is intended to further this.
2. Research Strategy
In this chapter the research design and research method of our project will be presented. Where the
research design is the framework, the research method is the approach for this project.
2.1 Research Design
We have chosen to design our project around a case study consisting of two cases; the Kakuma and
Lukole refugee camps. We have chosen these camps because they have important similarities,
however, when it comes to the way the UNHCR affects the gendered behaviour of the refugees,
there are some interesting differences. Both camps are placed in East Africa and are some of the
largest camps of the continent. Further, they are both run by the UNHCR which creates a similar
base for the refugees in both camps. Nonetheless, there are important differences such as the fact
that the refugees in Kakuma consist of different nationalities, where in Lukole, the refugees are
almost exclusively Burundian Hutus. Additionally, around half of the refugee population of
Kakuma is younger than 18 years old, which makes them considerable younger than the refugee
population in Lukole. Furthermore, when it comes to how gender is acted out among the refugees in
both camps, it seems like there is a difference on how they react on the UNHCR approach to
5
gender. In Kakuma, it seems that some of the younger refugees respond to the gender policy of the
UNHCR in a way that is not observable in Lukole.
The paradox presented in the research question has been observed in both camps. Katarzyna
Grabska presents how this paradox is present in Kakuma in her article “Constructing ‘modern
gendered civilised’ women and men: gender-mainstreaming in refugee camps” (2011). Likewise,
Simon Turner has found the presence of this paradox in Lukole as presented in his book “Politics of
Innocence” (2010).
2.2 Research Method
We have chosen to take a social constructivist approach in this project, which will be introduced in
the following. Many scholars have written about social constructivism in different contexts,
however, this introduction will be based on the works of Emanuel Adler (2002) and Finn Collin
(2003).
Social constructivism has over time branched out into a multitude of scientific approaches, but all of
them share the core tenant that everything in the world is socially constructed by humans (Collin
2003: 248). Thus, knowledge and social reality are socially constructed. This implies that
knowledge is dependent on language and interpretations. It can be argued that common views,
founded by the use of language and interpretations, are related to the world as scientific knowledge
and as social reality (Adler 2002). In other words, knowledge is the foundation for both people and
researchers. People use their knowledge in their everyday life in the construction of their social
reality. This knowledge is analysed by scholars into concepts, symbols, meanings and theories in
order to interpret the social reality. Both the knowledge of people and scholars is created through an
ongoing process, meaning that social reality is not fixed but continues to be constructed and
developed. This leads to the common point of social constructivism; the world is a project which is
under construction (Adler 2002).
Within the realm of international relations, social constructivism functions, according to Emanuel
Adler, on three layers as described in the “Handbook of International Relations” (2002); the
metaphysical layer, the social theory layer and the international relations theory layer. The
metaphysical layer is concerned with how scholars use social constructivism as an interpretive
metaphysical stance on reality. The social theory layer comes as a continuation of the metaphysical
6
layer. Here social theory is constructivist in the sense that knowledge and its agents make up the
components of social reality. International relations (IR) theory is the third layer and builds upon
the previous two. This layer focuses on how IR theory and research within this field is based on
epistemological and ontological foundations of the people being analysed. It is not possible to get to
layer three without having passed the previous two layers (Adler 2002).
In relation to epistemology and ontology in social constructivism, Collins explains these as being
two distinct approaches. The epistemological approach, in relation to social constructivism, asserts
the knowledge and the science as constructing the social reality, where the ontological approach, in
relation to social constructivism, asserts that certain aspects of reality forms the starting point for
the process of constructing the social reality.
In this project Emanuel Adler’s three layers are present in the sense that the metaphysical layer is
our point of departure, this means that the perceptions of gender of the UNHCR and the refugees in
the camps are socially constructed. By this, the reality of the camps can be interpreted in relation to
the gender situation. This leads us to investigate the second layer; social theory. Here we investigate
how the role of knowledge, regarding the perceptions of gender of the UNHCR and the refugees,
are presented by the actors themselves. The third layer, IR theory in social constructivism, is present
in this project, in the sense, that we are working from an ontological foundation when analysing the
relations between the perceptions of gender of the UNHCR and the refugees.
We have chosen to work from an ontological foundation in relation to social constructivism when
writing our project, as we see gender as being constructed socially on a basis of certain aspects of
reality.
Finally, using constructivism as a method, we are aware of the fact that the result of our project may
be relevant at the time of writing, but as the construction of gender is an ongoing process, the social
reality of gender in the refugee camps will change over time. Therefore, this project may be
considered as a scientific photograph analysing the perceptions of gender of the UNHCR and the
refugees. We are fully aware of the fact that the situation may be different tomorrow, if the same
study was made.
7
3. Methodology
The project is written using theoretical articles and books, as well as second-hand information in the
form of scientific studies, articles and official published information from the UN. We have been
critical in our choices of empirical sources.
3.1 Choices of Theory
The theoretical chapter (5) of this project introduces various theories on gender, how it is
constructed and mechanisms of change of socially constructed phenomena.
In sub-chapter 5.1 there will be a presentation of the theory of Doing Gender. The chapter is based
on the work of Candace West and Don Zimmerman who introduced this specific theory in their
article “Doing Gender” from 1987. Even though this article is almost 25 years old, it is still relevant
as many other scholars have used it as foundation for their work on gender. Judith Butler (1997,
2004), among others, builds on this theory. Her approach to the theory will be presented to give a
current perspective to this way of understanding gender. The most important aspect of Doing
Gender is that gender is not something you have but something you do, in the sense that gender is a
social compulsion to act in a way that is interpreted by the surroundings as unambiguously feminine
or masculine. According to this theory all actions and all behaviour are gendered, which entails that
a person cannot choose whether to do gender or not. The theory of Doing Gender is especially
interesting for this project because it broadens the understanding of how gender is constructed in
social interactions. This is relevant because the social situation for the refugees has changed after
arriving to Kakuma and Lukole.
In sub-chapter 5.2 the theory Stereotyping of Femininity and Masculinity will be presented together
with a short introduction to the theory of Hegemonic Masculinities. The part on how gender
identities are being stereotyped is mainly based on Jan E. Stets and Peter J. Burke’s article
“Femininity/Masculinity” (2000) and Linda Brannon’s article “Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity
and femininity” (2004). According to these scholars, stereotyping gender is important when creating
gender identity because stereotypes are created by, and reflect attitudes and beliefs on femininity
and masculinity. Stereotypes should not be understood as fixed or static identities but more a way to
categorize yourself and others. As a consequence, the categorisation of a specific gender identity
may not always correspond directly with reality, but function as a way to measure yourself and
8
others. A theoretical understanding of stereotyping gender identities is important in this paper, as
we have not made our own research on how gender identities are being conceived in Lukole and
Kakuma. Therefore, we seek to investigate a stereotyped and general understanding of how
masculinity and femininity are perceived in the camps.
The theory of Hegemonic Masculinities is based on R.W. Connells book “Masculinities” (1995)
and the R.W. Connell and James W. Messerschimdt’s article “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking
the Concept” (2005). This theory and the theory on stereotyping gender identities both agree on the
interconnectedness of the gender identities of masculinity and femininity. Meaning that one concept
cannot exist without the other. However, Connell argues that masculinity has a tendency to be more
stereotyped than femininity. Given this, the project takes a point of departure in the stereotypes of
masculinities when analysing gender relations in the camps.
The theory of Hegemonic Masculinities leads to the next theory of this project, which is the theory
of Masculinity in Crisis, as presented in sub-chapter 5.3. The chapter is based on Tim Edwards’
book “Cultures of Masculinity” (2006). In this book, Edwards explains several areas where a crisis
in masculinity may occur, but in relation to this project, only three areas; work, family and
representation, will be used, as these areas have significant relevance for analysing the gender
identity situation in the camps.
In sub-chapter 5.4 the theory of Practical and Strategic Gender Interests is presented. The theory
allows for a categorisation of gender interest enabling development workers to determine the aim of
a given project. Projects concerning practical gender interests seek to improve the quality of life of
the recipients without coming at odds with the prevailing notions of gender, whereas projects
concerning strategic gender interests seek to change the prevailing notions of gender. This theory is
relevant for our project as we wish to gauge the nature of the work of the UNHCR in order to
understand how much it affects the notion of gender in the camps.
In sub-chapter 5.5 the theory of Phenomenology of the Social World is covered. This chapter is
based on Alfred Schutz’s book “Hverdagslivets sociologi” (2005). Schutz argues that an individual
interprets the world using its stock of knowledge, which allows the individual to navigate in the
world. The stock of knowledge of an individual is made up partly of his or her previous experiences
but for the most part it is constructed by socialisation. In relation to this project, this theory is
9
important as the gendered behaviour of the refugees is defined by these standards of conduct which
will be analysed later.
The framework of Principal – Agent Problem is presented in sub-chapter 5.6. Although the
Principal – Agent Problem can be applied to a wide variety of cases, this project draws on the third
chapter in “Strategizing – kontekstuel virksomhedsteori” (2001) by Ravn, Nygaard and Kristensen.
The framework is concerned with the relations between principal and agent, where the agent is
hired by the principal to perform a given task in exchange for a reward. However, both sides are
driven by their own interests, which may lead to a mismatch when implementing the task. Principal
and agent are working under a condition of asymmetrical information meaning that they do not
posses the same knowledge for instance about their respective priorities. Given that much of the
UNHCR’s actual work in camps is carried out by locally recruited staff, who is in fact refugees
themselves, we find it significant to investigate the interaction between the two. To this end, the
framework of Principal (UNHCR) – Agent (local staff) Problem will be used. We are particularly
interested in the agent’s priorities as compared to the goals of UNHCR’s policy on gender.
3.2 Choices of Empirics
After presenting the above theories and concepts, there is an introduction to the chosen empirics,
which will be analysed later using the theories. The empirics (6) consists of three chapters; 6.1
UNHCR policy on gender, 6.2 Kakuma and 6.3 Lukole.
The empirical chapter on the UNHCR policy on gender goes through how the agency has developed
its policy on gender in the last thirty years. In the beginning the focus was on refugee women but
slowly this has changed into a more general gender perspective. However, as the chapter explains,
there is a gap between the policies and the implementation of these. The main sources used for this
sub-chapter are UNHCR documents (1990, 1991, 2001 and 2008).
Following, there is an empirical chapter on the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya and one on the
Lukole refugee camp in Tanzania. As explained in sub-chapter 2.1, Research Design, these two
camps are chosen for this project because we see interesting similarities as well as differences in
relation to the gendered behaviour among the refugees and the role of the UNHCR in this regard.
The main sources on Kakuma is “Constructing ‘modern gendered civilised’ women and men:
gender-mainstreaming in refugee camps” (2011) by Katarzyna Grabska, “In Her Own Image:
10
Redefining the Picture of Women Refugees” (1993) by Melissa Q. Wilcox and “Minimum
standards and essential needs in a protracted refugee situation – A review of the UNHCR
programme in Kakuma, Kenya” (2000) by Arafat Jamal. The main sources on Lukole are
“Vindicating masculinity: the fate of promoting gender equality” (2000) and “Politics of Innocence”
(2010) by Simon Turner.
The reason for only using Turner for Lukole, is that the work of Turner is the best available source
with regards to Lukole camp. The three main sources used for Kakuma also represent the best
available information with regards to that camp. The fact that the sources have been written years
apart may seem problematic, however, we do not see this as a major problem, since our goal is not
to investigate how perceptions of gender naturally change over time, but instead how it is affected
by the presence of the UNHCR in the camp.
3.3 Analytical Approach
After the empirical chapter the cases are analysed. The analysis is structured according to the subquestions (see sub-chapter 1.4).
Sub-question 1 and analytical subchapter 7.1:
Sub-question 2 and analytical sub-
How gender is perceived among the
refugees in Kakuma and Lukole
chapter 7.2:
How the UNHCR approaches gender
in Kakuma and Lukole
Sub-question 3 and analytical sub-chapter 7.3:
How much of a discrepancy exists between the
notion of gender among the refugees and the
UNHCR’s approach to gender in the camps.
Sub-question 4 and analytical sub-chapter
7.4:
Why these discrepancies exist.
11
First, in sub-chapter 7.1, there is an analysis of how gender is perceived among the refugees in
Kakuma and Lukole. This is based on the empirics and the theory of Doing Gender as well as the
theory of Stereotyping Femininity and Masculinity. The theory of Doing Gender is used in order to
give an insight to how the refugees in the respective camps understand and practice gender. The
theory of Stereotyping Femininity and Masculinity is used here because it is relevant to understand
how gender is expressed and perceived among the refugees.
Afterwards, in sub-chapter 7.2, the second sub-question on how the UNHCR approach gender in
Kakuma and Lukole is analysed. To answer this sub-question, the theory of Practical and Strategic
Gender Interests is used together with the theory of Doing Gender and the theory of Stereotyping
Femininity and Masculinity. The theory of Practical and Strategic Gender Interests is used to
analyse how gender is approached by the UNHCR through projects and implementation of policies.
The theories of Doing Gender and Stereotyping Femininity and Masculinity are used in order to
analyse how gender is perceived and stereotyped by the UNHCR and its staff in Kakuma and
Lukole.
In sub-chapter 7.3 there is an identification and analysis of the discrepancies between the notion of
gender among the refugees in the respective camps and the UNHCR’s approach to gender in these
camps. This analysis draws on the findings of the first two sub-chapters 7.1 and 7.2 together with
the theory of Masculinity in Crisis in order to identify where the crisis, and thereby discrepancies,
occur.
This leads to the analytical sub-chapter, 7.4, where the fourth sub-question is analysed; why the
discrepancies between the notion of gender among refugees and the UNHCR’s approach to gender
in these camps exist. The analysis employs the theory of Phenomenology of the Social World and
the framework of Principal – Agent Problem. The theory of Phenomenology of the Social World is
used in order to gain an understanding of the issues associated with changes in the perceptions of
gender. The framework of Principal – Agent Problem is used to shed light on the implementation of
the UNHCR policy on gender.
12
3.4 Final Discussions
After the analytical chapters, the project will be rounded off with a discussion in chapter 8. In the
analytical chapters, various discrepancies have emerged and been analysed. The findings pertaining
to these will be merged in this discussion chapter, in order to provide an integral insight of why the
change in the gendered behaviour of the refugees is not more in line with the explicit gender policy
of the UNHCR.
4. Delimitation
During the process of writing this project various choices and delimitations have been made - some
more obvious and easy to make than others. In this chapter there are clarifications and reflexions of
the delimitations we think need a further explanation.
When writing the theoretical chapter various theories were taken into consideration. Gender is a
vast research field and can be approached from many directions such as psychology, social sciences
and humanities. We have chosen to take a narrow approach on gender theories in relation to social
constructivism as we believe that looking at gender as a socially constructed concept, helps to
understand how it can be constructed differently in different situations. In relation to social
constructivism, we have applied an ontological approach because we believe that both the refugees
and the UNHCR’s social construction of gender are based on aspects of reality.
Furthermore, we were especially considering whether to include a theory dealing with discourse in
order to analyse how the UNHCR and the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole perceive and act out
gender. However, as our empirics from the respective camps are second hand sources, using
discourse theory when analysing would not accurately have presented how the refugees in the
chosen camps perceive and act out gender. Instead, it would have illuminated how the authors of the
empirics interpret and present the way the refugees perceive and act out gender. Furthermore,
analysing the discourse of the UNHCR policy on gender would not have been useful for us in
relation to our research question, as there may not be coherence between how the UNHCR acts in
the respective camps and what they write in their policies. Therefore, we did not consider this useful
for the purpose of this project. Instead we chose to use the framework of the Principal – Agent
Problem and the theory of Phenomenology of the Social World. Nonetheless, the UNHCR policy
on gender is still presented in the empirics in order to investigate how the UNHCR perceive gender.
13
Seeing as we have chosen to include the theory of Masculinity in Crisis, one could wonder why a
theory on femininity in crisis is not presented. However, there is no equivalent theory concerning
femininity in crisis and we believe that the theory of Masculinity in Crisis can also say something
about femininities, as outlined in the chapter 3.
Tim Edwards presents in his theory of Masculinity in Crisis, various areas where the crisis may
occur from within or without. However, only three of these are presented and dealt with in this
project; work, family and representation, as we find these areas to be the most pertinent in relation
to the refugees in the respective camps.
A general critic of this project, in relation to understand how the situation around gender is in the
respective camps, could obviously be that we only analyse the role of the UNHCR, when many
other organisations are present in Kakuma and Lukole. Our decision to only analyse the UNHCR
was taken as this organisation is the most influential as it is the manager of both Kakuma and
Lukole. Furthermore, the majority of the non-UN actors are in fact UNHCR implementation
partners who are assumed to follow their policy.
Finally, some reflections have to be made. We are fully aware that other factors both endogenous
and exogenous are affecting the gendered behaviour among the refugees in the respective camps.
For example the experience and the process of fleeing affect nearly all aspects of people’s lives.
Furthermore, it can be discussed if a change in the gendered behaviour among these refugees would
have occurred regardless of them being forced to flee or not. However, these factors will not be
included in the scope of this project.
5. Theory
In the following chapter the theories used in this project will be presented. In relation to the project,
these theories are mainly employed to investigate how gender is understood among the refugees and
by the UNCHR and how these understandings correspond to each other. The first four sub-chapters
(6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4), are drawn from gender studies. The last two sub-chapters (6.4 and 6.5) are
included to provide a theoretical basis for investigating the barriers that constrain the absorption of
gender perceptions as advocated by the UNHCR.
14
5.1 Doing Gender
This sub-chapter will be on the theory of Doing Gender, seeing as this is a useful theory in
understanding how gender is constructed and expressed in relation to others and their expectations
of a person’s gendered behaviour.
According to the theory of Doing Gender, gender is not a property of the individual, something that
one has, but rather it is a process that one does in everyday interaction with others (Kimmel and
Aronson 2011: 166). Perspectives on doing gender have a point of departure in soft social
constructivism (Solbrække and Aarseth 2006: 67). Central to these perspectives is how the actions
of individuals are based on expectations and norms created by others around them and society at
large. These norms are not seen as something internalized through socialization by the individual,
but are continuously shaped by being confirmed, challenged and renegotiated in interactions
between people. Norms are on one hand formed by the interactions of individuals while these
interactions likewise are formed by the norms. The theory of Doing Gender first appeared in a
highly influential article by Candace West and Don Zimmerman in 1987, titled “Doing Gender”.
Here they define gender as the social compulsion to act in a way that is interpreted by the
surroundings as unambiguously feminine or masculine. In other words they see gender as a set of
cultural rules that the individual has to follow continuously to be recognized as an accountable
person (West and Zimmerman 1987: 6). Society is structured around the sex categorization of
female and male and people are required to be accountable for their actions to be appropriate to the
sex category to which they belong. This means that gender is seen as something fundamental in
social relationships and one cannot avoid it if one wants to make actions accountable (West and
Zimmerman 1987: 12-13). Therefore, gender is not something that the individual can choose to
overlook, but something that everyone who wants to be socially accepted needs to follow in their
everyday life. However, to do gender is not always to live up to expectations in ones sex category, it
can also be to act in a way that does not live up to the norms and expectations, at the risk of gender
assessment (West and Zimmerman 1987: 13). Either way, all actions and all behavior can be
considered to be gendered. One could be held accountable for performing as a woman or a man in
virtually any situation (Aulette et al 2009: 58). Doing gender is in other words unavoidable:
“Insofar as a society is partitioned by “essential” differences between women and men and
placement in a sex category is both relevant and enforced, doing gender is unavoidable.” (West and
Zimmerman 1987: 13)
15
Doing gender also means creating differences between women and men that are not natural,
essential or biological (West and Zimmerman 1987: 13). The theory of Doing Gender demonstrates
how gender is a social category: “Genitalia, hormones, and genes cannot tell us what is
sociologically interesting about gender differences. The real news about gender can be found in the
ways local contexts and social institutions shape gender identities and relations in systematic
ways.” (Aulette et al 2009: 58). Once the differences have been constructed they are used to
reinforce the essentialness of gender. Furthermore, interpersonal relations contribute to legitimize
and maintain hieratical gender relations in society. Gendered behaviour is not an expression of
natural gender differences, but the actions are in themselves creating differences. Through the act of
doing gender, gender differences are made to appear natural and essential which in turn maintains
the subordination of women to men (West and Zimmerman 1987: 12).
West and Zimmerman’s notion of Doing Gender has been developed and reviewed since it was first
introduced in 1987. Among others, Judith Butler has used the theory in her understanding of
gender. Butler distances herself from gender as an essence or a fixed social role. In this way she is
able to explain larger social patterns such as systematic differences between women and men and
changes hereof. An important point in Butler’s work (1997, 2004) is that gender is nothing in itself.
Gender is not something a person is. It is the way people express themselves that determines if they
are recognized as female or male. The hegemonic gender structure of the West or the dichotomy of
femininity and masculinity are more like cultural norms that each citizen must perform for their
surroundings in a consistent way to get confirmation as a recognizable subject. For Butler,
performativity is about how linguistic and bodily expressions repeat gender norms and create a
basis for social and cultural gender practice. Like West and Zimmerman, Butler argues that gender
as performativity must be understood as a cultural and historic power structure and not something
that the individual can choose to do or not do.
In sum, the theory of Doing Gender sees gender as a social construction and as a dynamic and
fluent social role through which a person’s gendered identity is expressed. The act of doing gender
is not a deliberate choice but rather something implicit in everything we do. Therefore, by doing
gender we produce and reproduce stereotyped notions of what a man and a woman should be like.
This process and perceptions of masculinities and femininities will be covered in the next subchapter.
16
5.2 Stereotyping of Femininity and Masculinity
In this chapter there will be a short introduction to understandings of masculinity and femininity in
relation to gender identity and how it is influenced by the process of stereotyping. Here, several
mechanisms will be explained in order to understand the function of stereotyping. This leads to a
short presentation of the theory of Hegemonic Masculinities, which shed light on the relations and
the dependency between masculine and feminine gender identities. The point of this chapter is to
explain the mechanisms that create a unified stereotypisation of masculinity and femininity
(Lorentzen 2006: 126).
According to Jan E. Stets and Peter E. Burke (2000) in “Femininity/Masculinity”, femininity and
masculinity can be described as a person’s gender identity, which depends on how gender is
reflected in personal and societal interactions. Thus, men are often defined as masculine while
women are often defined as feminine. This entails that a person’s gender identity is socially
constructed rather than biologically determined (Stets & Burke 2000: 1), which is in line with the
theory of Doing Gender (see sub-chapter 5.1). Stets and Burke emphasize the importance of
distinguishing between gender identity from other concepts such as gender roles, gender stereotypes
and gender attitudes, as these concepts influences the gender identity but does not solely create it
(Stets & Burke 2000: 1-2). Nonetheless, gender stereotyping is still an important concept in creating
gender identity as the stereotyping is created by attitude and beliefs of femininity and masculinity
while gender roles are defining masculine and feminine behaviours, as Linda Brannon (2004)
explains in her text “Gender Stereotyped: Masculinity and femininity”. Gender stereotyping affects
the conceptualisation of femininity and masculinity and forms social categories of gender. This
conceptualisation corresponds to thoughts found in a society, in other words, how the society
perceives gender (see sub-chapter 5.1). The conceptualization may be very powerful when judging
others and oneself, even though it does not always fit with reality, meaning that gender stereotypes
are not just social constructions but additionally can also be used as psychological measurements of
femininity and masculinity (Brannon 2004: 160-161). But even though it can be used as
measurements throughout societies, it is important to have in mind that femininity and masculinity
are not fixed or completely determined concepts but are constantly under construction (Connell
2000: 4).
17
Gender stereotypes can be analysed from four mechanisms; physical appearance, traits, behaviours
and occupations, which is shown in the following model by Deaux & Lewis (Brannon 2000: 169170):
Physical
appearance
Behaviors
Traits
Occupations
Brannon (2000) explains that the mechanisms of this model functions on masculinity and femininity
in the sense that society recognizes one set of the mechanisms in relation to women and another to
men. The arrows specify the relations society creates among the mechanisms. When stereotyping,
people refer to others’ physical appearances, traits, behaviours and occupations. What seems to be
the main mechanism in this model is physical appearance as society focuses more on the physical
appearance of men and women than the psychological characteristics (Brannon 2000: 169). The
model expresses how knowledge about behaviour creates conclusions about traits, while knowledge
about occupation may create conclusions about behaviours. By using this model when analysing
femininity and masculinity in a society, clear components of how an ideal man and an ideal woman
are perceived to be will appear (Brannon 2000: 169).
When stereotyping femininity and masculinity, it is important to have in mind the existing
dichotomy between the concepts. Masculinity has been and will always be explained through its
relations and differences with femininity and vice versa. This entails that gender identity is socially
18
constructed and defined within society by comparing the two genders, no matter if the
contradictions are real or imaginary (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005: 848).
Although stereotyping is often associated with negative connotations, it may serve as a framework
as it is useful when approaching complexities in relation to gender (Brannon 2000: 166-167).
According to Brannon, it seems that the stereotyping of men is more constant and dominant than the
stereotyping of women (Brannon 2000: 173). This stereotyping of men and additional field research
on local cultures of masculinities, led to a plural understanding of masculinities and complexities of
the construction of masculinities, which inspired R.W. Connell to create the theory of Hegemonic
Masculinities (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005: 832).
The theory of Hegemonic Masculinities by Connell has been debated and criticised but is still a
widely used theory when explaining masculinities, femininities and their relation. Connell explains
ideological masculinities as patterns of practice, which create and maintain masculine dominance
over femininity. Hegemonic Masculinities are the stereotyped and honoured ways of what a “real”
man is and they require all men to locate themselves in relation to them, which means they may not
be considered as normality for men, but rather what they should be (Connell 1995: 75, Connell &
Messerschmidt 2005: 832). Just like the theory on stereotyping gender identities, the theory of
Hegemonic Masculinities acknowledges the influence that femininity has on masculinity (Connell
& Messerschmidt 2005: 839-840).
In sum, it can be argued that stereotyping gender identities creates an overall understanding of what
is considered masculine and feminine in a society. Of course this may not completely reflect
individual notions of these concepts, however, these individual notions will, in one way or another,
be related to the overall stereotyping of masculinity and femininity in a society, as the individuals
are part of the society. Therefore, the theory of stereotyping gender identities can be used to
understand the common idea of masculinity and femininity in a society. This theory leads to the
theory of Hegemonic Masculinities, where it is stated that masculinity and femininity are
interlinked in the sense that one may not exist without the other. Nonetheless, masculinity has a
tendency to be more stereotyped than femininity.
19
5.3 Masculinity in Crisis
This chapter will present the theory of Masculinity in Crisis together with specific areas where the
balance between masculinity and femininity can be examined. It has already been explained how
gender is a social construction and that both the theory of Stereotyping Femininity and Masculinity
and the theory of Hegemonic Masculinities acknowledge that masculinity and femininity cannot be
defined without the other, as one concept leads to the other. This means that if something is causing
crisis for masculinity it affects femininity and vice versa, which justifies using the theory of
Masculinity in Crisis explained by Tim Edwards (2006) when analysing the relations between
females and males.
The theory of Masculinity in Crisis by Edwards (2006) explains different areas where instability in
the concept of masculinity can occur and which also affect the concept of femininity. These areas
are considered to influence either from without or within. Areas that are influencing masculinity
from without are associations such as education and work. Men are part of these associations but
they cause chaos if it is perceived that men gradually are loosing their power, privilege or positions
(Edwards 2006: 7-8). Areas where masculinity is influenced from within are more difficult to
recognise. They are centred specifically “on a perceived shift in men’s experiences of their positions
as men, their maleness, and what it means. Most importantly, this often refers to a sense of
powerlessness, meaninglessness or uncertainty.” (Edwards 2006: 8). The two types of crises can be
related in the sense that crisis from within can cause crisis from without and vice versa. In order to
identify crisis from within and without, three areas are presented in the theory of Masculinity in
Crisis (Edwards 2006: 8).
One of these areas is defined as work. Throughout history, work has been considered a fundamental
foundation of the identity of masculinity. By this, work is not just considered as an important matter
to men, but part of them in terms of defining their masculine identity. As work may be part of the
masculine identity, men are often considered as the breadwinners of families, therefore a change
from without may threaten this breadwinner position. This threat from without, may cause men to
feel as if they are in an uncertain and marginalized position, which then may lead to a crisis from
within (Edwards 2006: 8-9).
Another area concerning masculinity in crisis is family. This area is considered as the most complex
area where a crisis from within can occur. It is often interlinked with the area of work, seeing that if
there is a change in the work situation, then the dynamics and balance of masculinity and femininity
20
in the families are also going to change. This can be seen when the woman of a family works and
earns money. Thereby, the woman enters the masculine area of work and it can then be difficult for
the family to identify where the feminine role is. This may create a crisis from within for the man,
as he may feel powerless or his masculine role in the family may be dominated by the female part
of the family. When the feminine and the masculine identities in a family is out of balance it may
lead to various confrontations, which hurts both parts from within in one way or another (Edwards
2006: 12-13).
A third area mentioned as causing masculinity in crisis is representation. Two sides of this area
exit. First there is the side questioning whether the crisis of masculinity exists simply because of the
existence of masculinity, and secondly, there is the side questioning whether it is the current
representation or understanding of masculinity that creates the crisis of masculinity. This may be
considered a crisis from without causing a crisis from within and vice versa, as both sides are
caused by the social construction of masculinity in the society (Edwards 2006: 15-16).
After illuminating the areas where the crisis of masculinity is affected from without and/or within, it
can be further elaborated that on one side the crisis relates to the men’s position, which is often
weakened in connection to associations as work and family. On the other side the crisis of
masculinity refers to the experience of men when shifts in position occur (Edwards 2006: 16).
However, there will always be men and women suffering from a crisis in one or several of the
presented areas it can therefore be questioned if the areas constitute a general crisis of masculinity
(Edwards 2006: 16-17). Nevertheless, it is possible to transfer the crisis of masculinity from these
specific areas into an overall crisis explained by the fact that masculinity is in crisis because of its
clash with femininity, either in the sense that gender identities are being undermined or that
femininity is being favoured (Edwards 2006: 17).
To sum up, it can be argued that since masculinity and femininity are interlinked, a crisis in one will
also cause a crisis in the other. This leads to the theory of Masculinity in Crisis that explains the
mechanisms such as work, family and representation as areas where crisis from within and without
typically occur, which overall elaborates on whether masculinity is in crisis or is a crisis in itself.
21
5.4 Practical and Strategic Gender Interests
Gender interests are the interests developed by women or men on the basis of their gendered
positions in society (Pearson 2000: 388). Furthering practical gender interests can improve on the
lives of women or men inside the already established roles. Promoting strategic gender interests, on
the other hand, implies attempting to enhance the ability of women or men to embrace new roles
and empower them in their new position (Momsen 2004: 13).
Practical gender interests are interests men or women have in relation to their role in society without
actually challenging this role or their position in society. Practical gender interests are more about
direct needs and essentials that, if adhered to, help for instance women in their everyday lives.
There is a focus on the areas where the role of women unfolds to the greatest extend; the private
sphere, the home, the family and the local community. Development projects aimed at practical
gender interests are often just that; practical. They are aimed at improving living standards such as
access to water, health care services and sanitation. In reality, basic needs such as food, water and
housing are something that affects the entire family, however, because it is regarded as the women’s
area of responsibility it is also considered as women’s practical gender interests (Moser 1993: 40).
Most development projects worldwide are based on already existing gender roles and are planned
around women’s positions as mothers and wives. The advantage of a project that does not attempt
to change the existing stereotyped gender roles, is that it improves the livelihood of women without
seeming provocative and are therefore easier accepted and implemented (Moser 1993).
Strategic gender interests, on the other hand, are interests that women have in relation to their
subordinate position in society. Adhering to strategic gender interests means attempting to change
the traditional roles of women and thereby challenge their supressed position. Projects aimed at
strategic gender interests may involve legal rights, gender based violence, equal wages and
women’s control over their own bodies (Moser 1993: 39). Meeting these interests contribute to
enhanced equality and a basic change in society.
The division between practical and strategic gender interests have been made by development
workers to better categorize the needs and interests they meet in the field (Moser 1993). However,
the two often overlap and focusing on something that in the beginning might seem to be a practical
gender interest can, in the long run, also appear to meet a strategic gender interest. It is further
important not to write one off in relation to the other. For the people in question it is often easier to
22
identify practical gender interests because it is something they encounter in their everyday lives and
when women act to change their situation it is often in relation to their practical gender interests.
5.5 Phenomenology of the Social World
Below, concepts relating to Alfred Schutz’s Phenomenology of the Social World (2005) are
reviewed. Using these concepts provides an insight to the mechanisms that govern the way people
assemble the frames of reference that allow them to navigate the world.
Alfred Schutz seeks in his analysis of the quotidian life to explain how we interpret and position
ourselves in relation to the surrounding world. According to Schutz, all thinking is derived from
constructions in the form of generalizations, typologies, abstractions, ideals and so forth. Thus, we
create general preconceptions about the attributes of objects. Schutz claims that our notion of what
is relevant or significant in a given situation is dependent on our existing stock of knowledge.
Furthermore, he argues that we, during the process of interpretation as a matter of routine, draw,
largely unreflectingly, on these already accepted frames of reference. The reason for doing so is that
it enables us to make sense of the flow of sensory information we are constantly subjected to, and
which we are unable to comprehend in its integrality (Schutz 2005: 80 - 81).
The stock of knowledge is made up of the sum of previous experiences and inherited narratives,
meaning that it constitutes a preconstructed system of accessible knowledge. Given the inherited
narrative component it follows that we are born into a world that to a significant degree already is
interpreted (Schutz 2005: 34-35).
When Schutz refers to the stock of knowledge as being social, it is to imply that it is comprised of a
relatively modest amount of personal experience and a large part of information passed on from
family, friends, teachers and so on. Through this socialization process, the individual learns to
define typical characteristics and typical means to typical ends. The social stock of knowledge is
transferred via the vocabulary of everyday interactions, the syntax and gesturing; all of these take
place within whatever group or groups the individual is part of (Schutz 2005: 35).
In elaboration of the above, Schutz points out that knowledge is associated with varying degrees of
clarity, precision, foreignness, anonymity and familiarity, these in turn are dependent on one’s
23
biographical situation. Therefore the individual is continually redefining itself, to be able to
navigate in society in relation to our own role and that of others (Schutz 2005: 36 - 38).
According to Schutz this process of typification leads to an institutionalization of different
standards of conduct. Social roles and functions are defined through these standards allowing
individuals to relate to one another in a given situation, even on the basis of the barest minimum of
information on the counterpart (Schutz 2005: 47-51).
In sum, the theory of Phenomenology of the Social World argues that every individual interpret its
surroundings based on its stock of knowledge. This stock of knowledge is developed through
socialization.
5.6 Principal – Agent Problem
The following sub-chapter is concerned with the Principal - Agent Problem. This can be employed
as a framework to develop an understanding of the relationship between an employer and
employees.
The Principal – Agent Problem is concerned with the difficulties that arise under conditions of
incomplete and asymmetric information when a principal employs an agent and their interests are
not aligned. Lack of information or rather asymmetry of information is a central cause of the
problem (Nygaard et al. 2000: 81). In other words, an actor, the principal, hires an agent so that he
or she will perform tasks on its behalf, however oftentimes the principal is incapable of ensuring
that the agent performs the tasks in precisely the way the principal would like. The following model
illustrates the dynamics between principal and agent:
Information
Asymmetry
Reward
Self
interest
P
A
Contribution
Self
interest
24
The decisions and the performance of the agent are difficult and/or expensive to monitor and the
incentives of the agent may differ from those of the principal. On the other hand, the agent may not
fully understand the goals and motivations behind the tasks he or she is required to complete
(Nygaard et al. 2000: 84-85).
The framework of Principal - Agent Problem is based on a number of assumptions. Firstly, it is
taken for granted that both principal and agent seek to maximize the “utility”, that is the useful
benefit, which they can extract from taking part in the relationship. Furthermore it is assumed that
the two actors have diverging goals and priorities, in other words, there is the potential for a conflict
of interest if the goals of the principal clash with those of the agent. Information is inherently
asymmetrical meaning that the two parties do not have access to the same information; this could be
knowledge of the other’s intentions or awareness of problematic issues associated with one or more
elements of the work undertaken. Another basic assumption is that the agent is opportunistic;
signifying that he or she will potentially, if given the opportunity, move to secure benefits for him
or herself at the expense of others. Furthermore it is assumed that the actors are subject to bounded
rationality, and therefore do not have complete awareness of the situation. Finally, it is assumed that
the agent will seek to minimize risk, it is important to note that this only applies to risks to his or
her personal interests (Nygaard et al. 2000: 83-85).
There are several ways of aligning the interests of agents and principals, such as various forms of
contracts that bind the actors’ behaviour to certain standards. However, the more intangible the
agent’s contribution is, the more difficult it is to formulate effective contracts, which in turn will be
harder to monitor, an exercise that even for the simplest of interactions is associated with costs.
Although the existence of asymmetrical information is assumed, this does not signify that one
cannot learn more about one’s context. If actors have a better knowledge about their counterparts
and their priorities they can design more fruitful exchanges (Nygaard et al. 2000: 91).
In sum, the framework of Principal – Agent Problem clarifies why an employer and employees do
not constitute a single unit as they have different interests.
25
6. Empirics
In this chapter there will be a short introduction to our chosen empirics. First, there is a presentation
of the UNHCR policy on gender, which seeks to give an overview of how the approach to gender
has changed, on a policy as well as an operational level. This subchapter provides a basis for
considering the UNHCR policies on gender in relation to the refugees in the camps of Kakuma and
Lukole. Secondly, the case of camp Kakuma in Kenya and thirdly the case of camp Lukole in
Tanzania will be presented. These two camps are presented in order to use the cases as a basis for
later analysis of how the refugees relate to the gender policies of the UNHCR.
6.1 UNHCR Policy on Gender
Over the last thirty years, women and gender issues have become increasingly important in
UNCHR policies (Matlou 1999: 138). The first UNHCR Coordinator for Women was appointed in
1989, in 1990 a UNHCR “Policy on Refugee Women” was created and in 1991 the “Guidelines on
the Protection of Refugee Women” was issued. Further, refugee women were identified by the
UNHCR as a policy priority in the 1990ies. Since then, gender issues have remained a priority in
UNHCR policies, however, the implementation of these policies and the approaches made in the
field have been deemed “[…]slow and ad hoc.” (Baines 2004: 1).
The 1990 “Policy on Refugee Women” called for a participatory approach “[...]to integrate the
resources and needs of refugee women in all aspects of programme planning and implementation.”
(UNHCR 1990: 5). Further, the policy placed the responsibility of the implementation with
individual staff member in order to ensure the implementation in her or his area of competence
(UNHCR 1990: 5). This approach to gender was called “Mainstreaming/Integration”. The policy
stated that men and women experience the refugee situation differently, which should be kept in
mind in all aspects of work with refugees. Here refugee women were emphasized because they were
overlooked until that point in time (UNHCR 1990: 6).
Ten years after the “Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women” (1991) was adopted, it was
assessed by the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children with the support of the
UNHCR. The Commission pointed out both positive and negative aspects of the implementation of
the guidelines. The greatest success, they argued, was the raised awareness of women’s specific
needs and interests among UNHCR staff and partners (Women’s Commission 2002: 1). However,
26
the implementation in itself seemed to be the weakest point: “Overall, implementation of the
Guidelines was found to be uneven and incomplete, occurring on an ad hoc basis in certain sites
rather than in a globally consistent and systematic way. Positive actions tend to be sporadic, and
they are often insufficient to provide refugee women with equitable protection.” (Women’s
Commission 2002: 2). The Commission ended its assessment by recommending a replacement of
the ten years old guidelines with a “Policy on Gender Equality” and supported the move to a gender
equality mainstreaming approach (Women’s Commission 2002: 3). In spite of the UNHCR
supporting this recommendation (Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme
2001) such a policy was never issued. The assessment was however taken into consideration when
the UNHCR introduced its “Age, Gender and Diversity Mainstreaming Initiative” in 2004-2006
(Buscher 2010).
Several, more specific, publications have been issued on the UNHCR approach to gender. These
include “A Practical Guide to Empowerment” (2001) and the “UNHCR Handbook for the
Protection of Women and Girls” (2008).
The former takes departure in the term empowerment, which it defines as: “A process through
which women and men in disadvantaged positions increase their access to knowledge, resources,
and decision-making power, and raise their awareness of participation in their communities, in
order to reach a level of control over their own environment.” (UNHCR 2001: 3). The guide
provides seven practical examples of empowerment from around the world. It is built on the
assumption that gender roles and relations shape the process of empowerment. Further, it argues
that specific initiatives addressing gender inequalities and empower both women and men are
necessary (UNHCR 2001: 3). However, the guide is focused on women, as it is argued that
“[…]gender-related barriers more frequently limit their access to knowledge and resources, as well
as participation in decision-making and economic life.” (UNHCR 2001: 4). In the guide, it is stated
that the procedures and practices of the UNHCR, state bodies and NGOs often are gender-blind and
therefore unintentionally reproduce the disempowerment of women. Reasons for this can be gender
biases of staff or the “[…]institutionalization of gender assumptions that regulate behavior in these
organizations.” (UNHCR 2001: 4). Even though these assumptions appear to be gender-neutral
they might just overlook the different experiences of men and women in displacement (UNHCR
2001: 4).
27
The “UNHCR Handbook for the Protection of Women and Girls” (2008), is mainly concerned with
the security challenges faced by refugee and internally displaced women and girls. In the first
chapter of the handbook, an overview is given outlining the changes in the field since the
“Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women” was issued in 1991. Overall, there has been a
change in the dynamics of forced displacement, which, as the handbook states, has affected women
and girls differently than men and boys (UNHCR 2008: 6). Further, both the UNHCR and other
international organisations and agencies have developed approaches to promote gender equality at
policy and operational levels. In addition, the UNHCR has taken steps to enhance the protection of
women and girls (UNHCR 2008: 6). The handbook moves on to consider the position of women
and girls in today’s displacement situation. It is argued that promoting gender equality will at the
same time enhance the protection of refugee women (UNHCR 2008: 12-13). The handbook
highlights the policy of gender mainstreaming adopted by the entire UN system. Hereby the
UNHCR is made responsible to asses “[…]the implication for women and men of any planned
action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels.” (UNHCR
2008: 13). It is emphasised that gender mainstreaming is not only concerned with women, but that
the interests, concerns and experiences of men should be equally taken into consideration in all
aspects of the work done by the agency. Gender mainstreaming is one of two initiatives the
UNHCR has chosen to focus on while working towards gender equality and the promotion and
protection of the rights of women and girls. The other initiative is targeted actions for empowerment
(UNHCR 2008: 14).
The handbook also covers the complications associated with the implementation of the policies and
approaches to gender issues. It is acknowledged that challenges in implementation consist of issues
such as limited or poor quality interaction with women and girls; a tendency to assume that men are
heads of households; inadequate coordination; personal values and lack of funding (UNHCR 2008:
16).
6.2 Kakuma
The Kakuma camp is located in the sparsely populated Turkana district of Kenya’s Rift Valley
province. The camp was founded in July of 1992 in response to the entry into Kenya of some
23.000 Sudanese refugees, more than half of whom were unaccompanied boys (Jamal 2000: 37).
This group of minors would eventually number 20.000 (Jansen 2008: 571). Men form a significant
28
majority within the camp, accounting for 59% of the total population, another characteristic is that
the refugees as a population group is very young – roughly half the inhabitants are 18 years old or
younger (Grabska 2011). One explanation for the demographical imbalance is that the Sudan
People’s Liberation Army, as a form of paramilitary recruitment, to some extent controlled access
to the camp (Grabska 2011).
Over the years the population served by the camp has more than tripled; the most recent UNHCR
statistics puts the figure at 92.000 (Grabska 2011). Sudanese refugees still make up the vast
majority of the camp’s inhabitants, but over the years they have been joined by refugees from other
countries, principally from Somalia and Ethiopia but many other nationalities, and ethnic groupings
within these, are represented. Up until the early 2000s the camp’s population was further increased
and diversified by the presence of local Kenyan Turkana who moved into the camp, attracted by the
infrastructure and economic opportunities found there (Grabska 2011).
Beyond the diversity in terms of age and nationality/ethnicity, the camp dwellers were also
differentiated by a difference in length of displacement, with some having arrived fairly recently,
while others had grown up in Kakuma, or other camps like it, in Ethiopia or Kenya (Grabska 2011).
Despite the efforts of the UNHCR, its implementing partners and independent NGOs, life in the
camp was rather challenging. Beyond the obvious obstacles of living with the trauma of
displacement, the refuges were also faced with the issues associated with living in a remote
location; “Kakuma” is in fact Kiswahili for “nowhere”. Once admitted, refugees are required to
obtain movement passes from the UNHCR and Government of Kenya in order to leave the camp,
essentially barring them from seeking employment or education (Jamal 2000). In defiance of the
above, Kakuma has over time developed into a semi permanent settlement consisting of thatched
roof huts, tents, and mud abodes sporting local business and transportation (Kakuma News
Reflector).
The UNHCR handles the overall coordination and protection of the refugees. It is supported by a
number of partner organisations, such as Lutheran World Federation, International Rescue
Committee, Jesuit Refugee Services and the World Food Programme (Grabska 2011).
Gender programing was implemented in Kakuma, as one of the first refugee camps. In Kakuma,
empowerment of women was sought through a combination of assistance to female entrepreneurs in
the form of capacity building and microfinance initiatives, and support for women´s Community
29
Based Organisations and leadership generally (Grabska 2011). Protection of women was achieved
by having dedicated UNHCR and NGO teams charged with the responsibility of monitoring the
security situation on camp. In order to be able to provide sanctuary for women at risk, a number of
“protection areas” were established to accommodate the affected refugees (Grabska 2011).
Grabska observes a set of attitudes among aid officials revolving around the typecasting of men as
the perpetrators of violence and (relative to women) less likely to contribute positively. Adversely,
women were seen as victims and the foundation on which the future was to be built. According to
Grabska, some young refugees responded positively to women’s and human rights, as advocated by
the UNHCR (Grabska 2011).
6.3 Lukole
The Lukole refugee camp was established in early 1994 as a response to the influx of Burundian
refugees, who entered Tanzania in the aftermath of the initial communal violence set off by the
assassination of president Ndadaye. The camp was originally intended to provide shelter for 8.000
refugees, but grew steadily over the following years as increasing numbers of Burundians sought
refuge in Tanzania with the worsening situations in Rwanda and Burundi (Turner 2010: 12-13).
Around New Year 1996/7 the Rwandan refugee population in Tanzania was forced to repatriate.
Simultaneously, the government of Tanzania moved to gather Burundian refugees in a single camp:
Lukole. The result was that Lukole, regardless of the protests of humanitarian agencies who were
already concerned with the potential health hazards posed by the close proximity of so many
people, saw a dramatic increase of inhabitants; from roughly 20.000 to somewhere in the region of a
100.000. This figure was further augmented in late 1997 when Tanzanian authorities implemented a
massive operation to rid its border areas of illegal immigrants and refugees staying in villages. The
refugees identified were given the choice of either repatriation or relocation to Lukole (Turner
2010: 13-14).
The inhabitants of Lukole were, from 1997 onwards, by law severely restricted in their mobility and
possibilities of engaging in economic activity, making them highly dependent on the UNHCR who
administered the camp (Turner 2010: 14-16). Turner (2010) explains how the camp from above
looked very well organised which indicated a bureaucratic and rational organiser behind its
existence. However, visiting the inside of the camp, one got a rather different impression of it. Here
30
Lukole was a dynamic place, where a lot of social interactions took place and it resembled more
like a city in any Third World country (Turner 2010: 15-16).
As the main purpose for UNHCR’s presence in Lukole was to keep the refugees alive, the UNHCR
interacted with the refugees in the camp in order to get them to participate. This was done with the
aim of combatting “dependency syndrome”. Yet, the interactions rarely turned out the way the
UNHCR wanted, which not only caused a waste of work when activities were not successful, but
also a rather negative generalisation of the refugees among the staff of the UNHCR (Turner 2010:
48-49). In order to improve the communication with the refugees, the UNHCR came up with a
system where every street in the camp should have a leader elected by the refugees. This street
leader would then function as the liaison between the refugees and the UNHCR (Turner 2010: 52).
In order to implement its policy on gender, the UNHCR carried out various activities for women
and encouraged them to run for street leader or participate in camp society by for instance getting a
job. This was not only done with the purpose to focus on gender equality in the camp, but also
because the UNHCR’s perception was that when women participated and/or worked they did it for
the sake of the community, where men would misuse their power and only participate or work for
rather selfish reasons (Turner 2010: 59-60).
For the refugee population in Lukole, life in the camp seemed to put Burundian customs to a test.
Not only through the fact that the surroundings and living conditions where different than those
back home, but a social and moral decay seemed to be happening (Turner 2010: 52, 65). The
Lukole refugees experienced a change in their quotidian roles from back home, as every person
received the same amount of food and supplies. Therefore, men no longer had to provide for their
wives and families and one did not have to work hard in order to survive. This, among other things,
led to the phrase “UNHCR is a better husband” (Turner 2010: 66), which was often used by the
refugees. Turner argues that the phrase entailed that the UNHCR occupied the position that men
used to have in their families (Turner 2010: 65-66).
7. Analysis
This chapter consist of an analysis structured around the four sub-questions presented in subchapter 1.4:
31
1. How is gender perceived among the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole?
2. How does the UNHCR approach gender in Kakuma and Lukole?
3. How much of a discrepancy exists between the notion of gender among the refugees and the
UNHCR’s approach to gender in the camps?
4. Why do these discrepancies exist?
The first sub-chapter analyses how gender is understood among the refugees in Kakuma and
Lukole. Specifically, an analysis of how gender identities are stereotyped and expressed among the
refugees in both camps. This analysis is based on the theories of Doing Gender and Stereotyping of
Femininity and Masculinity (see sub-chapters 5.1 and 5.2). These theories make it possible to
analyse how the refugees in the camps identify with gender identities and how these are articulated.
The second sub-chapter analyses how the UNHCR approaches gender in Kakuma and Lukole. The
UNHCR’s guidelines and principles on gender equality will be analysed using the theories of Doing
Gender, Stereotyping of Femininity and Masculinity and Practical and Strategic Gender Interests
(see sub-chapters 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4). As shown in the model presented in the sub-chapter 3.3
Analytical Approach, the findings of the first two sub-chapters form the basis of the third subchapter that analyses what discrepancies exist between how the refugees perceive gender and how
the UNHCR approaches gender. The discrepancies are identified through an analysis of the findings
from sub-chapter 7.1 and 7.2, using the theory of Masculinity in Crisis (see sub-chapter 5.3). The
fourth and last sub-chapter is an analysis of why the discrepancies, identified in sub-chapter 7.3
exist. This analysis will be executed applying the theoretical framework provided by Principal –
Agent Problem and the theory of Phenomenology of the Social World (see sub-chapters 5.5 and
5.6). These four analytical sub-chapters will lead to a discussion (8) related to the research question.
7.1 Gender and the Refugees in Kakuma and Lukole
This sub-chapter constitutes an analysis of how gender identities are stereotyped and acted out by
the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole. The theoretical sub-chapters 5.1 Doing Gender and 5.2
Stereotyping Femininity and Masculinity will form the foundation for this analysis. The process of
gender stereotyping, as described in the theoretical sub-chapter 5.2, is an important concept as it
models the social categories of gender. This is also the case in Kakuma and Lukole. In parallel, the
32
theory of Doing Gender will be applied, which illuminates the differences between what is gender
stereotyped and what the actual gendered behaviour is like among the refugees. This is done with
the purpose of providing a basis for investigating the discrepancies that exist between the gendered
behaviour of the refugees and the UNHCR approach to gender in the respective camps,
corresponding to sub-chapter 7.3.
Among the refugees in both Kakuma and Lukole, a clear stereotyping of masculinity can be found.
It revolves around the notion that the men, and thereby the stereotyped masculine ideal, function as
the providers of material needs and security for families. Wilcox (1993) has described the loss of
the ideal masculine role for a male refugee in Kakuma as following: “[...]refugee life leaves a man
stripped of his role as protector and provider.” (Wilcox 1993: 16). Similarly, Turner (2010)
explains how a male refugee in Lukole, Pierre, expresses the view that: “Being a refugee [...]was
like being disabled, which was particularly humiliating for men who were meant to provide for
their families.” (Turner 2010: 68). This indicates the presence of a powerful conceptualisation in
both societies of the ideal masculine role. However, both quotes indicate the difficulties associated
with fulfilments of this role in a forced displacement context. As noted in the theoretical subchapter on Stereotyping Femininity and Masculinity, conceptualisations are often used to judge and
measure others and oneself, which is also the case among the refugees in the camps. As the quote
from Turner indicates, Pierre measures himself against the stereotypical male provider that a
Burundian man should be. Additionally, women in the camp judge men on the same basis. This,
Pierre goes on to explain:
“A few months ago some women got kangas [cloth] from bazungu, from international ...
from UNHCR. And when they went back to their blindés they were saying that now they
get clothes from bazungu ‘you are not our husband because you don’t give us clothes’.
There are some women who say that ‘we are fed by bazungu, and I will respect you
when we will be back in our home country. Because in our home country you are going
to give what you have to give me. But here you didn’t’.” (Turner 2010: 68).
This illustrates how women appraise men using the stereotype of the ideal man, thereby constituting
a positive feedback mechanism that reinforces the generally accepted view that the ideal man must
fill out the role as the provider. Furthermore, the act of providing (particularly clothing) awarded
the men with prestige. Turner describes how, when a woman wore clothes bought by her husband, it
not only indicated that the man provided for her, but the price of the clothes was seen as reflecting
33
his generosity (Turner 2010: 68). Thus, it follows that the masculine act of providing is in fact
reciprocal involving both gender identities. In Kakuma the same dynamic of women acting upon the
stereotypical role of the man is observable. Here it is said that women might marry a man in order
to gain security, as the stereotypical male protects women (Wilcox 1993: 18).
As seen in the above, the two camps resemble each other in terms of stereotyping the masculine
behaviour. When stereotyping the ideal feminine behaviour, the camps also have specific notions.
In Lukole, Turner (2010) outlines what is expected of a woman: “[...]the ideal Burundian Hutu
woman obeys and respects her husband. She is shy and quiet in public, and she works hard and
dresses decently[...].” (Turner 2010: 71). Analysing this using the stereotyping model introduced in
sub-chapter 5.2, it is clear that physical appearance is important in the stereotyping of femininity
not just in theory but also in reality, as in Lukole, it is important for a woman to dress decently. By
doing so, her traits, behaviour and occupation are assumed on the basis of her physical appearance
including that she obeys and respects her husband as well as behaves shyly and quietly in public.
Adversely, some women fail to adhere to the ideal female stereotype - by doing gender differently.
This is in line with the view proposed in the theory of Doing Gender. Specifically, to do gender is
not always to live up to expectations of one’s sex category, but it can also be to act in ways that
does not live up to the norms and expectations. Examples from Lukole include how wearing
immodestly short dresses and going to the market instead of working at home could lead to other
people perceiving them as promiscuous (Turner 2010: 67, 69). This demonstrates what happens if
one or more of the mechanisms from the model do not follow the ideal female stereotype. When
this happens, people tend to assume that the remaining mechanisms of the model also differ, which
can lead the observer to classify the individual in question as belonging to a negative female
stereotype. Furthermore, it can be argued that the process of stereotyping gender, becomes more
important in the camp than in a rural environment in the home country, seen as the camp can be
considered an urban environment in the sense that one does not know the vast majority of fellow
camp dwellers (Turner 2010: 65). This makes it possible to form an idea of a person encountered
for the first time based on incomplete knowledge of that individual.
In both Kakuma and Lukole, there is an expectation that women should be docile. In Lukole this is
expressed by Turner (2010), who found that both women and men: “[...]all agreed that women
ought to respect and obey their husbands.” (Turner 2010: 67), and in Kakuma a man explained to
Wilcox (1993) that “[…]women can’t speak her emotions freely like men[...]. The man usually
34
serves in the role as communicator.” (Wilcox 1993: 6). Furthermore, it is explained in Kakuma that
“[…]if a woman did anything wrong the husband and his brothers have the right to beat her.”
(Wilcox 1993: 16). This, together with the perception that men should function as providers and
protectors, constitute the core elements of the idealised stereotype of masculinity. In sum, men are
supposed to take a leading role in both societies, whereas women are supposed to acknowledge this
and follow the decisions of the men.
As explained and analysed earlier, stereotyping gender is a tool for a society to demonstrate what is
acceptable behaviour for men and women. In Lukole women not following the ideal feminine
stereotype were negatively stereotyped and in Kakuma the presence of various ethnicities may have
led to various sets of stereotypes of masculinities and femininities. However, as mentioned in the
empirical chapter, the Sudanese make up the majority of the population. This means that other more
liberated women, who are not used to the same gender roles, such as the Ethiopian women, are
forced to adhere to the socially constructed stereotypes of femininity and masculinity in the camp in
order to feel safe and follow the norms of the camp. These norms are primarily derived from the
Sudanese set of gender stereotypes. Wilcox (1993) explains this problematic situation as
paradoxical seen as “[...]these women want to remain independent, but because they fear the
unknown man [a criminal or violent man ed.] they must become dependent on one man.” (Wilcox
1993: 18). Given this, it can be analysed how powerful the gender stereotyping is in certain
circumstances since some women disregard their wish for independence by adhering to these
stereotypes.
In Kakuma, the ideal feminine stereotype, and thereby women in general, are expected to take care
of domestic work (Wilcox 1993: 10). Wilcox explains it like this:
“In almost all cultures, but particularly in Africa, women have the traditional
responsibility for food preparation. For most women refugees, food is a paramount
issue. Food is the most basic means for fueling their own survival and that of their
families. In another sense, food is the vehicle through which women can tangibly
express care and concern for their loved ones.” (Wilcox 1993: 9).
By this, it can be analysed that the ideal female cooks for her family and this activity constitutes a
large part of her opportunity to express herself. This has been the norm in the refugee’s countries of
origin and as the quote explains, it is still the norm in Kakuma. However;
35
“[g]endered division of labour was also changing with men taking on some of the
domestic tasks in the absence of their wives, sisters and mothers. Owing to the
separation from their wider community, und [and ed.]under the influence of new gender
equality ideas, they were willing and able to do ‘women’s jobs’.” (Grabska 2011).
This indicates that some refugees have begun to diverge from the ideal feminine and masculine
stereotypes during their stay in the Kakuma. However, cooking was still considered a woman’s job
and the change must be viewed as modest.
As explained earlier, some women in Lukole did not follow the ideal female stereotype, and as a
consequence they were labelled as promiscuous. In Kakuma some women were struggling to follow
the camp’s ideal female stereotype. This does not mean that all women, who did not conform to the
ideal female stereotype, suffered the consequence of negative stereotyping. In fact, it must be
assumed that very few women completely fulfilled the requirements of an ideal woman at all times,
because the stereotyping of ideal men and women were kept and embellished in order to maintain a
sense of connection with the homeland. Turner writes about the more general tendency to do so:
“Although some of the refugees had never lived in Burundi, and although gender, age
and class relations were changing inside Burundi, Burundi was conjured up in the tales
as the stable, harmonious opposite of the chaotic, immoral space of the camp.” (Turner
2010: 66).
Here it is explained how some of the refugees actually never have been in Burundi, but still have a
clear idea of what life in Burundi was like. Looking at the process of embellishment, one may
deduce that the ideal stereotype becomes increasingly difficult to live up to. This may signify that
the way the refugees in the camps are doing gender may not be coherent with the stereotype of what
the ideal women and men are supposed to do. However, as written in the theoretical sub-chapter 5.1
Doing Gender, it is important to have in mind that gender is a process one does in everyday
interactions with others. Therefore, employing the stereotypes of ideal women and men is an
integral part of how the refugees are doing gender.
In sum, this analysis shows how gender is understood among the refugees through stereotypes,
which are created in the interactions between the refugees, and how the understanding of gender is
produced and reproduced. A noteworthy part of these social interactions revolves around the
36
memory of how the gender identities were perceived in the homeland. However, one must have in
mind that these conceptions of the country of origin may be highly romanticised.
7.2 Gender and the UNHCR in Lukole and Kakuma
In this subchapter, there is an analysis of the UNHCR policies on gender and the way they are
implemented among the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole. The analysis will draw on several of the
theories presented in the theoretical chapter, namely the theories of Doing Gender, Stereotyping
Femininity and Masculinity and Practical and Strategic Gender Interests (see sub-chapters 5.1, 5.2
and 5.4). This sub-chapter will focus on the UNHCR’s approaches to gender in Kakuma and
Lukole, and include an analysis of the effect these approaches have on the refugees and the
challenges the UNHCR met when implementing the policies.
Since the issue of gender came to the attention of the UNHCR, the agency has acknowledged the
fact that women and men experience the refugee situation differently. The agency has made sure, on
a policy level, to highlight the importance of implementing considerations of gender in all aspects
of their work with refugees. All guidelines, policies and handbooks presented in the empirics of this
project reflect the fact that the interests of women and men should equally be taken into
consideration. The policies state that it is important to empower both women and men and promote
gender equality (UNHCR 1990, 1991, 2001, 2008). Looking at the UNHCR policies on gender
chronologically as in sub-chapter 6.1 UNHCR Policy on Gender, one can see a shift in focus from
women to gender. However, although the UNHCR focuses on gender equality and applies gender
mainstreaming, they still focus mainly on women. As stated in “A Practical Guide to
Empowerment” (2001) it is necessary to address gender inequalities by empowering both women
and men (UNHCR 2001: 3). Yet, the guide, as several other UNHCR documents on how to
approach gender (UNHCR 1990, 1991, 2008), choses to focus on women seeing as they are the
most overlooked in other projects and programmes. This is a plausible argument, seeing as research
leading up to the guidelines and handbooks show that many ‘gender neutral’ UNHCR programmes
are designed for men (UNHCR 1990, 1991) and that women’s interests and experiences should
equally be taken into consideration. However, as this project will show, focusing only on women,
when it comes to gender mainstreaming, may not prove beneficial to neither men nor women. In
Kakuma, Grabska (2011) finds that: “For most of the refugees, human rights were equated with
women, and gender was understood as ‘giving power to women’. […]When I asked men about
37
‘gender relations’, their usual response was: ‘Oh, you have to talk to women!’” (Grabska 2011). As
the quote indicates, understanding gender as something that concerns only women is also reflected
among the refugees.
The above analysis (7.1 Gender and the Refugees in Kakuma and Lukole), shows how the gendered
behaviour of the refugees is acted out in relation to stereotyped norms of gender identities. These
norms and the perceptions of gender are produced and reproduced in everyday interactions; when
the refugees do gender. Seeing as the UNHCR is such an important part of the lives of the refugees
in the camps, everyday interaction with the agency, staff, policies and programmes are bound to
affect the perception of gender among the refugees. However, the refugees do not always react to
the UNHCR’s projects as expected by the agency. To analyse the aims of UNHCR projects, the
theory of Practical and Strategic Gender Interests (see sub-chapter 5.4) is useful as it shows whether
or not the projects affect the gendered behaviour of the refugees.
There are examples of both practical and strategic gender interests being addressed by the UNHCR
in both camps. In Kakuma every woman and girl attended courses on tailoring, nursing, sewing,
cooking etc. (Grabska 2011). These courses were aimed at the practical gender interests of the
women and girls; they acquired skills they needed in their roles as mothers and wives. Some
workshops organised in the camp was on water and sanitation, these were also aimed at practical
gender interests, while workshops on topics such as civil and citizenship rights, human rights and
gender could be argued to be aimed more at the strategic gender interests, depending on the exact
contents of the workshops (Grabska 2011). Further, the UNHCR in Lukole focused on women’s
leadership and there was an emergence of women leaders in the camps. Grabska (2011) argues that
“[t]he production of ‘new routes’ to womanhood was partially because of the UN gendermainstreaming strategy of ‘empowerment’, which created new opportunities for women through
access to skills, resources, income-generation and leadership.” (Grabska 2011). In many ways it
seems as if the projects aimed at strategic gender interests in Kakuma were successful. Young girls
who had grown up in the camps, and therefore had been affected by the UNHCR’s perception of
gender, saw other possibilities for themselves beyond the traditional female roles:
“Although girls still referred to marriage and children as routes to womanhood, they
also saw other possibilities beyond ‘being wives and mothers’. Their aspirations
revealed their awareness of the need for change of the gender imbalances that kept the
girls and women in subordinate positions.” (Grabska 2011).
38
This shows that the UNHCR’s attempts to empower women had an effect, at least to some degree.
However, it seems problematic that the only time the men were given workshops on gender related
issues, it was concerning the rights of women or when men were viewed as trouble in relation to the
women (Grabska 2011). No research undertaken in this project indicates that the strategic gender
interests of the men were addressed by the UNHCR in Kakuma.
In Lukole, the UNHCR encouraged women as well as men to participate as street leaders and
security guards, educating and increasing their awareness of issues such as violence against women
and sexually transmitted diseases. They also assumed that when women are empowered, there
would be a spill-over effect, where everyone in the society would benefit, while the men, if
empowered were going to use such positions for their political interests in the camp (Turner 2010:
60). It can be analysed that although the UNHCR in Lukole concentrated on both men and women,
they saw more potential in the women than in the men, giving the women a role that would lead to
the benefit of the community as a whole, while the young men were defined as troublesome and
egoistic. Thus, the UNHCR saw less need to invest in the men (Turner 2010: 60).
These two examples show that it is clear that the UNHCR addressed the strategic gender interests of
the refugee women. Empowering the women was supposed to have a spill-over effect on to the
community, but the hierarchical structure of the genders was not impacted. In arguing that the
gender equality approach of the UNHCR had unintended consequences, Turner states that:
“[…]men and women alike interpret changes in the camp according to a dominant gender ideology
based on male superiority.” (Turner 2000: 9). In other words, the UNHCR policies can only affect
the perceptions of gender among the refugees to a certain degree. This was also the case in Kakuma,
where Grabska observed that: “[…]the inherent hierarchical power relations that define the refugee
setting made it highly challenging if not impossible to introduce (gender) equality.” (Grabska
2011).
The theory (5.4) shows that implementing projects addressing practical gender interests in many
cases is easier than implementing projects addressing strategic gender interests. The reason for this
is that addressing practical gender interests in many cases is not as controversial. However, the
theory also shows that projects aimed at practical gender interests in the long run might affect the
strategic gender interests as well. This can also be observed in the empirics (6); Grabska (2011)
explains that in Kakuma women were given control over food rations on an equal level to men. At a
first glance this seems understandable seeing as it is the women who cooks and take care of the
39
household. However, the men felt that their role as a provider was challenged and that they did not
have the same control over the women as before, as analysed in sub-chapter 7.1. The intention of
the UNHCR was not to take away the control the men had over the household, however it did
improve the bargaining position of the women in the patriarchal household (Grabska 2011). On the
other hand the overall enhancement of the women’s position led the men to feel threatened, which
in turn increased the incidents of domestic violence, rapes and forced marriages in Kakuma
(Grabska 2011). This shows how unintended consequences can derive from projects aimed at
gender equality and that the way it is received by the refugees, have much to say in the impacts of
the projects among the refugees themselves.
Implementing programmes addressing strategic gender interests have proven to be a challenge in
both camps. As stated by sources both within and outside the agency (Baines 2004, Women’s
Commission 2002, UNHCR 2008) the largest challenge faced by the UNHCR’s approach to gender
is the process of implementation in itself. Grabska as well argues that “[…]the problems came in
the way the gender policy was implemented. This meant that its effects were often far from stated
purposes. This was visible in the increasing cases of domestic abuse, wife beating, forced marriages
and rapes reported to humanitarian organisations.” (Grabska 2011). Further, the emphasis on
women, rather than gender, and the way ‘gender equality’ was introduced in the camps, had
unintended effects as shown in the above. Pro-women policies ended up marginalising women in
Kakuma (Grabska 2011), and in Lukole, Turner finds that instead of empowering women the
emphasis on gender equality and participation may, in some cases, cause disempowerment of
women (2000: 8-9).
The “UNHCR Handbook for the Protection of Women and Girls” (2008) identifies several specific
challenges met by the UNHCR in implementing initiatives on gender issues. In the following two of
these will be analysed in relations to the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole. First, are the personal
values of the UNHCR staff. It is recognized that gender-blindness or gender bias among the
UNHCR staff can affect the way the approaches to gender are implemented on the ground. This
could be evident in the fact that the staff is not aware of gender issues or that they have stereotyped
perceptions of gender relations in the camp that colour the way they interact with the refugees. In
Kakuma, Grabska observed that “[…]the approach of humanitarian workers to ‘gender’ varied
depending on personal standpoints and biases.” (Grabska 2011). When it comes to the perception
of gender among the staff, the handbook advices:
40
“Protecting women and girls therefore demands that we look at our own values and
attitudes towards the roles and identities of women and girls, and towards gender and
power relations. Our own socially constructed identity affects how we respond to the
individuals with whom we work, both in the office and in operations. It is important to
recognize and understand that we bring our experiences, values, and expectations,
including gender biases, with us to the workplace. Greater self awareness is required to
be sure that we adopt an open attitude towards others, including in particular people of
concern, and are able to learn from them and build mutual trust.” (UNHCR 2008: 18).
In spite of policies and guidelines pointing to the importance of the attitude of the staff when it
comes to gender, there are still much left to be done on the field level (Grabska 2011). As Turner
(2010) points out in relations to Lukole “[…]there is a lot of distance between the policy papers
produced at the head quarters in Geneva and the day-to-day practices of UNHCR and NGO staff in
the camps.” (Turner 2010: 49).
The second challenge to the implementation of gender related issues, as identified by the UNHCR
and applied in this project, is the tendency to assume that men are the ‘principal applicants’ and the
heads of households:
“Men are typically seen as the “principal applicant” when a family claims asylum, as
the “head of household” through whom assistance should be channelled, and/or as the
spokesperson for the family. Women and girls may be viewed as dependants without
rights or claims in their own right.” (UNHCR 2008: 17).
This is closely related to the processes of stereotyping presented in the theoretical sub-chapter 5.2
and analysed in relation to the gendered behaviour of the refugees in the sub-chapter above (7.1). In
this case the UNHCR assumes that the man is the head of the household and the decision maker, a
view that is also found among the refugees.
The above show that the way the UNHCR perceives gender, and especially the way the men and
women are being stereotyped into certain roles, is reflected in the way the agency approaches
gender in the camps.
41
7.3 Discrepancies between the Refugees and the UNHCR
In this sub-chapter the discrepancies between how the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole perceive
gender and how the UNHCR approaches gender in these camps will be identified and analysed.
This analysis is based on the theory from sub-chapter 5.3 Masculinity in Crisis and the findings
from the two previous sub-chapters (7.1 and 7.2).
As analysed in sub-chapter 7.1, the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole have a very clear stereotype of
what an ideal woman and man is. Additionally, as the analysis shows, some of the refugees in the
camps have a slightly different way of doing gender, which often lead to a negative stereotyping of
those whose behaviours are conflicting with the perception of the ideal stereotype.
The UNHCR has clear guidelines on how to approach gender in refugee camps, but as analysed in
sub-chapter 7.2, the agency has a tendency to focus on women even though the official approach is
one of gender, that is both women and men.
Analysing the above together with the theory of Masculinity in Crisis, it is relevant to look at the
different areas where the dynamics and the balance between femininity and masculinity are
influenced in the camps and what role the UNHCR plays in this. In this context, it is important to
have in mind that gender is socially constructed and that masculinity and femininity cannot be
defined in a vacuum as one concept shapes the other, as presented in the theoretical sub-chapters 5.1
Doing Gender, 5.2 Stereotyping Femininity and Masculinity and 5.3 Masculinity in Crisis. Seen as
the concepts of masculinity and femininity are interdependent, it follows that a problem or a crisis
in one affects the other. Applying this to the refugees in the respective camps, it means that when
the male refugees experience a blow to their self-perception it affects the female refugees and vice
versa.
This sub-chapter is structured around the three areas outlined in the theory of Masculinity in Crisis;
work, family and representation. The reason for using the theory of Masculinity in Crisis in this
sub-chapter is that we have delimited ourselves from considering the event of forced migration as a
factor, any sudden change and subsequent crisis in masculinity can therefore be attributed to the
refugees’ contact with the agency. Furthermore, applying this theory in the analysis will make it
possible to pinpoint specific areas where discrepancies can be found.
42
As the theory of Masculinity in Crisis outlines, a crisis can occur from without or within. In
continuation, these divisions are related in the sense that a crisis from without can cause a crisis
from within and vice versa.
7.3.1 Work
Work represents the first area where instability can occur between masculinity and femininity. As
the theory of Masculinity in Crisis specifies, work is often considered a fundamental foundation of
the masculine identity. In Kakuma the situation is as follows: “Essentially, the refugees are
confined to the Kakuma camp area: they are not allowed to move freely outside of it, and they may
not seek education or employment outside of it.” (Jamal 2000: 7-8). Furthermore, specific rules
confine the economic activities that can be undertaken in camp: “[...]they are not allowed out of the
camp, and within it, animal husbandry is forbidden, and agriculture unfeasible.” (Jamal 2000: 19).
These constraints function as factors from without causing a crisis from within. Relating this to the
theory, men are particularly affected by these, as a central part of their gender identity is under
threat. The above affects both men and women, but as explained in sub-chapter 7.1, work outside of
the household is not fundamental to the ideal stereotype of what a woman should do. Therefore this
stringent governance mentioned above, is primarily affecting the male population in the camp.
As analysed in sub-chapter 7.1, the ideal male stereotyped was expected to be the provider of the
family. This, together with the fact that the refugees in Kakuma were not allowed to seek
employment elsewhere or engage in agriculture in and around the camp, made it exceedingly
difficult to fulfil the provider role. The UNHCR provides all the refugees with food and supplies,
leaving male refugees with little possibility to provide for their families as they stereotypically
would be expected to do. The above results in a situation where the male refugees feel that the
UNHCR has taken over their role as providers.
Having this in mind, and adding the observation from sub-chapter 7.2 that the UNHCR encourage
the refugee women in the camp, leads to the scenario in Lukole described bellow.
In Lukole, situations where refugee women have found work, but their men remain unemployed,
are explained as a problem by a male refugee: “When she comes with her money, the wife becomes
a husband. She has to decide everything.” (Turner 2010: 71). This quote indicates both how the
men are marginalised and experience a crisis from within, but it can also be deduced that the
43
women are induced to abandon their docile role and thereby run the risk of not adhering to the ideal
female stereotype. Some of these female refugees in Lukole seem to be aware of this potential
change in dynamics and seek to negate it, as stated in the following quote:
“Maybe that may happen. But it depends on the behaviour of the wife. The woman who
does that, she is the one who doesn’t know the power of the husband – who doesn’t
know how to treat a husband. The wife who knows how to treat her husband can take
half of her money and give it to her husband.” (Turner 2010: 71).
Redistributions, like the one described in the quote, do not change the fact that the man is
unemployed, but can be seen as a conservative measure taken by the woman.
One of the few possibilities for a job in Lukole for the men was to be employed by the UNHCR or
one of the NGOs (Turner 2010: 89). Doing so was however associated with a number of obstacles,
firstly, getting such a job often involved bribing someone with influence over the recruitment
process, as one man told to Turner:
“Village Leader: These people who came recently don’t know where to find the job.
They don’t know the mechanisms of the camp. These people who have already got jobs
here in Lukole, charge them some taxes in order to get a job. And these people are very
poor. They don’t have shillings to pay. That’s why they don’t have jobs.” (Turner 2010:
91).
Secondly, being politically active in the camp was considered a prerequisite for landing a paid
position with one of the international humanitarian actors, as one male refugee lamented: “He
complained that virtually all NGO staff where members of CNDD and that they made sure that
nobody else got a job.” (Turner 2010: 107-108). Both engaging in bribery and being politically
active was illegal in the camp, doing so placed the refugee at odds with the UNHCR. This
circumventing of the rules of the camp reinforced the UNHCR’s perception of men as troublesome,
as dealt with in sub-chapter 7.2.
7.3.2 Family
Family is the second area wherein gender identities may experience instability. Given that the
UNHCR provides the refugees with food, shelter and to some extent security, as explained in the
44
empirical chapter (6), it can be argued that the agency to some degree takes over the role of
provider. The role of provider is central to the male gender identity within the family, as men are
supposed to fill this role, as analysed in sub-chapter 7.1. Although, this source of instability is at
first glance a factor causing a crisis from without, it is considered to constitute a crisis from within,
because it is perceived as a shift in the male position that upsets the dynamic of the family.
In Kakuma, the UNHCR was by the refugees likened to the image of fatherhood: “They often
referred to the UN as ‘their father’, who has undermined their privileged position in the household
and in the community, and made them into ‘children’ who are unable to take care of themselves.”
(Grabska 2011). In Lukole the refugees employed a similar reference to the agency: “UNHCR is a
better husband.” (Turner 2010: 66). An explanation to this difference in denomination could be that
the refugee population of Kakuma is relatively young, as covered in the empirical chapter, making
the term ‘father’ more pertinent to their life situation. Nonetheless, in both cases, the UNHCR is
considered by the refugees to have taken over the tasks of an ideal man.
The loss of the role of provider has been analysed in the area of work, beyond this, further analysis
can be conducted in the area of family. When some wives of unemployed men in Lukole were hired
by the humanitarian organisations, it not only caused change in the balance between men and
women in terms of income, it also extended to broader ramifications in the area family. The issue
within the family was:
“[...]that they [wives ed.] no longer depended on their husbands, and that men no
longer had a role as breadwinners. When they lost respect it was no longer the man
who decided what was right and what was wrong in the family, and women did
whatever they wanted.”(Turner 2010: 69).
As the quote implies, the dynamics of the family unit, as proscribed by Burundian customs,
changed when the wife was employed and the man was not. By this, the woman enters the area of
work, making it difficult for the family members to identify who represent the feminine and
masculine roles. In Lukole the refugees linked the imbalances of influence and income to the rising
number of divorces that they where observing (Turner 2010: 65).
With the UNHCR’s aim of fostering gender equality, as explained in the empirical chapter, and the
refugees’ custom of men being heads of households, a clash took place:
45
“Savimbi: In the Bible men and women are equal and also with UNHCR laws. But it is
not good. A man has to give some orders in the house – and when a woman is equal to a
man that means the woman also has to give orders in the house, some orders to the
man. In Burundi it is forbidden women to give orders to the men.” (Turner 2010: 69).
As the quote shows, some male refugees in Lukole did not approve of the strategy of the UNHCR.
When the agency and its policies on gender equality interfered with the refugee’s customs, it
created crisis in the family sphere. Once again the men were the ones facing the initial crisis linked
to loss of influence and thereby experienced powerlessness. As a result of this loss, the men may
experience a feeling of uncertainty and meaninglessness in relation to their masculinity. This
situation matches the crisis from within as described, in the theory of Masculinity in Crisis (see subchapter 5.3).
7.3.3 Representation
Representation constitutes the third area where a crisis in gender identity can occur. In Kakuma, the
following perception was found among the UNHCR staff (non-local staff): “Men are the
perpetrators of gender violence here. We want them to respect women’s rights, and girls and
women have to be empowered. They have to know that they are equal to men, and have the same
rights.” (Grabska 2011). Here it can be seen how the agency sees men as the source of violence,
and it is the UNHCR’s firm goal to change this situation, as covered in the empirical chapter. As
means to effect this change, the UNHCR employed billboards with slogans such as: “Women are
Good Decision-Makers” (Grabska 2011), portraying women as resourceful beyond their traditional
role. In Lukole similar circumstances existed where “[...]young men where defined as ‘trouble’.”
(Turner 2010: 59). Whereas Turner describes how the agency’s conceptualisation of females was
that: “Women – like children – occupy the victim position and conjure up a sense of ‘bare
humanity’; they are to be felt sorry for and to be helped.”(Turner 2010: 59). This perception could
be viewed to form the UNHCR’s understanding of gender in the camp, specifically, that men are
troublesome and their behaviour needs to be tightly controlled, whereas women are considered
victims who should be uplifted and empowered.
This opinion of the UNHCR, together with how the theory of Masculinity in Crisis present two
sides of the area of representation, leads to the debate on whether the current understanding of
46
masculinity among the refugees is in crisis or if the existence of masculinity in itself is the crisis. As
analysed in the two previous areas; work and family, the male refugees in both camps feel as if they
are losing some of the elements that used to define them as men, according to their traditional
customs. Additionally, the female refugees found it difficult to deal with these changes. This
demonstrates how deeply ingrained gender identities are among the refugee populations. Therefore,
it may not be useful to determine whether the existence of masculinity among the refugees is a
crisis in itself, as it is unfeasible to eliminate the notion of gender. Instead, the question of whether
it is the current understanding of masculinity that is in crisis can be debated. In Lukole, despite the
presence of the UNHCR and the agency’s work in the realm of equality among the refugees, a shift
in values pertaining to gender identities does not seem to be happening.
In sum, there are significant discrepancies between how the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole
perceive gender and how the UNHCR approaches gender in these camps. First, a discrepancy arose
when the UNHCR took on the role of provider that the refugees saw as being part of the ideal male
stereotype’s purview. Second, a discrepancy arose when the UNHCR tried to implement their
strategies of gender equality among the refugees, which clashed with the patriarchal perception of
gender relations found among the refugees. Finally, a discrepancy was to be found between how the
UNHCR characterised the female and male refugees as having certain traits, such as women being
in need of empowerment and men being egoistic and troublesome, whereas the refugees had a
fundamentally different perception of the gender identities.
7.4 Why the Discrepancies Exist
In this sub-chapter there is an analysis of why the discrepancies between how the refugees perceive
gender and the UNHCR’s approach to gender exist in Kakuma and Lukole, as identified and
analysed in the previous sub-chapter (7.3). This analysis is based on the theories from the subchapters 5.5 Phenomenology of the Social World and 5.6 Principal – Agent Problem.
7.4.1 The Social Construction of Knowledge
As analysed in the previous sub-chapter (7.3), a change in the perception of gender did not seem to
happen in Lukole, despite the presence of the UNHCR and the agency’s work in the realm of
gender equality among the refugees. In Kakuma a different set of attitudes has been observed. The
refugees’ exposure to the UNHCR and international NGOs produced two generalised opinions on
47
the process of changing gender attitudes: “One was great suspicion from men, and rejection of any
gender-programming as they saw it as challenging their own position in society, already
diminished by the conditions in the camp.” (Grabska 2011). The other opinion was that: ”’These
workshops [UNHCR gender workshops ed.] are good; they teach us how to be ”modern”, “nei ti
cike ker” [people who have awoken]. We have now understood that women and men are equal. Our
generation is “pro-women”’.”(Grabska 2011). As the first quote demonstrates, there is a certain
element of resistance to change, however, as seen in the second quote some men seem to be
embracing the change brought on by the interactions with the UNHCR. This indicates that some
refugees in Kakuma seem to have accepted and adopted the UNHCR’s approach on gender into
their own perception on gender. In order to analyse this, in relation to the rest of the refugees in
Kakuma and the refugees in Lukole, who still seem to try to preserve their customs and perceptions
regarding gender, it would be relevant to use the theory of Phenomenology of the Social World
presented in sub-chapter 5.5.
The theory describes how individuals interpret and position themselves in relation to the
surrounding world. Moreover, it is illuminated how all thoughts originate from constructions in the
form of generalizations, ideals, abstractions etc. These constructions are, together with previous
experiences and inherited narratives, forming the stock of knowledge that each and all individuals
have. By this, it can be argued that each refugee in both Kakuma and Lukole has a stock of
knowledge they use when interpreting and positioning themselves in relation to life in the camps
and the UNHCR. As part of the stock of knowledge is inherited narrative, it can be explained that to
a significant degree, the world that one is born into is already interpreted, which also is the case for
the refugee population in both camps. The ones arriving to the camp have up until this point in time
already developed their own stock of knowledge. Their stock of knowledge is influenced by the
world they were born into. Moreover, their stock of knowledge has been developed through the
constructions in form of generalizations, ideals, abstractions etc, that has been part of their
quotidian life. The stereotypes of gender are part of these generalizations; therefore, they are
governed by the same processes, which mean that these stereotypes, while dynamic, do not change
over night. From this it can be analysed that the refugees who are born in the camp will develop a
rather different stock of knowledge and perception of gender than their parents, given that the
camps are profoundly different from the places where their parents grew up.
48
As the theory of Phenomenology of the Social World clarifies, the stock of knowledge is social and
developed through socialization with family, friends, teachers etc. where the individual learns to
define typical characteristics and typical means to typical ends. As presented in the empirical subchapter (6.2), the refugees in Kakuma are quite young, in fact roughly half of the inhabitants are 18
years old or younger and have spend an important part of their formative years in the camp.
Meaning that, an equally important part of their socialization has taken place in Kakuma in contact
with the UNHCR and its policies on gender. This may be the explanation for why some refugees in
Kakuma have begun to adopt the UNHCR’s approach on gender into their own perception on
gender.
7.4.2 The Framework of the Principal-Agent Problem Applied to the Camps
In the following paragraphs the reciprocal relationship between the UNHCR, as an international
actor, and its locally employed staff in the refugee camps of Kakuma and Lukole will be analysed.
This is done with the aim of understanding whether or not this interaction affects the adoption of the
gender perceptions advocated by the UNHCR. It is achieved using the framework provided by the
Principal - Agent Problem in the theoretical sub-chapter 5.6. When considering the impact of the
UNHCR presence in Kakuma and Lukole, it is imperative to understand this relationship since the
local staff, who, refugees themselves, paradoxically constitute the main liaison between the agency
and the wider camp population. In Kakuma, Bram Jansen (2008) observes that “[w]ith the exception
of teachers, most non-refugee staff in Kakuma rarely left their protected compounds outside the
camps.” (Jansen 2008: 577). From this, it can be seen that the non-refugee staff did not often
interact with the refugees.
An overview of the different elements of the framework is applied to the chosen cases, starting off
with the principal. This analysis places the UNHCR in the principal category for both camps. The
principal employs the refugee workers; this is done with the aim of furthering the organisation’s
goals. The agency employs staff to carry out a broad spectrum of tasks and activities. These are not
all directly related to gender. However, given the UNHCR’s policy of mainstreaming gender across
program areas, it can reasonably be assumed that the local staff as a whole, is significant to the
analysis of why the UNHCR’s policy on gender is not reflected to a greater extend among the
refugees. Shortcomings in implementation aside, the UNHCR’s interest is mainly a benevolent one.
The agency is, as implied by its classification, itself acting on behalf of other players, and one might
49
imagine that the UNHCR would have an interest in conveying an image of its activities running
smoothly and in accordance with official policy. Moreover, the agent, or in this case agents, are
refugees who are recruited from the populations of either Kakuma or Lukole.
As noted, in the analytical sub-chapter 7.3.1, many local employees had strong political affiliations.
Furthering the aims of these, and thereby presumably enhancing the individual agents’ prestige
within them, must be considered an important priority to the agents. Agents can also leverage their
privileged positions vis-á-vis the humanitarian actors for financial gain. This could take the form of
agents accepting bribes in exchange for facilitating the employment process for a fellow refugee or
selling various supplies on the market. Another goal that agents may pursue, is that of resettlement
to another country, either for themselves or for other camp residents in exchange for money, status
or favours (Jansen 2008: 574-575). Finally, the personal views of an agent could come into play.
This could for instance be seen if a male agent harboured a strong personal conviction that women
had no place within decision making spheres, it might profoundly affect his performance, as
analysed in sub-chapter 7.2.
The locally employed staff is not paid a salary as such. In Lukole, as noted by Turner (2010):
“NGO employees did not receive wages but so-called ‘incentives’, as they were in theory already
fed by the WFP. A school teacher would receive 14.000 shillings (about U.S.$20) a month while the
maximum monthly incentive allowed – for a supervisor or doctor, for instance – was 22.000
shillings.” (Turner 2010: 89). Although food and shelter represents a sizeable equivalent in cash
income, it cannot be considered reward in this context, seen as all refugees are recipients of these
goods irrespective of any contributions to the functioning of the humanitarian setup in camp.
As this analysis is undertaken on a level of aggregation that bundles the locally employed staff
together as one entity, it would be meaningless to discern individual contributions. What is
important to note however, is that the approach of gender mainstreaming makes the already difficult
task of auditing highly intangible contributions even more difficult. There would of course be
exceptions to this; one might measure the number of refugees that attended a given workshop but
qualitative appraisals of these would still be quite demanding.
Many instances of asymmetrical information could be analysed. For an example, politics were
banned in Lukole (Turner 2010: 43) and therefore naturally covert as far as the UNHCR goes,
making it exceedingly difficult for the principal to gain an understanding of this factor. The local
50
staff on the other hand might have had trouble making sense of the UNHCR’s behaviour as this was
shaped by decision makers who both in terms of geography and perspective were worlds away.
As shown above, the agents have a number of potentially very compelling motivations which are
expected to influence their choices. When coupled with the relatively modest financial salary
offered by the principal, there is a significant danger of “moral hazard”. That is, the agents being
willing to jeopardize the interests of the principal in order to maximize their own utility or to
minimize any threats to their positions, even if the principal’s potential loss is many times greater
than what they stand to gain.
In terms of goal alignment, the use of performance based contracts represents the most straight
forward solution (Nygaard et al. 2000: 88). However, in the refugee camps it would be difficult to
do so, given the high degree of information asymmetry and the intangible nature of many of the
outcome variables associated with the tasks carried out. Another solution could be an approach
based on more strict control backed up by credible threats of dismissal in cases where the agent
does not live up to expectations. This however would, as mentioned before, be difficult and
expensive to implement, furthermore, it would only make sense if the UNHCR could be fairly
confident in its ability to replace the refugee employee in question with one whose priorities were
more in line with the UNHCR’s. Given the illegal nature of some of the described factors of the
employee’ self interest, such as monetary benefits extracted through bribes or political activity, it
could prove hard to identify these individuals.
Repeated interaction between principal and agent, as found in cases with a long term employment
relationship such as the one analysed here, would normally over time lead to a narrowing of the
differences in the self interests of the two actors. However, when the principal does not punish the
transgressions of the agent, he or she can become increasingly used to focus on achieving his or her
own goals. Furthermore, agents can through repeated interaction perfect their ability to do plausible
lip service to the task delegated by the principal. In Kakuma, as noted in sub-chapter 7.3, there
seems to be a change in perceptions of gender towards those of the UNHCR. From this it can be
analysed that the issue of agents disagreeing with the aims of gender equality efforts may be
minimized by employing more of the refugees who follow the UNHCR perception of gender.
From the above, it would seem that there is a significant gap between the UNHCR and its refugee
employees both in terms of information and between the employee’s reward and what they are able
51
to extract by abusing their positions. This would indicate that the UNHCR has very limited hopes of
controlling the behaviour of their refugee employees and therefore also of having them to act in an
optimal manner vis-á-vis its goals in relation to gender issues.
To link the two analyses above that are based on the associated theory of Phenomenology of the
Social World and the framework of Principal – Agent Problem, it can be argued that when the
UNHCR employs an important number of refugees, it allows the agency to affect the socialisation
of the employed refugees, and thereby the rest of the refugees.
8. Discussion
As the analysis (7) sought to answer the sub-questions (1.4) this chapter will be concerned with
discussing the discrepancies identified in 7.3 in relation to the research question posed in this
project (1.3):
Given the UNHCR’s extensive presence in Kakuma and Lukole, then why is the change
in the gendered behaviour of the refugees not more in line with the explicit gender
policy of the agency?
We believe that the discrepancies between how the UNHCR approaches gender through gender
mainstreaming and the perceptions of gender among the refugees, are important in specifying the
paradox described in the research question. The following discussion will revolve around the three
discrepancies identified by the analysis (7.3): First, the discrepancy in the perceptions of gender
identities between the UNHCR and the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole. Secondly, a discrepancy
appears when the UNHCR takes over the role of the provider, a role important to the masculine
identity. Lastly, the discrepancy between the programmes and projects implemented by the UNCHR
and how these are received and interpreted by the refugees will be discussed. As these discrepancies
are closely interlinked, so are the following discussions. Discussing the conclusions found in the
analysis (7) allows us to elaborate on these without the constraints of the analytical frameworks.
As the analysis shows, the perceptions of gender among the refugees do not always concur with
those of the UNHCR. This project has presented how the UNHCR stereotype men as troublesome
and violent people not allowing women to be empowered. Further, it is also important to keep in
52
mind that the “UNHCR Handbook for the Protection of Women and Girls” (2008) indicates that
considering men as heads of households is seen as an obstacle to implement gender policies and
therefore the emphasis on women’s gender interests in their policies. From this it can be discussed
that both the actual implementation and the outcome of this is negatively stereotyping men. In other
words, men are considered part of the problem but not part of the solution, as the UNHCR only
focus on women in gender projects. Ignoring men when it comes to efforts aimed at gender equality
is inherently counterproductive as gender equality is equality between men and women.
As pointed out earlier, the presence of the UNHCR in the camps have varying effects on the
gendered behaviour of the refugees. Interfering with the way gender is perceived among the
refugees can compromise the position of the UNHCR and how they are looked upon by the
refugees. Seeing as some projects and programmes might seem inappropriate and provocative to
some of the refugees, implementation of these projects can be difficult. However, the analysis has
showed that projects aimed at what seems to be practical gender interests can also affect strategic
gender interests. An example of this is the UNHCR taking the role of the provider, which is an
important element in the male identity. Losing the position of the provider and breadwinner of the
family can cause a crisis in the gendered identity of the men. Seeing as the main reason for the
UNHCR being in the camps is to sustain the refugees, criticising the UNHCR as the provider is
futile. However, it can be argued that this could be alleviated by the UNHCR implementing projects
aimed at the strategic gender interest of the men.
The third discrepancy identified in this project concerns the gaps between the implementation of the
UNHCR gender projects and how these are received and interpreted by the refugees. The UNHCR
is an institution with specific guidelines telling the staff how to approach gender. This is very
different from the refugees, among whom gender is a social construction acted out in their everyday
lives and constantly affected by their surroundings, as opposed to something tangible that they have
a conscious approach to. Where gender is in the everyday behaviour of the individual refugee, the
institutionalized approach by the UNHCR has a means and an aim. However, given the supposedly
benevolent nature of the UNHCR, it would make sense to consider if the agency could align its
gender policy with the perception of gender among the refugees. To this end, the large number of
refugee staff could function as a major dialogue partner. Nonetheless, as noted above, the UNHCR
is an institutional player therefore field managers do not have the authority to change the gender
policies.
53
Finally, the UNHCR claim they focus on gender, but actually most gender projects and policies are
concerned with women. This creates the illusion that gender is equitable with women. Moreover,
the approach adopted by the UNHCR indicates that concerns of women are something that is added
to the UNHCR policies because the women have been otherwise overlooked. This leads to the
notion that the norm, around which the UNHCR policies (besides those on gender) are made, is the
male refugee. In other words; women are seemingly not included in general UNHCR programmes
because of an insufficient gender mainstreaming approach and men are generally not included in
projects and programmes regarding gender.
9. Conclusion
As this project has clarified, the UNHCR and the refugees in Kakuma and Lukole have significantly
different ways of approaching and doing gender. It has been analysed how the refugees understand
gender through stereotypes. These stereotypes are produced and reproduced through the interactions
of the refugees. Furthermore, it has been analysed how the UNHCR also operate with certain
stereotypes of the gender identities of the refugees. Three major discrepancies have been identified
between the perceptions of gender of the refugees and that of the UNHCR: Firstly, that the UNHCR
function as the provider, a role otherwise associated with the ideal masculine identity; secondly, the
UNHCR efforts aimed at gender equality, which clashes with the patriarchal perception of gender
relations found among the refugees; thirdly, the respective sets of stereotypes employed by the
UNHCR and the refugees are at odds with each other.
Despite the presence and the efforts of the agency, we are, as can be seen from the above, not seeing
the refugees bringing their perception closer to that of the UNHCR, as could have been expected.
One possible reason for this, identified in this project, is that such perceptions are largely based on a
stock of knowledge that is created through socialization. As this is a continuous process taking
place throughout a person’s life, the relatively short period of time the refugees have been in contact
with the UNHCR is in most cases not sufficient to allow for such a change to occur.
Another reason for the lack of alignment could be that the UNHCR relies heavily on staff recruited
among the refugees in order to carry out its programmes and activities. Due to problems associated
54
with control and goal alignment, the UNHCR has limited hope of having their refugee employees
act in a productive manner in relation to the agency’s policy on gender.
From this, it can be concluded that the change of the gendered behaviour of the refugees is not more
in line with the explicit gender policy of the UNHCR, in spite of the agency’s extensive presence in
Kakuma and Lukole, because, as seen above, it takes time to affect such a change. However, in
Kakuma a small change towards the UNHCR’s gender approach has been observed among some of
the refugees. Therefore, it can be argued that over time the gendered behaviour of the refugees
could be brought in line with the gender policies of the UNHCR.
55
10. Bibliography
Adler, E. (2002) chapter 5: “Constructivism and International Relations” in Handbook of
International Relations edited by Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. and Simmons, B.A., SAGE Publication <
http://www.sage-ereference.com/hdbk_intlrelations/ > [24.05.2011]
Aulette, J. et al (2009): Gendered Worlds. Oxford University Press
Baines, E. K. (2004): Vulnerable Bodies. Ashgate Publishing Company
Brannon, L. (2000) “Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and femininity” in Newsweek, November 6,
2000, [Online edition 2004]
< http://www.ablongman.com/partners_in_psych/PDFs/Brannon/Brannon_ch07.pdf > [24.05.2011]
Buscher, D. (2010) “Refugee Women: Twenty Years On” in Refugee Survey Quarterly
Butler, J. (1997): Excitable Speech. A Politics of the Performative. New York and London:
Routledge
Butler, J. (2004): Undoing Gender. New York and London: Routledge
Collin, F. (2003) chapter 10: “Socialkonstruktivisme i Humaniora” in Humanistisk Videnskabsteori
edited by Collin, F. and Køppe, S., DR Multimedie
Connell, R. W. (1995) “Masculinities”, edition 2005, Polity Press
Connell, R. W. (2000) “The men and the boys”, University of California Press
Connell, R. W. and Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005) “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the
Concept” in Gender & Society, Vol. 19 No. 6, December 2005, pp. 829-859
Edwards, T. (2006) “Cultures of Masculinity”, Routledge
Grabska, K. (2011) “Constructing ‘modern gender civilised’ women and men: gendermainstreaming in refugee camps” in Gender & Development, vol. 19, issue 1
<http://publications.oxfam.org.uk/results.asp?sf1=contributor&st1=Katarzyna%20Grabska&TAG=
&CID= > [24.05.2011]
Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme (2001) “Refugee women and
mainstreaming a gender equality perspective”
Kakuma News Reflector < http://kakuma.wordpress./about-kakuma-refugee-camp/ > [31.05.2011]
Kimmel, M and Aronson, A (eds) (2011): The Gendered Society Reader. New York: Oxford
University Press
Jamal, A. (2000) “Minimum standards and essential needs in a protracted refugee situation – a
review of the UNHRC programme in Kakuma, Kenya”, UNCHR Evaluation and Policy Analysis
Unit
56
<http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/151A73B63C254DE5C12571F800418928UNHCR-Nov2000.pdf > [24.05.2011]
Jansen, B. (2008) “Between vulnerability and assertiveness: Negotiating resettlement in Kakuma
refugee camp, Kenya” in African Affairs, vol.107, issue 429
< http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/107/429/569.full.pdf+html > [24.05.2011]
Lorentzen, J. (2006) “Forskning på men og maskuliniteter” chapter 2.3 in in Lorentzen, J. and
Mühleisen W. (eds): ”Kjønnsforskning - En grunnbok”, Universitetsforlaget
Matlou, P. (1999): Upsetting the Cart: Forced Migration and Gender Issues, the African Experience.
In: Indra, D. (ed) Engendering Forced Migration. Theory and Practice. Berghahn Books
Momsen, J. H. (2004) “Gender and Development” Routledge
Moser, C. O. N. (1993) “Gender Planning and Development - Theory, Practice and Training”,
Routledge
Pearson, Ruth (2000): “Rethinking Gender Matters in Development” in Poverty and Develoment
into the 21st century, edited by Allen, T. and Thomas, A., Oxford University Press
Ravn, J., Nygaard, N. And Kristensen, P. (2000) chapter 3 ”Strategen tegner kontrakter –
agentteori” in ”Strategizing – kontekstuel virksomhedsteori” 2. edition, edited by Claus Nygaard
Schütz, A. (2005) “Hverdagslivets sociologi”, translated by Malene Sejer Larsen, Hans Reitzels
Forlag
Solbrække, K. & Aarseth, H. (2006) ”Samfunnsvitenskapenes forståelser av kjønn”, chapter 1.4. in
Lorentzen, J. and Mühleisen W. (eds): ”Kjønnsforskning - En grunnbok”, Universitetsforlaget
Stets, J. E. and Burke, P. J. (2000) “Femininity/Masculinity” in Encyclopedia of Sociology edited
by Borgatta, E. G. and Montgomery, R. J. V., Revised Edition, Macmillan <
http://wat2146.ucr.edu/Papers/00b.pdf > [24.05.2011]
Turner, S. (2000) “Vindicating masculinity: the fate of promoting gender equality” in Forced
Migration Review, issue 9
< http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR09/fmr9.3.pdf > [24.05.2011]
Turner, S., (2010) “Politics of Innocence”, Berghahn Books
UNHCR (1990) “UNHCR Policy on Refugee Women”
UNHCR (1991) “Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women”
UNHCR (2001) “A Practical Guide to Empowerment”
UNHCR (2008) “Handbook for the Protection of Women and Girls”
West, C. and Zimmerman, D. (1987) “Doing Gender”, in Fenstermaker, S. and West C. “Doing
gender, Doing Difference (2002), Routledge
57
Wilcox, M (1993) “In her own image: Redefining the picture of women refugees” an unpublished
Coursework paper for Colby College, Maine USA.
Women’s Commission (2002) “UNHCR Policy on Refugee Women and Guidelines on Their
Protection: An Assessment of Ten Years of Implementation”
58