ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP OF RURAL WOMEN - FROM COMMUNITY (NON)BELONGING TO (IN)FORMAL PARTICIPATION
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Changes in rural development paradigms brought forward several innovations regarding developmental concept, principles and practices – new, (neo)endogenous model of rural development is focused on participation, inclusion, devolution of power, territoriality, plurality of agents. Active citizenship is considered as one the main drivers of local rural development. Various agents are encouraged to try new (public) social roles. This especially refers to those who were previously less powerful and less present in social public life, such as rural women. Contemporary sociological literature pays special attention to the issue of gender and rural development. Gender regimes determines taking certain private and public roles. Previous researches proved low level of active citizenship of rural women, especially in formal decision-making. Rural women have less political power and less self-confidence for participating in public social arena.
Three aspects of active citizenship of rural women have been analysed: a) rurality image, b) agents in rural community and c) participation in activities of communal importance. The main hypothesis was that active citizenship of rural women was low. Three auxiliary hypotheses were:
- majority of rural women have strong sense of community belonging,
- rural women consider that rural community should be governed from within,
- rural women prefer less formal types of active citizenship.
The analysis was conducted based on survey data. Total of 503 rural women living in 14 villages in Vojvodina participated in the survey. Sampling procedure was two-staged. First, we selected a sample of villages based on population size and municipal development level. Second, proportional sampling was used to select rural women from the 14 villages. Main criteria for sampling rural women were legal age and rural residence.
Research results confirmed main and additional hypotheses:
- active citizenship of rural women was very low – majority have never had participated in any public communal activity; the continuity of women`s non-active citizenship is evident, based on current practices and lack of women`s willingness to participate in future public communal activities;
- majority of rural women had positive rurality image – they were happy to live in the village and not willing to live anywhere else;
- rural women unanimously assessed local agents to have an essential importance in local rural development; they equally strong assessed the importance of formal (e.g. local community office, municipal office) and informal local agents (residents) – thus, they indicated the significance of governing rural community from within;
- socially active rural women preferred civil sector; women`s activism corresponded with patterns and relations which were a part of their everyday life.
However, women were not homogenous when it comes to their active citizenship experience and readiness to take future actions. Partial segmentation was evident based on age, economic and marriage status. Current experiences and future readiness of rural women to be publicly active are determined by: a) their individual traits; b) responsibilities regarding family and household, professional activity and free time; c) (auto)censorship regarding activities in public social life, d) (not) having suitable capitals and e)openness of formal structures.
Downloads
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Asztalos Morell, I. ̶ Bock, B. (ed.) (2007). Gender Regimes, Citizen Participation and Rural Restructuring. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-1922(2007)13
Blagojević, M. (2008). Seoske ženske organizacije u Vojvodini. Novi Sad: Zavod za ravnopravnost polova.
Blagojević, M. (2010). Žene na selu u Vojvodini – svakodnevni život i ruralni razvoj. Novi Sad: Pokrajinski zavod za ravnopravnost polova.
Bock, B. (2015). Gender mainstreaming and rural development policy: The trivialisation of rural gender issues. Gender, Place & Culture. 22(5), 731–745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2013.879105
Bock, B.−Derkzen, P. (2006). Gender and rural development budgets. In: Bock, B.−Shortall, S. (eds) (2006). Rural gender relations: Issues and case studies. Oxford: CABI. 218–223).
Bock, B.−Derkzen, P. (2008). Barriers to women’s participation in rural policy making. In: Asztalos Morell, I.–Bock, B. (eds.) (2008). Gender Regimes, Citizen Participation and Rural Restructuring. Eds. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 263–281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-1922(07)13011-0
Bock, B.−Shortall, S. (eds.) (2006). Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies. UK: CABI Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990309.0000
Bock, B.−Shortall, S. (eds.) (2017) Gender and Rural Globalization International Perspectives on Gender and Rural Development. UK: CABI Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780646251.0000
Bogdanov, N.–Tomanović, S.–Cvejić, S.–Babović, M. & Vuković, O. (2011). Pristup žena i dece uslugama u ruralnim oblastima srbije i predlog mera za unapređenje stanja. Beograd: MDGF.
Claridge, C.L. (1998). Rural Women, Decision Making and Leadership Within Environmental and Landcare Groups. Rural society. 8 (3), 183-195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5172/rsj.8.3.183
Cvejić, S.–Babović, M.–Petrović, M.–Bogdanov, N.&Vuković, O. (2010). Socijalna isključenost u ruralnim oblastima Srbije. Beograd: UNDP.
Čikić, J.–Bilinović Rajačić, A. (2021). Seoske žene i socijalna reprodukcija ruralnosti – od (ne)pripadanja zajednici do (ne)formalne participacije. U: Čikić, J & Stojšin, S. (ur.) (2021). Demografske promene i društveni razvoj. Novi Sad - Beograd: Filozofski fakultet – Srpsko sociološko društvo, 38-39. (na ćirilici)
Čikić, J. (2021). Seoske žene i ekonomska (re)produkcija ruralnosti. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.
Dalton, R. & Klingemann, H. (2007). Citizens and political behaviour. In: Dalton, R. & Klingemann, H. (eds.) (2007). Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour. UK: Oxford University Press. 3-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.003.0001
Franc, R.−Šakić, V. & Maričić, J. (2007). Građanski aktivizam u Hrvatskoj. Društvena istraživanja. 87-88, (1-2), 111-132.
Little, J.−Jones, O (2000). Masculinity, gender and rural policy. Rural sociology, 65(4), 621-639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.tb00047.x
Lyson, T. (2006). Global capital and the transformation of rural communities. In: Cloke, P.–Marsden, T. &–Mooney, P. (eds.) (2006). Handbook of Rural Studies. UK: SAGE Publications. 292-303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608016.n20
McMillan, D. W.−Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I
McVay, L. (2016). Leadership and Gender. In: Shucksmith, M.−Brown, D. (eds.) Routledge International Handbook of Rural Studies. UK-USA: Routlegde. 367-378.
Perkins, D. ̶ Long, A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level analysis. In: Fisher, A.–Sonn, C. & Bishop, B. (eds.) (2002). Psychological Sense of Community: Research, Applications and Implications. USA: Plenum. 291-318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0719-2_15
Petrović, M.−Čikić, J. (2021). Od pasivnosti do borbe za promenu: aktivističke aspiracije mladih iz ruralnih područja Vojvodine. Sociološki pregled, 55(4): 1382-1411. (na ćirilici) DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/socpreg55-34775
Ray, C. (2006). Neo-endogenous rural development in the EU. In: Cloke, P.–Marsden, T. &–Mooney, P. (eds.) (2006). Handbook of Rural Studies. UK: SAGE Publications. 278-291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608016.n19
Rijnks, R. ̶ Strijker, D. (2013). Spatial effects on the image and identity of a rural area. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 36, 103-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.008
RZS (2013). Popis stanovništva, domaćinstava i stanova u 2011. U republici Srbiji – školska sprema, pismenost i kompjuterska pismenost (podaci po opštinama i gradovima). Beograd: Republički zavod za statistiku. (na ćirilici)
Shortall, S. (2002). Gendered agricultural and rural restructuring: a case study of Northern Ireland. Sociologia Ruralis. 42(2), 160-175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00208
Shucksmith, M. (2009). Disintegrated Rural Development? Neo-endogenous Rural Development, Planning and Place-Shaping in Diffused Power Contexts. Sociologia Ruralis. 50(1), 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00497.x
Sl. glasnik 104/2014: Uredba o utvrđivanju jedinstvene liste razvijenosti regiona i jedinica lokalne samouprave za 2014. godinu. Beograd: Službeni glasnik. (na ćirilici)
Sl. glasnik 89/2015: Zakon o regionalnom razvoju. Beograd: Službeni glasnik. (na ćirilici)
Šikić-Mićanović, L. (2009). Women’s Contribution to Rural Development in Croatia: Roles, Participation and Obstacles. Eastern European Countryside. 15, 75-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10130-009-0005-5
Šljukić, S. & Janković, D. (2015). Selo u sociološkom ogledalu. Novi Sad: Mediterran publishing. (na ćirilici)
van Assche, K.−Hornidge, A-K. (2015). Rural Development - Knowledge and Expertise in Governance. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-812-4
Woods, M. (2006). Political articulation: the modalitites of new critical politics of rural citizenship. In: Cloke, P.–Marsden, T. & Mooney, P. (eds.) (2006). Handbook of Rural Studies. UK: SAGE Publications. 457-471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608016.n33
Yarwood, R. (2017). Rural Citizenship. In: Richardson, D.–Castree, N.– Goodchild, M.–Kobayashi, A.–Liu, W. & Marston, R. (eds.) (2017). The International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology. Eds. USA: John Wiley and Sons.