Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
JUDITH SQUIRES
Is Mainstreaming
Transformative? Theorizing
Mainstreaming in the Context
of Diversity and Deliberation1
Abstract
This article locates mainstreaming within a typology of inclusion,
reversal, and displacement and maps these three approaches to
mainstreaming, outlining the strengths and weaknesses of each.
It focuses on the potential of the transformative approach and
suggests that, if augmented by the resources of deliberative
democracy, this transformative model of mainstreaming is best
placed to respond to the increasingly important demands of
diversity. It suggests that deliberative mechanisms, such as citi-
zens’ forums, could be useful in enhancing this transformative
model of mainstreaming.
Introduction
Is gender mainstreaming a transformative strategy, a bureau-
cratic tool of integration, or an agenda-setting process? I will explore
this question in relation to the current policy concern with “diversity”
and recent theoretical debates concerning the pursuit of democratic
inclusion.
The first part of the paper outlines the threefold typology of inclu-
sion, reversal, and displacement (Squires 1999) and locates mainstream-
ing within this typology. I argue that while it is possible to depict
368 ◆ Squires
370 ◆ Squires
differences between men and women and that specific measures are
required to address disadvantages experienced by women as a con-
sequence of those differences.2 Mainstreaming “ideally should
involve identifying how existing systems and structures cause indi-
rect discrimination and altering or redesigning them as appropriate”
(Rees 2002, 46–48). The aim of the mainstreaming strategy is to
counteract gender bias within existing systems and structures: it
addresses “those very institutionalized practices that cause both
individual and group disadvantage in the first place” (Rees 2000, 3).
It is because it takes a systems approach that it is felt to have more
transformative potential than previous equality policies. It takes us
beyond the classic opposition between equality of opportunity and
equality of outcome, as embodied in equal treatment and positive
action, by focusing on the structural reproduction of gender inequal-
ity and aiming to transform the policy process such that gender bias
is eliminated.
In this way, equal treatment, positive action, and gender main-
streaming can be viewed as distinct approaches to equality, which
emerge incrementally—in large part developing from and improv-
ing upon the earlier approach(es). The three approaches are, how-
ever, most commonly viewed by equality professionals as
cumulative and complementary rather than as competing or incom-
patible. Rees, for example, clearly states that “mainstreaming is a
long-term strategy that needs to be accompanied by the secure
underpinning of equal treatment legislation and positive action
measures” (Rees 1999, 166). This suggests that many advocates of
gender equality strategies may be committed to a pragmatic
endorsement of whichever perspective seems likely to generate the
best results in any given circumstances. Equality strategies then
become “justificatory strategies” rather than normatively incom-
patible commitments.
372 ◆ Squires
Main
streaming Inclusion Reversal Displacement
374 ◆ Squires
It must, as Mieke Verloo points out, convince these actors that policy-
makers are a part of “the problem” without alienating them from the
mainstreaming project. In order to do so, it needs to “resonate” with
the existing frames within which regular actors operate: it needs to
“seduce” them (Verloo 2001, 9). Frame extension and bridging is
needed to bring the goal of gender equality into alignment with the
existing frames and norms of politicians and civil servants. In the
context of contemporary governance, this usually means that gender
equality is argued to be better for both women and men, to improve
productivity, and to facilitate better, more modern, government.
Here, mainstreaming becomes a way of thinking about users as dis-
tinct groups with differing needs, characteristics, and behavior,
which matters if one is concerned about delivering customer and user
satisfaction. The “business case” for mainstreaming is frequently the
only case offered for “why gender equality matters”: as the UK
Women and Equality Unit states on its website, “unfair discrimina-
tion is plainly wrong. It stops people realizing their potential, and
prevents businesses from using skills and talents to good effect...dis-
crimination in employment has a huge price, beyond the tragic cost
to individuals experiencing discrimination. It affects our productivity
and profitability. The best (business and service providers) already
know that good employment practices, based on equality and diver-
sity, give them the competitive edge” (WEU, http://www.womenand-
equalityunit.gov.uk/equality/matter.htm).
The necessity of engaging in this process of “frame bridging” means
that there is always a danger of “rhetorical entrapment” (Verloo 2001,
10). There is also the danger that, once accepted as a norm that reso-
nates with the dominant policy frame, mainstreaming will be adopted as
a technocratic tool in policy-making, depoliticizing the issue of gender
inequality itself. Tellingly, Gender Impact Assessments have largely been
introduced where they are not too demanding in terms of costs, time,
and expertise (Verloo 2001, 15). This demand to limit the scope of
mainstreaming tools such that they fit easily within existing policy pro-
cesses potentially delimits the potential of mainstreaming itself. It raises
questions about the political accountability of experts, reduces the scope
for wider consultation with “non-experts,” and so reduces the likeli-
hood that the policy agenda will reflect the particular experiences and
concerns of women that do not resonate with the pre-existing policy
framework. Its strength lies in its ability to realize effective integration;
its weakness lies in its tendency to fall into rhetorical entrapment.
376 ◆ Squires
Diversity Mainstreaming?
It has long been accepted that one significant challenge for con-
temporary equality theorists is to engage with the intersecting hierar-
chies of gender, race, economic class, sexuality, religion, disability,
and age. As Patricia Hill Collins suggests, “viewing gender within a
logic of intersectionality redefines it as a constellation of ideas and
social practices that are historically situated within and that mutually
construct multiple systems of oppression” (Hill Collins 1999, 263).
This discursive shift brought “diversity” to the fore as central to the
theoretical conceptualization of equality.
Meanwhile, contemporary equality policies in the first world tend
to focus on issues of cultural and political inequality rather than ine-
qualities in distributional goods. Those who are considered to be
“unequal” are increasingly seen to be ethnic minorities, disabled, the
elderly, gays and lesbians, religious minorities, and so on, rather than
the poor. As a consequence, we have witnessed the emergence of a
commitment to pursuing and theorizing equality in a way that
acknowledges and celebrates differences. While attempts to address
economic inequalities have traditionally focused on distributive
issues, seeking to erase the (economic) differences between people as
the means of securing their equality, attempts to address cultural and
political inequalities usually entail calls that (cultural) differences be
recognized and respected, rather than denied or eroded, as a precondition
SP12(3).book Page 377 Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:19 PM
for securing their equality. Equality now appears, in both policy and
theory debates, to require a respect for diversity.
Given the current normative concerns and legal requirements to
consider equality in relation to various strands, including age, dis-
ability, race, religion, sexuality, and gender, mainstreaming will also
need to speak to diversity. Interestingly, “diversity management”
emerged as a central equality strategy at more or less the same time
as gender mainstreaming, yet there have been few attempts to con-
sider the theoretical interconnections between the two, or to develop
a coherent theoretical approach to “diversity mainstreaming.”
Given that international, regional, national, and local institutions of
governance are increasingly attempting to negotiate the twin
demands of diversity management and gender mainstreaming, there
is a real need for a little theoretical guidance as to how these two
might co-exist.
For example, the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimi-
nation are at the heart of the European Social Model, and gender
equality in particular has long been recognized as one of the EU’s
core objectives (see Rossilli 2000). This commitment to gender equal-
ity has included the adoption and promotion of gender mainstreaming
strategies. The Council of Europe endorsed gender mainstreaming in
1998, defining it as “the (re)organisation, improvement, develop-
ment and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality
perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels at all stages, by
the actors normally involved in policy making” (Council of Europe
1998, 15). Yet the adoption of Article 13 of the EC Amsterdam
Treaty in 1997 further empowered the European Community to take
action to deal with discrimination relating to race or ethnic origin,
religion or belief, age, disability, and sexual orientation. This pro-
vides the framework for an integrated equality strategy ”based on
the premise that equal treatment and respect for diversity are in the
interests of society as a whole” (EC Green Paper 2004, 10) Accord-
ingly, and in addition to its mainstreaming strategy, the European
Commission launched a five-year, EU-wide information campaign,
“For Diversity—Against Discrimination,” in June 2003, aiming to
“promote the positive benefits of diversity for business and for soci-
ety as a whole” (EC Green Paper 2004, 13). In other words, both the
diversity and gender mainstreaming discourses have been actively
adopted and disseminated by the EU.
Meanwhile, the UK government adopted gender mainstreaming as
its gender policy in 1998 (Cabinet Office 1998), and since then it has
been developing a series of policy instruments to implement this policy.
Its approach to gender mainstreaming is perhaps best exemplified
through the work of the Women and Equality Unit (WEU; see Beveridge
SP12(3).book Page 378 Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:19 PM
378 ◆ Squires
380 ◆ Squires
382 ◆ Squires
384 ◆ Squires
Conclusion
I have suggested that strategies of inclusion, reversal, and displace-
ment each generate a distinctive conception of mainstreaming; what is
being mainstreamed are equal opportunities, women’s perspectives, or
complex equality (which recognizes diversity), respectively. These three
conceptions of mainstreaming entail three different understandings as
to how mainstreaming should proceed: via bureaucratic policy tools,
via consultation with women’s organizations, or via inclusive delibera-
tion. When conceptualized as a means of pursuing equal opportunities
via bureaucratic policy tools, the potential of mainstreaming is con-
strained by its individualism and elitism. Here, mainstreaming becomes
entrapped within a liberal egalitarian approach to equality, which oper-
ates within a marketized redistributive paradigm. When conceptualized
as a means of pursuing women’s perspectives via consultation with
women’s organizations, the potential of mainstreaming is constrained
by its essentialism and fragmentation. Here, mainstreaming becomes
delimited by an identity politics approach that pursues equality via the
recognition of authentic voices, often at the expense of redistributive
concerns. I have argued that mainstreaming is best understood as a
transformative strategy when it is conceptualized as a means of pursu-
ing complex equality via inclusive deliberation. Finally, I have suggested
that deliberative mechanisms, such as citizens’ forums, could be useful
in augmenting this transformative model of mainstreaming.
There are limitations to the ways in which mainstreaming has been
conceived and implemented to date, but the potential for developing
this approach to equality in the context of diversity (rather than simply
gender) and in the light of deliberative democracy (rather than techno-
cratic modernization) remains strong.
NOTES
1. Thanks to Sylvia Walby, Jo Shaw, Alison Woodward, Jane Mansbridge,
and two anonymous references for their helpful comments on earlier ver-
sions of this paper.
2. The justification of positive action does not require the recognition of
difference, and it may be defended in terms of correcting for past unequal
SP12(3).book Page 385 Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:19 PM
REFERENCES
Armstrong, Chris. 2003. “Opportunity, Responsibility and the Market:
Interrogating Liberal Equality.” Economy and Society 32 (3): 410–27.
Bacchi, Carol Lee. 1999. Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of
Policy Problems. London: Sage.
Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. “The Generalized and the Concrete Other.” In Situ-
ating the Self. Cambridge: Polity Press, 148–77.
Beveridge, Fiona, S. Nott, and K. Stephen. 2000. “Mainstreaming and the
Engendering of Policy-Making: A Means to an End?” Journal of Euro-
pean Public Policy 21 (4): 361–80.
Beveridge, Fiona, and Sue Nott. 2002. “Mainstreaming: A Case for Opti-
mism and Cynicism.” Feminist Legal Studies 10:299–311.
Booth, Christine, and Cinnamon Bennett. 2002. “Gender Mainstreaming
in the European Union: Towards a New Conception and Practice of
Equal Opportunities?” The European Journal of Women’s Studies 9
(4): 430–46.
Breitenbach, Esther, Alice Brown, Fiona Mackay, and Janette Webb, eds. 2002.
The Changing Politics of Gender Equality in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Brown, Wendy. 1995. States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Moder-
nity. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Cartwright, Roger. 2001. Managing Diversity. Capstone Express Exec.
Cockburn, Cynthia. 1991. In the Way of Women. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Coole, Diana. 1996. “Habermas and the Question of Alterity.” In Habermas
and the Unfinished Project of Modernity, ed.Maurizio Passerin D’Entreves
and Seyla Benhabib. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Council of Europe. 1998. “Gender Mainstreaming,” available at http://
book.coe.int/gb/cat/liv/htm/l1324.htm.
Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Elshtain, Jean. 1995. Democracy on Trial. New York: Basic Books.
SP12(3).book Page 386 Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:19 PM
386 ◆ Squires
388 ◆ Squires