Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:32:42.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Feminist Potential of Sociological Institutionalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2009

Fiona Mackay ,
Surya Monro  and
Georgina Waylen
Fiona Mackay
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Surya Monro
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Georgina Waylen
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On the face of it, there is considerable potential for productive dialogue between sociological institutionalism (SI) and institutionally oriented feminist political science (FPS). Both approaches employ broad conceptions of the political and its interconnection with the social: Each is concerned with the interaction between actors and institutions, broadly defined; the interplay between formal rules and informal practices, norms, and “ways of doing things”; and the consequent effects of these dynamics. Each approach takes a “value-critical” stance, sharing an understanding that seemingly neutral institutional processes and practices are, in fact, embedded in norms and cognitive frames, and in wider cultural contexts. In this short essay, we argue that SI provides one fruitful source for tools and paradigms beyond conventional political science (Lovenduski 1998; Mackay 2004), tools that may potentially enhance feminist analyses of key questions such as the following: How are institutions and institutional processes gendered? By what processes and mechanisms are institutions (re)produced and, in turn, reflect and reproduce social systems, including gender relations? How do institutions constrain actors and interests? And what is the gendered potential for, and what are the limits of, institutional innovation, reform, and change in pursuit of gender justice?

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 253 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Acker, Joan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender and Society 4 (2/June): 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acker, Joan. 1992. “Gendered Institutions: From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions.” Contemporary Sociology 21 (5): 565–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckwith, Karen. 2005. “A Common Language of Gender?” Politics & Gender 1 (March): 128–37.Google Scholar
Chappell, Louise. 2006. “Comparing Political Institutions: Revealing the Gendered ‘Logic of Appropriateness.’” Politics & Gender 2 (June): 223–35.Google Scholar
Connell, R.W. 2002. Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Halford, Susan. 1992. “Feminist Change in a Patriarchal Organisation: The Experience of Women's Initiatives in Local Government and Implications for Feminist Perspectives on State Institutions” In Gender and Bureaucracy, ed. Savage, Mike and Witz, Anne. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter, and Taylor, Rosemary. 1996. “Political Science and the Three Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44 (5): 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantola, Johanna. 2006. Feminists Theorize the State. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Sally. 1996. “New Research on Gendered Political Institutions.” Political Research Quarterly 49 (2): 445–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Meryl. 2007. “Gender, Institutions and Power: A Critical Review.” Politics 27 (2): 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 1998. “Gendering Research in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 1: 333–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackay, Fiona. 2004. “Gender and Political Representation in the UK: The State of the ‘Discipline.’” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6 (1): 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackay, Fiona, and Meier, Petra. 2003. “Institutions, Change and Gender Relations: Towards a Feminist New Institutionalism.” Paper presented to the European Consortium of Political Research Joint Sessions of Workshops, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P. 1987. Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug, and Scott, W. Richard. 2005. “Organizations and Movements.” In Social Movements and Organization Theory, ed. Davis, Gerald F., McAdam, Doug, Scott, W. Richard, and Zald, Mayer N.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 4–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1998. “Foreword.” In The New Institutionalism in Sociology, ed. Brinton, Mary C. and Nee, Victor. Stanford: Stanford University Press, xi–xiii.Google Scholar
Meyer, John W., and Rowan, Brian. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structures as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, John W., and Rowan, Brian. 1991. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Ed. Powell, Walter W., and DiMaggio, Paul J.. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press: 41–62.Google Scholar
Monro, Surya. 2007. “New Institutionalism and Sexuality at Work in Local Government.” Gender, Work and Organisation 14 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nee, Victor. 1998. “Sources of New Institutionalism.” In The New Institutionalism in Sociology, ed. Brinton, Mary C. and Nee, Victor. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 1–16.Google Scholar
Nee, V. and Brinton, M.C. 1998. “Introduction.” In The New Institutionalism in Sociology, ed. Brinton, Mary C. and Nee, Victor. Stanford: Stanford University Press: xv–xix.Google Scholar
Nee, Victor, and Ingram, Paul. 1998. “Embeddedness and Beyond: Institutions, Exchange, and Social Structure.” In The New Institutionalism in Sociology, ed. Brinton, Mary C. and Nee, Victor. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 19–45.Google Scholar
Newman, Janet. 2002. “Managerialism, Modernisation and Marginalisation: Equal Opportunities and Institutional Change.” In The Changing Politics of Gender Equality in Britain, ed. Breitenbach, Esther, Brown, Alice, Mackay, Fiona, and Webb, Janette. Basingstoke: Palgrave: 102–23.Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy. 1999. Institutional Theory in Political Science: The “New” Institutionalism. London and New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
Powell, Walter W., and DiMaggio, Paul J.. 1991. ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, ed. Powell, Walter W. and DiMaggio, Paul J.. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press: 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Mike and Witz, Ann, eds. 1992. Gender and Bureaucracy. Oxford:Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Verena. 2005. Gender Mainstreaming—an Innovation in Europe? The Institutionalisation of Gender Mainstreaming in the European Commission. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, Judith. 1999. Gender in Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
West, C. and D.H., Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society 1: 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar