This article was downloaded by: [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen]On: 23 September 2011, At: 03:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

GlobalizationsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rglo20

Governmentalities and Moral Agents inthe Local/Global Nexus: Male PremaritalSexuality in Dakar, SenegalTine Davids a , Francien van Driel a & Anouka van Eerdewijk aa Radboud University of Nijmegen, Netherlands

Available online: 03 May 2011

To cite this article: Tine Davids, Francien van Driel & Anouka van Eerdewijk (2011): Governmentalities andMoral Agents in the Local/Global Nexus: Male Premarital Sexuality in Dakar, Senegal, Globalizations, 8:2,197-211

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2010.493021

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulaeand drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.

Governmentalities and Moral Agents in the Local/Global

Nexus: Male Premarital Sexuality in Dakar, Senegal

TINE DAVIDS, FRANCIEN VAN DRIEL & ANOUKA VAN EERDEWIJK

Radboud University of Nijmegen, Netherlands

ABSTRACT This article departs from the notion of governmentalities to analyse the linkage

between gender and globalization. It focuses in particular on the way this linkage is informed

by specific mindsets that govern peoples conduct as part of the process of self-government.

By critically exploring how gender constructions are represented in literature within the field

of gender and development, we propose a distinct approach. It entails a multidimensional

analytical methodology to study the global/local nexus as a disciplining process, and which

deconstructs local/global, west/rest, and modern/traditional dichotomies. This approach is

applied to the narrated experiences of a 20-year-old Dakarois boy, in order to illustrate the

intersectionality of masculinity and sexuality in, local as well as global, contradicting

discourses and policy approaches on ‘African sexuality’ and the HIV/AIDS crises.

Keywords: governmentality, sexuality, governance, HIV/AIDS, Senegal

A peculiar and more or less hidden phenomenon seems to structure discourses, debates, policies,

and practices that relate globalization to gender and development. In the literature, we notice a

growing frustration with simplistic slogans that characterize much of the global development

talk. Sayings such as women are poorer than men, women are more peaceful than men are, or

women are closer to the earth than men acquire a sense of truth that is hardly questioned (see

also Chant, 2007; Cornwall et al., 2007; Fernandez-Kelly and Wolf, 2001). This frustration,

supplemented with complains that all too often gender is narrowed down to the (essentialist) cat-

egory of women can be heard within different fields of development practices and studies. Also

the vulnerability of gender mainstreaming to technocratization, depolitization, and evaporation

of feminist agendas, has partly been connected to practices in which gender tends to boil down to

the category of women (Marchand, 2009; Parpart, 2010) But there is more to this phenomenon

Correspondence Address: Centre for International Development Issues Nijmegen (CIDIN), Radboud University

of Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE, The Netherlands. E-mails: T.Davids@maw.ru.nl; F.vandriel@maw.ru.nl;

A.vanEerdewijk@maw.ru.nl

ISSN 1474-7731 Print/ISSN 1474-774X Online/11/020197–15 # 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14747731.2010.493021

Globalizations

April 2011, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 197–211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

than this repetitive reduction of gender to women only. Discourses and debates on the relation

between gender, development, and globalization not only often display a dichotomous pattern of

thinking in oppositions of men versus women, but also those of victims versus victors, tradition

versus modernity, and local versus global (Davids and van Driel, 2005, 2009).

Such dichotomies are problematic as they often function in favour of other, often concealed,

power relations concerning ethnicity, nationalities or those between tradition and modernity, the

‘West’ and the ‘Rest’, among others. This is particularly worrisome, since dichotomous thinking

lies at the heart of many of the antagonisms that seem to rule contemporary world relations such

as the apparently growing gap between identities based on Christian cultural tradition and those

founded on Islamic cultural tradition (see also Scott, 2003). Therefore, we argue that for a better

understanding of the relation between gender and globalization in assessing global government,

we have to deconstruct and destabilize such dichotomous thinking. In doing so, we attempt to

escape the homogenizing and hegemonic assumptions that are considered the basis of the

Western programme of modernity (see also Hodgson, 2001).

We propose an alternative view on modernity as well as globalization in order to unravel

diversity in global government. This is a view in which we combine theoretical explorations

and empirical research experiences of feminist scholars with Foucauldian inspired notions of

government and governmentality. In this article, we argue to look at global government and

gender through a specific multidimensional lens that sheds light on the interaction of multiple

dimensions (symbolical, institutional, and subjective) at work in the construction of subjects

at both the local and the global level.

The core of this approach lies in studying these three dimensions simultaneously involving

multiple identity markers, such as race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, or religion. Crucial

to our argument is that, as part of the process of constructing oneself as a moral agent, identity

markers are informed by multiple processes of globalization and, further, that the global/local

nexus is part and parcel of the construction of identity and subjectivity. We begin with a short

discussion of our understanding of global government. This is followed by a clarification of the

desirability of this approach, by discussing the problematic representations of the global/local

nexus in the development literature on gender and globalization, before we elaborate on the mul-

tidimensional lens. In the second part of the article, we apply this lens to a specific case of global

government relating to HIV/AIDS policies and the treatment of masculinity and sexuality it

inspires in Dakar (Senegal) in order to illustrate the added value of a multidimensional lens

on matters of globalization, gender, and government.

Government, Governmentality and Gender: Deconstructing Global Orthodoxies

Let us first explain, as a point of departure, how we understand government and governmentality.

Herein we follow Foucault and studies inspired by his work in understanding governmentality as

a term that indicates the particular mentalities, arts, and regimes of government and

administration that have emerged within the modern era (Dean, 2004, p. 2; Foucault, 1991).

Governmentality in a broad sense deals with how we think about governing, with the different

mentalities of government, with the representation of bodies of knowledge, belief systems, and

opinions in which we are engaged. Mentality can be described as a condition of thoughts

directing the conduct of citizens. These mentalities inform practices of government and as

such represent governmentalities that are usually not open to questioning as they are taken for

granted (Dean, 2004, p. 16).

198 T. Davids et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

The term government can be understood as a more general term for any calculated direction of

human conduct. The way we are governed and govern is not only tied to the administration or the

political structures of the nation-state but encompasses different aspects of life, directing the be-

haviour of individuals, groups, or states. As such ‘it gives particular emphasis to issues of the

government of human conduct in all contexts, by various authorities and agencies, invoking par-

ticular forms of truth, and using definite resources, means and techniques’ (Dean, 2004, p. 2).

Government, as part of a form of disciplinary power that goes beyond sovereignty, is concerned

with the construction of ourselves as moral agents, involving practices that shape our choices,

desires, aspirations, needs, wants, and lifestyles, and eventually our subjectivities (Dean,

2004; Hunt and Wickham, 1998). In short, the Foucauldian perspective on government is a per-

spective that seeks to connect questions of rule, politics, and administration to the realm of

bodies, lives, selves, and persons.

This should not only be understood in the sense of how others are governed, but in particular

also, in terms of how we govern ourselves. Government in the Foucauldian sense of a disciplin-

ary society governed by biopolitics and an ethics of care is all about self-regulation (Foucault,

1980). Or as Cindy Weber frames it, in a Foucauldian perspective, citizens are expected ‘to care

for their country by caring for themselves’ (Weber, 2008, p. 126). Instead of the absolute power

of the sovereign to decide upon the citizen, each citizen is considered and disciplined to be a

sovereign of her/his own and is held responsible for the smooth functioning of society. This

implies that government also entails practices of the self, as in construction of subjectivities

and of who we are and how we are to live (Hunt and Wickham, 1998, p. 24).

Global government then can be seen as consistent with these political practices, described by

Foucault as practices that seek to govern, not in the totalizing fashion of repressive police power,

but by securing processes of population, economy, and society that assume to possess their own

immanent forms of self-regulation, now operational at a world scale (Larner and Walters, 2004,

p. 17). Within the field of post-development studies, the work of Escobar (1995), Ferguson

(1994), and Gupta and Ferguson (1997) figure as well-known examples inspiring a critical devel-

opment theory that examines global governance by depicting the development project as a dis-

cursive formation and a set of governing practices which assume the condition of cultural and

technological superiority of the ‘West’ (see also Munck and O’Hearn, 1999). Also within the

field of gender and development numerous critical scholars problematize different notions of

government articulated in the relation between gender, development, globalization, and global

government (see Griffin, this issue; and also Marchand and Parpart, 1995; Marchand and

Runyan, 2000; Mohanty, 2002).

These critical traditions notwithstanding, troublesome representations of both gender and

globalization circulate, resurface, and even in some instances dominate the debate on the relation

between globalization and gender. Before elaborating on our approach below, we want to

scrutinize several of these bodies of knowledge in which we are engaged as feminist scholars

and reflect on the discursive formations at work in these representations of gender and

globalization.

In literature on the influence of structural adjustment programmes, internationalization of the

labour market, or the position of women within the global economy, women frequently appear as

victims of globalization (e.g. Peterson, 1996; Wichterich, 2001). It is a view on global develop-

ments that produces homogenous categories of victims of macroeconomic relations. Bergeron

(2001, p. 984) calls this the global imperative approach within political economy, i.e. the econ-

omic logic of capitalism has created a truly global economic, social, and cultural system that can

only be countered by global resistance movements.1 She refers to Gibson-Graham (1996), who

Governmentalities and Moral Agents in the Local/Global Nexus 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

has argued that the symbolic representation of economic globalization reads as a ‘rape script’ by

referring to capitalist penetration.

A utopian sense of resistance is then inscribed in this discourse of the global imperative, i.e. women

have to resist penetration that actually cannot be avoided or resisted (Bergeron, 2001, pp. 997–998).

By suggesting that women have to resist globalization, women are portrayed as instruments of and

solutions to global problems instead of carriers of globalization processes (Rowbotham and Linkogle,

2001). The governmentality ascribed to globalization in the global imperative is a neoliberal one,

producing women foremost as subjected to the rationality of ‘smart economics’, i.e. investment in

women is seen as profitable for development. To see (universalized categories of) women as the

instruments to solve global problems is problematic (Griffin, 2007, 2009).

A good example of the instrumentalization and victimization of women is provided by the

feminization of poverty thesis (Chant, 2007; Davids and van Driel, 2009). In this debate,

women are depicted as poorer than men, based on the comparison of male-headed households

with female-headed households and the assumption that the latter are poorer. This is both an

implicit reproduction of a one-dimensional type of masculinity of men as the breadwinners

(either present or absent) and a reproduction of heteronormativity. Female-headed households

are not compared to male-headed households in which the male head does not have a partner

and takes on the educational and caring tasks. Moreover, poverty is measured primarily in econ-

omical terms and women’s possibly constrained access to financial resources in male-headed

households is overlooked. Also, women in female-headed households can be socially, emotion-

al, and psychologically better off than women in male-headed households. The feminization of

poverty thesis not only narrows gender down to the category of women, but also reduces it to a

function of poverty. In the articulation of this thesis by global poverty-reduction strategies, these

women are identified as the problem and the solution to diminish poverty. Such policies seek to

govern female bodies in function of the self-regulating capacities of women, while leaving men

and masculinities untouched.

Similar rhetoric can be traced in narratives on women being closer to nature, less corrupt than

men, or more peaceful (e.g. Chant, 2007; Cornwall et al., 2007; Fernandez-Kelly and Wolf,

2001).2 These apparently widespread narratives on universalised categories that subscribe to a

rather one-dimensional and essentialist notion of women and render men and their struggle of

masculinities invisible, represent governmentalities that inspire societies to function smoothly

via the self-regulating potential of female bodies (i.e. solving poverty, corruption, conflicts, or

environmental problems; see Foster, this issue). As Cornwall et al. (2007) argue, the emergence

and persistence of such instrumentalist and victimizing gender narratives can be explained by the

interaction between development bureaucracy and development scientists. This interaction results

either in pressure to produce convenient outcomes for policymakers, or in scientific outcomes

being all too easily turned into convenient truths by the development bureaucracy. This may

explain part of the success, attraction, and persistence of such truths circulating within global

development talk. The problem is that many of these studies that might have set out to criticize

a neoliberal logic and its consequences end up reproducing part of it, turning into orthodoxies.

As a result these truths get repeated in knowledge production, are no longer questioned, and main-

tain the status quo (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 169; Chant, 1999). These orthodoxies have become narra-

tives and texts which, although unwillingly and partly unconsciously, inform and discipline our

daily science practices of theorizing, debating, doing research, and advising policymakers.

Orthodoxies, in the sense of governmentalities that remain unquestioned, conceal a represen-

tation of power relations as dichotomous. Framing women as victims of globalization evokes the

reproduction of the oppressor/oppressed paradigm, while complex gendered power relations are

200 T. Davids et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

under-analysed. As we have argued elsewhere, in these kinds of representations of the relation

between globalization and gender, globalization is either taken for granted and/or considered as

a top-down phenomenon, while gender is reduced to the category of women (Davids and van

Driel, 2009). This global/local dichotomy goes implicitly accompanied by a dichotomy

between the global as modern, economic, and in flux versus the local as traditional, cultural,

and fixed (see also Freeman, 2001).

Through these dichotomies that have come to dominate part of the gender, development, and

globalization talk, globalization and the global/local nexus are conceptualized as unilinear, and

modernity is implicitly narrowed down to a neoliberal modernization process. This top-down

notion of globalization conceals certain power relations, as we will point out in the case

below, by denying multiplicity of images, ideas, and identities, of what is simultaneously

modern and traditional, of different global/local meanings and governmentalities. Although

we do consider modernity as inherently globalizing this does not imply that globalization

equals westernization. As Hodgson (2001, p. 7) argues:

In other words, although Modernity is a dominant and pervasive mode of imagining and ordering theworld, other forms of modernity exist, premised on sometimes radically different ideologies andideals, such as communal sharing rather than individual profit, or gender complementarity ratherthan gender hierarchy . . . . . . it is foolish to presume (rather than prove) that these ‘other modernities’are all merely reactive to Modernity, rather than grounded in recognizably distinct historical processes.

In this view on globalization, not only the global is being produced but also the local. The local/global nexus merges in specific localities, as do traditions and modernities, incorporating diverse

and possibly conflicting meanings and mentalities.

Constructing Moral Agents: A Multidimensional Approach

Understanding government as the process of governing and being governed implies an analysis

that rests on the one hand on the deconstruction of the notions of morality and ethics that govern

actors, and on the other hand presupposes an actor that does not totally coincide with these

notions. This kind of analysis should be open to, as Dean puts it: ‘the examination of self gov-

ernment or cases in which governor and governed are two aspects of the one actor, whether that

actor be a human individual or a collective or cooperation’ (Dean, 2004, p. 12). In gender

studies, a multidimensional gender approach has been developed over the past decades that

offers us tools to look at these power relations. This approach takes multiple meanings and

notions on femininity and masculinity into account, as well as the agency of actors.

Building on authors such as Sandra Harding (1986), Joan Scott (1988, 2003) and Rosi

Braidotti (1994), we focus on gender while paying attention to its intersection with other iden-

tity signifiers such as race and class. The analysis of power relations is central in this approach.

Attention is drawn to the situatedness of processes of multiple subject formations in specific

power relations. This multidimensional analytical tool involves three dimensions of gender

that can be distinguished for analytical purposes: symbols (representation and discursive for-

mations), structures (institutions, practices, and social relations), and subjects (subjectivities

and multiple identities). The interconnection of subjects, institutions and practices, ideas and

images, which characterizes this lens, provides insight into the power dynamics at work in

the construction of identities and selves within different discourses. As such, discourses can

be linked to lived realities and vice versa, and different governmentalities that are at work

are revealed.

Governmentalities and Moral Agents in the Local/Global Nexus 201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

The symbolic dimension stands for symbols, representations, stereotypes, norms, values, and

images. This dimension of the symbolic order represents notions of femininity and masculinity

that can solidify into very persistent discursive formations and become stereotypes producing

hierarchies. Notions of differences (e.g. between genders or races) are conditions of thoughts

that inform persistent (govern)mentalities, as displayed in the above mentioned orthodoxies,

that often are no longer questioned. The often conflicting ideas and representations at a symbolic

dimension are constructed out of all kinds of regional, local, national, international, global, reli-

gious, and historical notions.

The second dimension encompasses the institutionalized ideas, stereotypes, images,

differences, and hierarchies articulated at a symbolic dimension. Differences are inscribed

in practices, laws, rules, and regulations, written and unwritten, that organise everyday life.

They can for example include marriage laws and arrangements, labour regulations and div-

ision of labour, household compositions, as well as national political systems. Whereas differ-

ences in the symbolic dimension are represented as truths or fixed differences (between e.g.

‘the woman and the man’, or ‘the poor black woman and the rich white man’) differences

at the institutional dimension are reproduced, acted out, and diversified. This dimension cap-

tures the practices in which differences are regulated and performed as differences between

women and men as well as simultaneously among women and among men, between homosex-

uals and heterosexuals, but also among homosexuals and among heterosexuals, and among

black and among white women. Differences articulate and mutually constitute each other in

different practices, resulting sometimes in new or unexpected dynamics of differences and

sameness for that matter (for a useful discussion of this idea, see Davis, 2008). Which

identities are ascribed to people and which differences count for the people involved even-

tually depends on the context in which those people are situated and, from a researcher’s

point of view, a specific topic or actions of actors are analysed, as will be indicated in the

analysis below.

The way actors deal with institutionalized ideas and practices and the meaning attached to

them vary by persons and contexts. Negotiating the symbolic rules of certain notions of morality

not only depends on one’s structural positioning and ascribed identities, but also on one’s indi-

vidual capacity to monitor and regulate various aspects of the conduct of actors and groups. The

third dimension is therefore concerned with the subject positions of (individual) actors and pro-

vides insight into how individuals negotiate and shape their identities and behaviour within

specific power relations, focusing on the differences within people and how they govern these

differences. This dimension refers to the process of identification and negotiation of individuals

with the multiple identities or aspects of identities that are handed to them and informing how to

live and who to be. These aspects of identity can be conflicting and confusing, as one has to

relate to multiple meanings simultaneously.

This analytical multidimensional lens encompasses material conditions and practices, belief

systems, subject positions, and subjectivities at the same time. As such, it allows for the analysis

and deconstruction of governmentalities in dominant discourses (on e.g. femininity, masculinity,

sexuality, class, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion), while including room for subjectivity and

agency. Agency, then, is not understood as a consequence of a free or autonomous will, but

rather as the room to manoeuvre an actor employs in self-government. Since an actor does

not necessarily coincide with regimes that seek to govern it, agency can take different directions.

It can be expressed in the work an actor has to do in order ‘to fit’ discourses and to uphold diverse

norms, in constructing her/him self as a moral agent. In all instances, agency is highly contextual

and acquires meaning in a situated context. It is the analysis of this situated room for manoeuvre

202 T. Davids et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

that makes the governmentalities that seek to govern us intelligible as well as the way in which

we govern and construct ourselves as moral agents.

Male Premarital Sexuality in Dakar: The Story of Malick

In order to grasp the multidimensionality of gender and governmentalities, we look at the case of

Malick, a 20-year-old Muslim boy living in Dakar, the capital of Senegal (van Eerdewijk, 2005).

We have chosen to deconstruct sexualized masculinity and discourses on HIV/AIDS to illumi-

nate the complexity of moral agency, since analyses of masculinities are highly underrepre-

sented in discussions on gender and globalization (UNAIDS, 2000). When men and

masculinities are addressed in AIDS prevention, and more broadly feminist thought, the

concern is with hegemonic masculinity and how this allows men to exercise power over

women, rather than with men as subjects (Whitehead, 2002). Malick’s case is part of a larger

study on the practice of safe sex among Dakarois teenage girls and boys (van Eerdewijk,

2007).3 His sexual history in many ways conforms to hegemonic male sexuality in Dakar, in

which sexual experience is valued in men. A man becomes a man through penetrative sex

with women; impotency and homosexuality are perceived as threats to masculinity. Malick

became sexually active at the age of 13, after which he felt as if he had become a ‘real man’:

‘I am a man now, you know, I can start dragging girls because now I am experienced’. He

has had casual relationships with different girls, of whom two fell pregnant. The first pregnancy

was the result of an evening during which Malick and two friends had sex with one girl; an

arrangement which had been ‘negotiated’ by Malick. As it was not clear which one of the

three boys was the biological father, all three could deny their responsibilities vis-a-vis the

girl. The second pregnancy occurred with a girlfriend Malick had been dating for a short

time. On advice of the girl’s aunt and a friend of Malick, the girl had an (illegal) abortion per-

formed by a ‘friend of a friend’.

Even though Malick seems proud of his sexual experiences with girls, he also expresses

doubts about how he relates to girls and about the consequences of his actions. When saying

that he ‘maybe threatened or insulted’ the girl of the first pregnancy, it also becomes clear

that he feels bad about the fact that the girl could not really refuse to have sex with Malick

and his friends. But his doubts stretch beyond that:

I wanted to forget about it. I said to myself that it was a mistake of my youth, I will forget about it.But I cannot forget about it. Every time I see the kid, it comes back to me. [. . .] And when I see thegirl, it also comes back. [. . .] Maybe I already have a child, and I do not even take care of it. [. . .] Thathurts. [. . .]

Look at me, I am 20 years old, and I have already impregnated two girls. [. . .] Everyday I getworse. [. . .] Sometimes I think that I am sick or something like that. The fact to chase after girlslike that, I tell myself that I am not normal, you know.

The doubts are reflections of a second norm of male sexuality, according to which boys have to

be ‘serious’, not think about girls and sex all the time, and be responsible at work, in school, and

at home. It implies that (young) men are expected to control themselves and their sexual drives.

This norm of seriousness can be seen as a reworking of the virginity norm, in which boys are

not necessarily expected to remain virgins, but which does ask them to control and limit their

sexuality.

Although Malick is aware of the risks of unprotected sex, he has not managed to decide upon

and enact an effective strategy of protection. Abstinence and condom use are the two options he

sees available to him, but both have drawbacks. Avoiding girls and following the ‘right’ path is

Governmentalities and Moral Agents in the Local/Global Nexus 203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

the first solution that Malick comes up with. His understanding of abstinence stretches far, as he

defines it as having no sex and limited or no contacts with girls. Abstinence is also understood in

the Dakarois context as not having vaginal penetrative sex. In this line of thinking, other sexual

acts, such as manual, oral, or anal sex are not considered problematic as the moral image of vir-

ginity remains intact. Neither of these definitions corresponds with the global and medical absti-

nence message, which implicitly defines it as no penetrative sexual intercourse (Parikh, 2007;

Sinding, 2005). Malick’s friends make jokes about his laziness, weak school performance,

and his lack of a job, and hence push him onto the ‘right’ path. Yet, the pressure from these

same peers, and the larger social surroundings, to show himself as a man, in combination

with the temptations that he has experienced from girls, have proven it difficult for him to actu-

ally refrain from sex.

In case he cannot abstain from sex, he could use condoms, something which Malick only

started to do fairly recently. Even though in rational terms, condoms are a good option, many

Dakarois boys face several obstacles to actually use them. Malick feels uncomfortable to talk

about condoms with girls: ‘That embarrasses me, you know, I am not used to it. [. . .] I am

not used to talking about condoms with girls’. On top of that, Malick is also embarrassed to actu-

ally put the condom on while the girl is waiting and watching him; when not being experienced

in putting condoms on, the boys’ image as sexually knowledgeable men is on the line. In

addition, carrying a condom is often understood in the context of Dakar as implying that you

are ‘in for sex’ all the time; an image that a ‘serious’ boy will want to avoid. As a result, a

condom might not be at hand when the opportunity of sex presents itself. Against this back-

ground, Malick indicates, like many other Dakarois boys, that he is worried that his search

for condoms will disturb sex play, with the risk that the girl loses interest. Malick’s struggles

to choose, and act upon, a protective strategy, point to the processes of meaning that surround

sexual practices and young men’s identities. When related to his doubts about his sexual prac-

tices and relationships, Malick’s safe sex behaviour and the way it is embedded in the construc-

tions of male premarital sexuality, reveal how he is engaged in defining himself as a moral agent.

He seeks to govern his body as well as those of the girls he relates to.

Simultaneously, Malick is governed by mentalities that come about in the global/local nexus.

The sexual practices of African young men like Malick have became a matter of concern of

international agencies in the context of both HIV/AIDS prevention, and sexual and reproductive

health and rights debates and policies, and as such are an example of ethics of care in the Fou-

cauldian sense (see e.g. Hardon, 1992; Richter, 1994). To start with the latter, the interest in

young people’s sexuality came about around the International Conference on Population and

Development (ICPD), which took place in Cairo in 1994. ICPD presented a break with earlier

approaches to family planning, maternal health, and contraception, for two reasons. Firstly,

because of the shift from a demographic and population control perspective to reproductive

and sexual health and rights, and secondly, because the previously largely neglected issue of

young people’s sexuality was brought to the international development agenda (Hawkins and

Meshesha, 1994; Roemer, 1985). Young people’s sexual and reproductive health and rights

were among the most contested issue in Cairo and subsequent conferences of the United

Nations (UN). Youth activists and feminist movement advocates demanded sex education and

accessible and youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services for young people

(Hawkins and Meshesha, 1994; Roemer, 1985). They also claimed sexual and reproductive

rights for young people and demanded youth participation in policy and decision-making.

The agenda for adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights has been taken up by

among others the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and International Planned

204 T. Davids et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and many other governmental, international, and non-govern-

mental organizations.

Early and unwanted pregnancies as well as sexually transmitted infections, in particular HIV,

were among the main concerns for adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights. This has

led to global attention for and investments in the promotion of safe sex among young people.

Senegal takes a special place in this global response to HIV, as it has been considered a

success case. With HIV prevalence below 2% at the end of the 1990s, Senegal had one of the

lowest HIV infection rates of sub-Saharan Africa and was considered the ‘Senegalese exception’

(UNAIDS, 1999, p. 20). The low HIV infection rates have been understood against the back-

ground of the early and swift response of the government, which included wide societal

support (including from religious leaders), a nationwide campaign, sex education in school,

and high accessibility of condoms, as a result of which knowledge about AIDS and its prevention

is generally high. Besides that, other factors such as male circumcision, low alcohol consump-

tion, and the prevalence of HIV-2 instead of HIV-1 contribute to the limited spread of HIV in

Senegal.4 Strong social cohesion around religious beliefs that control sex before and outside

marriage were seen as explanation for low HIV prevalence (Meda et al., 1999; UNAIDS,

1999). But some have argued that intense seasonal migration, late marriage, frequent multiple

partnerships, and low condom use point not so much to the absence of risk behaviour, but to

the low presence of HIV as explanation (Lagarde et al., 1996, p. 331).

The global HIV response has been shaped by the African sexuality thesis, and in terms of the

ABC approach discussed below. The original AIDS agenda, which was dominated by medical

perspectives, sought to understand the different epidemiology of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa

and Europe. ‘African AIDS’ was different: (1) prevalence rates were higher than in other

parts of the world, (2) the 1:1 ratio of male to female cases contrasted with the predominantly

male infections in the West, and (3) known risk groups such as intravenous drug users and

homosexuals were, incorrectly, considered absent (Packard and Epstein, 1991; Patton, 1997).

Sexual promiscuity was considered the explanatory factor for the high HIV infection levels

among heterosexuals in sub-Saharan Africa. Cultural aspects of sexuality were identified that

could contribute to the spread of HIV (Gausset, 2001). Despite the lack of empirical evidence

for high rates of sexual contact with numerous partners being the sole explanatory factor for

Africa’s high HIV prevalence, the focus on ‘risky’ practices, in combination with a neglect

for local meanings as well as a neglect of non- or less ‘risky’ behaviours, resulted in a

heavily biased view of ‘African sexuality’ as different from and opposed to idealized European

sexuality (see Caldwell et al., 1989). In this thinking about ‘African AIDS’, that centred on a

view of a hyper-heterosexualized African culture, the demarcation between Africa and the

West was made along the lines of tradition and modernity. This latter representation was not

a neutral observation, but involved power politics in which a superiority of Western modernity

was implied. The blame for the spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa was put on

‘African cultural practices’:

AIDS prevention campaigns tell people that they should be monogamous, stop inheriting widows,stop practising dry sex, witchcraft, etc., without reflecting upon both the ethics and feasibility ofsuch changes. In the West, one respects different cultural and sexual behaviours and one tries tomake them safer without fighting against them; in Africa, one adopts the opposite attitude andone tries to eradicate what are identified as ‘cultural barriers’ to AIDS prevention. (Gausset,2001, p. 512)

Getting bogged down with the politics of development and modernization (Stillwaggon, 2003),

the fight against AIDS turned into a fight against ‘cultural barriers’ in Africa.

Governmentalities and Moral Agents in the Local/Global Nexus 205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

The prevention of HIV infection has been propagated with the ‘Safe Sex ABC’ that aims to

bring about behavioural change, in the absence of a cure or vaccine against HIV/AIDS. Adults

and adolescents all over the world have been taught to Abstain, Be faithful, or use Condoms in

order to prevent infection with HIV. The ABC approach has been subject to two completely

different types of critique. Firstly, at a global level, controversy arose when the Bush adminis-

tration ‘distorted’ the international programmes with its preference for abstinence-only

approaches. In accordance with a global campaign of the Vatican which discredited condom

use and users, the conservative US government questioned ‘the moral and ethical advisability’

of promoting condom use and spent a third of its HIV prevention funds on abstinence pro-

grammes. Their argument that condom provisions may encourage sexual promiscuity and

early sex has been countered by studies proving the high numbers of broken virginity pledges

and the practice of high-risk non-vaginal sex (e.g. Sinding, 2005). This controversy points to

conflicting governmentalities at the global level. In spite of the diametrically opposed positions

on the advisability of condoms for unmarried young people, the two mentalities have an assumed

Western superiority in common.

A second critique of the ABC approach comes about in the translation to local contexts and

real people’s lives. Condom use not only depends on making condoms available and ‘hoping that

people would use them correctly’, but is hampered by the stigma of illicit sex which is associated

with them (Sinding, 2005, p. 38). Another major problem is that abstinence until marriage, com-

bined with faithfulness in that lifelong relation, does not necessarily offer protection to women

and men who marry a partner who has had unprotected premarital or extramarital sex. Put dif-

ferently, the A–B combination does not protect against HIV transmission under ‘friendly fire’

(Okware et al., 2005, p. 627). The limitations of the ABC message are obviously its public

health focus on individual risk practices with little attention for socio-economic contexts and

the behaviour of partners. A study in Uganda, another success country in the fight against

AIDS, pointed to how ‘the circulation of social, moral, and public health messages about

HIV/AIDS [. . .] reconfigured the social landscape of HIV risk’ (Parikh, 2007, p. 1198). The

medico-moral message of faithfulness interfered with discourses promoting monogamous mar-

riages, and this dynamic increased secrecy and sexual discretion. This implied that risk is not

only, or not so much, about catching an infection, but all the more about the social risk of avoid-

ing public scorn and sex scandals, and thus managing oneself as a moral agent. This effect not

only undermines the effectiveness of the A and B aspect of the safe sex messages, but also ties in

with the taboos surrounding condom use, and as such destabilizes the effectiveness of the com-

bined ABC strategies.

The managing of morality, and controversy between modern sexuality and conservative men-

talities, not only surfaces at the global but also at the local level, and especially in the local/global nexus. In many local discourses in Africa, not tradition but modernized lifestyles and

Western practices are blamed for the spread of HIV (Dilger, 2003; Gausset, 2001). AIDS is

associated with urban lifestyles, modern education, the breakdown of social control and

moral codes, and prostitution. This interpretation of the HIV epidemic and its causes leads to

a call for the restoration of ‘tradition’. In Senegal, urbanization and education have led to

changes that not everybody is equally pleased with. The marriage age of girls, for example,

has risen considerably and girls are now sexually mature before they enter into marriage, and

can engage in premarital sex. Getting married has become more difficult for boys because of

the socio-economic problems, including unemployment, which make it difficult for men to

finance the cost of the marriage ceremonies, and to fulfil their obligations as (future) husbands.

Against this background, people, whether old or young, often complain about the lack of respect

206 T. Davids et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

of young generations for what is called tradition, and especially about the sexual behaviour of

unmarried girls and boys. The national AIDS campaign of Senegal has gained the support of reli-

gious leaders. In this setting, abstinence is emphasized as protection against HIV infection. As

such, the campaign reinforces traditional values of virginity till marriage, and gives less priority

to condom use and provision of services when it comes to young people.

Contrasting views on what are considered loose morals and the causes of the HIV epidemic

feed into the way Malick becomes ‘a man’ and practises safe sex. The conflicting requirements

of virility and virginity are intersected by messages of safe sex and condom use in the HIV/AIDS era, with the result that male sexuality is caught up in a paradox. Analysing Malick’s

story with a multidimensional lens brings out the dynamic of mutual influences between

global and local discourses on gender and sexuality, between what is called tradition and mod-

ernity and between being a serious (preserving virginity) and a real man (showing virility). In the

AIDS era, male and female bodies are governed through and in global HIV agendas, which are

being articulated in local, in this case Dakarois, contexts. Ideas about what are considered

‘African traditions’ are part of the global discourses that are voiced by multilateral and inter-

national organisations preoccupied with HIV/AIDS. By calling for protection against HIV

and AIDS, these discourses inform the local symbolical dimension, which in turn produces

local discourses that search for the protection of tradition to counterbalance the so-called

loose morals of modernity.

Malick’s experiences and struggles seem just an individual case at the local level. However,

by analysing the different ideals, discourses, and practices through the multidimensional lens,

his experiences can be understood as a matter of globalization and gender. More specifically,

the internally contradictory positions at the subject dimension are a challenge for policy formu-

lation. The power struggle over the causes and cures of unsafe sex—which seems to indicate

local and global opponents, with traditionalists opting for abstinence, and modernists opting

for condom use and being faithful—fails to address the schism at the level of the individual

subject. More importantly, international policies are just one of the many factors shaping

Malick’s sexual practices. Local dynamics between notions of tradition and modernity, in com-

bination with constructions of gendered sexualities, are just as important.

The interconnected articulation of global and local discourses on HIV/AIDS, gender, and

sexuality does not result in the fixity of one hegemonic notion of masculinity, but contributes

to the existence of different, even contradicting notions of masculinity. This contrasts with

the view of Connell (1998, p. 12) of a trend towards ‘globalizing masculinities’, which he

understands as institutionalized patterns of dominant masculinity in the global gender

order that become ‘to some degree, standardized across localities’. In this article, we

argue that indeed the global must be considered in order to understand local masculinities.

However, ‘globalizing masculinities’ in themselves do generate an understanding of local

masculinities; we need to gain insight into the interaction between the local and the global

in the construction of masculinities in order to grasp the governing practices. The experi-

ences of Malick show that different masculinities are locally at work at the same time,

which contradict by requiring sexual experience and abstinence at the same time. The

point is that there is not one locally standardized masculinity that governs Malick, but mul-

tiple and diverse masculinities that are fluid and ambiguous, and that have global as well as

local ingredients. Moreover, in these circulating mentalities, Malick seeks to construct

himself as a moral agent, and is hence engaged in self-governance. In this, global/local

ideas and practices are entangled, and both modernity and tradition are embraced and pro-

duced in ambiguous ways.

Governmentalities and Moral Agents in the Local/Global Nexus 207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Concluding Remarks

In this article, we have presented an alternative perspective on the relation between gender,

globalization, and government. Key in our understanding is to see global government as a

process of governing and to focus on governmentalities that seek to rule human conduct

through mechanisms of self-regulation at the global/local nexus. Furthermore, we have tried

to make this process of governing and being governed intelligible by combining this perspec-

tive with a multidimensional analysis of gender constructions that helps to understand how

people become and construct themselves as a moral agent. This multidimensional approach,

although designed for gender analysis, is applicable in a broader sense, in particular to the

global/local nexus and multiple globalization processes. In attempting to surpass the condition

of thinking in dichotomous pairs, the added value of this combination of perspectives is

threefold.

The first aspect is that the global imperative, i.e. considering globalization as a uniform top-

down phenomenon, is abandoned. Instead multiple processes of globalization and power mech-

anisms at work in global governmentalities can be revealed, such as those of Western superior-

ity, which we illustrated by the global policies directed at HIV/AIDS reduction and prevention

in Africa. Moreover, not taking globalization for granted as a top-down process reveals other

governmentalities and power mechanisms at work in specific localities as illustrated by both

local and national Senegalese notions on tradition and modernity, articulated in discourses on

sexuality and masculinity. Here modernity and tradition do not appear as dichotomies and

fixed notions but rather as reinventions of each other. Claims about the operations and effects

of globalization can as a consequence no longer be made in a general sense; the dynamics of

power can however be revealed and understood in a much more precise and sophisticated

way in specific contexts.

Secondly, analysing how individuals, such as Malick, construct themselves as moral agents,

leaves room to consider actors as carriers of globalization processes instead of mere instruments

of and/or solutions to globalization. As a result, simple and one-sided conclusions about being a

victim or resisting globalization can no longer be made; neither for women, nor for men. Yet, a

more sophisticated power analysis becomes possible, in which women and men both carry, and

transform or even resist global and local governing mechanisms. The application of a multidi-

mensional gender lens facilitates not only the identification of global governance as a process of

self-regulation of actors—as one of the loci of power—at the global/local nexus; it also helps to

unravel those boundaries within which actors manoeuvre—as another locus of power. As such, it

unravels the diversity implied in seemingly homogeneous global or neoliberal processes and

assesses the powers invested in them within specific contexts.

Thirdly, added value is found in the way this approach addresses one-dimensional represen-

tations of gender. To overcome frustrations with simplistic slogans and to avoid the risk of

strengthening hegemonic discourses, the power struggles that are at stake have to be recognized

and analysed, including our own involvement as scientists and moral agents. Questions of

power, of self, and subjectivities cannot be delinked from scientific governmentalities and

their disciplining power in development discourses. The necessity and strength of this approach

therefore lies, in our opinion, in the prevention of implicitly inscribing and upholding power

mechanisms that go accompanied with dichotomous thinking in oppositions between the

victim and the victimized, the local and the global, the modern and the tradition. Constantly

questioning and destabilizing categories, contributes to creating space for creativity and room

to manoeuvre at multiple levels, and, consequently, enables agency.

208 T. Davids et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Notes

1 This in contrast to the national management approach: i.e. the logic of global capital reserves some power for the

nation state, including national resistance to the ravages of globalization (Bergeron, 2001, p. 984). Still

globalization is considered destructive in this approach.

2 The same rhetoric can be found in several contemporary advocacy campaigns suggesting to invest in girls as a

poverty reduction strategy. See, for example, the girl effect at http://www.girleffect.org, in which an investment

in a girl is portrayed as a way to solve a variety of development problems and ‘change the course of history’.

3 Fieldwork was conducted in Senegal’s capital Dakar in 2000 and 2001, with a short follow-up in 2004. Individual

interviews and focus group discussions with unmarried youth in the age range of 16 to 23 (both in and out-of-school),

was accompanied with participant observation. Malick is one of the 23 male participants in the group discussions,

and one of the 12 boys whose sexual history was reconstructed in individual interviews and informal conversations

(van Eerdewijk, 2007).

4 HIV-2 is ‘a form of the virus that is less aggressive, has a longer life cycle and therefore does not kill so rapidly’

(Barnett and Whiteside, 2002, p. 125). The explanatory power of HIV-2 is however also questioned by other

authors (Meda et al., 1999, pp. 1402–1403). See Ferry (1995) on the link with alcohol consumption; see Jungar

and Oinas (2004) for a critical discussion of the role of male circumcision.

References

Barnett, T. & Whiteside, A. (2002) AIDS in the Twenty-First Century: Disease and Globalization (New York: Palgrave

Macmillan).

Bergeron, S. (2001) Political economy discourses of globalization and feminist politics, Signs, 26(4), pp. 983–1006.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Braidotti, R. (1994) Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Thought

(New York: Columbia University Press).

Caldwell, J. C., Caldwell, P. & Quiggin, P. (1989) The social context of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, Population and

Development Review, 15(2), pp. 185–234.

Chant, S. (1999) Women-headed households: global orthodoxies and grassroots realities, in H. Afshar & S. Barrientos

(eds) Women, Globalization and Fragmentation in the Developing World (London: Macmillan), pp. 91–130.

Chant, S. (2007) Gender, Generation and Poverty, Exploring the ‘Feminisation of Poverty’ in Africa, Asia and Latin

America (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing).

Connell, R. W. (1998) Masculinities and globalization, Men and Masculinities, 1(1), pp. 3–23.

Cornwall, A., Harrison, E. & Whitehead, A. (2007) Gender myths and feminist fables: the struggle for interpretive power

in gender and development, Development and Change, 38(1), pp. 1–20.

Davids, T. & van Driel, F. (eds) (2005) The Gender Question in Globalization: Changing Perspectives and Practices

(Aldershot: Ashgate).

Davids, T. & van Driel, F. (2009) The unhappy marriage between gender and globalization, Third World Quarterly,

30(5), pp. 905–920.

Davis, K. (2008) Intersectionality as buzzword, Feminist Theory, 9(1), pp. 67–85.

Dean, M. (2004) Governmentality, Power and Rule in Modern Society (London and New Delhi: Sage).

Dilger, H. (2003) Sexuality, AIDS, and the lures of modernity: reflexivity and morality among young people in rural

Tanzania, Medical Anthropology, 22(1), pp. 23–52.

Eerdewijk, A. van (2005) Being a man: young masculinities and safe sex in Dakar, in T. Davids & F. van Driel (eds) The

Gender Question in Globalization: Changing Perspectives and Practices (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 59–73.

Eerdewijk, A. van (2007) The ABC of (Un)safe Sex—Gendered Sexualities of Young People in Dakar (Senegal),

PhD thesis, Nijmegen Radboud University.

Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (Princeton: Princeton

University Press).

Ferguson, J. (1994) The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho

(Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press).

Fernandez-Kelly, P. & Wolf, D. (2001) A dialogue on globalization, Signs, 26(4), pp. 1243–1249.

Ferry, B. (1995) Risk factors related to HIV transmission: sexually transmitted diseases, alcohol consumption and medi-

cally-related injections, in J. Cleland & B. Ferry (eds) Sexual Behaviour and AIDS in the Developing World (London:

Taylor & Francis), pp. 193–207.

Governmentalities and Moral Agents in the Local/Global Nexus 209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Foucault, M. (1980) The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage).

Foucault, M. (1991) Governmentality, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in

Governmentality (London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf), pp. 102–103.

Freeman, C. (2001) Is local:global as feminine:masculine? Rethinking the gender of globalization, Signs, 26(4),

pp. 1007–1073.

Gausset, Q. (2001) AIDS and cultural practices in Africa: the case of the Tonga (Zambia), Social Science and Medicine,

52, pp. 509–518.

Gibson-Graham, J. K. (1996) The End of Capitalism (as We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy (Oxford:

Blackwell).

Griffin, P. (2007) Sexing the economy in a neo-liberal world order: neo-liberal discourse and the (re)production of

heteronormative heterosexuality, British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2(9), pp. 202–238.

Griffin, P. (2009) Gendering the World Bank: Neoliberalism and the Gendered Foundations of Global Governance

(Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan).

Gupta, A. & Ferguson, J. (eds) (1997) Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology (Durham, NC: Duke

University Press).

Harding, S. (1986) The Science Question in Feminism (London: Cornell University Press).

Hardon, A. (1992) The needs of women versus the interests of family planning personnel, policy-makers and researchers:

conflicting views on safety and acceptability of contraceptives, Social Science and Medicine, 35(6), pp. 753–766.

Hawkins, K. & Meshesha, B. (1994) Reaching young people: ingredients for effective programs, in G. Sen, A. Germain

& L. C. Chen (eds) Population Policies Reconsidered; Health, Empowerment and Rights (Amsterdam: Koninklijk

Instituut voor de Tropen), pp. 211–222.

Hodgson, D. L. (2001) Of modernity/modernities, gender, and ethnography, in D. L. Hodgson (ed.), Gendered

Modernities and Ethnographic Perspectives (New York: Palgrave), pp. 1–23.

Hunt, A. & Wickham, G. (1998) Foucault on Law: Towards a Sociology of Law as Governance (Chicago: Pluto Press).

Jungar, K. & Oinas, E. (2004) Preventing HIV? Medical discourses and invisible women, in S. Arnfred (ed.) Re-Thinking

Sexualities in Africa (Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet), pp. 97–111.

Lagarde, E., Pison, G. & Enel, C. (1996) Knowledge, attitudes and perception of AIDS in rural Senegal: relationship to

sexual behaviour and behaviour change, AIDS, 10, pp. 327–334.

Larner, W. & Walters, W. (2004) Introduction, in W. Larner & W. Walters (eds) Global Governmentality, Governing

International Spaces (London and New York: Routledge), pp. 1–23.

Marchand, M. H. (2009) The future of gender and development after 9/11: insights from postcolonial feminism, Third

World Quarterly, 30(5), pp. 921–935.

Marchand, M. H. & Papart, J. L. (1995) Feminism/Postmodernism/Development (London and New York: Routledge).

Marchand, M. H. & Runyan, A. S. (2000) Introduction, feminist insights of global restructuring: conceptualizations and

reconceptualizations, in M. Marchand & A. S. Runyan (eds) Gender and Global Restructuring, Sightings, Sites and

Resistances (London: Routledge), pp. 1–22.

Meda, N., Ndoye, I., M’Boup, S., Wade, A., Ndiaye, S. & Niang, C. (1999) Low and stable HIV infection rates in

Senegal: natural course of the epidemic or evidence for success of prevention? AIDS, 13(11), pp. 1397–1405.

Mohanty, C. T. (2002) ‘Under western Eyes’ revisited: feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles, Signs, 28(2),

pp. 499–535.

Munck, R. & O’Hearn, D. (1999) Critical Development Theory, Contributions to a New Paradigm (London and

New York: Zed Books).

Okware, S., Kinsman, J., Onyango, S. et al. (2005) Revisiting the ABC strategy: HIV prevention in Uganda in the era of

antiretroviral therapy, Postgraduate Medical Journal, 81, pp. 625–628.

Packard, R. M. & Epstein, P. (1991) Epidemiologists, social scientists, and the structure of medical research on AIDS in

Africa, Social Science and Medicine, 33, pp. 771–794.

Parikh, S. A. (2007) The political economy of marriage and HIV: the ABC approach, ‘safe’ infidelity, and managing

moral risk in Uganda, Framing Health Matters, 97(7), pp. 1198–1208.

Parpart, J. (2010) Fine words, failed policies: gender mainstreaming in an insecure and unequal world, in J. Lecki (ed.)

Development in an Insecure and Gendered World (Farnham: Ashgate), pp. 51–70.

Patton, C. (1997) From nation to family: containing African AIDS, in M. di Leonardo & R. N. Lancaster (eds) The

Gender/Sexuality Reader: Culture, History, Political Economy (New York, London: Routledge), pp. 279–290.

Peterson, V. S. (1996) The politics of identification in the context of globalization, Women’s Studies International

Forum, 19(1/2), pp. 5–15.

Richter, J. (1994) Invited abuse: population control and contraceptive research, EPD-Entwicklungspolitik, July,

pp. 27–32.

210 T. Davids et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011

Roemer, R. (1985) Legislation on contraception and abortion for adolescents, Studies in Family Planning, 16(5),

pp. 241–251.

Rowbotham, S. & Linkogle, S. (2001) Introduction, in S. Rowbotham & S. Linkogle (eds) Women Resist Globalization

(London: Zed Books), pp. 1–12.

Scott, J. W. (1988) Gender: a useful category for historical analysis, in J. W. Scott (ed.) Feminism and History (Oxford:

Oxford University Press), pp. 152–183.

Scott, J. W. (2003) Feminist reverberations, Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 13(3), pp. 1–23.

Sinding, S. W. (2005) Does ‘CNN’ (condoms, needles and negotiation) work better than ‘ABC’ (abstinence, being faith-

ful and condom use) in attacking the AIDS epidemic? International Family Planning Perspectives, 31(1), pp. 38–40.

Stillwaggon, E. (2003) Racial metaphors: interpreting sex and AIDS in Africa, Development and Change, 34(5),

pp. 809–832.

UNAIDS (Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS) (1999) Acting Early to Prevent AIDS: the Case of Senegal

(Geneva: UNAIDS).

UNAIDS (2000) Men Make a Difference: Men and AIDS—A Gendered Approach. 2000 World AIDS Campaign (Geneva:

UNAIDS).

Weber, C. (2008) Designing safe citizens, Citizenship Studies, 12(2), pp. 125–142.

Whitehead, S. M. (2002) Men and Masculinities (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Wichterich, C. (2000) The Globalized Woman, Reports from a Future of Inequality (London: Zed Books).

Tine Davids is Lecturer at the Centre for International Development Issues Nijmegen (CIDIN)

at the Radboud University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Her regional specialization is Latin

America, where she did research in Mexico on gender and political representation and coordi-

nated research on urban youth in El Salvador. She is co-editor of the book The Gender Question

in Globalization (Ashgate, 2005) and the book Youth as Actors of Change (2007).

Francien van Driel is Assistant Professor at the Centre for International Development Issues

Nijmegen (CIDIN) at the Radboud University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands. She has published

works on gender theories, globalization and development, civil society, and female-headed

households in Botswana (PhD). She is co-editor of the book The Gender Question in Globaliza-

tion (Ashgate, 2005), addressing knowledge production in the field of gender and development.

Anouka van Eerdewijk is Lecturer at the Centre for International Development Issues Nijme-

gen (CIDIN) of the Radboud University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands. She defended her PhD

thesis in the field of gender as well as development studies in early 2007. The thesis addresses

safe sex practices of young people in Dakar in relation to gendered sexualities.

Governmentalities and Moral Agents in the Local/Global Nexus 211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

03:

55 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2011