ABSTRACT
The Shahsevan example points to a fundamental tension between the active and reactive qualities of informal associations. Once preconceptions about the discreteness of the private domain are set aside, the automatic depiction of women’s informal associations as passive, supportive, domestic, disorganized, and apolitical also vanishes. The extent to which an informal association uses defensive or active strategies determines the degree to which it can be receptive to development interventions. Although no informal association is exclusively defensive or active, some are better able to undertake specific initiatives. Informal associations can be characterized as defensive when they mobilize in response to adversity or crisis. These are basically reactive social relationships that do not aim to create separate resources, alternative conditions, or autonomous influence. A narrow focus on the defensive aspects of women’s associations, masks their indirect impact on the women’s active solidarity.
