Turning the Tables on the Megarhetoric of Women’s Empowerment

Playing With Empowerment

“…TG participates in what Dingo (2012) refers to as the megarhetoric of empowerment by tying women’s individual financial security to the concept of women’s empowerment. Players learn that individual economic gain (via microloans, small businesses, etc.)…”

“…is key for marginalized women’s empowerment and that financial support of such projects, via select NGOs, is a necessary and effective action to be taken by those in the Global North. Such a framework negates the need to consider broader political action or structural change and instead reinforces “the notion of personal agency and monetary exchange over a broader feminist understanding of the transnational contexts that make donations, charity work, and development programs necessary in the first place” (Dingo, 2012, p. 177). The role of historic and contemporary political and economic systems in contributing to the oppressive realities of women in the developing world is excluded from the narrative; and the asymmetrical North/South divide is used to show women in the Global North their positional advantage in order to call on them for help, rather than acknowledging the ways in which processes of capitalism and globalization reinforce this divide.…”

Toward a Political Economic Framework for Analyzing Digital Development Games: A Case Study of Three Games for Africa

“…For instance, after Radhika prospers from buying a goat and selling its milk, the player is asked if she wants to help a woman in real‐life by purchasing a goat through Heifer International. By connecting these financial donations to the concept of women's empowerment, the game participates in what Dingo () refers to as the megarhetoric of empowerment: a mainstreamed, naturalized discourse, in which it is assumed that women's empowerment is equal to women's individual financial security. By unlocking material support through gameplay and engaging with in‐game donations and purchases, players are able to assume they have empowered a poor woman in the Global South, and the player gains a sense of action and of personal empowerment along the way.…”

“…If the solution to women's empowerment is indeed individual financial support, there is little reason to consider broader political action once this support has been given. Dingo () argues that approaches to empowerment that focus on financial exchange between individuals in the Global North and Global South reinforce “the notion of personal agency and monetary exchange over a broader feminist understanding of the transnational contexts that make donations, charity work, and development programs necessary in the first place” (p. 177). While the game provides players with information on key issues as identified by the HTSM (such as the number of women living in poverty and the number of people infected with HIV), there is little given in the way of context: The women facing these issues are in India, Kenya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the United States, but there is no explanation of regional differences regarding these issues, or of why certain women are in poverty while others are not, or how historical and current political and economic processes have impacted such issues.…”

“…Moreover, the HTSMG fails to provide any meaningful discussion on the ways in which microlending practices oppress women in new ways while simultaneously benefiting the middle class at the expense of the poorest (Karim, ). Rather, because the player has given money (either by directly donating funds herself or by unlocking material goods and services through gameplay), she “can simply forget about the broader context of poverty and feel assuaged by her or his action” (Dingo, , p. 177). Women's oppression and inequality are thus presented to the player not as a challenge to a system that is inherently asymmetrical, but instead as a depoliticized tool that promotes new market subjects (Karim, ).…”