Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:02:24.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constituting Women's Interests through Representative Claims

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2014

Karen Celis ,
Sarah Childs ,
Johanna Kantola  and
Mona Lena Krook
Karen Celis
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Sarah Childs
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Johanna Kantola
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Mona Lena Krook
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A recent wave of gender and politics research revisits the concept of “women's interests,” opening up new ways of thinking about who can articulate these interests and how to avoid essentialism in empirical analysis on women's substantive representation. This article seeks to advance these debates by integrating them with new work on political theory noting that speaking “for” a group also entails speaking “about” a group. Resolving some of the tensions presenting in existing work, the revised approach expands the range of actors engaged in making claims on behalf of “women” and draws a conceptual distinction between “issues,” broad policy categories, and “interests,” the content given to a particular issue. The contours of this new approach are illustrated via a comparative study of claims-making on behalf of “women” in three countries, revealing some overlaps but also important differences in the issues raised and arguments made regarding the nature of “women's interests.” This inductive method avoids problems of essentialism by arguing that “women” and “women's interests” are constructed through, and not simply reflected in, political advocacy on their behalf.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 149 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcoff, Linda. 1991–1992. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique 20: 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacchi, Carol Lee. 1996. The Politics of Affirmative Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Baldez, Lisa. 2011. “The UN Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): A New Way to Measure Women's Interests.” Politics & Gender 7 (3): 419–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassel, Leah, and Emejulu, Akwugo. 2010. “Struggles for Institutional Space in France and the United Kingdom.” Politics & Gender 6 (4): 517–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckwith, Karen. 2011. “Interests, Issues, and Preferences: Women's Interests and Epiphenomena of Activism.” Politics & Gender 7 (3): 424–29.Google Scholar
Benford, Robert D., and Snow, David A.. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–39.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A. 2005. “Critical Mass Theory Revisited.” Politics & Gender 1 (1): 97–125.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1968. Reflections on the Revolution in France. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Campbell, Rosie, Childs, Sarah, and Lovenduski, Joni. 2009. “Do Women Need Women Representatives?” British Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 171–94.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan J., ed. 1995. Impact of Women in Public Office. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Celis, Karen. 2006. “Substantive Representation of Women and the Impact of Descriptive Representation.” Journal of Women, Politics and Policy 28 (2): 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celis, Karen. 2012. “On Substantive Representation, Diversity, and Responsiveness.” Politics & Gender 8 (4): 524–29.Google Scholar
Celis, Karen, and Childs, Sarah. 2012. “The Substantive Representation of Women: What to Do with Conservatives' Claims?” Political Studies 60 (1): 213–25.Google Scholar
Celis, Karen, and Childs, Sarah. 2013. “‘Good’ Substantive Representation: A Feminist Economy of Claims.” Paper presented at the European Conference on Politics and Gender, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Celis, Karen, Childs, Sarah, Kantola, Johanna, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2008. “Rethinking Women's Substantive Representation.” Representation 44 (2): 99–110.Google Scholar
Chappell, Louise, and Hill, Lisa, eds. 2006. The Politics of Women's Interests. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2004. Women Representing Women. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah, Webb, Paul, and Marthaler, Sally. 2010. “Constituting and Substantively Representing Women.” Politics & Gender 6 (4): 199–223.Google Scholar
Diamond, Irene, and Hartsock, Nancy. 1981. “Beyond Interests in Politics.” American Political Science Review 75 (3): 717–21.Google Scholar
Dodson, Debra. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1985. Politics Against Markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Liesl. 2010. Feminist Policymaking in Chile. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Holli, Anne Maria. 2008. “Feminist Triangles.” Representation 44 (2): 169–85.Google Scholar
Jónasdóttir, Anna G. 1988. “On the Concept of Interests, Women's Interests, and the Limitation of Interest Theory.” In The Political Interests of Gender, ed. Jones, Kathleen B. and Jónasdóttir, Anna G.. London: Sage, 33–65.Google Scholar
Jónasdóttir, Anna G., and Jones, Kathleen B., eds. 2009. The Political Interests of Gender Revisited. New York: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Kantola, Johanna. 2006. Feminists Theorize the State. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittilson, Miki Caul. 2008. “Representing Women: The Adoption of Family Leave in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Politics 70 (2): 323–34.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004. Content Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena, Lovenduski, Joni, and Squires, Judith. 2009. “Gender Quotas and Models of Political Citizenship.” British Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 781–803.Google Scholar
Lombardo, Emanuela, Meier, Petra, and Verloo, Mieke, eds. 2009. The Discursive Politics of Gender Equality: Stretching, Bending and Policymaking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni, ed. 2005. State Feminism and Political Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2011. “Clarifying the Concept of Representation.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 621–30.Google Scholar
McBride, Dorothy, and Mazur, Amy. 2010. The Politics of State Feminism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Petra. 2000. “The Evidence of Being Present.” Acta Politica 35 (1): 64–85.Google Scholar
Molyneux, Maxine. 1985. “Mobilization without Emancipation? Women's Interests, the State, and Revolution in Nicaragua” Feminist Studies 11 (2): 227–54.Google Scholar
Montanaro, Laura. 2012. “The Democratic Legitimacy of Self-Appointed Representatives.” Journal of Politics 74 (4): 1094–1107.Google Scholar
Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2002. A Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
O'Regan, Valerie. 2000. Gender Matters. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2006. “General Theory of Political Representation.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth, and Swers, Michele. 2011. “An Endogenous Approach to Women's Interests: When Interests are Interesting in and of Themselves.” Politics & Gender 7 (3): 429–35.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “When are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.” American Political Science Review 75 (3): 701–16.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2010. The Representative Claim. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting Feminism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severs, Eline. 2012. “Substantive Representation through a Claims-Making Lens.” Representation 48 (2): 169–81.Google Scholar
Smooth, Wendy. 2011. “Standing for Women? Which Women? The Substantive Representation of Women's Interests and the Research Imperative of Intersectionality.” Politics & Gender 7 (3): 436–41.Google Scholar
Squires, Judith. 2008. “The Constitutive Representation of Gender.” Representation 44 (2): 187–204.Google Scholar
Street, John. 2004. “Celebrity Politicians: Popular Culture and Political Representation.” British Journal of Politics & International Relations 6 (4): 435–52.Google Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2006. “Do Interest Groups Represent the Disadvantaged?” Journal of Politics 68 (4): 894–910.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 1998. “Are Women More Likely to Vote for Women's Issue Bills Than Their Male Colleagues?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (3): 435–48.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Taylor-Robinson, Michelle M., and Heath, Roseanna M.. 2003. “Do Women Legislators Have Different Policy Priorities than Their Male Colleagues?” Women and Politics 24 (4): 77–100.Google Scholar
Vickers, Jill. 2006. “The Problem with Interests: Making Political Claims for ‘Women.’” In The Politics of Women's Interests, ed. Chappell, Louise and Hill, Lisa. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wängnerud, Lena. 2000. “Testing the Politics of Presence.” Scandinavian Political Studies 23 (1): 67–91.Google Scholar
Weldon, S. Laurel. 2002. “Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for Women in Democratic Policymaking.” Journal of Politics 64 (4): 132–54.Google Scholar
Weldon, S. Laurel. 2006. “Inclusion, Solidarity, and Social Movements.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (1): 55–74.Google Scholar
Weldon, S. Laurel. 2011a. “Perspectives Against Interests.” Politics & Gender 7 (3): 441–46.Google Scholar
Weldon, S. Laurel. 2011b. When Protest Makes Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Celis Supplementary Material

Abstract

Download Celis Supplementary Material(File)
File 13.6 KB