Gender Equality, Intersectionality, and Diversity in Europe

Kenneth A. Loparo

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137028105
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Politica europea

Gender is being marginalized with the increased attention to "multiple discrimination" and civil society landscape at the transnational level is increasingly diversified. The book looks at the processes of (strategic) degendering in EU policy-making and on the interaction between EU institutions and European women's organizations.

1

POLICY MAKING, INSTITUTIONALIZATION, AND COLLECTIVE MOBILIZATION: A MODEL FOR TRANSNATIONAL INTERSECTIONAL ANALYSIS

This chapter combines a discursive approach to policy analysis with the dimension of contextualization in relation to the particular setting of the empirical study of EU policy making. According to Kantola,¹ the agents articulating discourses “act not only within a discursive context but also within an institutional context, which constitute them as both subjects and actors” (2006, 45). There is an interrelation between the discursive and the institutional context in which policies are formulated and adopted at the EU level. This combination of discursive, institutional, and contextual dimensions of EU policy making is necessary in order to investigate the role of ideas within transnational policy processes and the importance of agency in the development of policies. Furthermore, in order to develop a contextualized approach to analyzing intersectionality at the transnational level, I argue that the particularities of the transnational space, the mobilization of civil society actors, as well as the institutionalization of diversity through policy-making processes and practices must be taken into account and integrated into a coherent model of analysis.

CONTEXT, AGENCY, IDEAS: ANALYZING TRANSNATIONAL POLICIES

The following sections direct the attention to discursive institutionalism, opportunity structures, and the particularities of the transnational space. The aim is to develop a model for analyzing policy making in a transnational perspective. The transnational space is substantially different from the national one and, thus, the theoretical take on dynamics of in/exclusion of ideas must be developed accordingly. On the one hand, I wish to pay closer attention to the transnational setting and the multilevel context of EU policy making, particularly within the field of gender equality. This calls, specifically, for an assessment of what opportunity structures mean, theoretically and empirically, in relation to multilevel settings. On the other hand, the discursive approach must also be theorized in relation to this multilevel setting. Different discourses are at work in relation to different actors or institutions, and they are articulated in policy making in interplay between various levels. Furthermore, organizational and suborganizational discourses are articulated, and the specific frames speak to these discourses and draw on them.

The key dimensions of context, agency, and ideas are discussed within the broader theoretical framework of new institutionalism, which seeks to shed light upon processes of continuity and change in the development of political institutions. I particularly discuss a new and still emerging dimension of this approach, namely, gendered discursive institutionalism and its potential in terms of undertaking analyses within the transnational space. Ideational processes are significant dimensions in dynamics of institutional and policy change: The institutional context as well as the transnational opportunity structures constrains and enables actors’ possibilities of articulating certain frames within the space of political discursive struggles (see also Hobson 2003; Ruzza 2004; Tarrow 1998; 2005).

New Institutionalism: The Discursive Dimension

New institutionalism was developed as a paradigm in social and political theory in the 1980s with the aim of bringing institutions back in the theoretical spotlight of political science. Institutions should be understood broadly as stable, recurring patterns of behavior: whether material or ideational, they are dynamic social practices. As discourses, institutions are constructed (continuously) through human agency. At the same time, they impose limits on this agency. In other words, institutions shape political processes and outcome, delimiting the possibilities of action. Furthermore, institutions should not be regarded as unified entities, but rather as disaggregated yet related dimensions and practices. This means that (discursive) conflicts and tensions can arise both within and between institutions or institutionalized actors (Kantola 2006; see also Ruzza 2004).

Institutions can be seen as “embodied” (Dryzek 2005) or “sedimented” discourses, which are constituted through discursive struggles and work simultaneously as “fixed functional units” (Kulawik 2009). Institutions are, furthermore, considered to be “carriers of ideas and collective memories” and, as such, they are changeable and dynamic (Schmidt 2008; 2011). Institutional change and continuity are influenced by the (re)articulation of discourses and frames. Formal rules and informal norms interact in the institutional development; embedded norms are an important part of the institutions as they are the basis of inclusion and exclusion of actors (Kenny 2007; Mackay and Meier 2003; Orloff and Palier 2009). In sum, institutions are dynamic; they are constituted by ideas that have become institutionalized as discourses. They set the limits of in/exclusion, thereby both enabling and constraining action. Thus, ideas are institutionalized to comprise institutions, which in turn may perform agency.

Importantly, differences exist within institutions, such as the EU, as they are comprised of a conglomerate of different ideational or discursive institutionalizations. Dryzek (2005) considers institutions to be made up of discourses, which provide the context for social action, on the one hand, and formal institutional rules, on the other. In other words, structures (such as power, materiality, political realities) are as important as discourses. To Laclau and Mouffe (1985), though, there is nothing beyond discourses, and all structures are, consequently, discursive. The social constructivist approach can, however, be combined with an emphasis on the importance of strategic framing, attaining in this way a dual approach in which ideational change in institutions is seen as the result of an interaction between deliberative argumentation and political negotiation based on particular power interests (Elgström 2000). The theoretical position adopted here is inspired by this combination of ideational and material dimensions: Institutions are constituted by ideas and discourses while acknowledging at the same time the role of agency and intentionality—for example in the strategic framing of ideas. This is, furthermore, congruent with the CFA approach outlined above as opposed to the WPR approach, which does not conceive subjects outside discourse (see Introduction).

Within the new institutionalism paradigm (March and Olsen 1989), three different kinds of institutionalisms have been developed: The rational, the historical, and the sociological (see Hall and Taylor 1996; Nullmeier 2006). Schmidt (2008; 2011) adds a fourth version, namely discursive institutionalism. The basic proposition of discursive institutionalism is to explain institutional change and continuity through the analysis of ideas. It is, in other words, the “explanatory power of ideas and discourses” in a dynamic perspective (i.e., ideas explain change), which is under scrutiny here. Tracing changes in policy ideas over time will direct our attention toward shifts within particular institutions. Ideas and discourses can transform institutions, but the questions raised in discursive institutionalism are how, when, where, and why they matter (Schmidt 2008).

To these, we must add “whose” ideas and discourses matter in terms of fostering institutional change, in order to highlight the notion of agency. Ideas may enable actors to overcome the constraints of the institutional and political context. Schmidt argues that we must look at discourse as interaction and not only as content: “Discourse as an interactive process is what enables agents to change institutions, because the deliberative nature of discourse allows them to conceive of and talk about institutions as objects at a distance” (2008, 316). In this account, discourse is what you say to whom, how, why, and where in the process of policy construction.

The discursive process helps explain why some ideas fail and others succeed because of the way they are “projected to whom and where” (Schmidt 2008). There are, however, certain prerequisites for discursive dominance such as resources and “favorable conditions of access to discursive arenas” (i.e., the material or structural dimensions). The actors themselves may enhance their possibilities by using their diverse capacities to create discursive space and maintain or reproduce it (Nullmeier 2006). This idea resonates with Tarrow’s theorizing on mobilizing actors’ capacity for creating opportunity structures for themselves (1998; 2005).

Discourses become dominant within institutions based on criteria such as strength (frequency and repetition), resonance, adequacy, relevance, and coherence (Nullmeier 2006; Schmidt 2011). The idea of resonance in discursive institutionalism is parallel to that of frame theories: “The ideas in the discourse must “make sense” within a particular ideational setting [and] the discourse itself will be patterned in certain ways, following rules and expressing ideas that are socially constructed and historically transmitted” (Schmidt 2008, 313). Dostal (2004) argues that new policy ideas that relate to or resonate with the organizational discourse are more likely to be successful as it is the organizational discourse that supplies the policy frames upon which the policy change is based (see also Ruzza 2004).

The idea of organizational discourse is a way to bridge the gap between institutionalism and agenda-setting mechanisms, in a theoretical perspective. The organizational discourses are based on “discursive closure” (Dostal 2004) and they “inform the ideational grid through which the organisation . . . interprets the world” (Mahon 2009, 186). However, the organizational discourse should not be understood as a common whole: Different discourses are articulated within the organization and in its different directorates or sections. Again, internal institutional differences are highlighted. The concept is particularly useful for conducting analyses based on policy tracing with the objective of identifying the origin and development of policies that are currently dominant. It can help to determine in which institutional setting new policy ideas are developed, how they gain dominance, or how they foster policy change. In the empirical analyses presented in the remaining chapters of the book, I will explore the relationship between dominant discourses within the institutional realm and new frames, and the intrainstitutional differences in order to assess the internal dynamics of frame articulation within the EU.

However, the role of the institutional context needs to be further highlighted. Whereas the institutional context is not forgotten in discursive institutionalism, it does seem adequate to turn to one of its predecessors, namely historical institutionalism, for a strengthened emphasis on the role of institutions. Schmidt herself (2008) states that discursive and historical institutionalisms together explain change by directing attention to the critical junctures or windows of opportunity, which may shed light on the success, or failure, of certain policy ideas.² In other words, the institutional context contributes to explaining why certain policy ideas are adopted while others are not. This approach underlines the role of “macro structures and regularized practices” in the processes of shaping ideas whereas discursive institutionalism focuses on the micro level and the institutional development and the way in which discourses and ideas can reshape macro structures (Schmidt 2008; 2011).

Gendered (Discursive) Institutionalism

Feminist scholars have pointed to the fact that new institutionalist approaches, in general, lack a gender perspective. Theoretical debates have been initiated concerning the interplay between feminist political analyses and new institutionalism, with the aim of developing theoretical dimensions of the gendering of political institutions.³ These attempts are, to a large extent, informed by the institutionalist turn taking place both in feminist political analysis and in mainstream political theory with the recent focus on processes of continuity and change in political institutions, as discussed above.

In the debates regarding the potential contributions that feminist political analysis and new institutionalism may lend to each other (Kenny 2007; Kenny and Mackay 2009; Kulawik 2009; Mackay and Meier 2003), it is emphasized that the two approaches share a basic interest in institutions and processes of change. Feminist political analysis highlights the concepts of gender, power, and change in their approach to the process of gendering political institutions (Kenny 2007). Power asymmetries are played out in institutional processes, for instance, through privileging certain agents and courses of action (Kantola 2006). When new institutionalism emphasizes how “seemingly neutral institutional processes and practices are in fact embedded in hidden norms and values, privileging certain groups over others” (Kenny and Mackay 2009, 274), a gender approach adds that these hidden norms and values are indeed gendered (Mackay and Meier 2003).⁴

Drawing on the theoretical developments of Nancy Fraser, Kulawik (2009) argues that politics is about struggles of interpretation over whom, what, and how to politicize as well as the representation of needs, problems, and identities. This emphasizes the importance of contestations and in/exclusions in the policy discourse development. In other words, the approach proposed by Kulawik focuses on institutional arrangements, actor constellations, and political discourse as well as the relations between them (ibid.).

In my account, I identify similar dimensions, namely, context, agency, and ideas. My concerns are how the EU interacts with civil society actors and whether or not the transnational space and the EU institutional context privilege certain civil society actors over others, for example. Power relations, which are more highlighted in feminist political analysis than in new institutionalist approaches, are asymmetrical and build on processes of inclusion and exclusion. These relations are reinforced through institutions. Kantola seeks to “gender” the theory of new institutionalism by posing the following research question: “What kind of resistance and possibilities do institutions provide for feminist struggles in particular contexts at particular times?” (2006, 34).⁵ Institutions are gendered and they “reflect, reinforce, and structure unequal gendered power relations” (Mackay and Meier 2003, 2). Gender, thus, becomes a key analytical category as it is considered a central dimension of institutions and the institutionalization of (gender) power relations. I am particularly interested in two aspects in this regard: (1) the (de)gendering of policies (see chapters 4 and 5, in particular); and (2) the in/exclusion of civil society actors working to achieve gender equality (see chapters 2 and 3).

In relation to the latter, new institutionalism and feminist political analysis share a historical view on power relations and the idea that these are open to resistance and transformation through agency (Kenny 2007). In this way, the gendered version of new institutionalism places a particular focus on (collective) agency. Framing of feminist demands within dominant institutional discourses and the (collective) agency of women are common concerns in the synthesis between feminist political analysis and new institutionalism (Mackay and Meier 2003). Agency and the potential of (gendered) transformation of institutions become central dimensions of analyses and theorizing. The new institutionalist perspective is useful in terms of analyzing resistance as well as the interplay between actors and the institutional context as regards dominant discourses, constraints, and (re)framing of central concepts in order to convey new meanings within the institutional processes (ibid.).

Concepts of gender equality, for instance, change their meaning over time, and this contributes to institutional change. This is related to the inclusion and exclusion of political actors: The terrain on which actors struggle over representation is the universe of political discourse, a space in which identities are socially constructed. The universe of political discourse encodes an accepted set of meanings about who the legitimate actors are, the place they hold in politics, the appropriate sites of political struggle, and the form social relations ought to take (Jenson and Mahon 1993, 79).

The outcome of the struggles within the space of discursive political struggles over meanings and actor legitimacy depends on the institutional context—the asymmetrical power relations, the discursive and material resources of the actors, as well as their competences (Kulawik 2009). In addition, this highlights the interaction between the ideational processes and the institutional context in that “institutional arrangements interact with ideational influences as well, for example by affording actors with only certain worldviews a formal seat at the decision-making table, thereby selectively empowering some schemas and discourses over others” (Padamsee 2009, 423).

By focusing on change rather than continuity, feminist political analysis furthermore adds a more dynamic perspective on power to the theories of new institutionalism. Institutional change occurs in a context of political conflict, discursive contestations, and shifting alliances. Some meanings can be challenged and renegotiated, and herein lies the potential for resistance (Kenny 2007; Kenny and Mackay 2009). Gendered (discursive) institutionalism highlights, in particular, the hegemonic discursive constructions of gender. Kenny and Mackay argue that: “The ‘discursive turn’ in feminist analysis (e.g., Bacchi 1999) moves beyond power distributional perspectives, highlighting the complex interplay of discursive struggles over the interpretation and representation of needs, problems, and identities” (2009, 276). Gendered (discursive) institutionalism thus emphasizes the interaction between power, gendered discourses, and policy problem representations.

Gendered (discursive) institutionalism lin...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1 Policy making, Institutionalization, and Collective Mobilization: A Model for Transnational Intersectional Analysis
• 2 Gender and Other Inequalities in the Institutionalization of Multiple Discrimination Policies
• 3 Minority Intersectional Constituencies and Women’s Collective Mobilization at the European Level
• 4 Gender-Based Violence and the Framing of Equality Policies
• 5 Transnational Policy Framings: (De)Gendering in the Context of Institutionalization
• 6 Problematizing the “Gendered Other”: Integration, Violence, and Culturalization
• Conclusions: Interrelating Gender Equality, Intersectionality, and Diversity at the Transnational Level
• Appendix   List of Empirical Documents: European Union Policies on Multiple Discrimination and on Gender-Based Violence
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index