specific women’s issues, even as these vary along intersections of class and
race, we are likely to see epiphenomena of activism that suggest their
continuing struggle for full political incorporation and voice. As women
move from political exclusion to self-determination, they both express
this fundamental interest and seek the means by which to advance all
women’s interests in extending their life chances, their options for
action, and the full development of their human capabilities.
Karen Beckwith is the Flora Stone Mather Professor of Political Science,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH: karen.beckwith@case.edu
REFERENCES
Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of
Public Action: Gender, Equality and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Diamond, Irene, and Nancy Hartsock. 1981. “Beyond Interests in Politics.” American
Political Science Review 75 (3): 717–21.
Dovi, Suzanne. 2009. “In Praise of Exclusion.” Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1172–86.
Lukes, Steven. 1984. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor.
Vickers, Jill. 2006. “The Problem with Interests: Making Political Claims for ‘Women.’” In
The Politics of Women’s Interests: New Comparative Perspectives, ed. Louise Chappell
and Lisa Hill. New York: Routledge, 5–38.
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford.
An Endogenous Approach to Women’s Interests: When
Interests Are Interesting in and of Themselves
Beth Reingold, Emory University and
Michele Swers, Georgetown University
doi:10.1017/S1743923X11000201
As Sapiro (1981) pointed out many years ago, recognizing that women’s
interests are interesting is the vital first step in establishing the
significance of women’s political representation (or the lack thereof) —
both in the “real” world and in the scholarly world. Indeed, the
assumption that women’s interests exist, that women have political
interests that can be defined and measured, is central to much of the
subsequent research and discussion of women in politics. It is central to
our own research on the relationship between women’s descriptive and
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES 429
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000201
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masaryk University, on 02 Jan 2018 at 16:53:15, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
substantive representation (e.g., Reingold 2000; Swers 2002), and it is
central to this symposium. Yet we come together in this symposium not
simply because we share this assumption, but more tellingly because we
all grapple with this assumption. Defining and measuring women’s
political interests pose a number of very difficult questions or dilemmas,
which we elaborate in the following. We highlight these challenges not
to dismiss such endeavors as futile or necessarily misguided. Rather, we
argue that the very uncertainty surrounding women’s interests is what
makes them so interesting.
Gender politics scholars can and should embrace the uncertainties,
critiques, and debates that surround women’s interests by taking what we
call an “endogenous” approach. Instead of thinking about women’s
interests as something we must define and operationalize a priori, we
might think about women’s interests and issues as political phenomena
— or variables — worth studying in and of themselves. If we begin with
the assumption that women’s interests are socially constructed, politically
contested, and empirically contingent, then we can further explore how
and why the meaning and significance of women’s interests vary across
time, space, institutions, groups, and individuals. Such an endogenous
approach to the study of women’s interests raises a wealth of interesting
research questions and suggests any number of innovative measurement
strategies. In the second half of our essay, we explore some of these
possibilities by outlining a research agenda focused on the motivations
and perspectives of elected representatives in legislative institutions.
The Difficulty of Defining Women’s Interests
Our own research on the policy impact of electing women to office has
largely centered on the question of whether increasing the descriptive
representation of women leads to more or better substantive
representation of women’s interests. To examine this question, we (and
many other scholars) typically identify a subset of legislation that
constitutes “women’s issues” and analyze gender differences in legislative
activity on these issues.1 In doing so, we inevitably confront a number of
questions and criticisms (Jo´nasdo´ttir 1988; Reingold 2000, 36–46). Can
or should researchers define women’s interests and issues objectively or
subjectively, that is, according to our knowledge of women’s social
1. Implicit in this literature is the equation of women’s issues and women’s interests. We maintain that
assumption of equivalence here, though we recognize that it, too, may be worth reexamining.
430 POLITICS & GENDER 7(3) 2011
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000201
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masaryk University, on 02 Jan 2018 at 16:53:15, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
locations and how they differ from men’s, or according to women’s own
conceptions of what their interests and issues are? What do we do when
the objective and subjective conflict? Can we or should we even try to
identify interests that are inclusive of most women (and exclusive of most
men) across racial, class, and ideological lines? Are any interests so
widely shared among women and so widely rejected, ignored, or
discounted among men? On the other hand, are there any policy
debates or political issues in which women do not have a gendered
interest? Are all issues women’s issues, in this sense? How do we account
for the saliency of issues to different groups of women and the intensity
of preferences among and across groups of women and men? In short,
how can we avoid essentializing or objectifying women but still
recognize the political, social, and economic power of gender?
No doubt, many of our colleagues also struggle with these dilemmas.
And judging from the variety of definitions and measures of women’s
interests/issues available in the literature, we have devised numerous
responses. Some look to public opinion polls to identify women’s
interests in terms of gender gap issues — those issues on which women
tend to take more liberal positions than do men (e.g., Burrell 1994;
Reingold 2000; Welch 1985). Some, not surprisingly, look to women’s
interest groups (or groups claiming to represent women’s interests) to
identify women’s interests (e.g., Burrell 1994; Thomas 1989). Many
define women’s issues more “objectively” as those they believe are
particularly salient to women — either because they primarily, most
directly, or disproportionately concern or affect women in particular or
because they reflect the more “traditional” concerns (or interests) that
women presumably have about others, especially children, families, and
those generally in need (e.g., Carroll 1994; Dodson and Carroll 1991;
Reingold 2000; Swers 2002). Some distinguish and include both
feminist initiatives that promote women’s rights or equality and more
general or “traditional” social welfare issues (e.g., Reingold 2000; SaintGermain
1989; Swers 2002). Others restrict designated women’s issues/
interests to only those that are feminist, or at the very least not blatantly
antifeminist (e.g., Bratton 2005; Dodson and Carroll 1991).
Despite these variations, all of these attempts to define and measure
women’s interests and issues have one thing in common: none relies on
the subjects of inquiry (elected officials, in this case) to define (actively
or passively, directly or indirectly) or discuss their own conceptions of
women’s interests/issues. Instead, each of us has defined our terms
exogenously, assuming perhaps that our primary task or challenge as
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES 431
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000201
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masaryk University, on 02 Jan 2018 at 16:53:15, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
researchers is to create a priori a valid, defensible, and appropriate
definition of women’s interests/issues. Yet no matter how careful,
conscientious, or inclusive we may be, we still risk some degree of
oversimplification or overgeneralization. By predefining the terms
ourselves, we fail to recognize or fully appreciate the degree to which the
meaning and significance of women’s interests and issues vary and the
degree to which they are themselves political. In short, we bypass the
opportunity to study and understand women’s interests as political
variables that are interesting and significant in and of themselves.2
An Endogenous Approach to the Study of Women’s Interests
Adopting an alternative, endogenous approach to women’s interests opens
several important avenues for research. To explore some of these
possibilities, we turn again to the study of women’s representation in
legislative institutions. Much fruitful research has illuminated the
connection between descriptive and substantive representation by
examining the impact of female legislators on policy outcomes,
including bill sponsorship, cosponsorship, committee and floor products,
and voting (e.g., Dodson 2006; Reingold 2000; Swers 2002). An
endogenous approach, we suggest, requires scholars to shift their
attention to the more deliberative aspects of representation that shape
those connections between individual lawmakers and policy outcomes
(Mansbridge 1999; Phillips 1995). Frequently repeated assertions that
“women bring a different perspective to policy deliberations” and that
“all issues are women’s issues” assume that women draw on their
gendered experience as they consider policy dilemmas and develop
solutions. These dynamics can only be examined by unpacking women’s
participation in, and impact on, the deliberative process.
Focusing on deliberation within parties, committees, and among
legislators will give us greater leverage over the question of how specific
definitions of women’s interests and issues emerge in the political
process (Celis et al. 2008; Childs, Webb, and Marthaler 2010). By
examining the political contest to define women’s issues, we will gain an
understanding of how the ideologies of liberal and conservative women
influence their view of the depth and dimensions of women’s interests
and the range of acceptable policy solutions (Klatch 1987; Schreiber
2. See Celis et al. (2008) for a related critique of a priori assumptions about women’s substantive
representation and the definition of women’s interests.
432 POLITICS & GENDER 7(3) 2011
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000201
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masaryk University, on 02 Jan 2018 at 16:53:15, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
2008; Swers and Larson 2005). The increased polarization of the political
parties and the expanding number of conservative Republican women at
the national and state level require us to examine how gendered life
experiences and political ideologies shape legislators’ competing
definitions of women’s interests/issues. Sarah Palin and her explicit
strategy of endorsing female candidates, whom she referred to as “mama
grizzlies,” has drawn new attention to the rising activism of conservative
women. The relationship of these women to their parties and their views
on women’s issues, however, remain poorly understood. Furthermore,
clarifying how gender and ideology interact to shape legislators’ policy
deliberations will allow us to move beyond traditional feminist or social
welfare categorizations of women’s issues to highlight how gender
influences legislator behavior on a range of topics that are not typically
characterized as women’s issues, such as defense and foreign policy.
Paying close attention to the endogenous process by which women’s
issues emerge will also lead to a greater understanding of the power
relations among and within different groups of legislators. Numerous
scholars note that legislative institutions are raced and gendered
(Hawkesworth 2003; Kenny 1996). Focusing on the deliberative process
will allow us to explain not only how the definition of women’s interests
differs for a representative from a low-income minority district versus a
legislator who represents a district composed largely of white, uppermiddle-class
professionals, but also how these definitions and their
advocates compete for legislative recognition. Processes of
marginalization that allow some conceptions of women’s interests to gain
traction while others are dismissed or ignored can, in turn, reveal much
about “raced-gendered” (Hawkesworth 2003) power relations among
legislators (Cohen 1999; Strolovitch 2007).
Finally, conceptualizing the fight to define women’s interests as a
political process requires us to focus on the strategic behavior of political
parties and the motivations of legislators as they seek to advance their
multiple political goals. Political parties work to highlight definitions of
women’s issues/interests that favor their own interests and mobilize
groups of targeted voters (Sanbonmatsu 2002; Wolbrecht 2000).
Individual legislators work within this partisan context to advance their
multiple goals of gaining reelection, serving constituent interests, making
good public policy, and advancing their own power within the party and
institution (Fenno 1978). As we seek to understand how legislators
define women’s interests, we must also examine their individual and
collective motivations for advancing specific policies. We need to
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES 433
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000201
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masaryk University, on 02 Jan 2018 at 16:53:15, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
explicate, for example, the normative and empirical implications of a
party’s decision to select a woman to sponsor a bill because of the
symbolic import of having a woman sponsor a particular policy proposal,
or a legislator’s desire to champion legislation in order to win the
women’s vote in his/her district. These decisions reflect the multiple
motivations of parties and legislators and have important effects on the
political contest to define the range and substance of women’s interests.
Defining and measuring women’s interests are not simply matters of
academic debate or methodological hand-wringing. Rather, contestations
about the meaning of women’s interests are also profoundly political.
Endogenous approaches like the ones outlined here prompt us to think
about women’s interests/issues as deeply embedded in, and integral to,
the political processes and conflicts that animate political actors, groups,
organizations, and institutions. They direct our attention to describing
and explaining how some issues/interests come to be associated with
women while others do not; how some are associated with some women
and others with other women; and how some “women’s” interests/issues
are widely accepted as such while others are not. And they compel us to
think about the empirical effects and normative implications of such
political choices, debates, and outcomes. This is what makes women’s
interests interesting.
Beth Reingold is Associate Professor of Political Science and Women’s
Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Emory University, Atlanta, GA: polbr@
emory.edu; and Michele Swers is Associate Professor of Government,
Georgetown University, Washington, DC: mls47@georgetown.edu
REFERENCES
Bratton, Kathleen A. 2005. “Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and Success of
Token Women in State Legislatures.” Politics & Gender 1 (March): 97–125.
Burrell, Barbara C. 1994. AWoman’s Place Is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the
Feminist Era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Carroll, Susan J. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics, 2d ed. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Celis, Karen, Sarah Childs, Johanna Kantola, and Mona Lena Krook. 2008. “Rethinking
Women’s Substantive Representation.” Representation 44: 99–110.
Childs, Sarah, Paul Webb, and Sally Marthaler. 2010. “Constituting and Substantively
Representing Women: Applying New Approaches to a UK Case Study.” Politics &
Gender 6 (June): 199–223.
Cohen, Cathy J. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black
Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
434 POLITICS & GENDER 7(3) 2011
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000201
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masaryk University, on 02 Jan 2018 at 16:53:15, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
Dodson, Debra L. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Dodson, Debra L., and Susan J. Carroll. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State
Legislatures. New Brunswick: Center for the American Woman and Politics, Rutgers,
The State University of New Jersey.
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little Brown.
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender: Toward a Theory
of Raced-Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review 97: 529–50.
Jo´nasdo´ttir, Anna G. 1988. “On the Concept of Interest, Women’s Interests, and the
Limitations of Interest Theory.” In The Political Interests of Gender: Developing
Theory and Research with a Feminist Face, ed. Kathleen B. Jones and Anna
G. Jo´nasdo´ttir. London: Sage.
Kenney, Sally J. 1996. “New Research on Gendered Political Institutions.” Political
Research Quarterly 49: 445–66
Klatch, Rebecca. 1987. Women of the New Right. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women?
A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61: 628–57.
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex Gender, and Legislative Behavior in
Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Saint-Germain, Michelle. 1989. “Does Their Difference Make a Difference? The Impact
of Women on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature.” Social Science Quarterly 70:
956–68.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Gender Equality, Political Parties, and the Politics of Women’s
Place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “Research Frontier Essay: When Are Interests Interesting? The
Problem of Political Representation of Women.” American Political Science Review
75: 701–16.
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group
Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in
Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Swers, Michele, and Carin Larson. 2005. “Women and Congress: Do They Act as
Advocates for Women’s Issues?” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and
Future, 2d ed., ed. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, Sue. 1989. “Voting Patterns in the California Assembly: The Role of Gender.”
Women & Politics 9: 43–53.
Welch, Susan. 1985. “Are Women More Liberal Than Men in the U.S. Congress?”
Legislative Studies Quarterly 10: 125–34.
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. The Politics of Women’s Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES 435
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X11000201
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Masaryk University, on 02 Jan 2018 at 16:53:15, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of