Gendered Institutions Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by faminconnue

Gender can be understood as a category with four analytical dimensions (Duers­tLahti and Kelly, 1995: 41)
1. Variable
For example, female, male, feminine, masculine, femini­nity, mascul­inity,
gender fluid; non-bi­nary; gender neutral
2. Gender can be the property of an individual or organi­sation
3. Set of practices revealing gender in intera­ctive behaviour, for example,
mascul­inity
4. A normative stance regarding approp­riate behaviour

Gender can be understood as a process
-> Practices and rules [can] recast the gendered nature of the political (Beckwith, 2005:: 132-133).

Gender can be understood as a perfor­mance (Butler)
-> it is something we 'do'
-> “The perfor­mative aspects of gender identity are lived by indivi­duals in relation to the web of social practices in which they are enmeshed” (McNay 2000: 36).
-> Gendered logic of approp­riate behaviour (March and Olsen; Chappell)

(Nirmal Puwar 2004)
◦ Disori­ent­ation
◦ Amplif­ication of numbers
◦ Super survei­llance
◦ Burden of doubt
◦ Burden of repres­ent­ation
◦ Infant­ili­sation
◦ Perfor­mative norms
◦ A fine balanced fusion of femininity and
mascul­inity has to be enacted

- Formal Rules - Rules of the Game: formal laws, rules and regula­tions
- Informal Rules - Rules in Use: the ‘dos and don’ts’ that one learns on the ground prohib­its­/pe­rmi­ts/­san­cti­ons­/en­for­ces­/in­cen­tiv­ise­s/d­isi­nce­nti­vises‘ the way things are done around here’.

-> Can result in change, durabi­lity, robust­ness, resistance to change, and contin­uity, thus organi­sations are dynamic and it is best to view them as processes rather than static objects.

- Any set of rules are actively interp­reted by rule-t­akers in such a
way that the rules themselves become subtly altered overtime.
- Existing rules (rules in use) become the context within which
future rule-m­aking takes place
- Rule-m­akers are also rule-t­akers, while rule-t­akers themselves
play a role in rule-m­aking
- Indivi­duals and instit­utions are mutually consti­tutive. Change is
dependent upon the relati­onship between ‘insti­tut­ional archit­ects,
instit­utional subjects and instit­utional enviro­nme­nts’.

Louise Chappell (2010: 183):-
1. Such studies provide the basis for a deeper unders­tanding of the roles and experi­ences of men and women within political instit­utions
2. Studies of this nature contribute to an unders­tanding of the policies, laws and norms that are the outcomes of political instit­utions
3. Such studies assist in explaining the
relati­onship between political instit­utions and social actors

operates inside political instit­utions giving men and mascul­inity a privileged position in interp­ers­onal, instit­utional and societal struct­ures.

"The idealised separation of state and
society parallels a division of labour that renders the contri­bution of women invisible” (Loven­duski, 1998)
-> the division between public and private

Gender is a power construct, and male gender power permeates politics, shaping its rules of access and engage­ment, as well a the outputs of the policy process.

Gender Power generates and sustains practices of inequality that advantage men and disadv­antage women. Embedded in organi­sat­ional rules,
routines, and policies, gender power normalises male dominance and renders women, along with their needs and interests, invisible ( Mary Hawkes­worth)

critiques and seeks to overcome the gender blindness of existing schola­rship in the field, to include women as actors in political processes, to ‘gender’ onstit­uti­ona­lism, and to move the research agenda towards questions about the interplay between gender and the operation and effect of political instit­utions (Mackay, Kenny and Chappell, 2010).

'Old' and 'New' Instit­utions frequently co-exist -> can result in processes of conversion and layering:
- An old instit­ution can be converted by the new instit­ution
- old and new instit­utions will co-exist and the new norms of behaviour developed in response to the new instit­ution will be layered into
existing behaviours

Old is not necess­arily informal and new is not necess­arily formal
Old and Formal -> e.g. electoral system
New and Formal -> e.g. gender quota
Old and Informal -> e.g. candidate selection practices
New and Informal -> processes to undermine the effect­iveness of gender quota's

Rather than old/new, we should consider the temporal aspects of instit­utional dynamics:
- Sequen­cing: the order things happen
- Timining: the point something happens within a sequence
- Pace: how quickly things happen

There is a pressu­pos­ition that there is a distin­ction between the inside and the outside of a political instit­ution.
-> as there is a need to differ­entiate between organi­sations and instit­utions:
- instit­utions: rules of the game
- organi­sat­ions: indivi­duals who occupy the instit­ution -> the players within that game

political instit­utions do not operate in a vacuum -> Innovation can then be bounded; sometimes it can reproduce or re-ins­cribe gendered expect­ations

There is no clear inside­/ou­tside; there is an inters­ection of between the inside and outside.

Feminist claims are made on the basis of (1) equality and (2) difference (Loven­duski, 2005)

In relation to politics this refers to:
◦ Equality: equality based claims stress women’s entitl­ements to be in politics on the same terms and in the same numbers as men (‘liberal’ feminism)
◦ Differ­ence: differ­enc­e-based claims (sometimes termed ‘socia­list’ feminism) imply that women have particular charac­ter­istics or interests that entitle
them to repres­ent­ation

there is a tension between the two positions -> "the equality
position suggests that women’s claims for political repres­ent­ation will, if succes­sful, turn them into political men. By contrast, the difference position implies that, in sufficient numbers, the presence of women repres­ent­atives will change the practice and nature of politics”

“Equality is needed if difference is to be compen­sated and difference must be recognised if equality is to be achieved”