Digital Games, African Development, and Gender Equality:
A comparative analysis of “Family Values” and “Moraba”
Digital games have been utilized in the field of international development for
almost a decade, with mixed results. While early games were aimed at audiences in
the Global North and focused on fund and awareness-raising, the growing field has
come to include games created specifically as on-the-ground-development
interventions for audiences in the Global South. These games have tackled various
social, health and education issues, including pre-and-post-natal health, the
development of so-called 21st-century technical and social networking skills, and the
economic and environmental impacts of illegal logging on rural communities.
This paper analyzes games that focus on a central aspect of contemporary
international development: gender equality. Since the emergence of the Women in
Development (WID) movement in the 1970s, gender has been taken up as an
important issue in the development field. However, the way gender has been
conceptualized and operationalized in development has taken various forms. Thus,
to understand the implications of digital games as a channel for building gender
equality, we must consider these games within the context of a broader, historical
discourse on gender, technology and development. Additionally, digital
development games must be analyzed as material products with political economic
implications for development, gender equality, and broader industries in developing
regions.
This paper analyzes two games, both aimed at tackling development issues
related to gender equality within specific regions of Africa. The first, “Family
Values,” is a mobile phone game created by the USAID supported, U.S.-based
advocacy organization the Half the Sky Movement. The second game, “Moraba,” is a
mobile phone game created by Afroes, a Kenya and South Africa-based gaming
company, with support from the United Nations Women Southern Africa office.
While both organizations cite gender inequality and gender rights as
catalysts for creating their games, their representation of such issues, as well as
their approach to addressing them, varies greatly. Additionally, the organizations
responsible for these games differ in their locality, funding strategies, and
development ideologies. Using qualitative textual analysis methods, this paper
analyzes the games’ narratives, aesthetic representations and play-structures
alongside the organizational discourse around these games. In doing so, this paper
highlights how these particular digital development games may, or may not, align
with feminist approaches to gender equality and development, and it considers the
broader economic and social implications of the production of these games.
This paper begins with a review of the literature on gender and international
development. Next, background information on the organizations responsible for
creating these games is outlined, highlighting issues of locality and production. A
section on the methods used to conduct the study analysis is then provided,
followed by a discussion of the implications of such an analysis. Finally, the
conclusion considers the importance of digital games for gender equality and the
broader implications of their use, along with future directions for research in this
area.
Literature Review
What we consider the modern international development industry began after
World War II with the Bretton Woods agreement and the creation of the United
Nations and the World Bank (originally the Bank for Reconstruction and
Development). With a focus on bolstering national economies in newly decolonized
regions of the world, early development efforts were aimed at those seen as the
productive members of society: men. It was not until the 70s, in the midst of
feminist women’s movements and the “discovery” of Boserup’s “Women’s Role in
Economic Development” (1986), that an argument for the pointed inclusion of
women in international development came to the fore. Advocates gathered together
to form the Women in Development (WID) movement, which fought for the
inclusion of women’s issues within the mainstream development framework.
The main arguments of the WID movement were based on ideas of efficiency:
development resources should be directed towards women, and women included in
development, because of the economic returns the inclusion of women could bring
(Razavi & Miller, 1995). The thinking was, if women were included in the
development process and given access to technology, credit, and income generating
skills, their economic productivity would benefit development at both local and
national levels (1995). WID advocates clearly laid out the women and efficiency
argument and worked to link women’s issues to already established, mainstream
development concerns (such as health and population control), hoping such
strategies would ease resistance to the inclusion of women (1995).
By highlighting women’s potential as economic producers, WID advocates fought
against the depiction of women as needy welfare recipients and emphasized the
benefits they would bring if both the development space and marketplace took them
in (Razavi & Miller, 1995). Contemporary development representations of women
as an “untapped resource” (The Girl Effect, 2014; Half the Sky, 2014) have continued
to utilize the efficiency argument, heralding the inclusion of women in economic
processes as the key to a variety of development issues, including population
control, food crisis, environmental degradation, etc., and it remains the predominant
development policy approach to women today (Razavi & Miller, 1995; Moser, 1993).
Despite its popularity in mainstream development, the WID approach has seen
sustained criticism. Critics argue the WID approach isolates women as a categorical
group from the rest of their lives, ignoring the relationships, structures and systems
through which oppression and gender inequality are reproduced (Kabeer, 1994). To
achieve gender equity, argue critics, there must be a redistribution of power –
bringing women into the existing system, without addressing the structures of
power established within it, will not lead to gender equality (Moser, 1993).
Further, critics of the efficiency approach have argued that the focus on women
and productivity has in fact created greater inequality for women: the emphasis on
productive labor has not negated women’s reproductive responsibilities (especially
as the state continues to lessen support for the necessary resources of reproductive
labor, e.g. health care, child care), rather it has added to women’s responsibilities,
generating additional constraints on their lives (Razavi & Miller, 1995).
Additionally, critics argue that the focus on women as a distinct category
neglects to incorporate an understanding of gendered positions within broader
social, economic and familial structure. In response to WID, the Gender and
Development (GAD) approach argued that gender inequality could only be
understood through an analysis of the social, cultural, and political power structures
in which women lived their lives. Only by understanding the social construction of
gender and gender roles, the power dynamics within all types of gendered
relationships, and the ways in which gender relations restrict women’s access to
resources in the first place, could gender inequality be understood and strategies for
gender equality considered (Razavi & Miller, 1995).
However, while the GAD approach was critical of the lack of gender analysis in
WID, “gender” has been used in a number of differing and contrasting ways within
GAD itself (Razavi & Miller, 1995). Razavi and Miller (1995) argue that there are two
predominate GAD frameworks: the gender roles framework and the social analysis
framework. The former aligns itself more closely to the WID movement,
emphasizing economic arguments to justify directing resources to women (1995).
The latter, the social analysis framework, focuses instead on gender relations, or:
those dimensions of social relations that create differences in the positioning
of men and women in social processes….The central problematic within this
approach is not women’s integration into development per se but the social
structures, processes and relations that give rise to women’s disadvantaged
position in a given society (Razavi & Miller, 1995, p. 27).
This framework, understands gender equity as a political and intersectional
project and argues for the redistribution of power, as opposed to simply the
reallocation of economic resources (Razavi & Miller, 1995). Further, this approach
challenges the assumption that an improvement in women’s economic position
and/or access to technology and credit will automatically lead to greater equity and
positive change (1995).
Despite ongoing critiques, the WID discourse has remained prominent in
mainstream development, bolstered by the introduction of neoliberal policy and
ideology into the field. With an emphasis on microcredit and small business
startups, the current mainstream development discourse frames women as
individual entrepreneurs, responsible for not only their own development, but for
the development of society at large (Karim, 2011). This discourse not only neglects
important power issues addressed in the GAD social analysis framework, it also
glosses over the role of capitalism and globalization in further burdening women in
the developing world (Aguilar & Lacsamana, 2004). While women are discursively
constructed as an “untapped labor source,” in reality they struggle as already-overtapped labor sources, often relegated to “women’s work,” in the informal sector
when they do enter the marketplace (Pearson; Hewmanne).
A contemporary development discourse of women and efficiency based on
neoliberal orthodoxy fails to question the asymmetrical North/South power
structures and economic flows that continue to contribute to the oppressive reality
of women in the developing world. Further, by cordoning off “women” as a category
of oppression from the various other intersections of inequality, such as class,
ethnicity, etc., that affect women differentially, a WID based discourse avoids
challenging systemic structural inequalities within the development industry, as
well as in society rit large (Elson, 1995).
This paper focuses on an analysis of the discourse around gender and equality
integrated into “Family Values” and “Moraba” in order to highlight how issues of and
solutions to gender equity are conceptualized in the game. However, it also points to
the organizational discourse and systems of production behind the games: these
games operate as part of a broader development discourse and must be understood
as such. Further, the use of particular communication technologies and the
production practices behind the games have material, political economic
implications for the development field and the lives of those in developing regions.
International Games, Local Problems: Who gets to play?
Digital games have been used in international development for almost a
decade, beginning with the United Nations World Food Programme’s 2005 game
“Food Force.” Since then, development organizations have adapted digital games to
fit a variety of platforms and to address a wide range of development goals.
Currently, several organizations are promoting mobile phone based games aimed at
audiences in the Global South. These games are meant to act as on-the-grounddevelopment interventions, addressing a variety of development issues such as
health, education, and gender equality. Though they are intended specifically for
audiences in the Global South, these games are created by both local (i.e. in
developing regions) and international game and development organizations. This
paper considers two such games: one was created by a U.S. based development
organization and U.K. game design company for a Kenyan audience; the other was
developed by a Kenya and South Africa based game design company, with support
from a local development office, for a southern African audience. The following
section provides information on the organizations behind these games.
The Half the Sky Movement and “Family Values”
Based on the best-selling book “Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into
Opportunity for women worldwide” by journalists Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl
WuDunn, the Half the Sky Movement (HSM) has developed into a cross-platform
initiative that seeks to “ignite the change needed to put an end to the oppression of
women and girls worldwide” (Half the sky, 2013). In addition to three mobile phone
games and a Facebook game, the organization has released a four-hour PBS
broadcast documentary, two websites, and a series of educational videos and
classroom curricula developed as channels to tackle development issues and
“empower women” (Half the sky, 2013). The majority of this content was designed
to broadcast “a call for action” aimed primarily at audiences in the Global North: the
PBS documentary premiered in the United States in 2012, and was set to air in
Belgium and France in the spring of 2013, and the Facebook game was designed to
raise funds in the Global North via player donations for various non-profit
organizations that help women in the Global South.
Alternatively, the three mobile phone games developed by the HSM have
been touted as a way for the organization to reach “the hardest to reach” (Half the
Sky, 2013) – millions of low-cost mobile phone users in India, Kenya and Tanzania.
“Family Values,” described as a “fun and interactive ‘soap opera’ with dramatic
elements” is one such game (Half the Sky, 2013). Based on a “Choose Your Own
Adventure” style narrative, the game was designed to enhance “the perception of a
girl’s value to a family, with an emphasis on extending girls’ education, as opposed to
child labor or early marriage” (Half the sky, 2013).
According to the organization, the game uses two models to achieve social
impact – adventure and simulation. In the games, “players are exposed to characters
that can serve as role models, and will be rewarded for positive actions...” including
making decisions that delay marriage for girls and lead to “betterment of the family.”
“Family Values,” along with the two other HSM mobile games, was developed
with financial support from USAID, which made a $1.4 million dollar investment in
the development of the games as part of a 5-year public-private partnership called the
C-Change project. All three of the HSM’s mobile phone games were designed by U.K.
based developer Mudlark, and were published by the U.S. based E-Line Media (Half
the Sky, 2013). Additionally, the non-profit, U.S. based organization Games for
Change helped to direct the creation of the game. The games are available for
download in the Nokia, Safaricom, GetJar, and Appla app stores (Ai Ling Loo, personal
communication, January 22, 2013), and will eventually be launched on certain
“featured” phones (Tureski, 2012).
Rajiv Shah, USAID administrator, released a statement saying their partnership
with HSM continued the agency’s ongoing support of gender issues and highlighted
the importance of new technologies in tackling them:
These new mobile games advance two of our most important priorities--the
promotion of gender equality and the use of science and innovation
to accelerate development…We are pleased to partner with the Half the Sky
Movement in creating innovative, accessible solutions to reach and educate
women and girls about critical social, economic, and health issues.
Afroes and Moraba
Afroes is a South Africa and Kenya based gaming company founded in 2009
by Anne Githuku-Shongwe, a former United Nations development worker.
According to its website, Afroes’ mission is to create mobile applications that
“celebrate Africa’s rich heritage and instill messages of hope and possibility in young
people” (Afroes, 2014). The “uniquely African” content (created for social
development agencies, as well as corporate enterprises interested in spreading
educational, branded messages) addresses a range of issues including gender-based
violence, child abuse, and civil rights. In creating content that is relevant to an
African youth market, Afroes hopes to capitalize on the use of mobile phones to
spread its messages and ensure a broad reach that is inclusive of young people of all
socio-economic and educational levels (Afroes, 2014).
Afroes was commissioned by the Southern African Regional Office of UN
Women to create a product for their UNITE Campaign to End Violence Against
Women and Girls (Afroes, 2014). “Moraba,” aimed at male and female youth, is an
adaptation of the popular southern-African board game Morabaraba (also known as
Umlabalaba or Zulu Chess) that incorporates questions on gender-based violence
and gender rights into the strategy based, chess-like game.
Afroes got its start as part of mLab Southern Africa, a “mobile solutions
laboratory,” that acts as an incubator for mobile startups (mLab, 2014). Although
original funding for Afroes came in the form of grants from international
organizations, Afroes is trying to create a revenue generating model by licensing its
mobile content; considering a subscription based model for some of its projects;
considering the use of in-game advertising through Nokia; and creating custom
content for businesses and organizations (Schwab Foundation, 2014). Afroes has
also developed a team of community-based youth sales reps who are contracted to
help with content distribution and data gathering for information on players
(Schwab Foundation, 2014). Thus far, Afroes has secured 10 contracts for mobile
content and has created nine jobs within the organization itself.
In a TedX Talk, Afroes founder Anne Githuku-Shongwe discusses the lack of
broad results in Africa some 50 years after international development began. She
argues that the lack of results is not due to a lack of resources or ability, but rather it
is because “We are still limited by our own beliefs” (TedX, 2012). Thus the goal of
Afroes is to create a movement of “reimagination” that will “unlock the potential of
young…Africans across the continent” (TedX, 2012). Afroes aims to change the belief
systems and mental models of African youth through games and encourage a new
understanding of Africa for its own people: “We believe that reimagination, being
able to reimagine Africa, can change the destiny of Africa” (TedX, 2012).
Method
This study uses ideological criticism and critical discourse analysis to analyze
the games themselves as well as the organizational discourse in which they are
situated. Drawing on Foss’ (1996) approach, this study uses ideological criticism to
make explicit the latent meanings and codes within the games. These meanings and
codes are drawn out in order to highlight the underlying ideology present in the
game, which is then connected to the particular functions or interests it is meant to
serve (1996). According to Foss (1996), an ideological criticism can be carried out
via a four step process: analyze presented elements, analyze embedded or latent
elements and connect them to those presented, formulate an ideology, determine
what functions this ideology carries out and whose interests it serves. The use of
ideological criticism here allows for an analysis at various levels of meaning in the
game – the game text, the aesthetics of the game, game play, and game goals.
In carrying out the final step in an ideological criticism—determining the
function of the ideology as well as whose interests it serves—this study also draws
on Fairclough’s (1995) critical discourse analysis. Taken in isolation, the text of the
game could be analyzed according to Foss’s (1996) first three steps, and generic
assumptions about the functioning of the ideology and whose interests it serves
could be made. However, if this text is analyzed as one communicative event in a
discourse order (Fairclough, 1995), and the discourse is positioned within the
context of the development industry, the analysis can get at a much more detailed,
layered picture of the game’s ideology, how it operates and in whose interest it does
so.
The use of critical discourse analysis helps to make visible the naturalized
structures of power relations embedded in a particular discourse, in this case a
discourse on gender equality and development. The construction of this discourse
has important implications for how policy is carried out, how resources are
distributed, and what actions institutions do or do not take—all of which comes up
against the real wants, needs, desires, and agency of the individual people at whom
these development projects are aimed.
Analysis
To understand these games as part of a larger development discourse, the
study begins by analyzing the games themselves, and then moves on to consider the
organizational discourse in which they are situated as well as the political economic
implications of their production.
“Family Values” is made up of three episodes in which the game player gets to
make limited decisions that impact the direction of the game in a “choose your own
adventure” style narrative. The main characters include Anu, a young 10-year-old girl
for whom decisions are made by the game player; Anu’s family, including her Father,
Mother, and older Brother; and a variety of peripheral characters who come into the
story based on the player’s choices.
The game player is not represented visually in the game; rather she acts as an
omnipresent subject who is, at times, spoken to directly by game characters, but for
the most part simply looks on as a sort of virtual fly-on-the-wall. As the player pushes
the enter button, the game moves forward scene by scene and the story unfolds via
word bubbles that contain the characters’ statements. The game and storyline move
forward uni-directionally until certain situations arise in which the player gets the
option to either agree with (by selecting “CHOOSE”) or question (by selecting “?”) a
statement/opinion/or declaration made by a character. This is where the “choose
your own adventure” style of the game comes into play: the narrative now moves
forward based on the player’s decision until another CHOOSE/? scenario comes up.
In order to understand how player choices are able to impact the “Family
Values” storyline, each possible scenario was played to its conclusion, and all text,
character reactions, scene aesthetics, locations, and game outcomes were kept track
of. In light of space limitations, this study will track and analyze only a few scenarios
used to illuminate the ideology constructed through the narrative and gameplay
structure of “Family Values.”
Episode 1 - The introductory scene is set in the family home. Anu greets the
game player by saying, “Welcome to my life. Please help me make it a good one. Go onclick again” (Family Values, 2013). We learn here that Anu is a 10-year-old girl who
dreams of being a nurse and opening a clinic in her hometown. Anu’s Father, a
principal character in the game, greets the player by saying “Ah, hello. I hear Anu has
asked you to make some big decisions over the next few years.” From these two
statements we learn that our role as the game player is to make important life
decisions for Anu in order to ensure her life is “a good one.” We next meet Anu’s
brother who is complimented by the Father who goes on to say “You’ve done nothing
to make me so proud, Anu.” From this short introductory scene we not only get a
sense of the gendered dynamics in the home but also learn that it is necessary to have
an outsider step in and make life decisions for this young girl.
The rest of the episode takes us through a variety of scenes and situations
where we are intermittently asked to “CHOOSE” or “?” whether Anu should go out
with her friends or stay in school to study extra hours; whether Anu and her Mother
should let her Father and Brother eat dinner first, as the Mother suggests, or question
this logic; and whether to “CHOOSE” or “?” the Father’s statement to the Mother that
they should “take Anu out of school to help more.” If you choose to follow the Father’s
request and let Anu quit school the episode ends. The final scene takes place outside
the family home where Anu says, “There isn’t much more to say…Mother did get a job.
Washing clothes…We’re still poor. I’ll never be a nurse now. But why not try again?”
The player is taken to a screen that shows a tree with leafless branches. A blinking
green leaf appears over the first branch, indicating that although the episode has been
played the desired outcome (as designated by the game) has not been met. In another
similar scenario in which Anu doesn’t study hard enough and leaves school early with
friends,the father again decides Anu should be taken out of school and the episode
ends with Anu saying to the player “It’s just not fair. You didn’t help keep me in
school…But please play again.” A blinking green leaf continues on the episode’s
branch.
The player can win a golden leaf, an indication that the right choices have been
made and the desired outcome of the game met, by taking an alternate route through
this episode. When the player chooses to have Anu question her father, stay in school
and study hard (instead of playing with friends). In this scenario Anu receives top
marks and is congratulated by her teacher and parents. Anu then says to the player
“Thanks for your help my friend. You have won the gold leaf on this branch of the
family tree.”
From playing out the various scenarios in this episode it becomes obvious that
the way to win the game and create the “good life” for Anu is to make the choices that
will keep her in school. There are additional development related issues that come up
in this episode. For instance, if we CHOOSE for Anu to agree with her mother to let the
men eat first, the mother gets ill and the father later realizes why. He decides that
from now on all of the family will eat the same food and says to the player, “Thank you
for opening my eyes to this problem. We are still poor though. Your choices can help
us find a better way.” The gendered power dynamics in the family and their
impoverished status are highlighted in this scenario and the player receives a solid
green (not gold) leaf, indicating that the equal distribution of material resources
within the family is important, but ultimately not as important or impactful as Anu’s
education. Only keeping Anu in school warrants a golden leaf on the tree and allows
you to move on to Episode 2. The game’s emphasis on education as the pathway to a
good, empowered life comes through in this introductory episode.
Episode 2 - In the second episode of the game Anu’s brother welcomes us back
and tells us nothing much has changed since we saw the family five years ago – the
Father still earns too little money and Anu is still the best student in school. As the
Father runs out to work he asks if you, the game player, can keep a secret. He says, “A
man with money wants to be my business partner. But he’s looking for a wife too.” We
learn that if Anu will marry this man, Kunal, the family will not have to be so poor. The
direction of this episode, then, is determined by whether the player decides to
CHOOSE or ? Anu’s statement “I suppose I must obey Father. I will marry Kunal.” If the
player selects CHOOSE, Anu marries Kunal and leaves school, at his request, so that
she can be a good wife. The next choice the player makes determines whether Anu
should obey Kunal and focus on her work in his home, rather than go and help her
parents. If the player selects CHOOSE and obeys Kunal we learn the Mother has gotten
very ill and passed away, and that Anu is pregnant. The episode ends with Kunal
telling us we don’t get to see Anu again because she is too busy working. “Here’s a leaf
for your silly tree,” he says, “Don’t come back and bother me. If you want to try again
that’s your problem.” Not only have we not received a golden leaf, we haven’t even
gotten to hear from Anu a final time. This route, quite obviously, is not the winning
one.
An alternate scenario, in which the player makes Anu question her father’s
decision for her to get married takes us to a scene outside the house in which Anu
says “I ma happy to be free still. If only we could afford the medicine” for her mother.
Throughout the episode Kunal and Anu’s father continue to try and convince her to
get married and take the family out of poverty. If the player chooses for Anu to look at
her father’s accounts, against his wishes, she finds an error in his bookkeeping and
helps the family get more money, to which the father says, “I always said it…Keeping
that girl in school would benefit us all!” The episode ends with the family being able to
afford medicine for the mother, the father making a small profit, and Anu winning a
scholarship to go to nursing school. Anu says, “You know, I think we have a future for
this family! Here’s the gold leaf for the end of this branch!” This episode continues the
emphasis on education as a path to the “good life,” for both young girls and their
families but adds an additional focus on the importance of delaying marriage for girls.
Episode 3- Episode 3 moves us forward in time once again and we are greeted
by an older Anu who has graduated at the top of her class. She tells us that she has
fallen in love with a boy named Sidhu and they have recently gotten married, but she
wants to start a nursing program before getting pregnant. The focus of this episode is
the pressure on Anu—from her parents, in-laws, and from the community in
general—to get pregnant. Anu says she loves Sidhu and she knows he would like to
have a baby, but her mother tells her the baby will be happier and healthier if she
waits. The player has the option to CHOOSE or ? when Sidhu tells Anu, “I don’t want
you to stop studying. Because I love you so much. Everyone wants us to start now.
Anu we must start a family now.” While Sidhu seems to be supportive of Anu
continuing her studies he also pressures her to start a family right away. If the player
selects “?” after Sidhu’s statement, the couple enters into a discussion about seeing a
nurse to get advice on family planning. If the player selects “CHOOSE” the two go visit
the nurse and decide it is a good thing to be able to choose when to start a family. The
nurse offers, “You use contraception. There are pills or injections for the woman. We
can discuss it. I can explain more.” This, however, is the end of the discussion and no
forms of contraception for the man are mentioned.
After returning home from the clinic, Sidhu says he is relieved and that they
will be able to manage much better now that they can decide when to start a family.
We then learn Anu has secured a place in a nursing program. After talking with her
mother about how glad she is to have learned about family planning, she goes back to
Sidhu and says “I think the time might be right. I want a family with you…and a career
and everything!” She then suggests they get tested (although she does not specify for
what, we can infer she means for sexually transmitted diseases) before having a baby.
While at the clinic the nurse says they are both healthy and that they “should not have
sex with any other people.” Anu responds by saying “We are happy together anyway.”
In the next scene, Anu is at a kiosk in the city. She tells us “I’m about to do a pregnancy
test. Do you want it to be positive? So I’ll have a baby?” The player can either CHOOSE
or “?”. If the player selects “?” we next find Anu outside her home crying. She says “We
have been trying and trying and I just can’t get pregnant.” Sidhu then appears and
says “You work too hard and you have no desire to be a mother.” The episode ends
with Anu saying “At least Sidhu will stay with me. But he understands. So here’s a
green leaf for the tree. This is not how it should end.” Anu then pleads with the player
“So please go back and try again.” Although the player made sure Anu stayed in
school, graduated at the top of her class, secured a position in a nursing school,
avoided an early marriage, married a man of her choosing, and delayed an early
pregnancy, not even this path qualifies as achieving the “good life” because Anu
doesn’t end up being able to have a career and a baby (at least at this time). She asks
the player to please go back and play again because the game, her life, shouldn’t end
this way.
Based on the various gameplay outcomes, in which a player either wins a
golden leaf or is encouraged to try again, it is clear that the narrative and game
structure of “Family Values” emphasizes education as the most important resource
for securing gender equality—by obtaining an education a girl will be able to prove
her worth to her family, make her own decisions, earn an income and become an
empowered woman. According to the HTSM, the main goal of this game and the larger
movement itself is to empower women all over the world. Our first lesson from the
game, then, is that an empowered girl is an educated girl, and that women and girls
must do the work to earn gender equality by proving their value to their family.
We also learn, through the narrative of the game, that securing access toon
education is the responsibility of the individual – the game encourages the player to
make Anu question the logic of her father, work around her family’s poverty, and
dedicate herself to studying extra hours in school. While the game points to several of
the larger structural, social and cultural issues that often block girls’ access to
education – class, gender, family expectations – the onus for overcoming these
obstacles is placed solely on the individual. The empowered girl, then, is meant to find
ways to work within the system to secure an education. And while we do see her
question (that is, if the player chooses for her to question) why her brother gets to go
to school and she doesn’t, or why she should have to get married so young, we don’t
see the game highlight systems outside the individual as sites for change or
disruption.
While the game’s presentation of various scenarios that both lead to or
preclude Anu’s access to education is at times quite nuanced, it becomes apparent
that the only solution to gender equality offered by “Family Values” is for women to
secure an education. That being said, as the game continues it becomes clear that
obtaining an education is not, in and of itself, enough: Anu must also follow along a
normative storyline of marriage and motherhood to “win” at life. The unexpected
emphasis on having it all – “I want a family with you…and a career and everything!” –
(which rings fiercely of Western notions of modernized womanhood) encourages the
player to make decisions for Anu that at once ask her to question and push back
against cultural and familial pressures, while simultaneously expecting her to fulfill
normative expectations of marriage and motherhood. Getting an education changes
the timing of these events but the result is only a delayed normativity, for Anu must
still be able to get pregnant for the player win the game and for Anu to win at life.
Tying narratives of education to marriage and motherhood does little to disrupt
normative discourses of gender and cultural expectations.
A continued critique of the WID approach is that it de-emphasizes structural
change while stressing the importance of individual responsibility, a pattern we see
repeated in the game: Anu must stand up to her father, and their family must make
choices, but the game does not ask how larger structures impact the issues we see
played out before us.
“Family Values” uses an efficiency based narrative to construct its argument
for gender equality—if given resources such as food, education, and the right to
delay her marriage, the daughter can help the family prosper economically: her
math skills will help with keeping the books, which will save the business money,
and her eventual career as a nurse will help bring additional economic support. For
these reasons, resources such as education, health care and food should be directed
towards her. The daughter, then, is an “untapped resource” in both the family and
the community. Similar to the efficiency based arguments of WID advocates, the
rational for gender equality in the game is based on an argument that women can be
just as productive as men. Further, similar to WID approaches, the game narrative
ties the idea of gender equity to other mainstream development issues, including
child marriage, family planning/population control, economic productivity, and
curbing the spread of HIV/Aids. The foundational argument of the game’s narrative
is that access to education will equate to an overall increase in quality of life by
shaping an economically productive member of society. Yet the game presents a
conflicting scenario within this narrative: to win the game, or in “Family Values”
speak, to win at life, a woman must also produce a family. Paid work outside the
home must be accompanied by the traditional goals of marriage and reproduction;
thus the narrative for gender equality within the game does not take a radical
approach to changing institutional systems of gender inequality, rather it employs a
neoliberal and hetero-normative narrative that asks a woman to be both productive
and reproductive members of society in order to achieve gender equality within the
household and in the community at large. While the game should be commended for
highlighting complicated gendered household power structures and pointing, albeit
briefly, to larger systemic issues such as poverty and limited access to important
resources, it fails to also take into account the changes necessary to larger
structures of power in order to achieve gender equality, and instead focuses on
individual production and achievement as key.
Beyond the game, it is important to consider the material implications of the
production of this game, as well as the broader organizational discourse in which it
is situated. The HSM states that its purpose is to “turn oppression into opportunity”
(Half the Sky, 2014). Based on the narratives within the book, website,
documentary, and Facebook game, it seems the opportunities emphasized are those
that can provide women with an immediate or eventual income. For instance, the
Facebook game encourages Western players to donate money so women around the
world can start small businesses selling goat’s milk, or join a microcredit lending
group (Half the Sky Movement: The Game, 2014). A page on the website devoted to
“Economic Empowerment” argues that “putting money into the hands of women can
have a positive long-term effect on the whole family…” and that greater income
equality between men and women is necessary for bringing families—both current
members and future generations—out of poverty (Half the Sky, 2014). Education as
a means to economic empowerment is the overarching theme of the Half the Sky
Movement. The many issues of and solutions to gender inequality are presented as
economic ones. Education for girls is promoted as the best way to secure a future
income for women, and having an income is presented as the best way to ensure
gender equality. The broader discourse of gender equality presented by the Half the
Sky movement, then, is one based on women and efficiency.
The production of this discourse happens in the Global North – the Half the
Sky Movement is based in the U.S. and its funding comes primarily from U.S. aid
organizations, charitable foundations and corporations. “Family Values” was
developed by a gaming studio in the U.K., produced by a U.S. based organization, and
directed by a U.S. non-profit. While this paper looks at the “Family Values” game
created specifically for players in Kenya, it is important to note that two other
versions of the game were created for players in India and in Tanzania. Key
identifiers in the game such as names, dress, food, character’s appearance, and
language change across the version, but the game narrative, goals, and outcomes
remain the same.
“Moraba”
“Moraba” is based on the popular southern African board game Morabaraba,
or African Chess. The mobile phone game is described by Afroes as an exciting game
of strategy and wit, “But Moraba is more than just a game. It’s about intimate
relationships. How much you know about how to treat others will get you far in the
game!” (Moraba, 2014). The player moves pieces around a board with the goal of
getting three in a row. When the player or opponent gets three pieces in a row a
quiz question pops up. When answered correctly the player scores additional points
and can register her score at the end of the game.
When beginning each new game, the player can choose a male or female
character and enter a nickname of her choice. The player plays against the opposite
character – if the player chooses the female character the male is her opponent; if
she chooses the male character she plays against the female. The characters are
illustrated in a cartoonish style. The male wears a red hooded sweatshirt and an
orange floppy hat and has chin-length dread locks and a goatee. The female
character has chin-length braids and wears a yellow tank-top, gold hoop earrings,
red lipstick and a blue floppy hat. The game background looks like the asphalt of a
street or a playground, and all the text is drawn in white or orange chalk.
After the player or opponent gets three pieces in a row on the board, a quiz
question pops up and the player is asked to choose the correct answer out of three
possible choices. The player is notified if her choice was right or wrong and a
justification for the right answer is given. While you only get points for right
answers, you don’t lose the game if you answer incorrectly – rather you lose or win
the game based on your skills in the puzzle portion. Questions are selected at
random from 60 different questions on gender rights and gender violence. The idea,
according to Afroes, is that, over time, players will encounter the same questions
reinforcing the correct information and giving them the opportunity to learn from
previous answers. The questions are the same whether the player chooses the male
or female character.
The questions cover issues of gender violence, emotional abuse, physical
abuse and legal rights. Below is a sampling of the questions:
Q1.) Which question is not a sign of control from a partner?
a) Hello, where are you?
b) Hello, how do you feel?
c)Hello, Who are you with?
Correct Answer – b
Message: Beware! An abuser will want to isolate you from your friends.
Q2.) I pledge to respect my partner’s boundaries.
a) Yes.
b) Maybe.
c) No.
Correct Answer – a.
Message: Know your rights and use them to protect yourself!
Q3.) If a girl sleeps over at a guy’s place and refuses to have sex with the guy,
she is:
a) Dating someone else.
b) Is a tease.
c) Must be respected.
Correct answer – c.
Message: Girls have the right to choose who they have sex with.
Q4.) Fact: Having sex with a girl who is unconscious or wasted drunk is…
a) Fine – if the guy is also drunk
b) Rape – she’s too drunk to say no
c) OK – she didn’t say no
Correct answer – b.
Message: If she’s too drunk to know what’s happening it’s rape.
Q5.) Emotionally abusing your partner is
a) Threats, insults, humiliation and stalking
b) Using physical force to hurt and cause fear
c) Rape
Correct Answer – a.
Message: A loving and caring relationship is not abuse.
Q6.) Fact: Physical or sexual abuse can happen to?
a) Boys
b) Anyone
c) Girls
Correct Answer – b.
Message: Abuse happens regardless of gender, size, age or strength.
Q7.) Fact: In a relationship
a) Girls must lead or decide.
b) Girls and boys are equal.
c) Boys must lead or decide.
Correct answer – b.
Message: Girls and boys both share responsibilities and must be equally
respected.
Q8.) What happens after a rape case is investigated by the police?
a) The case goes to court
b) It’s passed to a lawyer
c) The case is dropped
Correct Answer – b.
Message: A prosecutor is a free state lawyer who will prepare the case for
court.
Q9.) A friend says they have just been raped, what should you do?
a) Speak to their family
b) Get them to a clinic or police station.
c) Find the rapist
Correct Answer – b.
Message: Rape can lead to pregnancy and HIV. You have 72 hours to find a
doctor to help.
Q10.) A friend is in a violent relationship. You should?
a) Encourage silence to avoid further abuse.
b) Encourage silence to avoid shaming family.
c) Encourage reporting.
Correct Answer – c.
Message: Silence never solves problems and can cause more abuse.
Q11.) I pledge to take action and support people in abusive relationships.
a) Maybe.
b) No.
c) Yes.
Correct Answer – c.
Message: Don’t accept abuse from anyone or towards others. Report abuse.
Q12.) Making your partner feel like no one else would want them is
a) Makes you feel valuable.
b) Shows your low self esteem.
c) Emotional abuse.
Correct Answer – c.
Message: Emotional abuse impacts on self esteem and can lead to suicide.
Q12.) Being violent toward my partner is…
a) Their fault for making me jealous.
b) A crime I accept I will go to jail for.
c) Discipline, I must teach them a lesson.
Correct Answer – b.
Message: A violent act against your partner is a crime you will go to jail for.
Other questions discuss the importance of healthy relationship indicators
such as including family and friends in activities versus isolation from friends and
family, respectfully communicating thoughts and beliefs with a partner, watching
out for early signs of control that can lead to abusive actions, rape within
relationships (e.g. forcing yourself on your partner after giving her a gift), the legal
age of consent, the importance of respecting your own needs and desires and
putting yourself first, differences among physical abuse, emotional abuse and
unhealthy behavior, using technology such as SMS and the Internet to abuse your
partner, the dangers of multiple sexual partners and the spread of HIV for both girls
and boys, defining date rape, and the advice to carry a cell pone on your person at all
times in case you need to make an emergency call.
“Moraba” uses an argument based on personal rights (you have the right to a
healthy relationship, happiness, peace of mind, etc.) and legal rights to tackle gender
inequality. The questions in the game focus on interpersonal power dynamics
within individual relationships as well as the legal structures of rights. Along with
the responsibility placed on the individual for ensuring his or her rights are upheld,
there is also an emphasis on the role of community and family in achieving gender
equality. Questions in the game bring up the importance of including family and
friends in relationships and highlight isolation from family as a red flag, and they
encourage players to speak up for others if they know abuse is happening.
While the game emphasizes the importance of community and family in
maintaining healthy relationships and ensuring individual rights are upheld, it also
acknowledges that family values and cultural norms might dissuade the reporting of
abuse. The game does not, however, bring up the gendered power dynamics and
biases within the legal system itself that might discourage individuals from
reporting abuse. If there is a culture of mistrust between citizens and police there is
the potential that those playing the game may be unwilling to accept reporting of
abuse as a viable option. The emphasis on legal rights and reporting of abuse may in
fact dampen the credibility of the rest of the information/advice in the game.
Unlike “Family Values,” “Moraba” emphasizes the rights of men and women
equally, discussing individual rights and rights within relationships for both parties,
rather than focusing on women only. While some questions specifically refer to
relationships between men and women (e.g. “If a girl goes home with a guy”…),
many questions are more ambiguous, referring vaguely to a “partner,” thus leaving
room for interpretation regarding the gender of those in the relationship.
Additionally, while the aesthetics and game structure of “Family Values” present
gender issues within a narrowly defined context – the family is given particular
cultural, class (and perhaps even religious) indicators, and the relationships
depicted are strictly heterosexual – “Moraba” leaves much more open to
interpretation by presenting text-based questions specifically to the player, rather
than depicting issues through characters.
The solution to achieving gender equality presented in “Moraba” is one based
on legal rights and individual participation in ensuring those rights are carried out –
including reporting, testimony and individual interventions in the face of gender
based violence. Players are presented with questions regarding their personal rights
as well as what they can and can not do to others – the player is addressed as a
potential victim and as a potential perpetrator who must learn about her rights as
well as the rights of others.
Unlike the efficiency based argument of “Family Values,” “Moraba” presents a
rights based argument that aligns more closely to a GAD approach in considering the
social construction of gender and gender roles. In highlighting the assumptions
behind these roles, the game challenges and pushes back against them. While
“Moraba” does provide some analysis of the social power structures that support
gender inequality at the individual level, it does little to consider broader social and
political power structures. Additionally, in contextualizing gender equality within a
legal rights based argument, the game does not consider the inherent gendered
biases within such a system.
While “Moraba” focuses on gender equality specifically, the organizational
discourse within Afroes takes a broader approach. Its focus is on “reimagining”
Africa in a more positive sense across the board. In doing so it has also created
games focused on environmental rights and child safety. In addition to funding from
UN Women, Afroes has received support from other local and international
organizations. It has also generated its own income by selling licenses for its games
to private companies, international organizations and governments, and by selling
reports with in-depth information on game users and their behaviors to interested
consumers (infoDev, World Bank Group, 2013). As a a Kenya and South Africa based
organization focused on creating “uniquely African” content that speaks directly to
the heritage and contemporary contexts of its players, Afroes has created nine local
positions in its organization and secured a number of commissioned projects thus
far (Afroes, 2014).
Conclusion
Using these two games as an example, it is evident that gender equality as a
development concept, as well as the issues and solutions offered up, are
conceptualized in very different ways by the organizations responsible for creating
them. Digital games are an important site of analysis within the broader
development discourse on gender equality as they work to frame our understanding
of development issues and possible solutions (Arce, 2003). These gender and
development “story lines” have important implications for the types of development
projects carried, the types of policies supported, and the kinds of solutions that gain
acceptance (Hajer, 1995; Cornwall). As Cornwall argues, “The struggles for
interpretive power are not struggles to get the language and representations right
for their own sake, but because they are a critical part in the determination of
policy.”
While the language of these games frames our understanding of
contemporary development issues, the production of the games has important
political economic implications that must also be considered.