PAPER SUMMARY

Gender, Institutions, and Power A Critical Review

Meryl Kenny
University of Edinburgh
PSA Women and Politics Conference
11 February !!"
Feminist #olitical science has ta$en a decidedly institutional %turn&' moving
from %(omen in #olitics& to %gender and #olitics)& A gendered focus shifts the
em#hasis from *women in to the gendering of #olitical institutions'+ highlighting the
(ays in (hich #olitical institutions reflect' structure' and reinforce gendered #atterns
of #o(er and #utting the focus on both men and (omen as institutional actors
,Kenney 1--". /001) 2et (hile gender theorists have develo#ed so#histicated and
nuanced conce#tions of gender' there is still a distinct need for (ell3theori4ed
research designs that are able to o#erationali4e com#le5 gender theories into #ractical
conce#ts for em#irical (or$)
6he institutional %turn& in feminist #olitical science is #aralleled by broader
institutional trends in mainstream #olitical science' #articularly in the field of %ne(
institutionalism&' o#ening u# #ossibilities for interchange and dialogue bet(een the
t(o fields) An initial revie( of each field suggests that a %feminist institutionalism& 7
that is' a theoretical %synthesis& of ne( institutionalism and feminist #olitical science 7
may be a #romising a##roach for the study of gender and institutions that could
#otentially %bridge the ga#& in e5isting conce#tual and em#irical (or$)
8n my #a#er' 8 e5#lore some initial #ossibilities for dialogue bet(een the fields
of feminist #olitical science and ne( institutionalism' focusing #rimarily on issues of
#o(er) 8 revie( e5isting #ers#ectives on #o(er in the ne( institutionalism literature'
focusing #rimarily on historical institutionalism' and the feminist literature) 8 then
consider some #ossibilities for interchange and dialogue bet(een the fields)
9o(ever' 8 contend that (hile historical institutionalism offers some useful
conce#tual tools and ideas to feminist #olitical science' the institutionalist conce#tion
of #o(er is dee#ly #roblematic for the study of gender and institutions) 8 contend that
a gendered #ers#ective is crucial to the study of institutions and #o(er' and that a
feminist a##roach could greatly enrich ne( institutionalist analysis)
1
New Institutionalis and Power
8nstitutionalist #ers#ectives on #o(er can be broadly divided into functionalist
e5#lanations' and path dependent e5#lanations' a #ers#ective ty#ically associated (ith
historical institutionalism
1
)
Functionalist e5#lanations attribute the origins and form of a #articular
institution to the functions it #erforms' either for the *system+ or for the #o(erful
actors that benefit from a #articular institutional arrangement ,Pierson !!!b. /:0;
6helen !!<. /1)
6he main alternative to functionalist e5#lanations centers on the conce#t of
path-dependency, the idea that choices made early on in an institution&s %life&
fre=uently determine or restrict subse=uent choices) Path de#endent #ers#ectives
offer a historical' rather than a functional' ans(er for =uestions of institutional origins
and institutional change' suggesting that the forces that sustain an institution over time
may be very different from the original founding coalitions behind the institution&s
original creation ,6helen !!<. 1>1) As such' historical institutionalists highlight the
*unintended conse=uences and inefficiencies+ of e5isting institutions ,9all and 6aylor
1--". -/1) 8n its broadest sense' #ath de#endence is sim#ly the argument that
*#ast events influence future events+ ,Mahoney !!!. 01!1) ?thers advocate a
narro(er and more #recise definition of #ath de#endence' dra(ing a shar# line
bet(een moments of institutional stability and moments of institutional change ,see
Krasner 1-->; Mahoney !!!1) ?nce an institution is created' it is reinforced through
asymmetrical #o(er relations' #rivileging #articular grou#s at the e5#ense of others)
8n moments of institutional change' the #rivileged grou# uses its resources to
reinforce and entrench its o(n #osition of #o(er) 2et' because these events are
contingent' institutions can also #rovide unintended o##ortunities for marginal grou#s
to e5ercise #o(er

,6helen !!<. 1"1)

9o(ever' this conce#tion of #o(er results in a rather static vie( of institutions
that is broadly structuralist in focus' and that is concerned more (ith institutional
continuity than (ith institutional change) Structure figures heavily in %settled& times
in an institution&s %life&' (hen those in #ositions of #o(er maintain and reinforce their
1
8 (ill rely on 9all and 6aylor&s ,1--"1 classic ty#ology' (hich identifies three main ty#es of ne(
institutionalism. historical' rational choice' and sociological)

See S$oc#ol ,1--1)

o(n #ositions of institutional #rivilege' (hile agency trium#hs in %critical @unctures'&

moments of institutional change) 6he conce#t of #ath de#endence' then' is fre=uently
em#loyed to e5#lain the continuity of the #o(er of the #o(erful' (hile the historical
institutionalist em#hasis on unintended conse=uences is then used to e5#lain the
failure of the #o(erful)
8nstitutionalist theories that ma$e a shar# distinction bet(een institutional
continuity and institutional change are generally unable to ca#ture the dynamic and
com#le5 nature of institutional #o(er relations) Aecent trends in the historical
institutionalist literature' #articularly in the (or$ of Kathleen 6helen
<
,1---' !!<'
!!/1 illustrate the need to e5amine institutional stability and change as a more
dynamic and historical #rocess)
6helen vie(s institutions as sites of ongoing #olitical conflict and struggle'
#utting a central em#hasis on #olitical conflicts and coalitions) 9o(ever' in contrast
to traditional #o(er3distributional #ers#ectives (hich vie( institutions as
straightfor(ard reflections of the interests and #references of the #o(erful'
institutional creation and change occur in s#ecific historical conte5ts mar$ed by
multi#le shifting interests and alliances) As a result' institutions designed to serve a
#articular set of interests often end u# %carrying& other interests) 8nstitutions
fre=uently outlast their founding coalitions' and can be transformed through #olitical
reconfigurations and realignments' as (ell as through the incor#oration of ne( grou#s
(hose inclusion (as unantici#ated at the time of institutional creation ,6helen !!/.
<<3</1)
6helen introduces t(o mechanisms of institutional transformation to the
debate. institutional layering
4
, in (hich certain elements of an institution are #artially
renegotiated (hile leaving other e5isting elements in #lace' and institutional
conversion' in (hich e5isting institutions are redirected to fulfill ne( #ur#oses)
6hese modes of analysis move beyond the traditional #ath de#endence dichotomy of
institutional stasis and institutional innovation' see$ing instead to identify *which
specific elements of a given institutional arrangement are ,or are not1 renegotiable and
(hy some as#ects are more amenable to change than others+ ,6helen !!/. <"1)
<
See also Pierson ,!!!a' !!!b' !!!c' !!/1 and Schic$ler ,!!11)
/
Featuring #rominently in Eric Schic$ler&s (or$ on the U)S) Congress ,!!11) Schic$ler introduces
the conce#t of %dis@ointed #luralism+ in (hich institutional develo#ment is driven by the tensions
among diverse coalitions #romoting a (ide variety of interests)
<
!einis and Power
Bi$e mainstream #olitical science' feminist #olitical science has ta$en an
institutional %turn&) Current studies of gender have moved from %measuring& gender
as a discrete and dichotomous variable to understanding gender as a com#le5 frame of
reference) 8n this vie(' gender is not something (e have' it is something (e do 7 a
*routine' methodical' and recurring accom#lishment+ ,West and Cimmerman 1->:.
1"1) An understanding of gender as something (e do' as %#ractice& or
%#erformance&' allo(s us to then access a conce#tual frame(or$ that shifts the
analytical focus from the individual to social and #olitical institutions' #rocesses' and
#ractices' o#ening u# the field for theoretical and em#irical (or$ in the area of gender
and institutions)
As feminist scholars have develo#ed more nuanced and com#le5 theories of
gender' the focus has shifted from universal #atriarchal structures to the structuring of
gender relations) 8n this vie(' gender is dynamic' com#le5' constantly renegotiated'
and #o(erfully constrained) An understanding of gender as something (e do 7 as
%#ractice&
0
7 allo(s us to vie( institutions in a more dynamic (ay' rather than as
abstract structures) While institutions structure gender #ractice' they do not cause
#ractices' nor can they be se#arated from #ractices) At the same time that institutions
constrain #ractice' defining #ossibilities for action' institutions are themselves
constituted from moment to moment by these #ractices)
9o(ever' (hile gender theorists have develo#ed com#le5 and nuanced
theories of gender and #o(er' there is a distinct ga# bet(een so#histicated theoretical
(or$ on gender and em#irical gender research) 8n the sub3field of (omen and
#olitics' se5 and gender are often confused or colla#sed' and much of the literature
continues to focus on numbers and se5 differences) 6he gradual move from %(omen&
to %gender& has been #articularly #roblematic in the (omen and #olitics literature on
re#resentation' (here research continues to focus on female bodies as the *main
vehicles+ for institutional change and transformation ,Mac$ay !!/. 1!11) Wor$ in
this area highlights the current tension in the (omen and #olitics field) 6he notion of
gender as #ractice #uts the focus on social and #olitical institutions' allo(ing us to see
that gender is not necessarily *tied to a se5ed body+ ,Duerst3Bahti and Kelly 1--0.
""1) Eut (hat ha##ens to bodiesF Do bodies still matterF What does an institutional
focus add to feminist #olitical scienceF
0
8 ta$e the conce#t of gender #ractice from the (or$ of A)W) Connell ,1->:' !!1)
/
"owards a !einist Institutionalis
An initial revie( of both ne( institutionalism and feminist research reveals
that there are a number of common #reoccu#ations bet(een the t(o fields) Eoth
share an understanding that seemingly neutral institutional #rocesses and #ractices are
in fact embedded in hidden norms and values' #rivileging certain grou#s over others)
Eoth are centrally concerned (ith e5#lanations of institutional creation' continuity'
resistance' and change) Eoth em#hasi4e the historicity of #o(er relations) 6he
historical em#hasis of both fields o#ens u# the #ossibility of institutional resistance
and #o(er reversals 7 if institutionali4ed #o(er relations are dee#ly historical and
constantly evolving' then they are susce#tible to agency' change' and transformation)
2et' (hile several scholars
"
have noted the #ossibility for interchange bet(een
mainstream and feminist #olitical science' there has been little dialogue bet(een the
fields) Ge( institutionalists continue to neglect issues of gender and relevant research
develo#ments in feminist #olitical science
:
' (hile the ma@ority of feminist #olitical
science dra(s u#on neither the language nor the theoretical frame(or$ of ne(
institutionalism
>
)
9o(ever' historical institutionalism can offer a number of useful conce#tual
tools to feminist #olitical science' most notably' the conce#t of #ath de#endence' as
(ell as ne(' more dynamic models of institutional change such as institutional
layering and institutional conversion) 8n s#ite of this' the historical institutionalist
a##roach to #o(er has a number of #roblems that may limit its #otential usefulness
for feminist research) Po(er relations are often under#layed in ne( institutionalist
research' and it is still a rather sli##ery conce#t in the literature) 9istorical
institutionalists rarely use the language of #o(er' #referring to use the language of
%actors& and %interests& instead ,see 6helen !!/1) 8n addition' (hile historical
institutionalists ac$no(ledge that some grou#s are #rivileged over others' little
attention is #aid to ma@or social divisions such as gender' race' or class) Finally' (hile
"
See Mac$ay ,!!/1; Bovendus$i ,!!01)
:
For e5am#le' Peters ,1---1 conducts a detailed and e5tensive revie( of the ne( institutionalist field'
yet refers to gender only a fe( times and only in the footnotes)
>
For e5am#le' Ma4ur ,!!1 uses neither the language nor the frame(or$ of ne( institutionalism' yet
her %feminist em#iricism& is institutional in focus' and institutional design is considered an im#ortant
variable in accounting for the success of feminist #olicy outcomes) 9a($es(orth ,!!<1 analy4es
%racing3gendering& in the institutional #ractices of the 1!<
rd
and 1!/
th
Congress' but does not engage
(ith ne( institutionalist theory) Mean(hile' in their recent revie(s of the (omen and #olitics field'
both Mac$ay ,!!/1 and Bovendus$i ,!!01 highlight the #otential for dialogue bet(een feminist and
mainstream #olitical science' (ithout e5#licitly develo#ing a theory of gendered institutions)
0
recent (or$ in the field has offered a more dynamic and com#le5 a##roach to
institutional #o(er' it is unclear as to (hat e5tent historical institutionalists have
incor#orated #ost3structuralist conce#tions of #o(er into their theoretical frame(or$)
8n contrast' #o(er is a $ey focus of the feminist literature' and a feminist
institutionalism (ould bring #o(er relations to the forefront of institutional analysis)
8 contend that gender is a crucial dimension in the study of institutions and #o(er)
Understanding #olitical institutions as gendered is critical to understanding dynamics
of institutional continuity and change' revealing ho( institutions reflect' reinforce'
and structure gendered #o(er relations' (hile e5#osing the (ays in (hich seemingly
neutral institutional #rocesses and #ractices are in fact embedded in gendered norms
and values) 8n the follo(ing section' 8 (ill briefly revie( some #otential insights that
a gendered a##roach (ould offer to the field of ne( institutionalism) 6hese are by no
means the only #ossibilities for interchange bet(een the t(o fields' but (ill lay a
#reliminary foundation for a %feminist institutionalist& conce#tion of #o(er)
Institutional Interconnections) 9istorical institutionalists ac$no(ledge that
institutions are dee#ly interconnected and that attem#ts to change a #articular
institution may be hel#ed or hindered by the o#eration of other related institutions)
Feminist theorists have made similar arguments' but have e5#licitly lin$ed them to
=uestions of #o(er) Po(er ine=ualities in one institution #ermeate and reinforce
#o(er relations in other institutions) Connell ,1->:' !!1 in #articular has
develo#ed a #romising frame(or$ 7 the gender regime and the gender order 7 (hich
could be e5tremely useful for the study of institutions and #o(er)
A Relational Perspective. 6he incor#oration of #ost3structuralist theory and
the general movement to %rethin$& gender and understand it as a com#le5 frame of
reference has introduced a relational a##roach to the study of #o(er) A relational
a##roach to gender and #o(er 3 in (hich gender is seen not as a stable identity' but
instead as a set of #ractices that are constantly re#eated and can never be fully
internali4ed ,Eryson 1---; Eutler 1--!1 3 (ould #resent a more dynamic vie( of
institutions) 8nstitutions are not fi5ed' abstract structures' but are instead constituted
from moment to moment by social action and #ractice) 6his a##roach (ould also
o#en u# the #ossibility of resistance' suggesting that the social meanings of
se5Hgender can be resisted' challenged' and eventually' transformed) 8n addition' a
"
relational a##roach (ould e5#ose the (ays in (hich #o(er is #resent intimately' both
in traditional #olitical and %non3#olitical& institutions) Finally' a relational a##roach
(ould #ut a greater focus on the *seemingly trivial+ institutional level of inter#ersonal
day3to3day interaction' (here the continuous #erformance of gender ta$es #lace
,Kenney 1--". /0>1)
A Gendered Perspective) Early (or$ in the area of gender and institutions
established that institutions and organi4ations rest on gendered foundations' and that
any analysis of institutional #rinci#les and #ractices must necessarily entail an
e5amination of underlying gendered assum#tions ,see Ac$er 1--!' 1--; Savage and
Wit4 1--; Kenney 1--"1)6here is no s#ecific set of %gender institutions& 7 gender
relations are #resent in all institutions and' therefore' all institutions are gendered to
varying degrees) Any reflection on gender relations must necessarily incor#orate an
analysis of #o(er) Feminist scholars highlight the fact that traditional theories of
#o(er rest on gendered assum#tions' and they have successfully redefined the sco#e
and nature of the %#olitical&' e5#osing the (ays in (hich #o(er o#erates at the most
intimate levels of everyday life) %Iendering& mainstream institutionalism' then' is not
sim#ly a matter of %adding& gender in' using a ne( institutionalist frame(or$ to
analy4e gender issues) Aather' a feminist institutionalism (ould go beyond this'
=uestioning the very foundations and assum#tions of mainstream institutionalist
theory)
Conclusion
6his #a#er is very much a (or$ in #rogress that raises many issues in need of
further e5#loration) Can ne(3institutionalism add anything to the study of gendered
institutions in feminist #olitical scienceF 8n (hat (ays can a gendered a##roach
enhance neo3institutionalist theoryF 8s a theoretical %synthesis& of the t(o fields
#ossibleF 8f so' ho( can (e o#erationali4e these conce#ts for em#irical researchF
Many of these =uestions remain unans(ered' and (ill re=uire further e5#loration)
9o(ever' this initial revie( suggests that a feminist institutionalism may be a
#romising theoretical a##roach for the study of gender and institutions)
:
>
Re#erences
Ac$er' J) ,1--!1 *9ierarchies' Jobs' Eodies. A 6heory of Iendered ?rgani4ations)+
Gender and Society' Kol) /' Go) ' ,June1' ##) 1<-310>)
Ac$er' J) ,1--1 *From Se5 Aoles to Iendered 8nstitutions)+ ontemporary
Sociology'
Kol) 1' ##) 0"030"-)
Eryson' K) ,1---1 !eminist "e#ates$ Issues of %heory and Political Practice)
Bondon.
MacMillan)
Eutler' J) ,1--!1 Gender %rou#le$ !eminism and the Su#version of Identity) Bondon.
Aoutledge)
Eutler' J) ,1--<1 &odies %hat 'atter$ (n the "iscursive )imits of *Se+., Bondon.
Aoutledge)
Childs' S) ,!!/1 -ew )a#our,s .omen 'Ps$ .omen Representing .omen)
Bondon.
Aoutledge)
Collier' A)E) and Collier' D) ,1--11 Shaping the Political Arena$ ritical /unctures,
the
)a#or 'ovement, and Regime "ynamics in )atin America) Princeton.
Princeton
University Press)
Connell' A)W) ,1->:1 Gender and Power$ Society, the Person and Se+ual Politics)
Cambridge. Polity Press)
Connell' A)W) ,!!1 Gender) Cambridge. Polity Press)
Duerst3Bahti' I) and A)M) Kelly ,1--01 Gender Power, )eadership, and Governance.
Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press)
9all' P) and 6aylor' A) ,1--"1 *Political Science and the 6hree Ge(
8nstitutionalisms)+
Political Studies' Kol) //' ##) -<"3-0:)
9a($es(orth' M) ,!!<1 *Congressional Enactments of Aace3Iender. 6o(ard a
6heory
of Aaced3Iendered 8nstitutions)+ American Political Science Review' Kol) -:'
Go)/' ,Govember1' ##) 0-300!)
9ay' C) and Wincott' D) ,1-->1 *Structure' Agency and 9istorical 8nstitutionalism)+
Political Studies' Kol) /"' Go) 0' ,December1' ##) -013-0:)
Kenney' S) ,1--"1 *Ge( Aesearch on Iendered Political 8nstitutions)+ Political
Research
0uarterly' Kol) /-' ##) //03/"")
Knight' J) ,1--1 Institutions and Social onflict) Ge( 2or$. Cambridge University
Press)
Krasner' S) ,1->/1 *A##roaches to the State. Alternative Conce#tions and 9istorical
Dynamics)+ omparative Politics' Kol) 1"' ##) <3/")
Krasner' S) ,1->>1 *Sovereignty. An 8nstitutional Pers#ective)+ omparative
Political
Studies' Kol) 1' ##) ""3-/)
Kroo$' M)B) ,!!<1 *Got All Luotas Are Created E=ual. 6ra@ectories of Aeform to
8ncrease Women&s Political Ae#resentation)+ Pa#er #resented at Euro#ean
Consortium for Political Aesearch' Joint Sessions of Wor$sho#s' Edinburgh'
Scotland)
-
Bovendus$i' J) ,!!01 !emini1ing Politics) Cambridge. Polity Press)
Bo(ndes' K) ,!!1 *8nstitutionalism+ in Marsh' D) and Sto$er' I) ,eds)1 %heories
and
'ethods in Political Science)
nd
ed) Easingsto$e. Palgrave) ##) -!31!>)
Mac$ay' F) ,!!11 )ove and Politics$ .omen Politicians and the 2thics of are.
Bondon. Continuum)
Mac$ay' F) ,!!/1 *Iender and Political Ae#resentation in the UK. 6he State of the
%Disci#line)&+ %he &ritish /ournal of Politics 3 International Relations' Kol)
"'
Go) 1 ,February1' ##) --31!)
Mahoney' J) ,!!!1 *Path De#endence in 9istorical Sociology)+ %heory and Society)
Kol) -' ##) 0!:30/>)
Ma4ur' A) ,!!1 %heori1ing !eminist Policy) ?5ford. ?5ford University Press)
Moe' 6) ,!!<1 *Po(er and Political 8nstitutions)+ Pa#er #resented at the Conference
on
Crafting and ?#erating 8nstitutions' A#ril 1131<' 2ale University' Ge( 9aven'
C6)
Gorris' P) ,ed)1 ,1--:1 Passages to Power$ )egislative Recruitment in Advanced
"emocracies) Cambridge. Cambridge University Press)
Gorris' P) and Bovendus$i' J) ,1--01 Political Recruitment$ Gender, Race and lass
in
the &ritish Parliament) Cambridge. Cambridge University Press)
Peters' E)I) ,1---1 Institutional %heory in Political Science$ %he *-ew
Institutionalism,)
Bondon. Pinter)
Philli#s' A) ,1--01 %he Politics of Presence) ?5ford. Clarendon Press)
Pierson' P) ,!!!a1 *8ncreasing Aeturns' Path De#endence' and the Study of Politics)+
American Political Science Review' Kol) -/' Go) ' ##) 013">)
Pierson' P) ,!!!b1 *6he Bimits of Design. E5#laining 8nstitutional ?rigins and
Change)+ Governance' Kol) 1<' Go) /' ##) /:03/--)
Pierson' P) ,!!!c1 *Got Just What' Eut When. 6iming and Se=uence in Political
Processes) Studies in American Political "evelopment' Kol) 1/ ,S#ring1' ##)
:3
-)
Pierson' P) ,!!/1 Politics in %ime$ 4istory, Institutions, and Social Analysis.
Princeton'
GJ. Princeton University Press)
Savage' M) and Wit4' A) ,eds)1 ,1--1 Gender and &ureaucracy) ?5ford. Elac$(ell
Publishers)
Schic$ler' E) ,!!11 "is5ointed Pluralism$ Institutional Innovation and the
"evelopment
of the 6.S. ongress. Princeton. Princeton University Press)
S$oc#ol' 6) ,1--1 Protecting Soldiers and 'others$ %he Political (rigins of Social
Policy in the 6nited States. Cambridge' MA. Eel$na# Press of 9arvard
University Press)
6helen' K) ,1---1 *9istorical 8nstitutionalism in Com#arative Politics)+ Annual
Review
of Political Science' Kol) ' ,June1' ##) <"-3/!/)
6helen' K) ,!!<1 *9o( 8nstitutions Evolve. 8nsights from Com#arative 9istorical
1!
Analysis+ in Mahoney' J) and Aueschemeyer' D) ,eds)1 omparative
4istorical
Analysis in the Social Sciences) Cambridge. Cambridge University Press) ##)
!>3/!)
6helen' K) ,!!/1 4ow Institutions 2volve$ %he Political 2conomy of S7ills in
Germany,
&ritain, the 6nited States, and /apan. Cambridge. Cambridge University
Press)
Kasterling' K) ,!!<1 *Eody and Banguage. Eutler' Merleau3Ponty and Byotard on
the
S#ea$ing Embodied Sub@ect)+ International /ournal of Philosophical Studies'
Kol) 11' Go) ' ,June1' ##) !03<)
Walby' S) ,1--!1 %heori1ing Patriarchy) ?5ford. Easil Elac$(ell)
Weir' M) ,1--1 *8deas and the Politics of Eounded 8nnovation+ in Steinmo' S)'
6helen'
K)' and Bongstreth' F) ,eds)1 Structuring Politics$ 4istorical Institutionalism
in
omparative Perspective) Cambridge. Cambridge University Press) ##) 1>>3
1")
West' C) and Cimmerman' D)9) ,1->:1 *Doing Iender)+ Gender and Society' Kol) 1'
Go)
' ,June1' ##) 103101)
Wit4' A) and Savage' M) ,1--1 *6he Iender of ?rgani4ations+ in Savage' M) and
Wit4'
A) ,eds)1 Gender and &ureaucracy) ?5ford. Elac$(ell Publishers) ##) <3")
2eatman' A) ,1--:1 *Feminism and Po(er+ in Shanley' M)B) and Garayan' U) ,eds)1
Reconstructing Political %heory$ !eminist Perspectives) Cambridge. Polity
Press) ##) 1//310:)
11