By Mari Teigen
The principle of anti-discrimination – that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of gender, ethnic background, religion, class, etc. – is a classically liberal principle grounded in international conventions and in most countries’ national legislations. At the same time, the opinion that formal equality leads to a narrow and thereby problematic assessment of justice (Dahl 1985) has with time become widespread. A more complex view of the principle of equal treatment has led to positive action in a number of countries’ legislatures. The Norwegian Gender Equality Act (likestillingsloven) was one of the first of these, allowing for positive action as early as 1978.
Challenged by EU
In a number of the Nordic countries national legislation is challenged by EU-membership. Norway has legal commitments as a consequence of the EEA-agreement. Cases are brought before the EU-tribunal that touch on issues of the legality of positive action: the Kalanke case (C-450/93) in 1995, the Marshall case (C-409/97) and the Tham case (C-407/98), both in 2000. The first of these cases, the Kalanke case, raised the question as to whether or not positive action in employment programs was legal within the EU. Later cases dispelled these questions, however, confirming that positive action is legal. This legality has now been solidified in the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997. The conditions under which positive action is legal within the EU can be summarized as follows: it must not lead to an automatic preference; the applicants’ qualifications must be evaluated objectively and individually; and the evaluation of the applicants must be based on multiple different criteria. This restricts what kind of initiatives can be taken with respect to the implementation of positive action.
Discourses on Gender Equality
In the discourse of rights quotas are justified through a combination of individual and group related rights. This position can be understood in terms of a discourse of discrimination. Nominally connected to a principle of equality of rights, where positive action should promote true equality by compensating for inequalities. Furthermore, the discourse of rights is related to a principle of gender balance – a principle of democratic equality. The principle of gender balance argues for a fair and equal distribution of positions that give access to power and influence. Demands for gender balance use an expanded definition of justice, in which every form of socially determined distribution in principle demonstrates unjust distribution patterns. Imbalanced distribution between women and men becomes an indicator that selection principles do not work fairly; and gender balance thereby becomes a definition of fairness and justice.
The other main position is the discourse of utility: positive action is justified in light of societal consequences. Arguments for gender equality are primarily expressed as a simple resource argument: due to the fact that the talent potential in the population is equally distributed between women and men, male dominance will necessarily lead to a failure to capitalize on all available human resources. The utilitarian discourse can also be understood in terms of a feminist discourse of difference. Positive action is justified in terms of what society is missing out on when women’s life experiences, which are different from men’s, are not included and taken note of (Hernes 1982, 1987).
The idea that it is possible to identify what we can call main national discourses, relies on a dramatizing of national differences. Debates are defined by the various different modes of argumentation. Central players in debates often have a particular affection for certain arguments, or a strong belief that certain arguments can be especially effective in specific contexts. It is the core points in discourses on gender and quotas in various national political contexts that will be the main focus for the rest of this article.
The Norwegian discourse on gender equality
The Norwegian political debate on gender equality is characterized by the fact that gender equality initiatives are motivated directly by gender differences, such as “what gender means” and “how women are”. Claims about gender based inequalities, priorities, values and interests take the form of arguments in favor of the organizational and societal advantages of gender equality.
Rhetoric of difference, of the contribution of women, has long been central to Norwegian party politics’ understanding of how important it is to have female representation (Skjeie 1992).
Government documents on gender equality politics from the beginning of the 1980 to the present day demonstrates the turning of the discourse from rationales of right to a discourse of utility took place during the transition to the 1990s: It is women’s possibilities and position that were the focus of the ‘Plan of action for gender equality’ in the early 1980s (St. prp. nr. 122 [1980-81]). The main aim of using quotas is to improve women’s participation in areas in which they are underrepresented (1980-81:25).
In the parliament report on gender equality from the middle of the 1980 (St. meld. nr. 69 [1984-85]), women’s right to participate is still the main reason given for the continued use of quotas. In the gender equality report from the beginning of the 1990 (St. meld. nr. 70 [1991-92]) the argument for quotas gets turned around. The problematic aspects of using quotas for women are discussed in this report, whilst the establishment of quotas for men in occupations linked with the welfare state is encouraged. The reasons are now based on utility. Achieving gender equality will contribute to maintaining other interests that are central to society – men are to take jobs in occupations in the welfare state, such as looking after children, the young, and others in need of special care.
During the 1990s the debate over gender equality continued to shift from being a discourse of rights to a more utilitarian discourse. A comparison of the argumentation concerning the establishment of the Gender Equality Act’s § 21 in 1981, about regulating the gender composition of public boards and commissions, and the argumentation in 1999/2000 about the proposal to extend the regulation to include the boards of public and private corporate enterprises (Teigen 2002), show that both in the 1980s and today, rationales of utility and rights are evident. The difference is that twenty years ago the two arguments were on equal footing, whereas today utility based arguments dominate.
The Swedish discourse
The Swedish debate has been described as being more clearly polarized than the Norwegian (Borchorst, Christensen and Siim 2002). A strong discourse of oppression and discrimination exists in Sweden alongside a more consensus and harmony-orientated discourse of difference.
In the Swedish official statement Varannan Damernas in 1987, which discussed female representation in public boards and commissions, both rights and utility are used as arguments in favor of gender balance. As Maud Eduards concludes in her analysis of the debate that took place over the subsequent decade (2002), perspectives focusing on power and interests have dominated the public debate on gender equality. One of the key points is that there is the a for conflict between men and women as a group (Eduards 2002:51)
In her analysis of the rhetoric used in official Swedish and Norwegian gender equality politics, Malin Rönnblom (2002) shows that the duality of this discourse, balanced between stories of continuing oppression and stories of the Swedish evolution towards a country that is truly equal, is also present in the government’s documents on gender equality. The Swedish political debate on gender equality is largely motivated by an effort to avoid a system in which women are considered subordinate to men. At the same time Sweden is considered to be ahead of the field in their work on gender equality. As explicated by the Swedish government: In Sweden we have come far in terms of a system of gender equality. We are happy to share our experiences with others – we are happy to export our Swedish model for gender equality.
The Danish discourse
Denmark differs from the other Nordic countries in that quotas are considered as being more problematic. None of the political parties in Denmark make use of quotas in their internal structures. The two parties that have at one point made use of quota systems, the Socialist People’s Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti) and the Social Democrats (Social demokratene), both discontinued their systems during the 1990s (Christensen 1999).
In their analysis of the debate on quotas in Danish politics and academia, Borchorst and Christensen (2002) show how a marked change in the debate took place during the 1990s. In the 1970s and 80s, there was much support for quotas in the political arena. The main arguments in favor of quotas were both identity and discrimination based. The identity argument was born of the Danish women’s movement’s influential position and its sway over the political debate on gender equality. The discrimination argument claimed that quotas could be used to counteract the oppression of women, and could contribute to breaking the tradition that employment be gender determined.
Looking at the discourse of the 1990s, one can see that there was far less support for quotas than earlier. Indeed, the debate on quotas was, politically, virtually dead. Academics who supported positive action focused on arguments based on difference. These arguments, however, clearly do not carry the same support for quotas in the Danish arena as they do in the Norwegian – in Denmark the topic of quotas was taboo during the 1990s. It appears that supporters of the difference argument did all they could to avoid any association between the struggle for gender equality of genders on the one hand, and systems of quotas on the other (Borchorst and Christensen 2002).
The German discourse
Katherine Inhetween (1999) made a similar study of German and Norwegian parliamentary reasons for supporting quotas. The German parliament argued primarily for the use of quotas as a tool against the institutionalized discrimination of women. Secondly they argued that men and women are ultimately the same, and should therefore be represented equally, given that women make up half the population. The use of quotas is also seen as giving greater opportunities to each individual person. The grounds for the German parliament’s stance lie in arguments of rights, in an understanding of gender equality that is made up of two parts: the necessity of securing equal treatment of men and women through compensatory positive action; and the definition of equal as meaning that positions that give access to power and influence must be split evenly between the genders.
Inhetween finds extensive differences between the ideas that motivate the Norwegian and German representatives. The primary difference is that the use of quotas is not considered to be controversial by Norwegian politicians. Quotas are seen as a ‘natural’ way of securing a more even gender distribution. Secondly, Norwegian representatives in the Storting argue that gender balance is important on the basis of the differences between the genders. These differences are important in the eyes of the Norwegian politicians because of three things: women and men have different backgrounds and experiences; their value systems and priorities are different; and the differences are complimentary to each other.
The French discourse
In most countries outside the Nordic region, male domination of the central political decision-making processes is commonplace. France has had the lowest ratio of female to male representation for an extended period of time. The male dominance of the French National Assembly became a much-discussed topic amongst researchers and activists in the 1990s. Action against this male dominance was organized through the Parité movement, with branches in the European Council, the EU, and a number of Southern European countries that had similarly poor records on female representation in political posts. Nordic solutions that used quotas were transformed into demands for fundamental parité (perfect gender equality). The Parité movement’s demand was for 50-50 representation, not more nor less. Women make up half of the population, not a percentage somewhere between 30 and 40% (Eduards 2002).
The Parité movement’s demand is that the principle of equal representation of men and women should be written into the constitution. In 1999 the French National Assembly voted in favor of a legislature that would require equal gender distribution in popularly elected assemblies. The reasons for demanding equal representation lay in abstract concepts of fundamental rights. The ambition of parité focuses on de-neutralizing a de-personified universalism, which has had strong roots in French culture ever since the Revolution of 1789. It is the masculine subtext of universalism that the parité movement wanted to extinguish (Gaspard 1998).
The Parité movement is an example of a pro-active attempt to alter a national discourse on female representation. It insists explicitly that gender equality is about rights and democracy. Men and women should be viewed as individuals, without predetermined gender interests.
From rights to difference
From the political discourse on gender equality’s two main stance: rights and utility, we can conclude: whilst other countries’ discourses revolve around different approximations within a discourse of rights, the Norwegian debate has a clearer base in a discourse of difference with clear concessions to arguments of utility.
The fact that the discourse of difference holds such a central place in the Norwegian debate can be approached in two ways. The first seeks explanations of perceptions of gender differences as being a particularly notable but little recognized trait of Norwegian society. At the same time it is worth remembering that the discourse of difference is not used as a tool to reinforce and maintain differences, but rather as an argument in favor of gender equality. Perhaps the ideology of gender equality is an appropriate focal point that can be used to understand the use of arguments based on difference.
A way to approach the discourse of difference’s central position involves focusing on the strategies used by those who promote gender equality. The public debate during the 1980s and 1990s stressing deregulation and privatization evoked opposition of gender equality policies and quota arrangements in particular. In this light the turn to utility in gender equality debates can be seen as an attempt to support quotas and gender equality politics adjusted to the language of new liberalism. This was an argument that barely touched on women’s rights, but rather focused on effective resource utilization. The lack of gender equality was presented primarily as a problem for the economy.
Successful strategy
The strong position the discourse of difference holds in the Norwegian debate on quotas is yet another chapter in the story of Norway - the land of consensus. The shift from a rights based to a difference based discourse is indicative of a shift: from gender equality in terms of ‘demanding ones rights’, ‘demanding half the power’, to that women are given as a gift to the economy. The discourse of difference has proved to be an especially successful and pragmatic strategy in the sense that it has effectively never met opposition. In this manner a debate in which disagreement is difficult to establish. As long as those that support the use of quotas stick strictly to the concept of the ‘utility’ of women, and consciously tone down other arguments, gender equality emerges as something there simply is a pleasure to agree with.
The article is based on Mari Teigen's PhD-dissertation ”Quotas and Controversies” 2002.
Notes
Borchorst m.fl. (2002), “Diskurser om køn, magt og politik i Skandinavien”. I: Borchorst (red.), Kønsmagt under forandring.
København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Borchorst and Christensen (2002), Paper presentert på den nordiske fagkonferansen i statsvitenskap (NOPSA), Aalborg 15-17
august 2002.
Christensen, A-D. (1999), «Women in the political parties», in Equal democracies, Christina Bergquist et al, eds, Oslo, Scandinavian
University press.
Eduards, M. (2002), Förbjuden handling: om kvinnors organisering och feministisk teori. Malmö: Liber.
Dahl, T. S. (1985), Kvinnerett I. Kvinners levekår og livsløp. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Gaspard, F. (1992), “Parity: Why not?” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 9(2), 93-104.
Hernes, H. (1982), Staten – Kvinner ingen adgang? Kvinners levekår og livsløp. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Hernes, H. (1987), Welfare State and Woman Power. Essays in State Feminism. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
Inhetveen, K. (1999), «Can Gender Equality be Institutionalized? The Role of Launching Values in Institutional Innovation».
International Sociology, vol. 14, number 4, December 1999, 403–422.
Rönnblom, M. (2002), Paper presentert på den nordiske fagkonferansen i statsvitenskap (NOPSA), Aalborg 15-17 august 2002.
Skjeie, H. (1992), Den politiske betydningen av kjønn. En studie av norsk topp-politikk. ISF-rapport 92:11. Oslo: Institutt
for samfunnsforskning.
Teigen, M. (2002), Kvotering og kontrovers. Virkemidler i likestillingspolitikken. Dr.polit-avhandling. Oslo: Institutt for
samfunnsforskning.
First published in NIKK magasin 3 2002 © NIKK
