This is the second in our series of blog posts by students on the Feminism and Politics class, 2020-21. Click here for the first post, also on Kamala Harris, by Hannah Gunn.
The 59th Presidential Inauguration took place on the 20th of January this year and saw the first woman ever being sworn in as Vice President. After the misogyny displayed by the previous administration – “grab em by the pussy” is not a phrase that is easily forgotten- I, and the majority of women everywhere I assume, breathed a sigh of relief. I don’t feel fully relieved though. Having a woman in such a prominent role in office is undoubtedly a win for feminism but just being in said role is not enough. The Inauguration itself is not a controversy but reports discussing how Kamala Harris is the first women elected show the huge lack of female representation. It was a symbolic event but the reporting of the event shows that gender stereotyping is still at work, even at the highest level of politics.
 |
| US Vice President Kamala Harris takes the Oath of Office on the platform of the US Capitol during the 59th Presidential Inauguration in Washington DC, Jan 20. 2021. Credit: DoD photo by US Air Force Senior Airman Kevin Tanenbaum. Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/iip-photo-archive/50862312413 |
Representation is acting in the interests of those you are representing but as Anne Phillips (1998) has explained, women have particular needs, concerns and issues that have arisen through lived experience. So, how can a man act in the interest of women whose experiences he cannot fully relate to or understand? The answer is he can’t. He could attempt to but it is likely that women's interests would be inadequately addressed. This is why women being represented by women is so important. Over 50% of the US population is female but only 26.7% of US politicians in congress are female and this is not an issue specific to the US. 49.6% of the world’s population are female but only 25.6% of politicians in the world are women. It doesn’t take a mathematician to work out the huge inequality. However, representation goes beyond just the number of women in politics. It is important to ask whether these women in politics are acting in ways that represent women’s interests.
Sarah Childs and Joni Lovenduski (2013) make a clear distinction between descriptive representation and substantive representation. Descriptive representation refers to a representative sharing characteristics such as race, ethnicity, sex and so on with the group they stand for. Substantive representation takes this a step further by requiring representatives to actually act in ways to advance the groups policy preferences and interests. In no way would I dismiss the importance of descriptive representation- I believe it’s hugely important for women to be visible within politics. However, I disagree with the idea that descriptive representation links directly to representative action. This is what Drude Dahlerup (1998) emphasises in her discussion about the importance of 'critical acts' over 'critical mass.' Simply put, the sheer number of female representatives is not key to good representation but rather it’s about what these female representatives actually do.
Let’s look at Monica Lennon, a Scottish Labour MP, for example. I would argue she can be seen as a figure of substantive representation as she spearheaded the campaign for free menstrual products making Scotland the first country in the world to make period products free. This is an example of a woman fighting for women’s issues. On the other hand, someone like Priti Patel is descriptively representative as she’s a female in the male dominated arena but I have not seen any evidence of her working for women’s interests. By calling herself a “Thatcherite” and moving her attention away from housing or welfare issues to focus on business and economical issues, women’s issues fall by the wayside. The Paradox of Priti Patel looks in more detail at how she fails to offer substantive representation. So, it’s evident that the differences between descriptive and substantive representation affect how groups, in this case women, are actually represented. Descriptive representation is a start but substantive representation should be the ultimate goal.
With this being said, studies have shown that women face more
barriers on their path to being representatives than men. A main barrier that
most scholars discuss is societal gender norms. These gender norms make any
kind of representation never mind substantive representation difficult for
women to achieve. Sara Clavero and Yvonne Galligan (2005) explain that when women contravene
expected feminine norms, like being gentle or caring, they are heavily
criticised and even mocked. A male politician can be
described as firm or determined while a woman will be labelled aggressive for
displaying the same type of behaviour. The short video below shows Dilma
Rousseff, the 36th president of Brazil, discussing how gender norms formed
the foundation for the hate she received.
As Rousseff didn’t fit the traditional feminine norms, but instead showcased traditionally masculine traits like strength and decisiveness, she was punished. Politics is a masculine domain and so when a female is in a position of power it creates a disruption to a well-known narrative. On top of this when a woman is pushing the boundaries of gender norms it becomes an even bigger disruption.
The media is a key enforcer of these gender norms. In regards to female politicians, the most prominent way the media enforce gender norms is through intense scrutiny particularly over the female politician’s appearance. Since the inauguration the way the media have presented Kamala Harris in comparison to President Joe Biden is a perfect illustration of gender norms being a barrier to female representation. A comparison of google searches illuminates this issue. Googling ‘Joe Biden inauguration articles’ brings up journalism detailing the inauguration events, his speech and discussion about how people expect his presidency to play out. Conversely, googling ‘Kamala Harris inauguration articles’ has drastically different results with almost half of the first page of results being fashion-based. They discuss the purple dress and coat designed by Christopher John Rogers she wore as opposed to the speech she made.
A specific article by Vogue caught my attention. It credits Kamala's more ‘masculine’ traits like being powerful and direct to the string of pearls round her neck, refering to her “power pearls” as “a safe political choice projecting an image of success and classy refinement, rather than glamour and sex appeal.” I have a real bone to pick with this statement. Why can a woman not be glamourous and still be successful? Does she need to eliminate all traces of her sex appeal to be seen as refined? If she removes her pearls is the image of success and classiness shattered? Gendered norms don’t allow women to be seen as powerful or mighty so by declaring that Harris’ pearls are the source of these traits she becomes less of a disruption to the masculine political narrative. Some may see this as a trivial matter- it’s just an article about jewellery after all. Yet from a feminist perspective it’s hugely important. It is symptomatic of a wider cultural assumption that female politicians need to dress in a certain manner to be taken seriously. They must mask their femininity because it does not fit the mould of a politician, but are then criticised and mocked for portraying the masculine traits traditionally associated with politics.
Kamala Harris doesn’t just descriptively represent women though. She is a woman, but she is also African American and Asian American. This brings in the topic of intersectionality, and the interconnection of racism and sexism. Legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw illustrates this point in the video below by explaining that there is a lot of attention to violence against women, on the one hand, and to police violence towards African American men, on the other - but a distinct lack of discussion about police violence towards African American women. Kamala Harris is someone who stands at an intersection between gender and racial oppression and so is likely to have had experiences that a White women or Black man may lack. In the same video, Crenshaw explains that when facts don’t fit into available frames people have a hard time incorporating new facts into their own way of thinking. Kamala Harris is therefore enormously important because she creates a new frame, a new space for the descriptive representation of women of colour in the USA.
