By Sarah Højgaard Cawood
The three Danish gender researchers Anette Borchorst, Ann-Dorthe Christensen and Birte Siim have with the article “Diskurser om køn, magt og politik i Skandinavien” [Discourses on gender, power and politics in Scandinavia] contributed to the publication Kønsmagt under forandring (2002) [Gender-power in process of change], which is part of an official survey and analysis of power in Denmark. The authors identify three gender-power discourses appertaining to Norway, Sweden and Denmark; respectively a discourse of difference, a discourse of oppression and a discourse of power mobilisation. In the following I will focus on the Swedish and Danish discourses. The Swedish model, characterised as a discourse of oppression, is exemplified by the Swedish gender scholar Yvonne Hirdman’s “Genuslov” [Gender law], an account of a pervasive structural societal dynamic by which women are systematically subordinated to men. This discourse is criticised by the three authors as essentialising. In their view, the discourse of oppression is too focussed on the continuity of women’s oppression, and it furthermore plays down the significance of women as collective actors since the discourse in its entirety focuses on the system and not on the individuals in the system.
Double view on gender power?
The three authors see that in contrast to the Swedish discourse there is what they call the Danish power-mobilisation discourse, which grew out of a closer relation between feminist research and the women’s movement. The Danish discourse focuses on the individual empowerment experienced by women participating in social movements. Through their collective activity they wield power from below. Thus in the Danish discourse there is a greater focus on women as individual actors and less on structural dynamics. According to these scholars, the Danish discourse contains a constructive double view of gender power, which comprises perspectives on both reproduction and change of the gender-power hierarchy. In other words, this discourse regards power as consisting of both “1) power as oppression and dominance, and 2) power as power mobilisation” (Borchorst et al 2002 p. 258); that is an actor-based discourse of change. But as they also write, there has been a development in Denmark one of whose consequences is that “discourses focussing unequivocably on women’s oppression and the reproduction of power relations between the genders are no longer legitimate” (ibid. p. 259). The authors do not consider to what extent discourses focussing unequivocably on changes in the gender-power relation are legitimate. However, if only one aspect of a so-called double view is illegitimate, can there really be said to be a double view? This reader is certainly left with the impression that the Danish discourse actually is a power-mobilisation discourse; that is, an actor-fixated discourse which unequivocably emphasises the change that women can bring about by virtue of their involvement in social movements.
Lack of scholarly responsibility
For me the three authors’ conclusions concerning the illegitimate focus on women’s structural oppression raise some problematic
questions in relation to concrete observable structural problems for equal opportunities in Denmark. If it is illegitimate
to focus solely on the reproduction of the gender-power relation, how are researchers to approach structural problems concerning
equal opportunities involving the reproduction of the gender-power relation? For example, the negligible presence of women
at the higher executive level of business, or other areas where the drive for equal opportunities is stagnant: how can such
phenomena be dealt with at all if it is assumed that it is not legitimate for research to focus on reproduced gender-power
structures?
Is it possible within a Danish power-mobilisation discourse to generate concrete political proposals for the improvement of
the Danish equal-opportunities position? And is it possible and desirable for Danish researchers to give their support to
and work for an improvement in the present-day equal-opportunities situation in other ways? And further: by overemphasising
the potential for change from the angle of empowerment, is the Danish power-mobilisation discourse in danger of appearing
in the slipstream of a global, strongly liberalistic discourse of free choice, in which gender is perceived as individualised,
liberated from the limitations imposed by structures?
In her review of the survey publication Kønsmagt under forandring in the Danish web magazine www.forum.kvinfo.dk, the Swedish gender scholar Yvonne Hirdman pointedly criticised the article for, among other things, its fixation with an actor focus (Hirdman 2002). She refers to the three Danish authors apparent refusal to acknowledge the relative success which the Swedish subordination model has had for the equal opportunities situation in Sweden. According to Hirdman, the Danish empowerment discourse places too much focus on individual possibilities of change and in the process heroizes Danish women unnecessarily. Thus the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Danish and the Swedish discourse respectively is governed by an ideological discussion and not by the possibility of making concrete proposals for creating practical political strategies to promote equal opportunities. Yvonne Hirdman believes that the Danish trio of researchers miss the opportunity to show scholarly responsibility.
“Gender contract”
According to Hirdman, the Swedish gender-power discourse operates not with an oppression model but with a subordination model.
She makes this point with the expressed purpose of shifting the focus from the actors over to the empirical fact substantiated
by one survey after another: that women end up lower down in the power hierarchy than men. To enable a theoretical description
of the process by which this takes place she has developed the term gender contract, which on the one hand makes clear the different rationality of action with which the genders operate and on the other describes
the trading which takes place between the genders. Yvonne Hirdman believes that the three Danish writers have difficulty understanding
this approach because of their adherence to actor-fixation.
Furthermore, Hirdman criticises Borchorst, Christensen and Siim for an erroneous evaluation of the impact of the discourses.
Her impression is that the three authors order the discourses in such a way that the Danish discourse is evaluated as more
progressive and thus better than the Swedish. But, she argues, the possibility of real change is greater with the Swedish
discourse than with the Danish.
Scholars as collaborators
In the article Frugtbar kritik efterlyses (Fruitful criticism wanted) in the same Danish web magazine the three authors give their response, maintaining that they
have no wish to nominate a winning country. At the same time they emphasise that gender scholars are collaborators in social
development and have a responsibility to indicate the direction that policies should pursue on the basis of their research.
With such an understanding of the societal role of research it is rather problematic to refrain from evaluating which of the
discourses has the best political consequences.
I would claim that the exaggerated focus on the actor for adherence critisized by Hirdmann is a fairly pervasive phenomenon
linked to a widespread postmodern understanding of people as autonomous individuals who are free to choose the way they put
together their identities, untrammelled by structures. I intend to demonstrate that such a conception might well undermine
effective feminist social criticism, and to do so I will analyse the introductions to two Danish feminist anthologies which
have appeared in recent years, Nu er det nok. Så er det sagt [That’s enough. Now it’s been said] (Goth,et al 2000) and De røde sko [The red shoes] (Skov ed. 2002), and compare them with the introduction to the Swedish Fittstim (Skugge, et al 1999). All three of these anthologies are written by relatively young feminists.
New feminism – a text-analytical intermezzo
The introduction to anthology Nu er det nok is in two parts, the first discussing women’s oppression and the other the construction of gender. The book gives a number
of examples of the oppression of women drawn from the public sphere and statistics. At the same time the book has a constructivist
project: to draw attention to the fact that gender is defined in terms of stereotyped roles which have a constricting effect
on both sexes and are the result of a constant negotiation process, which makes it possible for us to change the stereotypes.
Curiously enough it is the latter part which gets to define what it means to be a feminist. As the editors put it: “The authors
each have their definition of feminism … everyone can be a feminist, even men … Feminism isn’t about an opposition between
the genders but about reacting to the unjust reality we all encounter … We have to negotiate our gender every day … Men must
take part in this process as well as women. The definition of a ‘real’ man is just as limiting as the definition of a ‘real’
woman”.
Here a semantic slide takes place between the first section of the introduction in which tendencies oppressive to women throughout
time are reeled off, with criticism directed at a stereotyped feminine image, and the second section, where gender roles are
described as being equally restrictive for both sexes. It is an attempt to widen criticism of the inequality which afflicts
women to comprise a criticism of the gender norms which afflict both sexes; and thus it is an attempt to mobilise men onto
the feminist path.
Constructivism drown out feminism
At the same time I would claim that what we see here is a kind of evasive action/legitimation strategy which says a lot about both the prevalent climate in which feminism and equal opportunities are discussed in Denmark and the theoretical discourses which are available. In the Danish context, the point of constructivism – that both genders are constructed and therefore negotiable – has a tendency to erase the feminist point that we live in a culture in which women do not have equality with men, and where the categories ‘men’ and ‘women’ are stubbornly maintained as separate entities in the hierarchical organisation. One may speculate whether the reason why constructivism has come to drown out feminism in a Danish context may be that its message feels modern. The message that gender is constructed goes hand in hand with an individualised culture where each person is able to choose his or her own distinctive personality, in contrast to the socially indignant, non-modern demand for equal opportunities.
Give name to male chauvinism
When one turns to the introduction to the Swedish neo-feminist anthology Fittstim, which Nu er det nok is inspired by, one reads, by contrast, about not wanting to play according to men’s premises. The Swedish
book gives a name to male chauvinism, while still saying that boys should not be hated. It gives a number of examples of how
girls are treated unfairly, how adults give priority to boys’ development at the cost of girls’, how the world-picture of
boys is legitimated whilst that of girls is denied legitimacy, how boys are given opportunities which girls are denied, how
the self-esteem of boys is built up at the cost of the integrity of girls, etc. In other words, a central point in Fittstim is that inequality is about boys getting a number of opportunities often at the cost of girls;In Yvonne Hirdmann’s words;
girls are subordinated to boys. It is noteworthy that this subordination does not take place because boys consciously oppress
girls but because it is a condition of the structural contract entered into by both sexes.
Here it is clear that the Swedish discourse of subordination offers a number of advantages for the feminist line taken in
Fittstim. By virtue of this discourse, the authors have access to several far more subversive assertions and analytical tools.
By contrast, the Danish constructivist discourse blunts the point of the feminist message and acts as an obstacle to understanding
the real power displacements between the two sexes.
In the recently published Den røde sko, any mention of women’s oppression has been deleted from the introduction. Here the constructivist discourse reigns supreme.
And again men are encouraged to join in as feminists. But the introduction concludes on an interesting note when the editor
makes herself spokeswoman for an overall feministic “we”, even though she sees this “we” as opposed to constructivism’s constant
deconstruction of self-sufficient and excluding “we’s”. She insists on this challenge anyway on the grounds that we still
live in an unequal society. I read this somewhat contradictory message as an expression of frustration at not possessing sufficient
analytical tools to draw attention to the subordinating mechanisms under which women as a group suffer.
Backed by feminists at the top
Drude Dahlerup, another Danish gender scholar (resident in Sweden), points out in another article in the power survey’s publication
on gender power that Denmark cannot match the feminist debate prevailing in Sweden (Dahlerup 2002). In this respect, it looks
as if Denmark, where political mobilisation is dependent on action from below, is particularly vulnerable as concerns political
movement. In Sweden the popular gender debate is backed up by feminists holding central top posts, who by virtue of their
societal status are able to enrich the debate from above. But in Denmark, where feminists are few and far between in top government
jobs and other elite positions, the gender debate has wretched conditions. As an active feminist I have experienced that among
the things one has to struggle against on a daily basis are a number of deeply hostile images such as that of the man-hating
activist or the miserable prude. These images can often be propagated unchallenged by anti-feminist journalists and other
opinion formers. Perhaps the pure grassroots movements are now a thing of the past, and the powerful influence of the media
makes it necessary for us to consider some kind of top-down perspective?
I can perceive a tendency for Danish gender scholars to focus on change and renewal, but the theoretical tools are lacking
to make sense of the static condition, the stubborn back-lag which hardly moves at all. It therefore seems clear to me that
there is an interesting potential in Yvonne Hirdman’s criticism of the Danish gender-power discourse, which she sees as impeded
actor-fixation.
The three Danish authors of “Diskurser om køn, magt og politik i Skandinavien” have a point when stating that the dominant theoretical discourses influence conceptions of reality and the interpretation
of problems. These discourses form part of the base from which young feminists speak, and they can also create pro- or anti-feminist
backcloths to the debates which feminists try to raise with the authority given to them by the title of scholar. Therefore
gender scholars have a responsibility.
Notes
Borchorst, Christensen and Siim (2002): ”Diskurser om køn, magt og politik i Skandinavien” in Borchorst (ed.): Kønsmagt under forandring. Hans Reitzels forlag.
Borchorst, Christensen and Siim (15.05.2002): "Frugtbar diskussion efterlyses". www.kvinfo.forum.dk
Dahlerup (2002): ”Er ligestillingen opnået? Ligestillingsdebattens forskellighed i Danmark og Sverige” [Is equality achieved?
Differences in the equal opportunities debate in Denmark and Sweden] in Borchorst (ed.): Kønsmagt under forandring. Hans Reitzels forlag.
Goth et al. (ed.) (2000): Nu er det nok. Så er det sagt. Rosinante.
Grøntved (ed.) (1999): Fisseflokken. Informations forlag.
Hirdman (09.04.2002): "Kønsmagt under behandling". www.kvinfo.forum.dk
Skov (ed.) (2002): De røde sko. Tiderne Skifter.
Skugge et al. (ed.) (1999): Fittstim, bokforlaget DN
Søndergaard (1996): Tegnet på kroppen [The Sign on the body]. Museum Tusculaums Forlag.
First published in NIKK magasin 3 2002 © NIKK
