Regulating Women: Policymaking and Practice in the UK
224
Regulating Women: Policymaking and Practice in the UK
224eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Largely reflective of a dogmatic approach to the status of women, it is argued that different institutions retain strongholds over policymaking in these domains, prohibiting a joined-up approach. This has served to perpetuate harmful and negative stereotyping of women’s issues and create countless conundrums when the activities of women fall into more than one policy category.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781783481866 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. |
| Publication date: | 02/17/2016 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 224 |
| File size: | 2 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Regulating Women
Policymaking and Practice in the UK
By Sarah Cooper
Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd.
Copyright © 2016 Sarah CooperAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-78348-186-6
CHAPTER 1
Analysing the Status of Women in UK Policymaking: How Do Institutions Matter?
Aspects of female conduct in the United Kingdom (UK) oscillate between the legal and the illegal across an array of matters. A woman will commit an offence if she solicits sex on the street, for example, yet can offer escort services from her own home. Abortion is a treatment offered on the National Health Service (NHS), but a potential patient is deemed a criminal in her request for a termination until two doctors state otherwise. In a further instance, the law bans female porn stars from producing certain material that may inflict harm or threaten life, yet excluded from that list are a range of gender-biased and arguably dangerous subordinate acts (Burnett 2014). Repeatedly butting heads with the popular assertion centered on the empowerment and forwarding of the gender, therefore, in which claims of smashing through the 'glass ceiling' are audible, it glumly appears that the mutual thread that runs throughout decision making in female-dominated issues is the incessant balancing act faced by policymakers between regulation that indicts, and regulation that protects. A continual dance between the labels of 'criminal' and 'victim' thus appears to be performed in the overlapping domains, with little regard given to how these fields intersect. True, previous work has attempted to address such inconsistencies, and feminist scholars in particular have long attributed these arbitrary distinctions over good or bad conduct to a Madonna/whore duality; a binary that is largely predicated on biblical recantations of Mary, the eternal virgin who allows for honourable reproduction, and the contrasting Eve, the inventor of dangerous female sexuality (Tumanov 2011). Certainly not a new construct, this simple two-fold distinction of women's behaviour has since become prevalent in the field of psychology and occupied centre stage in Freud's infamous complex in which men afflicted by the syndrome perceive women to be either saintly or debased (Hartmann 2009). Adopting a pessimistic view of the erotic life of civilized people, he claimed that male impotence, as stemming from a neurotic fixation, resulted in the splitting of the tender and sensual dimensions of sexuality along these dimensions of stereotypical female imagery (Hartmann 2009). The worrying encroachment of the dichotomy into the operation of the criminal justice system is covered copiously by Feinman (1994), and discussed further in terms of 'fair and virginal' women, and 'dark and sensual' evil women, by McDermott and Blackstone (2002). Although undoubtedly this bi-fold typology has a discernible role in how issues of an inequitable level of female bias are perceived, either consciously or unconsciously at both the formal and systemic level of the political system, it is suggested that this dual categorization alone fails to satisfactorily explain the reasons why these determinations are made by policymakers irrespective of the commonalities that may lie between the issues.
As a result, a myriad of inconsistent and conflicting policy positions exist in the UK in regard to the aggregate regulation of women. Rape legislation, for example, whether unwittingly or not, places a significant burden of responsibility on the woman to prove a criminal act has taken place, yet once this has been approved legal recognition, and a guilty verdict delivered, no explicit access to abortion on these grounds alone is recognized in statute. Additional examples go beyond this black letter of the law and include more subtle competing stances, such as the recourse to appropriate forms of justice for the prostitute who has been violently attacked, herself a criminal. Although it is appreciated that the very observation of stereotypical images of women in varying roles is not particularly groundbreaking or especially shocking, the seemingly isolated creation of policy across these domains creates an important point of interest. Initially spurred on by this inherent contradiction and perceived absence of a joined-up approach, therefore, the necessity of further research into the matters of an inequitable level of female bias becomes pressing. Granted, authors have previously addressed a range of feminist policies from a comparative perspective, both at the global level (Mazur 2002) and in a British context (Lovenduski and Randall 1993), but these have sought to inquire into gender-based inequalities, explicitly engaging with patriarchal values, as opposed to affording primacy to the contradictory status of the woman across disparate fields. This is to some extent understandable, as each issue grouped under this title of 'women' invites a very specific collection of actors to assume a key position at the policymaking table, from the medical profession in abortion, police force in terms of rape, and the media in regard to pornography, thereby suggesting that the corresponding policy should be logically studied in isolation. In this sense, 'women's issues' is perceived by many to be a misleading title that requires substantial unpacking, and can be more fruitfully divided along alternative lines. Even typologies such as Htun and Weldon's (2010) distinction between matters that improve the status of women, or those that challenge religious doctrine or major cultural groups, however, thereby separating gender-based violence and reproductive matters, are not entirely helpful in this respect, as they still overlook the problematic nature of disjointed regulation and arguably contribute to this oversight. In this sense, it is with the ambitions of Harrison (1989) several decades earlier, and her account of women's issues in the United States, in which she distinctively stipulates that the study takes policymaking on all women as its core subject matter, that this endeavour garners much inspiration.
When analysing the management of the issues that fall within this umbrella term, however, it appears short sighted to focus attention solely upon the aggregate consequences of personal utilitarianism (Bentham 2005) and moral individualism (Hobbes and MacPherson 1982), thereby excluding any causal exogenous influences. Granted, figureheads throughout history are considered monumental in the regulation of specific issues, such as Lord David Steel in the 1967 Abortion Act, and Prime Minister David Cameron's recent tough line on pornography, but these actions are not conducted in a moral or political vacuum. Rather the policymaking process is unquestionably shaped by a number of structural constraints that shroud the individual agent, from religious values to conventions in lawmaking, from the desire to succeed in an organization, to the want to fit in with work colleagues, and thus regulation must logically be shaped in varying degrees by these wider forces. Indeed, in a similar vein to the blinkered approach to women's issues uncovered above, studies that focus solely on the individual have often been subject to the criticism of being 'undersocialized' (Lowndes and Roberts 2013, 40) and obscure much of the complexity of the manner in which people, regardless of gender, are governed across the globe. Thus outcomes in this field of women's issues are much more likely to be attributed to a wider shaping of collective behaviour through organizational structures, and rules of appropriate behaviour, perpetuated by a range of formal and informal bodies (March and Olsen 1984), than a single-level operation on the part of a number of lone agents. To move beyond the emotive examples listed above, therefore, the constraints on a holistic approach to the regulation of women in the UK requires a solid theoretical framework, and it is consequently towards the rules, practices and narratives (Lowndes and Roberts 2013) deeply embedded in an array of institutions that collectively shape the actions of agents that this project turns.
In the course of this book, a series of inquiries into the regulation of abortion, prostitution, rape and pornography in the UK will be undertaken. Performed in a comparative manner, through the lenses of historical, rational choice, normative and discursive institutionalism respectively, it is intended that the culmination of these studies will uncover the structural constraints that shape these enduring stereotypes and ensuing contradictions, and hinder an integrated approach to the regulation of women. To begin such an undertaking, however, this introductory chapter first outlines the existing scholarship in the field of new institutionalism (NI) studies, charting the chronological development of the literature from its traditional normative roots to the contemporary range of multi-dimensional conceptualizations we now recognize. Although disposing of alternative theoretical frames in favour of the rich causal insight proffered by NI, the recent converge of its multiple strands, posited as a significant benefit to this empirical study, is still a bone of contention among scholars and is a critique that is addressed in the second sub-section. Acknowledging the common core at the heart of NI that permits their multiple and overlapping use, however, the final section tackles the methodology, and operationalizes the collective use of the four selected strains of NI. The cumulative effect of these disparate policy fields undeniably has harmful consequences not only for the woman that straddles one or more of these policy domains, but for women in the UK more generally, and the lessons that can be drawn from uncovering these institutional constraints is a worthy pursuit.
1.1. INSTITUTIONAL LEGACIES AND POLICYMAKING
The organization of political life matters (March and Olsen 1984), this much we have heard contended across a vast array of literature and in multiple different formulations, and it is difficult to now rebut the contention that understandings of governance across a variety of matters are deeply enriched by an analytical focus on institutions. Attempts have spanned early political philosophers' endeavours to capture the success of institutions in governing the masses (see Aristotle 1996, as quoted in Peters 2011), through March and Olsen's (1984) refocusing of political science on older concerns with institutions in the wake of behaviouralism, up to modern debate pitting suggestions of a fragmentation of the theory (e.g., Crouch 2005) against claims of a convergence and consolidation of a common core of concepts (e.g., Lowndes and Roberts 2013). Across these theoretical periods, the role of institutions has undeniably fluctuated in popularity, only really assuming the heart of analysis from the 1980s onwards, and still with some critics to this day. The path to such prominence for the theory was therefore not without its obstacles, and significant challenges to its utility have been mounted across the ages, the most notable emanating from the behavioural revolution in the 1950s. When reviewing the contemporary scholarly work on NI, however, the varying schools of thought that have set up camp under the umbrella of 'new institutionalism' demonstrate a valuable theoretical field, with new and exciting formulations constantly added to its repertoire. That said, this ongoing proliferation is not immune from critique, and alarm bells have been sounded by other scholars of the risk of concept stretching (Pierson 2000) that has come to characterize the term 'institution', and its continued theoretical utility in the context of contemporary trends of an increasingly decentralised state has been questioned (Ingram and Clay 2000). Strongly asserting that a return to a position of methodological individualism (Elster 1982) is far from satisfactory, however, it is submitted that NI boasts an innovative academic field that is in fact rejuvenated by its new and expanding variants, such as the recently added feminist institutionalism (Krook and Mackay 2011). In particular, the evolution of the literature to the current state of convergence and consolidation embodied in the so-called third phase institutionalism, and the important appreciation of boundary-spanning institutional constraints (Lowndes and Roberts 2013, 40), provides an advantageous and appropriate setting for this project.
Having largely been replaced by the behavioural movement in the mid-twentieth century, old institutionalism failed to offer much more than an empirical and descriptive account of such bodies, and largely evaded any causal hypotheses. Indeed, although NI has now come to occupy a vast array of political science literature, the theory around this class of actor has not always been so helpful or indeed fashionable (March and Olsen 1984). Much of what was instead written in early works could be classified as atheoretical, largely concerned with the normative values (Peters 2011, 3) of a valuable society, such as the radically egalitarian institutions of an ideal world that were the key theme of Aristotle's work (Kraut 2002), or the need for balance in political structures in Montesquieu's (1989). Even recantations from the early twentieth century, anchored as they were within the study of history, retained such narrative, and political science was, for the most part, happy with this approach, perceiving no great need to challenge for further analytical richness. Prior to the 1950s, therefore, studies of this nature easily assumed a dominant role in political inquiry, avoiding any form of sustained criticism (Lowndes 2002). As time went by, however, the narrative hold on the field, and emotive stipulations of what constituted a 'good' institution, could not fully mitigate the absence of the sorts of theoretical aspirations and motivations now synonymous with social sciences (Peters 2011). With the study of political science radically transformed by the behaviourial revolution of the mid-twentieth century, therefore, an explicit concern for theory development arose (Peters 2011, 12), and the observations housed within the old institutional approach failed to provide a causal account of how these governing bodies could be of consequence in political life. Certainly, one-dimensional accounts of various bodies, attempting little explanation as to the mechanisms for creating and running a political system, were no longer considered robust, and the status of this underdeveloped scholarship was usurped by detailed empirical investigations into who really governs in different contexts, and a focus upon individualistic assumptions arose (Eulau 1963). Moving into the 1970s, this methodological approach became the focus of concern for political scientists, and the rational calculation of personal utility dominated the analysis of autonomous individuals, creating their series of preferences exogenous to the political system (Riker and Ordeshook 1973).
Importantly, however, this did not spell the end for the study of institutions, and as sophisticated and nuanced as these individualistic theories became, the shadow cast by institutions upon the political arena could not be readily dispelled. It was thus with much warmth and clamour that March and Olsen's statement that 'organizations of political life makes a difference' (1984) was met in the 1980s, and the updated agenda quickly attracted an abundance of followers and theoretical activists. Looking to reignite the line of inquiry with deep explanations on how institutions actually matter in political organization, and learning from past mistakes, the principle that both formal and informal interactions should be incorporated was enthusiastically extolled. Although heavily criticized as providing limited theoretical insight, and failing to answer the pertinent question of 'how', the sentiments of even traditional institutionalism that a number of seemingly insignificant details can have a pervasive impact on the actions of institutions, and thereby the individuals within them, found truth and causal reasoning in this new endeavour (Peters 1996). Furthermore, these innovative strands termed NI expanded their perception of institutions, taking into account both formal and informal bodies, and stating that the strategies and goals of actors in the policy process could be shaped by a spectrum of beliefs, paradigms, codes, culture and knowledge embedded in institutions (March and Olsen 1984). In response came various strains that added to this institutionalist turn in the literature (Jessop 2000), favouring a deductive approach, tackling head-on the proto-theoretical criticism levied at old institutionalism, and taking as their starting point conceptual propositions about the way institutions work (Lowndes 2002).
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Regulating Women by Sarah Cooper. Copyright © 2016 Sarah Cooper. Excerpted by permission of Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.