Skip to main content
placeholder image

To shame or not to shame—that is the sanitation question

Journal Article


Download full-text (Open Access)

Abstract


  • The Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) programme aims to end open defecation through facilitating activities that evoke a sense of shame, shock and disgust. The programme’s initial success and low-cost design has seen it become hegemonic in donor-supported rural sanitation. However, the theoretical basis of the use of shame has not been critically evaluated. Supporters claim that shame helps form and maintain social relationships, yet contemporary psychosocial literature highlights that it is a volatile and often harmful emotion, particularly in conditions of poverty. Using a case study of Cambodia, which rejected the coercive elements of shame in CLTS, we explore the problems of shame and limits of local ownership of development.

Publication Date


  • 2017

Citation


  • Bateman, M. & Engel, S. (2017). To shame or not to shame—that is the sanitation question. Development Policy Review, Online First 1-19.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-85041365903

Ro Full-text Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4301&context=lhapapers

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/3286

Number Of Pages


  • 18

Start Page


  • 155

End Page


  • 172

Volume


  • 36

Issue


  • 2

Place Of Publication


  • United Kingdom

Abstract


  • The Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) programme aims to end open defecation through facilitating activities that evoke a sense of shame, shock and disgust. The programme’s initial success and low-cost design has seen it become hegemonic in donor-supported rural sanitation. However, the theoretical basis of the use of shame has not been critically evaluated. Supporters claim that shame helps form and maintain social relationships, yet contemporary psychosocial literature highlights that it is a volatile and often harmful emotion, particularly in conditions of poverty. Using a case study of Cambodia, which rejected the coercive elements of shame in CLTS, we explore the problems of shame and limits of local ownership of development.

Publication Date


  • 2017

Citation


  • Bateman, M. & Engel, S. (2017). To shame or not to shame—that is the sanitation question. Development Policy Review, Online First 1-19.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-85041365903

Ro Full-text Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4301&context=lhapapers

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/3286

Number Of Pages


  • 18

Start Page


  • 155

End Page


  • 172

Volume


  • 36

Issue


  • 2

Place Of Publication


  • United Kingdom