INDIGENOUS WOMEN´S POLITICAL PARTICIPATION:

Gendered Labor and Collective Rights Paradigms in Mexico

HOLLY WORTHEN
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, Mexico

In Latin America, rights to local political participation in many indigenous communities are not

simply granted, but rather “earned” through acts of labor for the community. This is the case in

the state of Oaxaca, Mexico, where almost three fourths of municipalities elect municipal

authorities through custom and tradition rather than secret ballot and universal suffrage. The

alarmingly low rate of women’s formal participation in these municipalities has garnered

attention from policymakers, provoking a series of legislative reforms designed to increase

women’s roles in local politics. However, these initiatives often miss their mark. Focused on a

liberal model of women as individual rights-bearers, they fail to understand the complex ways in

which gendered labor influences political participation in non-liberal contexts. This article

examines a case in which indigenous women reject such an initiative because it would exacerbate

their exploitation within the local terms of gendered collective labor instead of promoting

equality. It thus explains potential barriers to indigenous women’s political leadership at the

local level, and suggests ways in which gender equality can be promoted in non-liberal contexts.

Keywords: gender, political participation, indigenous women, labor, collective rights

*
AUTHOR´S NOTE:

Research was funded by the Inter-American Foundation, the National Science

*
This is the copyedit version of the article published in GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 29 No. 6, December
2015 914–936 DOI: 10.1177/0891243215602103
Foundation, and the Association of American University Women. Instructive comments
were provided by Alice Brooke Wilson, Joe Wiltberger, Elizabeth Hennessey, Abigail
Andrews, Shane Dillingham, and Jorge Hernández Díaz. Many thanks to Joy Misra,
Mary Bernstein, and several anonymous reviewers for their detailed reading and helpful
comments.

In February 2009 the government of the state of Oaxaca, Mexico sent a legal

mandate to the small municipality of Yatzachi, a town of two hundred indigenous

Zapotec inhabitants nestled high in the northern mountains. The mandate, from the

Oaxacan electoral institute, stated that women must vote in local elections and be

considered for the municipal council. Women were allowed the municipal vote in

Mexico in 1947. However, local suffrage has never become a reality for many

indigenous Oaxacan women, especially those who live in towns like Yatzachi that elect

local officials through custom and tradition rather than secret ballot and universal

suffrage (Dalton 2005). Under multicultural reforms designed to recognize indigenous

people’s collective rights to self-governance, these “traditional” practices of municipal

election—which often exclude women—have now become law in almost three-fourths of

Oaxacan municipalities (Hernández Díaz 2014).

Like this announcement, attempts to restrict non-liberal practices are becoming

more common worldwide, as countries come to question the once progressive status of

multicultural initiatives that legalized them (Nicholls and Uitermark 2013; Vertovec

2010). However, in Oaxaca, Mexico’s most indigenously populated state with the most

extensive implementation of multicultural reforms, these efforts often exacerbate tension

over women’s political roles instead of ushering in women’s participation. This is the

case in Yatzachi. Instead of embracing the legislative mandate, the village assembly,

composed of around 65 men and women who are heads of households, responded to the

Oaxacan electoral institute with its own official letter. It stated that women willingly

reject participation in the municipal council.

This response is not unusual: Latin American indigenous women are often wary

of government intervention and regularly defend their communities’ rights to alternative

forms of governance (Blackwell 2012; Speed, Hernández Castillo, and Stephen 2006).

The women of Yatzachi are no different. However, I argue that the community

assembly´s letter signed by the women is more than a defense of the community: More

importantly, it represents an internal struggle over the gendered labor practices that

define and construct the alternative political and economic system on which the

community is built.

In Yatzachi, local governance is conducted via “communal systems” (Patzi Paco

2004) in which local affairs of justice, political organization, and land use are all resolved

internally according to “tradition” and “custom.” These systems, found throughout Latin

America, differ from liberal systems of political governance: Rights are not simply

granted as they are in liberal democracies, but rather earned via the enactment of certain

types of labor. The right to participate—opine and vote—in the assembly, the maximum

expression of local power and decision-making, is earned through cargos (town service

positions) and tequios (collective work parties for public works). In a type of

“authoritarianism based on consensus,” one is obliged to serve the collective through

cargo and tequio, thus earning the right to usufruct of collective property (Martínez Luna
2010).

In Yatzachi’s communal system, men typically perform the official labor that

counts toward the recognition of political rights. Although women do important work in

their households and the community, it does not count as “official labor.” Therefore,

women are prohibited from assembly participation because they have not “worked” for

the good of the community. When women do perform cargos and tequios, as in the case

of single women household heads, participation implies extra official work in addition to

the unofficial labor of social reproduction. Therefore, although most women are

theoretically in favor of women’s participation, the gendered terms of the communal

system deter their participation in the assembly and in formal leadership roles.

Based on qualitative research and analysis of the letter in which women deny the

state mandate to participate in the town council, this article argues that struggles over

gendered labor often importantly determine the forms of indigenous women’s political

participation. This argument contributes to a growing feminist literature that examines

forms of women’s political subjectivity in contexts not defined by Western notions of

liberal democracy (Mahmood 2005; Pathak and Sunder Rajan 1989). While much of this

literature focuses on Muslim women in the Middle East, this article demonstrates the

different conceptions of women’s political participation in non-liberal contexts of

indigenous communities in Latin America, raising questions about the misinterpretation

of gender relations based on Western frameworks of political rights.

While studies of indigenous women and rights discourses examine questions of

individual versus collective rights, they often focus on social movement or civil society

discourses and practices. This article fills gaps in existing literature by providing a
detailed study of how alternative rights paradigms play out in the daily lives of

indigenous women (Burman 2011; Pape 2009). In turn, it contributes to literature

exploring indigenous collectivities as sites of “post-liberal” and “post-capitalist” social

forms that offer alternative paradigms of human-nature relationships, governance, and

development (Escobar 2008; Reyes 2012; Walsh 2010). However, indigenous women

have argued that these alternative systems still produce gender inequalities, raising

questions about how to promote equality within them.

INDIGENOUS WOMEN’S POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Around 1.7 million Oaxacans (44 percent of the state’s population) belong to

sixteen different ethno-linguistic groups (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los

Pueblos Indígenas 2010). The communal systems found in most indigenous communities

are a result of both pre-colonial and post-colonial processes of appropriation and

reinterpretation. During Mexico’s post-revolutionary state-building process, communal

systems were tolerated via a type of “indirect rule,” whereby forms of indigenous self-

determination were respected as long as villages provided votes for the ruling party

(Recondo 2007). However, in the 1990s the conjunctural forces of a growing indigenous

rights movement, Mexico’s democratic opening, and neoliberal reforms led to a

reconfiguration of the relationship between the State and indigenous peoples. The

Oaxacan state government engaged in a series of multicultural reforms designed to

legalize aspects of indigenous people’s collective rights (Postero 2007; Van Cott 2010).1

A key reform was the legalization of the long-held practice of municipal election by

“tradition” (Anaya Muñoz 2005). Currently, 417 of Oaxaca’s 570 municipalities choose
municipal officials via what is now formally termed “internal normative systems.”

The legal recognition of non-liberal forms of rule in communal systems has

resulted in a growing debate over the role of indigenous women in local politics. While

indigenous advocates argue for election via customary practices, others insist that

recognition of these forms of collective governance actually legalize practices of

discrimination. In particular, some scholars suggest that women, as the quintessential

internal minority, are automatically discriminated against in multicultural settings (Okin

1999; Song 2005). They posit that political liberalism and individual rights paradigms

are the best ways to ensure women’s political participation, and insist that multicultural

recognition should be either revoked (Okin 1999) or tweaked to ensure respect for

individual rights (Danielson and Eisenstadt 2009).

Initial data from Oaxaca seem to support these assertions: Only 3.1 percent of

municipal presidents are women (ONU Mujeres 2013). Furthermore, women who live in

municipalities ruled via internal normative systems find their participation levels further

limited: In only 11.5 percent of these municipalities do women serve on municipal

councils versus 51 percent in municipalities ruled via political parties (Barrera Bassols

2006). In almost a quarter of municipalities ruled via internal normative systems, women

cannot vote in local elections (Hernández Díaz 2014).

While women’s formal political participation is limited, other scholars caution

against equating the number of women in leadership positions with the extent and

exercise of indigenous women’s local political rights. Velásquez (2004) argues that

measures for evaluating political activity are different in these non-liberal systems. She

demonstrates that indigenous women in Oaxaca realize other forms of participation, often
via informal cargos that are not necessarily part of the official sphere of the town council.

Others highlight indigenous systems of gender complementarity based on worldviews in

which feminine and masculine powers balance each other in a type of equilibrium that

translates into separate but equally important gendered roles (Harris 1978; Sieder and

Macleod 2009; Stern 1999). In some cases, complementarity allows for the rearticulation

of gender equality in non-Western terms (Richards 2005); in others, it masks forms of

discrimination and oppression according to tradition and indigenous world views (de la

Cadena 2010; Nash 2001; Vázquez García 2011).

However, over the last several years, the nuances of gender complementarity and

non-liberal forms of political participation have been overlooked while critiques of

women’s roles in Oaxaca’s internal normative systems have gained momentum.

International pressure to promote women’s rights as well as an emblematic case of an

indigenous woman denied the right to run for municipal president (Sierra 2009)2 have

promoted the creation of new legislation and court rulings based on liberal

understandings of law and women’s individual rights. Specifically, legislative changes

include modifications to the state and federal constitutions to emphasize indigenous

women’s rights to full participation in municipal elections conducted through internal

normative systems. Likewise, court rulings increasingly annul elections if women have

not fully participated. Indeed, the mandate that arrived in Yatzachi from the electoral

institute is a result of such legislative and judiciary actions.

While this legislation officially enables women to contest local elections on

grounds of gender exclusion in electoral tribunals, not all indigenous women necessarily

welcome this type of intervention. Through a discourse of paternalistic protection, the

Mexican State has tried to dictate indigenous women’s political subjectivity (Blackwell

2012; Newdick 2005). However, indigenous women have increasingly come to contest

state intervention and the “liberal solution” it promotes, instead positioning themselves as

key actors in the promotion of forms of gender equality within their communities, often

merging their own notions of liberal women’s rights with collective rights to promote

equality (Speed, Hernández Castillo, and Stephen 2006). In turn, indigenous women

have questioned the very foundations of state-based rights discourses and articulated

different conceptions of communal rights structures lived in action, not granted from

above (Speed 2005; Speed and Reyes 2002). Women in Yatzachi also reject a liberal

solution, and their case evokes questions regarding how alternative rights systems—

namely, rights earned via labor—can become more egalitarian.

THEORIZING GENDER, LABOR, AND RIGHTS

Feminists have long criticized key tenants of liberal thought, including

individualism, equality before the law, and conceptions of freedom (Benhabib et al. 1994;

Butler and Scott 1992; MacKinnon 1991; Pateman 1988). Arguing that the liberal state

apparatus has been formed through the very exclusions it purportedly attempts to rectify,

feminist scholarship has also sought to demonstrate how the notion of the liberal

individual subject who harnesses internal emancipatory agency is a myth (Mahmood

2005; Pratt 2004). However, the notion of rights has proved problematic in these

critiques.

While scholars agree that liberal rights frameworks perpetuate exclusive

universalisms, they simultaneously understand that political claims based on human

rights are an important strategic tool in many feminist struggles (Brown 2000; Peters and

Wolper 1995; Sa´ar 2005). It is because of their claims to universalism that relying upon

notions of liberal rights can simultaneously challenge them. For example, Butler (2000)

posits that when a person who is not an “authorized” liberal subject seeks recourse to

universal liberal discourses, she creates “perverse reiterations” that question the

foundations and limits of these discourses. Indeed, de Sousa Santos (2002) argues that by

critiquing the universality of human rights paradigms, a counter-hegemonic rights

discourse and practice can emerge based on non-Western notions of human dignity.

The usage of rights-based discourses has been an important component of

indigenous struggles in Latin America. In a multicultural era, indigenous people have

used these discourses to posit the importance of collective rights to land, language, and

governance (Postero 2007; Yashar 2005), and, in so doing, have challenged their very

foundation. In particular, drawing on conceptions of autonomy, indigenous women have

argued that indigenous autonomy can never be realized if women are systematically

oppressed within indigenous groups. They have asserted, via what some call an

“indigenous feminism” (Espinosa Damián 2009; Hernández Castillo 2010), that the

recognition of women’s individual rights is inextricably linked to the recognition of

collective rights, positing that one without the other limits their ability to be full human

beings (Gutiérrez and Palomo 2000; Paredes 2008; Sánchez 2003).

Analyzing the daily practices of communal systems, indigenous leaders and

scholars argue that in many indigenous communities an alternative non-liberal conception

of rights exists (Cardoso Jiménez and Robles Hernández 2007; Martínez Luna 2010).

For example, Speed and Reyes (2002) argue that in Zapatista communities practices of
communal organization are about creating a completely different relationship of

sovereignty. The sovereign is not the State; rather, it lies within the collective. Thus,

rights are not granted from some ontologically imagined sovereign space “above.”

Instead, rights are earned through practice—through acts of labor—in front of the

collective. This alternative expression of rights and sovereignty runs parallel to state

rights’ systems, co-existing as necessary, but ultimately challenging notions of sovereign

rule, the role of the law, and the ability of the “rational” State to ever fully comprehend

the realities it seeks to manage.

If an alternative notion of rights as earned through labor is an important part of

formulations of alternative projects of decolonization and “post-counterhegemonic”

social forms (Reyes 2012), it is necessary to explore just how the dynamics of labor play

out on the ground in these indigenous collectives. Given that labor is a process

foundational to the construction and articulation of gender relations, how does the

formulation of alternative rights in non-liberal communal systems affect gender equality?

Feminist scholars have long demonstrated that labor is one of the key aspects through

which gendered political rights are created and contested (Olcott 2005). The gendered

division of labor into a male productive sphere and a female reproductive sphere

promoted the devaluation of women’s affective labors and reproduced gender inequalities

(Hartmann 1981; Weeks 2007). Mapped onto political subjectivities, these separate

spheres of gendered labor also served as the foundation for the division between the

“masculine” public and the “feminine” private (Phillips 1991).

While this work was largely developed in urban, Western contexts, research on

peasant women in the Global South also emphasizes the role of labor in producing
women’s political subjectivities. Notably, Carney and Watts (1990) explore the

“production politics” (Burawoy 1985) of rice cultivation upon conjugal contracts and

women’s petitioning of government agencies; Hart (1991) examines the roles of women’s

collective labor organization in challenging agricultural employers in Southeast Asia; and

Stephen (2005) explores the way in which Zapotec women in Oaxaca challenge village

hierarchies by forming weaving cooperatives. Their work supports the idea that

“struggles over resources and labour are simultaneously struggles over socially-

constructed meanings, definitions, and identities” (Hart 1991, 95). Work is also one of

the main practices through which we create notions of belonging (Chari and Gidwani

2005; Cravey 2005).

The focus on labor as an important subject-producing category and as an

alternative practice in which notions of rights are created in indigenous collectivities, in

combination with feminist literature on how gendered labor informs the contentious

construction of social practices, demonstrates that labor is important in the study of

politics and membership. Likewise, it is fundamental in order to explore the formulation

of a different notion of non-liberal rights and to examine the struggles over gender

equality within the mundane practices of daily life in indigenous communities.

METHODS

Yatzachi is located in the northern mountains of Oaxaca, about a four-hour drive

from the state capital. I selected this region because it is famous for the strength of its

autonomous communal systems (Aquino Moreschi 2010) in tandem with high levels of

women’s exclusion from local governance. Yatzachi was selected as an anomalous case
study: one of the few towns in the region in which women participate in cargos and

tequios. Anomalous cases aid in the development of theory by explaining that which does

not quite fit (Burawoy 1991). I use data from fourteen months of ethnographic fieldwork

(from June 2009 to August 2010) in Yatzachi, followed by periodic visits to the town

over the last four years, as well as three visits to the migrant destination of Los Angeles,

California, to explore how this case can generate new understandings of gender,

indigeneity, and political participation in indigenous communities.

I conducted sixty-five formal interviews with Yatzachitecos that centered broadly

on gender, migration, and the communal system. To explore women’s refusal to

participate in the town council, I spoke with past and current town authorities (mostly

men) about local governance, autonomy, and gender roles. I interviewed ten of the

fourteen single women who signed the letter to the Oaxacan electoral institute, as well as

ten married women, regarding their opinions about the letter and their understandings of

why and how it was created. Through interviews with five men who were involved in the

assembly in which the letter was created, as well as numerous informal conversations, I

gathered data on both men’s and women’s perspectives on the issue.

My positionality as a U.S. woman was initially a disadvantage because of

concerns that I would somehow report information about undocumented immigrants to

the United States government. Engaging in communal life through participant

observation in daily activities helped build trust. I was present at several important events

that gave greater insight into questions of alternative rights and gendered labor, including

three town assemblies (one was an election) and patron saint fiestas. Engaging in the

predominately women-led tasks of food preparation and men-predominated spaces of

labor taxation systems provided insight into gendered communal labor. For analytic

purposes, I coded the letter, field notes, and interview transcripts according to the

identification of key themes, including gendered labor, collective labor, citizenship,

participation, relationship with liberal state law, autonomy, and inequality.

GENDER AND WORK IN YATZACHI´S COMMUNAL SYSTEM

A gendered division of labor fundamentally organizes Yatzachi’s communal

system. As mentioned, men, as heads of household, traditionally conduct cargo and

tequio. The labor performed via these cargos and tequios is how one earns the right to

vote and opine in the village assembly, becoming, in the words of Yatzachitecos, an

“active citizen.” Tequio in Zapoteco is llinlaw, which literally means “working in front of

the pueblo.” Each active citizen performs twenty-four tequios per year, and activities

include potable water maintenance, street cleaning, and the demarcation of town

boundaries. Cargos are an obligation—they must be performed in order to use

collectively held land and public services. Thirty-four cargos must be filled annually, but

only five of them (the town president, the syndic, and the aldermen of health, treasury,

and public works) are considered to be the official state-recognized posts of the

municipal council (cargo holder’s names are registered with the state government). They

are the positions of greatest importance, labor, and commitment, often requiring full-time

work for the year of appointment.

Traditionally, women have not been “active citizens.” As in other communities in

Oaxaca, they are responsible for the labors of social reproduction in their homes and

agricultural fields (Lyon, Aranda Bezaury, and Mutersbaugh 2010; Mutersbaugh 1998).
In the village sphere, they participate in many of the collective labors of rituals and

fiestas (Stephen 2005). Although they do not engage in cargos and tequios, by

conducting the labors of social reproduction, married women feel that they also do

important work for the community. Sara3 said, “When my husband does his cargo, I [the

wife] am the one who supports him. So I feel that as a married woman I do participate

and contribute to the town.” Indeed, when they do a cargo, men rely heavily on women to

manage agricultural fields or generate alternative income. Ana emphasized how, beyond

the support work for her husband in these intense moments, she also makes tortillas for

town functions, something she considers to be part of her duties as a good citizen.

However, instead of being valued in the same way as men’s labors, women’s labors are

not categorized as “official”—or as labor considered to be part of the obligations of

active citizenship. Thus, married women, while they theoretically can attend the

assembly, cannot vote or opine in it. Their participation is mediated through their

husbands in a type of indirect citizenship.

Scholars demonstrate that emigration often promotes women’s political

participation. For example, Andrews (2014) argues that Oaxacan migrant women

become more engaged in the political stakes of local life when they return to their

hometowns. This is due both to men´s continued absence as well as the importance

women now place on improving the conditions within their villages as an alternative to

the harsh circumstances of U.S. undocumented migration. This is partly true in

Joya Misra 6/27/2015 9:31 PM
Comment [1]: Would be great if you were
Yatzachi, as migration has challenged paradigms of masculine active citizenship. in conversation with Andrews more. What
does not fit?
However, what has more decisively pushed both formerly migrant and non-migrant Microsoft Office User 7/23/2015 1:09 PM
Comment [2]: I´ve added in more here to
women into local politics in Yatzachi is a population crisis. Over the last several clarify how I am in conversation with
Andrews
decades, migration to the United States has dramatically reduced the number of able-

bodied men who engage in collective labor. A crisis of communal labor has ensued, and

the town has turned to the labor reserve of single women to fill vacant cargo positions,

making gendered labor a topic of debate in attempting to maintain collective practices.

Gradually, single or widowed women have come to engage in active citizenship by

conducting lesser cargos and participating in tequios. This official labor gives them the

right to participate in town assemblies, for the first time creating a space in which women

are representing themselves directly in the town’s most important political body. Married

women, however, remain under the schema of indirect citizenship. At the time of

research, fourteen women and around fifty men were active citizens in Yatzachi.

In general, both single and married women feel that theoretically, women’s

participation in the assembly is important. When I asked Ana if she thinks married

women should go to the assemblies, she responded, “Yes, I think so, because sometimes

we have opinions too! And my husband doesn’t share his—let alone my—opinions in the

assembly.” A single woman, Josefina, was also in favor of women’s participation:

“Sometimes as women we understand things from a different perspective, and try to

resolve problems in a different way than men. There are some things that we just do

better, you’ve got to admit it!” A married woman, Irma, reported, “There are women that

are very capable of being on the town council. In my opinion, we’ve got to give women

opportunities because we also have the right to participate.”

However, despite the general enthusiasm and support for the idea of women’s

participation in local political life, single women signed the letter to the Oaxacan

electoral institute in which they refused to take on the more prestigious cargos of the
town council. I explore this paradox in what follows.

Responding to the State

The letter emerged out of the annual assembly in which local elections are held.

The municipal president interpreted the mandate from the Oaxacan electoral institute

thus: “If a woman was not on the list of our upcoming municipal authorities [for the town

council], they would impugn our election.” He saw this as an incursion of the State into

the realm of Yatzachi’s collective rights: “We have our usos y costumbres [ways and

customs], and the government always talks about how they respect them, but by sending

this mandate, they were not respecting our rights [to local governance].” Josefina recalls

the assembly:

The first thing the president did was read the mandate, which said that it

was required for a woman to be part of the town council. Then they said

that the women should give their opinions—what did we think about it?

The president said if women want to, then we should do it, and if not, we

didn’t have to. One woman spoke up and said that personally, she

wouldn’t accept. Others said the same.

The president recommended responding to the electoral institute with a letter in order to

set a precedent that could prevent future government intervention in local elections.

However, women were in agreement with the creation of the letter. Indeed, Carolina

recounted, “We created the letter so that officially the government would see that it

wasn’t just that the men didn’t want this, but rather we, the women, rejected the

mandate.” Active female citizens who were not present later signed the letter before it
was taken to the Oaxacan electoral institute. The letter is composed of five numbered

points, which I translate here:

1: Women have always been considered for cargo positions, but only

when they include activities that we can do, such as secretary, treasurer,

school committee, clinic committee, etc. We don’t agree to do cargos that

are part of the town council, the agricultural development committee, and

communal goods, because according to usos y costumbres men perform

Joya Misra 6/27/2015 9:31 PM
Comment [3]: Provide translation in
these cargos, given that they are the ones in charge of directing communal
parantheses?
Microsoft Office U…, 7/22/2015 10:14 PM
work and tequios, and it is not acceptable to simply give orders but rather Comment [4]: I say usos y costumbres
earlier, so I added in the translation in
to lead these projects to show how it is done. Many of these activities are parenthesis on page 15

difficult for women (carrying rocks, picking up cement blocks, repairing

water tubes, etc).

2: Women have been named to these cargos in the past, but those that have

accepted the cargo have not performed it themselves; instead they look for

a man to do it, and they obviously have to pay for this service since all

cargos are performed without remuneration.

3: We do not accept these cargos because we have to take care of our

children, because our husbands are those who have to work for our

sustenance and we do not have daycare centers nor do we have paid jobs

for women.

4: If the cargo positions were paid, we would have money to be able to

pay someone to take care of our children and our domestic animals.

5. Probably these arguments will not be valid, unless within your office
 there is a worker of indigenous origin that can give you a broader

explanation and help you understand the situation in which we live.

In general, interview data demonstrate that women signed the letter and spoke up

in the assembly not because they are against women’s participation, but because 1) the

official work that women do as active citizens is undervalued and does not lead to equal

terms of participation; 2) town council positions present extra labor burdens when added

onto women’s work of social reproduction; and 3) active female citizens thus perceive

that the terms of participation in the communal system are unfair.

Joya Misra 6/27/2015 9:31 PM
Comment [5]: It would be interesting to
contrast this with Abigail Andrews’ paper!
Microsoft Office User 7/23/2015 1:10 PM
Devaluing Women´s Work Comment [6]: I think my new elaboration
of Andrew´s work above is now sufficient.
Although women have moved into traditionally “male” political spheres, the Microsoft Office U…, 7/22/2015 10:11 PM
Comment [7]: I took out “official” and
communal system, while now more inclusive, is still far from egalitarian. For many combined the two sections on official work
and reproductive work into one.

women, performing cargos and tequios is often seen as a burden rather than an

opportunity to be a leader in the community. This is because of the lack of value given to

both women’s official and unofficial labors. Although single women now do the official

labors of cargo and tequio, men often ignore women’s opinions in the assembly by

arguing that they have not done the same extent of labor for public works as men.

Carolina said:

Most of the time many of us don’t talk in the assemblies, because you

quickly learn that the older men will always say, “No, these girls are just

now starting to engage in town work. They don’t know what has happened

with the pueblo, they don't know what all we’ve gone through to arrive

where we are today.”

 Likewise, the notion of women as physically weaker is regularly used to devalue

women’s ability to engage fully in the terms of active citizenship. A common discourse

in the village is that if one cannot do and demonstrate physical labor, one cannot lead. As

point one of the letter emphasizes, leading is not simply giving commands, but actually

demonstrating physical labor in front of others. It argues that women, because of their

lack of physical strength, cannot do these tasks and motivate other men to join in the

work. Women’s inability to do these grueling physical tasks means that their labor, even

when conducted through an official cargo or tequio task, does not count the same as

men’s. Sara recounted how one man argued that women’s opinions should not count

because they were not going to be contributing equal labor force in the upcoming tequio

project. She recalls, “That’s when I understood that despite how much I would like to

express my opinion, it would never be taken into account.” Even when performing

official tasks, women’s labor is not valued as being the right amount or type that can be

translated into full political rights in the assembly.

Thus, women often have to find someone else to fulfill their cargo, usually paying

that person for his labor. The second point of the letter emphasizes this, demonstrating

that while the tequio and cargo system has traditionally been based on labor in kind,

women often must hire a substitute. This is especially common for older single women.

For example, Ester, now retired, spent most of her life living in Mexico City and running

a small business in a local market. In conjunction with other market women, she spent

many years organizing vendors and pressuring the government for better working

conditions and infrastructure. A woman assured of her own economic and political

abilities, she returned to Yatzachi to live in the home that she and her deceased husband
built with their savings. Ester also returned to Yatzachi with the desire to serve her

community:

In an assembly several years ago I asked why they always assigned us the

police cargo when really women should be part of the town council. I told

them that women have the same value as men and we should participate in

the town council. That way they could see what women can do—we could

prove what we’re worth.

Although at that moment the assembly did not accept Ester’s proposal, she was later

nominated for town council posts. Now, however, she has health problems, and being

forced to take on a more important cargo that would require more physical effort and

more hours of commitment is something she feels unable to do: “If I were younger, it

would be different. But at my age, with all my health problems, it is really difficult. I

have to find someone to do it for me and pay them, because I can’t do the work myself.”

Taking on a town council position is similarly a further financial and physical burden for

her.

However, Ester, as well as others, felt that the question of women’s lack of

strength, especially for the younger women, was a patriarchal excuse to keep women

from holding more powerful positions, and is no longer a valid pretext for women´s

exclusion:

I think that a younger woman can be part of the town council. For

example, she could be alderman of health, or the treasury. The alderman

of public works would be difficult because it requires work in the fields,

but if she is young, why not? They say that it’s hard work because they go
 and cut down weeds, but nowadays the alderman just tells people what to

do. A woman can do that too: “Hey you—grab that weed eater and start

cleaning up over here!”

However, as Josefina recounts, in the assembly meeting “one woman spoke up and said

that personally, she wouldn’t accept [a town council position] because they are physically

difficult,” a point further echoed in the letter. Why did women rely on the discourse that

so regularly excludes them from participation? It was a way to reject what they deem to

be the unfair terms of cargo participation, not the cargos themselves: Women already feel

burdened by their labors of social reproduction, making the addition of a town council

cargo overwhelming.

Single women’s active citizenship also does not translate into greater political

equality because the gendered political economy of the communal system has not shifted.

In addition to conducting cargos and tequios, single women must still perform women’s

traditional labors of social reproduction, which remain unrecognized and undervalued.

This idea is taken up in points three and four of the letter, which emphasize the other

labors of social reproduction that women conduct. They argue that women do the

important job of caring for children, a job which has economic value (that in other

contexts is remunerated). By focusing on the way in which women would (or in this

case, would not) be able to monetarily remunerate someone to do this childcare labor in

their absence, these points demonstrate how women’s labor is valued in both capitalist

terms and in community governance terms. Someone has to subsidize the “free” labor

given to the municipality. If women do not engage in social reproduction, how would

men be able to give of their labors? And if they do official labors, who will take on their
productive and reproductive work in their absence? Ramona said, “When men go to the

municipal offices in the morning, they have a woman at home who makes them their

breakfast. Who is going to make mine?”

Balancing official labors with those of social reproduction is challenging. This is

the case for Carolina. A young mother who was abandoned by her migrant husband,

Carolina was working in a nearby town when she was named town secretary. As part of

her cargo duties, Carolina would have to be present in the municipal offices every

morning and evening and would have to quit her job. Luckily, her grandparents provided

her with childcare and a place to live, but she also had household responsibilities

(washing, cooking, and cleaning) to fulfill. Carolina believes in the importance of doing

town service. She emphasized that the citizens of Yatzachi “have to participate, and have

to give what they can to the pueblo, especially because there are so few people.”

However, she was in agreement with the letter written to the Oaxacan electoral institute

and spoke up in the assembly because “in my situation, it would be really difficult, and

I’m not willing to do a town council cargo.”

Unfair Terms of Participation and Defending Women´s labors

Joya Misra 6/27/2015 9:31 PM
Comment [8]: Very short section
At the same time that almost all women believe theoretically in the importance of
Microsoft Office User 7/22/2015 9:49 PM
Comment [9]: I have combined two short
women’s participation, practically they viewed the terms of communal participation as sections into one.

unfair. For example, a group of young single women without children felt it unjust that

they are considered heads of household when they don’t yet have a household (i.e.,

children) who use community resources. Ana commented, “If single women don’t have a

husband to help them out, and if they have kids, it’s unfair for them to do cargos.” Single
women with children felt somewhat torn: They agreed that it was a fair expectation that

they give time and labor to the community, but felt that the terms of participation were

unfair. For many, this led to the conclusion that it was actually considerate of men not to

nominate women for town council posts.

Although women in general agreed that their participation in cargos and tequios is

important, they felt opposed to the forced nature of the mandate from the Oaxacan

electoral institute. Instead, women argued that the town council cargos should be

voluntary. Carolina told me, “It wasn’t in our best interest to agree to the mandate,

because they could have named any one of us to the town council and we would have

been forced to accept.” Minerva, who was not present at the assembly but later signed the

letter, told me that the negation was not about the cargos themselves, but about their

obligatory nature. For her, it was a declaration so that “they [the men in the assembly]

will not force us to do the cargos if we don’t want to.”

Although the letter was addressed to the state government, it was created in the

town’s most official and public space: the community assembly. This means that it was a

rare opportunity to publicly debate the question of women’s labor in Yatzachi. As such, it

served as a moment when women were able to emphasize the role and value of their work

within the communal system, an important first step toward identifying the unequal

systems of gendered labor upon which local participation is based and validated.

However, instead of elaborating this critique further and using it to promote a

change within the system, women grouped together to ensure that cargos of greater labor

requirements would not be forced upon them. This was not an outright rejection of the

cargos themselves, but rather, as demonstrated earlier, a way to defend the sphere of their
labor from further exploitation within a communal system in desperate need of extra

laborers. As such, it was a rare moment in which women acted in solidarity in the town.

For example, Ramona and Gema, older single women, bemoaned the fact that women did

not jump at the chance of being on the town council. However, they agreed with the

letter out of solidarity with younger single women: They did not want other women to be

placed in a situation in which a cargo would be overly burdensome. As Irma commented,

too often in Yatzachi women think only about their own homes and labor commitments:

“What happens is that each woman does her work individually. She just looks after her

family and house. She doesn’t get involved with others, and that’s why our town doesn’t

prosper.” However, as with Ramona and Gema, for Carolina the creation of the letter

was the first time that she considered women’s combined interests when taking a stance

in an assembly:

Holly: Since you are one of the few women at the assembly, have you ever

felt like you speak for the interests of all women in assembly meetings?

Carolina: Sometimes, yes, because sometimes things are unfair.

Holly: Do you have a specific example?

Carolina: The only one I can think of is that of rejecting cargos in the town

council. We spoke and thought as women in that moment, not as general

town citizens, but as women.

Although the creation of the letter was as an act of gendered solidarity, women have not

taken further steps to elaborate a more consolidated critique of the gendered terms of the

communal system. In this sense, the discussion and subsequent creation of the letter was

an unprecedented moment in which women publicly articulated some of the concerns

regarding the unfairness of the gendered terms of labor and participation in Yatzachi.

While the liberal intervention of the government mandate did not reach its stated goal—

indeed, the outcome was the opposite of what it intended—it did force a discussion that

brought the question of women’s labor, and thus participation, to the table. This

discussion is likely to continue.

CONCLUSIONS

Scholars have argued that alternative rights paradigms play an important role in

decolonial struggles and the creation of non-liberal alternatives in Latin American

indigenous communities (Reyes 2012). However, the Achilles’ heel of some alternative

rights paradigms has been the question of women’s continued oppression in communal

systems (Paredes 2008). This article has contributed to this issue through an in-depth case

study that highlights the importance of understanding labor as a key element of

alternative rights paradigms and women’s political participation in non-liberal contexts.

As such, it emphasizes how the question of women’s roles and political participation in

many indigenous communities is not just about an abstract notion of participation, but
Microsoft Office User 7/22/2015 9:50 PM
Comment [10]: QUESTION IS, NOT
rather about the very tangible and powerful effects of quotidian labor practices. Gendered ARE.

labor profoundly structures these rights paradigms, lived “in practice.”

Consequently this article posits that non-liberal systems themselves are not by

nature “bad” for indigenous women, as some feminists would argue (Okin 1999); rather,

the issue centers on the gendered political economies that structure these systems. In this

sense, it supports literature on gendered complementarity that argues that separate

gendered spheres of labor are not invariably deterrents to greater equality for women
(Sieder and Macleod 2009). However, this only works if separate labored spheres are

given equal value within alternative rights paradigms. In the case of Yatzachi, this means
Bernstein, Mary 6/27/2015 9:31 PM
Comment [11]: Shouldn’t this be “not”?
valuing women’s informal labors of social reproduction to the same extent as men’s
Microsoft Office User 7/22/2015 9:52 PM
Comment [12]: I modified this to make
official labors, and qualifying both as work that counts for the earning of local political more sense.

rights.

Likewise, this research provides another example of indigenous women rejecting

liberal government intervention into their communities (Blackwell 2012). In this case, it

demonstrates that women are not adverse to the idea of the importance of women’s

participation as espoused by this intervention; rather, they are adverse to the terms of

what participation would mean: Being forced to take on town council posts that increase

their labor exploitation within the communal system.

Finally, these findings have implications for those working to promote gender

equality in non-liberal settings. They add to numerous feminist arguments about the

undervaluation of women´s social reproductive work and the role this plays in women´s

political marginalization in liberalism. However, by focusing on how this plays out in

non-liberal contexts, this article also emphasizes the failings of liberal rights paradigms to

comprehend women’s political participation in relation to alternative forms of labor and

value. This is outlined in the final point of the women’s letter, in which they posit that the
Joya Misra 6/27/2015 9:31 PM
Comment [13]: I actually see a broader
Oaxacan electoral institute will probably not be able to comprehend the logic behind importance, as the critique about women’s
social reproduction is true everywhere.
women’s denial to take on town cargo posts. Accordingly, initiatives attempting to Microsoft Office U…, 7/22/2015 10:08 PM
Comment [14]: I agree. I´ve modified this
promote indigenous women’s political participation in Latin America should explore the paragraph to hopefully make this clearer.

alternative notions of rights that exist in these contexts in order to support indigenous

women’s self-defined struggles of gender equality within communal systems. Microsoft Office User 7/22/2015 9:54 PM
Comment [15]: Great! I´m happy to take
the limitations out.
 NOTES

1. Although the recognition of indigenous difference and implementation of multicultural

policies in Oaxaca mirrored other multicultural initiatives throughout Latin America, it

was an anomaly within Mexico. The Zapatista movement sought to promote

multicultural legislation on the federal level and was met with limited success;

meanwhile, the Oaxacan state government made its own legislative advances.

2. For the specifics of international pressure, see the 2012 report by the United Nations

on Mexico’s compliance with the Convention to Eliminate all forms of Discrimination

Against Women: http://www.unfpa.org.mx/publicaciones/CEDAW.pdf.

3. Names have been changed for privacy. Interviews were conducted in Spanish and all

translations are by the author.

REFERENCES

Anaya Muñoz, Alejandro. 2005. The emergence and development of the politics of

recognition of cultural diversity and indigenous peoples’ rights in Mexico: Chiapas

and Oaxaca in comparative perspective. Journal of Latin American Studies 37: 585–

610.

Andrews, Abigail. 2014. Women’s political engagement in a Mexican sending

community: Migration as crisis and the struggle to sustain an alternative. Gender &

Society 28(4): 583–608.

Aquino Moreschi, Alejandra. 2010. La generación de la "emergencia indígena" y el

comunalismo oaxaqueño: Genealogía de un proceso de descolonización. Cuadernos

 Del Sur 15(29): 7–21.

Barrera Bassols, Dalia. 2006. Mujeres indígenas en el sistema de representación de

cargos de elección: El caso de Oaxaca. Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo 3(1): 19–

37.

Benhabib, Seyla, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, and Nancy Fraser. 1994. Feminist

contentions: A philosophical exchange (thinking gender). New York: Routledge.

Blackwell, Maylei. 2012. The practice of autonomy in the age of neoliberalism:

Strategies from indigenous women’s organising in Mexico. Journal of Latin

American Studies 44: 703–32.

Brown, Wendy. 2000. Suffering rights as paradoxes. Constellations 7: 208–29.

Burawoy, Michael. 1985. The politics of production: Factory regimes under capitalism

and socialism. London: Verso.

Burawoy, Michael. 1991. Reconstructing social theories. In Ethnography unbound:

Power and resistance in the modern metropolis, edited by Michael Burawoy.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burman, Anders. 2011. Chachawarmi: Silence and rival voices on decolonisation and

gender politics in Andean Bolivia. Journal of Latin American Studies 43: 65–91.

Butler, Judith. 2000. Restaging the universal: Hegemony and the limits of formalism. In

Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left, edited by

Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau, and Slavoj Žižek. New York: Verso.

Butler, Judith and Joan W. Scott. 1992. Feminists theorize the political. New York:

Routledge.

Cardoso Jiménez, Rafael and Sofía Robles Hernández. 2007. Floriberto Díaz escrito:
 Comunalidad, energía viva del pensamiento mixe. México, D. F.: UNAM.

Carney, Judith and Michael Watts. 1990. Manufacturing dissent: Work, gender and the

politics of meaning in a peasant society. Africa: Journal of the International African

Institute 60(2): 207–41.

Chari, Sharad and Vinay Gidwani. 2005. Introduction: Grounds for a spatial ethnography

of labor. Ethnography 6(3): 267–81.

Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas. 2010. Indicadores

sociodemográficos de la población total y la población indígena. México, D.F.: CDI:

http://www.cdi.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1327:cedu

las-de.

Cravey, Altha. 2005. Desire, work and transnational identity. Ethnography 6(3): 357–83.

Dalton, Margarita. 2005. La participación política de las mujeres en los municipios

llamados de usos y costumbres. In Diez voces a diez años: Reflexiones sobre los usos

y costumbres a diez años del reconocimiento legal. Oaxaca, Mexico: EDUCA.

Danielson, Michael and Todd Eisenstadt. 2009. Walking together, but in which direction?

Gender discrimination and multicultural practices in Oaxaca, Mexico. Politics &

Gender 5: 153–84.

de la Cadena, Marisol. 2010. Indigenous cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual

reflections beyond "politics." Cultural Anthropology 25: 334–70.

de Sousa Santos, Boaventura. 2002. Toward a multicultural conception of human rights.

Beyond Law 9: 9–32.

Escobar, Arturo. 2008. Territories of difference: Place, movement, life, redes. Durham,

NC: Duke University Press.

Espinosa Damián, Gisela. 2009. Cuatro vertientes del feminismo en México: Diversidad

de rutas y cruce de caminos. México, D.F.:UAM.

Gutiérrez, Margarita and Nellys Palomo. 2000. A woman’s eye view of autonomy. In

Indigenous autonomy in Mexico, edited by Alejandro Parellada. Copenhagen:

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.

Harris, Olivia. 1978. Complementarity and conflict: An Andean view of women and men.

In Sex and age of principles of social differentiation, edited by Jean Sybil La

Fontaine. New York: Academic Press.

Hart, Gillian. 1991. Engendering everyday resistance: Gender, patronage and production

politics in rural Malaysia. Journal of Peasant Studies 19(1): 93–121.

Hartmann, Heidi. 1981. The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism: Towards a

more progressive union. In Women and revolution: A discussion of the unhappy

marriage of Marxism and feminism. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Hernández Castillo, Aída. 2010. The emergence of indigenous feminism in Latin

America. Signs 35(3): 539–45.

Hernández Díaz, Jorge. 2014. Discurso y práctica del liderazgo feminino en la política

local en un ámbito multicultural. In Repensando la participación política de las

mujeres: Discursos y prácticas de las costumbres en el ámbito comunitario, edited by

Charlynne Curiel, Holly Worthen, Jorge Hernández Díaz, and Josefina Aranda

Bezaury. México, D. F.: Plaza y Valdés.

Lyon, Sarah, Josefina Aranda Bezaury, and Tad Mutersbaugh. 2010. Gender equity in

fairtrade–organic coffee producer organizations: Cases from Mesoamerica. Geoforum

41: 93–103.
MacKinnon, Catherine. 1991. Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Mahmood, Saba. 2005. Politics of piety: The Islamic revival and the feminist subject.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Martínez Luna, Jaime. 2010. Eso que llaman comunalidad. Oaxaca, Mexico:

CONACULTA.

Mutersbaugh, Tad. 1998. Women’s work, men’s work: Gender, labor organization, and

technology acquisition in a Oaxacan village. Environment and Planning D: Society

and Space 16: 439–58.

Nash, June. 2001. Mayan visions: The quest for autonomy in an age of globalization.

New York: Routledge.

Newdick, Vivian. 2005. The indigenous woman as victim of her culture in neoliberal

Mexico. Cultural Dynamics 17(1): 73–92.

Nicholls, Walter and Justus Uitermark. 2013. Post-multicultural cities: A comparison of

minority politics in Amsterdam and Los Angeles, 1970–2010. Journal of Ethnic and

Migration Studies 39(10): 1555–75.

Okin, Susan. 1999. Is multiculturalism bad for women? In Is multiculturalism bad for

women?: Susan Moller Okin with respondents, edited by Joshua Cohen, Matthew

Howard, and Martha Nussbaum. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Olcott, Jocelyn. 2005. Revolutionary women in postrevolutionary Mexico. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.

ONU Mujeres. 2013. Participación política de las mujeres en México: A 60 años del

reconocimiento del derecho al voto feminino. México, D.F.: ONU Mujeres, PNUD,
 IDEA.

Pape, Ida Sofia Rosenfeldt. 2009. Indigenous movements and the Andean dynamics of

ethnicity and class: Organization, representation, and political practice in the Bolivian

highlands. Latin American Perspectives 36(4): 101–25.

Paredes, Julieta. 2008. Hilando fino: Desde el feminismo comunitario. La Paz, Bolivia:

CEDEC.

Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual contract. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Pathak, Zakia and Rajeswari Sunder Rajan. 1989. Shahbano. Signs 14: 558–82.

Patzi Paco, Félix. 2004. Sistema comunal  : Una propuesta alternativa al sistema liberal:

Una discusión teórica para salir de la colonialidad y del liberalismo. La Paz,

Bolivia: Comunidad de Estudios Alternativas (CEA).

Peters, Julie and Andrea Wolper. 1995. Women’s rights, human rights: International

feminist perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Phillips, Anne. 1991. Engendering democracy. University Park: Pennsylvania State

University Press.

Postero, Nancy. 2007. Now we are citizens: Indigenous politics in postmulticultural

Bolivia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Pratt, Geraldine. 2004. Working feminism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Recondo, David. 2007. La política del gatopardo: Multiculturalismo y democracia en

Oaxaca. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en

Antropología Social y Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos.

Reyes, Alvaro. 2012. Revolutions in the revolutions: A post-counterhegemonic moment

for Latin America? South Atlantic Quarterly 111(1): 1–27.

Richards, Patricia. 2005. The politics of gender, human rights, and being indigenous in

Chile. Gender & Society 19(2)S: 199–220.

Sa´ar, Amalia. 2005. Postcolonial feminism, the politics of identification, and the liberal

bargain. Gender & Society 19(5): 680-700.

Sánchez, Consuelo. 2003. Identidad, género, y autonomía: Las mujeres indígenas en el

debate. Memoria 174: 12–18.

Sieder, Rachel and Morna Macleod. 2009. Género, derecho y cosmovisión Maya en

Guatemala. Desacatos 31: 51–72.

Sierra, María Teresa. 2009. Las mujeres indígenas ante la justicia comunitaria:

Perspectivas desde la interculturalidad y los derechos. Desacatos 31: 73–88.

Song, Sarah. 2005. Majority norms, multiculturalism, and gender equality. American

Political Science Review 99(4): 473–89.

Speed, Shannon. 2005. Dangerous discourses. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology

Review 28(1): 29–51.

Speed, Shannon, Rosalva Aída Hernández Castillo, and Lynn Stephen. 2006. Dissident

women: Gender and cultural politics in Chiapas. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Speed, Shannon and Alavaro Reyes. 2002. "In our own defense": Rights and resistance in

Chiapas. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 25(1): 69–89.

Stephen, Lynn. 2005. Zapotec women. 2nd edition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Stern, Steve. 1999. The changing face of gender complementarity: New research on

Indian women in colonial Mexico. The American Society for Ethnohistory 46: 607–

21.

Van Cott, Deborah Lee. 2010. Indigenous peoples’ politics in Latin America. Annual
 Review of Political Science 13: 385–405.

Vázquez García, Verónica. 2011. Usos y costumbres y ciudadania feminina: Hablan las

presidentas municipales de Oaxaca 1995-2010. México, D.F.: Porrua.

Velásquez, María Cristina. 2004. Migrant communities, gender, and political power in

Oaxaca. In Indigenous Mexican migrants in the United States, edited by Jonathan Fox

and Gaspar Rivera-Salgado. San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies and Center

for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California.

Vertovec, Steven. 2010. Towards post-multiculturalism? Changing communities,

conditions and contexts of diversity. International Social Science Journal 61: 83–95.

Walsh, Catherine. 2010. Development as buen vivir: Institutional arrangements and

(de)colonial entanglements. Development 53(1): 15–21.

Weeks, Kathi. 2007. Life within and against work: Affective labor, feminist critique, and

post-Fordist politics. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization 7(1): 233–49.

Yashar, Deborah J. 2005. Contesting citizenship in Latin America: The rise of indigenous

movements and the postliberal challenge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Holly Worthen is a professor at the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociológicas at the

Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. Her

work focuses on gender, migration, development and indigenous politics.