I do not agree. I have not studied the causes of the above mentioned
practice, but am aware of the female infanticide in our rural areas. My
own involvement in this prevailing practice has helped me understand the
role of values and culture. What is important here is to understand why
that practice prevails. What are the various factors that force people to
adopt the practice. Are there exceptions to the practice in the same
community. For instance, increasing the literacy levels, particularly
amoung women, greater economic status, increasing the disposable income of
the families and changing the assumptions in the community about the role
of women in that community(happens when job opportunities for women is
created) has decreased the incidence of female infanticide. In community
development, we get to understand the basic assumptions that drive people
to adopt some of these practices. One may argue, what if they kill those
children, its their value and it appears to be right for them. The
practice is accepted in their community. However, we do know that all in
the same community do not practice female infanticide, within the
community or outside of it, when their social and economic status changes.
On the other hand there is another community who practice female
infanticide due to the evils of Dowry. In all these cases, normally it is
the second or subsequent female child that meets its fate. In the latter,
the actions are due to a social evil(dowry), rather than poverty. I do
not think that values differ. The way in which people act differ. The
differences we percieve are due to social, economic, environmental and
cultural factors that influence those practices.
What we try to do in our work is to make systemic changes in their
environment. Its not easy. Normally, we face resistance. Social
activists normally make a hue and cry about such practices. While those
cries do have their use, it highlights an aberration in the society, it
does nothing to change the situation. I have seen female infants left dead
in a hospital. The mother and relatives absconding. Today, Community
development practitioners try to change the conditions. Many of these so
called unpalatable practices stop on their own when conditions change.
The practices that the community development workers are adopting comes
close to the consepts in the Chapter on Systems thinking in the Field
book.
The practice of drenching the child with river water must have started
under specific conditions. I am sure changes in those countries have
created conditions that have dispelled the need for such a practice. For
instance, most infant and child deaths are due to diarrhoea in tropical
and developing countries. Simple home made oral rehydration solution can
prevent a childs death due to diarrhoea. A new technology made available
to that community can change the premise under which they had started that
practice.
I hope I have been able to make my point.
Thomas P Benjamin
NDDB.Anand.India 388 001
E Mail: benjamin@anand.nddb.ernet.in
[Thomas P=B]
--"Thomas P Benjamin" <BENJAMIN@anand.nddb.ernet.in>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>