What happens after identity groups gain representation in government?
In the article "What do Women Symbolize?" authors Susan Franceschet, Claire Annesley, and Karen Beckwith propose the concept of symbolic representation to understand cabinet recruitment. They argue that symbolic recruitment holds meaning for both the individual who selects the ministers ("symbol maker") and the constituent audiences upon which the symbol is enforced. As a symbol- gender, ethnicity, and other identity characteristics work in addition to a minister's expertise, education, and other professional skills.
The authors acknowledge both representative and administrative duties of cabinet members and explain that inevitable tensions may occur between these two. The article classifies one particularly interesting element of stress as "power." They propose the question- "Are women more likely to qualify for a cabinet based on representative criteria while men qualify based on their political trajectories?". This is an interesting question. I believe it asks whether female and male candidates are judged based on entirely separate criteria and whether this impacts their role and success later on as a representative. Unfortunately, this article stops short of answering this question. While the topic of symbolic representation seems promising, the authors admit that more research is needed to understand it fully.
The article "Down the Ladder or Shutting the Door: Female Prime Ministers, Party Leaders, and Cabinet Ministers" analyzes even more specifically, how the presence of female leaders impacts the appointment of female ministers. They hypothesize that "female prime ministers and coalition party leaders — particularly in left governments — are associated with women's increased appointment to cabinets and their ascension to high-prestige ministerial posts." They find through their study that this is not the case. The existence of female leaders causes no more female appointments than is experienced by male leaders. Additionally, "the presence of a female prime minister — or even a female-led coalition party — is associated with fewer women in cabinets, particularly compared to exclusively male-led left governments." They argue, similar to the first article I mentioned, that there are different values associated with selecting males vs. females. While male leaders may be heralded as progressive for appointing women, female leaders may feel the need to cultivate loyalty with their "male challengers" by selecting more males. This is only one potential explanation for this phenomenon, and it is evident that many more reasonings exist.
The findings and reasoning of both of these articles hold weight for current and future women seeking political positions. The assumptions that persist in selecting women for political positions threaten the advancement of women in these agencies. As the second article explains, even if females achieve higher political positions, there are still many assumptions and values that control their willingness to appoint other women into positions of power. To this end, there is no simple answer to the question- what happens after identity groups gain representation in government? As these articles show, representation does not always translate to equity. Even with representation in the highest branch of government, internalized assumptions contort the opportunity for particular identities to access political positions.
Franceschet, Susan, Claire Annesley, and Karen Beckwith. 2017. "What do Women Symbolize? Symbolic Representation and Cabinet Appointments." Politics, Groups, and Identities 5(3): 488-493.
O'Brien, Diana Z., Matthew Mendez, Jordan Carr Peterson, and Jihyun Shin. 2015. "Letting Down the Ladder or Shutting the Door: Female Prime Ministers, Party Leaders, and Cabinet Ministers." Politics and Gender 11(4): 689-717.
The authors acknowledge both representative and administrative duties of cabinet members and explain that inevitable tensions may occur between these two. The article classifies one particularly interesting element of stress as "power." They propose the question- "Are women more likely to qualify for a cabinet based on representative criteria while men qualify based on their political trajectories?". This is an interesting question. I believe it asks whether female and male candidates are judged based on entirely separate criteria and whether this impacts their role and success later on as a representative. Unfortunately, this article stops short of answering this question. While the topic of symbolic representation seems promising, the authors admit that more research is needed to understand it fully.
The article "Down the Ladder or Shutting the Door: Female Prime Ministers, Party Leaders, and Cabinet Ministers" analyzes even more specifically, how the presence of female leaders impacts the appointment of female ministers. They hypothesize that "female prime ministers and coalition party leaders — particularly in left governments — are associated with women's increased appointment to cabinets and their ascension to high-prestige ministerial posts." They find through their study that this is not the case. The existence of female leaders causes no more female appointments than is experienced by male leaders. Additionally, "the presence of a female prime minister — or even a female-led coalition party — is associated with fewer women in cabinets, particularly compared to exclusively male-led left governments." They argue, similar to the first article I mentioned, that there are different values associated with selecting males vs. females. While male leaders may be heralded as progressive for appointing women, female leaders may feel the need to cultivate loyalty with their "male challengers" by selecting more males. This is only one potential explanation for this phenomenon, and it is evident that many more reasonings exist.
The findings and reasoning of both of these articles hold weight for current and future women seeking political positions. The assumptions that persist in selecting women for political positions threaten the advancement of women in these agencies. As the second article explains, even if females achieve higher political positions, there are still many assumptions and values that control their willingness to appoint other women into positions of power. To this end, there is no simple answer to the question- what happens after identity groups gain representation in government? As these articles show, representation does not always translate to equity. Even with representation in the highest branch of government, internalized assumptions contort the opportunity for particular identities to access political positions.
Franceschet, Susan, Claire Annesley, and Karen Beckwith. 2017. "What do Women Symbolize? Symbolic Representation and Cabinet Appointments." Politics, Groups, and Identities 5(3): 488-493.
O'Brien, Diana Z., Matthew Mendez, Jordan Carr Peterson, and Jihyun Shin. 2015. "Letting Down the Ladder or Shutting the Door: Female Prime Ministers, Party Leaders, and Cabinet Ministers." Politics and Gender 11(4): 689-717.
I've always been interested in the timing issue. For example, are eventual outcomes improved if women obtain surrogate representation through sympathetic men who try to raise their cause in order to build momentum for their movement? Or should women strategize to try to gain representation now, hoping to beat the backlash effects in some way. Toward the first idea, it is unclear when the right time to act on whatever momentum can be built is. Civilization has been around for thousands of years, so why wait any longer? This is true, but there might be marginal returns to waiting within some short timeframe. For example, the women's march was a critical event that spurred many women to run for office in a coordinated and successful way.
ReplyDeleteI was definitely surprised to find that women in executive roles do not tend to have cabinets that are more representative of the actual gender breakdown of the population. I'll echo William's point about timing, and I do wonder to what extent women in power feel like they have to put on a balancing act to reduce some of the backlash that might result from creating a cabinet with a gender balance that looks like the country it represents. The double standard for male vs. female leaders in terms of who they appoint, like you mention, is pretty salient even today and even in progressive governments.
ReplyDelete