RESUMO
In 2018, 22 teachers and four government officers started a six-month development process, designed to integrate a gender-equity lens into sex education in Eastern Province, Zambia. The initiative was funded by the Dutch Government. In this article, I explore the emancipatory potential and limits of this gender transformative approach. Civil society privileges the empowerment of women's and girls' voices through participatory methods. This situated women-led 'encounter of change' between men and women addressed the 'harmful practices' of Chewa initiation, transcending patriarchal opposition in the process. Using an applied anthropological lens, I explore what enabled this contingent change in narrative among teachers, but I also question the coloniality inherent in efforts to transform the gender and sexuality of others through the ubiquity of voice.
Integrating critical thinking on gender and power within sexuality education has been praised for its ability to reduce unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The Dutch government has been investing in this 'gender transformative approach' by strengthening the capacity of 64 schools in Zambia. I draw on findings of a multi-sited ethnography on the experiences of 22 male and female teachers and government officials in Zambia, who underwent training in this approach from 2018 to 2019. Female teachers and government workers utilized this training to critique and change harmful initiation rites of the Chewa peoples. However, this attempt at norm change was hindered by the 'fluidity of patriarchy,' which refers to the ability of powerful men to adapt to outside interventions. In this case, they undermined the project. Labeling this resistance simply as 'dealing with opposition', as Western NGOs have started doing recently, overlooks the ways in which traditions are reimagined and reinvented to sustain patriarchy and gender inequality. In this article, I critique the way Western programs listen to the voices of the young people they aim to support. Due to NGO jargon and a focus on evidence and effectiveness, these voices often go unheard. I urge policymakers and practitioners to ask self-critical questions about who gets to set the research agenda, whose voices are prioritized, and (ironically) how their own masculinist leadership norms and neoliberal practices may embody expressions of coloniality and patriarchy.
