This article was downloaded by:[Turku University Library]
On: 3 August 2007
Access Details: [subscription number 731819895]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Nora, Nordic Journal of Women's
Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713800832
Political Constructions of Gender Equality: Travelling
Towards … a Gender Balanced Society?
Hege Skjeie a; Mari Teigen b
a
Institute for Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway
b
Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway
Online Publication Date: 01 December 2005
To cite this Article: Skjeie, Hege and Teigen, Mari (2005) 'Political Constructions of
Gender Equality: Travelling Towards … a Gender Balanced Society?', Nora, Nordic
Journal of Women's Studies, 13:3, 187 - 197
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/08038740600590004
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08038740600590004
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
© Taylor and Francis 2007
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies,
Vol. 13, No. 3, 187–197, December 2005
Political Constructions of Gender
Equality: Travelling Towards … a Gender
Balanced Society?
HEGE SKJEIE* & MARI TEIGEN**
*Institute for Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway and **Institute for Social Research, Oslo,
Norway
ABSTRACT The article discusses equal rights to equal participation and public policies for
gender balance in different societal arenas. Although gender balance is a central aim of official
Norwegian gender equality politics, male hegemony is the dominant feature in most institutional
settings of leadership, power and influence. This inconsistency is rhetorically handled through
travel metaphors of gender equality and utility arguments about women’s contributions to public
life. Gender equality then becomes a question of time, and of how society would profit from
‘‘more’’ gender equality. The rights perspective is distorted. In the final part of the article, we
discuss alternative, normative, approaches: gender balance in relation to parity in participation, a
distributive norm of simple equality, and principles of non-discrimination.
In worldwide comparisons of gender equality, the Nordic countries are regularly
placed at the top of the country ranking lists. Yet, in all these ‘‘best practice’’ countries,
patterns of strong institutional male dominance tend to persist, as large-scale national
surveys have shown (Christiansen et al. 2001; Skjeie & Teigen 2003; Ruostetsaari 2005;
Teigen & Wängnerud 2005). As a way of handling such persistent inequality, political
leaders often frame gender equality as a kind of nationally encapsulated journey. This
is the cherished image of the ‘‘road towards’’ gender equality—the view of gradual
equalization between women and men vis-à-vis power and resources, participation and
influence. The travel metaphor portrays equality as a linear process of evolvement
where we are all, together, continuously taking new steps towards the goal. This goal
might still be ‘‘far ahead’’, but nevertheless it is securely within our reach; we just have
to travel for long and far enough. Official gender equality rhetoric contains many
references to areas of society which might have ‘‘a long way to go’’. In other areas,
‘‘considerable steps have been taken’’. Some ‘‘setbacks’’ might occur, some parts of
society are ‘‘lagging behind’’, while others are ‘‘almost there’’. In this portrayal
of gradual, harmonious, evolvement, gender equality is represented as a series of
measurable progressive steps, with an actual end station: the gender equal democracy.
Correspondence Address: Mari Teigen, Institutt for samfunnsforskning, Postboks 3233 Elisenberg, NO0208 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: +47 23 08 61 85. Email: [email protected]
0803-8740 Print/1502-394X Online/05/010001–197 # 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/08038740600590004
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
188
H. Skjeie & M. Teigen
Closely connected to the image of the journey towards gender equality is one
particular argument about why gender equality is so important to ‘‘achieve’’. This
argument addresses the usefulness of gender equality or, mainly, the many ways that
women will enrich the public sphere, when gender equality is finally here. Women—
as such—have special contributions to make. Varieties of the utility-oriented
argument may underscore that women represent an ‘‘unused’’ pool of talent; a
‘‘different’’ set of perspectives; a ‘‘broader’’ point of view, an ‘‘extended’’
legitimation basis, etc. There should be no doubt that women truly are worthy
citizens, utility arguments thus maintain. In this assurance, gender equality is
transformed from a basic right to a supplementary good.
In this article, we will discuss one particular aspect of Norwegian gender equality
policies: the efforts to achieve gender balance in different societal arenas through
formal regulations of the gender composition of different institutional bodies. This
discussion is carried out in the light of a specific formulation of equality rights. We
argue for a renewed conceptualization of gender equality which can take as its point
of departure a two-fold perspective including both the right to freedom and
autonomy, and the right to democratic participation (Skjeie & Teigen 2003; 2005).
The participatory norm we thus advocate is ‘‘an equal right to equal participation’’.
Being critical of the state’s ad hoc approach to institutional gender balance policies,
the way in which these policies mainly are argued, and also the peculiar ethnocentric
exclusiveness granted to gender where participatory guarantees are concerned, we do
not, however, similarly question the basic importance of state-initiated gender
balance policies as a possible means of securing the equal right to equal participation
for all citizens. This is what will be elaborated in the last part of the article. We will,
however, start by explaining how we interpret ‘‘the equality journey’’ as a strategic
way of handling the problem of institutional male dominance within a setting of ad
hoc and contingent political ambitions to realize the opposite—that is, gender
balance.
Gender Balance Policies
Gender quotas have played a prominent role in Norwegian gender equality
policies—probably more so than in the other Nordic countries (Borchorst 1999). A
diverse set of (re)distributive regulations have over the past 30 years been put in
place. National laws regulate the gender composition of publicly appointed boards
and committees at state and municipal levels as well as the gender composition of the
boards of public and private companies. In five out of the seven major political
parties, internal regulations set guidelines for the gender composition of party bodies
and party electoral lists. All these quota regulations are phrased as minimal rules for
gender balance. They do not impose a literal balance—a 50%–50% distribution of
women and men—but rather a form of adjustable/flexible gender balance thresholds
of 40%–60%.1
Contradictory tendencies inform the formulation of Norwegian gender equality
policy. Firstly, proponents for gender balance regulations advocate radical
redistributive measures, but they do this mainly with the support of a rhetoric
underscoring consensual gradualism and shared societal projects and values—that is,
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
Political Constructions of Gender Equality
189
the gender equality journey. Secondly, political arguments in favour of gender
balance rarely reflect upon the justice/injustice embedded in or expressed through
gender-skewed participation per se, but rather tend to promote gender balance with
reference to the ‘‘greater good’’ the balanced participation will create. In official
gender equality rhetoric, allusions to travelling and utility arguments combine to
form a particular appeasement strategy—they represent a ‘‘catch-all’’ rhetoric which
hides more fundamental contestations over gender balance policies. Thirdly, both
state and party-initiated quota policies are strictly limited to gender only. No
measures have been introduced to secure participation from for instance ethnic
minorities in party politics, on public boards and committees or in work places, for
that matter. Quite the reverse; in this respect institutional targets or methods to
achieve ‘‘fair representation’’ (cf. Hansen 2005) have been explicitly rejected by the
government (Stortingsmelding 49, 2003–2004). Generally speaking, policies for
achieving gender balance do not stress other important aspects of balanced
participation.
We have mapped attitudes to gender equality measures in a comprehensive elite
survey which was conducted within the framework of the government-initiated
Norwegian Power and Democracy Study of 1998–2002 (Skjeie & Teigen 2003). The
survey revealed an overall male dominance of 84% in national elite positions, with
variations from 63% in party politics to 96% in business corporations. The results
bluntly demonstrated that on elite levels of society, few ‘‘roads’’ to gender equality
had yet been paved in Norway.
The interviews with Norwegian elites documented how a general consensus, across
different leadership strata, on the importance of gender equality policies combined
with a willingness to subordinate gender equality to competing principles or
interests. This was demonstrated when leaders were asked about their priorities
concerning political issues which simultaneously pose conflicts of interests in areas of
Figure 1. Variations in the gender composition of Norwegian elites by sector
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
190
H. Skjeie & M. Teigen
particular relevance to them. For instance, the survey showed how business leaders
often support affirmative action in hiring processes in the public sector, but largely
reject gender quotas on the boards of private businesses. Most church leaders are
eager protagonists for quota regulations in politics, work places and higher
education, but largely reject the idea that gender discrimination within the
Norwegian state church should be prohibited by law. Labour party leaders are
clearly more supportive of a prohibition of gender discrimination within the church,
than of politics which would prioritize wage increases in the care professions of the
public sector. This way, attitudes towards gender equality policies become marked
by contradictions of benevolent/conditional (non-)committal (Skjeie & Teigen 2003).
One set of gender balance policies is particularly illustrative of this. The male
hegemony in top leadership of large business corporations has for several years been
challenged by gender equality policies. From the mid-1990s there has been much
public debate about a proposition to expand the existing gender quota regulation
which concerns publicly appointed boards to also include the decision-making
boards of large businesses. In 2004 a new regulation on the composition of the
boards of publicly owned companies came into effect, establishing a regulation of
minimum 40%–60% gender balance for them. From 2006, the same regulation
applies to limited companies in the private sector. This regulation is the only one of
its kind. No other government has demonstrated similar interventionist ambitions
towards the governing bodies of private business. The regulation was proposed by a
centrist-conservative coalition cabinet where the major partner, the Conservative
Party, largely opposes quota policies as such, and also has rejected gender balance
measures within the party organization.
As far as the consistency of public policies is concerned, we also find it quite
peculiar that elected bodies as such—parliament, regional and municipal councils—
are exempt from general gender balance measures. The question of why fixed
participation ratios would be more paramount in business than in parliament has
never been publicly addressed by leading politicians in any party. An unspecified
argument about the voters’ right to decide the composition of elected bodies or a
similarly vague argument of party autonomy, still seem to support a politics of noninterference there. In reality, this is a tacit hands-off agreement among and across
political parties that otherwise may eagerly support gender balance policies.
Such conditional non-committal can, however, remain tacit under the umbrella of
travel rhetoric—the image of a harmonious development of policies, and a language
emphasizing that changes in ‘‘the right direction’’ are happening all the time. There is
an implicit ‘‘be patient’’ clause embedded in this rhetoric which relies on the internal
logic of the road/the travel/the journey. The journey requires patience. More time
simply needs to pass for patterns of male dominance evolve into gender equality. On
the equality journey, everybody involved is really working hard and truly doing her/
his best to achieve the common goal.
The ‘‘Utility’’ of Gender Balance
In the context of 1980s elaborations on Nordic state feminism, Helga Hernes outlined
three major—observationally based—arguments for participatory demands (Hernes
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
Political Constructions of Gender Equality
191
1982; 1987). She distinguished between the democratic right to participation (the
justice argument), an argument about women’s important contributions (the
resource argument), and an argument about conflicting gender-structured political
interests (the interest argument). In actual political debate, all three kinds of
arguments were often intertwined (cf. Dahlerup 2005).2 As Marian Sawer has
observed, arguments about justice regularly need to be supplemented by utility
arguments to convert power holders to the cause (Sawer 2000:363).
An analysis of party political conceptualizations, which included interviews with
members of Parliament and the then world famously mediated Women’s Cabinet
headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, revealed the importance of a ‘‘rhetoric of
difference’’ supporting internal party quota policies and gender sensitive nomination
politics in Norway (Skjeie 1992). This rhetoric primarily stressed women’s and men’s
different contributions to political life, based on different (gendered) perspectives
and experiences. The inclusion of women was thought to challenge and change
established political priorities within all the major political parties (although in
somewhat different, party-specific ways).
In the first attempts to regulate the gender composition of public boards and
commissions in the late 1970s, one major argument from the committee preparing
the legislation was that women would contribute to a broader representation of ‘‘the
public point of view’’ (Solhøy 1999; Teigen 2002). Next was an argument about the
just distribution of these influential positions. When reserved seats for female
students were introduced in higher technical education in Norway in the late 1990s,
women were held to provide a new, and much needed, focus on communication skills
and user-friendliness (Teigen 2000). Anne Therese Lotherington (2002) has described
how equality initiatives directed towards the private sector of the economy in the
1990s mainly were supported by arguments for profit. They stressed how a
continuing neglect of competent women hurt businesses as they were not able to
realize their full profit potential. When the first proposal to regulate the boards of
private companies was presented, in 1999, the ministry in charge made use of all
three main types of arguments (cf. Hernes 1982; 1987). Later on, profitability
arguments such as those described by Lotherington became hegemonic.
Most often arguments for gender balance address the usefulness of gender
equality. That is, they underscore the many ways that women will enrich the public
sphere through equal participation. This is particularly notable when gender balance
policies move beyond the clear-cut context of political participation—utility
arguments heap up when women are to enter boardrooms, judicial offices and
professorships in order to ‘‘save the institutions’’. ‘‘Women’’ will better serve
students; advance the climate in the workplace; improve risk assessments; enhance
the company image (cf. Skjeie & Teigen 2005). But as Eeva Raevaara has shown,
even explicit debates about political participation tend to be marked by utility
considerations: arguments about the harmonious cooperation of men and women
for common goals; the need for women’s experiences and expertise to be integrated
in political decision-making in order to improve the political system (Raevaara
2004:12).
Consequently, concern with gender equality is often reduced to a question of what
‘‘women’’ can ‘‘contribute’’. As Drude Dahlerup has observed, in countries all over
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
192
H. Skjeie & M. Teigen
the world, today efforts to secure more equal political participation rely on the
‘‘making of a difference’’ discourse (Dahlerup 2005). Yet the rhetorical effects of this
ought to be contemplated: in this way of arguing, participatory concerns are also
rhetorically transformed to concerns about ‘‘the greater good’’. In business-related
contexts, this mainly means concerns about profitability and productivity. The
partial turning of utility into profitability is of course also strategically context
dependent. A broad utility argument, for instance one about the duty of businesses
to enrich the public sphere by means of gender-balanced recruitment to boards,
could hardly hope to convince anybody.
There is a deeply problematic rhetorical trap in the appeasing utility arguments.
When gender equality is argued as a means of securing competitiveness and/or
broader points of view, the category of ‘‘women’’ becomes a representation of
‘‘means’’ for companies and organizations to use. Utility puts equality on the
defence: A field that must be defended with something else than its own value. And
participation becomes contingent on other success criteria: What if women’s equal
participation does not change priorities or enforce productivity? Should existing
regulations for gender balance then be abolished?
Some Serious Questions about Literal Gender Balance
The combination of travel allusions and utility talk in arguments about gender
equality tends to distort the rights basis of equality claims. This happens regardless
of how women’s rights to equality are secured transnationally as human rights.
CEDAW statutes (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women) make it clear that it is the obligation of the state to take all
appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person,
organization or enterprise, and to pursue a policy which realizes the principle of
equality in practice. This includes an obligation to take all appropriate measures to
eliminate cultural and social patterns, prejudices, and practices which are based on
the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes. Equal participatory
rights are core rights in CEDAW.
How do participatory rights relate to actual political measures/state initiatives to
secure gender balanced distributions in different societal arenas? Can such measures
be thought of as genuinely participatory, or are they mainly reparative? As stated in
the introduction, we principally regard a gender balance regulation as a participatory
guarantee. In this final section, we will discuss this by way of a few familiar
contestations over gender balance in relation to parity in participation, the
distributive principle of simple equality and individual rights to non-discrimination.
Parity in participation: The statutes of CEDAW on equal political rights utilize the
formulation ‘‘on equal terms’’ in their guarantees of expression, voting, eligibility,
and participatory rights. The requirement, on equal terms, seems quite close to the
‘‘parity in participation’’ principle formulated by Nancy Fraser; parity here meaning
being a peer, being on a par, standing on an equal footing (2003:101). Fraser argues
for parity in participation as a principle, or ideal, which connects recognition claims
and redistributive concerns—the cultural and economic dimensions—in a broader
conceptualization of democratic justice, which covers all levels and areas of society
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
Political Constructions of Gender Equality
193
(Fraser 2005:15). Democratic justice requires parity of participation in a multiplicity
of arenas, including the labour market, sexual relations, family life, public sphere,
and voluntary organizations in civil society.
But this does not mean that Fraser regards literal gender balance as equivalent to
parity in participation. According to her, parity is a qualitative condition which
cannot be guaranteed by mere numbers. With particular reference to electoral
politics, she actually detaches this ideal of parity from for instance the French parité,
‘‘the demand that women occupy a full 50% of seats in parliament and other
representative political bodies, and parity means strict numerical gender equality in
political representation’’ (Fraser 2003:101). She wishes to leave open for democratic
deliberation exactly what degree or level of equality is necessary to ensure being a
peer/being on a par. Fraser stresses that ‘‘the moral requirement’’ is that members of
society be ensured the possibility of parity, if and when they choose to participate in
a given activity or interaction. There is no requirement that everyone actually
participate in any such activity (2003:101).
Conditions for equal participation are crucial to Fraser. So, we would guess, is
participation itself. But in her expressed reservations about the French parité,
concerns seem to shift somewhat, and rather move towards non-participation rights.
This stress seems unnecessary in at least one sense. It is clear that the normative
standard of parity addresses the level of the individual, the individual being the
subject for (considerations about) justice. A 50%–50% distribution in participation
does not address individuals as such. But there is nothing in regulations of gender
balance which requires participation by ‘‘everyone’’. Such regulations prescribe
participation ratios. They are regulations on a genuine institutional level, and do not,
by intent or otherwise, require any/every individual to partake in a specific setting or
activity. To Fraser, justice is, by definition, related to institutions and structures, as
these determine the very conditions of interaction and participation (Fraser 2005:12).
Institutional design is crucial to participation. It is our argument that a gender
balance measure preferably should be seen in this perspective: as one form of
redistributive institutional design. A gender balance regulation represents a simple,
and solely institutional, guarantee, or confirmation, of equal rights to equal
participation.
Simple equality: When discussing different viewpoints on in/-equalities, Anne
Phillips (1999) takes John Rawls as a departure point for an outline of the
distributive norm of simple equality. She starts with Rawls’ famous statement that
‘‘All societal primary goods—liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the
bases of self-respect—are to be distributed equally’’, which is followed by the no less
famous ‘‘unless’’: ‘‘unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to
the advantage of the least favoured ‘‘ (Phillips 1999:49). The ideal equality is a simple
equality, and there is no moral reason for querying this ideal, Phillips comments
(1999:50). She then makes the ‘‘unlikely’’ connection between simple equal
distributions and ideals about gender equality framed as gender equal distributions:
For many feminists, sexual equality has meant just that: it has meant women
and men sharing equally in care work (not men doing ‘‘a bit more’’ house work
or taking ‘‘a bit more’’ responsibility for their children); men and women being
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
194
H. Skjeie & M. Teigen
equally represented in all the occupations within the society; men and women
being elected in equal numbers to all the decision-making arenas, including the
legislative assembly (Phillips 1999:50).
Simple equality makes no significant space between ‘‘equality of opportunity’’ and
‘‘equality of outcome’’, Phillips further observes. If the outcomes turn out to be
statistically unequal related to sex, the opportunities were almost certainly unequal
(Phillips 1999:50; 2004;7 cf. Teigen 2004). Such a reasoning is largely shared by Nancy
Fraser, who also is sure that ‘‘the severe under-representation of women in legislative
assemblies and other formal political institutions usually signifies qualitative
disparities of participation in social life’’ (cited in Holst 2005:331). But Fraser still
rejects distributive formulas as relevant means to parity in participation. Participation
means different things on different arenas, and no single formula can suffice.
Crushed by the lack of space between opportunities and outcomes is the simple
fact that some gender-skewed distributions might reflect some autonomous, if
gender-typical, choices, Cathrine Holst has pointed out (Holst 2004; 2005).
Expanding on a familiar liberal theme, she argues that reasoning from group
imbalances to individual opportunities is too drastic when it categorically risks
denying citizens’ autonomy. Imbalance on the group level does not necessarily
indicate a lack of freedom at the individual level, regardless of the circumstances
(2005:330). And our principles of justice should express the respect that our status as
persons accords us. Justice is what we owe to each other as persons. Fifty-fifty
distributions say nothing about the individual women’s living conditions. Gender
balance defined as equality of outcome at the gender group level does not guarantee
all women’s dignity. It is therefore inadequate as a feminist principle of justice (Holst
2005:329).
Holst is right on the first point, but may still be wrong on the second. Simple
equality—equal distribution—has little to say about each individual. But it is hard to
see how this makes gender balance ‘‘inadequate as a feminist principle of justice’’. It
cannot be the sole principle. But institutional guarantees of equal rights to equal
participation are, as we see it, of crucial importance to women’s citizenship status.
An example may hopefully demonstrate how. In multiculturalist debates over the
recognition of minority/group-specific rights, the problem of external protection/
internal restriction is at the forefront. Should minorities be granted special
protection even if this implies particular restrictions on some of the members—
may women be at the mercy of for instance religious group interpretations of
gendered rights? ‘‘No’’, the otherwise adversaries Will Kymlicka (1999) and Susan
Moller Okin (1999) here agree. Kymlicka offers the following specification of
conditions: Only those forms of external protections are acceptable which do not
limit internal choices. But how can this situation be decided upon? Okin follows up
in equally simple terms: The very least multiculturalists must ascertain is the equal
participation of equal numbers of men and women in negotiations about
protections.
Non-discrimination: Could procedures to realize gender balance violate the basic
principle of non-discrimination? This is a main problem in liberal contestations
about positive action measures. Influential versions of the liberal position have
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
Political Constructions of Gender Equality
195
understood gender equality foremost as the absence of gender discrimination, and
maintained that discrimination has to be dealt with individually. Discrimination
does not take on a different meaning simply because women as a group
systematically hold a weaker status in society as compared to men as a group, and
the individual right to non-discrimination must be the base-line for fair and just
treatment. People have a universal right to be judged on the basis of individual merit,
as opposed to group-based characteristics: ‘‘individuals count, not groups’’, as it is
argued by for instance Jon Elster (1992).
There are, however, clear disagreements about what constitutes unjust treatment
within the broad liberal position. Ronald Dworkin discusses the legitimacy of
affirmative action programs in American universities (Dworkin 2000). He argues
that the core of the liberal argument is not the principle of equal treatment, but
everyone’s inviolable right to be treated individually. Selection processes are, by
necessity, processes of differential treatment. The crucial liberal condition is whether
each and every individual is judged with respect, on an individual basis. As long as
the individuality principle is complied to, authorities are quite free to decide the type
and the prioritizing of criteria in a selection process.
This broad understanding is today reflected in most gender equality legislation.
The non-discrimination principle formulated in the Norwegian Gender Equality Act
is as follows: ‘‘Direct or indirect discrimination between women and men is not
permitted’’ (1 3). This is combined with a statute on the legality of positive action
measures: ‘‘Differential treatment that promotes gender equality in conformity with
the purpose of this Act is not a contravention of section 3’’ (1 3a). Both the
Norwegian law on gender equality and the CEDAW convention, which since 2005
forms a separate, incorporated, part of this national law, are clear on this point. The
principle of non-discrimination is not, in itself, a hindrance to undertakings that
promote gender balance.
Concluding Remark
Current gender balance policies are rhetorically wrapped in travel metaphors and
appeasing arguments about women’s utility. Largely, these arguments treat women
as a uniform category with a special contribution to make. But regulations on gender
balance might still represent, in our view, an important form of democratizing
institutional design. Our basic understanding of gender balance is that it expresses an
equal right to equal participation. In many countries, activism to secure equal
participation relies on gender balancing designs. What is more than deplorable is
that the goal of gender balance can be publicly argued in ways which threaten to
violate the dignity and personhood of women. We agree with other analysts of
gender balance discourses in our evaluation that these contain power plays where
considerations about justice regularly have to give way to other concerns (cf.
Raevaara 2004; Sawer 2000).
Still, let us return to the male hegemonies of the top echelons of public
administration, business, church or courts in Norway. Why should we care about
their composition? For individual reasons? For utilitarian reasons? Or mainly
because they, quite literally, offer very few options for women to participate on an
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
196
H. Skjeie & M. Teigen
equal footing? In these institutions, few decisions are today negotiated on
anything close to gender equal terms. Here negotiations are primarily carried out
amongst men. This can hardly be labelled democratic, in a simple meaning of the
word.
Notes
1
For an in depth study of the workings of 40%–60% regulations on the municipal level in Norway, see
Guldvik 2005.
2
For a detailed analysis of the prevalence of different argumentation types as ‘‘grounds for support of
gender equality’’, on both elite and population levels, see Skjeie & Teigen 2003, chapter 10, or Skjeie &
Teigen 2005. In both publications, we also expand the analysis of utility rhetoric.
References
Borchorst, Anette (1999) Gender Equality Legislation, in: Bergquist, Christina (Ed.) Equal Democracies?
(Oslo: Norwegian University Press).
Christiansen, Peter Munk , Møller, Birgit & Togeby, Lise (2001) Den danske elite [The Danish Elite]
(København: Hans Reitzel).
Dahlerup, Drude (2005) Hvorfor ligestilling? En forskningskommentar [Why gender equality?], Kvinder,
køn og forskning [Women, Gender and Research] 4, pp. 68–73.
Dworkin, Ronald (2000) Sovereign Virtue: the Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press).
Elster, Jon (1992) Local Justice: How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Fraser, Nancy (2003) Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition and
Participation, in: Fraser, Nancy & Honneth, Axel (Eds) Redistribution or Recognition? A Politicalphilosophical Exchange (London: Verso).
Fraser, Nancy (2005) Anerkendelse, omfordeling og representation [Recognition, Redistribution and
Representation], interview in: Kvinder, køn og forskning [Women, Gender and Research] 5, pp. 7–16.
Guldvik, Ingrid (2005) Takt og utakt, sagt og usagt. Kjønnsrettferdighet og kvotering i lokalpolitikken
[Gender justice and quotas in local politics] (Trondheim: NTNU 2005:155).
Hansen, Lise Lotte (2005) At skabe lighed i deltagelse i praksis. Nye veje til ligestilling [To create parity in
participation in practice], Kvinder, køn og forskning [Women, Gender and Research] 5, pp. 17–29.
Hernes, Helga (1982) Staten—kvinner ingen adgang? [The State—Women no Access?] (Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget).
Hernes, Helga
(1987) Welfare State and Woman Power—Essays in State Feminism (Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget).
Holst, Cathrine (2004) Det kjønnsbalanserte samfunn [The gender balanced society], Nytt Norsk
Tidsskrift [New Norwegian Journal] 4, pp. 212–216.
Holst, Cathrine (2005) Feminism, Epistemology and Morality (Bergen: University of Bergen).
Kymlicka, Will (1999) Liberal complacencies, in: Cohen, Joshua, Howard, Matthew & Nussbaum,
Martha (Eds) Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Susan Moller Okin with respondents (Princeton:
Princeton University Press).
Lotherington, Anne Therese (2002) Konstruksjon av politiske problemer: Hva slags problem
representerer ‘‘likestilling? [Constructions of Political Problems: What Kind of Problem does
’’Gender Equality’’ Represent?], paper presented at the conference Det likestilte Norden som
framtidsverksted [The Gender Equal Nordic Countries as a Laboratory for the Future] Stockholm,
Sweden, February 2002.
Okin, Susan Moller (1999) Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? in: Cohen, Joshua , Matthew &
Nussbaum, Martha (Eds) Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Susan Moller Okin with respondents
(Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Phillips, Anne (1999) Which Equalities Matter? (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Downloaded By: [Turku University Library] At: 07:18 3 August 2007
Political Constructions of Gender Equality
197
Phillips, Anne (2004) ‘‘Defending Equality of Outcome’’. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 12, nr.1, pp.
1–19.
Raevaara, Eeva (2004) In the Land of Equality? Gender Equality and the Construction of Finnishness and
Frenchness in the Parliamentary Debates in Finland and France (Helsinki: Christina Institute for
Women’s Studies).
Ruostetsaari, Ilkka (2005) Social Upheaval and Transformation of the Finnish Political and Business
Elites, paper presented at the conference Changing Patterns of Elite Rule in the Western Democracies,
Balestrand, Norway, June 2005.
Sawer, Marian (2000) Parliamentary Representation of Women: From Discourses of Justice to Strategies
of Accountability, International Political Science Review 4, pp. 361–380.
Skjeie, Hege (1992) Den politiske betydningen av kjønn [The political meaning of gender] (Oslo: Institute
for social research, ISF Report 92:11).
Skjeie, Hege & Teigen, Mari (2003) Menn i mellom. Mannsdominans og likestillingspolitikk [Amongst
Men. Male Dominance and Gender Equality Politics] (Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk).
Skjeie, Hege & Teigen, Mari (2005) Nødvendig—nyttig—rettferdig? Likestillingsargumenter i offentlig
debatt. [Neccessary—useful—just? Gender equality arguments in public debate], Kvinder, køn og
forskning [Women, Gender and Research] 4, pp. 30–41.
Solhøy, Stina H. (1999) Politisk vilje møter institusjonell autonomi. En studie av innføring, praktisering og
hånheving av likestillingslovens 1 21 [Political will meets institutional autonomy.] Master thesis in
Political Science, University of Oslo).
Stortingsmelding nr. 49 (2003–2004) Mangfold gjennom inkludering og deltakelse [Diversity through
inclusion and participation] (Oslo: Kommunal- og regionaldepartementet).
Teigen, Mari (2000) Likestilling som legitimeringsstrategi: Rekrutteringsnormer og likestillingspolitikk
ved NTNU [Gender Equality—A Strategy for Legitimacy], Sosiologisk tidsskrift [Journal of
Sociology] 2, pp. 125–147.
Teigen, Mari (2002) Kvotering til styreverv—mellom offentlig regulering og privat handlefrihet [Gender
Quotas in Board Member Selection], Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning [Journal of Societal Research]
1, pp. 73–104.
Teigen, Mari (2004) Kjønnsfrihet [Liberty of Gender], Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift [New Norwegian Journal] 1,
pp. 86–94.
Teigen, Mari & Wängnerud, Lena (2005) Tracing Gender Cultures, Elite Perceptions in Sweden and
Norway, paper presented at the conference Changing Patterns of Elite Rule in the Western
Democracies, Balestrand, Norway, 9–12 June 2005.
Hege Skjeie is Professor at the Institute for Political Science, University of Oslo,
Norway. Her major areas of research are in the fields of democracy and human
rights regimes, religion and gender equality and the governance traditions of social
democracy. Some of her recent publications are: Trosfrihet og diskrimineringsvern
(Kvinneforskning (4) 2004); Nødvendig—Nyttig—Rettferdig? Likestillingsargumenter
i offentlig debatt with Mari Teigen (Kvinder, køn & forskning (4) 2005); The
Scandinavian Model of Citizenship and Feminist Debate with Birte Siim, in: Bellamy,
Castiglione & Santaro (Eds) Lineages of European Citizenship: Rights, Belonging
and Participation in Eleven Nation-States (2004).
Mari Teigen is Research Director at the Institute for Social Research, Oslo,
Norway. Her major areas of research are in the fields of gender equality policies;
recruitment and selection processes and gender and elites. Some of her recent
publications are: Nødvendig—Nyttig—Rettferdig? Likestillingsargumenter i offentlig
debatt with Hege Skjeie (Kvinder, køn & forskning (4) 2005); Kjønnsfrihet (Nytt
Norsk Tidsskrift (1) 2004) and Kvotering og kontrovers (2003).