Disaster and Disability in Bangladesh - Behinderung und Dritte Welt

A RTIKELas those of medication and assistive devices)are increasing. In turn, less resources are availablefor the satisfaction of basic and otherneeds of other household members, and exacerbatingimpairment and deeper poverty. Evidencefrom Yemen (Grut and Ingstad 2006) forexample shows how marriage potential for girlsis negatively impacted when daughters are keptfrom getting married in order to care for thedisabled family member, again with seriouseconomic and social effects for these girls. Thepresence of a disabled family member, mayalso affect the marriage potential of siblings,especially in cultures where it is believed thatthe impairment is genetic (Coleridge 2007). Importantly,the dependence on and the ensuingimpacts on the household, implies that interventionor rather poverty reduction effortsshould be focused more broadly on supportingfamilies (as opposed to focusing exclusively onthe individual e.g. through one off job skillstraining programmes) while never losing sightof broader structural problems impacting wholecommunities. Ultimately, healthy, food secureand economically stronger families can becomea more reliable informal safety net for their disabledmembers, without compromising theirown health, consumption levels and well-being.Relationships within households: Intra-householdprocesses and disadvantages: Looking athouseholds also offers opportunities for lookingat the dynamics operating within them, and ifand how these impinge on the well-being andpoverty status of disabled people. The householduntil recently was believed to be an undifferentiatedunit, that is a site of sharing, cooperationand altruistic behavior, and wherewealth, goods and services were distributedequally. But this unitary view of the householdswas profoundly challenged especially by feministsin the 1970s, showing that the processeswithin households determine how resources aregenerated, controlled and distributed, and thatthese almost invariably disadvantage womenprocessesof power differentials, conflict and inequitableaccess to and control over resourcesand benefits (Bolt and Bird 2003). While intrahouseholddifferences on the basis of genderhave been acknowledged, differentials basedon disability remain largely unexplored, and littleis known about disabled people and theirroles, responsibilities, and access to assetswithin households. The social capital concept,or rather locating disability within the household,usefully opens up the analysis to thesemicro level relations. Acknowledging the possibilityof intra-household disadvantages remainsespecially important, since it helps counteractan essentially Western view of the unitaryhousehold composed of a nuclear family(households across cultures may include peoplewith no blood ties), and where all resourcesand power are distributed equally to the benefitof all members. At a more functional level, itmay highlight how the provision of services orother benefits directed at the household maynot necessarily reach disabled people, and thisimplies that we first need to understand how issuesof power, identity, and access are negotiatedwithin households, and the functions ofroles, norms and ideology in these.Individual or community rights? Positioningdisability within a relational context, provides amuch needed contribution to evaluating the applicabilityof the discourse on rights and antidiscriminationlegislation, emanating from andoften based on a Western individualistic perspective.While it is important to note that intheory rights holders also have obligations towardsothers, critics contend that these policiesand slogans (e.g. “rights not charity”) are oftenfar too detached from the social, historical, andcultural realities of the majority world, wherecommunity ties persist, and where individualrights may not be present or are overshadowedby relationships of mutual obligation and reciprocity(see for example Miles 2000, Ghai2002). These become critical in the presence ofintense and chronic poverty. In such circumstances,the notion of an independent individualas a rights holder may be idiosyncratic tothe strong social bonds and ways the individualis embedded therein, and therefore it may bemore pertinent and responsible to speak ofcommunity rights. In this case, addressing collectiveneeds may provide better opportunitiesfor social cohesion and economic stability forall, even though this requires greater politicalcommitment, resources and addressing thestructural causes of poverty. Collective interestsmay also not necessarily overcome individualones. Across cultures, the complexity and heterogeneityof individual and social and familycircumstances, and other factors and processes,makes the assumption of a unified and globalmove exclusively towards western individualism(and the valorisation of autonomy and self-determination)often untenable. Furthermore, atthe intersection of the local and the global,what often emerge are hybrid contexts adoptingelements of the old (the traditional) and thenew (the modern), which are difficult to separateand operate in various degrees, modalitiesand levels- to the extent that one can speak ofmultiple traditionalisms and modernities (seeGarcia-Canclini 2005). This may be evident in8 Zeitschrift Behinderung und Dritte Welt 1/2010