7 State Feminism and Gender Equality Policies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
7 Statefeminism and gender equalitypolicies The caseof Spain(1983-95)t Celia Valiente Since the 1960sand 1970s,institutions with the concretepurpose of improving the statusof women havebeen set up, developed.and sometimes even dismantled in most advancedindustrial societies.In social science 'state literature, these institutions have been called feminist' institutions, bureaucraciesor machine¡ies.The people who work in them are labelled 'femocrats' or 'state feminists' (Stetson and Mazur 1995). This chapter seeksto make a contribution to the analysisof the effects (if any) of these institutionson the formulation of genderequality policy, and to examinethe relationshipbetween state feminists and activistsin the women'smovement. This is a casestudy of the main (althoughnot the only) feminist institution at the central statelevel in Spain, the Institute of the Woman (lnslituto de Ia Mujer,IW) which wasestablished in 1983. The first sectionofthis chapterpresents the insightsof scholarlyand non- academicfeminist literatureinto the contributionofstate feministsto gender equality policy and to their relationshipwith feministsin society.The secondsection is devoted to the case study. I argue that state feminism in Spain hashad a significantimpact in the policy areaof genderequality. The IW can claim a positive reco¡d in having persuadedother state units to includeequality measureson their agendas.Nevertheless, the IW hashardly inte¡vened in the implementationof thesepolicies. The relations between IW femocratsand activists in women's organisationshave been scarceand only very rarely cooperativein characterThis gap betweenfeminists with¡n the state and in society has preventedther¡ from pushing state officials further down the equality path. The concluding sectionraises questions for futu¡e research.l STATE FEMINISM: ITS IMPACT ON GENDER EQUALITY POLICY AND ITS RELATION WITH FEMINISM IN SOCIETY With respectto the impact of statefeminist machinerieson genderequality policy. two soÍs of assessmentscan be found in acadernicpublications and 128 Celía Valiente Sfate.fettutisn ,;r: in non-academicfeminist w¡itings. For some,these institutions have hardly different means), i.e. to speak on beh¡li had any effect on the policymaking process,since femocratsare too few rn populationand to improverhe \r¡ru\ ut \\ numberin comparisonwith the total numberofpolicymakers, and havelittle may differ in the means chosen to pur power and few political resou¡ces.For others.it is evidentthat somegender femoc¡ats' viewpoint, it is imponanr rhar t. equality programmeshave beenestablished as a result of the efforts of the are not confined to women grouped in a3 femocrats. These programmes have improved the status of their bene- concentratetheir efforts on the formularri. ficiaries (albeit only a small number of women). Nevcrtheless,these policies, regarding them as a usef'uimeu. achievementsfall far sho¡t of the broad goal of the feminist movement in female citizens, most of whom do not bei, the last three decades:the attainmentof a major and radical redistribution (Ryan 1990:8lt. Conversel¡.some J(lr\: of power betweenmen and women.l In the same wa¡ it might be argued femocratsare not able to diminish gender i that the establishmentoffeminist bureaucracieshas contributed to marginal- theone hand, state feminists have. irr rcar ¡¡: ising feminist demands,and to consolidatingthe insensitivity to women's stateto promotepolicies ofgender equalir\. concernstraditionally held by most state oflicials. This is so becausethe work for the stateas femocrats.ther mi::::: creation of feminist machinedes might have encouragedpolicymakers rn the sense that their demands becorne :: other departmentsto believe that they do not need to concern themselves symbolic.This is becauseradical dema¡d. I ' with women's interests, since these are the exclusive responsibility of within the sratelsee Watson I aao: lO' femocrats. or that the mere existence of these machineries means that A more positiveassessment of the rel¿:l women's most urgent problems have alreadybeen solved. feministsis maintainedby GeorgiaDuer. In contrast,other authorsand activistshave argued that in somecountries affirms that in somecases collaboration tel the establishment of the aforementioned institutions has provided the beneñcial. The former have material an; i feminist causewith material and human resourcesthat the movementnevc¡ almostalways lack. Equally. rhe e\r.rcn-. had before (Threlfall 1985: 53). Furthe¡more,feminist burcauc¡acieshave leministmovement mighr be u.elul ro tc:.. been useful in the attempt to translatethe gene¡al goals of the movement policymakerscompete agJinst olhersl¡l. :: into objectivesfor concretepublic policies. This has beenpossible because It may be helpful for them to sho$ rhei¡ .;: statefeminists now have a permanentplace in the arenaof power (Stetson populationare interestedin such issue... andMazu¡ 1995:l). The femocratsnow occupysufficiently high positions around them. Second,for variousreason\_ \: on the bureaucraticladder to be theoretically capableof bringing matters defend propositions consideredtoo ¡aú!JJ- which concern women, such as parentalleave or domestic violence, to the theseoptions, they are in a positionlo ter, attentionof senior state off,cials (Eisenstein1991: 23). This positive societymobilising in supportof theseden.-": assessmentof femocrats'capacity to claim public spacefor women's issues reasonwhich supportsDuerst-Lahti s ars;::l informs most of the recent scholarlv literature on statefeminism (see for statefeminists if a powe¡ful feminist mor c,::, exampleRyan 1990;Outshoorn 1994a: 9-11 Stetsonand Mazur 1995).4 In this situation femocratscan presenrrhe:: While studyingthe impact of statefeminism in the policymaking process, the population in generalas the supponer. \ it is impo¡tant not to forget that this process is composed of some The ne\t seclionconsiders an emp¡niJ: - intrinsically interrelatedstages: problem definition, agenda-setting.policy Womanin Spain.It examinesthe I\\"s im¡. formulation, and policy implementation(Kingdom 1984: 3). This chapter of genderequality, and the relationsbers er,r arguesthat femocratsmight play an important role in somc stages,but not in others.The fragmentednature of their influencemight be overlookedif STATE FEMINISM AT WORK: THE /.\.: we only considerthe process as a whole. IN SPAIN (1983-9s) The relationship between femocrats and activists in the women's movementhas beencomplicated in many weste¡ncountries. This is hardly The[W wasestablished in 1983.six r eu¡.¡r:, surprising,since both pursue the samebroad objectives (although through took place in Spain.óand one year afier rh: Statefeminism and gender equalítypolicies 129 different means), i.e. to speak on behalf of some sectors of the female population and to improve the statusof women. Femocratsand ferninists may differ in the means chosen to pursue the same goals. From the femoc¡ats' viewpoint, it is important that the objectivesof genderequality are not confined to women grouped in feminist circles. Thus, femocrats concentate their efforts on the formulation and implementationof public policies, regarding them as a useful meansto enhancethe statusof many female citizens, most of whom do not b€long to any women's association (Ryan 1990: 81). Conversely,some activists of the movement think that femocratsare not able to diminish genderhiera¡chies, for two reasons.On the one hand,state feminists have,in real terms,very little power within th€ stateto promotepolicies of genderequality. On the other hand,when women work for the stateas femoc¡ats,they might sooneror later be co-opted,in the sense that theh demands become increasingly moderate, or even symboüc.This is becauseradical demandsnormallyjeopardise their careers within üe state(see Watson 1990: l0).5 A more positive assessmentof the relationship between femoc¡ats and feminists is maintained by Georgia Duerst-Lahti (1989: 250,258). She afÍirms that in somecases collaboration between the two could be mutually beneficial. The former have material and human resourcesthat üe latter almost always lack. Equally, the existenceof a strong, highly mobilised feminist movementmight be useful to femocratsfor two reasons.First, all policymakerscompete against other stateofficials to obtain more resources. It may be helpful for them to show their superiorsthat broad sectorsof the population are interested in such issues,and as a result would mobilise a¡oundthem. Second,fo¡ variousreasons, state officials a¡e often unableto defend propositions considered too radical. Nevertheless,if they favour theseoptions, they are in a position to benefit from organisationsin civil societymobilising in suppon ofthese demands.In my view, there is a third reasonwhich supportsDuerst-Lahti's argument. It may be advantageousfor statefeminists ifa powerful feminist movementadvocates radical measu¡es. In this situation femocratscan presentthemselves to conservativesand to the population in generalas the supportersof moderateand viable options. The next sectionconsiders an empirical case,that of the Institute of the Woman in Spain. It examinesüe [W's impact on policymaking in the area of genderequality, and the relationsbetween femocrats and feminists. STATE FEMIMSM AT WORK: THE INSTITUTO DE 1.4, MU]ER IN SPAIN I198}95) The fW was establishedin 1983,six yearsafter the flrst democraticalections took place in Spain,oand one year after the Social Democratic Party first 130 Celia Velíente Stqtefem¡nisrr ü gained power (Valiente 1995),7which