Gender, Politics and the State

Vicky Randall, Georgina Waylen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781134712779
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Over the last two decades our understanding of the relationship of gender, politics and the state has been transformed almost beyond recognition by the mutual interrogation of feminism and political science. This volume provides an overview of this dynamic and growing field, which reflects both its expanding empirical scope and the accompanying theoretical development and debate.
The first three essays focus primarily on conceptual and theoretical issues: the meaning of 'gender'; the state's role in the construction of gender within the public and private sphere; and the political representation of gender differences within liberal democracy. The remaining six provide analyses of more concrete issues of state policy and participation in differeing national political contexts: abortion politics in Ireland; the local politics of prostitution in Britain, the impact on women's political participation of economic change in China, Latin America and political change in Russia, and the gender impact of state programmes of land reform.

1	Gender, feminism and the state
	An overview
	Georgina Waylen

This collection begins from the premise that while there is more and more literature on gender and politics, as yet there is little which usefully links the analysis of gender, politics and the state. As editors we believe that this is a lack which should be addressed. There is a pressing need to do a number of things. First, to use the term politics as defined more widely to include activities often undertaken by women which fall outside the boundaries of conventional politics and therefore not usually deemed to be ‘political’. Second, to examine the interrelationship between ‘politics’ and the construction of gender relations and gendered identities. And third, to analyse satisfactorily in gendered terms both political activity and processes together with the institutions/structures which constrain them – the main structure in this case being the state. As Terrell Carver makes clear in his contribution to this volume, gender is often seen very unhelpfully as ‘loosely synonymous with “sex” and lazily synonymous with “women”’. However, following the arguments of Joan Scott (1986) we see gender not only as a ‘constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived difference between the sexes’, but also as ‘a primary way of signifying relationships of power’. Within Scott’s formulation, while it has often been overlooked, the contextually specific ways in which politics constructs gender and gender constructs politics become an important subject of inquiry.

Assuming that men’s activities are on the whole already more widely analysed (albeit using gender-blind presumptions which assume that men are the ‘normal’ or generic humans), this task entails considering not only the impact of different women and women’s movements on institutions and structures but how these institutions and structures can shape and alter gender relations and women’s activities in particular contexts. The articles in this collection therefore look not just at the impact of the state on women and how the state helps to construct gender relations, but how the activities of different women and women’s movements impact on the state and are in turn impacted on by the state. It is clear that this problematic raises the question of the relationship between structure and agency. However, any analysis has to occur in ways which avoid both excessive voluntarism and the opposite tendency to simply examine the determining impact of structures. There is increasing recognition in many parts of the social sciences that there is a need to do away with the rigid dichotomy between structure and agency; we, the editors, share this view and intend that this collection will go some way towards achieving this aim within feminist theorising. Indeed, the relationship between women’s actions and institutions is a theme of many of the contributions. Vicky Randall takes up this question in terms of circularity in the concluding chapter.

This introductory chapter focuses on how the state acts to construct gender relations and impacts on different groups of women The concluding chapter by Vicky Randall will look at women engaging with the state, construction of gendered identities and questions of representation, which all bring up notions of power. Therefore the present chapter deals directly with the institution of the state while the concluding chapter focuses much more on ‘politics’ defined in the widest sense and intervening chapters deal with various aspects of these themes. However, as editors we believe that it must be borne in mind that this division between the subject matter of the first and last chapters is a somewhat false separation instituted for practical as well as intellectual reasons. The actions of different groups of women cannot be understood outside of the structures which constrain them, just as those structures cannot be understood without some consideration of the impact of the choices made by actors both inside and outside of them in creating and changing those structures. The inescapable links between these two aspects are demonstrated by the recurrence of many of the same themes, such as the centrality of the public–private divide and concepts of citizenship in both chapters, but they are taken up in different ways.

So far greater emphasis has been placed in much of the feminist literature on women’s political activities which take place outside the formal arena, particularly their participation in various kinds of social movements in both the developed and the developing worlds. At the same time there has been a lack of useful feminist theorising on the state. This collection intends to go some way to remedy this lack but without prioritising one over the other. One objective of this book is therefore to help to ‘bring the state back in’ rather belatedly to feminist analyses. The introductory and concluding chapters will outline the current state of the debate as we see it and what we believe is needed to push it forward. We wish to avoid the overuniversalising which has ignored the experience of the post-colonial state that much western feminist theorising on the state has been criticised for up until now (Rai 1996). And we simply aim, while remaining aware of the specificity of the state in different contexts, to give an indication of some of the most important processes involved in particular cases which may help to illuminate questions and frameworks for the examination of other contexts in both the developed and the developing world. Therefore we want to further both the gendered analysis of politics and the state and the development of feminist theories of the state.

The contributors to this volume share a commitment to feminism defined in terms of a shared belief that women are subordinated, but with differing analyses of the nature of that subordination and of the strategies needed to change that situation. The starting point of this collection is therefore that there are differing feminist analyses of the state and as a consequence different strategies for dealing with the state which range from autonomy to integration (termed by some as the dilemma of ‘in and against the state’ (Rai 1996)). This diversity of views is reflected in this collection, but all the contributors share a commitment to the need for more sophisticated analysis of state institutions/structures in gender terms. In order to provide a context for the subsequent articles, this chapter addresses a number of themes. First, it outlines the nature of the feminist writings on the state to date. Having examined some of the different approaches, including their major strengths and the deficiencies which most obviously need to be remedied, the piece goes on to discuss: first, a number of improved ways to understand the nature of the state; second, the nature of different state policies in gendered terms; third, the relationship of the state to citizenship; and fourth, the relationship of the state to the debates around the public–private divide.

Feminist theorising of the state so far

Despite the centrality of the analysis of the state to many different disciplines such as politics, sociology and history and the increasing agreement among many feminist academics that adequate analyses of the state are still essential, there have not been many gendered analyses of the state produced after the initial flurry of activity in the late 1970s and early 1980s, in comparison to some other areas. Amongst the huge traditional western literature on the state emerging from liberalism and Marxism, gender relations do not feature explicitly as part of the analyses despite the implicit assumptions about gender which lie at their foundation (Connell 1990). On the other hand, it is impossible to argue that a coherent feminist theory of the state exists but instead a variety of positions can be discerned. At one end of the continuum, some feminists have even questioned whether a feminist theory of the state is necessary. Judith Allen (1990: 22) for instance has argued that:

Feminism has not been guilty of oversight or failure in not developing a distinct theory of ‘the state’. Instead, feminist theorists’ choices of theoretical agendas with priorities other than ‘the state’ have a sound rationale that deserves to be taken seriously. ‘The state’ as a category of abstraction that is too aggregative, too unitary, and too unspecific to be of much use in addressing the disaggregated, diverse and specific (or local) sites that must be of most pressing concern to feminists. ‘The state’ is too blunt an instrument to be of much assistance (beyond generalizations) in explanations, analyses or the design of workable strategies.

Allen (1990: 34) argues that it is more profitable to develop instead theories of a large number of other more significant categories and processes, among which she cites policing, bureaucratic culture and masculinity as important. However, as we will see below, the conclusion that the analysis of the state up until now has been too aggregative does not necessarily imply that trying to theorise the state is a worthless enterprise, but can imply instead that more sophisticated analyses are necessary.

Despite the scepticism of feminists like Allen, others have ‘taken the state seriously’ and engaged in trying to understand it from a gendered perspective. As we will see, while a variety of analytically distinct positions can be discerned, much of this work produced up until the 1990s shares certain characteristics. The majority of feminist analyses focus on the liberaldemocratic state in the first world while comparatively little attention has been paid to the gendered analysis of the post-colonial and Third World state (Afshar 1987; Charlton et al. 1989; Rai and Lievesley 1996). Much of the work either tends to be rather over-general, consisting of overarching macro-theoretical analyses, for example analysing society in terms of patriarchy and capitalism and seeing the state as a mechanism to reconcile the two systems (Eisenstein 1979); or it consists of detailed empirical microanalyses with very little in between. A great deal of the literature sees women as the objects of state policy: within this framework the state is something ‘out there’ and external to women’s lives and women are ‘done to’ by a state over which they have little control. Those who have looked at women’s struggles with the state have often used a ‘them and us’ framework in which women make demands upon the state. This kind of approach assumes a number of things: that the state is a homogeneous entity and a given which lies almost outside of society rather than being something which is created in part as a result of interaction with different groups (Watson 1990).

Until recently, few feminist analyses went beyond seeing the state as either essentially potentially good or bad for women as a group. A number of positions identify the state as good in that it can be empowering for women when it can offer them the opportunity to make some gains in economic and political terms. It is in the social democratic Scandinavian context that some of these arguments have been developed most fully. In a benign analysis of the Scandinavian welfare state, analysts such as Drude Dahlerup (1987: 121) have claimed that it has become a mechanism to avoid dependence on individual men. She writes:

Some studies conclude that in fact women have just moved from dependence on husbands to dependence on the state, while their subordination remains. I will argue that this shift has in general improved women’s general position and has given women new resources for mobilization, protest and political influence.

This view has been shared by some American feminists such as Barbara Ehrenreich and Frances Fox Piven (1983) in their writing on the welfare state. In the context of the developing world, Deniz Kandiyoti (1991) has highlighted a similar tendency around the time of political independence, often for nationalists to see the state as a benign and potentially modernising force which would bring benefits to women. Frequently, liberal feminists have also tended to share a relatively benign view of the state because they ultimately rely on the pluralist view that the state can be a neutral arbiter between different groups within society. While it cannot provide a very sophisticated understanding of why the state does not always play this role with regard to women, this analysis does provide a justification for ‘state feminism’ and other forms of engagement with the state. Therefore both these social democratic and liberal feminist analyses have implications for feminist strategy towards the state, which we will consider below.

Other feminists have been more sceptical about the potential of the state to be a progressive force for women, but from differing perspectives. Socialist feminists of the 1970s have been criticised for simply adding the oppression of women to a Marxist framework which saw the state as primarily an instrument of the ruling class, and as a result gender oppression becomes functional for capital. In their view, women’s subordination plays a role in sustaining capitalism through the reproduction of the labour force within the family and the state helps to reproduce and maintain this primarily through the welfare state (Wilson 1977; McIntosh 1978). Radical feminists have seen the state as inherently patriarchal, simply reflecting the male dominated nature of society, and therefore the state acts to uphold and defend male interests at the expense of women. Analysts such as Catherine Mackinnon (1983) have outlined how the state institutionalises male interests, for example through the law. Some feminists such as Zillah Eisenstein (1979), often emerging from a socialist feminist tradition, have put forward a dual systems analysis which attempts to reconcile these two separate systems of capitalism and patriarchy by arguing that the state plays the role of mediator between the two and acts in the interests of both. The implications for strategy of the radical feminist, socialist feminist and dual systems analyses of the state as an agent acting to control women for either patriarchy or capitalism or both are that on the whole it should be avoided. The partial exception to this was the way in which the potential of the local state, for example the Greater London Council (GLC), was viewed by some socialist feminists during the early 1980s. However, the conclusion of the majority of feminists was that women should steer clear of the state. Within all three frameworks the power of structures is seen as being overwhelming, leaving little room for agency.

By the late 1980s other feminists were beginning to criticise the various approaches outlined above. They took issue with the incipient functionalist analysis reflected in the notion that the state can act on behalf of particular groups in any simple way, as suggested by some Marxists and feminists (Franzway et al. 1989). Rosemary Pringle and Sophie Watson (1992: 54) argue that ‘the state itself remains an important focus. But the state, the interests articulated around it, and feminist political strategies need to be reconsidered in the light of post-structuralist theory.’ Furthermore, it is claimed that it is impossible to assume unitary interests between men, women and sections of capital or that these interests are fully formed outside the state. The state is therefore seen as an arena where interests are actively constructed rather than given (Watson 1990: 8). This approach is linked to a Foucauldian analysis of power in which power is relational and something to be exercised rather than possessed. The emphasis shifts to practice and discourse rather than to institutions with much greater focus on the state as a process. What emerges from this type of analysis is the view that ‘“the state” as a category should not be abandoned, but for a recognition that, far from being a unified structure, it is a by-product of political struggles’ (Pringle and Watson 1992: 67). Clearly this forms one way around the dichotomy between structure and agency discussed at the beginning of this chapter by not making the separation between the two and leaves open the potential not just for approaching and working through the state but also for being ‘in’ the state. It is in the Australian context that both the post-structuralist analysis of the state and the role of the ‘femocrat’, that is feminists working as bureaucrats within the state arena, have been considered the most. Indeed, within this framework the two are inter-connected.

The advocacy of this kind of analysis parallels developments among some other feminists who do not directly employ a post-structuralist analysis but who also have taken issue with the notion of a unitary state on the one hand and a unitary set of women’s interests on the other. Sonia Alvarez (1990: 271), for example, in the conclusion to her ground-breaking study of transition politics in Brazil argues that the state is not monolithic and suggests ‘a need for a more complex, less manichean perspective on gender and the State’ which emphasises the importance of looking at different conjunctures and periods. These conclusions resonate with those arguments about the capacity of the local state often to be more ‘women friendly’ than the national state. At the same time, many orthodox analysts were also returning in more sophisticated ways to the analysis of the state and institutions. Institutions have been defined by North (1990: 3) very broadly as ‘the rules of the game in society or, more formally, the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction’. Historical institutionalism has emerged as one way of engaging in middle-level theorising which can help to illuminate cross-national differences, processes of change and the ways in which political struggles are mediated by the institutional setting in which they take place (Steinmo et al. 1992; Migdal 1996). As such, its discussion of the interaction of structures and agents can also be of some use in the gendered analysis of the state. By the early 1990s, therefore, a number of different and more sophisticated ways of conceptualising the state were beginning to emerge from both feminist and orthod...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Notes on contributors
• Preface
• 1 Gender, feminism and the state: an overview
• 2 A political theory of gender: perspectives on the ‘universal subject’
• 3 The state and the making of gender: some historical legacies
• 4 Beyond liberalism? Feminist theories of democracy
• 5 The state and the discursive construction of abortion
• 6 Policing prostitution: gender, the state and community politics
• 7 Remasculinisation and the neoliberal state in Latin America
• 8 The gendered politics of land reform: three comparative studies
• 9 Gender politics and the state during Russia’s transition period
• 10 Gender, civil society and the state in China
• 11 Gender and power: women engage the state
• Index