A deconstruction of the notion 'If you educate a man, you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman, you educate a family, a nation'

The slogan ‘If you educate a man, you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman, you educate a family, a nation’ first coined by Malcolm X, has since dominated the development discourse. We recognize that education is one of the most effective development investments countries can make, and education for women is believed to achieve even more remarkable results. Education for girls and women is certainly run as a strategic entry point to other development interventions like family planning and child nutrition initiatives; hence is a top priority for most donor organisations and governments. However, the slogan has recently gained even more traction in educational and development debates and is widely criticized by activists working to eliminate gender inequity. Education for girls and women is absolutely a good thing, but it is not really the magic bullet for development challenges. The link between women’s education and development is, to some extent, problematic. I aim to deconstruct the assumptions that underpin the slogan.

Historically, education for girls was considered irrelevant and superfluous for future wives and mothers and detrimental to male societal authority. The dominant view was that men were heads of patriarchal households. Therefore, the slogan was revolutionary as it called for the need to educate women alongside men. However, it differentiates the outcomes for men and women. Men offer lower rates of return- and only to themselves, which could also be termed a reductionist view of their social influence. Meanwhile, women yield additional benefits beyond themselves. It recognizes women's significant roles in their households; therefore, they will transcend to the nation – if granted education. The assumption is that girls and women must first assume their family roles- as wives and mothers- so their education can benefit the greater development framework.

Who is the ‘woman’ in this slogan? Without a doubt, this is the woman from the poorest regions of the world, or rather, in the developing third-world countries, also called the global south. This third-world woman is understood in terms of underdevelopment, high illiteracy, and rural and urban poverty. Her image is accompanied by an inclination to invest in her, thereby ‘empowering’ her to fend for herself and her family. It is worth remembering that the ‘third world woman’ trope was originally conceived as a victim by Western development eyes. Notions have shifted from no longer in need of saving to effectively creating new agents of development. This woman has now evolved into a symbol of untiring efficiency and altruism. As such, she is the world’s greatest resource, with unlimited potential; therefore, educating her is the best investment.

Evidently, the slogan converts women into instruments of economic agendas. Thinking critically, it disempowers women by perceiving them as developmental ‘instruments.’ The ‘woman’ is a social capital embodying capacities that can result in future economic gains for her and her country's economy. The ‘woman’ has become philanthrocapitalism's idol, an embodiment that takes on a sort of future-oriented relevance. In fact, many education initiatives emphasize the importance of women in education in terms of how education can help women become better mothers, therefore, propagating patriarchal stereotypes. It is impossible to overlook how the instrumentalist approach to girls’ education is deeply engrained within our communities. The champions of education initiatives often encourage parents to take their children to school through speeches emphasising “when you educate your daughters, it is like you are educating the whole world”. Boys’ influence and role in shaping positive action are discounted. These campaigns reinforce the dominant patriarchal bias rather than challenging it. Besides, the fact that education for women is for others, not for themselves, is the source of the harshest discrimination. The girl’ is a figure of transnational rescue, an investment, and an answer for ending poverty. The slogan positions ‘third world girls’ as disproportionately responsible for ending all forms of poverty, which is a heavy burden. This model is not based on gender justice and detracts from the goal of developing a gender-just education for all.

The slogan’s heteronormative logic is built on the link between projected reproductive capacities and the imagined future economic potential of girls, which is concisely articulated as “a girl who starts an education is going to get married later, she is going to have fewer and healthier children and educate them.” It is dictated that girls’ bodies must be protected to push forward marriage and motherhood as a strategy to realize their economic potential. These constructions also contribute to entrenching patriarchal norms. Furthermore, the slogan’s rationales are dubious and have a unidimensional understanding of girls' and women’s education- only for social development. The absence and avoidance of concerns of contention and contradiction in mainstream education and curriculum discourse exacerbate this one-dimensional conceptualization.

The instrumentalist arguments for girls' education have succeeded for two reasons. First, based on the mantra of declining fertility, improved childcare, and productivity and second, because they conform to the broader and hegemonic economic discourse in which policy formulations occur. Statistics show that an extra year of girls' education can reduce infant mortality by 5-10 per cent and can reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS and other preventable diseases. Equally, providing a girl with an extra year of education will boost her future wages by 20 per cent. Furthermore, lengthy schooling is also said to enhance a woman's self-confidence, which makes it easy to communicate what she does or does not like and manage relationships. Proponents conclude that resources should be distributed to enhance female participation in primary and secondary education, which will later transcend to women's status enhanced within and beyond their families. Statistics show that 130 million girls are out of school because of child labour, early marriages, conflict, health issues, gender biases and poverty (UNESCO, 2022). That is why development agendas were established like the Millennium Development, whose Goals 2 and 3 were specific to achieving universal primary education and promoting gender equality and empowering women, respectively. Subsequently, the present Sustainable Development (SDG) Goal 4 aims to "ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all", and Goal 5 "achieve gender equality" (United Nations, 2015).

While education experiences are meant to increase girls’ awareness of the world, this awareness should not be confused with empowerment. According to Amartya Sen, women’s empowerment is the acquisition of “agency and voice”. A person's capability is the freedom to enjoy and do what he or she values in life and enhance their substantial choices. The debates over girls’ education are still primarily driven by the ‘efficiency’ argument rather than a rights-based argument. In my view, educating girls and women is important for the simple fact that they have a right to full human experience, and education is a significant tool for achieving that. If their education results in nothing, it would still be significant because it is their right.